Jesus V. Religion - Page 18

On January 20 2012 10:42 Loco wrote: I didn't know anything about this guy so I google'd him and he clearly is not a phenomenologist (philosophy), so I don't get the joke. I see he's a "devoted" Christian though, is that supposed to have anything to do with the joke? I really don't get it.

A philosopher Christian is the same as a Buddhist with a God. Jesus was on the "cross" because he was in the middle of the extremes of a spectrum, just like Buddha taught about the middle way. Philosophers taught the golden mean. It is all about the same concept of not going to extremes, be that in religion, science, materialism or whatever. As Bob Dylan sang "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle with you".

On January 20 2012 01:47 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 19 2012 21:53 Baalim wrote: Holy fucking shit... ok is confirmed the guy is an imbecile, and its good Stephan doesnt allow his videos to be posted as responses, they are idiotic. First of all he is making 101 questions about anarchy (oh who would set the drinking age lol wat... what about money?), then he focuses on his quick analogy about how its too simplifying, well newsflash, the world is retarded if he starts discussing the philosophy of anarchy in his 1st video guess what, nobody would get it. He talks about how to defend his property from thieves (squatters), obviously the act of theft is the initiation of force, Stef is againt the initiation of force, he has no quarrel with using force to defend what you own, and yes private force is the way to defend yourself and yes its not ideal because the human being is a shitty creature, but the whole argument of anarchy comes from that single fact, if you think private armies suck because people suck... then how on earth is making massive unquestionable armies better, duh. So please tell your hero to grab a book of anarchy for dummies so he has the slightest clue what he is talking about. So we shouldn't allow your comments here because they are sometimes idiotic? :D You are probably right that he doesn't know much about it (especially if he considers it a rather ridiculous idea), but he clearly is more learned than you are on every single other topic, so you might want to calm down with the condescension. Also, his philosophy and mine are very different. Just because I respect him as a thinker does not mean that he's a hero of mine. I have plenty of issues with him.

then isnt it absurdly egocentric to bitch about not being considered in video responses when the guy really has no idea whatsoever about anarchy?

And if he considers anarchy ridiculous then it doesnt matter how much he has read about philosophy, he is an idiot.

I haven't read anything on anarchy so I have a question for you, Baal. By saying you want anarchy do you mean that you want like right now no laws, no system, no government and so on or do you mean a natural evolution towards a peaceful intelligent society that doesn't need governments to lead them (and control them). Cause, the first option means lots of chaos and trouble, cause people right now are mainly egocentric retards. The second one is to a certain extent what I want too.

On January 20 2012 16:14 Zorglub wrote: “Consciousness” does not name a distinct, separate phenomenon, something over and above its neurobiological base, rather it names a state that the neurobiological system can be in." If i buy this argument, wouldn't it be possible for consciousness to transcend this neurobiological state of mind, to lets say a universal consciousness containing even more than the mere neurobiological system of a single human being, for example the entire universe? If consciousness is a state containing the neurobiological system, why would an altered state of consciousness not be able to contain the entire physical universe? The universe is no different in its basic components, than the physical neurobiological system of a single person.

Well, there are quite a few different lines of arguments and a good deal of history during which different arguments/theories were more or less influential. It seems to me that one side will come up with problems the other side has trouble explaining satisfactorily and, out of that, another version/denomination will branch off to explain it better or a completely different approach will gain a foothold. Over time, competing theories lose any influence at all. That is just science, of course. There are different materialistic theories (which has been described as "contemporary orthodoxy", "sort of the religion of our time in the sciences of the mind/social cognitive sciences" - was generally accepted with the idea to make it fit with what we know and has been the most influential historically) different types of behaviorism(generally rejected), dualism, 'mainstream' theories, functionalism, etc, where you have a lot of smart people falling into different camps.

I haven't learned the different nuances of how each approach the various problems associated with explaining consciousness, etc, so I can't really say how one or the other would address the ideas of a transcendental or collective or a universal consciousness.

It sounds like you're saying: if consciousness is a higher level feature (or property) of what's happening at the level of physical brain chemistry, is it not possible that there are even higher level features of consciousness (which may essentially include some other type/form/combination/etc of consciousness)?

I'm sure it's a possibility. This is something I personally would like to believe - something like what's in the last Bill Hicks video posted earlier+ Show Spoiler +

But that is more of a metaphysical than a cognitive science thing. Cognitive science deals with what we know about how the mind actually works and how this relates to the brain - with figuring it out. Metaphysical implications of our knowledge are, as always, a few steps ahead.

The universe is no different in its basic components, than the physical neurobiological system of a single person.

...containing even more than the mere neurobiological system of a single human being, for example the entire universe?

Even if we can reduce individual parts of the physical universe to the same components, that doesn't mean these parts are the same and have the same properties/features, etc. Distinct properties are determined on a higher level than the level of most basic components. Our neuro-biological systems have a lot in common with some other types of NB systems, but NB systems in general have very different features than most other parts of the universe. And the uniqeness of our brains/minds, in particular, is what makes this such a puzzle.

guys cut the shit out
enough is enough just agree to disagree and be happy motherfucker

Who needs to agree to disagree, and about what??? You see unended conflict where I don't.

Plus, this is a public discussion thread. Why act like people are being noisy in your own home while you want to sleep?

Loco nobody needs to agree to disagree, it is just something I think is wise to do once in a while. And you are right, enough of me saying this thread is a waste of time, I made my point so if I cant contribute to it and any other way better shut the fuck up.

Lol tutz, yeah I thought like that too, religion discussion and shit seemed so pointless and boring, but most of the time you learn something so even if we can't know the truths asking them and debating them does gives you some benefit, I wouldn't think anyone here is actually trying to "convince" other people of their own views but just state them and argue why they are good points of view. And if you don't care about any of this in the future you should just not post, I mean you don't see me posting in your prank threads ;p

this thread is decent. some good info, curiosity sparked a bit , and we can all pick on d smart s

Poll: Who is winning this thread?
(Vote): Dsmart
(Vote): Zulu
(Vote): Loco
(Vote): Baal
(Vote): Nazgul