There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ -
Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new
Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
what is the relationship, if any, between your soul and your genome?
>I understand the brain because of causal relationships.
This is /phi/ not /CNSignorance/.
The same relationship as there is between the rainbow-colored bird I'm imagining and my genome.
The genome creates a brain capable of imagining fantastic things. The soul, space monsters, dreams, predators in the shadows, other worlds, heavens, hells, magic, all manner of fantasies and delusions. Some end up being useful, most, no so much.
Okay so this actually happened to me 5-6 months ago so I come for an explanation to help me better understand what is going on.
I took a half tesla ecstasy
About 30 minutes in I lost control of my body
I sat down crossed my legs Indian style and started meditating (I did not mediate prior to this al all)
I felt energy through my spine that felt like a snake slithering up it
After this happened my consciousness shot into space
There was a transparent blue spirit in front me floating with me
This spirit then told me "you have one question and one question only. Choose wisely"
I then asked the spirit what does it mean we are all made in the image of God
He said I'm not going to tell you. I'm going to show you
I then returned to my body and was not controlling myself still
I had infinite knowledge it felt unbelievable
The spirit in head then asked "this is what is means. do you want this forever?"
I told the spirit no and then it left and I was sober again
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
Go to /b/ to see the pictures too large for this thread I think y'all will enjoy and be able to help with your knowledge
>Three days later my roommate
In your other post you claim to have written them yourself >>/b/754252
And you neglected to mention that you were on drugs (i thought you were anyway).
Consider someone with multiple personality disorder.
How would a Materialist and an Idealist view this phenomenon?
As a mental disorder.
Individualism in nonexistent
Give me your best arguments as to why I am (or not) correct
Give your best arguments on why it does/does not exist. I do believe in it and think that it is just another reality.
(pic... I like the pic)
If we're nothing more than the sum of our physical parts then the concept of an afterlife seems absurd. Believing in an afterlife requires believing in dualism, because experiencing it requires some kind of soul or mind that can be separated from the physical body which can die.
My argument would be that there wouldn't be a way for us to find out given our circumstances as humans stuck with our a priori forms of intuition and the concepts of the pure understanding. Kant said that the Transcendental ego that precedes every judgment with an "I" is just a logical unity that accompanies our experience of things (more specifically, representations). So every time we unite 2 representations (or synthesize, to be more specific again) we are indeed conscious of an absolute subject that isn't a predicate of anything else.
But apperception assumes the process of synthesis, but it doesn't therefore make it valid for us to say that it is also a constitutive principle of reality as it is for itself (the thing-in-itself). That is, the Transcendental ego is merely a regulating principle that is a natural consequence of the process of synthesizing our representations in reality. Every time we take an "intuition" x and unite it with a "category" y in order for it to schematically make sense (and therefore make it possible for us to even experience), that act alone assumes a transcendental "I" automatically. With a synthesis comes the "I" as a logical consequence but not as a constitutive consequence.
The specific nature of the understanding is to think "discursively," that is, only through concepts, but these concepts are only predicates. But since we have an absolute subject, that is a substance, what can we do? the nature of subject is to be non-predicable. A subject is a thing which cannot be said of ANY OTHER THING. That means that the subject isn't even a concept, therefore we cannot even have it as an object of knowledge. If we can't even have a concept, that is, if we can't even give it predicates, then that means we can't give it any properties whatsoever.
Kant states "In the same manner, I may legitimately say, I am a simple substance, that is, a substance the representation of which contains no synthesis of the manifold; but this concept, also this proposition, teaches us nothing at all with respect to myself as an object of experience. For the concept of substance itself is used only as a function of synthesis, without any intuition for it to rest on, and therefore without any object, and is valid only of the condition of our knowledge, but not of any object that can be specified"
So "it can't be specified" as he states. He uses the word concept differently in the quote. In the quote he refers to the category of the understanding, one of them being substance. In another sense he refers to a concept meaning "predicate." So the "I" is only the category of substance, but isn't a concept in the sense that it can be given any predicates. Categories function as things that make the function of knowledge even possible. Kant's criti
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hegelian Dialectics in historic Christianity.
Why have we not acquired the synthesis yet?
Synthesis: Counter-Reformation. Almost every initial point the Protestants made was answered and reformed in the Counter-Reformation. Protestants and Catholics alike do not seem to know their history very well, but there was an entire movement within the Church that led to massive reforms after Protestantism.
Because "dialectical" processes aren't like pushing dough through a pasta-maker. Hegel actually thought that the French Revolution was something like the "synthesis" -- he rarely used the idiot-worthy t/a/s triad himself, but he did think that the Protestant Reformation had solved problems inherent in medieval European societies, and it was a standing question how the same reforms could be achieved in Catholic countries.
What are the reasons that prove the impossibility of an anarchy in every country of the world ?
Is it really because of the human fagottry ? By this I mean the eternal abuses of power, stuff like that. Are there other reasons to think anarchy isn't realizable anywhere else than in our brains and sayings ?
Here is your citation
Nobody asked for this, lol?
The only way anyone could formally establish an anarchist (insert anarchist unit of polity here) would be to simultaneously abolish all other governments with any interest in the territory, because they'd be defenseless (no nation, no army) and they'd be overrun (no government, no negotiations).
