Subjectivity, Time and the Brain

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Subjectivity, Time and the Brain

 I've been looking for words to replace the terms "spiritual" and "materialist" as to me, they seem to be becoming obsolete. Science has been moving into the "spiritual" realms, or what was once thought to be spiritual or "supernatural/paranormal" realms for years. Not so much to debunk anything as I think that term is misleading as it usually applies to fraud, but more to grasp an objective outlook.

"Spiritual" has too many new agey, woo woo overtones for me and "materialist" is too confining and grossly inaccurate.Moreover, there a million and six shades of grey in between the two polar opposites.

So the terms I've come up with are objectivists vs. subjectivists. S's are the types who place a high value on their own interpretations of experience and thus can have a distrust for science and thus reply with the Kantian question of what is objective reality anyway and what are we using as a standard?O's tend to look at data or what one theologian / apologist complained about, "the fortress of facts." and the S would argue that there are observations that challenge what we think is reality.Its all a question of what you're comfortable with. I saw an article that suggested that much of this is genetic and indeed one cannot really choose what they are attracted to or repelled by.

Many people seem to have this in born desire to be , as they put it, "connected to something higher", whereas others don't care as much about that, but want to imagine that they will always have hope of reconnecting with lost loved ones and there are a lot of people who want to believe that the universe sides with human moral values. They feel cheated when someone like Hitler takes the easy way out and want to imagine him suffering today. I personally like the scene in Little Nicky where the Fuhrer is forced to wear a French maid's uniform and choose the pineapple that Satan shoves up his ass.

I think I've found a loophole that may not satisfy everyone, but leave room to speculate about things like the "reality" of NDE's and other experiences (yeah I know like we need more of that). Let's use Hitler for illustration because I don't think anyone would be overly concerned about him suffering for eternity.From an objective point of view , at least from the official version of history (I'm not entertaining conspiracy theories here about him surviving), he shot himself in 1945 and thus escaped justice. The objectivist would argue that when the bullet severed his brain connection and the electrical activity ceased, Hitler ceased.Well where's the fun in that? Where are all those holocaust victims coming out of their mass graves to drag him to eternal perdition?What he may have actually suffered could have been, and in a way still could be worse. Time is relative to everything including consciousness. We know it flies when we're having fun and drags when we're not. We know dreams and hallucinations objectively last only minutes or even seconds as blips on an EEG, but subjectively, to the "victim" their experience could last months or years.The experience Rebecca Springer wrote about in Intra Muros was described as going on for decades but in fact was experienced while being deathly ill for several months.So what if NDE's are in fact halucinations or dreams? So what if they "end" when the plug is pulled on the brain?Time is relative, that's an established fact. So what, if the moment the bullet entered Hitler's brain his light went out in a few nanoseconds our time. Those nanoseconds can be diced down to smaller increments and even smaller increments ad infinitum.What does it matter then if our consciousness "energy", whatever that is, connected to anything or not?

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13208
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll start by saying I would

I'll start by saying I would have a problem with Hitler suffering for all eternity. Even if he personally cut the throat of every single person who died during or because of WWII, it still doesn't even come close to a justifiable sentence. The most I could agree with is making him suffer as his victims did, for as long as they did. Anything more and you become even worse than he was. Afterall, there was nothing special about him. He was as limited as any other person. He thought some things were true, but they weren't. He had no way to know otherwise. Noone did.

A far more satisfying revenge, however, would be found by allowing him to see what happened to the world after he was gone. The jews he tried to exterminate were given a huge, free, parcel of land sufficient to create a nation. Granted that created new victims, but that's a different topic.
He might be pleased that Germany ended up stronger than it was when he took power, but that'd be about the only thing he'd like about the world today, I think.

Wouldn't it be grand to know the most powerful and evil theists in history had to watch as their religion was transformed, broken apart, shackled, and then to add injury to insult they had to watch it wither and die? I can think of no more fitting punishment. Why physically torture someone when time is far more cruel.

Obviously it is exceptionally unlikely that this could actually happen, but if you're going to dream: dream big.

It may actually be even more of a punishment that they never see it happen. That they die thinking they are on the winning side, completely oblivious to the fact they actually took personal hand in the destruction of all they held dear, and they'll never know how bad they fucked it up.

Regarding the idea at the end, there would be limits on how much the time could be divided. Eventually you get to plank seconds, and no further division is effective. Nothing can happen, nothing can change, and therefore the person at deaths door will still be dead and gone, with nothing remaining.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Spiritual

Spiritual equals "person".  What this means is (from our study of the book) that a person is nonmaterial, and resides in a physical structure that "is" material. We're not saying that we agree with the ancient point of view, but relay what is according to our interpretaion. Accordingly, the spritual then, is the person not the body. The prophets in the book  state nowhere that "God" as they understood it was an invisible entity seperate of a body, but God is (in their reference) the invisuible that is people. The biblical God then is the invisible personage of "us", and the masses as a whole. The logic od whaqt they're refering to then, is that the universe (they don't say this specifically) contains only two basics, the spritual and the material. That wouold mean the that all things sprirtual had to be derived from materail because as they have it, the material came first. (as an apostle points to- first there was the physical and then the spiritual) Useing logic in regards to their statement that would mean being the physical is material then material came first.

  But, how can one prove this when at this point in time it is unprovable that there can be anything nonmaterial. It may be, being that they cannot see the person within the physical thay assume it to be invisible and nonmaterial. A brain scan cannot determine if a person is nonmaterial or not. But, what we do know is we "refer to someone as "person". so material or not we still regard each other as person. That may also mean then, that the brain forms the person and persan cannot exist outside a brain that produces it (person). Ther-fore then, a "God" free of a material brain is not bibically sound as there is nothing in the book that claims differntly God and the actions of the biblical God always reverts to the actions and consequences of a people to people relationship, meaning, social behaviour. The attachment of God to a supernatural being is strictly a European attachment from their own ancient religions, and,  from what their interpretations are founded on, and from being highly superstitiious.

And likewise, the Iraelites also lost the understanding of the ancient religion of thier ancestors which was considered a true religion. The loss of the underatnding was long before the israelite tribes were formed--so their religion today isn't the original that was before the fall. The fall is nothing more then returning to being like all the other peoples in their vacinity, of which the original religion is what the difference was between the ancestors and people as we see them even today. The fall was a change back to a personage they were previous, and the previous was as all others were being.

Spiritual then is the rudiments of what is considered "the person" and specific characteristics of what comprises "person".  For insatance--love and hate. Does love creat a special pattern in the brain to be what it is, and so also hate, and, how would these patters be different id they are material.  Would love or hate have material forms?????  The Smurfs (Seers) really don't know and can't see how such can be proven. There is the idea of course that persons are a product drug and electrical applications--but as we see it theres seems to be more to it then that. IE, How do drugs and electrons produce intellect. It seems there is an "exiter" somewhere in the works. something has to initiate the process of intellect and the characteristics of what is person. Drugs and electrons have no intellect or person on their own. At a future time when it is known better how the brian works we'll know. It turns out (from our biblical inperpretaton) that the biblical God is nothing more then the forces that a society exerts on individuals, and what individuals exert on each other producing good and harm by the cations of the masses as a whole. In biblical terms there is only one person (as all persons are made the same) but there are many bodies.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Wouldn't it be

Vastet wrote:
Wouldn't it be grand to know the most powerful and evil theists in history had to watch as their religion was transformed, broken apart, shackled, and then to add injury to insult they had to watch it wither and die? I can think of no more fitting punishment. Why physically torture someone when time is far more cruel. Obviously it is exceptionally unlikely that this could actually happen, but if you're going to dream: dream big. It may actually be even more of a punishment that they never see it happen. That they die thinking they are on the winning side, completely oblivious to the fact they actually took personal hand in the destruction of all they held dear, and they'll never know how bad they fucked it up..

Now that is what I would call poetic justice Vastet. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
marty, for someone with an

marty, for someone with an avowed distaste for philosophy, this is a helluva word game you're playing here.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
With nothing better to do --

Time:

Does time really exist, or is it made up? The perspective of time is developed from our planet circling the sun that became divided up into 24 equal segments equaling one day when a start point is back to facing the sun.


Was there time before the big bang? Can the idea of time be true if there is nothing to apply it to? Can there be time without distance? Can there be velocity without time?  Before the big bang there was no distance between objects as there was no objects. If there are no objects there cannot be distance, and likewise there cannot be time, so would that be true? If there is no distance and time then there cannot be velocity. Would this be true, yes/no.
In order for there to be distance there must be more then one object. One object in the universe cannot be distant from anything. So, distance then is created when two or more objects are present in the universe. Does that mean then, that the creation of matter also creates time, distance, and velocity. Time distance and velocity are not material, so then, how can something nonmaterial exist.


