post deleted by shedon666
Edited by shedon666, 24 September 2003 - 06:31 PM.
Posted 14 July 2003 - 11:11 PM
Edited by shedon666, 24 September 2003 - 06:31 PM.
Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:10 AM
Edited by Kissinger, 15 July 2003 - 12:18 AM.
Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:21 AM
IMO, Breatharianism is extremely flawed. Many of the major proponents of it have been caught 'cheating' - see a good article on cults back about 6 mos in US News & World Reports, either in a library or if you wish to spend the money at their site online. When you have such a radical claim - and living without eating is a SERIOUSLY radical claim - you need extreme proof.-snip-
I am aware that Breatharianism is majoritively Philosophical.
Well, sorry, I suspect that both shall be put under if not a microscope at least an EEG or a SQuID. As we (scientists, that is) get to understand how mind is generated from brain, or if there is even any difference between the two, or, if you prefer, how mind interacts with brain, sooner or later they'll come across how brain handles both love and honor. Otherwise, what's the point of uploading? If we can't be loving, honorable people (or at least as loving and honourable as we are in the flesh) then we'd loose a LOT of ourselves when uploaded.Here are some pro philosophy facts from my mind.
Two elements of the mind -Love and Honour- will never be put under a microscope.
Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:43 PM
Posted 15 July 2003 - 05:42 PM
Posted 15 July 2003 - 06:22 PM
Posted 16 July 2003 - 10:35 AM
Posted 16 July 2003 - 08:52 PM
What if philosophy was the key to immortality?
Posted 17 July 2003 - 05:39 PM
Posted 18 July 2003 - 04:51 PM
Posted 21 July 2003 - 07:49 PM
Posted 20 August 2003 - 10:49 PM
Edited by chubtoad, 20 August 2003 - 11:11 PM.
Posted 29 August 2003 - 04:40 AM
Now does Science meet all the requirements of this definition? Science makes assumptions based on experimental data, then uses these to prove theories. It is clear that Science recognizes the fact that these are just truths under assumptions because Science calls them laws and theories not theorems, lemmas ect.
Posted 29 August 2003 - 05:50 AM
Posted 29 August 2003 - 06:28 AM
"Yes but can they even be called truths if they must exist under a set of assumptions?"
Nothing, not even ideas of mathematics, can be proven without assumptions. For instance all of geometry is based on at least 4 assumptions(called axioms or postulates in math). Try proving the proving anything in geometry without any assumptions, it just won't work.
"Science should never be about proving theories."
Ill give you example of what I mean by this. Immagine you find with experiment that the force of a certain type of spring is given by F=kx. You could get this result a million times but you don't have mathematical certainty that the million and first won't come out different. So now you assume F=kx in this type of spring, you don't have to go out and perform more experiments to show that x=F/k it just follows using the assumptions of mathematics.
Posted 11 September 2003 - 06:00 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users