First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
What do you do?
26 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York, NY
Offline
Posted 7/3/12
What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/3/12
I guess that depends on what your personal views are.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/3/12
Well, I won't, because I'm not a pantheist. I do not believe in the oneness of all thing, that I am a distinct creature from you or Mr Obama, in short, an individual, is an evident truth. But should I accept the unity of all thing, belonging to a great catholic of some sort, then, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference how I live my life, I do not invest much into metaphysics, nor do I expect to get much out of it in return.
Posted 7/3/12

cramey1985 wrote:

What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
It's not a question of if, but when. Within the concept of quantum computation, due to the characteristic known as quantum flux, the universe is constantly exploring all possible outcomes. And so too is our belief of an individual self as our self-identity, is but an abstraction created by our social brain. It'll never be the end result of who we are.

TEDxRheinMain - Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger - The Ego Tunnel
Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.
Posted 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:

due to the characteristic known as quantum flux,


Quantum flux is neither a characteristic nor the reason for mixed heritage. It's much more simple.
Posted 7/3/12

Edward_Norton wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

due to the characteristic known as quantum flux,


Quantum flux is neither a characteristic nor the reason for mixed heritage. It's much more simple.
It's a metaphor, not a human characteristic. Don't take my expression out of context for your own convenience at reducing my own argument. That's a "straw man" logic fallacy.

Furthermore, you didn't explain what a quantum flux is. You simply pointed out what it isn't in a literal sense. That's a "no true Scotsman" logic fallacy.

Finally, the entire scientific body of empirical evidences which supports my claim, was the quoted hyperlink that I provided. When you really need to critique my statement, you should start from there instead.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/3/12 , edited 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:


cramey1985 wrote:

What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
It's not a question of if, but when. Within the concept of quantum computation, due to the characteristic known as quantum flux, the universe is constantly exploring all possible outcomes. And so too is our belief of an individual self as our self-identity, is but an abstraction created by our social brain. It'll never be the end result of who we are.

TEDxRheinMain - Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger - The Ego Tunnel
Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.


So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world.

--Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery

Clear language, all must agree, is essential to any argument, for the ability to understand an argument and to be convinced of it truth or falsehood depends, almost entirely, on first understanding it. A superficial research into both Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, however, does not support any of what you wrote. It doesn't show us that the Universe is going to explore all possible outcomes, nor does it show us that we have no self but in relation to our social brain. Indeed, I strongly suspected this when you simply stated that this is so, rather than explain why this is so. It is simply accepting your fiat, clouded under your jargon, instead of providing the mechanics of Quantum Fluctuation which prove your little theory.

You criticise the concept of the 'self', the individual, as an 'abstraction of the social brain', that is, if I am interpreting your gibberish correctly, a creation of the mind with respect to society, and that there is no self. This, however, is humbug. Of course the self is a product of our mind, so long as I am independent, I am a individual. My independence as a human depends, almost entirely, upon the indepedence of my mind, my mind is my self, it contains everything that marks me as essentially 'different and independent of' another thing. I think what I think, rather than what you think, or what Tom Fool thinks. Even were I isolated from the society of humans, or of animals, or of any sientient beings, and, with only a small garden, I were to live alone, there is no society for me to establish myself, according to you, as an individual, yet, I am still an individual, for my mind is still seperate from all other minds.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I'( which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual) possibly be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this ever occuring, because, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place. The subject simply doesn't exist for it to undergo the action of any verb.

Unless, of course, I have misinterpreted you, which is very possible, seeing as you are unable to write at all coherently.
Posted 7/3/12 , edited 7/3/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


cramey1985 wrote:

What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
It's not a question of if, but when. Within the concept of quantum computation, due to the characteristic known as quantum flux, the universe is constantly exploring all possible outcomes. And so too is our belief of an individual self as our self-identity, is but an abstraction created by our social brain. It'll never be the end result of who we are.

TEDxRheinMain - Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger - The Ego Tunnel
Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.


So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world.

--Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery

Clear language, all must agree, is essential to any argument, for the ability to understand an argument and to be convinced of it truth or falsehood depends, almost entirely, on first understanding it. A superficial research into both Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, however, does not support any of what you wrote. It doesn't show us that the Universe is going to explore all possible outcomes, nor does it show us that we have no self but in relation to our social brain. Indeed, I strongly suspected this when you simply stated that this is so, rather than explain why this is so. It is simply accepting your fiat, clouded under your jargon, instead of providing the mechanics of Quantum Fluctuation which prove your little theory.

You criticise the concept of the 'self', the individual, as an 'abstraction of the social brain', that is, if I am interpreting your gibberish correctly, a creation of the mind with respect to society, and that there is no self. This, however, is humbug. Of course the self is a product of our mind, so long as I am independent, I am a individual. My independence as a human depends, almost entirely, upon the indepedence of my mind, my mind is my self, it contains everything that marks me as essentially 'different and independent of' another thing. I think what I think, rather than what you think, or what Tom Fool thinks. Even were I isolated from the society of humans, or of animals, or of any sientient beings, and, with only a small garden, I were to live alone, there is no society for me to establish myself, according to you, as an individual, yet, I am still an individual, for my mind is still seperate from all other minds.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I', which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual, possible be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this occuring, when, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place.

Unless, of course, I have misinterpreted you, which is very possible, seeing as you are unable to write at all coherently.
And you claimed to be this authority figure to judge only my writing, while yourself completely ignored my source. So too should you take the criticism from your own source, for the "confusion and absurdity" that you've inspired.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


cramey1985 wrote:

What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
It's not a question of if, but when. Within the concept of quantum computation, due to the characteristic known as quantum flux, the universe is constantly exploring all possible outcomes. And so too is our belief of an individual self as our self-identity, is but an abstraction created by our social brain. It'll never be the end result of who we are.

TEDxRheinMain - Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger - The Ego Tunnel
Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.


So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world.

--Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery

Clear language, all must agree, is essential to any argument, for the ability to understand an argument and to be convinced of it truth or falsehood depends, almost entirely, on first understanding it. A superficial research into both Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, however, does not support any of what you wrote. It doesn't show us that the Universe is going to explore all possible outcomes, nor does it show us that we have no self but in relation to our social brain. Indeed, I strongly suspected this when you simply stated that this is so, rather than explain why this is so. It is simply accepting your fiat, clouded under your jargon, instead of providing the mechanics of Quantum Fluctuation which prove your little theory.

You criticise the concept of the 'self', the individual, as an 'abstraction of the social brain', that is, if I am interpreting your gibberish correctly, a creation of the mind with respect to society, and that there is no self. This, however, is humbug. Of course the self is a product of our mind, so long as I am independent, I am a individual. My independence as a human depends, almost entirely, upon the indepedence of my mind, my mind is my self, it contains everything that marks me as essentially 'different and independent of' another thing. I think what I think, rather than what you think, or what Tom Fool thinks. Even were I isolated from the society of humans, or of animals, or of any sientient beings, and, with only a small garden, I were to live alone, there is no society for me to establish myself, according to you, as an individual, yet, I am still an individual, for my mind is still seperate from all other minds.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I', which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual, possible be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this occuring, when, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place.

Unless, of course, I have misinterpreted you, which is very possible, seeing as you are unable to write at all coherently.
And you claimed to be this authority figure to judge only my writing, while yourself completely ignored my source, so too should you take the criticism from your own source, for the "confusion and absurdity" that you've inspired.



"Tu viens doncques de Paris," dist il, "Et à quoy passez vous le temps, vous aultres messieurs estudiens, audict Paris ? "

Respondit l'escolier : " Nous transfretons la Sequane au dilucule et crepuscule ; nous deambulons par les compites et quadrivies de l'urbe ; nous despumons la verbocination latiale, et, comme verisimiles amorabonds, captons la benevolence de l'omnijuge, omniforme, et omnigene sexe feminin. Certaines diecules nous invisons les lupanares, et en ecstase venereique, inculcons nos veretres es penitissimes recesses des pudendes de ces meritricules amicabilissimes ; puis cauponizons es tabernes meritoires de la Pomme de Pin, du Castel, de la Magdaleine et de la Mulle, belles spatules vervecines perforaminées de petrosil. Et si, par forte fortune, y a rarité ou penurie de pecune en nos marsupies, et soyent exhaustes de metal ferruginé, pour l'escot nous dimittons nos codices et vestes opignerées, prestolans les tabellaires à venir des Penates et Lares patriotiques. "


"Thou comest from Paris then," said Pantagruel; "and how do you spend your time there, you my masters the students of Paris?"

The scholar answered, "We transfretate the Sequan at the dilucul and crepuscul; we deambulate by the compites and quadrives of the urb; we despumate the Latial verbocination; and, like verisimilary amorabons, we captat the benevolence of the omnijugal, omniform and omnigenal feminine sex. Upon certain diecules we invisat the lupanares, and in a venerian ecstasy inculcate our veretres into the penitissime recesses of the pudends of these amicabilissim meretricules. Then do we cauponisate in the meritory taberns of the Pineapple, the Castle, the Magdalene, and the Mule, goodly vervecine spatules perforaminated with petrocile. And if by fortune there be rarity or penury of pecune in our marsupies, and that they be exhausted of ferruginean metal, for the shot we dimit our codices and oppignerat our vestments, whilst we prestolate the coming of the tabellaries from the Penates and patriotic Lares."

-F. Rabelais, Pantagruel Ch. 6


Sir, I claim nothing but that you are unable to write lucidly, a criticism that is not only valid, but repeated several times by several others. It is far easier to write as you write, chocked up in jargon and incomprensibly that none can make heads or tails of it, and then retreat to that safe ground of 'you don't understand my argument', than to write clearly, such that anyone who can read can understand and assess your position. You skip over the entire argument simply because you were far too concern with defending your own bulky, inelegant style. I have posted my criticism of your position, if I misunderstand it, or if you think my position is wrong, then do be so kind as to condescend to correct my errors, but, pray, do so clearly, that I, the poor wit that I am, may be able to understand.
Posted 7/3/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


cramey1985 wrote:

What do you do if you find out you are a European , African, Asian ,Native American Jewish Christian Buddhist?Not only that humans share DNA with other living beings on the planet.

I just had an incredible realization of life through intense study of the knowledge of science, religion, and history. I have traced my family back on both sides finally after years.

What would YOU do if you realized you are everything and everyone?
It's not a question of if, but when. Within the concept of quantum computation, due to the characteristic known as quantum flux, the universe is constantly exploring all possible outcomes. And so too is our belief of an individual self as our self-identity, is but an abstraction created by our social brain. It'll never be the end result of who we are.

TEDxRheinMain - Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger - The Ego Tunnel
Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.


So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides the best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world.

--Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery

Clear language, all must agree, is essential to any argument, for the ability to understand an argument and to be convinced of it truth or falsehood depends, almost entirely, on first understanding it. A superficial research into both Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, however, does not support any of what you wrote. It doesn't show us that the Universe is going to explore all possible outcomes, nor does it show us that we have no self but in relation to our social brain. Indeed, I strongly suspected this when you simply stated that this is so, rather than explain why this is so. It is simply accepting your fiat, clouded under your jargon, instead of providing the mechanics of Quantum Fluctuation which prove your little theory.

You criticise the concept of the 'self', the individual, as an 'abstraction of the social brain', that is, if I am interpreting your gibberish correctly, a creation of the mind with respect to society, and that there is no self. This, however, is humbug. Of course the self is a product of our mind, so long as I am independent, I am a individual. My independence as a human depends, almost entirely, upon the indepedence of my mind, my mind is my self, it contains everything that marks me as essentially 'different and independent of' another thing. I think what I think, rather than what you think, or what Tom Fool thinks. Even were I isolated from the society of humans, or of animals, or of any sientient beings, and, with only a small garden, I were to live alone, there is no society for me to establish myself, according to you, as an individual, yet, I am still an individual, for my mind is still seperate from all other minds.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I', which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual, possible be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this occuring, when, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place.

Unless, of course, I have misinterpreted you, which is very possible, seeing as you are unable to write at all coherently.
And you claimed to be this authority figure to judge only my writing, while yourself completely ignored my source, so too should you take the criticism from your own source, for the "confusion and absurdity" that you've inspired.



