EPTgirl doesn't notice she's been stabbed in the neck - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44055 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:12 MoltkeWarding wrote: Easy. Dualist response: Partially yes, partially no Monist-idealist response: Yes Monist-materialist response: No I'm personally inclined toward the yes position, but that will certainly not be the last word. If your answer is yes here (although you refuse to ever actually give a straight answer to anything and always bullshit around the point) then a natural extension of the yes is that a hypothetical perfect (but mechanical) prosthetic could replace a limb and you'd still be the same person. I honestly don't understand why you always bullshit though. Why bother saying what you'd think if you were a dualist or a monist? It's just irrelevant. I was asking what you think, not what you'd think if you thought something other than what you think, or how you'd categorise your thoughts. All you succeed in doing is making your posts incomprehensible to people who aren't familiar with the terms in question and circular for those who do. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:59 KwarK wrote: If your answer is yes here (although you refuse to ever actually give a straight answer to anything and always bullshit around the point) then a natural extension of the yes is that a hypothetical perfect (but mechanical) prosthetic could replace a limb and you'd still be the same person. I agree, although again, the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals. A person who denies that there exists a mind or soul beyond their existences as secondary substances will make no fundamental distinction between say, the personality and a femur fragment, and will have a different perspective. A person who used "person" in the semantic sense of: "per⋅son –noun 7. the body in its external aspect" and would have a different perspective. In other words, it depends on how you define the word "person," and how you define the word "person" is not merely arbitrary; it encompasses your entire view on what humanity is | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:01 intrigue wrote: i don't know if i should post this but that's kinda hot Wat. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44055 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:06 MoltkeWarding wrote: I agree, although again, the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals. A person who denies that there exists a mind or soul beyond their existences as secondary substances will make no fundamental distinction between say, the personality and a femur fragment, and will have a different perspective. A person who used "person" in the semantic sense of: "per⋅son –noun 7. the body in its external aspect" and would have a different perspective. In other words, it depends on how you define the word "person," and how you define the word "person" is not merely arbitrary; it encompasses your entire view on what humanity is I believe both dualists and monists are incorrect. The mind is a part of the body but the body is a piece of organic machinery. You can remove surplus bits of the body without affecting the mind in the same way that you can remove the tower from your computer without changing how well it works. When looking at the brain it's more complicated regarding what is surplus and what is not. I believe firmly that the consciousness resides within the body and the brain specifically (for where else could it be) and that it is a product of the machine. However if you slowly changed organic parts of mechanical parts the whole would stay the same. Of course the complexity of the organic machine that is the human body is far beyond mechanical replication and this is purely a theoretical exercise. It's a classic example of the Ship of Theseus. A ship in Athens reputed to have belonged to Theseus himself. Over the years every part of the ship was repaired and replaced and yet it was still the ship of Theseus. I believe the mind to be within the body and yet if you changed the parts of the body the mind would still reside there. | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
once when i was racing slalom skiing, i was punching the gates down, without realizing i didnt have my pole guards on a few minutes after the race my hands exploded in pain when the adrenaline burned off | ||
|
PlatypusOfPain
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:28 PlatypusOfPain wrote: The funny thing is that she walked home like that and noone bothered to stop her and ask why she had a huge knife in her neck. Everyday normal stuff in Russia I guess. | ||
|
AtlaS
United States1001 Posts
And this thread was quite the coincidence cause i was just watching "Impaled" on the Discovery Channel where an American soldier was stabbed right underneath his temple and didn't notice it either. edit: europe is like a huge wild party. http://austriantimes.at/video/56/Teenage girl who was a boy premieres video in UK | ||
|
Apex
United States7227 Posts
However, the dad didn't die. Instead, the dad fell into this unconscious state where the brain was just performing the guy's instinctual routines. The dad, with his head basically split open and blood dripping, changes clothes, washes, walks down the stairs, pours himself some breakfast cereal, grabs the newspaper outside his door, opens the locked door with his extra keys after locking himself out on accident, enters back into the house before dying from blood loss. | ||
|
..Slick...
United States202 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:46 AtlaS wrote: Wtf is that website? There's a video of an execution on the left side of the screen. And this thread was quite the coincidence cause i was just watching "Impaled" on the Discovery Channel where an American soldier was stabbed right underneath his temple and didn't notice it either. edit: europe is like a huge wild party. http://austriantimes.at/video/56/Teenage girl who was a boy premieres video in UK LOL I may seem like a bad person right now but I'm watching the execution video. GOD DAMN!! I thought I saw some Italian NYC mob type shit right there LOL. | ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:18 KwarK wrote: I believe both dualists and monists are incorrect. The mind is a part of the body but the body is a piece of organic machinery. You can remove surplus bits of the body without affecting the mind in the same way that you can remove the tower from your computer without changing how well it works. When looking at the brain it's more complicated regarding what is surplus and what is not. I believe firmly that the consciousness resides within the body and the brain specifically (for where else could it be) and that it is a product of the machine. However if you slowly changed organic parts of mechanical parts the whole would stay the same. Of course the complexity of the organic machine that is the human body is far beyond mechanical replication and this is purely a theoretical exercise. It's a classic example of the Ship of Theseus. A ship in Athens reputed to have belonged to Theseus himself. Over the years every part of the ship was repaired and replaced and yet it was still the ship of Theseus. I believe the mind to be within the body and yet if you changed the parts of the body the mind would still reside there. First of all, this thread ended when someone quoted G.K. Chesterton. The rest of this thread is just that chicken with the brain stem still intact, stumbling around spitting up blood all over the place. It's like eventually it'll stop kicking, but no one ever forgets the spectacle or really even the embarrassment of witnessing it. And everyone has to wonder if the next chicken in line is secretly promising itself that it'll face the chopping-block aftermath with a more perfect measure of chicken dignity. Anyway, Kwark the problem is that you're confusing an argument about definitions for an argument about reality. If someone grants you your definitions of reality, then of course, surprise surprise, they have to grant you your conclusions about reality. Us laypeople call that deductive reasoning. But if someone doesn't, they don't. This is the secret meaning behind Moltke's the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals. into which, in a manner not like the Mithraic mysteries, I would love to initiate you had we but world enough and time. But we don't so I'll just say this: words, even at their best, are just models for parsing out experience, and even then they're always and intractably ad hoc. You can argue about them if you want. You can even insist that your meaning for such-and-such word actually provides a more accurate model for experience that so-and-so's. But this is kind of like the opposite of interesting to someone in an comparatively more inner santcum of the aforementioned cult of The Sophistication of the Understanding of the Relationship between Definitions of Reality and Reality Proper. I mean you've got all these initiates coughing politely and averting their eyes to watch something, to watch anything really, that's not such a crass and tasteless spectacle to watch. I mean what kind of lowbrow motherfucker wants to see a chicken finally sputter out anyway? | ||
|
Deleted User 37864
780 Posts
| ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
fashionability ruined | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On February 05 2010 18:57 starfries wrote: i guess it could be adrenal glands like people were saying but it looks more like upgraded carapace to me Your jokes make me want to mind control your drone and kill you with mutas. | ||
|
NiGoL
1868 Posts
| ||
|
mptj
United States485 Posts
| ||
|
Lovin
Denmark812 Posts
| ||
| ||
