What?! No we don't. We can have limited meaning of the things they represent, but we make up the words ourselves.Originally Posted by spirit
What?! No we don't. We can have limited meaning of the things they represent, but we make up the words ourselves.
Why are you yelling? No need for that, almost comes off condescending.What?! No we don't. We can have limited meaning of the things they represent, but we make up the words ourselves.
I'm not in the same frame,right now, to really agree/ disagree with you. There's a lot of words, ideas flying around in this thread.
Thanks for sharing.
I think what I was getting at is that language is a limitation, and that in reality things are NOT ultimately represented by a language, and that like a computer/ program there's different ways of decoding the universe that as human beings we ultimately can't process.
YES, essentially, we do discover alot, we are academic, but I'm sure we are defective, limited by our vessels and that there is possibly a whole other way of seeing the universe, if not just far more in depth.
Last edited by spirit; 03-16-2011 at 04:08 PM.
That whole post sounds to me like Maj. Frank Burns chewing out a nurse for handing him the instrument he asked for instead of what he actually wanted.I was using it as a example, not a literal scientific argument.
Anyways, if you're not going to think creatively, abstract, with me, I don't see the point of having a conversation.
If you would, will, it's apples to oranges.
The meaning of a word is not the same thing as the concept of a word. We only have a limited understanding of the meanings of words. How we define things often changes over time, take that for the fourth dimension.
If you want us to react to what you mean instead of what you're saying, try saying what you mean. I mean, if you can. I can't say what I mean because in the mean, it's too mean. To wit, my attitude towards the so-called "paranormal" is stated better than I could do so myself by M.C. Hawking in What We Need More Of Is Science.
What I find surprising is the lack of grammar and proper sense in the examples you provided
...
Those who are lead along by the hand, down a path, will hardly ever bother to look at down at their feet.
Haha, science, academics. There's no point in my continuing this with you.
Have a good day, both of you. Nice M*A*S*H reference, but I don't see why you assumed I know it.
EVERYBODY gets MASH references. Everybody.
EDIT: Also, did you seriously just deride reason?
This thread frustrates me.
I know people that aren't even aware of what Mash is.
Consider the following statements and critique them for verifiability. Consequent its application to values relevant to motivations of the living:
we are alive and then we are dead
There is a belief of an afterlife - this occurs after death
sensations such as hunger and pain, thought and pleasure are products of functions of the brain
the brain is a physical aspect
Okay that's enough. Your job spirit is to determine the truth value of the above statements and determine, if any, the conclusion of the plausibility and value of the afterlife while you are alive.
I don't think it works that way, so I'm not going to take it on. Those are your conditions, even if guided by external sources. I've heard the same old arguments, conditions before.
It's remote from the topic, at least where it's went, as well.
Science is real, very real, but only as a shallow observation of reality, there's always going to be more in the approaches we take. We will never have all the answers. Reality is not structured on language, science. Reality simply is, we understand things essentially as human beings with science, logic, language. Reality could be coded in a "language" that goes far above what human brains and minds could ever comprehend.
Only a select few people believe in ghosts, only a select few experience anything to make them believe.
Science is just part of the human experience, and though some results are external, the data we collect will always be incomplete. Their will always be more to collect.
Alien races might even not use language to communicate, if they exist. They might not even see language in the universe, they might read it differently. Outside of ideas, concepts, outside of words...
Sounds crazy, no?
Truth? I had given you more credit than that...truth!? HAHAH, come on now...
Even what's obvious is not truly self evident. There is always going to be more why and how with language, and academics. Science doesn't have all the answers, it's simply our best answers to make sense of what fraction of reality we can relate to.
Our bodys and our minds are limitations.
Last edited by spirit; 03-16-2011 at 09:49 PM.
Please define the word science. You will see there is a method to my nihilism.
The idea that we can't understand everything isn't exactly new, it's known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That's not an excuse not to try, and the best tools with which we are equipped to make that attempt are called logic and reason. Failure to use those tools is laziness at best, and self-destructive at worst.
I am not an academic. I hold a technical diploma, not a bachelor's degree, let alone a master's. I consider myself to be of average intelligence, no more. As such, my arguments are accessible to the majority of people, as they're intended to be. You don't need to be able to understand Feynman, I'm using elementary principles. Logic and reason are not restricted to people with master's degrees who work in labs, they are tools that every single human being on earth should use. Failure to do so is frankly inexcusable.
Reason is not limited to the discussion of scientific principles. Buddhist writers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Dinty Moore present reasonable, erudite arguments in favour of their religious beliefs, which are no more scientifically verifiable at our current level of technology than belief in the paranormal, but they're able to present more lucid statements than "Oh, pfft, you don't understand, you must be some furry-toothed lab rat who can only communicate mathematically." (For the record, I have great respect for mathematics, but I am by no means a mathematician. I don't even understand calculus)
This is difficult, yet at the same time just as easy as it is difficult to take a shot at:
The human experience. The human process of making sense of nature and its processes. Observation, theory...A academic study.
Rules, laws, restrictions.
A illusion...
A explanation...
The physical universe...
A process that draws from incomplete data to make a true to "reality" statement...
A human pass time...
A human method, process...
A discipline that focuses on the physical universe , human experiences which are external and internal...
A psychological discipline. Just try to argue extraordinary things with a science brain...
I think that's about fair, and that's what I think, currently at this time, under these influences and conditions.
Oh, wait, something that structures the universe, defines the universe with language.
I have to look into this, thank you. I was always interested in Buddhism too.
The thing here is that I'm not saying science is stupid, pointless, incorrect, I'm saying that there is more, there is far more to reality than this simple version of reality, this simply observation, the limited observations we make. There's more, lots more, and our science, I don't think is on the level. Science exists, it's right for us. We are attracted to science because we are the students, spectators, teachers, scientists of science.
Just like hollywood has crooked agendas and is greedy and lusty and we are attracted towards its agendas.
It's a human element, condition. It's the human experience.
Last edited by spirit; 03-16-2011 at 10:28 PM.
This thread has become far worse than the one with arse hair.
Last edited by Remon; 03-17-2011 at 04:12 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
