Is God human?

Yes, from futur, the univers is like the movie "interstellar", but more complexe and different, but same principe

Define God.

>>745504723
Are any of us human? that is the question you should ask yourself

The creator of the universe

>>745504723
God is a Serb.

>>745504723
There is no God, people / our lives are not relevant.

>>745504723
squatting gopnik

>>745505035
God is probably not a man, because man is just a formulation of matter in the 3 Dimensional rhealm. God is the viewer of the three dimension of time frm the pov of the 4th dimension, and his manifestation is unpercievable to humans.

>>745505035
>>745505190
What makes you think there is a such a being?

File: images.jpg (6KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 222x227px

>>745504723
His name is nanner

God hates mankind. He's just torturing us.

>>745505284
I dont think it experiences life the same way we do. It trancends the Ego, in other words it has no sense of self and has no distinguishment between its self and its surroundings, so it must somehow percieve all points of time in all places at the same instant. And that kind of experience is unfathomable to us.

>>745505699
Okay. That doesn't answer my question though.

>>745505540
Id rather believe that God (or whatever Other is in our minds, watching us grow through time) actually loves us, and puts us through the necessary tests to make us strong and resilient

>>745504723
how could a human create the universe? how could a human have infinite knowledge and power like a god?

god sees all the time, man only sees some of the time. god is always good, man is only sometimes good. the differences between god and man are so vast as to be unimaginable, no two things could be more different

>>745506080
>painful and ultimately fatal diseases make someone strong and resilient
k

>>745506048
I believe there is a being that percieves in such a manner because there is clearly an inexplicable force that moves everything. I dont mean that it picks up and reallocates matter, but rather it is the force that causes change to occur. For exaple, how can you explain how you pump your heart? You are not conscioisly pumping your heart, rather your heart is pumping, somehow. There is a force of some sort that favors interesting events. Its reasonable to think it is a human of some shape or form because humans are unique creatures that enjoy interesting events

>>745506272
if you could explain all the things you were talking about in your post, would that mean you would no longer have a reason to believe in god?

if everything in nature could be explained by reason, would you still be able to believe in god?

>>745506242
Maybe that persons suffering makes another person strong in some way. Its not limited to each individual human. Each human is just a unique manifestation of its divine intention, many of which can certainly be cruel and negative in the most obvious aspects. Its not so black and white like you like to believe. But of course, take what I say with a grain of salt and judge with your own unique mind. These are just my perceptions that I enjoy to build upon

>>745504723
I think God can be what ever it wants to be,if its god it must have the ability to morph into a human,but at its natural form I don't think so

>>745504723
No descartes described god as a perfect substance. He couldnt be man because man isnt perfect. Humans couldnt know everything god knows, however humans have a notion of god or a perfect substance

>>745506272
>clearly an inexplicable force that moves everything
No.
>how can you explain how you pump your heart?
A part of my brain that I don't have conscious control over does it. It's no great mystery.
>There is a force of some sort that favors interesting events
Where?

>>745506336
I believe that the state of being God is the state of perception in which you know all and all is explained with clarity. So if you understood all the inner workings of nature, you wouldnt believe in God because you would be experiencing God's point of view

>>745506467
This makes sense to me, good explanation sir

Is Human God?

>>745506423
>Maybe that persons suffering makes another person strong in some way.
Or maybe that person just died in the gutter alone and forgotten.
>Each human is just a unique manifestation of its divine intention
What does that mean?
>Its not so black and white like you like to believe
Well if this entity existed and we could get our hands on it, we would convict it of crimes against humanity. We figured out a long time ago that doing that sort of thing is wrong.

>>745506474
>where?

he can't tell you where because it doesnt have matter

but consciousness does exist, doesn't it?

>>745506518
ok thats fine, and thats a good explanation

but lets assume that knowledge of the physical world (nature) doesnt involve some supernatural power, ie that it can all be explained by humanly wisdom

would you still be able to believe in god if you knew everything there was to know about nature?

>>745506474
These are all inane accusations and tere IS a mystery in that area. We cant explain how the brain decisevely manifests the decision to make the body work to stay alive.
>where?
There is no location. It doesnt manifest in a material form and has no source of relevance to anywhere else

>>745506658
>but consciousness does exist, doesn't it?
As an emergent property of matter.

just read The Final Question and you'll have your answer

>>745506787
i mean The Last Question

>>745506760
well thats fine and dandy, but now you have the mind-body problem to deal with

how exactly does non material consciousness "emerge" out of material substance?

>>745506787
i think you'd learn more by reading the back of your cereal box

>>745506738
>These are all inane accusations
What accusations did I make?
>We cant explain how the brain decisevely manifests the decision to make the body work to stay alive.
I don't think I understand your question. The brain sends signals to the rest of body. We know how it works.
>It doesnt manifest in a material form
Then how can it affect the material world? What effects does it have?

>>745506272
>how can you explain how you pump your heart

Nerve clusters in your brain send electrical signals to nerves in the chest to release acetylcholine in rythmic intervals causing the muscles in your heart to contract accordingly

>>745504723
God is all that is.

So part of him is

>>745504723
if really is all powerful; humans wouldnt be able to comprehend gods existence. But if god can also do everything, then being human should be easy.

>>745505055
"Bog je Srbin i on će nas čuvati"
words to live by

I like these kinds of existentialist threads but I'm banged outta my mind atm so I'll just bump instead

>>745506655
>what does it mean?
It means that humans play a role in the universe that they arent aware of. They make changes in the material world that cause the butterfly effect and alter things in the environment.
>convict God?
God is most likely not a being who is doing these things, but rather just the force that allows their existence/occurance.

Using the word God is just going to trigger atheist.

Call it the Creator.

>>745506825
Electrochemical signals / brain states. Consciousness isn't a distinct thing of its own.

"The future experiences the barrier of boundaries"

>>745507039
consciousness is non material, consciousness doesnt posses matter, thus it cannot interact with matter (electrochemical signals) because only matter can push against and affect matter

if we say "consciousness does exist" then we have to say it is a "distinct thing of its own", especially when we consider the differences between thought and matter

File: cowboy-residents.jpg (262KB, 2940x1982px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 2940x1982px

>>745504723
gods are institutionalized fairy tales

might as well worship Pecos Bill

>>745507000
>They make changes in the material world that cause the butterfly effect and alter things in the environment.
Okay. What does that have to do with anything divine?
>rather just the force that allows their existence/occurance.
Is it a force or is it something with intent that tests people?

>>745506904
>>745506894
Yes, we know the science of how the matter that makes up your body interacts with itself in order to establish functions to stay alive. But what is it that is trying to stay alive? Who is that being behind your eyes, percieving things, hearing thoughts, and trying to learn and grow?

>>745507143
Consciousness "exists" in the way that wetness "exists". Wetness is not an actual thing, it's just an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

>>745507175
These are some good questions that really dont have answers. We dont know enough right now to say for sure.
But the fact that there is stuff we dont know shows me that theres something greater than us that allows this type of occurance. Maybe its a future human? Idk?

>>745507259
Terence McKenna?

>>745507259
wetness is an idea, which doesnt posses matter

if we say "ideas exist" then we have to say "wetness exists like an idea exists"

but it would seem very strange to say "the idea of wetness doesnt exist". after all other ideas exist, like the idea of emergent properties

>>745507196
>But what is it that is trying to stay alive?
A collection of cells.
>Who is that being behind your eyes, percieving things, hearing thoughts, and trying to learn and grow?
A brain.

>>745504723
Is god real?
Are you real, anon?

>>745506825
>i think you'd learn more by reading the back of your cereal box
i think you'd comment better by fucking you'r emom

God is merely a creation from a man or woman thousands of years ago to explain the natural phenomenon that they could not explain.

>>745507392
>collection of cells.
What is keeping th cells alive and what wants them to reproduce? Thats not an acceptable response as the same question persists.
>your brain
again, your brain is not the one percieving, it is the material collection of cells that make up your body and such. How do you explain the electrical charges that emit between synapses that some how transport information?

>>745507539
What is 'real'?

>>745507359
>Terence McKenna
I don't know who that is.
>>745507372
Ideas exist as part of the brain states of those who contemplate them. What the idea of wetness points to also exists as a property of a certain configuration of matter.

>>745504723
Judging by sheer coincidence across all religions, I'd say no but likely bipedal humanoid in appearance, at least when it chooses to allow human creation to view one of it's forms. Perhaps it chooses such so as not to overly frighten us but may take other forms to convey ideas to other species. To be quite honest, I believe God to be the universe in which we reside, messengers travel throughout God much like white blood cells in our own bodies, correcting faults or destroying stagnant tissue. The concept of size means very little, this being lives for trillions of years, moves slower than we can perceive. Imagine being on a subatomic particle the size of the sun, you cannot see everything to realize that you are actually standing on part of something bigger but you can measure certain things to know it's bigger. THAT IS GOD.

>>745507372
Very good point, I support your view

>>745507196
Read about metaphysics if you want an anstract answer

More simply, your conciousness is the callaboration of processes in your brain, all the cortices processing reality together, of both hemispheres. Your brain is a biological computer that uses neurotransmitters to send messages throughout your body that may end up in the processing centers of your brain where they construct reality within your perception of it

We don't perceive everything though

Try not to listen to hippies

>>745507656
thats fine, but if the idea exists and then the matter also exists, how do the two interact? since matter requires matter to affect other matter, and thought has no matter

>>745507706
lol its not MY view, its A view

>>745507601
It's chance and statistics. Brain chemistry does all kinds of stuff

>>745507656
Oh, Terence McKenna is a brilliant philosopher who spoke about emergent properties. Nvm.

>for those who contemplate them
So you admit that the brain is not contemplating them by itself. There is a being that is experiencing the brains physicallity that transcends matter

>>745507601
>What is keeping th cells alive
The food that I ingest that gets digested and metabolized.
>what wants them to reproduce
DNA instructions.
>your brain is not the one percieving
It is.
> it is the material collection of cells that make up your body and such
Yep.
>How do you explain the electrical charges that emit between synapses that some how transport information?
They are emitted by the nerve cells. More things that we know about.

>>745504723
Is trombone strawberry? Is fish introspective? Is blue down?

>>745507372
I couldnt imagine an idea that is unimaginable, could you?

>>745507601
Cells are like a machine: as long as the conditions for operation are met, it will continue to operate. Like code in a computer, DNA carries instructions for the replication of cells. A brain is like a computer: it's a network of electronic circuits. Special cells work together in a network. Consciousness is essentially just the "program" our brains run. If our brain was switched off, it would vanish, just like a program terminating without saving if the computer is unplugged.

>>745504723
gods come from legends, legends come from tales, tales come from events, and events come from humans.


when you are at the root of the issue of religion itself, it becomes obvious that events and "outstanding " humans were the origin behind every mythos.

in a very different world, every human had the potential to become a "god". in this age, we have little to no use of religion, so we choose not to understand why we as a species came up with supernatural beliefs in the first place.


gods are an extension of ourselves, and the attributes certain people valued / respected during a certain time period, in a certain environment. due to judeo christian influence, many think of a singular god while most if not all prehistoric religions had not only multiple, but far less "powerful" gods, who were not only murky and vague, but also required specific actions during specific times to be interacted with. this heretical mythos is not only in our shared backround, it is our very nature.

>>745507889
uh no, but i dont see your point

my point is that we CAN see and know ideas, not that we CANT

ideas are clear and distinct to us, we know they are different from matter

when i think of the memory of my brother, its very different than my brother himself

>>745507753
>how do the two interact?
In the way in which I have already stated. The idea exists as part of a brain state, which is material. We use ideas to point to other things, in this case a property of matter, and in this case there is no interaction at all. Your idea of wetness has no impact on the properties of the matter you are identifying as wet.
>>745507829
>So you admit that the brain is not contemplating them by itself.
I admit no such thing, except in the obvious sense that the brain is part of a larger body that it needs and is affected by.
>There is a being that is experiencing the brains physicallity that transcends matter
There is no reason to think there is such a thing.

>>745504723
God's origins are in man and may have originally been human.

>>745508078
how is there no interaction between the two if one exists in the other?

my idea of wetness doesnt affect wetness "in the world" but if my idea of wetness is produced "by the world" (ie my brain, ie matter) then i think its reasonable to ask "how does that occur? when the world is made of matter and my thoughts are not?"

a brain state is not thought, and even if it were you would still have to explain how non physical thoughts are produced by physical matter

>>745507970
Would you say that your perception of your brother is what you see when you are having the idea that you are seeing your brother? How could you know that your idea of him is representitive of something that exists beyond your perception of him?

Depends on. What you mean by God. Do you mean the classic man in the sky? So.e sort of universal energy? The sun? Depends on you buddy, personally I follow the belief of the big bang and science. So to me God is a form of energy amdass that created the universe.

If God is human. He is not god

>>745508243
my past perception of my brother is a thought, my brother himself is an object

because i assume that he's there? what does that have to do witht he difference between thought and matter?

>>745507890
you are technically right, but as a human, you are meant to be wrong about your reality.
every single aspect of our biology is a series of adaptations to promote genetic deviation and survival, and religion was, is and will be an important aspect of our decision making , culture, thought patterns, values, perception of reality, and social contracts.

the idea behind any mythology would make complete sense you one was able to monitor and understand every single aspect of any civilization / collective over generations upon generations.

without religion being important to our species. we would not have it develop at all.
truth does not matter, beliefs that will boost your chances of procreation will always be the majority over the life of our species, even if they themselves change over time.

>>745507731
>try not to listen to hippies
try not to be an over sinicle, close-mined judgemental prick who discredits people based on the way they choose to live their lives. Just because someone looks funny and dabbles in completely harmless mind-altertering substances, which mind you have unfathomable effects on your state of consciousness and generally allow for great wealths of knowledge and wisdom in one's life, does not mean that they should be ejected from your mind and placed in a category of insanity and babbling nonsense. Most know more than you, dont act so high and mighty

A god cannot be a god if he is human

>>745508340
This

File: 1502997584696.jpg (14KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x600px

>>745507873
Why do YOU like little boys? Are you a homophobe? Did mommy suck off the neighbours dog?

>>745508240
>how is there no interaction between the two if one exists in the other?
>my idea of wetness doesnt affect wetness "in the world"
There you go.
> if my idea of wetness is produced "by the world" (ie my brain, ie matter) then i think its reasonable to ask "how does that occur? when the world is made of matter and my thoughts are not?"
Who says your thoughts are not made of matter?
>a brain state is not thought
Correct, thought is part of a brain state, not all of a brain state.

>>745508505
how could thoughts possibly be made of matter?

thoughts aren't objects nor are they extended in space, therefore they can't possibly be made of matter, since matter be an object extended in space

>>745508370
disagree with you there buddy

if you are truly interest in why mythology exists, look into history. (you know, where most events have occurred)
while the past, present and future are all happening at once, we cannot see the present, nor the future, we live in a perpetual past, and try to learn from it.

right now, either lurk more, or fuck off and read a book

God is not human, nut humans are one way though which the universe can experience itself

>>745508357
Lets not become uncivil here, you have some points but lets not go wild there buddy

>>745508357
Im high right now, retard. Just because you smoke pot doesnt mean you dont have to also bathe, learn, and spell cynical correctly. Dont be a fuckin strereotype and go find some fuckin real knowledge.

>>745508570
>thoughts aren't objects
Your brain is an object. Your thoughts are part of your brain.

>>745508691
but all the parts of my brain are objects which have matter and are extended in space

thought doesnt have matter nor is it extended in space

>>745508460
why would you mention those 3 things?

you are inferring that those things are shameful and bad

while in reality, any action any human can take does not innately have amoral value.

anything one can do, they should do.

if you want to hear no evil, speak no more

>>745508570
Thoughts are organized formations of electrons and essentially just like a program on a computer. Memories are physical structures in the brain made using chemicals.

>>745508740
>thought doesnt have matter nor is it extended in space
Says who?

>>745508740
what is "extended in space"

autism incarnate?

File: 1447181328410.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>745508740

>>745508750
thats fine, but how do they occur if thought doesnt have material substance?

>>745508787
uh idk i guess everyone

you could argue that the idea of "mass" takes up mass but then you'd start to sound very silly

>>745508839
posses extension, matter, a body, thoughts dont have a body

>>745508669
>Im not a hippie, just defending their right to a voice
>only ever hear the word cynical, dont read it anywhere very much, my mistake
>not talking about pot, try 6g of dried shrooms, 350mg of LSD, or 200mg of DMT and you'll learn a few things there bud

>>745508853
i think youre confusing the parts of the brain with thought

the objects which cause though to occur are not the same things as thought itself

File: 1419661028348.jpg (78KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 300x400px

>>745508889

>>745508976
yea man

>>745508787
He's not talking about the physical or chemical processes that cause thoughts or memory. He's talking about the thought, as a whole, being greater than the sum of its parts.

>>745509030
its sort of like the difference between a statue and an unfinished rock

or a painting and a blank canvas

>>745508873
>uh idk i guess everyone
Apparently not.
>you could argue that the idea of "mass" takes up mass but then you'd start to sound very silly
Why? It would be part of a brain state, which has mass. Think about how your computer operates. What you "experience" is the software, but at a fundamental level it's a hardware state, which is material.

>>745509039
im just talking about the thing that youre doing right now

it doesnt have matter, it can't have matter

>>745508873
what do you mean don't have a body?
have you heard of neuroscience?
theoretically, every thought can be measured and interacted with. I will not sit here and type of to you an entire Wikipedia article, but thoughts are measurable and not abstract in any way.

the brain takes in energy from your food, and simple sugars power it, along with many nutrients (and of course water) that greatly benefit its typical function.

this is high school science.

>"extended into space"
what type of pseudo intellectual bullshit is this trash

>>745508976
its like the brain cells are specialized cells which act as receivers for another dimension that consciousness originates from. the brain cells are demarcation point between an interaction between two dimensions. i get it

>>745509039
>He's talking about the thought, as a whole, being greater than the sum of its parts.
Is it though?

File: 1505195253738.gif (51KB, 755x708px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 755x708px

God is mathematics and nature.

You can't see him

>>745509001
I dont understand this response

>>745509100
but computers dont think, they simply operate on an input output

>>745509126
thoughts dont have a body, i obviously have a body otherwise i wouldnt be able to think

but thoughts aren't objects, so they can't have mass

>>745509128
now i think youre starting to see the problem

>>745508873
Your brain has chemicals to generate and move electric pulses around. The cell's DNA instructs them to be organized in a manner to create a organic computer. All of the cells in your body work in tandem, some acting as sensors, some relaying information, some used for storing energy or transporting resources, among other roles. They interact via chemical reactions, as well as electrical, thermal and chemical reactions. These reactions, working to self-sustain themselves, and create new systems, are the basis of life

File: 1487323692530.jpg (49KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x480px

>>745509160
Why don't you make a point instead of asking rhetorical questions to pretend you're contributing?

>>745509282
thats great, ive heard that like 100000 times before

now the question is "how do thoughts which are non material, interact with matter, which is material?"

>>745509218
>but computers dont think, they simply operate on an input output
What makes you think there's an intrinsic difference? What if we are effectively sophisticated biological computers?

>>745508889
Have you even taken psychedelics? You dont learn anything you just trip the fuck out. Thinking abstractly about things can be useful when you are approaching problems in yor life but when we talk about matters of science we arent discovering the cure for cancer on an LSD trip. There are scientist that actually study these things.

Dont be a sophist, dont waste your time filling your head with your own shitty epiphanies

>>745509308
I'm sorry, but when someone just tosses out a bald assertion like that it's the first response that comes to me.

>>745509343
well a calculator doesnt "know" math, it was just programmed to react a certain way with a certain input

if we want to say humans "know" anything, then we need to distinguish them from machines

but i think we are getting away from the real problem, ie the mind-body problem

>>745509344
Why are you so angry? You seem troubled that other people think differently than you

>>745509039
ok sure, but why?

to make himself feel special?

thought is not special or unique.
our brains are similar to a multitude of other species. the act of thinking is one thing, the process is another, while the reason behind it is a third and entirely different issue. the human brain is complex, do not get me wrong, but simple statements made on /b/ have little to no chance of grasping at any truth whatsoever.
you want to understand the brain?

you want to get paid for it?

get an education

otherwise, understand you are psuedo intellectual garbage

understanding that would be pretty simple even you could handle it

>>745509329
You use matter and energy to exchange thoughts. The concepts and language surrounding the thoughts are stored physically on memory. Your brain takes those memories and organizes them into words or other ways to communicate that organized information.

>>745509344
A skeptic unable to give up his ego. Choose to believe what you want, you're clearly unwilling to stretch your mind past your limited perception. I can be happy knowing Im right and you're wrong so I choose not to try anymore

>>745509472
im just doing simple cartesian philosophy, its very basic, its not psuedo intellectual, descartes is one of the most important thinkers in western history

>>745509483
thats great, but how does non material thought interact with material matter? how does the non material interact with the material?

>>745509394
Wat? You just type and send the first thing that comes to mind? This is why you're not contributing to the conversation, friend.

>>745509406
>well a calculator doesnt "know" math
Does it not?
>it was just programmed to react a certain way with a certain input
Like you were, through genetic expression and various environmental factors.
>if we want to say humans "know" anything, then we need to distinguish them from machines
Or we could just say that machines know things as well.
>but i think we are getting away from the real problem, ie the mind-body problem
Or we've revealed it as a non-problem.

>people in this thread actually believe that conscious thought osnt related to the brain even though no one without brain has ever had a thought

Geez guys your soooo smart, howd you learn to string big words together like that to sound insightful but really its all hypothetical nonsense, questions with no answers because they arent based in reality

>>745509218
energy is another incarnation of matter, so it has mass.
you are saying though is supernatural (does not follow simple laws of physics)

think (wink wink) before you type high school drop out

>>745509565
>You just type and send the first thing that comes to mind?
On an anime image board? Sure.
>This is why you're not contributing to the conversation, friend.
I'm contributing more than you, buddy.

>>745509570
well you can say that a calculator knows math, but i dont think most peole would

there is a difference between simply giving the right answer every time and knowing something

if you've solved the mind body problem then you should write a paper to harvard, you'll be rich. its a very old problem.

>>745509615
thought is not energy, energy is another form of mass and thought has no mass

>>745509497
Irony. Bittersweet irony. I guess you wont be going to the hospital, im sure you know way more than the doctors about the body. Have a nice life

>>745509560
I just explained it. It's (relative to how you're experiencing it) disorganized matter and energy, and your brain organizes it into conscious thought.

>>745509729
how does your brain touch it if it doesnt have any matter or extension?

>>745508740
>thought doesnt have matter nor is it extended in space
I think it's fair to say that "thought" isn't matter in and of itself, but it is comprised of matter and energy and the interactions and relationships between them.

I tend to think of thought as being "contained" within those relationships, rather than necessarily just the chemicals and stored energy in the brain. That's true of life as well; life is an extended, complex chemical relationship. Anything that moves, that behaves, that thinks, is entirely defined by relationships between matter and energy within our universe.

I think it's kind of beautiful to imagine all the constituent elements of the universe come together and interact in such a way to allow it to observe, understand, and feel something about itself. It's almost a spiritual kind of beauty that nonetheless doesn't require anything spiritual at all.

>>745509329
Thoughts are material. As I stated, they are composed of electrons. If you think about moving your hand, that thought is a packet of electrons arranged specifically in a way your brain understands using electrical reactions. This is why CAT scans work, they measure the electrical activity in your brain. As for your other point, the brain IS A COMPUTER. It relies on an input/output system. Input is your senses, output is thoughts, which can translate into a great many of things, just like a program can.

>>745509560
dont backtrack cunt, either defend your statement, or shut your mouth.

don't move from biology to philosophy while making an appeal to authority. not only do you have no idea what you are trying to say you have no idea what topic you are even trying to flex on its pathetic, and anyone with any education in either topic see's you as what you are

simple and common, pseudo intellectual, low tier trash

>>745509722
Infact yes.
You have a nice life. You'll die and be gone forever. Ill die and live on in an unfathomably beautiful and ineresting existence. Im fine living and dying my way with people like you judging me because I am happy and you'll never know how to be

>>745509784
the electrons which cause thought to occur are not thought

if thought were electrons they would have mass, but thoughts are not objects and do not have mass so they cannot be electrons

>>745509780
thats fine but if you say "thought is a combination of matter and thought" then you have to explain how they interact

>>745509856
its just the cogito, descartes said we can be sure that we are "thinking things" and that thought and matter were separate since one was material and one was immaterial

>>745509653
did you even think while you typed this out

for one neuron to interact with another, energy must be consumed,

"energy is another form of mass"

nigger are you retarded?

"thought has no mass"

oh hold on, you are a bit slow

>>745509978
energy is another form of mass, i thought that was the point of einstein's ideas

thought really doesnt have mass, because it doesnt have extension nor is it an object

>>745509653
>there is a difference between simply giving the right answer every time and knowing something
Sure. I could program a computer with a script to simply repeat numbers without actually making a calculation and those numbers could happen to be correct.
> its a very old problem.
I know, this ain't my first rodeo. The problem is that our understanding of the brain is still incomplete and you get people like you who insist thought is not material.

File: 1459379271219.jpg (38KB, 418x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 418x437px

>>745504723
is hooman god? checkmate hotdog sauce

>>745510094
just being correct by chance isn't knowing something though, is it?

if you asked me a question and i answered correctly just by chance without knowing the actual answer, would you say that i really knew that answer?

>>745510094
im just presenting descartes' ideas, his way of thinking is old fashioned but its still important

and the mind body problem still isn't solved, not by a longshot

>Both points of perception on this thread are equally true

There is clearly not enough information in the world at this point in time to make a definitive judgement.

The debate is good for its own sake, but dont get upset and dont get too entrenched in your view because only "God" (or rather the state of the all-knowing) can really say for sure, and humans just havent evolved enough yet for this

>>745510225
Now let us celebrate this moment with the smoking of large Optimos filled with the marijuana

>>745509948
Thought is the combination of the electrons and energy. Electrons have mass, energy is another form of mass. A thought is temporary, simply a part of the program that is human consciousness. The thought simply gets converted to something else: another thought, maybe moved through the the body to move a muscle or instruct cells. It could be used to create a memory, or simply "fade away" and have the electrons and energy used for another purpose. While it exists, a thought has mass and energy, because it is a combination of both. However, thoughts change constantly, and are made of the same electrons and energy already in the body, thus no net increase in mass occurs.

>>745510193
>just being correct by chance isn't knowing something though, is it?
Right, that was my whole point. The computer that is correct through making calculations is different from the computer that is correct by happenstance.
>im just presenting descartes' ideas, his way of thinking is old fashioned but its still important
Descartes also got a lot of things wrong.

>>745509948
> 4 things wrong with your statement

1. you have no idea who you are talking about, and are oversimplifying a topic you don't understand
2. you did not even attempt to reply to my post,you re just typing more of the same
3. thought is not immaterial, it is very real. you are arguing against reality here
4. ? nigger are you retarded? either thought is natural, can be measured and interacted with, or it is supernatural (the first of its kind of to date )
are you suggesting thoughts surpass reality?
how?
why?
by why I mean evolutionary speaking, why would thought surpass all of reality ?


you are thetic and have no chance of answering any of these points. end your suffering

>>745509653
>well you can say that a calculator knows math, but i dont think most peole would
Personally I wouldn't either, but that's also because a calculator, along with every machine and computer and even complex AI we've invented is not particularly intelligent.

I don't think of bacteria as intelligent, but it does respond to stimuli in a way "programmed" into it by nature. It's living stuff, and eventually evolved into complex, multi-cellular organisms and eventually us. Now we're comprised of trillions of such organisms of similar "intelligence" as those primitive, ancestral bacteria, which indicates how simple things can form more complex things. In that sense, our intelligence could be thought of as a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

I would say that modern A.I. is about on the level of such bacteria. They respond to stimuli in way that's pre-programmed and doesn't require conscious thought. But that also means it could, similarly, evolve into something similar or even greater than us given the right circumstances.

To me, the implication is that the intelligence and consciousness of humans compared to the machines we've developed is also a difference of degree rather than kind. That the ultimate function of intelligence and consciousness is the same, just using different methods.

What makes us want, need and desire? Is this life, to desire?

>>745510307
Cant tell if making fun of me or genuinely endulging in the celebration of this moment. Cuz Id attest to that, spark it up man

>>745510310
electrons are objects which have mass

thought is not an object and doesnt have mass

you can sit and define them all day but it comes down to "material vs non material"

>>745510346
the computer doesnt know the difference between "calculations" and "happenstance"

yes he did, but he was also a genius lol

>>745510365
ok

>>745510367
well we can say "a calculator doesnt know math, but if you hook enough calculators up together they start to learn it"

but they problem is "how does that occur?"

>>745510068
>energy another form of mass

nigger how are you still alive

mass is a measure of matter, a state of matter you autismo

>yet another worthless appeal to an authority
>yet another oversimplification or something you do not understand, or ever will

science is not for you, quit while you are behind

>"thought doesn't have mass"

nice meme autismo

>>745510451
Hell yeah nigga

When i talk to the audience(myself), i like to pretend i'm talking to god. Trying to entertain him.

I don't believe in god, but if he does exist, i hope i'm putting on a good show.

File: 1504975510852.jpg (112KB, 1000x906px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1000x906px

>>745504723
God doesnt exist. Used to be agnostic but lost respect for even that. You'll realize this once you have learned enough.

File: image.png (438KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 720x528px

>>745510518

>>745510641
like?

>>745510622
What if this is ironically what its all about? Entertaining God

>>745510622
>oh... you are retarded...
>nice point, autismo

>>745510604
this is not science, talking about thought and substance is metaphysics, which is philosophy

most people consider the two separate

philosophy deals with "analytic" truths and science deals with "synthetic" truths

all you have to do is say "only objects have mass, thought is not an object, therefore thought cannot have mass"

thought may be produced by objects, that is fine, but it is not the same thing as the objects which produce it

File: 1488583419014.png (36KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x600px

This thread really makes me activate my almonds

File: 1462993779997.jpg (368KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 3000x3000px

>>745510641
pretentious ass bait, fuck outta here

>>745510676
I'm bitter motherfucker! I've been burned so many times by religion and priests

>>745509948
>thats fine but if you say "thought is a combination of matter and thought" then you have to explain how they interact
I didn't say matter and thought interact. I said that thought IS the interaction of matter and energy. Thoughts and memories are stored in electrochemical relationships between brain cells. These relationships are constantly shifting and changing and fire off depending on what you're thinking about.

We don't understand everything about how this works, but it does have an observational basis. Depending on what you're thinking about and what tasks you're performing, different parts of the brain fire off... different connections are being formed, charged, and severed. And we also know there is a correlation between different parts of the brain and different forms of thoughts and behaviors.

Nothing really disproves the existence of, say, a soul using the brain as an interface for interacting with the world, but it's also kind of an undisprovable theory and argument to make in the first place, like the existence of God. It doesn't prove anything in and of itself except for the fact that you can't really disprove it, yet we also have observational evidences for other mechanics at work which could better serve to explain the phenomenon of thought.

>>745508747
my g do not upset
just add to your list of shitpost-style questions
i want in on this shitfest

>>745510518
>the computer doesnt know the difference between "calculations" and "happenstance"
For now.
>yes he did, but he was also a genius lol
Granted, but coming from a genius doesn't give a concept or argument special weight.

>>745510666
LOL trips. If you can't accept the basic idea that the brain follows the laws of physics, I am done here. I have explained this simple concept to you several times. A thought is a temporary physical construct in your brain. It is a combination of matter and energy. Electrons are elementary particles, thus they are matter.

God is human.
Therefore we are not human

>>745510805
but if thought is the result of energy and mass, how do energy and mass (which are material) interact with thought (which is non material)

if one produces the other then they must causally interact, but if one is made of matter and the other isn't, then they can't possibly interact

>>745510824
>Granted, but coming from a genius doesn't give a concept or argument special weight.

you know, i used to think that same way!

>>745510800
So why the abstraction? Sell me your idea, prove to me god isn't real. Personal events are biased.
also checkum

>>745510808
then try to make a point
of course that might be difficult with no education

>>745506080
>make us strong and resilient
I'm sure they will be when they "taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

>>745510901
? try harder kid

>>745510906
>you know, i used to think that same way!
Then you used to think correctly.

>>745510990
what a cartesian thing to say!

>>745510990
JEW!!!

>>745510906
>but if thought is the result of energy and mass, how do energy and mass (which are material) interact with thought (which is non material)
Right now you're clinging on so tightly to the idea that thought is non-material that you're missing the point of the other arguments. They're wrong because they don't conform to your theory? That's just a bad debate strategy, dude.

The argument is that you're wrong, thought is material, and they're explaining why it is and subsequently why you're wrong.

>>745510906
When you look at this is terms of matter thought is a complex machine that evolution has crafted to make creatures survive, but you see the thing is all elementary particles are quantum objects, and while on the bare level they don't do anything over time they butterfly out and create meaningful experiences. Literally your brain is a complex arrangment of chance and stimuli. The chance part is a question for a higher power because there is no real rhyme or reason as to why stuff just happens to be in this quantum state or do this. Some say it's proof of our worlds virtuality, while not also condemning a higher power technically.

>>745511047
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying you ARE wrong. Just that you're not paying attention to their arguments.

>>745504995
yes?

>>745509772
The thought becomes matter the moment it is being thought about... Your brain is organizing stored infirmation and activating neurons in a way that causes you to experience what you call conscious thought. Do you not see that the experience of thought is an illusion? It's the end of a string of events in your brain.
I can't tell now if you're asking how the brain creates thoughts, or if you're just trying to explain that thoughts themselves aren't physical.

>>745511047
so when i think of the idea of "freedom" that idea has weight, and body and mass? where does the weight and body and mass exist? inside the electron? but electrons aren't made of ideas, they are made of matter

>>745511068
there is no such thing as an "elementary particle" because any piece of matter can always be broken down into smaller parts

>>745510906
That is like saying that because 4 is the product of 2x2, it isn't a number and can't interact with other numbers. Because it is both matter and energy, it is obviously effected by both. If it wasn't effected, it wouldn't be either. If I shot myself in the part of the brain processing your continuing ignorance, that would impart both energy and mass onto the structure of my brain, breaking it. It would also effect the thoughts, because they are structures inside the neurons of my brain. They would not get to where they were headed, they may be altered, and because of their being no energy, they would simply just be electrons freely roaming again.

>>745511185
so what about each atom and electron being a quantum object, dice rolls, statistics?

SCP-001

>>745511185
how does the thought become material? how does a non material "thing" become a material object?

>>745511221
but 4 and 2x2 are both ideas, they can interact because they both are non material

if one was material and the other was non material we wouldnt be able to explain how they interact

>>745511207
>there is no such thing as an "elementary particle" because any piece of matter can always be broken down into smaller parts
What are quarks and electrons made of?

File: 300px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg.png (71KB, 300x287px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 300x287px

>>745511207
No. Atoms can be broken to protons neturons and electrons. And each, except electrons, are combinations of other particles that are the smallest we have. Unless you believe in string theory, but that is still a questionable theory and the standard model of particle physics is as deep down as we can see.

>>745511221
In this case, you (OP) are the one claiming thoughts can not interact with matter or energy because it is the product of both, which is like arguing 4 can not interact with 1 and 3 because it is 1+3, ignoring the fact it is both 1 and 3.

>>745504723
Or is he dancing?

>>745504723
Probably. We are most likely an ancestor simulation so it follow that the being simulating us and that created our universe is or was at some point human.

On the other hand if we aren't a simulation then our creator is still probably human like, we were created in their image whether to be objects of torture and self hate or objects of self love and some form of masturbation.

The only likely scenario where our creator isn't human like is if they are simply some grand being that created the universe and it's rules or some less grand being that created the simulation of the universe and it's rules and we are simply an aberration, mistake or unforeseen outcome.

>>745510906
>but if thought is the result of energy and mass, how do energy and mass (which are material) interact with thought (which is non material)
My point is that thought is symbolic. It is our way of experiencing these electrochemical relationships in our brains. That's why thought isn't material: because it's just an idea.

And I'd argue that a relationship between matter and energy isn't matter and energy in and of itself. But it does involve matter and energy. It's not creating new information out of nowhere, it's re-contextualizing existing information.

In that sense I like to think of thought as a means for information to be used to contextualize other information.

>>745511344
particle matter science already proved it.

>>745511344
i dont know but i do know that its possible to reduce them further, after all, just divide a quark by 2

>>745511384
there is no such thing as an elementary particle, because what you will always see is matter that is put together and that can be further reduced into smaller parts

any measurement of space or any measurement of an object can be refined into a smaller measurement

>>745511455
saying "thought isn't material because its an idea" is the same as saying "thought insnt material because it isn't material"

>>745506760
idiot

>>745511516
>particle matter science already proved it.
Source?
>i dont know but i do know that its possible to reduce them further, after all, just divide a quark by 2
How?

>>745511420
You are ignoring my point by being too literal. Let's put this in terms of an object so you will understand. That's like saying I can not effect a program running on a computer by neither touching the transistors with a wire nor by using a taser to shock the chip's input wires. The wire is matter, and would conduct the electron part of the program, altering it. The taser's arc is energy (and electrons), and would effect both the energy and matter of the program by adding more energy and electrons

>>745511326
Ok, that narrows it down. I suggest you go study how the brain creates thought and memory. It might help answer your philosophical question.
It's great to ponder questions like this, but there is no sense in it if you aren't looking for an answer.

>>745511605
Nice rebuttal.

File: 1446871307632.jpg (59KB, 358x438px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 358x438px

>>745511605
lol

>>745511685
just take a quark and say "i divide this object by two"

>>745511713
lol im more interested in the problem not the answer

the problem has been around for 5,000 years and no one has solved it yet

If this thread was bait, it worked damn well. Props to you, OP.

...Another God thread. That's good though. You neckbeards are thinking beyond traps and vidya.
IMO, "God" is in ones head. An idea to give one hope from the misery of life. God is real if you want God to be. Delusion? Maybe. If a delusion helps people, so what. Right, there is the down side. "My God is the only god." Violence, war, terrorism. I think we're headed to religion, specifically religiosity being labeled a mental illness. Is the idea of "God" next?

>>745511207
>so when i think of the idea of "freedom" that idea has weight, and body and mass? where does the weight and body and mass exist? inside the electron? but electrons aren't made of ideas, they are made of matter
The idea of "freedom" isn't made up of individual electrons, no. It's made up of relationships between those things; unique and complex relationships from complex interactions with complex chemicals, themselves all made up of complex interactions between particles. None of it's defined in any one of those particles, it's defined in that specific relationship built on top of other complex relationships. It's a connection of neurons in your brain that changes over time as your concept of freedom is re contextualized throughout your life. It's not isolated; it's connected to other things as well, different things at different times. It's not always comprised of the same particles or even the same relationships. But it's in there. Sever some connections in the language center of your brain and you might forget the word for it. Sever some more and you might forget what it means, until the idea is reintroduced from another source.

So yes, it has weight, body and mass.

>but electrons aren't made of ideas, they are made of matter
Duh, and that's the point. Electrons aren't made up of ideas, ideas are made up of electrons. Among other things, of course.

>>745511800
>just take a quark and say "i divide this object by two"
What if that's physically impossible?

>>745511721
Oh you wouldn't understand the research papers on subatomic particle physics. The scientifical evidence is there, that shows a structure like atoms for quarks subatomic particle structure.

>>745511846
any measurement can be divided by two, that is a mathematical principle, it has nothing to do with physicality

File: image.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>745511815
Props.

