#209632 - 02/19/13 10:00 AM
Re: Determinism
[Re: Faldage]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
I ain't sayin' nothin' no mo'. Thank you, Faldage. A lesser man would not have made an announcement. Back to Determinism: Each person if honest can prove to himself that he (or she) is a robot by simple introspection. Sex, food and drink are biological directives not options. The experincing organism -meaning you- perceives the lack of these biological imperatives as displeasure and their realization as pleasure. We all know this but pretend that we are in charge.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209640 - 02/19/13 01:23 PM
Re: Determinism
[Re: zmjezhd]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
So, before the big bang there was something???
So, think some cosmologists. There are theories of multiple big bangs. Multiple universes, too. Not everybody agrees. I agree, zmjezhd. Cosmologies are suspect because there are so many of them. Oscillating and multiverse constructs seem rooted in mumbo-jumbo math otherwise someone would outshine Einstein.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209646 - 02/19/13 06:03 PM
Re: Determinism
[Re: BranShea]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
5) Nothing can't beget something.
Even nothing is something, we cannot imagine 'nothing' nor the end of ends. BranShe, you agree and disagree with me in the same post, and strangely I end up agreeing with both. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209662 - 02/20/13 09:07 AM
Re: fatalism
[Re: jenny jenny]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 3290
Loc: R'lyeh
|
Oscillating and multiverse constructs seem rooted in mumbo-jumbo math otherwise someone would outshine Einstein.
Not sure that "mumbo-jumbo math" has a meaning that I can glean. Math is math. Non-Euclidean geometry is still math. I'm not sure that, say, the math behind figuring out the speed of a falling object explains anything about objects or gravity, but it works and can be used for something. I'll take string theory and multiverse cosmologies over the bearded guy in the sky explanation. If nothing they are more aesthetically pleasing.
_________________________
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209686 - 02/21/13 09:11 AM
Re: Determinism
[Re: BranShea]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
5) Nothing can't beget something.
Even nothing is something, we cannot imagine 'nothing' nor the end of ends. BranShe, you agree and disagree with me in the same post, and strangely I end up agreeing with both. Then could you agree with me that nothing can beget something? ( which contradicts your fifth amendment?)  Now BranShea (may I call you BS?) you tease me - you well know that all "nothings" are not the same. e.g. Nothing can become something and nothing can become something are yin and yang - exact opposites. A good ear connected to a good mind will understand this.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209696 - 02/21/13 02:38 PM
Re: fatalism
[Re: zmjezhd]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
Not sure that "mumbo-jumbo math" has a meaning that I can glean. Math is math. Non-Euclidean geometry is still math. I'm not sure that, say, the math behind figuring out the speed of a falling object explains anything about objects or gravity, but it works and can be used for something. I'll take string theory and multiverse cosmologies over the bearded guy in the sky explanation. If nothing they are more aesthetically pleasing. Yes, zmjezhd, I agree, like language math has a function. Yet math, like language, is fuzzy in outline mainly because in our Universe there are no two identical entities to add...or subtract...or muliply, even if that difference is only its unique position in time/space. And I know of no religion that believes God is a bearded or not bearded guy sitting or standing in a sky or not sky Heaven. Except symbolically.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209702 - 02/21/13 10:59 PM
Determinism pt, 2 The secret sharer
[Re: jenny jenny]
|
veteran
Registered: 06/05/10
Posts: 1554
Loc: Lower Aberdeen, Mississippi
|
Since the Faldage saw fit to recuse himself from this ad hoc court I will hereby give the high points of the book he just read but refuses to review. I list the salient points below.
1) When driving and texting or listening to a ball game or just deep thinking; who is doing the driving?
2) A name you couldn't remember suddenly pops into your head. How?
3) Who is dreaming when you dream?
The answer is your undermind. You, your ego, your operating clichés, etc. are merely servo- mechanisms for the real you - your subconscious mind.
He, not you, is driving.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
8946 Members
16 Forums
13866 Topics
222188 Posts
Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
|
|
|
0 registered (),
35
Guests and
6
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index