Koyaanisqatsi

You arrive at a valid conclusion?

Why don't you read a Logic and Language 101 primer and find out for yourself, since you continue to show a profound ineptitude when it comes to properly applying terminology?

Perhaps if you just keep asking redirectional questions you'll find out?

And that claim matches identically to the purpose and use of the chair, thus rendering any qualitative difference between the carpenter and the observer trivial. Oops.

Why, because you want to pretend that is the case? What "nature" are asserting is so mysterious? The wood? The nails? The function? The atomic weight? The strong nuclear force? The idea of "chair?"

What--precisely--is this horrific "nature" you keep asserting exsits that has the carpenter and the observer so mystified?

And who cares if they are in fact "mystified"? It doesn't stop the carpenter from creating the chair or the observer from fully understanding the use, purpose and "nature" of the chair, so this "mystification" you keep making everything so needlessly contingent upon serves what purpose; affects what aspect?

Non-sequitur. What "truth" are you positing exists here to be "closer to" and what purpose does your comparison serve?

Just make your assertion and be done with it, because this hide-and-seek stupidity just grates.

Here, I'll make it for you since you're too afraid of the known outcome: "I, WJ, do finally assert that a mystical fairy god king magically blinked everything into existence and that's how anybody 'knows' something."

There, see? That wasn't so difficult.

Aka, the subjectively interpreted formal rules of an abstract, objective concept that exists independent of human minds.

You know. Like Logic?

Not as much as do I.

You don't say! Who could have guessed?

Wait a minute! As I recall, you said you were agnostic, or was that just the impression you cultivated through the wishy-washy cowardice of your posts?

Yeah. Four pages of "fear" wherein I detail precisely my position on what it means to "hold a belief" and repeatedly request for you to add/detract/address my arguments in any format you wish as an acceptance of your challenge to debate the issue.

WJ

John!

Mmmm what are concepts? Synthetic apriori's?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Welcome to my hell, John...

Be my guest.

John Page

No. They are extant and real but abstract. Concepts are notions connecting (or describing relations between) the mind's observations and deductions. Thus, there can be concepts linking other concepts. Concepts can be compound or simple. Concepts are arrived at through a process of reasoning.

Concepts are "experimental" and may or may not turn out to have correspondence with fact, reality. The concept of god does not appear to be one of these for the reasons stated above.

Cheers, John

jenn

John,
Back to perception....I seemed to have missed the point in regards to the article. I perceived it in my mind to be mind seperate from brain(or mind over matter).Am I just dumb as hell or do you perceive the same?
Furthermore, it seems as if the mind(or brain) can tell the cells how to act.That is something that I have wondered about and glad to see a study that correlates to my belief! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

John Page

You don't believe in hell do you?

In my experience, Walrus is an entertaining fellow prepared to argue all ten sides of the octagon. While this can be annoying, it helps in building solid arguments.

In any event, I think the trick is to remain firmly rooted in reality, even if it is somewhat infuriating not to be able to nail reality down, so to speak.

FYI, to maximize my chances of understanding things, <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/methodology.htm" target="_blank">my personal methodology</a> is kind of "critical belief".

Cheers, John

WJ

John!

Unless I've misundrstood you, which is certainly possible, you just described the existence of the synthetic apriori concept.

So, existence is either a predicate, concept or noun. Which is it? And, explain that your existence [reality] is *not* completely dependent on time.

The fact is, it [reality] is dependent on time. Sammi was right!

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Jenn--

I suggest you read (believe it or not) Deepak Chopra's first book (I think), called "Quantum Healing."

It's a fascinating look at the "Eastern" approach to healing as opposed to the "Western" approach and how a "marriage" between the two would be more beneficial to all concerned, but more interestingly, how such a "marriage" might function.

It's a fairly easy read and although a bit too much literary license taken regarding the particulars of quantum mechanics, definitely worth a look.

It might provide greater insight (or, at least, food for thought) than this childish back and forth ?

I stress, by the way, that it's one of his first books, because since then he's become the butt of many jokes and more of a mystic kook in some people's eyes (mine included), but I think that's more a by product of celebrity and fame than what he initially set out to accomplish, as is definitiely evidenct in Quantum Healing.

Just a suggestion.

John Page

Jenn:

I don't have all the answers to this one. Take a look at <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000212&p=" target="_blank">this thread on mind/body</a>. Where I'm coming out right now is that the mind is not actually separate from the body but a phenomenon borne of it. For example, you wouldn't say the heart is different from the body, its just one expression of the body's existence.

As you said, back to perception..

Cheers, John

John Page

No, just how the concept of a synthethic a priori arises. Synthetic means its only an assumption or given rule or datum, in my book.

No, perception of reality is dependent upon time. What if there were no time? We couldn't detect the resulting reality with (our current) sensors that require time to do data comparisons. If I'm right, we'll never know . Maybe the star phsyics guys have other ideas on this.

Cheers, John