File: 3YAOCZM.png (74KB, 298x299px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 298x299px

>>745511544
That's where you wrong again. All energy is quantized, there is a smallest amount of energy.
There is also a smallest measurment until WHOAH you reach quantum effects only and physics as you know and see it cease to be valid. Quantum effects are also always random and there have been many tests to see if their was underlying information as to unlock what quantum effects where happening, and guess what? There was nothing. There has never or will ever be any way to determine the fate of the universe even with a computer the size of the universe. In an abstract sort of thought. http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae281.cfm
And you can also see matter broken down into those elementary particles in the standard model. It's called the hadron collider, they smashed particles at high enough energy so they ripped into their smallest forms. Quarks, and etc.

>>745511840
how can a relationship between objects have matter? if it doesnt have matter, how can it interact with objects that do have matter?

>>745511858
Nigger what?

>>745511895
but it does when you're talking about the real world

>>745511240
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

>>745511949
Gravity is an interaction between objects with mass. It is, in fact, defined by mass. But would you consider gravity to be matter? No

File: image.jpg (29KB, 704x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 704x480px

>>745511949
For fucks sake

>>745511895
You've gone full troll on me.

>>745511942
you could take one of those elementary particles and make two of them out of one object

just divide them in half and call each half a separate object

>>745511996
but a measurement always deals with mathematics, which is not the real world

>>745512032
but gravity is a type of physical force, thought is not since thought doesnt interact with physical objects

>>745512030
If your brain is made of matter that responds to stimuli, what about the plethra of objects inside your brain that are completely random and butterflys to your future self and affects you in the future as to what decisions you make.

>>745511454

If "simulation fantasies" satiate ones anxiety about the unknowns, ok. Doesn't mean that it is real without proof.

>>745512063
isn't it true that any measurement is a number?

and isn't it true that any number can be divided by two?

File: IMG_1753.jpg (39KB, 400x461px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x461px

>>745507161
DO YOU NOT???

>>745512133
Irrelevant if it doesn't correspond to the physical reality.

File: molecule.jpg (18KB, 460x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 460x450px

>>745512111
evidence

>>745512204
ok well whether it does or it doesnt makes no difference

a measurement is always a number and a number can always be divided into a smaller number

>>745511344
This is a question you can ask on Google and get a hundred hits explaining it. It's frustrating to watch you guys discuss this stuff when you ask questions that are already known as if they're mysteries of the universe.

Study more than you discuss.

>>745512290
Which has no bearing on whether or not fundamental particles exist.

>>745512129
If you don't believe in simulation hypothesis then my second paragraph still holds true.

I simply address simulation because it seems to have a lot going for it.
Really as long as some form of heaven and hell are also simulated and our consciousness can be transferred upon death then I don't think it really matters.

>>745512333
fundamental particles are measured by measurements, any measurement can be further reduced, therefore there are no elementary particles

>>745512085
phyisics and the real world != mathmatics.

Math is our representation and operations on numbers, we use math to represent the real world and explain it.

In the real world just because we don't have a formula for it does not mean it isn't there. or if we have a formula does not mean it is there.

Measurement is us representing an objects characteristics in the bounds of the real world.

Measurement is both the real world and math but has restrictions that math normally doesn't have.

Photons have a set multiple of energy, with the lowest being a photon with 1Hz of energy. You can't say that there is a photon that has 0.5Hz of energy because it has been proven countless times that it is impossible to be out of bounds.

>>745512085
>but gravity is a type of physical force, thought is not since thought doesnt interact with physical objects
You have incredibly circular logic. My point is that thought is defined by these physical relationships. It can be affected and indeed effect the physical world.

No, I'm not talking about telekinesis. I'm talking about thought itself. As you think, these physical interactions are occurring in your brain. They affect each other, sometimes in ways that aren't even entirely in your best interest at times. Like when physical connections become severed in certain parts of the brain and a thought or idea becomes fragmented; you can understand part of it, but other parts are lost. Like when you know the meaning of a word but can't remember the word. New pathways can form and eventually re-bridge that connection, and that's when you remember.

But you can also more directly and permanently damage those connections. Like beating someone's brain in. With brain damage can come changes in thought and personality, one can lose memories and never get them back. So thoughts interact physically, and can be interacted with physically.

>>745512304
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+are+quarks+and+electrons+made+of

Well geez, would you look at the results? It says they are fundamental particles.

>>745512388
You're assuming that our ability to understand the universe has any bearing on how the universe works.

>>745512273
Explain.

Also using a picture from 9gag as your source makes you look like a faggot. You couldn't even tell me what that was.

>>745512388
We're going in circles. You can't use pure math to prove there are no fundamental particles.

>>745511800
>lol im more interested in the problem not the answer
Then you're not interested in the problem, you're interested in talking about the problem.

>>745512464
but thats only because photons are defined as such, if we defined photons differently then it would be very possible for them to go below 0.5Hz

in other words, there is no natural thing taking place, there is no necessary relationship between our word "photon" and the objects themselves, its an arbitrary relationship which we create ourselves, it isn't "natural"

>>745512524
no im not, well at least i dont think i am, i wasn't trying to

what i said was true i think, all fundamental particles are types of measurements and all measurements can be further reduced

>>745512613
im not using math lol, im using zeno's paradox

>>745512723
im interested in being interested about being interested about being interested about being interested about people being interested

hows that?

>>745505190

This, you're on the right track except I would say that in all likelihood God has no gender.

If God does have a gender, then they'll either be male or female, obviously, but the bigger point is that they're probably more similar to us than we know. The problem is, like you said, we're literal dimensions apart. We can't interact with them at all and their interaction with us might be limited in ways.

Kind of like when you play the Sims games. It's like, exactly like that.

>>745512734
>what i said was true i think, all fundamental particles are types of measurements and all measurements can be further reduced
Fundamental particles aren't measurements. Measurements are part of our subjective understanding of the universe. Particles are objective reality. The fact that we could mathematically reduce any number by half doesn't mean squat about how particles actually work. So yes, that's the assumption you appear to be making.

Keep in mind that a classical interpretation of physical reality only holds true down to a certain scale. Pure math struggles to help us conceive quantum physics.

>>745512734
>im using zeno's paradox
Which fails for the same reason.

>>745512967
when we measure a quark we say "such and such quark is this big and this long and has this much mass and energy"

those are all types of measurements, the idea 'quark" isn't a measurement, but the only way we can apply it to the world is through measurements, and a measurement can always be further reduced

>>745513043
well i mean its a paradox for a reason, there is no "right and wrong" answer

god is a boy with an ant farm

>>745513074
>there is no "right and wrong" answer
Err... yeah actually, there frequently are. Paradoxes are often resolved.

>>745512111
This still isn't a directed question. What about the quantum level of the matter in your brain? What about the physically stored information in your brain?
What about them? What point are you trying to make?

>>745513218
lol not in philosophy

in philosophy we've gone 5,000 years and haven't really gotten anywhere

>>745513250
Wheres your proof?

>>745513290
Then you haven't been paying attention.