Now if you want to have some autonomy, and live in your hippie commune and worship satan with minimal government interference, we can talk about that. Anarchy is a fantasy born from our ancestral memories of pre-civilization, grow up.
In a utilitarian sense, is there any way to justify the existence of zoos? If the amount of animals in captivity and the number of hardships they would have to suffer was kept to a minimum, could you justify keeping these animals, showcasing them to people who would otherwise never see anything like them?
To answer this properly requires measuring the costs and benefits of living in captivity and living in the wild. This has the potential to vary wildly even between individuals of the same species. It's not impossible to imagine some critter deciding that a downsized stomping ground is better than being chased by predators all the time, but the same critter's sibling might reject any restrictions on its freedom, no matter what it stands to gain in return. This all, of course, assumes that a particular animal has the capacity to give two shits either way; many might, but some won't.
If you can tally the hedons and crunch the numbers, then we can say for sure.
Allow me to provide a disclaimer that the book provides too late imo: If in reading you encounter something you think is false or untrue or crazy, mark it down but keep reading, you might very well find your arguments dispelled with sound reasoning.
truthcontest.com- what this is is a contest for the truth of Life: The big questions that concern us all, every last one of us. I could go on all day, so I'll let you judge for yourself. Simply pick a book, either The Present or The Present with Religion and start to read.
It has transformed my life, allowing me to be happy and contentfor the first time in my life. The truths TP:WR has taught me have completely changed my outlook: the truths learned serve everything and everything is served by them. Over 70 pages into a book about religion, the meaning of life and God, and I haven't disagreed with a single thing or found any of it to be untrue by my judgment. Yeah, the judgment of others is what put those two books there to be read. I truly believe this book contains the tools for enlightenment, the tools that will transform lives and this world into something so much better.
The truth is what binds us all, gives us relevance and a frame of reference. The truth is what can unify us with each other and the life around us. And this book delivers the Truth, and I am here to proclaim it to you all, that you might find the same fruits I did, of relief and love. At first, the book teaches, this kind of change might prove hard at first, as the mind is very resistant to the notion that it itself is the problem, and it will put up a furious resistance. However if you can overcome this resistance, this resistance is the very thing that will convince you what this book says is true. Then, once you have recognized the problem, you can begin to try and solve it. Once enough of us have, and succeed, then we can proceed to make heaven on earth a literal reality.
A little tidbit: http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/hell.html- basically, the entire religious concept of hell is found to be talking about the volcanic vents at the seafloor.
I could talk about this all day, /phi/, but what I really want to know is what do you all think of this?
The truth contest doesn't provide an adequate direct answer. It hides behind the veil of ambiguity to appear to have genuine deep connections to the universe when in reality it's a petite collection of quotes and phrases purposely sold off as some kind of hidden treasure grove. I have submitted an introductory course to my theory and haven't had a decent reply or consideration behind my understanding of the universe. I suspect the 'panel of reviewers' is nothing more then a single person waiting to steal ideas from others. To understand the universe, is to study it factually. If Pauli, Planck, Einstein or Schroeder spoke in ambiguity or provided hints and clues instead of perusing their ideas we wouldn't have the progress that we do now. The truth contest, is by no means an actual truth contest. It's a simple collection of opinions. In closing, don't submit your ideas to this sham.
Why has Evolution "produced" a species that drives itself to extinction ? And if humaity is a the failig part of try and fail. How is nature suposed to evolve further if we leave the planet inhabitable ? Is our whole Planet part of the fail and another Planet is the try that actually works out ? Or has Nature just fucked up big time ?
The problem in your questioning is that you assume that humanity was somehow a project of earth, when rather it was a biological byproduct of chemical reactions happening billions of years ago. Earth has no sentience, it's a bundle of materials that happen to come clashing together through gravity. The living shit on it lives in a symbiotic way, but has no connection to it in a higher spiritual or biological sense.
"Nature" isn't a sentience either. It's just an umbrella term for biological things we humans have no control over (or wasn't manufactured by humans). Or in other words: It's a term to describe the seeming prewritten "rules" of how non-human things operate. Humanity isn't governed by nature or the earth. Neither of those things "made" us willingly.
Now to answer your question, I believe that we as a species are in a weird situation. We are too intelligent and dumb for our own good. We're capable of mental capacities that far exceeds that of the smartest perceived animals on the planet, we can differentiate between subject and object, we can "think outside the box" - yet, we are not smart enough to handle our gifted capabilities. We, as a species, are still bound to our insticts and primal behaviours. We lack the discipline to outweigh our "flaws" and become a non-selfdestructive species. We are intelligent, but only intelligent enough to hate and destroy each other. We are subjected to our emotions, which are/were useful for survival, but needless to say are one of the roots of humanity's fundamental problems, or in the very least, the handling of such.
If you think nature can fuck up, you still don't understand it. If we die, it won't matter. If we kill all life on Earth, it won't matter. Evolution is not sentient.
And anyway, humanity is on the verge of discovering how to leave the planet and possibly digitize the human brain. As long as we don't kill ourselves before then, we may very well wind up engineering our own evolution, in a pretty huge leap, frankly.