Comments

  • Rebirth?
    You cannot both claim that science rules out the possibility of rebirth and that doing so in unscientific. — NKBJ
    Why not?

    Either you claim that the scientists who do so are being unscientific — NKBJ
    That's the claim; malpractice.
  • Rebirth?
    On the one hand you want to reject science and a scientific worldview on the basis that it cannot encompass all of your voodoo. On the other you wish to maintain that dismissing supernatural phenomena is not scientific. You're not being consistent or clear about your position. — NKBJ
    Isn't he just saying that secular-scientific thought is denying scientific progress, by limiting itself?

    As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions — Wayfarer
    I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs — Wayfarer
    Seems pretty straightforward.
  • A Refutation of Nominalism:
    Someone walking changes for many reasons, including both relations of bodily position--legs change distance relative to each other, knees bend, etc., and relative to things around the person. There's a lot more going on than that, but understandably, we need to grossly simplify this and leave a bunch of stuff out. — Terrapin Station
    It's one reason: relation.
    The amount of objects in relation is irrelevant.
  • Rebirth?
    there could be an overabundance of such evidence, but I have no reason to think there is. — Janus
    Surely, neither would I, if I didn't extensively look in to it.
    So as you've already mentioned - experience is key.

    It reminds me of a story about a man who tried to point out the stars in broad daylight, when all he had to do was simply wait for the night and people would see them all on their own.
  • A Refutation of Nominalism:
    I read that a few times, but I can't make any sense of it. — Terrapin Station
    Too bad.

    The past is changes that happened. I don't understand "but remains" or "as the present in relation to itself"?? — Terrapin Station
    Think of a man walking. He changes, because his position changes; but his position is not determined in relation to himself, as he is always centered on himself.
    So it changes in relation to the environment, and it's the change of the environment that partly changes the man. But he remains the same to himself.
  • A Refutation of Nominalism:
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Because change is based on relation.
    I.E The past is the past in relation to the present, but remains as the present in relation to itself.
  • Rebirth?
    ↪Janus
    Fair enough.

    But consider how UFO data, of which there is an overabundance, was never shared with the public with the supposition that it would panic the public.
    All the while however, it was extensively funded and studied - under strict secrecy.
    And even though there are many credible witnesses, like those of the Phoenix Lights, it is still being publicly debunked.

    So, the topic of Rebirth and Past Life Memory Regression may be in the same boat.
    And maybe, the big boys just don't want to share - because it's going to raise a lot of uncomfortable questions and remarks, that may lead to something of a Bolshevik Revolution of Theology.

    I won't say that's the case, but it seems sketchy either way that it's not a subject more seriously examined.
  • Rebirth?
    There has been attempted research into some paranormal "phenomena" and it seems the conclusion has been reached that they are not amenable to the scientific method as it is currently understood — Janus
    Perhaps.

    But if I may ask, have you considered that they are amenable, and they are being discredited for other reasons? Just like how alternating currents were?
  • The N word
    My question is whether the N-word specifically has become a word that is per se insulting, regardless of context, where its mere utterance is a sin. — Hanover
    Words without context are just noise.
    People make of them what they will; as is the case when left to interpret shadows.
    So perhaps it's not whether the word has become insulting, but why has it come to be interpreted as insulting?
  • Writing
    A substantial amount of reading? No.
    A substantial amount of thinking? Yes.
  • What if one has no opinion on the existence of the soul?
    I just don't have an opinion on it. Is there a name for this kind of position? — ernestm
    Within discussion, an opinion is unavoidable.
    Otherwise, the stance which takes no sides, is simple acceptance.
  • Rebirth?
    That something might be impossible does not imply that it must be possible, — Janus
    And yet it does. It denotes that something is partly possible and partly impossible.
    Which would mean that it must be in some form impossible and in some form possible.
    But both the 'impossibility' and 'possibility' pertain to the 'whole of possibility'.

    Which is like a coinflip - until the coin lands, the result is equally heads and tails.
    And until it lands on heads, you cannot deny tails - tails is fully possible.
    But either one, relies on either one being possible. So possibility is a prerequisite.
    The truly impossible lies outside of that realm; as I noted, it is inconceivable and not an option.

    Just to be clear, I'm saying that 'possible as far as we know' is not distinct from 'possible', but a part of.
    Which is to say, that something must be to might be - and this applies to all things; i.e an apple must be in some way blue, to might be blue.
  • Mindless meandering
    ↪Pattern-chaser
    Not that per se, but something like Zen.
    A supplementary art to Iaido; Iaido being tension and Ryudo being release of tension.

    Edit: If one considers Shinto to be reflective, then Ryudo is refractive. Focus and ripples.
  • Mindless meandering
    ↪Pattern-chaser
    Quite. Or Ryudo.
  • Rebirth?
    Note that I am not saying that we know that such a planet is actually impossible; the point is that we don't know that such a planet is actually possible either. So, it is only so far as we know that such a thing might be possible. — Janus
    It is not as far as we know, but regardless if we know.
    Our knowledge as to the aforementioned example, neither gives or takes away from its possibility.

    Such a planet may not be, but that does not make it impossible, that makes it currently unavailable.
    Like I told you, the impossible is inconceivable, it is void. If you can think of it as possible, it is possible, and exists - somehow, somewhere.

    Here's a quaint little example: You are dead right now. And by your standard, that is as far we know.
    But consider, that reaching death is like reaching the end of the movie - it's already there, before you reach it. And your death being already established, not only makes it possible that you are already dead - but more or less true.

    You're dead and you're alive at the same time.
    Something that should be possible only as far as we know, yet would appear to be possible regardless.
    Now on the off chance, that it is not so - then everything is only possible as far as we know.
    And either, the world is impossible but we think it is possible because we dwell in it, or what we know and think holds verity and what we know and think of as possible - is actually possible.

    Your choice.
  • Rebirth?
    ↪Janus
    I'll be as clear as I can.

    If a thing was clearly impossible, it wouldn't be debated - you couldn't think of it as possible, as it would be clearly and obviously impossible.
    If you can conceive of it being possible, that alone shows it is possible.

    Which is why Schrödinger's cat is equally dead and alive until examined.
  • Is it self-contradictory to state 'there is no objective truth'?
    ↪Pattern-chaser

    I get what you're saying.
    But considering we believe in what we know and know what we believe, I don't see how one is more certain than the other.
  • Is it self-contradictory to state 'there is no objective truth'?
    ↪Pattern-chaser

    Aren't the two intrinsically connected, however?
  • Rebirth?
    No, something may well be impossible even thought we could never prove that. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if we cannot prove it is impossible, then it must be possible — Janus
    My dude, think of it in the context of Schrödinger's cat.
    Until you open the box and see, it's all on the table.

    That said, if something was impossible, it would be so obviously impossible that it would be inconceivable to thought and at the very least no one would argue otherwise.
  • Is it possible to define a measure how 'interesting' is a theorem?
    Yeah. If you're paying it attention, it's of interest to you.
  • Is there any Truth in the Idea that all People are Created Equal
    It seems pretty bogus to me. No two people the same in any respect. — Dusty of Sky
    That's what makes them equal. They are equally inequal.

    If you consider people to be puzzle pieces, you'll get what the statement means.
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    unless one can establish something as possible...it is, at a minimum, POSSIBLE. — Frank Apisa
    Woah.
  • Rebirth?
    ↪S
    Why my word? There's enough testimonies and research on the matter, that you could find, if only you looked.
  • Are any Opinions Immoral to Hold?
    ↪Dusty of Sky

    Sure. But every refusal you make, means you choose something over the refused object.
    So every time you refuse to believe something, you also choose to believe something else.
    You don't refuse without a choice; so you have some responsibility in the matter.
  • Are any Opinions Immoral to Hold?
    ↪Terrapin Station
    Let's go with conscious actions. Better?
  • Are any Opinions Immoral to Hold?
    ↪Terrapin Station
    You enact your beliefs. You write comments like these, because you believe you should write them.
  • Are any Opinions Immoral to Hold?
    ↪Dusty of Sky

    But you're free to discard your beliefs and adopt others in their place at any time.
    Which gives you some power of choice.
  • Are any Opinions Immoral to Hold?
    Are we even responsible for our beliefs in the same sense as we're responsible for our actions? — Dusty of Sky
    Yes. You may choose to have a certain belief, in the same way you may choose to dress yourself in a certain way.
    Belief and action are a pair. You'll act out what you believe, and beliefs will build up from the consequences of actions.

    But is it wrong to be a moral nihilist who doesn't believe that it's wrong to commit murder? Is it wrong to go a step further and believe that it's morally good to commit murder? — Dusty of Sky
    Murder happens daily, with the intention of food production. Some may say that's okay, others may say it is horrible.
    But when it's called either good or bad, it's called that for a reason.
    So it's not about murder, but the reason behind murder.
    The action itself remains ambiguous.
  • Rebirth?
    You observe it from a third-person perspective, exactly as you observe every single other thing in the world that's not yourself. — Terrapin Station
    Just the same way we know any and everything we know. Based on observation of the world. — Terrapin Station
    Victim to one of the classic blunders.
  • Rebirth?
    ↪S

    What about clinically dead patients who have full knowledge of what transpired during their intermission?
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    Entered a post in error but users can’t delete own posts here so replaced the text with * — Wayfarer
    Error 404: Wayfarer has lost his way.
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    * — Wayfarer
  • Animals and pre emptive euthanasia
    ↪Baden

    I get that.
    But as @TheMadFool mentioned
    Euthanasia is still controversial among humans. Yet we do it with little resistance in animals. — TheMadFool
    Which means, purportedly, that it's more often than not, perceived to be beneficial to pull the plug on the pet, in comparison to the human - who is often almost forced to live.

    This is portrayed through the game Life is Strange, when the character Chloe Price asks the player to turn off her life support and end her suffering; and yet half the playerbase denied the request.

    So, the question remains: If euthanasia of animals is, purportedly, for their benefit - why isn't its practice amongst humans as accepted?

    To which my answer is: Due to the status of the animal in comparison to that of the human, which is pet vs kin. Ask yourself: Which is harder to replace, a pet or a kinsman?

    The example of animal butchering vs cannibalism alludes to how one is commonplace, whereas the other is frowned upon even if the cannibalised one may request it with the intention of 'living on through the living', which is benefit for him, according to his intention.

    In short, it's a power thing.
  • A summary of today
    Yes, interesting metaphor. A heart clogged with stuff, but desperate for love and a feeling of belonging. Can we be open again? Can we cast off, like torn and soiled clothing, the tiresome and strained ways that no longer work for us? (That is, if they ever really helped us at all). — 0 thru 9
    Perhaps you've heard this story.

    In ancient Egypt, the hearts of the dead were measured against the feather of Maat, to determine their passage in to the afterlife. Maat being truth, law and balance.
    Should the hearts outweigh the feather, they are fed to Ammut - which would lead to a second death.

    Now, swap out Ammut for the ego; the constant cravings for fame, power, items and so forth.
    You feed over yourself and all your time, trying to please a thing that won't be pleased, and whereas you may have lived a content life, gratifying yourself - you throw everything away and start chasing a dangling carrot. And so, by throwing life away during the act of living, acquire a second death - realised at the moment of passing away, when all your regrets suddenly start piling up.

    This modern problem isn't modern at all, but it's highly saturated and it was known for ages that it would become highly saturated with the propagation of trade, which would in turn leave people to value items over themselves. People are too enamored with owning, rather than being.
    Owning knowledge, rather than being knowledgeable - that's why diplomas are commonplace.
    Do people not tend to put money over their own life?
    When I see beggars, they always ask for money to buy food, rather than just directly ask for food.

    So many are too busy trying to live, when they could just live.
    Someone pursuing happiness, is simply forgetting to be happy.
  • Multi-Dimensional Experiences
    Some people have a biology that gear them for optimism while others are born nihilists. — Michelle71
    I don't think it's the biology that determines that.
    You could acquire a sum of great biological features and yet your psyche may be incapable to profit from them; whereas a great psyche would find a good use for poor quality biological features.
    Examples are blind photographers and deaf composers.

    What if we are all living out our lives in multiple dimensions, all at once, linked somehow through a cosmic id. What if the cumulative results of all our choices from multiple universes is the determinate of what gets us into heaven or hell? — Michelle71
    If we go with the aforementioned division of biological self (body) and cognitive self (psyche), we are indeed living in multiple dimensions, all at once.
    A brain without a mind is like hardware without software; just a heap of parts.
    Equally, a mind without an object to represent it is like air; like wind.

    If you had to point out the mind anywhere in the physical world, where would it be?
  • 'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
    Which it certainly does not. — Terrapin Station
    Which would mean we certainly don't exist.

    Oh, well.
  • 'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
    Surely you do not believe that every future invention exists already? — Terrapin Station
    I do. For the same reason that the end of a movie exists before it is reached.

    No, you don't. You don't exist until a particular structure/process of materials does. — Terrapin Station
    But I am a part of everything.
    So if everything exists at all times, so must I, in part, exist at all times.
  • 'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
    When we create or transmute things, yes. Again, the idea isn't that something is coming from nothing in this scenario. It's that something is coming from something. It's just the case that prior to that point, there's no "you" to speak of. — Terrapin Station
    But considering 'you' are just the frame or composition of different things, you do exist prior to transmutation - even if in a state of void.

    Now I understand that equating 'you' with the current state of 'you' is nigh impossible through constant flux; but if you were to view 'you' as the process, rather than the product, then every instance of 'you' is 'you' in part, whereas there is a whole 'you' that twists into these instances.

    Which in turn allows for a 'you' - prior, during and post transmutation.
  • 'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
    ↪Terrapin Station

    Actually the idea is that prior to conception, there is no "one" in any state. — Terrapin Station
    You're saying that there's no state of being prior to conception.

    And yet...
    Using "transmute" instead doesn't change anything except we'd substitute that word. — Terrapin Station

    But we'd be creating something, by changing its state of being, wouldn't we?
  • 'Poofed' into existence from nothing?
    It creates one out of sperm and an egg. That's not nothing. — Terrapin Station
    Now, suppose we swapped out 'creates' for 'transmutes'.

    How do you go about
    prior to conception, there is no "one" in any state — Terrapin Station
    then?
Home » Shamshir