Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 141

Thread: WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind.

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by SevenStar View Post
    the same way your teacher takes credit for your martial skill or lack thereof - it came from him.
    Now I'm going to be a smartass and say: And where did he get it? From his master? And his master? From his master?

    A chan of causes. But it does not imply the existence of an all-powerful martial artist, does it? No, just more masters, and more time.

    And occasionally, yes.....a really hairy Chinese dude.


    Quote Originally Posted by SevenStar View Post
    and thus, you have satan. they are yin and yang. God is given credit for bad things as well, just not ungodly things. shaolin do - god's credit. murdering sin the - satan's idea, although it may be a great idea in the eyes of many.

    HAHAHAHA.......funny......
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-06-2007 at 08:20 PM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by fa_jing View Post

    Anybody here read Goedel Escher Bach?.
    I read it. I wasn't big on it, though. Which is strange, because as a philosopher, painter, and a poor poor piano player, I love Godel, Escher, and Bach.

    It didn't suck or anything. But it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Lots to be learned in that book, though. Lots.

    And I'm not embarrassed to say I didn't understand it all. Some of it is rather abstruse. Godel is always a mindjob, and you always see him abused in print (hijacked for inapplicalbe agendas).

    Since we're on this subject, I'd recommend this book:

    (I have to look up the title at home...but it involves studies of the brain, and its link to theology as a kind of neuroticism....very intriguing. I'll edit and post the title later.).
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-06-2007 at 08:09 PM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Crushing Fist View Post




    This can only lead to the question of what was the original cause?
    Only if you're looking for short-answer conclusions. The time-frame invovled is astronomical, and we can't ever expect right now to answer that question with our current technology and knowledge of the universe. Who's to say there is an original cause? String theory's use of universal branes would allow transfers of energy between fluctuating universes, enough to cause the big bang.

    But of course, this is all theoretical.


    Which brings us to this:



    Quote Originally Posted by Crushing Fist View Post
    You are pointing to the exception in order to disprove the rule. Most of the time, most people do not question existence or non-existence, and the genius that has brought us this far can in no way be considered the norm.
    People muck about in science. It's never one method, one answer. Hundreds prove themselves wrong in order for another to prove himself right.

    Lamarck, anyone?

    Einstein was nothing without Maxwell or Planck. They proposed ideas. He proposed elaborations. Knowledge is syncretic, not episodic.

    Think of Watson and Crick. Would they have been what they were, or capable of drawing those conclusions without the competition and previous works of Linus Pauling?

    I say no. Hell, Watson didn't know anything about chemistry, even by his own admission. And what is DNA? Chemistry (I know, you'd think it's biology. But they were forming the structure, which was an issue in chemistry).

    This brings up an issue people tend to gloss over. Science (knowledge) is problem solving. It isn't let's propose some unintelligible nonsense to explain things that make sense. It's, let's propose some things that might make sense, try 'em out, and see if they hold water logically and experimentally. Sometimes you throw out some nonsense, to get the ball rolling. It helps do away with the scientific version of writer's block. I don't know why anyone would ever rag on that system of learning
    (you weren't, but some are).

    When persons such as myself take on the religious mentality, we become frustrated very quickly in learning that this mentality has usually completely ignored inquiries into the subject of existence outside the realm of theology. Religious persons (generally), and many atheists (a surprisingly large number) have only the kiddie pool depth of knowledge on the subjects of biology, astronomy, chemistry....and most importantly...evolution itself.

    Darwin is continually eviscerated. Why? Because he proposed a logical solution (not entirely correct...but improved upon by his successing generations) based on a lifetime of biological research.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crushing Fist View Post

    This seems correct, but it is as untestable as God and not really a useful arguement. It does, however, lead to the obvious problem (one brought up by Plato, whom I can only imagine your above scenario is derived from) of the limitations of our input. The only connection to the "outside" is through our senses, and only so far as they can be trusted can we have "reality". What we know of everything "out there" can never be more than a shadow cast on the wall. However, take all those shadows away, and what is left? We can't know. It leads us to the same place as the prime mover question, just taking another road there.
    Less like Plato. More like that vegetable chick in Florida from a couple of years back.

    The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.

    Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?

    Of course not.

    If you've never had to react, you never were.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-06-2007 at 08:06 PM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by DPL View Post
    It's a religious argument. Nobody can prove anything. The atheists can't prove anything, the Christians can't prove anything, the agnostics can't prove anything, and the scientists can't prove anything.

    That's why it will never end, and also why it's interesting to read.

    Right now I'm judging the score as Shaolin Wookie and Scott R. Brown tied on core points, with SB slightly ahead on concept because he's taking into account both linear and non-linear thought and SW seems to want to treat non-linear as invalid somehow, which seems a bit odd given the fairly obvious binary qualities of humanity and human perception.

    Keep it up guys - fun to read...

    This is the way I look at it. We have Christians and other religious people trying to prove something they cannot pinpoint with anything less than ambiguous language and a lack of evidence. Then we have atheists saying they've drawn inaccurate conclusions on sketcy logic and absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In their stead, they offer evidence of things that may have happened based one what's at hand. They sometimes offer up ideas of things that may have happened, but it's sparked by a kind of epistemological method. Then they study how certain epistemological methods yielded evolution, DNA, genetics, and galactic formation, based on observations. The thoeries get honed, until they're **** near irrefutable, until they are irrefutable.

    Bush says the jury's out on evolution. He condemned hundreds to die at the chair who were convicted using DNA evidence. The irony? He believes in DNA, but obviously does not understand it. DNA has no function outside of inheritence of attributes. What is the inheritence of attributes over time called? Well, oddly enough...evolution. And now that "jury" pun really rams a rod straight up his arse....hahahaha.....

    Then there's agnostics, who are basically atheists without a backbone, still a little frightened of dropping off the deep end of Pascal's infernal wager.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-06-2007 at 08:26 PM.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    It's never one method, one answer. Hundreds prove themselves wrong in order for another to prove himself right.
    Hundreds? How many people are currently living in this world? How many of them are scientists or are trained to think like scientists? To the average person what you are saying might as well be a hermetic spell. They don't know and they don't want to know. They are just glad it works without questions. What I am talking about is the overwhelming majority.

    Less like Plato. More like that vegetable chick in Florida from a couple of years back.

    The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.

    Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?

    Of course not.

    If you've never had to react, you never were.
    How very reactionary... try being more 'proactive'. Then we can 'synergize'

    Ok, please devise an experiment that can test this theory you state as an unquestionable fact. In order to collect uncontaminated data you must use a mind which has never had any stimulus. The 'vegetable chick' hardly counts as she lived a normal life up until becoming mostly brain dead.

    I'm interested in how you will collect data about a mind's sense of self without interacting with it in any way that could stimulate a response.

    Meanwhile, I'll be looking for God in this box of Cheerios.
    Words!


    Just words!


  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Only if you're looking for short-answer conclusions. The time-frame invovled is astronomical, and we can't ever expect right now to answer that question with our current technology and knowledge of the universe. Who's to say there is an original cause? String theory's use of universal branes would allow transfers of energy between fluctuating universes, enough to cause the big bang.

    But of course, this is all theoretical.
    Go back and read the first bit of my first post on this thread... good, now that we are in agreement, let's continue.

    Why is it looking for short-answer conclusions? It's the central question to reality:

    Why is there something instead of nothing at all?

    The time-frame is irrelevant. In a linear universe one action is preceeded by another: cause--->effect

    If we live in a linear universe there must be an original cause. Otherwise the universe cannot be linear. Right?

    String theory... fluctuating universes tranferring energy. Uh-huh...

    Caused by what?

    ::waits for answer::

    Oh? And what caused that?


    Go on... just say it. It will feel good, I promise.


    Just say, "I don't know".












    Let's discuss this expanding earth "theory".




    Yes, really.


    I'll start...


    Wow, those animated maps look pretty cool. D@mned interesting. Seems completely wacko other than that.


    I like wacko, it makes me smile.
    Words!


    Just words!


  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    4,033
    This statement is false

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653
    This statement is false
    Whoa

    .................................................. ....
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653

    Nobody stays up late with me

    Ron paul for president

    I include this because he touches on global warming.

    Also so far I just like the way this guy thinks.

    Bill Maher likes this dude now...
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

  10. #100
    Hi Shaolin Wookie,

    The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.
    Once again you are assuming here and you are incorrect.

    Mind creates its own stimuli, as I have already stated.

    1) Without a Mind to perceive things, nothing exists.
    2) Things exists, therefore there is a Mind that perceives.
    3) Therefore, everything perceived is a product of mind.
    4) Without a mind to perceive it, mind does not exist.
    5) Mind perceives itself, therefore mind exists.
    6) Existence is mind in action that is, mind perceiving, and what mind perceives is Itself.
    7) Since Mind requires mind to exist, mind is self-existent. Hmmmm? Sound familiar again??
    8) Particulars come from Universals.
    9) Creation is a particular. Mind is Universal!
    10) Individual minds are products of the Universal Mind.
    11) Therefore, creation, all things, are a product of Mind/God/Tao etc.

    There is one unlimited mind from which all limited minds spring; this Mind has been called, God, Tao, Buddha Nature, Thus-ness, Is-ness, Such-ness, Yaweh, etc. To be sure there have been many attempts to define and anthropomorphize this Mind. However, the opening of “The Tao Te Ching” teaches, “The Tao (God) that can be defined, is not the True/Actual/Complete Tao (God)!” Definitions are created by man for the purposes of man and do not reflect the true nature of Tao/God.

    Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?
    Yes I can! Yes, I have! and Yes, you can too!!

    It is the non-discursive mind, the Buddha Nature, the essence of mind, etc. Ch’an masters call it the “thought of no thought”. It is the manner of thinking that occurs before words or symbols are produced in the mind. Words and symbols are not necessary when the mind thinks, they are necessary when one mind is communicating with another mind in a non-direct manner, that is, in the material sphere where all minds are apparently separate from one and other. With separation comes the need for communication, and symbols are used. We call these symbols words.

    Thought originally occurs without words; the mind translates thought into words in order to make thought understandable by others who understand the same symbols. This thought that precedes words occurs within EVERY mind and is called “essence of mind” in Ch’an. “Essence of mind” may be directly observed/apprehended/experienced by anyone who takes the time to practice looking for it. This is accomplished through introspection. It isn’t difficult to observe with practice, I discovered it in my teens without any instruction, although it took me decades to fully understand it because I had no instruction on the matter.

    If a person wishes to understand things like this they must EAT THE ORANGE, that is, search out the direct experience for their self. The direct experience is found by looking within the mind.

    Most people are well educated on the writings of other people, but are ignorant (no offense intended here) of the inner workings of mind. All things are a function of mind, therefore search out and understand the function of mind and be less concerned about what others have to say about the universe. Scientists are experts on the outer world, to become an expert on the inner world we must introspect into our own minds and discover for ourselves how it functions. We must each “Eat The Orange”, to apprehend the taste directly. If we refuse to eat the orange we are fools pretending to have knowledge about something of which we are actually ignorant.

    Most people are nothing more than experts on the teachings of other people. This is the knowledge of a novice. We are all experts to some extent on the words of others; this is how we are taught subjects of learning. We learn what others have learned before us.

    When we begin to learn about the MA we follow the instruction of someone we hold in authority. However, to achieve a certain level of experience and skill we must have direct validation by experience of the principles of our art. We must have firsthand experience. This firsthand experience brings us out of the realm of experts on the teachings of others into the realm of expertise for ourselves. Expertise will not occur if we refuse to learn firsthand for ourselves. I know many MA who are instructors who still blindly follow what they were taught from the beginning, never learning firsthand. These individuals remain experts on the teachings of others and will never master the subject. Mastery comes from firsthand knowledge. It is the same with knowledge of the mind and this only occurs through introspection into the mind in order to apprehend directly. If this does not occur it is the same as a person commenting about the taste of an orange without ever having tasted one. He is not an expert on oranges, but merely an expert on what others have said about the taste of an orange.
    Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 06-07-2007 at 02:16 AM.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,234

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653
    D@mn I was gonna make a Ru paul joke.
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    160
    That's good enough for a sig...
    Meanwhile, I'll be looking for God in this box of Cheerios - Crushing Fist

  14. #104
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Bush says the jury's out on evolution. He condemned hundreds to die at the chair who were convicted using DNA evidence. The irony? He believes in DNA, but obviously does not understand it. DNA has no function outside of inheritence of attributes. What is the inheritence of attributes over time called? Well, oddly enough...evolution. And now that "jury" pun really rams a rod straight up his arse....hahahaha.....
    Well, obviously Bush makes the evolution comment because it's politically expedient for him and his party to say things like that. In a bizarre twist of logic, it's politically expedient for him to believe in the death penalty to appeal to mostly the same crowd.

    The only politician I've seen in 20 years who seems to say what he really thinks is Ron Paul, and he's got a snowball's chance in Texas of getting elected.

    Funny you should bring evolution up, though. Back in college, there was this big evolution vs. creation debate staged between one of the school's philosophy professors (who had multiple doctorates, one in biology) and a travelling Christian pastor who evidently made it his life's work to travel and debate the subject at various schools. Professor was pro-evolution (hopefully obvious). It was a fun debate with both guys making some good points. I went in preinclined to believe the theory of evolution, and walked out feeling like the philosophy professor won a debate that was closer than I expected.

    Funny thing about that is, a number of my classmates also watched the debate and UNIFORMLY, if they walked in believing in creationism they felt like the pastor demolished the professor, and if they walked in believing in evolution they thought the professor demolished the pastor. No one, other than me, thought it was even close.

    The point was that people only saw what they were preinclined to see. Uniformly. Based on belief. One of the only times that the light going off over my head shone brightly instead of fizzling. That pretty much informed my opinion on these kinds of debates for all time. They're fun little intellectual exercises, but no one ever changes anyone else's mind.
    Meanwhile, I'll be looking for God in this box of Cheerios - Crushing Fist

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653
    They're fun little intellectual exercises, but no one ever changes anyone else's mind.
    That is very true. The debaters are usually too entrenched in their own ideas, but some in the "crowd" may be on the fence or just new to the subject. It's better to get both sides, and go from there, than to only get one view.

    Those who take part in the argument get the opportunity to refine there ideas, having other people challenge you is a great way to improve your own position. I want people to find the holes in my argument.
    If you can't defend you position well enough then, you might change it, but mostly people default to the, 'cause I said so' rational.

    The only politician I've seen in 20 years who seems to say what he really thinks is Ron Paul, and he's got a snowball's chance in Texas of getting elected.
    It snows in Texas like once every 7 years or so.
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •