It seems subjectivity is incoherent... attack this argument!

[xts3]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Thought is non-material, it is not evolved out of matter. Let's say you are feeling hungry, you think the brain sends signals telling "it is hungry and it needs some food to survive" but the question arises - how did the brain first started to work without food? if you think it was using some alternate source of energy then there must have been a change to that pattern because now it is asking you to eat something up. Obviously this will drag on to non welcoming subjects which I can discuss if you PM me.

Thoughts are physical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il88Nm6KLvM

I hate to disagree but he is wrong.

You're a christian right?

Am not religious, but I do believe strongly in God. And I did work at a Physics research lab writing computer code for three years.

Platonist?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Thought is non-material, it is not evolved out of matter. Let's say you are feeling hungry, you think the brain sends signals telling "it is hungry and it needs some food to survive" but the question arises - how did the brain first started to work without food? if you think it was using some alternate source of energy then there must have been a change to that pattern because now it is asking you to eat something up. Obviously this will drag on to non welcoming subjects which I can discuss if you PM me.

Thoughts are physical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il88Nm6KLvM

I hate to disagree but he is wrong.

You're a christian right?

Am not religious, but I do believe strongly in God. And I did work at a Physics research lab writing computer code for three years.

Platonist?

What ever you might want to call it. I don't think God is partial to only one religion so I don't believe in religions. But I do believe there is a higher living force, Gandhi believed it like that- (I have his 3 min audio on it) and he is one great example of a real character. As a part-time scientist I've come to believe the real truth cannot be scientific or spiritual or any other- it cannot have a classification, it's just a natural thing that exists and we have to live with it whether you like it or not.

 

[Xdreamer]

xt3 I have to disagree with you again. I said that thoughts are not real. I also said you can detect things that do not exist. The comparison between a computer monitor displaying a hallucinagenic image and an actual hallucination is also not a valid comparison.

Who is that guy? He sounds like a politician.

He is wrong btw. Thoughts, ideas, etc dissappear constantly. Maintaining a thought requires a very complex system of circuits to prevent the degradation to randomness that the second law of thermodynamics requires.

There are also many things that are real that we cannot detect. However, it makes it very hard to know about them.

 

[Xdreamer]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Xdreamer
BTW you can detect things that are not there. Happens all the time. Typically called a hallucination. Research in neuroscience has demonstrated that perception only has a superficial congruency to reality.

You're misunderstanding, you're using another definition of "not real". A hallucination is physical event, it is merely distortion of information, the information still exists, I can write a program to swizzle my screen into a hallcinatory pattern, the pattern still exists. Check out the split brain experiments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnyQewsB_Y

I appologize. How would you define "not real"?

 

[Xdreamer]

Subjective: of or resulting from the feelings of the person thinking; not objective: personal> Websters Dictionary. .. Probably should have used a more impressive one like Oxfords.

Objective: 1. existing as an object or fact, independent of the mind; real. 2, concerned with the realities of the thing dealt with rather than the thoughts of the artist, writer, etc. 3, without bias or prejudice.

Real: 1 existing as or in fact; actual; true 2. authentic; genuine 3. Law of or relating to immovable things

Reality: the quality or fact of being real.

Unreal: ( a substitute for "not real"): not real or actual; imaginary, fanciful, false. etc

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination; unreal

Imagination: 1 the act or power of forming mental images of what is not present b) the act or power of creating new ideas by combining previous experineces 2. the ability to understand the imaginative creations of others 3. resourcefulness.

Thought: an idea or concept

Idea:1 apperance of thinking , 2 a thought ' mental conception or image; 2. an opinoion or belief 3. plan or scheme 4 meaning or significance

Language is a tool. If we don't use the same definitions we cannot understand each other even if we try.

 

[Xdreamer]

By the definitions set above: Relating to the English language, thought=idea=image, formation of which is inherited in the concept of imagination= therefore is imaginary=unreal=not real.
The physical substance exists. But the definition of thought only includes the subjective.

This is by no means a definate line of thinking. Its is open to subjective interpretation of its physical objective record.

0 and 1 are both numbers: therefore they have Inherited the property of being a number. However. O is infinatly less than 1. You can divide 0 by one but you cannot divide 1 by zero because the result is undefined.
However, numbers are creations of man................................................................. and on and on

I love this sort of thing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Xdreamer
xt3 I have to disagree with you again. I said that thoughts are not real. I also said you can detect things that do not exist. The comparison between a computer monitor displaying a hallucinagenic image and an actual hallucination is also not a valid comparison.

Who is that guy? He sounds like a politician.

He is wrong btw. Thoughts, ideas, etc dissappear constantly. Maintaining a thought requires a very complex system of circuits to prevent the degradation to randomness that the second law of thermodynamics requires.

There are also many things that are real that we cannot detect. However, it makes it very hard to know about them.

Please.