/lit/ - Literature

fat women are dsigusting.

>>2329344

>You look at
only possible with eyes, eyes are part of your body. You're not imagining a world where the mind exists without the body, you're imagining a world in which you are invisible.

i think there is a flaw in your bathroom story, there isn't a lack of body, there is a lack of visible body, you still used vision which is a faculty of the eyes, and ,movement which is a faculty of the muscles.
also don't see how using imagination as a proof for proving difference is different to using imagination as a proof of existence.

In order for your mind to function you require signals to pass through your brain, all of which cease after your bodily death. Bam.

>>2329350
i bet you couldnt concieve of a mind without referring to the senses

>>2329349
I meant to clear this up. Look in a very loose sense of the word -- there is no body, you are looking (imagining) the entire scenario with your mind, it's just a figment of your imagination that doesn't actually relate to sight at all, like a dream. The functioning of the mind is what is important.

>>2329350
See above. And what soulless fags believe is that the mind is just a function of the body. Take the example of the smile -- the smile is just a function of the lips/teeth/cheekbones/etc. If we could imagine a world in which z smile existed but the lips/teeth/cheekbones/etc. do not exist, then we know that are two separate things, but clearly that is not possible. However, in the case of the mind and body, we can imagine a world in which the mind exists but the body does not.

>>2329352
You're either trolling or you just didn't understand a word of what I wrote.

>>2329360
Hmmmmm, OP in fact may be proving the exact opposite to what s/he intended... how deliciously ironic.*

*read as situationally ironic

>>2329360
To which I respond, do you see in a dream? You can eat chocolate/have sex/smell coffee in a dream without actually utilizing any senses at all -- they all become just faculties of the mind.

>>2329362
no, you're still thinking of functions associated with a body.
even a z smile is defined in terms of the bodily function. remember all of your thoughts are based on experience to the one who does not believe in a soul
seeing, in whatever sense, is also defined in terms of the bodily function.
either we have a soul or what your talking about is knowledge without experience so you wouldn't be able to think it - this is the same way something that had never encountered mass could not imagine it.

>>2329365
this is going to boil down to "can blind people have visual dreams". i dont know anything about that, but if i were to guess, i would say they can't. do you think they can?

>>2329373
a quick google search, nothing in depth, showed results saying that people who were completely blind since birth dream auditorily.

Besides everything already said, those who don't believe in a soul don't necessarily say the soul is a part of the body. For example, one way of seeing it: the mind is a phenomenon that the brain produces. The phenomena can only exist in relation to their material source, but they can be imagined separately. You can think of the concept of a smile as an expression of positive emotion without imagining the lips, teeth etc., even though it is the lips that make the smile possible in the actual physical world, the same for mind and body.

>>2329365
The sensory areas of the brain are active during dreams, so you actually have the experience of "seeing", even as you aren't using your eyes. Blind-from-birth people don't have a visual imagination or visual dreams. If the sensory experience was truly a "function of the soul", it would make sense that the physical limitations of these people wouldn't constrain their minds, but they do. As the visual cortex gets no input the area becomes dominated by other functions, and these other functions, mainly the senses of touch and hearing that the person needs to survive in a world without vision, actually improve and become better than those of a person who can see, doesn't need to read braille and so on.

>>2329362
I can't imagine doing any of those things without imagining I'm in a body.

>>2329387
On the other hand, to OP;
Can you imagine seeing around 360 degrees?
Can you imagine hearing pitches lower or higher than your real range of hearing?
Can you imagine seeing more colours than you do know?

We are god, bro. The universe is an organism and we're just a part of it. You and I are part of the endless game where the universe plays hide and seek with himself, and when there's nothing else to wonder and know, he goes to sleep, and thus we die only to wake up tomorrow.

Thanks guys, I appreciate this. I'm gonna be contemplating what you guys have said for a while, thanks for giving me some good shit to think about.

Also, any recommendations for books about the existence of the soul that aren't The Phaedo?

>>2329404
The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan touches on the subject. Layman reading, but that's so it can convince even simple minds that concepts like "souls" or gods are fucking retarded.

>>2329331

You just imagined a world in which the mind existed without the body, which proves that they are two separate entities.

stopped reading right there.

i suggest taking a few logic courses.

>>2329413
>couldn't read just 1 more sentence in which OP explained it

>>2329413

What fallacy is that? Because of course, this isn't actually my own personal argument, but one that I am very interested in contemplating. It's the Cartesian Argument -- as in Descartes. I'd be surprised if he actually made such a severe and obvious logic error in an argument that's been debated for over 200 years.

Pic unrelated

>>2329404

yeah. reread the phaedo. try to appreciate it as a work of art, try to comprehend its influence on western civ.

but you need to keep in mind that everything pre-1800s didnt know about Darwin, electricity, etc etc.

Science does a much better job answering these questions than plato, or aristotle will do.

If you must read something from the classical era I suggest De Rerum Natura by Lucretius. Hindsight has shown Epicureanism to be the most accurate, and there is no better extant example of Epicureanism than de rerum natura.

Philosophy really is a shit tier science. I'm glad I'm over that phase in my life.

>>2329419
OP says "mind" but he refers to senses, which are part of the body.

>>2329423
So what is the mind?

>>2329423
How do you define the mind?

Typical "guys, I got this" epiphany from a 17 year old. The questions are wrong, the assumptions are wrong and so it's even harder to discuss the conclusions when you are in a mist of logic failures.

Get off the internet, read a book. Stop being so full of yourself too, it might help you think.

>>2329422
Good thing it's not a science.
But I'm glad you really investigate the things you're interested in.

>>2329429
>>2329428

mindmind

>>2329432

Tell it to this motherfucker, not me. I didn't make this shit up.

>>2329419

philosophy is not a science.

science however requires philosophy. if you don't think so, holy shit, you are an idiot. spend 30 minutes investigating the philosophy of science, and i think pretty quick you'll realize philosophy still has a use.

>>2329440

DESCARTES BRO!

Listen. You lived in the 17th century.

Since then, we have gone to the Moon, we've invented airplanes, radios, made huge advances in science, philosophy, math, etc etc.

We thank you for your contributions, but I hate to inform you that there were quite a few things you ended up being wrong about.

Dont worry, people still respect you immensely. But its been almost 400 years now, did you really think that you would have been right on everything?

*cough**cough*

>>2329456
no that's dumb

if descartes is wrong, it's because his arguments were wrong, not because we've gone to the fucking moon

jesus christ

how does "going to the moon" disprove anything of descartes' arguments on cognition and the mind/body problem, please

>>2329470
For one thing 'I think therefore I am' rests on the assumption that there is a singular unproblematic 'I'. It's question-begging- assuming rather than proving the existence of 'the mind'. These days we could say that the 'I' is an illusion created by the multiple cells/chemical reactions/genes/whatever of the brain.

You're right though that going to the moon doesn't do this.

>>2329504
again, though, that's a problem with his argument, not with the advancement of scientific knowledge. arguably hegel and kant pointed out a similar flaw in descartes' reasoning. he was wrong, yeah, but it's not because of the superiority of science; it's because he was wrong.

>>2329509
True dat. But the earlier poster included 'philosophy' in the list of things in which there have been advances. Criticisms of Descartes are arguably advancements in philosophy, no?

>>2329365
that doesnt tell you the mind if separate from the brain though

>>2329534
unnecessarily teleological /progressive point of view. there have been additions to philosophy, but i don't know if i would say that someone writing later is categorically more correct than someone writing earlier and that we are continually progressing towards the truth. i would say it's more akin to one long-running argument about fundamental, eternal human concerns; but plato has just as much claim to knowledge about truth as nietzsche does. we haven't progressed or advanced so much as just changed.

>>2329534
...to continue, I suspect you think that poster above was putting philosophy down. But s/he wasn't, y'see.

>>2329362
> we can imagine a world in which the mind exists but the body does not.

ergo they separate?

you're argument is subtle but you are still only saying that we can imagine it therefore it is true.

>>2329541
Yeah, I get you, anon. Even the stuff that seems to have been disproved can come back in a different form.

You can imagine that thought is possible without a brain?

I can imagine being alive without air.

ITT: Can you imagine it? THEN IT'S TRUE!

Holy shit I can actually fly.

>>2329556
That just proves 'living' and 'air' are two separate things.

Descartes had a different context, that's the point.

Myth 1: philosophy progresses step by step
Myth 2: clever guy from the past is relevant today

This shit has been discussed over and over, new things have come to light, cultures clashed, people changed, the sense of history, the sense of self, all of that changed. And yeah, scientific development helped that.

>>2329331
>See what you just did there, faggots? You just imagined a world in which the mind existed without the body, which proves that they are two separate entities.
How did I see anything without eyes?

>>2329556
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space.

There is already a vast literature on this argument in academic philosophy. You could start here if you are honestly interested in it, and then follow up the citations in the text for more info:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ModArg

>>2329362
I can imagine that my blood is kool aid. Doesn't mean that it's physically possible for my body to survive with kool-aid for blood.

People used to imagine that the body was governed by a combination of fluids/humors. They didn't imagine a body with a circulatory system.

You don't understand the link between the existence of your mind and the configuration of atoms/molecules/electrons in your brain. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Can OP imagine a universe without a mind. Literally not figuratively.

this devolves into either you defining soul to be a particular idea and body another, or you being stupid enough to think that your failure to intuit the connection between mind and body means there is no connection

Imagine a blue ball. Now imagine blue.

You cannot imagine blue with it being a property of an object.

Therefore colour is an object's soul.

>>2329574

Physical possibility is not the same as possibility simpliciter. It is (or may be) physically impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light, but it is not impossible simpliciter, in the sense that it is impossible simpliciter for anything to both exist and fail to exist (for example). I can, for instance, understand the claim that something travels faster than the speed of light, even if it is inconsistent with the actual physical laws. So, it is possible but not actual.

It is inconceivable--impossible in the strongest sense--that I both exist and not exist at the same time. That doesn't make any sense. But it's not inconceivable that my mind exist without my body. I can make sense of that hypothesis. It might not be actual but it is possible. And that is enough to show that my mind and body are distinct things, for if they were identical--that is, if they were literally one and the same object--that it would be inconceivable for one to exist without the other, since really they would be the same object.

Keanu's what if works out well with this thread.

>>2329589
Try imagining by what mechanism the mind would exist without the body.

>>2329585
I can imagine blue.

>>2329596
Or rather, all of the implications of a mind existing without a body

>>2329599
I do not know all the implications of genetic modification. Therefore it doesn't exist.

>>2329596

I don't see why I should need to imagine a "mechanism" (I'm not even really sure I understand what you mean by that word).

But here is a coherent scenario I can imagine: suppose all that exists in the universe is my mind and an omnipotent demon obsessed with deceiving me about my surroundings. There are no physical objects whatsoever. The demon causes me to have sensory experiences indistinguishable from those I'm now having. So, it appears that I have a body, that I'm on the Earth's surface, etc. etc. But, in reality, there is just a mind being influenced by the demon.

There is nothing contradictory about this hypothesis. I don't, as a matter of fact, believe that it is true but I understand it. Now, I don't understand the following scenario: suppose I both exist and don't exist at the same time. That doesn't make sense to me.

So there is a difference. The difference is that my simultaneous existence and non-existence is impossible, but my mind's existing without my body is not impossible. As a matter of fact, I believe my mind and body both actually exist and interact with each other causally, but the fact that they could exist without each other demonstrates that they are distinct objects.

>>2329589

>But it's not inconceivable that my mind exist without my body

Yes it is.

>>2329605
But, physically, how would that work? What defines a mind aside from the physical neural pathways?

It is inconceivable for a mind to exist without the organized structure that defines it (a brain, a computer, something). Thus, the organized structure -is- the mind.

>>2329605

>sensory experiences without the brain

Inconceivable.

>>2329607
Which is ghost stories and spiritual realms do not exist as ideas because they're inconceivable.

>>2329607

No, it's not.

>>2329422

Don't confuse this for philosophy, this is just OP stuck in a semantic dance talking about nothing in particular.

>>2329618
>semantic
The irony of misusing that word...

Imagine a world where OP is not a fag

>>2329624
not the poster, but how is this misused? Semantics are the study of what word means what, which is completely different from whether or not the concept is true or not.

>>2329613
>>2329614

You guys sure have limited conceptual capacities, then, if you can't understand a simple story like that. I suspect, in truth, that what you claim to find "inconceivable" is determined by your prior theoretical biases.

It's undeniable that in the actual world there is a clear correlation between physical states of the brain and states of the mind, but to leap from that to the claim that it is INCONCEIVABLE for the mind to exist without the brain is ridiculous. What were all those people conceiving of BEFORE the advent of neuroscience, before people believed the mind/body to be so tightly connected? Isn't it a discovery that the mind and brain are connected? But if it is inconceivable, as you say, for them to exist apart, then how it is anything but trivial? How is it an discovery at all? What's going on now when people claim to understand the idea of existing without their body? (Say, in an afterlife or something like that). Surely you've seen movies or read books where characters continue to exist after their bodies are destroyed, like Star Wars or whatever. Did you not understand them? Were they meaningless gibberish to you?

>Let's say there's no God. Watch as I prove to you the existence of a soul from the secular point of view in less than five minutes.
What role does God play in the discussion, OP? Just because we have a soul doesn't mean that it comes from god. It might as well be something we develop as we grow up.

My computer can imagine such a world too.

Does it have a soul then?

>>2329331
Never read the replies in the thread, maybe someone already said this.
Mind is not a part of the body, it is the body's function (one of them at least).

Anyway OP, I hope you were trolling there, cause your reasoning sure could use some logic plus education

>>2329629
Well, I just never felt like dealing with the implications. Like the force, for instance, circumvents multiple laws of physics. I can still envision and imagine it, but can't actually begin to understand the physics that would be involved with creating energy from nothing, or what it would mean.

>>2329629

>but to leap from that to the claim that it is INCONCEIVABLE for the mind to exist without the brain is ridiculous

I don't see how effects of brain states occuring without brain states occuring is any less inconceivable than something existing and also not existing.

>>2329628
>Semantics are the study of what word means what
You're not wrong, though it's the study of meaning in general. If you take the poster's comment at face value, if they did mean the above, then they're complaining about OP using meaning? That's about as stupid as it gets.

Really, it's an old trope that is rarely used in an appropriate context

>>2329631
>bitches don't know bout animism
I see no problem here.

>>2329331
>Occam's Razor
>The solution that makes the fewest new assumptions is generally closest to being correct

The existence of a soul has a whole fucking host of assumptions related to it about matter, energy, etc etc

http://books.google.no/books?id=y9EX8RWdg-8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=berkeley&hl=no&s
a=X&ei=THwUT9ehH8yg-waCrriyAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=berkeley&f=false

Things wrong with OP's claim:

>The mind is not the same as the soul.
>Consciousness (the mind) is a byproduct of the brain. The mind can't exist without a brain in the same way a heartbeat can't exist without a heart.
>OP's doesn't understand how thought experiments work.

>>2329643

>I don't see how effects of brain states occuring without brain states occuring is any less inconceivable than something existing and also not existing.

Well, describing mental states as "effects of brain states" smuggles in some assumptions. But regardless, I think you're mistaken. You claim that you can't conceive of an effect without its cause. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. Does that mean you can't imagine lung cancer without cigarettes? Of course not.

Now, maybe you mean that brain states are the only conceivable cause of mental states, but then you are just assuming your conclusion. This post (>>2329605) describes another conceivable cause that doesn't involve brain states.

>>2329655
Instead it assumes omnipotent demons and a complete upheaval of all physical laws.

>>2329643
We can talk in terms of correlates, e.g. Neural correlates of emotions. Emotions can still exist as an abstract, non-physical entity, and their cause/effect relation to neurons are left open. Same for the mind.

>>2329655
You can't imagine lung cancer without SOME cause.

A flaw in DNA or some damage to the reproductive cycle of a few cells. One can't simply have all of the symptoms and effects of lung cancer without a physical mechanism.

>>2329658

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible, just that it isn't actual. The demon scenario is false but still conceivable, which is different from things that are inconceivable.

>>2329660
Cancer and illness in general has existed and been conceived of without knowing the causes thereof.
>One can't simply have all of the symptoms and effects of lung cancer without a physical mechanism.
You certainly can. You can also have no signs or symptoms and have lung cancer.

>>2329662
So can we settle that the existence of a mind without a physical presence is conceivable, but not actually possible?

>>2329655

>but then you are just assuming your conclusion

And what are you doing when you claim it's conceivable for thinking to exist without the brain?

>This post (>>2329605) describes another conceivable cause that doesn't involve brain states.

That post assumes something can exist without being made up of particles.

>>2329663
But, you do understand that whether they were understood or not, physical changes happened in the bodies of people with cancer. This does not mean that cancer is separate from the physiological changes, just that they didn't understand the connection.

>>2329624

If you break down your posts you really aren't saying anything.

I know it might be hard on your ego and all, but the truth can sometimes hurt.

>>2329668
For instance, when one coughs blood, it has a physical origin and a physical cause.

If one were in perfectly good health, it would be impossible to cough blood. Where would the blood come from?

That feel when everybody with a brain has been through this when they were teenagers, and they acted just like OP, and they thought everyone around was just not getting, but then they read a lot of books, grew up, learned a lot of things and were more sensible on this matter even if they disagree with each other.

>>2329668
We all have cancerous cells in our body. Do we all have cancer? No. What cancer IS is more complicated than that, and why it is that is more complicated still.

The issue of why we might get cancer is beyond the scope of 4chan posting, suffice it to say that it rests more on legalese than anything.

>>2329331

Normally not into chubbier, but I could make an exception for that one.

>>2329677
Old blood from a nosebleed. And, yes, healthy people can have nosebleeds. What health is is something else as well.

But if you do cough up blood, nosebleeds aside, go see a doctor.

>>2329680
But regardless, something causes the cancerous cells to mutate and reproduce as such.

OP reminds me of that brazen idiot on youtube talking about how he can prove the existence of God with a chocolate bar.

Nothing to see here.

>>2329678
Well so far only one anon has come forth with feelings like that, so we can only assume that we're dealing with edgy 17 year olds and edgier 21 year olds.

>>2329683
Okay, but that's still another physical possibility. The blood had an origin, and there was a reason it was there, and there was a reason you were coughing it up.

WTF is with all these Christian posts on 4chan? It's like God has a viral marketing team posting shit here.

Christianity is another cult. Just give it up FFS.

>>2329684
Not really. Not in the sense of "you smoked, you got lung cancer". Not even in the sense of "this cell mutated and reproduced uncontrollably", since there are a whole series of qualifiers and things that have to happen after that to make cancer.

>>2329692
Atheism is a cult

christianity is the true faith and the foundation of our civilization.

>>2329697
Those are also physical causes.

It's not arbitrary, is my point. Whatever complex combination of circumstances are there, they all have to occur in order to cause this to happen.

>>2329699
And also that we're not necessarily aware of them, but that they happen nonetheless

>>2329698
christianity confirmed for viral marketing

>>2329688
So why go to the doctor? Because you don't know.

How does the doctor know? Through hearsay. They don't allow hearsay as evidence in a court of law.

I think Proust put it best: “To believe in medicine would be the height of folly, if not to believe in it were not a greater folly still.”

Just like it's inconceivable for water to exist without particles it's inconceivable for sensory experience to exist without the brain.

>>2329703
At its simplest, an object at rest stays at rest until a force is exerted upon it.

>>2329711
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say by this.

>>2329699
Maybe, but how the hell do you know since you're clearly ignorant of them?

We don't know what the causal chain is. And the existence of a causal chain is assumed.

One other point; that illness manifests in the physical, and is physical in origin is of no consequence to OP. Go read some Kant.

all observations of the physical, the brain, and its brainbcells, cause and effects, are perceived in a mind, a consciousness. That means: all deductions of the observations are theories in consciousness. when we explain "paranormal" phenomenon, such as vivid dreams where you seemingly exist in another dimension maybe with another body etc., as halluinations of the brain, we also admit the possibilty that this physical reality might be hallucinations in another brain somewhere else. And all these merely theories in our mind. Whatever we end up with calling "real", it will be a belief-model of reality. all we have is our subjective continuous perception and conception of phenomenons.

>>2329698
Non believing is not a belief, dipshit. Fuck off

>>2329729
atheism is the belief that no gods exist, it is not enough merely to not believe in god, you have to disbelieve to be an atheist.

Further being an actual capital a, Atheist means you subscribe to all sorts of leftist ideology.

>>2329728

Your point?

>>2329730
is there a meaningful distinction between "not believing" and "disbelieving"?

>>2329718
Pleb. You cannot say for sure why something is there, just posture. Simple.

>>2329730
ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH! AHHHHH!
Stop tricking me into being a believer. Believing in thinks makes you stupid, and proves you have the brain of a squirrel!

No! I believe in notsing! Notsing, Lebowski!

>>2329730

>atheism is the belief that no gods exist, it is not enough merely to not believe in god, you have to disbelieve to be an atheist.

Wow. One sentence and you already contradicted yourself. Extraordinary.

>>2329726
because I'm fairly certain that all matter is governed by certain inviolable physical laws, and it would be a bigger leap for me to assume that cancer is somehow immune to these physical laws than to assume that it isn't.

Similarly, it's a larger leap to assume that the mind is void of physical laws than to assume that it is.

>>2329731
physical matter impossible to prove. and unecessary. mind does the work. body is a conception of mind. physical reality is logically most likely a mind-trick or illusion.

I can't believe this has over a hundred replies.

>>2329741
That problems with you and your ideology, not with the argument.

>>2329754

>physical reality is logically most likely a mind-trick or illusion.

Most likely an illusion? Why most likely?

>>2329758
>/lit/ - the most intelligent board

>>2329738
Accepting thousands of years' worth of collected evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experiments, and the like is fundamentally different than accepting an ideology that is not empirically observable or testable.

>>2329729
>Non believing is not a belief, dipshit. Fuck off
Exactly. No one seriously believes in a Godless universe anyway.

>>2329734
Maybe disbelieve is the wrong word.

Atheism is the position that God's do not exist.
Most people are agnostics saying "we can't know".

Atheists are saying "We DO know, and there is no god".

>>2329730
No, ANTITHEISM is the belief that God doesn't exist. ATHEISM is simply the lack of belief in a deity. Pic related.

>>2329763
because the brain-hallucination explanation goes into infinite regression. mind creating illusions is way better explanation than physical matter causing mind to create physical matter.

>>2329730
I don't believe in fairies. That doesn't mean I'm anything but someone who doesn't believe in fairies. Ok, STFU no one wants to hear about christianity anymore, it's a dirge on civilization.

>>2329766
Yes, thousands of years of Christianity vs a few decades of rambling jews/atheists who are attacking at the base of our civilization.

And since nothing matters and we are all individuals, according to atheists, then the death of our civilization and race is also meaningless and nothing is worth preserving.

It is a disgustingly degenerate ideology.

>>2329768
Agnosticism isn't a belief system in itself. It's a qualifier. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or you can be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. You can't just be an agnostic.

>>2329776
Homonculi all the way back is the same as turtles all the way down.

I quite like turtles all the way down though.

>>2329759
It's a problem that I accept information that can be tested, repeated, and has always been shown to work over something with no evidence or information to back it up besides a single thought experiment?

>>2329781
Do you believe that fairies do not exist?

Or are you simply agnostic over it?

>>2329772
>whole load of shit

nope.

>2012
>being a cartesian dualist.

Shit man I thought I'd seen everything.
Not even going to read the rest of this.

>>2329789
>dismissing facts
>"nope"

Opinion invalidated.

>>2329768

>Atheism is the position that God's do not exist.

No, atheism is the rejection of the belief in God.

>Most people are agnostics saying "we can't know".

Almost all atheists say "we can't know"

See pic.

>>2329786
i actually kinda like that too. all the way down. fucking hilarious.

>>2329784
Since you seem to be really ignorant:
Atheism/Theism - epistemological
Agnostic/gnostic - Ontological
You can disregard epistemology and focus on ontology if you want, there's nothing stopping you.

>>2329783
You're confusing tradition with scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is powerful because it can be tested and always returns the same result, or has to be expanded to accommodate new observations.

sage

>>2329800
You are aware that the catholic church basically invented science, right? And that it comes straight from the Christian view of the world?

>>2329799
Yeah but saying that you're just "agnostic" doesn't actually MEAN anything. You're not making any kind of statement about your beliefs. You're just saying, "we don't know". You have to state what exactly it IS that you don't know, dipshit.

>>2329776

>mind creating illusions is way better explanation than physical matter causing mind to create physical matter

Wait, what? This mind is still a brain, right? Because mind without a brain is inconceivable.

>>2329789

>Do you believe that fairies do not exist?

I DON'T believe fairies exist.

>Or are you simply agnostic over it?

I'm agnostic about it.

When I read a thread about borges proof of god yesterday I saw that it got about 5 responses before it died. I was uplifted. Clearly /lit/ did not sink into tedious religious debate so easily as /sci/. Then I read this thread with it's over 100 replies.It was foolish to think things could be different here.

>>2329644

1: the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : semiotics (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

2 : general semantics

3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

It sounds like you're the one that misunderstands the word "semantic" especially considering the context.

>>2329803
That doesn't mean that the church -is- science.

Can we observe the existence/influence of God in a repeatable, objective way?

>>2329803

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHA

>>2329789
Why did I say?

>>2329806
>Wait, what? This mind is still a brain, right? Because mind without a brain is inconceivable.
brain is a conception in mind. Mind is that which conceives, not itself conceivable in any way. it perceives and conceives.

>>2329800
mfw

>>2329803
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

>Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Is religion a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe?

People now days think that God care about us and that shit.

LIE! God is often decribed as a tyrant and if you have read those holy books like dah Bible, Koran etc then you know that God have done some horrible things to humanity.

>>2329801

Sage is to be used when posting a comment unrelated to the OP. Please don't use it as if it's a standalone derogatory significance.

>>2329805
You are making a statement about your beliefs. Your ontological beliefs regards gods.

>>2329822

>Mind is that which conceives, not itself conceivable in any way. it perceives and conceives.

>assuming "mind" can exist without a brain

Why?

>>2329830
Please refer to the image that this gentleman >>2329795
posted

>>2329826
are you an idiot?
I said that catholic church invented science, not that religion is science.

In early Christianity, there was no pretense that God was good. He was the boss. God was not an example to live up to but a voice to be obeyed. The infinitely good concept was tacked on much later... and God didn't fare too well. Bad things happen to good people.

Exploitive people have happy lives and the exploited die young and hungry. Clearly, nothing in nature is based on human concepts of justice or goodness. God failed at being infinitely good and wise, just and
kind, always knowing and punishing the wicked, always protecting the righteous.

>>2329795
Even though it's mostly right, one time it says "...but we don't know" and the other "...but we can't know" and these are two different things. The agnostic goes by the second idea.

Also, it's much more complicated than all that. Because even when people stop thinking of agnosticism as "we don't know" and start thinking it right, they are still seeing life from an objective point of view in which the truth is out there and that we can't reach it. It's possible not to think there is such a truth to begin with.

This is why discussing religion on the internet is useless, people can't get past this shit. In the end, you have theists butthurt, atheists disproving god or something, agnostics going like pic related, some ideas thrown in a 203 posts thread.

If someone asks my religious position? I say I'm an atheist, by all means. If someone says why am I so arrogant to claim that, I explain I'm an agnostic atheist. And that is only the tip of the iceberg right there and we haven't talked about anything...

>>2329833
"In fact, even if you count 'atheism' as a religion, this doesn't count as a religion."

Awesome brainpower at work here.

>>2329839
Okay, but then what does that have to do with accepting the church's ideals/beliefs?

>>2329839

Were the mathematical and astronomical systems of the Mayans not science then?

>>2329331

*sigh* Dude, the only way you can prove anything is with the scientific method. You did not do that. You simply made a thought experiment and it failed miserably, because the moment you said that I couldn't see myself in the mirror, I instantly thought, "Cool, I'm invisible", not "SHIT, TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES, AMAZING."

Also, the moment you said "Let's say there's no God", I realized you were biased, so the entire thing went down the drain from the beginning. Fuck off, you pseudo-intellectual christfag. Without science, you wouldn't be having computers to spew your bullshit on.

>>2329832
>assuming "mind" can exist without a brain
Why?
Because all is perception. to have the brain to be the cause of our perceptions is an assumption from the belief that physical matter is out there, implying it existed before mind existed, thus creating it. But that assumption, theory in your mind, is impossible to imagine since the idea of physical matter existing outside of a mind perceiving it, is mind-assuming and truly inconceivable.

>>2329848
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm

It was only christianity and the christian world view which lends itself to an empirical and systematic study of the world we live in.

>>2329851
>Dude, the only way you can prove anything is with the scientific method.
Prove it.

>>2329851
The scientific method does not prove anything, it merely disproves.

GJ showing that you know nothing.

>Without science, you wouldn't be having computers to spew your bullshit on.

lol this is a laugh and a half, CHRISTIANS INVENTED SCIENCE YOU DOUCHEBAG!

Your thoughts and feelings are bi-products of your brain (and the pituitary gland, I guess, but let's just say brain to keep it simple)

Without your brain, you cannot think and feel. This can be proven by damaging certain areas of the brain and thus disproving that there is any magical "soul" or midichlorians or whatever you'd like to call it.

Ergo, your mind and brain aren't two entities. Your mind is produced by your brain and without it, you have no mind.

Your faulty logic is like claiming eyes and sight are two different entities and that sight can exist without having eyes. "Imagining" it doesn't prove anything, other than you have a good imagination.

>>2329861

>>2329861
see
>>2329850

>>2329854

>is impossible to imagine since the idea of physical matter existing outside of a mind perceiving it, is mind-assuming

I don't understand this. How is the idea of physical matter existing without the mind mind-assuming?

If I'm reading this right basically you're just saying that it's impossible to imagine the mind not existing.

>>2329861

>not sure if troll or just stupid

>>2329884
math and astronomy is not science you idiot.

>>2329878
Sight does exist without eyes. You can see and react to light with your skin.

>>2329889
Sight and receptors for light, then.

>>2329889
>You can see and react to light with your skin.
That's not sight.

>>2329887

>Definition of SCIENCE
>1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
>2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
>3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
>4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
>5 capitalized : christian science

>>2329861
>lol this is a laugh and a half, CHRISTIANS INVENTED SCIENCE YOU DOUCHEBAG!
>implying atheists back then wouldn't be burned to death for blasphemy if they ever talked about that they didn't believe in dragons and wizards like everyone else

>>2329892
Every cell in your body can see to some degree. >>2329893
What the hell do you call sight? inb4 using your eyes

>>2329887
>math and astronomy is not science you idiot.

This thread is full of stupid.

Anon opened this thread hoping to find snaphots of OP's chubby whore in various states of undress.

There were no such snapshots.

There is no God.

Q.E.D.

>>2329894
yes and how does that cover math or astronomy?

Did the mayans have theories explaining WHY the bodies moved in the sky?

>>2329898
>Every cell in your body can see to some degree.
Scratch that, bloodcells and shit can't afaik. A surprising number of cells can "see".

>>2329881
Mind-assumin because it is an assumption in mind.
>If I'm reading this right basically you're just saying that it's impossible to imagine the mind not existing.
That is basically correct. anything perceived/conceived is so in the mind. but not just. i*m also saying all assumptions about physical matter and brain is construct of consciousness. damage brain impacts consciousness because it is the constructed vehicle for consciousness in this virtual physical reality.

>>2329895
implying they were?

It was christians studying the world around them to get to know god better.
That's how science was invented.

>>2329900
Math is certainly not science, Astronomy is not really science either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

>>2329904

>yes and how does that cover math or astronomy?

>2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
>b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
>b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

These three at least cover them.

>>2329901

Which is what happens when religious morons use the internet.

The sooner we improve the school systems, the better. I can't believe that we live in a world where we can transplant hearts, but there are still people who believe in dragons.

This is a literature board, guys.

Also this guy doesn't want to hear your ideas, so stop trying to convince him.

>>2329861
"CHRISTIANS" may have made great(hmhm) contributions to science, but to invente science? HA, what overwhelming arrogance!

Anyone who actually believes science was created by any particular religion didn't rise to the challenge of thinking it through.

>>2329915

>>2329912
It does not cover Math. Math is unrelated to the physical world, which science is focused on.

Astronomy i would say is debatable, but the way you go about astronomy is mere observation and not really studying WHY the bodies do what they do. So i would not categorize it as science.

>>2329914
>religious
>morons
pick 1

>>2329920
science cannot exist without the scientific method, and that indisputably was invented by the catholic church.

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm

Did you miss this article??

>>2329935
>http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm
>http://www.christianity
>science2.htm

Take your bullshit propaganda elsewhere.

>>2329942
fuck off you bigot.

>>2329945

no u

>>2329935
I want a non-christian site to explain this.

Sure the scientific method may have been invented by people who happened to be Christian, but it wasn't invented for the purpose of Christianity, which is/was built on unwavering faith.

Copernicus happened to be religious, and the moment he discovered something contradicting the church, he was put under house arrest for life.

>>2329935
Care to cite some historians for this 'indisputable' claim, anon? Because I'm disputing it.

I think Christians are a little defensive since virtually all the great scientists from the 20th century to the present have been atheists. So they refer back to theist scientists of the 16th through the 19th centuries to show that Christians were really the people most responsible for the great success of modern science and its corollary of modern technology.They are probably also being defensive in reaction to the idea that Christianity has been repressive of science (which, to a large extent, it has).

I wouldn't doubt though that some Christians magnify this into an argument for Christianity being primarily responsible for science - which is preposterous. Christians can be a little like the Soviets during the cold war - who tried to claim everything ever invented useful to humanity was a Russian invention.

Another reason they dredge up old scientists is to relate those scientists' beliefs to their own with argument from authority - "Well, Newton was one of the greatest geniuses of all time, and he believed in God...". Of course, Newton somewhat ironically, may also have believed in astrology, so, by that logic, shouldn't we believe in astrology too?

>>2329952
More relevant is that Newton was a unitarian and thus in the eyes of most Christians (certainly of his time) not a Christian at all...

no matter what the belief is, be it ever so absurd, there is probably someone enormously intelligent who has believed it at some point in history

>>2329955
>and thus in the eyes of most Christians
Source: Biased historians and writers.

>>2329956

Why are you so fucking retarded?

Imagining a world without your mind in it is like contemplating being dead. I guess you have a point, but contemplating nothingness is something a lot of us do when we think of what it would be like to be dead. Besides your imaginary worlds are still just imaginary. I can imagine a world where I'm fucking god like a boss, and it's the best imaginary world there is.

>>2329956

Crazy =/= intelligent

This may or not be related, but nearly every christian I've heard talk about their beliefs acts as though they're being persecuted. When anyone voices against the,. they'll raise a defensive shield of, "you're just a god-hating atheist," which has always seemed rather childish to me. It's almost always used after something is said that they don't want to hear, or if they're tired of an argument.

>>2329854

It's impossible to imagine something existing without a mind being there to perceive it because the act of imagining necessitates a mind.

That's not proof of the impossibility of something existing without a mind being there to perceive it, that's just proof it can't be imagined.

Oh hi, /sci/, how's it going toda-

Wait what. This isn't /sci/... but how come half its idiots are here? Did you drag them with you, OP?

>>2329967
It just won't stop.

>>2329948
>Copernicus happened to be religious, and the moment he discovered something contradicting the church, he was put under house arrest for life.

You are thinking of gallileo, and he was put under house arrest for political reasons largely unrelated to any "heresy"

>>2329952
>since virtually all the great scientists from the 20th century to the present have been atheists
Where do you get this idea?

>>2329949
Never heard of roger bacon?

>>2329964
It's because the inner logic in their head always is pushing them, trying to make them realize the local retardation, so when someone from the outside mention something about their belief, they instantly are reminded of the inner logic's constant accusations.

>>2329958
>biased writers
Damn you, anon, you're right! I've just been through all of my books and it turns out they're written by people! And they've all got viewpoints and subjectivity and shit! Everywhere I looked, I saw accursed bias! And so I began to scour the earth, looking for just one book which was objective and unbiased.

So, anyway, long story short, I'm now a Muslim.

>>2329964
Have you been sleeping for like the last 50 years? Prayer is banned in school!

>>2329966
only partly true. the recognition of that statement comes with a lot of implications, that eventually makes the mind creating the physical a better model of reality.
check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7qNMfOMQU&feature=share

>>2329976
>Now a muslim.

You're not even trying to disprove stereotypes any more are you?

>>2329979
institutionalized prayer is banned. You can still pray independently, but you can't ask a whole class to join you in prayer.

>>2329979
No it's not, you god damn moron, where do you live?

>>2329331

In my view they aren't mind/matter aren't as separate as you make them out to be, below would be my argument for monotism:

The soul (which you described) would be part of the mind, the mind in its entirety is nothing but the sum of brain activity, hence the soul would be brain activity. Brain activity is physical manifestation, hence the soul too would be a physical manifestation.

>>2329989
did you not read that story of some kids suspended for praying in the hallway?

>>2329331

In my view mind/matter aren't as separate as you make them out to be, below would be my argument for monotism:

The soul (which you described) would be part of the mind, the mind in its entirety is nothing but the sum of brain activity, hence the soul would be brain activity. Brain activity is physical manifestation, hence the soul too would be a physical manifestation.

>>2329999
You can't use an uncommon example to represent a common occurrence, link it, anyway though, I also want to know what they were praying about and how loud they were doing it.

>>2330008
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7357978/high-school-athletes-suspended-tebowing

>>2329973
You're going for Roger Bacon as founder of the scientific method? That's, uh, disputed, anon.

>>2329999
Yeah, this would be considered disruptive, and I assume they refused to stop, which would lead to the suspension, the fact that it's a prayer is irrelevant to the school system.

You're talking about this tebowing prayer thing, right?

You're gonna need more than this to show widespread PERSECUTION of Christians.

>>2330019
Also it was for one goddamn day, that's hardly even a suspension.

>>2330019
so niggers being subhuman animals and blaring their rap garbage is ok, but some christians praying in a hallway silently is "disruptive" ?

>>2330025
That doesn't happen.

>>2329331
>>2329362
>>2329365
>>2329404
>>2329903
I'm gonna need names on all of these

This was a masterful troll.

>>2330015
>The students were not suspended for bringing religion into the school, but instead for clogging the hallway.
>But other students started joining in and administrators claimed it had become a disturbance. District officials reportedly told the students that the celebration was making it unsafe for students walking the hall in between classes.
>The incident saw about 40 students engaging in the popular Tebowing. Only the four students, all athletes, were suspended. Caroll told Prep Rally that the administration told them "that our Tebowing was blocking the halls and could potentially cause a riot, because they were growing in number and if the wrong kid gets pushed a brawl could ensue."
>three minutes to reach their next class.

Fuck that. If I have three minutes to get to class, I don't want 40 faggots clogging up the halls to pretend to pray.

>>2330033

You disgust me.

>>2330041
>>2330033
Filenames, man, it's lookin like Tara Lynn.

>>2330030
happens every day in america.

Have you never been to a school with a significant number of blacks?

>>2330075
Sonofabitch, just o away, you aren't getting anything out of this anyway.

>>2330075
I do. but they never clog up the halls. In my school, they'll stick to the walls, leaving room for people to pass. No matter how obnoxious they are, no matter how loud the music, they don't stop people from going about their day

>>2330085
they stick to the walls because they are apes and like climbing things.

>>2330162
Or maybe... Just maybe. They have a little bit of common courtesy. I don't know what black people you see, but even the most obnoxious of us won't needlessly cause a disturbance in the middle of school. people have shit to do.

Oh man, when this thread first appeared I thought 'ooooh, OK, a nice little amateur philosophical discussion just might happen here.'

Now it's all religious arguments and lolracism, and that makes me a sad panda.

>>2330173
>negros
>common courtesy

I thought you claimed to have met blacks before?

>>2330017
Not really, you have modern atheists/protestants who want to hate on the church, naturally they make up lies and claim that muslims invented things.