i heard when u die u empty your bowes, maybe thats where the 21grams comes from!

HAHAHAHAHA KAPOW!!!!!

yey that movie rox

21 grams is for pussys lols, blow your brains out and lose half a kilo, yea thats what real men would do

+ brian boitano

Kurt Kobaine ? ;)

seems awesome, ill try to get it when i get home

21 grams.. that's 7 grams less than an ounce.

was gutted cuz i thought the movie wud be bout drugs

drugs question?

Didn't like 21grams at all, forced myself to watch it until the end.

why would we lose 21 grams when we die? z()

It's said all humans mysteriously lose 21 grams upon their death. The 21 grams is the weight of your soul.

LOL, hahaha, that's too stupid; isn't the so-called soul supposed to be immaterial anyways?

Follow the white rabbit... ;)

It's quite interesting, isn't?

No, it's fucking horrible. That people still believe in a soul is ridiculous. The single most impeding and destructive thing in my philosophy class on consciousness was this Christian middle-aged woman who were always quarreling and arguing for the soul, asking the most stupid questions - she just would not let go of the concept, not even for thought experiments.

As for that article; first of all i must admit i don't belive it. Second, why would you posit that there is a SOUL leaving the body when he dies just because the weight drops? How about searching for a realistic reason first, one that fits with, say, all of what we know about the universe, it's physical laws and evolution?

liek, a little bit of poop komes out

lil bit of ODOR ESCAPES YES?

I'd guess when you die, you'd piss/shit and you'd also lose any air you happened to be breathing. That's some weight taken away already.

air is so heavy, man.

Yes it is! the main point was about the other stuff really :(

Ever saw those people trying to prove with science the miracles in the bible? Yeah.

hah yeah. I quite like religious nutters like that (Or even like the "sinner or a winner" guy from Oxford St., apparently he's got an ASBO now though) purely for the comedy value.

ASDDFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfdsaljfldsk FOOKIN HELL

cunted!

w00ty w000t w000t!

Wouldn't it be much easier though if you really could believe and know it would be true beyond any doubt? No fear of dying, guaranteed afterlife, etc etc.

I don't, of course, but people who do might be happier in some sense.

That's a huge issue.

I'm probably going to use my whole life wondering about values.. But right now i'm in a stage where i say fuck it all, bring on the truth and let me adapt to it rather than the other way around; of course this may be a youth rebel thing for all i know but still. I'd like to have a visionary perspective on the world instead of an old religious perspective. I guess one of my primary values already is that, more evolved = better, and as i see religion as a sort of negative (or evil) impulse on the progress of humanity, i advocate its demise..

Notwithstanding all the polarizing effects or individual heart-breaks of such behavior i nevertheless morally feel like it's the right thing to do. There are some things i don't speak about; partly because i'm not sure, partly because i don't think people will know what i mean and partly because i don't think they need to hear it.. For me both personal identity and consciousness is up in the air, and i'm not quite sure how to handle them; if i should juggle them around, catch them or watch them in awe.. But i think letting go of the soul is pretty basic, although of course there is a slippery slope from there, so i'm not quite sure how justify it - except that it's an important thing to get rid of to get rid of most religions and many religious values whereas the other issues are .. still some years off, and won't kick in until after this "science vs religion" thing settles.

I may be wrong.. We'll see..

a lot of good things come out of religion. not only bad.

some people say that things such as souls are just a way of people explaining things they don't understand. but don't be so quick to simply deny them because there may be something more to it.

although u can have your own beleifs in life i strongly beleive it's immoral to deny others thoughts when you don't even have your own explanation for things.

"a lot of good things come out of religion. not only bad."

Why should i care?

"some people say that things such as souls are just a way of people explaining things they don't understand."

Fine, if they arn't believing in the thing i think they believe in, then they should not be insulted when i say i don't believe in that shit.

"but don't be so quick to simply deny them because there may be something more to it."

No. It isn't. I'm quite sure. Just as i am about evolution. And i'm not denying them anything, if anything then i'm opening up their brain to more possibilites - it's always their own choice.

"although u can have your own beleifs in life i strongly beleive it's immoral to deny others thoughts"

Deny others thoughts? How do i do that by expressing my opinion? Are you retarded? And whence this idea of a soul anyway? It's imposed on us by our society, why isn't that immoral - giving false hope?

"..when you don't even have your own explanation for things."

I'm afraid what you call an explanation i call storytelling, creative lying.

I personally feel that 90% of religion should be "whiped out" but not with force, just through education (And not the type of education where they claim stuff and give no reasons/evidence only to be proved wrong later :P).

Ultimately the truth is what matters most.

I'll stick to the scientific method along with my dodgy philosophy..

some people = not the people who beleive it.

saying you see religion as a negative impact is rather strange since most of your society and morals are based around it.

your not opening others up to more possibilities, your just limiting yourself to wider thinking.

and no, i'm not retarded. you are retarded because you think that what you beleive is right and anything else is wrong. kinda 5 year old view there.

saying you see religion as a negative impact is rather strange since most of your society and morals are based around it.

Not strictly true and you know it.

"some people = not the people who beleive it."

Ok, let them say that.. I, for one, think it has negative impact and fosters superstitious thinking..

"saying you see religion as a negative impact is rather strange since most of your society and morals are based around it."

You don't make any sense at all; my society is built on lots of things i don't agree with and much of the common morals and norms in society i don't agree with at all. Why would i be a patriot/christian if all of my fellow country men are?

"your not opening others up to more possibilities, your just limiting yourself to wider thinking."

What? Should i agree with antisemitism because some people believe that, that is the right belief? Should i not honestly and strongly argue for my own views when presented with such opponents? Would we not both benefit by expressing our views if none of us are dogmatic?

"and no, i'm not retarded. you are retarded because you think that what you beleive is right and anything else is wrong. kinda 5 year old view there."

Of course i believe that i'm right. It's my right to believe that i'm right; i don't need to be open to every crackpot speaking their mind, if someone has told me that astrology really works 50times, why do i need to be open to the 51st person saying it? You're caught up in this politically correct, respect your opponents's opinion bullshit..

What's the use of respect if you have to respect everyone? Then the whole point of respect is gone. You can only filter so much information, and with authority and respect comes a kinder filter - that's just the way it works.

I quoted you to a mate just for laughs,

"saying you see religion as a negative impact is rather strange since most of your society and morals are based around it."

and he wrote you back;

"saying you see religion as a positive impact is rather strange since most of the modern world revolves around science which YOU disprove ... you can't prove to me that jesus wasn't god."

and what is he actually trying to say?
what are u talking about "me" disproving science?
jesus? what?
call me retarded i don't care, that's either very sloppy sarcasm or just doesn't make any sense..

when i say religion having an impact i mean in laws, politics, your every day life and like i said, morals.

it's all very well saying you don't need to respect people, but if u talk in real life to someone like that "omg u beleive in souls you're retarded", you wont make many friends and wont get very far in life.

Don't worry.. just had a 30min discussion with a muslim friend of mine who happens to be a fucking genius, and we talked about how the soul is represented in islam and how the implications of findings like that you can divide the brain into its two regions and ask each part individually about the existence of god and get a different answer... So yeah, i know smart people believe dumb shit. Still love him though <3

as for you my friend, i can't make sense of what you are writing, i can't see the ogic in the statements you make; it seems incoherent, and i'm bored.

RELIGION DIDN'T COME UP WITH MORALS.

Religions just added the moral guidelines of the time that were popular. e.g. stoning was commom place in the Old Testament days so it was acceptable to stone people. etc.

a lot of good things come out of religion. not only bad.

The things that come out of religion are either common sense, or they are bad. Therefore, if we did not have religion, all the laws we had right now which are "good" would be exactly the same, and the "bad" would not exist. Therefore, religion only adds bad things.

some people say that things such as souls are just a way of people explaining things they don't understand. but don't be so quick to simply deny them because there may be something more to it.

Wtf? No, there isn't more to it, we know enough now to know exactly what happens when you die, if you think there is some chance that we have a spirit or there is a higher power you are just too blind to see it and you shouldn't even try to argue these things.

although u can have your own beleifs in life i strongly beleive it's immoral to deny others thoughts when you don't even have your own explanation for things.

If someone believed in fairies or the pink invisible unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) I think it would be VERY wrong and immoral to allow them to continue believing in such things when there is no logical reason to believe in it. Also I believe that people like CPLains and me CAN give you an explanation for such things.

More evolved doesn't mean better to be honest.

By more evolved i mean more complex, more intelligent or whatever you want to call it. I used to say more conscious, but i find that to pretend to know something that is not known.

Man is better than ape. ape is better than worm. (drumroll for the Nietzsche rip-off) "Superman" is better than man.

Yeah but more complex still doesn't always mean better :P (Although it does mostly :D)

So by what means do you suggest i tell you what i mean then?

Look, i mean complexity of intelligence/consciousness: We don't know what the next step will be so it can't be properly defined unless it is defined simply as something beyond man. And even confined to these there are heaps of problems, but that's just as far as the real moral value of something goes - at least for me..

You could invent a term and give it a description? :D

That's what philosphers are meant to do!

I guess the terms you already used are mostly ok as long as you don't use it as a definite, as for example, some insects have more complex/evolved eyes however we (generally) see Humans as far more advanced in terms of evolution.

Well.. to make it subjective, you could name them, "supermen", and define them as being better and more virtuous in all areas than all men; virtues you pick in accordance to all of your personal values.

The ideal being!

But then again;

How would a monkey describe a human? Probably not at all as, as valuable as we consider ourselves.

So from our point of view they may be incomprehensibly good according to our standards or neutral or bad; but from their point of view they may see us as ants regardless of whatever judgment we have made of them.

What you describe, or more importantly the way you describe it, sounds eerily similar to certain religious thoughts.

How is the conviction that evolution didn't end with us as the highest form of being a religious way of thinking?

"Inertia" is on my side. The thing is that people who think they have ridden themselves of religious thoughts haven't really done so at all because it's so saturated in our society that you can't seperate yourself from it completely. The notion that man is the ultimate end or some kind of special creature that is not in current evolution to the next level really has no baring if you look at the universe a lil more objectively than religion has.

I was reffering to the way you described it, or atleast your method for describing the way you described it. "How would a monkey describe a human" - It sounds quite similar to the argument used by the religious community to explain why most talk of God is meaningless: we simply can't comprehend him.

It's a genuine thought experiment, how would a money think of a human? It's interesting to illustrate how it's insufficient to extrapolate and enhance the capabilities we see and value in ourselves to imagine a superintelligence.

If you can't see the difference between that and "god works in mysterious ways", then i'm really wasting my time even replying to you.

I said nothing about God working in mysterious ways, what I am saying is that the way you reference your supermen, or the argument you put forth, is worded similar to that of many religions. You seem to be thinking of extrapolation in terms of analogy by proportion, i.e the chimp would be wrong to think of us as simply better version of himself, whereas you could instead think of an analogical extrapolation of attributes, where when we talk of the wiseness of supermen, or God, for this purpose they are the same thing, we talk of it in a way that references our own wiseness but points beyond it.

yeah but that wouldn't get my point across now would it?

my whole point was that the very values we have may be undermined or replaced by an upward-step in intelligence. the whole point of the monkey analogy was that the values of the monkey even if extrapolated beyond its own limits would perhaps not equal ours, because it is not only quantitatively different but qualitatively as well.

So you see religion as a devolved attribute of man: what evidence do you offer for this? Where is your proof? This is a belief claim, no different from stating the soul exists.

clarify? don't understand your question..

naturally evolution can encompass everything if you include such elusive terms as memes etc.

devolved attribute of man?

No, it doesn't, and it's arrogant to assume it does; evolution doesn't yet explain where the original spark of life came from; science does not explain how the big bang came about. There are many mysteries yet to be solved about this universe, and while God, the soul and religion may not be the best choices, they are never the less choices and can not simply be refuted on a whim.

"So you see religion as a devolved attribute of man: what evidence do you offer for this?"

"naturally evolution can encompass everything if you include such elusive terms as memes etc."

"No, it doesn't, and it's arrogant to assume it does; evolution doesn't yet explain where the original spark of life came from; science does not explain how the big bang came about."

We were talking about religion and it does encompass all religions:

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

And yeah, all religions are included in those definitions there if you're not already indoctrinated in the one you claim as the exception. So what if evolution can't explain the first cause or the exact details of how the first spark of life came to be? It was never meant to do that, and no one said it was. It can still, if you extend the concept of evolution, show how and why religions exist. Just like it can explain why politics and certain ideologies exist.

The fact that it explains how religion came about, does not negate it's existence; just because I know my belief in killer clowns comes from watching IT, it does not neccessarily follow that there are no killer clowns.

Yes, that's right, but i say it makes the belief superfluous.. if you have good reason to believe that the reason you believe in a supernatural power is because tests reveal that you have genes that make you prone or inclined to do exactly that, and in addition you know why that feeling originated evolutionary, what its purpose was; then the belief that there really is something supernatural standing behind that feeling is superfluous and unnecessary.

If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability.
- Vannevar Bush

When I read your comments I think you have replace conventional religions with science, but not in a good way.

When i read your comments i keep asking myself why you were in the "best" class..

See how that comment wasn't useful or interesting at all?

I just felt like pointing out how you are very quick to say things like "you're hanging onto old religious nonsense" etc when really you've taken science and turned it into your religion.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING SOUL!!!

... maybe you don't see it plainly yet, but i do. to me it's as superstitious as zeus.

Now, claiming technological optimism to be on par with superstitious nonsense - be my guest.

... maybe you don't see it plainly yet, but i do. to me it's as superstitious as zeus.

No I do get it and agree with that 99.9%.

\o/ ^.^ <3

It always is...from the more complex being point of view ;)

Like i said this can be argued ofr eternity ..
what is wisdom ..what are the criteria to be classified for wisdom ... who has the right to set such criteria ...why should he have the right to set such criteria ....
it can go on and on and on and maybe by then the CPL would have chose a decent game for theyre world tour .

.

I love you too dird, and i agree. I am weird. I've figured that out by myself. I'm usually normal but i have a few domains of thought i cannot easily share with others, nor do i know how to. It's like my personality is kinda tilted to one end, maybe all the blood is going to a few areas of my brain only :P

I don't think the degree was shit obviously, and emo? I'm the exact opposite of emo, i sometimes don't-feel too-much :|
hehehe

.

Well, my mom and dad were always arguing; constantly a debate going on from when i was very young.. And when they finally got a divorce when i was around 4-5 my bigger brother just started to get into puberty, so there would be these arguments and fights over every little detail.. And by this time when i was 5-6 i was very accustomed to this debating issue so it didn't really take a toll on either mood or mental clarity - so i started analyzing the debates, remaining cool even as the arguments heated; and i kept at it, observing the debates over and over; and as this continued till my brother moved out for good when i was around 16, i became pretty adept at arguing and skills related to it, esp. observing without bias.

shame i didn't get even better really :\

.

Hahahaha, yeah i do! ^^

Chinese girl - we are like opposite poles, she's down to earth outward going and caring <3

I could mention other events in my life such as *chough* being a total gangster as a child, being top top at all the sports, always running or rollerblading, advancing to the regional taekwondo-team effortlessly, being totally awesome in school without doing anything, always maintaining the perfect balance between outsider and popular kid.. Ah well, time've changed and now i'm getting owned by the geeks who know how to study/read/write while i'm on esr procrastinating.. xD

but the inner confidence is still there - teh inner flare! ;D

Dood, I must so go for a beer with you, I recon it would be a great talk (mostly because we agree on most things, which means we can skip the boring bits.)

I think I will probably be in Norway around 2009.

Cool. Talk to you irl then! Looking forward to it ;)

I bet he's a boring old fart!

hehe x)

Almost

(And I really have got to stop posting weird comments when I'm drunk.)

can I come too?

Hmm, spose...

I'll be honest here, I don't think I've seen you in a non-biased argument :/

Hence my "esp. observing without bias." .. If i'm involved in the argument it makes all the difference; not only is there bias but also ways of arguing that include taking the opposite standpoint and the like :P

I'm thinking like normal situations like a friend arguing with some arch-enemy i tend to see who's right and who's wrong regardless of my attachment to my friend. If we discuss religion or worldviews i've collected info all my life on these topics so unbiasedness is hardly possible. If a fight just broke out 10min ago and i saw the whole thing then all the info everyone has avail is right there, and bias would mean trying to emotionally warp what they saw.

Of course i'm talking horseshit now but you get the point :P

In that case, yeah it's kinda easy though tbh :/

not from what i observe :P

Never had a problem with it :P

only i would know that, muahahaha :D

There a difference between knowing who was right in an argument and acting that way; even if your friend is wrong, you have to weigh up your loyalty towards him with the how wrong he actually was. Do you back up the friend who stole the mars bar? Or condemn him as a thief? Ostensibly it's easy to determine who was wrong, e.g your friend, but it's another matter entirely to decide which side to be on. It sounds like a contradiction, but sometimes it's worth it to be on the "wrong" side.

Yeah, i know: that's why i usually bring it up afterwards with my friend or friends or allies or whatever, and go "you know we were totally wrong back there, right?" .. and they never do.. hence my conviction that i've some sort of advantage in seeing the issue objectively.

No, you don't, unless you're talking about some tangibly identifiable fact. Of course your friend didn't know he was wrong, he thought he was right, hence why the discussion began in the first place. Of course you think you're observing the argument logically and rationally, that's your perspective on your own world, you see yourself in that way regardless. To put it plainly, if what is being argued about is a matter not attainable through scientific endeavor, then you can not be objective.

why would my friends win the argument 90% of the time while i think they e.g. only won 60% of the time? stats aside, i can tell when my friends go out of their character in believing something they wouldn't under other circumstances whether you believe it or not.

Right, so you can't prove it, it's an opinion, which was my point.

so i can't tell you i have an ability because? you won't believe me because you're overly skeptical? or you think the ability is impossible to have? or based on esr posts you don't think i have it?

You say your friends go "out of their character", they say they haven't (as you stated, after the argument they tell you that they believe they are right). Who is more believable, who is right? It is your opinion that you are right, that your friend was out of character, that they were wrong. It is your friends opinion that having that argument was part of their character, that they were right in having the argument and right in the idea that they argued for. It is an opinion, there is no objectiveness.

You are invested in the view that you are a logical thinker, that you are objective and can rationalise the actions of your friends; you invested in this view of yourself to the point where you will always see you opinions as evidence of it, you are not that dissimilar to the religious man you so despise. If you were truly objective you would be able to admit that you could never be truly objective in matters that are intangible.

Of course i admit that, but i use the language as it is meant.

I say, i think i am more intelligent than this and that person, i do not say, i am such and such sure that i'm such and such more intelligent than that person with confidence interval such and such, although i admit that i might be biased, so accounting with that i may not be blablalba the universe may be a dream. get my point?

i'm sure there is no god, i'm sure the soul is not real, i'm sure the bible is mostly untrue, i'm sure i'm writing on a forum, i'm sure i've two hands, i'm sure i'm less biased than most of my friends in arguments. i've my reasons for all of those statments; a religious person would say, HEY HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE? a spiritual friend might say, HEY HOW DO YOU KNOW THE SOUL ISN'T REAL? a thorough skeptic might say, HEY HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT A BRAIN IN A VAT? a dude on a forum might say, HEY HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE LESS BIASED WHEN OBSERVING ARGUMENTS BETWEEN FRIENDS AND "FOES"? Well.. i have my reasons.

Yeah, and religious people have their reasons, we all have our reasons, but those reasons are personal, they are not based on anything provable, in the scientific sense.

yeah, you think you can prove something in science now?

i could always tare down your proof, it's not a hard thing to do. being skeptical is low.

i already cited several good reasons why i think what i think, and those reasons can only be seen in detail from my perspective. it's as if i were to say to you that i'm good at juggeling.. "how do you know?" well, because i've been juggling a while and i feel kinda skilled "well how do you know for sure?" well, i've been juggling since age 7 and i'm better than most my mates that know how to juggle.. "that's not scientifically established, therefore you must say that ' you are in your own honest humble opinion good at juggling' "

In fact, i'm almost beginning to dislike this wave of pseudo-scientific people who are always questioning things skeptically like you have to be ultrasure to have a conviction. I'd rather have someone speak their mind, give up their personal convictions than have people walking around being asymmetrically skeptical in proportion to the established shallow norms of society.

This asymmetry is classically exemplified in the arguments about the judeochristian god where it's politically incorrect to be sure about its nonexistance, when we are allowed to be sure about the nonexistence of other seemingly parallel things like ghosts - what metaphysical skeptic meeting did i not attend?

Agreed. I dismiss all that supernatural bullshit because there is absolutely no evidence for it. That includes religion.

you coming back from that hurtful comment you made to save me?

my hero<3

What hurtful comment!?!?!!?

it's embedded in my memory so clearly because of the strong emotion accompanying when reading it! (just like science predicts! :D)

i can't utter it, brings back bad memories :p

and no, in philosophy there is no difference whether 2 people or 3 billion people believe in this crap. the soul is an idea as stupid as a +3strength +5 magic +9 speed sword in whatever rpg actually being magically effective in real life.

sometimes you have to strongly disagree with the majority if you want to keep sane, and when they push you to ridiculous disproportionate criteria to prove yourself you just have to stay back and smile i guess.

Your analogy is nonsense, it is scientifically verifiable that you're good at juggling, we can sit and watch your juggle. Unless you're talking about your own thoughts on your juggling skill, then it is not verifiable, but neither is any thought claim.

My point is not that science is unverifiable, my point was that although you try to hide behind science when making assertions about the soul, you then do a 180 when you make assertions about yourself. You make non verifiable claims, just like a religious person would do, yet for some reason the same truth value parameters don't apply.

You don't know anything about my juggling and you don't know anything about objectiveness in the arguments that i've had with friends - so yes - those analogies are equal. My friends have on occasion argued about scientific matters i know about, such that "the sky is blue because the oceans make it so" or "a feather won't fall as quickly as a rock in nongravity"; that's of course the extreme end of objectiveness of the truth, but from there to anything between over to the fully subjective side "did his bumping cause the glass to fall or did he lose it by himself"... the point is, like with the juggling, you can't know either way so just trust me instead of being a skeptical lamer. as i've said; it's not a hard to doubt everything.

you say i'm hinding behind science; not so. if anything i'm hiding behind philosophy - i'm looking beyond science here. i've several good philosophical reasons to believe the soul is not real; i'm studying philosophy and i know why it is highly implausible to the point of the easter bunny; it's a dated belief - no one believes in Cartesian dualism anymore in philosophy.

so yeah, in a way, you're right:

"they are not based on anything provable, in the scientific sense."

the problem is; i've never claimed it was. it has nothing to do with me disproving the soul or proving it (that's not possible anyways), it's about me stating my belief and conviction, which is that the soul is not real. the science i'm using is used philosophically to argue for my view, not to prove it - that's how it works in philosophy, you just show it to be superfluous, unnecessary or stupid to hold a certain belief and let people make up their own mind.

Sorry for the Jamerio, I was bored, don't feel obligated to reply, it's kind of just my own long thought process about something completely mundane: you! =oP.

You say that "I am X", where X is some claim that can be verified, yes? Or are you saying that I can't verify X? If so then how can you verify it? And if I can't verify it then what's the difference between it being true and it not being true? What difference does it make to anyone whether you're X or not? If it only make a difference to your personal perception, that you think "I am X", then the only thing it affects is you. It follows then that by thinking "I am X", X in effect become part of your world view, you move from "I am X" to "I see Y because I am X" - There's a difference between the two: in the first you only make an assertion about yourself, in the second you make an assertion about the outside world.

Do you agree that personal statements of the nature "I am X", where X represents a purely internal notion "happy" "sad" "lonely", but that can be expressed externally, are verifiable at least in a probabilistic sense: "He smiles, I am 90% sure he is happy". But the phrase "I am objective" is not like the phrase "I am happy" it makes a claim about how you directly interpret the world. We must look at how that interpretation can be verified, if we are to verify your statement "I am X", where X is objective.

To be objective implies that objectivity was achievable, it suggests that it was possibly to be objective in the first place "It was possible to be objective about A, and I was objective about A". What makes it possible to be objective? One of the many dictionary definitions "of or pertaining to something that can be known, ... existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." Something part of reality. Originally I expressed this idea as "being verifiably, scientifically". For instance, who broke the glass; it is verifiable that whoever moved the glass for it fall over broke it. Complications arrive when someone pushed the person who broke it, it depends how far you want to go down the causal chain - But these problems are simple, there's no need to claim objectivity to be able to point accurate blame. Moving on.

D is a friend, she had a 1 night stand and got pregnant, she's decided to have an abortion and is very matter of fact about it. N is also a friend, she believes that abortions are wrong in all cases, the feotus is sacred and alive, that having abortion makes D a murderer. M is another friend, she believes that, although abortion is a womans right, it should be undertaken so lightly, she believes that the feotus should be afforded some of the rights of humanity, but in the end the mother should have the final say. You claim to be objective, who is right? In this kind of matter, there is no objectivity; there is no reality that the decision can be based upon. The reason there is disagreement is because all the facts aren't known, and to be objective necessarily entails that you know all the facts. We don't know exactly when life starts, and even if we do we don't know whether or not there's a soul, and even if we do know that we don't know whether from conception and unbroken chain can be considered a life, and thus a broken one a death. Anyway, that's just an example. You can't be objective in matters where you don't know all the facts, and in areas where there's disagreement it's usually because all the facts are not known. To give another example: Teresa is playing with Jill when Teresa lightly pushes Jill, Jill falls over and breaks her iPod; the begin to argue as Teresa refuses to buy a new iPod, saying that it was Jills clumbsiness was what caused it to break - Who is right, oh objective one? Will it help that I tell you that mark, who was sitting near Jill, intentionally put his foot out as a joke and tripped Jill, but then didn't bother to tell her. You didn't have all the facts, it wasn't possible to be objective, not in the sense you meant anyway.

Not in the sense i meant? You're the one projecting all this onto me.

I've my own saying from way back which is pretty much always right in arguments like these: "People argue with different premises on the same topic; that is to say, the fallacy in an argument is often presupposing what is in dispute."

Part1:

You have this strict divide between objective and subjective. You have to see that there are only degrees of objectiveness..

All i'm claiming is that i'm more objective. Now what do i mean by that? I mean that i see the facts more like they are, and not how i want them to be; and you don't even have to call them "facts in the world", you could call them "intersubjective facts".

I think the reason you have a problem with me saying i'm objective compared to my friends is because you divide things too strictly into objective and subjective as if they are binary opposites.

If you look at the another definition of objective you can see how this is not so;

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

Notice how it says "objective opinion", that really means objective subjectiveness - so there is no strict divide.

Or look at this definition:

"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair."

It quickly becomes clear that if i am less emotionally engaged in arguments that friends of mine have with others they consider foes, then i'm naturally a less biased, more fair (more objective) judger of the situation. And why would i be less emotionally engaged? For the reasons i stated earlier in my life-story.. I'm still not claiming proof on anything, i'm just saying what i think.

Part2:

"We don't know exactly when life starts, and even if we do we don't know whether or not there's a soul, and even if we do know that we don't know whether from conception and unbroken chain can be considered a life, and thus a broken one a death."

We don't know when life starts because life is not defined that precisely and neither is personal identity. This has more to do with definitions than what we actually know. If you want to argue when an abortion is wrong, you don't start with saying that killing is wrong, you try to figure out how much pain the fetus can feel at different stages, how complex it is or how conscious it is. Only after you have that figured out, how much we know about those things, can you can debate properly at what level taking its life is wrong. And bringing soul into an argument like this would be absurd, it would be utterly subjective, as the reasons for its postulation would probably ultimately be based on myth and scripture - based on fucking revelations; it would be equal to saying that "i have by inner voice been told by god that the fetus comes to life at this and that stage, it has value then although you can't by any means tell why!".

"You can't be objective in matters where you don't know all the facts, and in areas where there's disagreement it's usually because all the facts are not known."

You never know "all" the facts. You can never be objective in the ultimate sense, you can only approach it in degrees. And in the case of the people talking about abortion, there could be someone who has arguments that are more objective than others; if one claims that the abortion should not be undergone because the child is conscious and feels pain similarly to a rat, then the argument rests on a "verifiable"* statement, and if another were to claim that, that the abortion should be taken, because the fetus is only a few cells, hardly more conscious than a worm, then i would say one of them is more right than the other. As a disinterested judger i would say that one is more objective than the other if i knew the reality of the situation; if in fact the fetus is barely a few cells at the stage talked about then the latter was right, if it has complexity that looks similar to a rat, then the former was more objective.

*like an ellipse is more like a circle than a triangle. this is so because people would say it looks as such, it is more objective than subjective in intersubjective-space.

but really, just add me to msn or something if you wanna continue; l33tn00b46k@hotmail.com (really :p)

Don't worry lains, I've been reading this whole thread and I agree with you on most parts, and I even feel the same way you do sometimes to (not being able to express everything).

I'm a philosophy student too, weird bunch we are!

For Dird, emo? Rofl, aren't you one of these esr trolls who hangs on to comment in every thread in the attempt to make yourself out to be 'cool' and 'niche' .. keep up the good work champ.

Don't worry, i'm not worried <3

^.^

Dird makes no such attempt, he's just an idiot.

kinda dump

i hate it when people dont see the difference between philosophy and religion/spirituality/parapsychology and other pseudo-philosophy :)

Yeah, some things are obvious; but there are other issues, esp. concerning values, that are so deeply and comfortably embedded in our societies from religion that we may not be aware of them or even want them away.

What do u mean? I'd like to hear a definition for philosophy, the borderlines of it. I mean, I don't consider these terms to address the exact same things, but their realms overflap greatly and just curious about your definition i guess.

Ideally philosophy wouldn't contradict science or itself, nor would it make scientific claims.

Spirituality is about the immaterial.. so gg right there.

Parapsychology is a pseudo-science that hasn't (yet?) found anything tangible.

Religion is based on taking myths and fables as something real and factual without anything but anecdotal evidence, which is probably the source of a lot of mistaken assumptions in the spirituality and parapsychology departments as well..

As for pseudo-philosophy i would be careful in labeling anything that, but it is supposed to indicate philosophy that does not meet the current standard i guess.

Having said that; there is probably a lot of overlapping at the edge.. I've e.g seen a lot of "logical positivists" that claim "continental philosophy" is pseudo-philosophy, whereas i (and many others) actually think it captures something essential about philosophy that should not be dismissed. I've also read quite a bit of spiritual stuff, and although it's not philosophy as such, some of it is worthwhile and has some interesting aspects to consider..

What do you mean by not contradicting science?

Philosophical argumentation does not need and often does not lie in the realm of science. Philosophically it's as valid to say there's no gravity and that an anvil, if thrown out of the window, crushes some bloke's knob cus it wants to. About philosophy constradicting itself, well, again, first you would have to define philosophy (and science is a whole another topic for that matter). But your ideal situations doesn't make much sense to me. Doesn't philosophy have like thousands of schools to nearly anything ever discussed? The same thing goes for science, science doesn't have one truth for everything, but different theories, and I think this is the point too, that seperates us from such as the notable mass religions.

Spiritual is immaterial so gg? Yes, it's onthological view such as scientific realism, but we are not playing with the rules of science here. Philosophers work starts before he acquires scientific realism or anything else as his view.

I dont know what para-psychology even is :D But it sounds something very very much philosophy to be interested. Matrix was a re-enactment of Descartes' dreams.

Excuse my boldness but For me it sounds as you seem to be a bit inclined to defend your worldview (scientific realism.) which is understandable and to only get the bits that seems to fit it. The rubbish philosophy about onthological idealism, meta-physics, all that pos they contradict with science, but I believe them still to be what philosophy is, in a form, about. I've found one essence of science to been about raising those though questions rather than conform to the given answers.

Wow, that's mouth full! xD

I'm sure i can't define philosophy and it's all subjective from here.

"What do you mean by not contradicting science?"

I mean that if you claim the soul is connected to the brain in the pineal gland like descartes did, but do it now, you would fall into the realm of pseudo-philosophy. Philosophy is about going beyond science or talk about values; e.g. talking about abortion in philosophy you can bring in scientific arguments to allude to when the child can feel pain/is conscious, but if this argument is flawed scientifically, i.e. wrong, then the philosophy is bad. Same with philosophy of consciousness etc.

"About philosophy constradicting itself, well, again, first you would have to define philosophy (and science is a whole another topic for that matter)."

Yeah, if you ask me to define science then i might as well just give up. We have a "philosophy of science" for that with enough problems ;D

*edit* and i meant logically contradict itself. premises -> conclusion .. but that's another debate.. just not obvious shitty reasoning is all i'm saying, the more you press me the more vague it has to be you know x)


Doesn't philosophy have like thousands of schools to nearly anything ever discussed?

Sure they do, and some schools, like those i mentioned "continental" and "analytical" (impossible distinction but bear with me) philosophy are kinda opposed and one in the one might say another in the other has a flawed pseudo-philosophy. Of course they don't agree.. But if you openly contradict yourself or the established science with "crackpot" theories you'll be labeled a pseudo-philosopher whether you're right or not. (until people "get" it)

Spiritual is immaterial so gg?

Perhaps a bit personally loaded statement, but i had philosophy of consciousness and there is no way the traditionally conceived soul exists. If we talk about immaterial as the temporal change of matter between t0 and t1 then that's another issue completely; the soul as immaterial matter influencing matter causally is what is usually meant by a soul - which i would think, no serious philosopher today holds as possible or even worth postulating.

"I dont know what para-psychology even is"

para-psychology "beyond psychology"; the branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of purportedly psychic phenomena, as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, telepathy, and the like.

"The rubbish philosophy about onthological idealism, meta-physics.."

well.. i've had metaphysics and there was some interesting stuff there on e.g. personal identity - if one guys decides to write about how you change gradually into someone else, then that's not factually right or wrong, it's just a way of looking at things - fresh perspectives; i actually gained insight from some of the articles i read in metaphysics, "mental events" by donald davidson and "personal identity" by derek parfit (i think, check em out). Positions like ontological idealism and solipsism etc. i basically just think of as necessary skeptical poles; the end of the "how do you know that?"-chain x)

that para-psychology thing is an actualy recognized and accepted department of psychology? that's kinda ...woah

Well, people are lagging behind with their souls and trash from the past x) I guess most psychologists just say, "whatever, let them do whatever they want - i'm not close minded!"

Philosophy literally means one who loves wisdom....technically within that definition religion and a lot of other things can be included...
But then again I personally dont consider that as philoopshy...
There is no objective definition as to what is and is not philosophy and this can be argued upon for eternity ...
this is just my two cents ..
then again all i do is read philosophy ,not study it at a uni or any such thing...
if you would like a professional opinion and a nice forum to discuss such things i recomend forums.philosophyforums.com ....[nice site]

Religion is not in itself wisdom though (for me). I'd say that religions contain elements of wisdom though.

No tangible proof that the 'soul' exists doesn't by default prove that the 'soul' doesn't exist. This whole area is a bit shady because with most people it's based upon their own personal beliefs, so in a sense you're actually being quite biased about this topic, assuming your argument is based on your belief system.

Couldn't the 'soul' be something that is transdimentionally tied to us. In otherwords, something that is part of another reality or dimension but is connected to every individual on this planet, you could say it's 'us' in another plane of reality or something. All this talk about impossibility (not you specifically), or looking for a realistic reason (realistically speaking 500-600 years ago the Sun orbitted the earth, along with everything else in the universe, and the earth was flat) etc is a bit big no? As for where they (souls) might come from and how they could possibly exist, if they do exist, is a completely arbitrary question because the truth is, we don't know.

There's mathematical proof that there are more than our 4 currently known dimensions (space and time), but there's no real world proof, and as a result many physicists are working on theories that could account for them, and possible experiments that could prove those theories.

So, really I guess the point I am trying to make, is that it's quite pointless to argue or make statements about things we don't know. We can debate, but saying "it's 100% this way or that way" is a bit shortsited and to some extent ignorant.

On a side note: i have not seen this movie, and if you're interested about my background and possible bias, then i grew up in a christian family that went to church every week since i was a little kid, and yes i do believe in God, but maybe not in the same sense that all these religions mean.

Your problem is that your bias is so.. how do i put this..

there's a particular part of a horizon video interview with the famous physicist Richard Feynman, where he is asked if physics has an influence on his views.. and his all around way of expressing it says it so clearly .. 46:30-47:02

It's just.. If you look at the world, the biology and evolution.. What? Suddenly a soul jumped out of nowhere? What special powers does it have that cannot be accounted for?

I'm not saying i can disprove the soul, i'm just saying it's a leftover from old philosophy/religion.. So what if e.g. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff are right about their theory that the consciousness works at a quantum level (which most scientists find ridiculous anyways), what then? Are we to jump to the conclusion that because we have found some more complex process in the brain that there might be a soul? It does not follow unless you already presuppose it to be something we do not understand yet; and that's not the definition i'm looking out to abolish.

There are just too many ridiculous implications of the Christian soul really being what it claims.. That hope died with Descartes and his ridiculous embarrassing attempt to prove god and the soul.

cheers for that link. later on he says such a beautiful thing:
'i think it's much more interesting to live not knowing then have answers which might be wrong'

That's a very interesting video, and i greatly enjoyed watching it. In some aspects i can totally relate to his stance of work purely because i'm an engineer and enjoy solving problems, getting answers to questions that people don't know the answers to (because i want to know myself). On another level, maybe because of my life experiences, i don't agree with his point of view about the 'spiritual', but thats circumstantial and totally biased.

You see, just because we can't physically, chemically or biologically prove that there are other entities or 'things' that could be considered souls or what have you doesn't negate their existance as i said in my previous post, as we could just lack the equipment or knowledge to be able to do that. It could be just a "leftover from old philosophy/religion", but maybe there's a deeper reason behind it.

If you look at human history, and then look at the various civilizations, their beliefs, their ideas, people who have never met eachother or communicated together, people who lived on opposite sides of this planet, come up with very similar ideas (granted there are numerous instances where this doesn't really apply), there probably is something to it. I could be wrong though, maybe it's not the brain activity, maybe it's some kinda energy, the energy that people from various cultures refer to as chi, karma, aura, chakra, who knows!

Let's suppose that an individual (didn't really think i'd use this as an example, but still), or someone had a connection of some sort with this soul dwelling dimension that happened to be genuine but couldn't be proved. Then this individual learnt from his experience and went around teaching what he had learnt, everyone was wow'd by these idea's and followed him without really trully understanding what he had gone through. After his death, a select few students or followers become teachers, and they begin to see that they can tell their followers just about anything and they will believe and follow those ideas, and as a result begin to abuse their position of power (human nature, power corrupts absolutely) to meet their own ends.

This lovely little story would probably summerise what most religions have been through. But we're not trying to discuss religion, we're discussing the hypothetical possibility that souls could exist. That doesn't prove anything it just gives you another way of looking at it i guess.

As a result i honestly think it's hard to justify saying that there can be no soul or something of the like, we just don't know. I don't know if there is or if there isn't, but through my life experiences (not taking drugs, or people telling me this) i would me more inclined towards the former.

I totally agree with "we are what we make of ourselves", i believe that each physically and mentally functional person can truely be what ever they want to be, with varying degrees of success.

About mankind becoming less significant i gotta take an idea of the view of physics from that video, that the whole physics field could seem more and more complicated with each new discovery, but every now and then something would come along that would make it all simple again, rinse and repeat. We could be becoming more and more insignificant as we learn more, but possibly we're missing that extra piece of information that might make us seem significant again, i don't know.

As for us being special compared to other animals, we are. And we don't need souls or religion to tell us that. What other animals can reason as we do, what other animals can create the things that we do, what other animals can wage war and destroy all these wonderful things, as we do? I can't really think of any such a creature except for us.

Well, we already know about genes that trigger religious experience.. People who carry those genes are more religious and more spiritual.. When we know from a biological evolutionary perspective why those are there in the first place, it is no miracle that most people on the planet have developed a religion of their own. Not much mystery to that. In fact, probably most of your urges in life can be traced directly to evolution if you think about it a little..

Couple that with the religious exploitation of man, having often used fear/promise of reward to indoctrinate and manipulate - to control. You can easily see how effective these methods are, just by opening a mailbox or looking at comments on youtube.. chainmail and notes that promises something good x, if you do y - if you don't, something bad z happens.

I'm not saying i can disprove it, i'm just saying it's superfluous, it's old, it's dated. Who would postulate people in the sky making lightning and thunder these days? People used to truly believe that, and the reason they don't now is not because they know it's not true (although we practically do), it's because it's superflous, we can explain it much better with some other measure.. Likewise, i'm saying there is no need to resort to the soul to account for our mystical brain abilities - the soul is useless, it does not do anything; people in neuro-science are busy discovering what is true - not what people thought hundreds of years ago..

So sure, mankind is special - we are on the top of the evolutionary chain, but we also know that we are just the last step on a evolutionary staircase that has 10000000's of steps, in a universe that makes the whole staircase look smaller than an atom and the first step emerging only after the universe had been busy doing nothing for 3/4's of its lifetime, hell religion has only existed, what, like max 1/20000 of the age of the universe.. so if the this day was the age of the universe, religion would emerge *after* 5sec before midnight.

pulling figures out my ass btw..

i'm just getting that feeling he expressed.. "it's not in proportion - look at what's out there".. if there is something "cool" about the brain, it's something we can't even imagine yet and has as little to do with the "soul" as verses in the quran has anything to do with quantum mechanics or the sun-god with a ball of gas we are orbiting such and such many miles away from us..

You shouldn't have to disprove something. You should have to prove something using evidence though, not just pure speculation.

Even if we have no way of measuring/collecting that evidence.

Sometimes disproving something is the only way to prove something. Science for instance, theories are never completely "proven", they just haven't fallen to shit in light of experiment.

The fact is, whether you believe in the soul or not, actually having one makes no physical difference to your daily life: it is intangible, timeless, immutable. The discussion is, to put it politely, fucking pointless. But still, to say "their is no soul" is a bold statement which contradicts the foundations of science, in the same way that saying "there is no God" does.

Well you need to produce evidence in order to prove/disprove in science.

You can't disprove a soul because there is no evidence, you can't prove it either for the same reason.

There's a slight difference there if you ask me :/
(I don't think I actually said a definitive, if I did I mean it purely in the 99.9recurring% chance that there isn't :P, rather than 100%)

Techincally there is proof, if you consider eschatalogical proof actual proof, i.e. when you do or don't exist after you die you will know whether or not there is a soul. But still, you're right, there is a difference, which is my main point: you can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul, but that doesn't mean you can say there is not a soul, to do so would be contradictory to the method of science. To extend the argument from a religious point of view, it is because matters of teh soul, and through extension of religion, are not matter of science that they can not be proved through it.

To make an certain statement that it doesn't exist/impossible is indeed unscientific, however you almost have to otherwise you pretty much end up with no opinion on anything!

Yeah but it's not the opinion having that I care about, it's when people hide behind science as the proof that god/ soul doesn't exist. Science simply doesn't have anything to say on the matter.

Well when there is no evidence to prove or disprove something personally I believe the stance that should be taken is to assume it is wrong/doesn't exist untill a later point that it can be proved/disproved.

(So talk of it like "The theory of the soul" or something?)

So er yeah, I pretty much agree with you!

You can't prove that you feel warm, you can't prove that you're thinking about toast, you can't prove so many things that we take for granted about the world. Of course, we can imagine scenario's that would prove such things, complex brain scanning equipment which registers and identifies the neurons associated with toast, but in the same way there is the eschatological verification I talked about earlier.

You can't prove that the world exists, but you believe it does because its existence seems so obvious to you. In the same way, people who believe in God, the soul, see it as obvious that the soul exists, even though they can't prove it. "I think therefore I am" you as a thinking being is the only thing you truly know in this world.

I get the point but I think those ones aren't the same as "god" or the "soul". Because we do know that in some way the world does exist, you do feel warm and you do think of toast. That is some form of evidence in itself surely?

And some people do feel their soul, they feel that God exists. There's no way to differentiate between the two types of feelings, other than that you and I don't feel one of them.

Well if you put someone in a furnace they will feel hot (unless they have no nerves). etc.

And if you put someone in a church they will feel god, unless they have no faith. The two aren't as dissimilar as you might think, especially when you consider that the brain can not feel something that you would assume is there, e.g pain, perhaps we are simply deficient and can not feel what is there, in the same way as your burning person can't feel the flames.

And also, leaving the concept of the soul is exactly like leaving a geocentric worldview behind.. Each step has made man less significant; the religious are just trying to hold on to the soul because it is supposedly the "last hope" of man to be something special - something other than the next animal.. It's time to face reality; we are what we make of ourselves.

It's a shitty bullshit movie. The girl has nice big nipples though, i recall...

.

I just rented the movie ...

21 grams will get you fucked

religion is a system of control made up by goverments long ago

the sooner we realise there is no god , the sooner we can conquer the stars.

put down the pills fucker

he is right

Yeah, but the reason we want to conquer the the stars is because we want to find the ultimate truth in the universe. Some might call this ultimate truth for 'god' even tho it doesn't resemble the bible version of god.

Why not just call it truth?

cos it would explain everything

fuck god!

in the ass!

21 gramms?.. 12 doses I think.

??? what drug gives only 12 doses from 21 grams?

He's a pro junkie, extra large doses.

No wonder he's so daft.

at least im not gayhole

Oh noes you called me a gayhole!!! Is that anything like gloryhole?

u know englisch nicht

Your broken English amuses me. Please continue.

ur welcome to get amused anytime

how much do memories weight?

How much does an electron weight?
9.109 3826(16) × 10–31 kg

multiply that with a couple of trillions and you got your answer.

A lot of feathers!

PROTIP: Do all kinds of psychedelic drugs to attain (states of) spirituality than be limited by the (definitions of) some book written by senile men from 2000 years ago. Bill Hicks knew how to roll.

a whole lot of weed if you ask me

chav

:(

anyone seen hot fuzz ?

Yes

how was it ....

It's quite good

Why wasn't I invited along? :(