1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
tbh
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 5 Philisophical Questions that make your brain hurt
tbh
Actually, FM, we could test your theory.
I hereby propose that everyone puts "I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish" into their sigs, and then truly believes, as hard as possible, that FM is indeed a fish.
If FM turns into a fish, then he's a fish.
Otherwise, he's just, erm, a little miss-guided.
I hereby propose that everyone puts "I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish" into their sigs, and then truly believes, as hard as possible, that FM is indeed a fish.
If FM turns into a fish, then he's a fish.
Otherwise, he's just, erm, a little miss-guided.
I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
I'm a solipsist, wtf are you guys and wtf are you doing here writing in my Internet.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Biology is not philosophy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
In a scientific sense, that is.
If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.
If not, read on...
Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.
You take things too literally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.
Does that make you a paedophile?
(assuming you're not)
No.
Because you ARE NOT A FISH!
Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.
sourceScorpion0x17 wrote:
Well, I admit, the 'multiple personalities' bit is still debated - some say it does, and there's evidence to back them up - some say it doesn't, and there's evidence to back them up too.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosumScorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, yes it does.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No you don't.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Now, here's the interesting bit - if I cut the join between the two halves of your brain, you will end up with two personalities.Crippling the body has no direct effect on your personality. This furthers my point, it does not mean that your personality must reside in your brain.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I remove all your sense organs, what then?
Do you simply become a 'personality' trapped in some blank void?
No. You still have your memories of having senses. You still 'sense' your existence in 'this world' on some level.
So, 'you' are part of your brain.
You cut that sucker and you get a split brain, not a split personality. I don't know what else to tell you. It doesn't give you multiple personalities.
The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
This is actually easy to see with cases of 'personality transplant', rather than in cases where someone has lost a part of them (because we generally come to terms with that fairly quickly and any personality changes become masked). But, in what I'm referring to as 'personality transplant', there have been documented cases of personality change in the recipients of things like a hand, heart or other organ transplant. The real spooky thing is that some seem to become more like the donor than they were before the transplant.
That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, source.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, conclusions reached by those that did the research (who I assume know far more than I about the subject) and reported in various sources that I've read.
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Actually, FM, we could test your theory.
I hereby propose that everyone puts "I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish" into their sigs, and then truly believes, as hard as possible, that FM is indeed a fish.
If FM turns into a fish, then he's a fish.
Otherwise, he's just, erm, a little miss-guided.
Nonetheless, it is my reality. It is reality. In reality, I am not a fish, no matter what anyone (or everyone) says. Existing in my own reality is the definition of futile? Did everyone go and change the definition of futile to what your statement says without telling me, or is that your definition of futile? What reality are you in, because clearly in your reality the definition of futile is not the same as collective society's definition in my reality.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
In the end, no reality but my own matters. What good would it be for me to trust your reality as truth, when you could say something as simple as "KEN-JENNINGS is a fish" and so then I must be a fish?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-11-20 19:30:37)
Let ze game begin!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.
Societal definitions are the only ones that matter. No one cares what you call yourself.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Nonetheless, it is my reality. It is reality. In reality, I am not a fish, no matter what anyone (or everyone) says. Existing in my own reality is the definition of futile? Did everyone go and change the definition of futile to what your statement says without telling me, or is that your definition of futile? What reality are you in, because clearly in your reality the definition of futile is not the same as collective society's definition in my reality.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
Living only inside yourself is pointless. I don't know how much more futile it can get.
No they aren't. The only thing that matters (to me) is what I perceive and comprehend. No one cares what I call myself, but also, I don't care what other people call me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Societal definitions are the only ones that matter. No one cares what you call yourself.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Nonetheless, it is my reality. It is reality. In reality, I am not a fish, no matter what anyone (or everyone) says. Existing in my own reality is the definition of futile? Did everyone go and change the definition of futile to what your statement says without telling me, or is that your definition of futile? What reality are you in, because clearly in your reality the definition of futile is not the same as collective society's definition in my reality.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
Living only inside yourself is pointless. I don't know how much more futile it can get.
How else would I live? Last time I checked I am physically unable to 'live outside myself' - as 'live' translates to creating physical and mental responses to outside stimuli and 'myself' translates to all previous interaction and thought up to the exact point in time I am typing this.
PS = pointless and futile are synonyms. Your last sentence basically reads "living inside yourself is pointless. I don't know how much more pointless it could get. Could you get more or less pointless? I don't know, that is something you must deal with in your own reality, because in my reality pointless means you have already hit the level of "no point" - hence pointLESS.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-11-20 19:37:26)
Because you're a person that lives in a basement and makes no attempt at being a sociable person.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No they aren't. The only thing that matters (to me) is what I perceive and comprehend. No one cares what I call myself, but also, I don't care what other people call me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Societal definitions are the only ones that matter. No one cares what you call yourself.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Nonetheless, it is my reality. It is reality. In reality, I am not a fish, no matter what anyone (or everyone) says. Existing in my own reality is the definition of futile? Did everyone go and change the definition of futile to what your statement says without telling me, or is that your definition of futile? What reality are you in, because clearly in your reality the definition of futile is not the same as collective society's definition in my reality.
Living only inside yourself is pointless. I don't know how much more futile it can get.
How else would I live? Last time I checked I am physically unable to 'live outside myself' - as 'live' translates to creating physical and mental responses to outside stimuli and 'myself' translates to all previous interaction and thought up to the exact point in time I am typing this.
As I said, you can only control what others think of you to an extent. That's still what defines your personality.
I'm very social - however my reality is the only one that matters (to me)- everyone calling me a fish (or realistically believing I am a fish; or even changing the societal definition of a fish to mean 'me') does not mean that I am a fish- in (my) reality. I 'know' what a fish is, and I am not a fish.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're a person that lives in a basement and makes no attempt at being a sociable person.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No they aren't. The only thing that matters (to me) is what I perceive and comprehend. No one cares what I call myself, but also, I don't care what other people call me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Societal definitions are the only ones that matter. No one cares what you call yourself.
Living only inside yourself is pointless. I don't know how much more futile it can get.
How else would I live? Last time I checked I am physically unable to 'live outside myself' - as 'live' translates to creating physical and mental responses to outside stimuli and 'myself' translates to all previous interaction and thought up to the exact point in time I am typing this.
As I said, you can only control what others think of you to an extent. That's still what defines your personality.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-11-20 19:43:42)
What others think of you does not define your personality at all. It defines how they view your personality...that is all. Your personality exists even if you are alone. It is not reliant on another viewing it or having an opinion on it to exist or have its own characteristics.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And by refusing their definition, you refuse society.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm very social - however my reality is the only one that matters (to me)- everyone calling me a fish (or realistically believing I am a fish; or even changing the societal definition of a fish to mean 'me') does not mean that I am a fish- in (my) reality. I 'know' what a fish is, and I am not a fish.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're a person that lives in a basement and makes no attempt at being a sociable person.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No they aren't. The only thing that matters (to me) is what I perceive and comprehend. No one cares what I call myself, but also, I don't care what other people call me.
How else would I live? Last time I checked I am physically unable to 'live outside myself' - as 'live' translates to creating physical and mental responses to outside stimuli and 'myself' translates to all previous interaction and thought up to the exact point in time I am typing this.
As I said, you can only control what others think of you to an extent. That's still what defines your personality.
No, I refuse one aspect of society - their definition of me as a 'fish'. But then again, if society thought I was a fish I wouldn't be a part of society to begin with, because I don't generally include fish when I describe our 'society'. There would be no society for me to refuse, except perhaps a society of fish that might see me as 'human' and therefore not a part of their society to begin withFlaming_Maniac wrote:
And by refusing their definition, you refuse society.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm very social - however my reality is the only one that matters (to me)- everyone calling me a fish (or realistically believing I am a fish; or even changing the societal definition of a fish to mean 'me') does not mean that I am a fish- in (my) reality. I 'know' what a fish is, and I am not a fish.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you're a person that lives in a basement and makes no attempt at being a sociable person.
As I said, you can only control what others think of you to an extent. That's still what defines your personality.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-11-20 19:50:29)
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7110
These questions just touch the surface...
Okay then, you can stay even if you disagree with us. You're still a fish though.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, I refuse one aspect of society - their definition of me as a 'fish'. But then again, if society thought I was a fish I wouldn't be a part of society to begin with, because I don't generally include fish when I describe our 'society'. There would be no society for me to refuse, except perhaps a society of fish that might see me as 'human' and therefore not a part of their society to begin withFlaming_Maniac wrote:
And by refusing their definition, you refuse society.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm very social - however my reality is the only one that matters (to me)- everyone calling me a fish (or realistically believing I am a fish; or even changing the societal definition of a fish to mean 'me') does not mean that I am a fish- in (my) reality. I 'know' what a fish is, and I am not a fish.
For the cause!
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
My views on those?
I think #2, 3 and 4 are ridiculous and are things people with too much time on thier hands think about seriously
#1: Whether its right or wrong to kill 1 to save 5 is an ethics issue and it should be up to an individual whether they decide to give up their life to save 5. Its not black or white.
<'})))<acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Let ze game begin!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.
I didn't read the rest, but the first one. The difference is that killing a person for their organs to save more people is different from killing a person who themselves is in danger, to save others in danger.
The first example, the guy isn't in any danger. You're just going to kill him to save other people. Even though he's not in any danger himself. Fuck that. The second, it's somewhat more acceptable to kill 1 person to save more, if that 1 person is also in danger (train tracks etc..). That's how I see it.
It's all based on circumstance rite.
The first example, the guy isn't in any danger. You're just going to kill him to save other people. Even though he's not in any danger himself. Fuck that. The second, it's somewhat more acceptable to kill 1 person to save more, if that 1 person is also in danger (train tracks etc..). That's how I see it.
It's all based on circumstance rite.
That depends on your definition of 'philosophy'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Biology is not philosophy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
In a scientific sense, that is.
If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.
If not, read on...
Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.
That's just redefining words. It doesn't change you. And you are still not kept in any way real by the people who "remember who he was or what he believed". Which was your assertion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You take things too literally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.
Does that make you a paedophile?
(assuming you're not)
No.
Because you ARE NOT A FISH!
Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.
We are our flesh and blood and our thoughts and memories. Not the opinions of others.
Nor are we "an idea, not an object."
Sorry, but, again, books.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
sourceScorpion0x17 wrote:
Well, I admit, the 'multiple personalities' bit is still debated - some say it does, and there's evidence to back them up - some say it doesn't, and there's evidence to back them up too.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum
You cut that sucker and you get a split brain, not a split personality. I don't know what else to tell you. It doesn't give you multiple personalities.
If I could remember, out of the hundreds I've read, exactly which books I'd tell you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
k, source.
But, sorry, I get my knowledge from books, not this new fangled internet.
But their impression of you is not you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
You have a physical reality.
That is you.
Not an abstract concept held in someone else's head.
I accept your challenge...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Actually, FM, we could test your theory.
I hereby propose that everyone puts "I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish" into their sigs, and then truly believes, as hard as possible, that FM is indeed a fish.
If FM turns into a fish, then he's a fish.
Otherwise, he's just, erm, a little miss-guided.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-11-21 16:19:16)
there is no spoon
/thread
/thread
Let's use the definition used in the article that we're talking about.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That depends on your definition of 'philosophy'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Biology is not philosophy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
In a scientific sense, that is.
If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.
If not, read on...
Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm wrote:
Philosophy involves standing back and thinking - intensely and rigorously - about aspects of our lives that are at once ordinary and fundamental.
What are you to me then? Am I talking to a flesh and blood? It couldn't matter any less to me if you were a human or a weirdo from another planet. The idea of Scorpion0x17 is the same to me. It holds true for any other person I know in the flesh. Yes I recognize they have physical aspects and associate their body with them, but they themselves are an idea that is only embodied in that bag of mostly water.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That's just redefining words. It doesn't change you. And you are still not kept in any way real by the people who "remember who he was or what he believed". Which was your assertion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You take things too literally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.
Does that make you a paedophile?
(assuming you're not)
No.
Because you ARE NOT A FISH!
Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.
We are our flesh and blood and our thoughts and memories. Not the opinions of others.
Nor are we "an idea, not an object."
I incorporate my knowledge from various different sources into my general store of knowledge. Don't lean on some book you can't come up with for support - if you really understand and incorporate what you read you don't need to rely on the source because you can make the argument as well as any book.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I could remember, out of the hundreds I've read, exactly which books I'd tell you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.
But, sorry, I get my knowledge from books, not this new fangled internet.
Your physical reality is meaningless. It is a worthless lump of carbon. You are your impact on the world, as actively implemented by yourself or through your impression on others.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But their impression of you is not you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
You have a physical reality.
That is you.
Not an abstract concept held in someone else's head.
