Philosophy Now Forum

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Instead of evaluating the ideas on their own merit, you concern yourself with evaluating the person behind the ideas, and only following ideas your peers deem acceptable for you to believe, rather than using your own discernment on the idea itself.

Secondly, and this isn't a quote unquote "failure", thank goodness you aren't the final judge, and thank goodness there isn't a real peanut gallery other than the sunday funnies or the recesses of your mind.

If that's what helps you sleep at night.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:...
It's an emoticon. Since my reaction is fairly the same as last time, I'll post it again. (-_-)

What's it supposed to represent?

I will regurgitate these same ideas one more time for you, in a slightly new and different manner.

No not just myself, it applies to everyone.

Spirit gender, gender of mind and spirit, internal attitude and perception, etc.

As for Dao or not, I don't concern myself for fitting into cultures. If some monk in Tibet it is doesn't want to acknowledge that estrogen is a female hormone and include it in part of Yin, that's not my problem. And if he does, well good for him then.

And yet Yin has Yang in it? And Yin and Yang flow together. But I take your point as they would be classified as such I guess.

Afterlife doesn't occur as in, you believe nothing occurs after death, I presume?

Yup.

Don't know why you would believe such a thing, ...

Because I've seen dead people and never seen one return.

but in the interest of science I invite that you perform more research on the matter, which is part of the Holy Experiments as I intended.

Upon this matter, would this life/death machine be keeping the body organs functioning, that is, just try to shut down the CNS whilst maintaing the rest of the body? If so, what would it show, that consciousness resides in the CNS? What is it you are trying to demonstrate with these experiments?

Again I say, "Oprah" is a metaphor. Replace it with whatever you want. Or just keep saying the same thing over and over again, it's alright.

A metaphor for what? Day-time talk-shows for the brain dead? If so then I reassert that being upon them is not the aim of the great scientists, unless of course they are involved in the promotion for the understanding of science.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Instead of evaluating the ideas on their own merit, you concern yourself with evaluating the person behind the ideas, and only following ideas your peers deem acceptable for you to believe, rather than using your own discernment on the idea itself.

Secondly, and this isn't a quote unquote "failure", thank goodness you aren't the final judge, and thank goodness there isn't a real peanut gallery other than the sunday funnies or the recesses of your mind.

If that's what helps you sleep at night.

Believe me, if I lose sleep it's because my matress is saggy, not because someone on an internet boards has an imaginary peanut gallery.

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:...
It's an emoticon. Since my reaction is fairly the same as last time, I'll post it again. (-_-)

What's it supposed to represent?

I will regurgitate these same ideas one more time for you, in a slightly new and different manner.

No not just myself, it applies to everyone.

Spirit gender, gender of mind and spirit, internal attitude and perception, etc.

As for Dao or not, I don't concern myself for fitting into cultures. If some monk in Tibet it is doesn't want to acknowledge that estrogen is a female hormone and include it in part of Yin, that's not my problem. And if he does, well good for him then.

And yet Yin has Yang in it? And Yin and Yang flow together. But I take your point as they would be classified as such I guess.

Afterlife doesn't occur as in, you believe nothing occurs after death, I presume?

Yup.

Don't know why you would believe such a thing, ...

Because I've seen dead people and never seen one return.

but in the interest of science I invite that you perform more research on the matter, which is part of the Holy Experiments as I intended.

Upon this matter, would this life/death machine be keeping the body organs functioning, that is, just try to shut down the CNS whilst maintaing the rest of the body? If so, what would it show, that consciousness resides in the CNS? What is it you are trying to demonstrate with these experiments?

Again I say, "Oprah" is a metaphor. Replace it with whatever you want. Or just keep saying the same thing over and over again, it's alright.

A metaphor for what? Day-time talk-shows for the brain dead? If so then I reassert that being upon them is not the aim of the great scientists, unless of course they are involved in the promotion for the understanding of science.

Fame and popularity. Prestige, recognition, etc.

Not demonstrate, but explore. We will see what is demonstrated by the experiment. Why not some of both? Try it just with the CNS, and then with body organs too!

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Fame and popularity. Prestige, recognition, etc.

But there are different types? Hence the difference between winning a Noble and appearing on a day-time talk show.

Not demonstrate, but explore. We will see what is demonstrated by the experiment. Why not some of both? Try it just with the CNS, and then with body organs too!

Explore what? How to kill people?

I think you need to be clearer about this experiment as if one destroys the bodily organs as well then there will be no coming back from brain death.

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Fame and popularity. Prestige, recognition, etc.

But there are different types? Hence the difference between winning a Noble and appearing on a day-time talk show.

Not demonstrate, but explore. We will see what is demonstrated by the experiment. Why not some of both? Try it just with the CNS, and then with body organs too!

Explore what? How to kill people?

I think you need to be clearer about this experiment as if one destroys the bodily organs as well then there will be no coming back from brain death.

Nope, you could regrow organs or cyborg them. And it's not how you do it, but the tales they tell afterwards.

Sure, the people on daytime TV tell stories about how they died and went to heaven and what not, but it doesn't seem to be good enough for the Dawkinses. If a man in a white coat does the thing, they'll believe it for sure.

Noble prize no more value than Oprah TV, just a piece of metal, and praise of apes.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Nope, you could regrow organs or cyborg them. And it's not how you do it, but the tales they tell afterwards.

Sure, the people on daytime TV tell stories about how they died and went to heaven and what not, but it doesn't seem to be good enough for the Dawkinses. If a man in a white coat does the thing, they'll believe it for sure.

Oh! I get you. How about just looking-up all those who have died on the operating table and been resuscitated and haven't reported any experience and comparing the numbers?

Noble prize no more value than Oprah TV, just a piece of metal, and praise of apes.

Big difference, one is the praise of one's peer the other isn't.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Believe me, if I lose sleep it's because my matress is saggy, not because someone on an internet boards has an imaginary peanut gallery.

At least on this point, we're very much alike.

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Nope, you could regrow organs or cyborg them. And it's not how you do it, but the tales they tell afterwards.

Sure, the people on daytime TV tell stories about how they died and went to heaven and what not, but it doesn't seem to be good enough for the Dawkinses. If a man in a white coat does the thing, they'll believe it for sure.

Oh! I get you. How about just looking-up all those who have died on the operating table and been resuscitated and haven't reported any experience and comparing the numbers?

Noble prize no more value than Oprah TV, just a piece of metal, and praise of apes.

Big difference, one is the praise of one's peer the other isn't.

Hmm, I recall what you said about "how they die" earlier. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the "how", in order to find more of the "what". Perhaps the "how" was not the right way. Perhaps we need to be more sciencey and lab-coat-y about it, try new ways, new settings, other than just random car crashes and the like.