Ofcourse it is. Atleast I think so...we'll find out at on the finale season of all this I guess. Maybe god is wondering the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n0EPit53yE

http://thefreedomforum.com/topics/everything-god/

File: 1385732737324.png (32KB, 238x220px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 238x220px

>>745513290

>>745513321
you mean like me personally?

the mind body problem is as much of a problem today as it was 5,000 years ago, just like all the other major problems of philsophy

>>745504723


yes and no

humans are a PART of god and the other way round.
God is the self creating Creator who creates the principles of Eevolution in the Beginning and let itself create itself by Evoluton.
therefore god is beginning and ending in one dot, time doesn't matter for god, this "magic giant man" just IS (In the sence of Heidegger's "Sein" or Kant's "Thing itself")

>>745513074
But the size and mass of a quark is not determined by our measurements, only our idea of it. That doesn't at all mean that we'll never come across a particle that isn't made up of constituent particles, thus making it a fundamental particle. We didn't just willy-nilly decide to "measure" new particles inside of larger particles, we simply observed new particles. What you're saying here basically seems to be that if we did discover a fundamental particle, we'd just start making shit up because apparent that's how measurements work. Get your head out of your ass, we're not the retarded.

>>745513290
>>745513395
Haven't gotten anywhere? If your definition of "anywhere" is an ultimate truth that we can analytically discover with absolute certainty, then you haven't noticed that philosophy has largely migrated away from the very Cartesian project of discovering such a thing.

>>745513395
Alright, well this has been a hoot, but I'm going to stop taking the bait now.

>>745513414
the object is determined by our idea of it, its exactly like you said

if we happen to create an idea that can't possibly be reduced (maybe like the old idea of the atom?) then that idea would indeed be irreducible, but thats only the idea not the object

any attempt to find and measure an object "in the world" can always be reduced, unless we have an idea that stops us, but in that case we would be stopping ourselves, we could really keep going if we wanted to

>>745513464
thats true, but the problem of the criterion is as unsolved today as it was in socrates' time

as is the problem of evil, the problem of induction, and so on

>>745513496
ok

>>745513302
WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ASK A DIRECT FUCKING QUESTION!

>>745513395
Because philosophy is often made up of undisprovable claims and rhetorical questions. Like Last Thursdayism. The whole concept is how certain ideas are completely undisprovable, no matter how ludicrous they might seem.

I don't really understand, here. You seem to be holding philosophy to a higher regard than cold, hard science BECAUSE of this fact. I guess the idea of saying shit that no one can conclusively argue against so you get to sound smart and always have the last word just kind of appeals to you.

here's a further question, is god quantifiable? would that mean that the being with the most godlike attributes be god/ a god?

>>745513464
if you want to see if the mind body problem is still relevant in modern philosophy, google "two dogmas of empircism"

>>745513624
im not holding anything higher than anything, just presenting a very simple argument

>>745513637
You're god whether you like it or not

>>745513577
The problem of evil and the problem of induction both presuppose an entire paradigm and worldview, in order for their problems to arise. The fact that their problems appear insoluble on the level of their presupposed paradigms hints that those paradigms themselves are the problems, rather than the quasi-problems they pose.

>>745513678
You have provided no evidence to back up these claims.

>>745513767
well i wonder what you've been listening to this whole time then

>>745513759
oh ok, so did you just solve them or what?

>>745513759
tl;dr it's the Jews

>>745513678
In the way you present it, you really are moving the goalposts the way he said. I think you don't fully understand the very simple argument you're trying to make.

>>745513800
>oh ok, so did you just solve them or what?
You come to terms with them, my nigga.

>>745513830
descartes is philosophy 101, ive known cartesian philosophy since i was 16

GOD is a freaking Jew.

>>745513889
they are problems of philosophy, not personal problems of mine

>>745513577
>any attempt to find and measure an object "in the world" can always be reduced, unless we have an idea that stops us, but in that case we would be stopping ourselves, we could really keep going if we wanted to
That's a big fucking assumption, right there. Again, if there IS a fundamental particle in actual existence, then we couldn't just break it down if it's not made up of any constituent elements. If we were, we'd just be making things up.

But we're not arguing about whether or not we'd recognize a fundamental particle if we observed it. We're arguing about whether or not it even exists, which is not something yet proven or disproven of course but even in the hypothetical scenario I provided it still flies over your head.

>the object is determined by our idea of it, its exactly like you said
That's not what I said. The object has nothing to do with our idea of it. Our perception determines what we think of it, but what it actually is has nothing to do with what we think it is or what we want it to be. If there's a fundamental particle, there's a fundamental particle. If there's not, there's not. In terms of objective reality, our perception is completely irrelevant. Our perception only matters in terms of whether we know about it.

Im reading a book called "Gods in Everyman"

>>745513897
That's too bad, to be biased at such an early age

>>745513944
if there really were a fundamental particle then we coudlnt break it down, but there isn't lol so we can

any measurement you can ever take, someone else can get a more precise measurement, or divide the measurement further

>>745514019
im a kantian at heart, i just like teaching descartes because he is so much fun and sets the state for a lot of important problems

plus he is easy for people who dont know the canon of philosophy to understand

>>745514028
>if there really were a fundamental particle then we coudlnt break it down, but there isn't lol so we can
What's your proof that there is no fundamental particle?

>>745513800
I just critiqued them, yes. You seem to hold your perceived insolubility of these problems as though they're a personal pride of yours, which is bizarre. I haven't a clue as to why you're giving a child's response to what's essentially Heidegger's primordial critique of the Western paradigm.

>>745513957
how is it?

>>745514115
here

any fundamental particle would be measured by measurements (numbers), and any measurement (number) can be further reduced, therefore there are no fundamental particles

>>745514118
lol ok

>>745506242
>>745510976
Another pair of anons who don't know how biology and survivalism works.

Enjoy incomprehensible extinction, fuckwads.

>>745514115
WHERE'S YOUR PROOF WHERES YOUR PROOF??????

>>745505190
What's to say that there's not another God who created the God of the 4th dimension and so on with your logic?

File: 1466787055583.jpg (22KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 308x308px

>>745514202
So... circular logic, basically. Not taking the bait anymore, see ya.

File: 1437581937333.png (154KB, 330x327px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 330x327px

Is Dog Cat?

>>745514214
I feel like whether we're talking about science or philosophy, you need some proof to make a concrete argument like that...

>>745514358
Hard fact and physical evidence empirical proof

So this whole thread has been a clusterfuck of science-oriented anons getting confused and then triggered by a wannabe philosopher troll.

What's new, huh?

>>745507601
>What is keeping th cells alive and what wants them to reproduce?
it is the only thing they can do, like a seed in the earth
they dont decide to do it
it is the only thing that can happen if the conditions are there

>>745504723
Sofar there is 0 evidence of a god

>>745514642
No known evidence of proof and science, pretty much