Yeah k, see how hard it is to make even 20 people change their definition.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I accept your challenge...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Actually, FM, we could test your theory.
I hereby propose that everyone puts "I think Flaming_Maniac is a fish" into their sigs, and then truly believes, as hard as possible, that FM is indeed a fish.
If FM turns into a fish, then he's a fish.
Otherwise, he's just, erm, a little miss-guided.
Totally beat you to the Matrix reference.jsnipy wrote:
there is no spoon
/thread
You mean like asking questions like "Why does the sun rise?" or "What constitutes matter?" ?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Let's use the definition used in the article that we're talking about.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That depends on your definition of 'philosophy'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Biology is not philosophy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
In a scientific sense, that is.
If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.
If not, read on...
Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm wrote:
Philosophy involves standing back and thinking - intensely and rigorously - about aspects of our lives that are at once ordinary and fundamental.
They, themselves, are exactly that bag of mostly water, no more, no less. Part of which holds their true personality. Not what you think their personality is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What are you to me then? Am I talking to a flesh and blood? It couldn't matter any less to me if you were a human or a weirdo from another planet. The idea of Scorpion0x17 is the same to me. It holds true for any other person I know in the flesh. Yes I recognize they have physical aspects and associate their body with them, but they themselves are an idea that is only embodied in that bag of mostly water.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That's just redefining words. It doesn't change you. And you are still not kept in any way real by the people who "remember who he was or what he believed". Which was your assertion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You take things too literally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.
Does that make you a paedophile?
(assuming you're not)
No.
Because you ARE NOT A FISH!
Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.
We are our flesh and blood and our thoughts and memories. Not the opinions of others.
Nor are we "an idea, not an object."
If I think you an idiot, that doesn't mean, necessarily that you are an idiot, just that I think you're an idiot.
Your idiot-hood would be a part of me. Not a part of you.
You're the one that asked for sources.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I incorporate my knowledge from various different sources into my general store of knowledge. Don't lean on some book you can't come up with for support - if you really understand and incorporate what you read you don't need to rely on the source because you can make the argument as well as any book.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I could remember, out of the hundreds I've read, exactly which books I'd tell you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.
But, sorry, I get my knowledge from books, not this new fangled internet.
Your physical reality is all there is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Your physical reality is meaningless. It is a worthless lump of carbon. You are your impact on the world, as actively implemented by yourself or through your impression on others.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But their impression of you is not you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Except your personal reality is irrelevant to everyone except yourself. Existing in your own reality is the very definition of futile, the only existence of yourself that matters is that through other people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you are 'you'. You are the culmination of what I described before - physical manifestations of pressure, accumulated experience, and accumulated mental thought. No one changes your reality except yourself. People can have an impact, but ultimately the decision lies within you (conciously or subconsiously) to become that reality that other's inflict upon you. I do not become something simply because other people say I am - there is a difference between collective reality and personal reality (your reality does not equal my reality).
If everyone labeled me a fish, I wouldn't be a fish. If the definition of 'fish' changed to a universally agreed upon definition that fit the definition of 'me', then I would be a fish. Simply ascribing me a label as a 'fish' does not make me, in reality, a fish.
The only part of your existence that you have control over is how you behave, and you can alter that behavior in order to change other people's impression of you. When it comes down to it however, they are the final judge.
Pretty much responded to the second part to Scorpion above in this post.
You have a physical reality.
That is you.
Not an abstract concept held in someone else's head.
Again, if I believe 'you' to be an idiot, that does not make you an idiot.
I believe I got 1/5th of the way without even asking...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah k, see how hard it is to make even 20 people change their definition.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I accept your challenge...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you can get, say 20 people, to put that in their sig, I'll change my sig too and have a fish avatar for a week.
And "What is a person?"Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You mean like asking questions like "Why does the sun rise?" or "What constitutes matter?" ?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Let's use the definition used in the article that we're talking about.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That depends on your definition of 'philosophy'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Biology is not philosophy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm. Science IS philosophy. Natural philosophy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Haha. Read the thread title again. Is philosophy science? What was that? No you say?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
@FM: Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
In a scientific sense, that is.
If you're religious, and believe in a 'soul' (which is implied in what you've said) then I'm not going any further.
If not, read on...
Your reply there reminded me of this. Racing back to the warm embrace of science when science really has nothing to do with the matter.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm wrote:
Philosophy involves standing back and thinking - intensely and rigorously - about aspects of our lives that are at once ordinary and fundamental.
If everyone thinks you're an idiot, you're an idiot. Your self-concept does not define yourself, as unsettling as that may be.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They, themselves, are exactly that bag of mostly water, no more, no less. Part of which holds their true personality. Not what you think their personality is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What are you to me then? Am I talking to a flesh and blood? It couldn't matter any less to me if you were a human or a weirdo from another planet. The idea of Scorpion0x17 is the same to me. It holds true for any other person I know in the flesh. Yes I recognize they have physical aspects and associate their body with them, but they themselves are an idea that is only embodied in that bag of mostly water.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That's just redefining words. It doesn't change you. And you are still not kept in any way real by the people who "remember who he was or what he believed". Which was your assertion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You take things too literally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Right. In that case I declare you to be a fish. Drowned (which is what fish do out of water) yet?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
On the contrary, you exist only as you are perceived by other people. The bowl of goldfish in itself means nothing, it's just some lumps of matter. To me however they represent a means of fulfilling physical and psychological needs. That is where the goldfish really exists.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, I am in no way the 'memories' that other people have of me. Those memories are part of them, not part of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We most certainly do. Our personality, once formed, is enduring. The only difference is once we are no longer able to manifest our personality through our body we cannot actively influence the world any more, and when our personality is forgotten we can no longer influence it passively either. Scorpion0x17 dies when people don't remember who he was or what he believed, not when the cells in your body happen to stop functioning.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But, if I remove your brain, 'you' no longer exist.Forget dying, you are whatever everyone else decides to label you as. Assuming you are a member of society, you don't get to define words. You give up that right to society, to the whole. If they decide to label you a fish, you are a fish, as preposterous as that may seem to you.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I, and everyone else in the world, decides one day that you are a paedophile, then that very same day, you die.
Does that make you a paedophile?
(assuming you're not)
No.
Because you ARE NOT A FISH!
Being a fish does not mean you sprout gills - it only means societal definitions have changed. You don't get to decide when or how they change, but you don't get to decide how they stay the same either. If a law was passed tomorrow that says anyone who goes to bf2s.com is a rapist, then you are a rapist. Not by the definition of the word that you understand, but you are a rapist unless you decide to remove yourself from this society.
We are our flesh and blood and our thoughts and memories. Not the opinions of others.
Nor are we "an idea, not an object."
If I think you an idiot, that doesn't mean, necessarily that you are an idiot, just that I think you're an idiot.
Your idiot-hood would be a part of me. Not a part of you.
Because I won't accept a response from a source that you aren't telling me about. Define your argument with logos or real ethos, don't make up some bullshit to add ethos.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You're the one that asked for sources.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I incorporate my knowledge from various different sources into my general store of knowledge. Don't lean on some book you can't come up with for support - if you really understand and incorporate what you read you don't need to rely on the source because you can make the argument as well as any book.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
If I could remember, out of the hundreds I've read, exactly which books I'd tell you.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The spooky effect of magic is the impossible seemingly happens before your eyes. That doesn't mean it seems all that special when you know how it's done.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The spooky effect of a recipient becoming more like the donor than they were before, is highly suggestive that some degree of personality does reside within the Body.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just as there are cases where personality changes drastically due to any sort of severe trauma. It doesn't prove your personality is connected to your body, only that your personality changes in trying to cope with a change in its only lifeline with the real world.That's a good strategy, declaring "books" as an ally.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
www.amazon.com - various science books written by various scientist - try reading some.
But, sorry, I get my knowledge from books, not this new fangled internet.
Care to explain the physical manifestation of a thought? Of intuition?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Your physical reality is all there is.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Your physical reality is meaningless. It is a worthless lump of carbon. You are your impact on the world, as actively implemented by yourself or through your impression on others.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
But their impression of you is not you.
You have a physical reality.
That is you.
Not an abstract concept held in someone else's head.
Again, if I believe 'you' to be an idiot, that does not make you an idiot.
Of course, because getting a few followers that have just as much to gain as you is as hard as getting the majority.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I believe I got 1/5th of the way without even asking...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah k, see how hard it is to make even 20 people change their definition.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I accept your challenge...
Also, lol @ the quote pyramid bug.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 5 Philisophical Questions that make your brain hurt