Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of sheisty
No more duality!
I think we shouldn't put to much stock in the difference between physical and mental things. The brain is just a smaller world than ours. Physical law still applies even though I don't understand it, I'm a neuroscientist or sumthin could explain.
No meaning to life?
I agree that there may be no meaning to and that that means you can place whatever meaning in it you want. I mean, if I knew why I was here and what I was supposed to do, I wouldn't care about any great revelation I make or new achievement I accomplish. I would say I cannot be certain of anything (nor would I want to be), I can only be certain of nothing; as far as what nothing is...that's open to interpretation.
......
I think home is just the land that you feel safe in. That being said, it can be hard to feel safe in this country
just me and lice are from texas (im sean btw lice)
But what i guess I was really asking was what am I. The question must seem kindof pretentious and tired to you seasoned philosophers, but I've been thinking alot about the construct of consciousness and how contrary it can be. Namely, the two principles consciousness uses to define itself- creation and destruction, or unification and separatism. The mental body uses its ego to separate itself from everything that isn't apart of its direct experience while the physical body is a collection of trillions of particles working in unison. Only you can bypass your ego and see yourself as apart of the world (see question 50 in the table of free voices), which leads me to believe that separation or destruction is what creates individuality in consciousness, whereas unification creates enlightenment. I'm way off topic aren't I?
The case for an objective god
The reason I ask this is because logic seems to paint god out to be objective. If god is omnipotent/present, then it is basically everything. So if it's everything then it can't change, as it's already every change that could possibly happen. If something can't react to change, then it probably isn't subjective right? So it seems to me that god would be the total object. The only problem with this god is that it isn't very romantic, purposefully speaking. But it could be a fallacy to say that god is subject to needing a purpose like humans, which, in that case, human purpose is meaningless outside the human paradigms. I'm ready to admit that may be true, but I still honestly think there's some way for us to rationalize god as a subjective being. Anyways, it would be nice to hear some other thoughts on this.
