Hi I'm new too.

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Harbal » Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:57 pm

ForCruxSake wrote: Coming in to make fun of it, like an adolescent school boy, makes you look stupider than the people you are trying to make fun of.
Not when the people in question are you and thedoc, it doesn't.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 4850
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:20 pm

Harbal wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: Coming in to make fun of it, like an adolescent school boy, makes you look stupider than the people you are trying to make fun of.
Not when the people in question are you and thedoc, it doesn't.
Count yourself thoroughly spanked and reprimanded Harbal. Now go and stand in the corner. He tried to give me a spanking the other day. He must be a masochist. :wink:

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Harbal » Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:36 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He tried to give me a spanking the other day. He must be a masochist. :wink:
I can't help but admire his courage for that, but most certainly not his intelligence. :)

ForCruxSake
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ForCruxSake » Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:41 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Totally crap. Your'd have a baby JFK. He'd be nothing like the real thing since you could never duplicate his up bringing. and when push comes to shove, ever if you could, the real JFK was a Irish mafia crook with a good TV personality but not a great president.
His best claim to fame was being shot whilst young.
I didn't actually flesh out the story to make a point about cloning. You've done that. I was using cloning to make a completely different point about replacing current presidential candidates with more successful presidents from the past, and let's face it JFK was more successful than Trump currently has the potential to be..
Cloning is not relevant. Your scenario is impossible.
It was a fanciful notion, throwing out an idea: if we could reanimate old presidents to succeed those we have at present, would they fare any better. It wasn't meant to be taken literally... but I guess if you havelittle to contribute to the idea, and all you can do is stomp over how literally it is meant to be taken, then there's little more I can do pursue or challenge your take. Personally I thought you had a bit more thought going on 'upstairs' than to simply take apart ideas, without really thinking about the implication of what was being expressed.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:17 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
I didn't actually flesh out the story to make a point about cloning. You've done that. I was using cloning to make a completely different point about replacing current presidential candidates with more successful presidents from the past, and let's face it JFK was more successful than Trump currently has the potential to be..
Cloning is not relevant. Your scenario is impossible.
It was a fanciful notion, throwing out an idea: if we could reanimate old presidents to succeed those we have at present, would they fare any better. It wasn't meant to be taken literally... but I guess if you havelittle to contribute to the idea, and all you can do is stomp over how literally it is meant to be taken, then there's little more I can do pursue or challenge your take. Personally I thought you had a bit more thought going on 'upstairs' than to simply take apart ideas, without really thinking about the implication of what was being expressed.

Cloning is the wrong vehicle as you cannot 'bring back' people. All you can do is make a child with the same genetics (in theory). As each child owes more to his learning and experience that he does his genes, you could never get the same adult back. And obviously enough you'd have to wait forty years to get JFK back to stand for Pres; he'd never know his Dad whol pushed him into politics; would not have had the same education.

So since you were "being fanciful" there are other means by which you could achieve your fancy. How about teleporting his dying body with a time-machine saving his life and bring him back to health? At least you'd have JFK and not some look-a like.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ForCruxSake » Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:36 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Cloning is not relevant. Your scenario is impossible.
It was a fanciful notion, throwing out an idea: if we could reanimate old presidents to succeed those we have at present, would they fare any better. It wasn't meant to be taken literally... but I guess if you havelittle to contribute to the idea, and all you can do is stomp over how literally it is meant to be taken, then there's little more I can do pursue or challenge your take. Personally I thought you had a bit more thought going on 'upstairs' than to simply take apart ideas, without really thinking about the implication of what was being expressed.

Cloning is the wrong vehicle as you cannot 'bring back' people. All you can do is make a child with the same genetics (in theory). As each child owes more to his learning and experience that he does his genes, you could never get the same adult back. And obviously enough you'd have to wait forty years to get JFK back to stand for Pres; he'd never know his Dad whol pushed him into politics; would not have had the same education.

So since you were "being fanciful" there are other means by which you could achieve your fancy. How about teleporting his dying body with a time-machine saving his life and bring him back to health? At least you'd have JFK and not some look-a like.
Fair enough I'll go with that. Or advanced stem cell therapy, where instead of simpky growing a new kidney, or heart, we could grow a whole new JFK, into which we could microchip a whole personal history!

Coming back to the issue of JFK's upbringing... whilst you are correct in saying that the circumstances of his upbringing could not be exactly recreated, knowing what we know about how he was brought up, could we not recreate that as closely as would be possible to shape him into what we knew him to be?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:26 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: It was a fanciful notion, throwing out an idea: if we could reanimate old presidents to succeed those we have at present, would they fare any better. It wasn't meant to be taken literally... but I guess if you havelittle to contribute to the idea, and all you can do is stomp over how literally it is meant to be taken, then there's little more I can do pursue or challenge your take. Personally I thought you had a bit more thought going on 'upstairs' than to simply take apart ideas, without really thinking about the implication of what was being expressed.

Cloning is the wrong vehicle as you cannot 'bring back' people. All you can do is make a child with the same genetics (in theory). As each child owes more to his learning and experience that he does his genes, you could never get the same adult back. And obviously enough you'd have to wait forty years to get JFK back to stand for Pres; he'd never know his Dad whol pushed him into politics; would not have had the same education.

So since you were "being fanciful" there are other means by which you could achieve your fancy. How about teleporting his dying body with a time-machine saving his life and bring him back to health? At least you'd have JFK and not some look-a like.
Fair enough I'll go with that. Or advanced stem cell therapy, where instead of simpky growing a new kidney, or heart, we could grow a whole new JFK, into which we could microchip a whole personal history!

Coming back to the issue of JFK's upbringing... whilst you are correct in saying that the circumstances of his upbringing could not be exactly recreated, knowing what we know about how he was brought up, could we not recreate that as closely as would be possible to shape him into what we knew him to be?
People are unique. When they die they are gone.

David Swift
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:47 pm

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by David Swift » Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:51 pm

Hi again. Are you sure that it's philosophy you're all interested in? Current events and speculation seem much more likely to be your province. For those who are also interested in philosophy let me say, understanding how your mind works changes everything. Truth is a kind of pleasure. The freewill question makes no sense. Life has no meaning except to enjoy it. It pleases me to please others and that allows me to learn mankind's accumulated knowledge and think abstractly. All these topics are discussed at mindexamined.com

Walker
Posts: 3251
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Walker » Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:08 pm

David Swift wrote:Hi again. Are you sure that it's philosophy you're all interested in? Current events and speculation seem much more likely to be your province. For those who are also interested in philosophy let me say, understanding how your mind works changes everything. Truth is a kind of pleasure. The freewill question makes no sense. Life has no meaning except to enjoy it. It pleases me to please others and that allows me to learn mankind's accumulated knowledge and think abstractly. All these topics are discussed at mindexamined.com
Don’t forget art, music and humor, in addition to current events and speculation. You appear to have a rigid, narrow, and constrained view of philosophy that excludes huge aspects of life, by which you judge and define philosophy. Current events, art, music, movies, humor, emotions, interpersonal relationships, meditation, contemplation, religion, and even speculation are springboards into philosophical principles, and serve as common touchstones (take what applies from the list for commonality), over and above personal experience to reference in conversation, in conjunction with specific philosophical principles. Going the other way, take a principle and relate it to life to keep you from horsing around on unicorns. Saying "no" and attempting to limit others, to your own limitations, only goes so far in life and philosophy.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ForCruxSake » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:15 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:People are unique. When they die they are gone.
That's rather poetic.

I once heard someone say that they think that, whether people cease to be, or not (depending on the flavour of their spritual belief), they continue in the form of the 'light' they have shone through their thoughts or achievements. Like stars that die, their 'light' can be seen extending outwards across space and time.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:23 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:People are unique. When they die they are gone.
That's rather poetic.

I once heard someone say that they think that, whether people cease to be, or not (depending on the flavour of their spritual belief), they continue in the form of the 'light' they have shone through their thoughts or achievements. Like stars that die, their 'light' can be seen extending outwards across space and time.
What utter crap.
What makes a person, what makes a person unique to the particular organization of the neural matter. Every thing that was the person, memories, ideas, feelings, experience were all generated and stored by the brain. The brain turns to mush when it dies. NOT LIGHT.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ForCruxSake » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:54 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:People are unique. When they die they are gone.
That's rather poetic.

I once heard someone say that they think that, whether people cease to be, or not (depending on the flavour of their spritual belief), they continue in the form of the 'light' they have shone through their thoughts or achievements. Like stars that die, their 'light' can be seen extending outwards across space and time.
What utter crap.
What makes a person, what makes a person unique to the particular organization of the neural matter. Every thing that was the person, memories, ideas, feelings, experience were all generated and stored by the brain. The brain turns to mush when it dies. NOT LIGHT.
I didn't say the brain turned to light. You're saying that. That is utter crap.

I was talking about conciousness. That our conciousness, the force that drives us, that generates thoughts via electrical signals that pass through the brain, may continue on in some way beyond physical matter. It was the 'light' of conciousness (a simile, not literal light).

When a star dies, it's light continues its journey. Religions have similar farewell packages about where the soul departs to. I don't know if we have a soul. I know we have conciousness and it radiates, or emits, thought. If energy isn't destroyed then that energy must continue on in some way. So it's not impossible. So little is known about conciousness, that it's mysterious enough to contain the possibility. What they said was poetic.

You may well think that we become nothing once we die, but you have no idea. No one does. So entertaining the thought of something better than 'becoming mush', that doesn't involve someone else's idea of God, is how my 'uniqueness' has decided to enjoy the time I have now. It was a thoughtful idea and one that honours conciousness, not utter crap.

The day you die and come back to tell us all about, I'll be all ears, but til then it's still good to wonder.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8006
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:03 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: That's rather poetic.

I once heard someone say that they think that, whether people cease to be, or not (depending on the flavour of their spritual belief), they continue in the form of the 'light' they have shone through their thoughts or achievements. Like stars that die, their 'light' can be seen extending outwards across space and time.
What utter crap.
What makes a person, what makes a person unique to the particular organization of the neural matter. Every thing that was the person, memories, ideas, feelings, experience were all generated and stored by the brain. The brain turns to mush when it dies. NOT LIGHT.
I didn't say the brain turned to light. You're saying that. That is utter crap.
That is EXACTLY what you are saying, since consciousness is what the brain does, and without the brain there is no consciousness.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by ForCruxSake » Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:47 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What utter crap.
What makes a person, what makes a person unique to the particular organization of the neural matter. Every thing that was the person, memories, ideas, feelings, experience were all generated and stored by the brain. The brain turns to mush when it dies. NOT LIGHT.
I didn't say the brain turned to light. You're saying that. That is utter crap.
That is EXACTLY what you are saying, since consciousness is what the brain does, and without the brain there is no consciousness.
So without the star there is no light that can be perceived further away once the star has died? No. The star stops producing light but the light already produced can still be perceived light years away, once the star has died. The thought energy/spirit/life force, that emanates from a concious brain may continue to be perceivable across time and space once the brain has died. THATS WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS. Or rather, that's what I took my friend to mean.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Hi I'm new too.

Post by Harbal » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:14 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:The thought energy/spirit/life force, that emanates from a concious brain may continue to be perceivable across time and space once the brain has died. THATS WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS. Or rather, that's what I took my friend to mean.
That's a rather fanciful notion, I wonder what would make someone think that's the case.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest