Philosophy (1 Viewer)

[Slidey]

Assuming they could somehow figure out a way to rebuild you atom-by-atom (molecular self-assembly would be required, I'd say), that problem of technical hitches due to humans being so complex would, at the least, preclude teleportation in the next 100 years, I'd say.

And that's assuming non-biological molecular assembly is possible.

 

[krisk85]

what about.. 'we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively'

global conciousness.. coincidence.. ego..

 

[krisk85]

also.. conciousnesss isnt a physical thing.. wat about people who die.. and are clinically dead.. but have near death experiences, and are able to tell who said what and think outside their body? (when their brain is dead..) does this not mean that conciousness is not a physical thing/ and possibly you only need a brain and body with no conciousness to put the conciousness from one into the other?

conciousness transplant? with 2 physical bodies?

 

[miss_b]

Just a question: can there be anything that is "good" that is not affected by culture and time?

 

[Slidey]

^ No, there cannot be.

'Good' is an ideal. It is an intangible, thing. Due to its absoluteness, you could say it transcends humanity - platonic, if you will.

But then, what is good? How do you define it? Each person's definition will vary. You will even get some twisted person who will say that evil is, in fact, good.

To be truthful, there really isn't any good or evil in nature. Things happen, that is the way of it. You can go call a murderer evil and I would agree with you - but in the end, he is only evil relative to OUR human definition of evil.

Fortunately humans are arrogant enough to invent good and evil; for if they were not, I don't think we'd be around today in any enviable form.

A good which is not relative to the subjective would be an absolute truth - and those do not exist.

 

[Slidey]

also.. conciousnesss isnt a physical thing.. wat about people who die.. and are clinically dead.. but have near death experiences, and are able to tell who said what and think outside their body? (when their brain is dead..) does this not mean that conciousness is not a physical thing/ and possibly you only need a brain and body with no conciousness to put the conciousness from one into the other?

conciousness transplant? with 2 physical bodies?

The brain is holographic in the way it stores data and processes information. If you were dying by, say, suffocation, your brain would still work even shortly after you were "dead", but it's power and intensity would diminish quickly as the electricity died.

Now, suppose that the brain was all but dead, and then suddenly it was supplied with it's essentials again. Voila! It's intensity starts to rise and it is back to normal.

The brain when it is dying does not act like, say, a computer. Each component does not turn off in sequence. Rather, each component loses intensity in its ability to function at the same rate. So that even when you're all but dead, each component still has some power and thus, the brain is NOT really dead... yet. If you can somehow provide the necessities again, it will recommence its operation as if nothing happened.

There is no mystical basis behind this. Sorry to spoil it for you. Oh, wait, no I'm not!

 

[miss_b]

^ No, there cannot be.

'Good' is an ideal. It is an intangible, thing. Due to its absoluteness, you could say it transcends humanity - platonic, if you will.

But then, what is good? How do you define it? Each person's definition will vary. You will even get some twisted person who will say that evil is, in fact, good.

To be truthful, there really isn't any good or evil in nature. Things happen, that is the way of it. You can go call a murderer evil and I would agree with you - but in the end, he is only evil relative to OUR human definition of evil.

Fortunately humans are arrogant enough to invent good and evil; for if they were not, I don't think we'd be around today in any enviable form.

A good which is not relative to the subjective would be an absolute truth - and those do not exist.

But isn't profit/gain always considered good?

 

[Slidey]

No way.

I know some people who lose, sacrifice things to help others. I don't just mean giving money to charity, I mean real sacrifice. That's altruism, and in that case, it is the loss which is good. That's just one example.

 

[miss_b]

No way.

I know some people who lose, sacrifice things to help others. I don't just mean giving money to charity, I mean real sacrifice. That's altruism, and in that case, it is the loss which is good. That's just one example.

In that case it would be true that loss is good. But it does not mean gain is not good. Anyway, their loss results in their gain.

 

[Korn]

i believe the hsc sux...

thats my philosophy

Isn't that an opinion, not a philosophy

 

[jumb]

Isn't philosophy an opinion.

 

[Korn]

Isn't philosophy an opinion.

No, i think philosophy is a belief held common by a group with authority

 

[nick1048]

lol Korn... That's not an accurate definition although in the modern world it could seemingly be so. Jumb as long as you can argue it and it makes relatve sense then yes I suppose you can call it a philosophy.

 

[*ashlea*]

i love philosophy, i wish i lived in france, its a compulsory subject there 4 the bauccalaureat (sorry if thats misspelt!).. i find books on it really interesting- has anyone else here read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder? i love that book!

 

[Sheehan :)]

"death is a night between 2 days"





















































(oh no what have i done?....im turning into a fag...........lol)

 

[niteshade1312]

Okay, I just did a philosophy course, and I've realised hat I dont know anything and that contemplating over some of the theories is pointless! Is anyone here a materialist when it comes to mind and body?

 

[Iron]

Okay, I just did a philosophy course, and I've realised hat I dont know anything and that contemplating over some of the theories is pointless! Is anyone here a materialist when it comes to mind and body?

Thank God. Im not the only one...
If i'd bothered to find out what I was getting myself into, I would've settled for a pamphlet of the main ideas.

Edit: I could've got the vibe from google

 

[Captain pi]

Could the self be an illusion?

 

[HellVeN]

Could an illusion be the self?

 

[Captain pi]

Could an illusion be the self?

That's a slightly different way of wording my question, yes: I prefer mine; as it allows for greater scope.

But, I don't want to answer it. Heed my herald!