EPTReligious Fallacy - Page 6
| Blogs > DreaM)XeRO |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 06 2009 12:26 Vedic wrote: But if the cat was put in the box, and you were told that the cat was both simultaneously alive and dead, you could not say that the cat was or was not until you opened the box and were able to verify. that's exactly my point, the guy who told me the cat is both alive and dead is a liar and has no proof because he didn't actually see a dead and alive cat. | ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 12:29 zulu_nation8 wrote: yea but has anyone found brain cells which holds specific memories or emotions? I don't think so and I doubt we will ever be able to. So you really can't say memories and emotions are physical states in your mind, I would actually call them mental states in your mind. Until the day we can label cells "ignorance" or "anger" we can't really give emotions physical properties. Yeah, actually, we have. There's a lot of huge advances in technology interface with the brain. Just recently, they were even able to extract very rough monochrome images from a live patient. | ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 12:31 zulu_nation8 wrote: that's exactly my point, the guy who told me the cat is both alive and dead is a liar and has no proof because he didn't actually see a dead and alive cat. Actually, the thought experiment is not that he is either alive or dead, but in a state of neutrality. You've never seen a cat not be alive or dead, so logic dictates that it certainly must be one of the two, however, the same logic that told you that you haven't seen a cat be neither alive or dead must now also dictate the fact that you can't see the current status of the cat. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 12:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I read a recent article in scientific american in which George Armitage Miller, a famous neuroscientist stated that to connect our emotions to specific physical processes on a cellular level is still impossible in the foreseeable future. Where did you get your information from? Also if everything is physical, what is mental then? The soul? I'm not quite sure what to make of what he said. We've been both studying emotions and interacting with them via medication for a long time. I can't imagine that this article was written in the past few decades. We've already mapped neurotransmitters to emotions, and we understand the finer details of all the receptors. All emotional response comes from specific chemical reactions, which we are able to interact with via medical advances with greater and greater accuracy. The mental state is merely a result of physical existence. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 13:05 zulu_nation8 wrote: but then how do you explain stuff like imagination and reason, how are they physical How aren't they physical? They are a response to the way you were raised. These are all learned, just like language and motor function. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 13:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: they aren't physical in that I don't think I can touch or see imagination and reason. I think you're getting the concepts of physical and mental confused vedic. You can't touch or see a smell or taste, but you can still respond to them. All a mental process is made from is millions upon millions of small chemical and electrical binary operations, all custom tailored to your view point as set forth by your memory. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 13:46 zulu_nation8 wrote: what about shape, or isosceles triangle then? We should just talk about them as corresponding brain activity since that's all they are right Yeah, and those are just cells, which are in turn made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles, etc... You're looking for answers which would provide justification for these truths, but this is a relative matter. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
You are close minded. You are incapable of comprehending the very basic concept of an abstract idea. Your logic is seriously shit, most of the time you don't answer to what anyone else say because you don't know what we're talking about. You're prejudiced against philosophy as a WHOLE roflmao. You are a fucking retard who should learn some humility before you talk out of your ass again. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
"Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. " You basically just said something completely made up aka you talked out of your ass. But then you get defensive like a fucking bitch and question my understanding roflmao. WHY DO YOU DO THIS. Why can't you just admit you don't know shit instead of sticking to your own bullshit? Seriously why? You honestly think your fucking 3 year old understanding of philosophy is superior to mine and everyone elses? Do you realize that you're talking about your ass, or do you actually truly believe thats what existentialism or Descarte talks about? I seriously wanna know write me back. | ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 06 2009 21:11 zulu_nation8 wrote: no dude theyre called abstract concepts which may have physical justification but that is irrelevant, you also don't know shit about philosophy but continue to insist on arguing and talking about existentialism and the mind/body problem with terrible reasoning. And then tell me I don't understand philosophers because you can't figure out anything other than your dumb shit reasoning. You probably have never even WIKI'd Descarte but then say some shit like oh you don't understand him while you're just talking out of your fucking ass and being condescending because you have trouble admitting you don't know shit. You are close minded. You are incapable of comprehending the very basic concept of an abstract idea. Your logic is seriously shit, most of the time you don't answer to what anyone else say because you don't know what we're talking about. You're prejudiced against philosophy as a WHOLE roflmao. You are a fucking retard who should learn some humility before you talk out of your ass again. The natural, and most predictable response to the truth is anger. This is clearly no longer a debate (stopped being when you were caught improperly applying logic to invisibility and intangibility) and I will leave you to your rage so that you may find your path accordingly. When you're ready to calm down and have a real discussion again, let me know. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 06 2009 10:27 Vedic wrote: Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am." Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet? you completely made this up too, it's clearly you have never read a word on anything resembling existentialism before giving it a definition. Seriously why do you do this? You're basically just making up random shit for the sake of argument because you don't have the ability to admit you don't know shit. Like you have so much ego and faith in your own bullshit that you will defend it to the grave and then you deride all of philosophy just in case someone tries to bring it up. But you dont hesitate to just define any shit you think of and throw it into an argument. You're the most rofl person I have ever seen on this forum. Everyone else at least shy away from shit they don't know but you embrace it and give it new definitions for the sake of just talking bullshit. A kind advice for the future, shut the fuck up. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 06 2009 21:25 Vedic wrote: The natural, and most predictable response to the truth is anger. This is clearly no longer a debate (stopped being when you were caught improperly applying logic to invisibility and intangibility) and I will leave you to your rage so that you may find your path accordingly. When you're ready to calm down and have a real discussion again, let me know. this stopped being a debate when you first opened your fucking mouth. Seriously just tell me why you talk about shit you've never read. Like what's the motive behind it? | ||
| ||