The same with numbers. Two does not exist unless attached to something as there cannot be two of nothing.  Would then,  a number be purely mental before it is attachhed to two pennies. So then (again) as it seems numbers, time, distance, velocity cannot be unless and until there is material formed createing the universe.
So, do numbers, time , distance, velocity actually exist, OR, is it merely something of our own mind and invention, considering that not one of them existed before the big bang.  We use these for measurements--before the big bang there was nothing to measure. Would it be that just because we measure things did the universe then create numbers, time, distance, velocity, as the universe is not intelligent but as far as we know, we are the only thing that is intelligent.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
everything is made up.

everything is made up.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13208
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Can there be

Old Seer wrote:
Can there be time without distance? Can there be velocity without time?

No.

Old Seer wrote:
Before the big bang there was no distance between objects as there was no objects.

That is not necessarily true.

Old Seer wrote:
If there are no objects there cannot be distance, and likewise there cannot be time, so would that be true? If there is no distance and time then there cannot be velocity. Would this be true, yes/no.

Yes. That is basically why it is referred to as space-time these days, and why time is often considered the fourth dimension after length, width, and height.

Old Seer wrote:
So, distance then is created when two or more objects are present in the universe. Does that mean then, that the creation of matter also creates time, distance, and velocity. Time distance and velocity are not material, so then, how can something nonmaterial exist.

Time, distance, and velocity are all measurements. They are not immaterial.

Old Seer wrote:
So, do numbers, time , distance, velocity actually exist, OR, is it merely something of our own mind and invention, considering that not one of them existed before the big bang.

Again, these is no evidence supporting the idea that before the big bang there was nothing.

Old Seer wrote:
So, do numbers, time , distance, velocity actually exist, OR, is it merely something of our own mind and invention, considering that not one of them existed before the big bang.  We use these for measurements--before the big bang there was nothing to measure. Would it be that just because we measure things did the universe then create numbers, time, distance, velocity, as the universe is not intelligent but as far as we know, we are the only thing that is intelligent.

Effectively you are asking the same thing as one who postulates "if a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, did it make a vibration?". The question is impractical. The existence of an observer has not been shown to facilitate the vibration made by an impact, nor the existence of existence. There are demonstrations of vibrations in astronomy where the source of the vibration vastly precedes the observation of the vibration. A shockwave created by a supernova travelling through a cloud of gas 5 billion lightyears away and 5 billion years ago can be seen today. Since noone was around when the supernova occurred, the presence of us is clearly not required for the event to have happened.

Stars must have been burning fuel and creating light before the Earth existed, else we'd not be able to see anything beyond 4.5 billion odd lightyears. They must have been doing so before life existed on Earth else we would not be able to see any beyond about 3 billion lightyears. They must have been doing so before man existed in a recognisable form else we would not be able to see any beyond about 200,000 lightyears.

Kilometres didn't exist before man created kilometres, but the distance a kilometre represents wasn't created by man. It was merely measured by man and defined as a kilometre. The distance itself still existed without man being around to measure it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:marty, for

iwbiek wrote:
marty, for someone with an avowed distaste for philosophy, this is a helluva word game you're playing here.

Wasn't it Wittgenstein that once made a mention of arguments over terms or words to that effect ? In fact, I think it was you that quoted that one time and it made sense to me. It seemed that a large majority of debates that I have had almost degenerate into something of that effect. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:iwbiek

harleysportster wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
marty, for someone with an avowed distaste for philosophy, this is a helluva word game you're playing here.

Wasn't it Wittgenstein that once made a mention of arguments over terms or words to that effect ? In fact, I think it was you that quoted that one time and it made sense to me. It seemed that a large majority of debates that I have had almost degenerate into something of that effect. 




well, properly speaking that's what philosophy is: defining terms, sharpening our discourse, figuring out what we can and cannot do with the language. under this heading come logic, ontology, and epistemology as well. wittgenstein was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek when he said philosophy had been "reduced" to word games. this isn't necessarily a negative. james, dewey, wittgenstein, popper: they were all a breath of fresh air after the 19th century's slavish adoration of the "system-builders," i.e. kant and hegel, men who, in the words of agehananda bharati, "wrote big thick books because they didn't understand the tricks of the language."


you also have to understand that it wasn't until the late 19th/early 20th century that departments of philosophy declared themselves completely separate and independent from the departments of theology in most universities. since then, philosophy has become closely allied with linguistics, which is as it should be. word games may seem petty to some, but they have very real applications across nearly all areas of academics. philosophy, contrary to hegel, is not a system but a methodology, a tool. philosophy of science, for example, has helped science find its focus and its method. most scientists don't even realize it, however, as most scientists don't actually read karl popper, the greatest of the 20th-century philosophers of science.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: well, properly

iwbiek wrote:

well, properly speaking that's what philosophy is: defining terms, sharpening our discourse, figuring out what we can and cannot do with the language. under this heading come logic, ontology, and epistemology as well. wittgenstein was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek when he said philosophy had been "reduced" to word games. this isn't necessarily a negative. james, dewey, wittgenstein, popper: they were all a breath of fresh air after the 19th century's slavish adoration of the "system-builders," i.e. kant and hegel, men who, in the words of agehananda bharati, "wrote big thick books because they didn't understand the tricks of the language."
you also have to understand that it wasn't until the late 19th/early 20th century that departments of philosophy declared themselves completely separate and independent from the departments of theology in most universities. since then, philosophy has become closely allied with linguistics, which is as it should be. word games may seem petty to some, but they have very real applications across nearly all areas of academics. philosophy, contrary to hegel, is not a system but a methodology, a tool. philosophy of science, for example, has helped science find its focus and its method. most scientists don't even realize it, however, as most scientists don't actually read karl popper, the greatest of the 20th-century philosophers of science.

Thanks for that information. I'll have to read some more on the topic now that I have some spare time on my hands. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Nu #9

 Nu #9

 

   iwbiek  -- Iwbiek is clearly the  most  intelligent  person  on the board.  And, don't tell him I ever said that,  I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it.

 

     Lol  praemittere      

           ((Jul 28TH, 2014))
 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: I do

danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it



too late.


seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Nu

danatemporary wrote:

 Nu #9

 

   iwbiek  -- Iwbiek is clearly the  most  intelligent  person  on the board.  And, don't tell him I ever said that,  I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it.

 

     Lol  praemittere      

           ((Jul 28TH, 2014))
 

Define intelligence


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:danatemporary

iwbiek wrote:
danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it

too late.
seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."

You have an ego?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
rethink that.

iwbiek wrote:
danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it



too late.


seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."


In Canada telling students to stroke your favorite body part can get you arrested.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it

too late.
seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."

You have an ego?


i'm talking to you, aren't i?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:iwbiek

Jeffrick wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it



too late.


seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."


In Canada telling students to stroke your favorite body part can get you arrested.


yeah, well, slovakia is still relatively safe from hypersensitivity, political correctness, and general loss of a sense of humor, thank god.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Nu #9

 

   iwbiek  -- Iwbiek is clearly the  most  intelligent  person  on the board.  And, don't tell him I ever said that,  I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it.

 

     Lol  praemittere      

           ((Jul 28TH, 2014))
 

Define intelligence


"what i have more of than everybody else here."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
danatemporary wrote:
I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it

too late.
seriously, though, anytime i try to recruit students for one of the school events i'm in charge of, i always start by saying, "my ego is closely tied up with this, and the best way to get on my good side is to stroke my ego."

You have an ego?

i'm talking to you, aren't i?

Yeah, you have an ego.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Nu #9

 

   iwbiek  -- Iwbiek is clearly the  most  intelligent  person  on the board.  And, don't tell him I ever said that,  I do not  want  him  getting a big head about it.

 

     Lol  praemittere      

           ((Jul 28TH, 2014))
 

Define intelligence

"what i have more of than everybody else here."

Wow! Double whammy! You have a fucking huge ego!


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13208
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I piss on his ego. I'm the

I piss on his ego. I'm the only one here who calls himself a god in every single post. 10,358 times and counting. XD

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: well, properly

iwbiek wrote:


well, properly speaking that's what philosophy is: defining terms, sharpening our discourse, figuring out what we can and cannot do with the language. under this heading come logic, ontology, and epistemology as well. wittgenstein was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek when he said philosophy had been "reduced" to word games. this isn't necessarily a negative. james, dewey, wittgenstein, popper: they were all a breath of fresh air after the 19th century's slavish adoration of the "system-builders," i.e. kant and hegel, men who, in the words of agehananda bharati, "wrote big thick books because they didn't understand the tricks of the language."
you also have to understand that it wasn't until the late 19th/early 20th century that departments of philosophy declared themselves completely separate and independent from the departments of theology in most universities. since then, philosophy has become closely allied with linguistics, which is as it should be. word games may seem petty to some, but they have very real applications across nearly all areas of academics. philosophy, contrary to hegel, is not a system but a methodology, a tool. philosophy of science, for example, has helped science find its focus and its method. most scientists don't even realize it, however, as most scientists don't actually read karl popper, the greatest of the 20th-century philosophers of science.

I happened to find a PDF file of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus  online in PDF format and am already absorbed about syntax, sentences and symbolism Smiling Thanks for pointing me in this direction as I feel it may be a valuable read. 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno