{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Mister Sparkles :
11/20/2013 12:42:34 AM
15
You done sucking Robert Lanza's dick?
Also, I have some serious problems with your inductive logic.
English
-
I'll be happy to answer your questions, if it would hepl you with your problim.
-
P1 - Elements come from stars. P2 - We are fundamentally made of elements. P3 - We possess consciousness. C - Everything elemental possesses consciousness. It's just ridiculous logic. It's like saying an apple crumble is equal to an apple pie because they both have apple in them.
-
You choose to limit your perspective on consciousness but mathematics and physics say that existence is not limited to 3 or four dimensions. Nor is your consciousness.
-
The existence of 9, and possibly 11, dimensions has no bearing on whether or not essence is a prerequisite for existence. The idea that my consciousness is not limited to the four in which I definitively reside? You have no logic or empirical evidence to support such a conclusion.
-
You can't expect logic in 4D when you're studying the multidimensional. I will gladly share with you a couple of scientific experiments that shows us that logic has nothing to do with reality. I'm hoping you're already aware of at least one of them
-
Share the links, then.
-
here's one
-
I would watch that if I wasn't currently at college. I know of the double-slit experiment, of course, but could you just briefly explain exactly how it relates to the point you are making?
-
I'm sorry to admit that the physical consciousness can not perceive of something multidimensional.. Hence the confusion of the experiment. I hope you'll take the time to watch it. Profound stuff, indeed.
-
You are utterly failing to make a coherent point. The idea that we cannot have true metaphysical objectivity of the external world is nothing new. It isn't even profound. It's common sense. What is disturbing, however, is the lengths to which you take it. I don't see tables and chairs, I see the representations of said tables and chairs in my mind. That is not to say we cannot know of the existence of the thing-in-itself, we simply cannot claim to know it with total objectivity. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that consciousness is an innate property of existence.
-
What is it about this thought you find disturbing, and in what way? Have you ever heard of the term intelligent design?
-
[quote]What is it about this thought you find disturbing, and in what way?[/quote] It disturbs me how sound and logical philosophies like metaphysical scepticism can be seriously taken to such lengths. [quote]Have you ever heard of the term intelligent design?[/quote] You mean arrogant creationism?
-
Go do your homework
-
I do wish you would stop making vague points and dismissive comments. When you're trying to make a serious point, you just come off as an unintelligent, arrogant cock. And of course intelligent design is silly. It can be called science all it pleases, but it still argues for some sort of transcendent deity, especially with utterly retarded arguments like the teleological and anthropic. When one reads the work of David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche, it is difficult to take any argument in favour of God seriously.
-
Hehe. You're funny.
