Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Deicide on October 31, 2010, 03:02:24 PM
-
There will come a time when our knowledge of the brain, achieved through neuroscience will be able to tell us a lot more about our nature as sentient apes and in particular will be able to tell us a lot more about 'free will', traditionally a conversation relegated to philosophy. When this time comes, there will have to be a merging of both philosophy and science, at least in this particular case, such that one can no longer apply neat categories to the disciplines. Example: every time a person here makes a statement within the scientific context on the nature of man, you jump at him and say, you have now entered the domain of philosophy and any statement you are making, as long as it is informed by science, is not science. The day when such categorisation is no longer possible (as you enjoy doing) is not far off. I await a response.
-
I disagree with everything you just said. ;D
-
I disagree with everything you just said. ;D
I knew you would. You have to admit, I could be right.
-
I knew you would. You have to admit, I could be right.
What would you call a merger of philosophy and natural science?
-
What would you call a merger of philosophy and natural science?
I am not sure but that kind of is the point. As human knowledge expands, many fields will 'merge' for lack of a better word. I chose neuroscience and philosophy because there has been a lot of recent work in this combination. My main point is that neat categories will no longer be applicable.
-
I am not sure but that kind of is the point. As human knowledge expands, many fields will 'merge' for lack of a better word. I chose neuroscience and philosophy because there has been a lot of recent work in this combination. My main point is that neat categories will no longer be applicable.
The merger is philosophy. It is the less restricted body of knowledge which encompasses (although not specializes in) natural science.
-
The merger is philosophy. It is the less restricted body of knowledge which encompasses (although not specializes in) natural science.
And if this 'philosophy' is primarily informed by science? You still call it philosophy then?
-
And if this 'philosophy' is primarily informed by science? You still call it philosophy then?
It would be not. If it is, there's no need to break out of the much more restricted system of natural science in the first place.
-
It would be not. If it is, there's no need to break out of the much more restricted system of natural science in the first place.
Eh? Can you be a bit clearer bitte?
-
Eh? Can you be a bit clearer bitte?
Taking your example of neuroscience: it uses a scientific model of the brain (neuronal network, basically a certain type of computer) and tries to come up with scientific theories. However, these theories can always only cover a certain aspect of the brain (in principle) and an even smaller aspect of the human mind (again, in principle). These principles are principles of logic only and have nothing to do with the current state of scientific knowledge. It's just logically impossible to imply completeness of a model from within the restricted body of knowledge this model was formed in. In order to e.g. even discuss this completeness, you already need to take a step out (beyond) this restricted body of knowledge.
-
Taking your example of neuroscience: it uses a scientific model of the brain (neuronal network, basically a certain type of computer) and tries to come up with scientific theories. However, these theories can always only cover a certain aspect of the brain (in principle) and an even smaller aspect of the human mind (again, in principle). These principles are principles of logic only and have nothing to do with the current state of scientific knowledge. It's just logically impossible to imply completeness of a model from within the restricted body of knowledge this model was formed in. In order to e.g. even discuss this completeness, you already need to take a step out (beyond) this restricted body of knowledge.
OK, but that could change in coming years.
-
OK, but that could change in coming years.
No it can't because of the bold part.
Taking your example of neuroscience: it uses a scientific model of the brain (neuronal network, basically a certain type of computer) and tries to come up with scientific theories. However, these theories can always only cover a certain aspect of the brain (in principle) and an even smaller aspect of the human mind (again, in principle). These principles are principles of logic only and have nothing to do with the current state of scientific knowledge. It's just logically impossible to imply completeness of a model from within the restricted body of knowledge this model was formed in. In order to e.g. even discuss this completeness, you already need to take a step out (beyond) this restricted body of knowledge.
-
No it can't because of the bold part.
Well, I will agree with one thing. Human beings aren't very logical creatures.
-
Well, I will agree with one thing. Human beings aren't very logical creatures.
A lesson well learned through GB. ;D
-
when philosophy and science truly merge inside your mind, maybe it means you're going crazy? At least no longer discern reality neat categories anymore
-
when philosophy and science truly merge inside your mind, maybe it means you're going crazy? At least no longer discern reality neat categories anymore
Categorisation is merely a useful tool for the limited human mind. It's how we function.
-
Categorisation is merely a useful tool for the limited human mind. It's how we function.
Sometimes I can't really understand if I'm in the middle of a workout or if I'm only dreaming
-
Sometimes I can't really understand if I'm in the middle of a workout or if I'm only dreaming
That's just called being stoned. ;D
-
Sometimes I can't really understand if I'm in the middle of a workout or if I'm only dreaming
I think the latter would be better. Dreaming is good; reality tends not to be.
-
I think the latter would be better. Dreaming is good; reality tends not to be.
Interesting. When I realize it was just a dream, all the mental energy I put into these "fictional" efforts where a waste and I then frown upon this realization and prefer reality.
Or does it mean my mind muscle connection abilities is advancing to newer phenomenal heights.
-
Interesting. When I realize it was just a dream, all the mental energy I put into these "fictional" efforts where a waste and I then frown upon this realization and prefer reality.
Or does it mean my mind muscle connection abilities is advancing to newer phenomenal heights.
I am not sure. The problem is, dreaming is optimal only when you can stay in that state. You ultimately have to make the choice between reality and dreamin. :-\
-
lots of arrogant fags in this thread. and by lots i mean one.
-
lots of arrogant fags in this thread. and by lots i mean one.
I am sure you missed it, but this thread was made half jokingly. I am quite sure Wavelength got that.
-
lots of arrogant fags in this thread. and by lots i mean one.
that's not nice :(
-
calm down fag(
s ) ;)
-
calm down fag(s) ;)
so who is it, the arrogant fag?
-
There will come a time when our knowledge of the brain, achieved through neuroscience will be able to tell us a lot more about our nature as sentient apes and in particular will be able to tell us a lot more about 'free will', traditionally a conversation relegated to philosophy. When this time comes, there will have to be a merging of both philosophy and science, at least in this particular case, such that one can no longer apply neat categories to the disciplines. Example: every time a person here makes a statement within the scientific context on the nature of man, you jump at him and say, you have now entered the domain of philosophy and any statement you are making, as long as it is informed by science, is not science. The day when such categorisation is no longer possible (as you enjoy doing) is not far off. I await a response.
Not now chief I'm in the zone
-
so who is it, the arrogant fag?
not you.
-
not you.
damn, GB feuds seem to last forever, why not make a movie about it ;D
-
damn, GB feuds seem to last forever, why not make a movie about it ;D
heeeeeeeeeey hadn't thought about those in awhile ;D
just to be clear --seriously glad everyone is doing fine and still alive. just got to give shit once in awhile
-
I think humana are rational. We are sexually competitive and seek to kill all same sex and hoard hot members of opposite along with best cave and food. Society interferes with this and so we have the wakkiness we call civilization.
As far as the science discussion that is potentailly very interesting thread.
No one is close to explaining the human brain.
Physical sciences have a lot understood.
Exercise science and biological sciences I would say are not as well understood.
Science is to some extent about reproducible results. How to produce the result of a lean body even here on this forum in 2010 is vigiorously debated.
What is sad is that housing food n water are known science, yet most live in scarcity having to work all thier lives for an abode.
I think the problem stems from more n more usless "jobs" sucking blood from productiev jobs n activities each day. This makes for comy pseudo jobs like taching for example, but for wealth and science being wasted and living standards staying low.
-
There will come a time when our knowledge of the brain, achieved through neuroscience will be able to tell us a lot more about our nature as sentient apes and in particular will be able to tell us a lot more about 'free will', traditionally a conversation relegated to philosophy. When this time comes, there will have to be a merging of both philosophy and science, at least in this particular case, such that one can no longer apply neat categories to the disciplines. Example: every time a person here makes a statement within the scientific context on the nature of man, you jump at him and say, you have now entered the domain of philosophy and any statement you are making, as long as it is informed by science, is not science. The day when such categorisation is no longer possible (as you enjoy doing) is not far off. I await a response.
Any sort of epiphenomenal explanation of consciousness nonetheless affirms the existence of mind. Imo, the reflective nature of consciousness implies the will to reflect as one's volition dictates. Therefore, either mind is not purely a function of brain or the brain does not harbor consciousness.
To acknowledge consciousness, it seems to me, is necessarily to acknowledge intention (if of nothing else than the continued will to be aware) which is born from thought (thinking thought thinking thought...) rather than from a mechanical inevitability of brain meat. So I see the brain, while being the physical contingent of consciousness, and suffering from the usual liabilities of any physical object, as the servant of thought rather than its master.
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
(http://www.primalspirit.com/images/StarWars_YodaLuke.JPG)
-
Any sort of epiphenomenal explanation of consciousness nonetheless affirms the existence of mind. Imo, the reflective nature of consciousness implies the will to reflect as one's volition dictates. Therefore, either mind is not purely a function of brain or the brain does not harbor consciousness.
To acknowledge consciousness, it seems to me, is necessarily to acknowledge intention (if of nothing else than the continued will to be aware) which is born from thought (thinking thought thinking thought...) rather than from a mechanical inevitability of brain meat. So I see the brain, while being the physical contingent of consciousness, and suffering from the usual liabilities of any physical object, as the servant of thought rather than its master.
Of course, the very concept of human thought and conciousness clearly dictates we must be more than just passive machines, which is what every computer is. How some of the greatest minds in science can miss this fact is beyond me.