Shamshir
123

unless one can establish something as possible...it is, at a minimum, POSSIBLE. — Frank Apisa

Woah. — Shamshir

Not sure if you are disagreeing or not.

It is as true as 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.

Ha! That's funny, and it's even funnier that he doesn't see it.

You basically just called me British. I demand an apology too. — Baden

:clap:

You can’t have a functioning democracy where the main role of the head of the Justice Department is covering up the President’s felonies. — Wayfarer

More broadly, a state that runs on lies and falsehood becomes unstable.

There is certainly a plethora of guns in the US which we could suggest is indicative of gnu deaths — I like sushi

I'm sorry, I had to do it. :clap:

Someone’s gotta speak up for them poor wildebeest! :lol:

...who could be more typical of all women and men who ever lived than 23 Columbia University students having a scan for a neuroscience experiment? — mcdoodle

Ooh, Sir. I know sir. Me sir.

if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a dick, it's probably a duck — Pattern-chaser

I'm going to regret that typo for as long as I'm here in the TPF, aren't I? :blush:

Lest you market it well, to which my faith holds stalwart. :pray:

:cool:

That picture doe. It is infused with so much meaning. The tilt of the ducks head. The arms exuding confidence and exuberation. Just speechless.

Your replies are an odd thing. So don't. — Harry Hindu

:100:

On average, philosophers are windbags who talk past each other making mountains out of molehills and trying to verbally beat each other up. — Paul

:snicker: :smirk:

I'd say that makes you a more introspective and honest person than the majority of humans. It's a good thing. Go with it and cultivate that. In the long run, you'll have more refined and interesting ideas to show for it. Just make sure it doesn't become debilitating.

@NKBJ
Editor: I am not sure how to get a -name link at the end of the quote. I might be rusty!

There is no point in discussing values until the whole is portrayed graphically. End-values or elemental forms of society then show themselves. In the ultimate analysis we simply have a choice between them, or do as we must do. Keep your replies in plain English. — RW Standing

So, it's rubbish but it's certainly mostly true? — Baden

:lol:

There is no point in discussing values until the whole is portrayed graphically. End-values or elemental forms of society then show themselves. In the ultimate analysis we simply have a choice between them, or do as we must do. Keep your replies in plain English.
— RW Standing — S

This actually makes sense to me.

This actually makes sense to me. — Noah Te Stroete

It makes sense to me that it would make sense to you.

There is no point in discussing values until the whole is portrayed graphically. End-values or elemental forms of society then show themselves. In the ultimate analysis we simply have a choice between them, or do as we must do. — S

Premise 1: values are given to wholes, such as persons, pets, sentimental objects, etc.

Premise 2: Some of these wholes have intrinsic value.

Conclusion: We choose between wholes with intrinsic value or sometimes wholes with pragmatic value such as ideas or concepts, or, we do what necessity demands.

Whoever posted the above quote was most likely a marijuana connoisseur.

You seem to have misquoted me.

That’s why I said “whoever”. I don’t know where the quote came from.

That’s why I said “whoever”. I don’t know where the quote came from. — Noah Te Stroete

You must be new around here.

...and since my posts were not responded to, IN A WAY I UNDERSTAND but people wanted to react, they decided to put a million-word posts in response to what I have written. — god must be atheist

Annoying, isn't it?

...and had to do a IQ test. It was 151 so IQ was not an issue (its really about 130 - the test was biased heavily towards logic ... ) — Bill Hobba

Well, I guess you're right... society does not value logic as a means of being reasonable. Reason and high IQ is commonly attributed to poise, charm, lots of dough, a flashy sports car, or good looks, and / or allegedly being fantastic in bed.

(... not to misconstrue, Bill Hobba, that you lack in the qualities listed... 130 still puts you in the top 2%.)

Arthur Schopenhauer claimed that the human brain (the understanding) spontaneously constructed perceptual objects by applying (a) the pure “a priori” intuitions of space and time and (b) the transcendental principle of cause and effect to the body’s subjective “under the skin” sensations.

I consider this claim to be valid and to have been a significant advance over Kant’s epistemology.

However, neither Schopenhauer, nor Kant, ever attempted to explain where the body’s subjective sensations came from in the first place; i.e., what the nature of their originating source might have been prior to the brain’s construction of the perceptual objects out of them.

Schopenhauer did provide an explanation for the originating source of perceptual objects; viz., the brain’s activity, but he did not provide an explanation for the originating source of the bodily sensations that comprised those perceptual objects. Nor did he try to determine if the originating source which preceded the body’s sensations bore any resemblance to the constructed perceptual objects which succeeded the body’s sensations.

In other words, I submit that the perceptual objects (which are after-the-fact constructions of the causes of the given sensations by the brain) are merely “purported” causes of the sensations because we can never be certain that the brain’s spontaneously constructed perceptual objects actually coincide with the “real” cause(s) of the subjective sensations, which cause(s) would necessarily have “predated” the brain’s act of spontaneous construction.

What's your opinion? — charles ferraro

Fast forward to present day neuroscience and find your answer. — I like sushi

My baby keeps me amused. She has orifice. — god must be atheist

:brow:

Should we call the NSPCC?

Brian states have electrochemical properties. — Terrapin Station

@BrianW Can you confirm~?

I don't think you need confirmation of that from Brian, either, unless you have no knowledge of physiology. ;-)