"Tu viens doncques de Paris," dist il, "Et à quoy passez vous le temps, vous aultres messieurs estudiens, audict Paris ? "

Respondit l'escolier : " Nous transfretons la Sequane au dilucule et crepuscule ; nous deambulons par les compites et quadrivies de l'urbe ; nous despumons la verbocination latiale, et, comme verisimiles amorabonds, captons la benevolence de l'omnijuge, omniforme, et omnigene sexe feminin. Certaines diecules nous invisons les lupanares, et en ecstase venereique, inculcons nos veretres es penitissimes recesses des pudendes de ces meritricules amicabilissimes ; puis cauponizons es tabernes meritoires de la Pomme de Pin, du Castel, de la Magdaleine et de la Mulle, belles spatules vervecines perforaminées de petrosil. Et si, par forte fortune, y a rarité ou penurie de pecune en nos marsupies, et soyent exhaustes de metal ferruginé, pour l'escot nous dimittons nos codices et vestes opignerées, prestolans les tabellaires à venir des Penates et Lares patriotiques. "


"Thou comest from Paris then," said Pantagruel; "and how do you spend your time there, you my masters the students of Paris?"

The scholar answered, "We transfretate the Sequan at the dilucul and crepuscul; we deambulate by the compites and quadrives of the urb; we despumate the Latial verbocination; and, like verisimilary amorabons, we captat the benevolence of the omnijugal, omniform and omnigenal feminine sex. Upon certain diecules we invisat the lupanares, and in a venerian ecstasy inculcate our veretres into the penitissime recesses of the pudends of these amicabilissim meretricules. Then do we cauponisate in the meritory taberns of the Pineapple, the Castle, the Magdalene, and the Mule, goodly vervecine spatules perforaminated with petrocile. And if by fortune there be rarity or penury of pecune in our marsupies, and that they be exhausted of ferruginean metal, for the shot we dimit our codices and oppignerat our vestments, whilst we prestolate the coming of the tabellaries from the Penates and patriotic Lares."

-F. Rabelais, Pantagruel Ch. 6


Sir, I claim nothing but that you are unable to write lucidly, a criticism that is not only valid, but repeated several times by several others. It is far easier to write as you write, chocked up in jargon and incomprensibly that none can make heads or tails of it, and then retreat to that safe ground of 'you don't understand my argument', than to write clearly, such that anyone who can read can understand and assess your position. You skip over the entire argument simply because you were far too concern with defending your own bulky, inelegant style. I have posted my criticism of your position, if I misunderstand it, or if you think my position is wrong, then do be so kind as to condescend to correct my errors, but, pray, do so clearly, that I, the poor wit that I am, may be able to understand.
You didn't even critique Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument, which was the source of evidences for my argument. Instead, you quoted this writing from one F. Rabelais that didn't even clarify your position, while I wasn't defending anyone.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument is that our social brain is literally the engine that creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction, not "a creation of the mind with respect to society" as you so wrongly misunderstood.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/3/12 , edited 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:

You didn't even critique Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument, which was the source of evidences for my argument. Instead, you quoted this writing from one F. Rabelais that didn't even clarify your position, while I wasn't defending anyone.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument is that our social brain is literally the engine that creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction, not "a creation of the mind with respect to society" as you so wrongly misunderstood.


First, you have yet to explain anything, how 1. Quantum Mechanics, and its derivative, Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, show that the universe will explore every possiblity, 2. Explain what a 'Social Brain' is, instead of asserting that because of it, we create a self, or what you mean when you say that it 'creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction' or even 3. how the question of having a self is even applicable to this situation.

Secondly, the quote extracted from François Rabelais' Pantagruel was in response to your style. It is called a literary allusion- I am comparing your language and your liberal use of jargon to the ridiculous Latin-French Mongrel of the Parisian Student.
Posted 7/3/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You didn't even critique Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument, which was the source of evidences for my argument. Instead, you quoted this writing from one F. Rabelais that didn't even clarify your position, while I wasn't defending anyone.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument is that our social brain is literally the engine that creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction, not "a creation of the mind with respect to society" as you so wrongly misunderstood.


First, you have yet to explain anything, how 1. Quantum Mechanics, and its derivative, Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, show that the universe will explore every possiblity, 2. Explain what a 'Social Brain' is, instead of asserting that because of it, we create a self, or what you mean when you say that it 'creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction' or even 3. how the question of having a self is even applicable to this situation.

Secondly, the quote extracted from François Rabelais' Pantagruel was in response to your style. It is called a literary allusion- I am comparing your language and your liberal use of jargon to the ridiculous Latin-French Mongrel of the Parisian Student.
The explanation for 2 is within the hyperlink that I provided. While 1 was a metaphorical expression on how our social brain is an engine of neuroplasticity and associative memory, dictated by the biology of our brain which can manipulate even our own personality.

TEDxMidwest - Helen Fisher - Biology of the Mind
Why do we fall in love with the people that we do? Dr. Helen Fisher argues that the brain is one of the most powerful systems on earth, responsible for love through chemicals and complex thinking patterns. Her studies have identified both the smitten and broken hearted, uncovering the connection between how humans are drawn towards one another.

Our own sense of self and our personality aren't independent entities, but rather it's the opposite. They're the work-in-progress of a very physical mechanism that's subject to change due to biochemistry, and not something oversimplified like this "ridiculous" "liberal use of jargon" of yours.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I', which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual, possible be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this occuring, when, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place.
I never claimed that the self doesn't exist, nor did my source ever made such claim. How the heck did you came up with that misunderstanding was beyond me, except when you intentionally invoked a "red herrings" fallacy.
55364 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/5/12
Heck what's the big deal here, who cares if i was all that, or you are. the more I give it thought just dam this really one stupid concept. I suggest putting the pipe down and grow up some this is what a pot head tend to thing about.
Posted 7/5/12
Well.. If I ever find out that I'm connected to a blue blooded family (that is... like... royal people) Then I'd be absolutely fantastically happy. And probably draw another silly picture of me as a princess and prince charming. Isn't that right? ... Sigh. I don't know. But whatever you've been studying.. Sure sounds interesting.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/5/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You didn't even critique Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument, which was the source of evidences for my argument. Instead, you quoted this writing from one F. Rabelais that didn't even clarify your position, while I wasn't defending anyone.

Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Metzinger's argument is that our social brain is literally the engine that creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction, not "a creation of the mind with respect to society" as you so wrongly misunderstood.


First, you have yet to explain anything, how 1. Quantum Mechanics, and its derivative, Quantum Computation and Quantum Fluctuation, show that the universe will explore every possiblity, 2. Explain what a 'Social Brain' is, instead of asserting that because of it, we create a self, or what you mean when you say that it 'creates our sense of self-identity through the process of abstraction' or even 3. how the question of having a self is even applicable to this situation.

Secondly, the quote extracted from François Rabelais' Pantagruel was in response to your style. It is called a literary allusion- I am comparing your language and your liberal use of jargon to the ridiculous Latin-French Mongrel of the Parisian Student.
The explanation for 2 is within the hyperlink that I provided. While 1 was a metaphorical expression on how our social brain is an engine of neuroplasticity and associative memory, dictated by the biology of our brain which can manipulate even our own personality.

TEDxMidwest - Helen Fisher - Biology of the Mind
Why do we fall in love with the people that we do? Dr. Helen Fisher argues that the brain is one of the most powerful systems on earth, responsible for love through chemicals and complex thinking patterns. Her studies have identified both the smitten and broken hearted, uncovering the connection between how humans are drawn towards one another.

Our own sense of self and our personality aren't independent entities, but rather it's the opposite. They're the work-in-progress of a very physical mechanism that's subject to change due to biochemistry, and not something oversimplified like this "ridiculous" "liberal use of jargon" of yours.

But, assuming you are right, which, it is clear, you aren't, assuming you are, without the 'self', how can there be a 'me', and without this 'me', then how can 'I', which assumes, implicitly in a 'me' and a 'self', and which is, by definition, an individual, possible be everything and everyone? Thus, if an 'I' do not exist, there is no possible way an 'I' can be everything and everyone, therefore, your when is also invalidated, because to deny the 'I' would mean there is no possiblity of this occuring, when, in truth, it could never have happened in the first place.
I never claimed that the self doesn't exist, nor did my source ever made such claim. How the heck did you came up with that misunderstanding was beyond me, except when you intentionally invoked a "red herrings" fallacy.


As I am too tied up to watch and rebut what are probably ill argued points, I shall dedicate myself now to the charge of intentionally 'invoking a red herring fallacy', in so far as that I am critiquing your style because your style has made your argument inaccessible
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.