2 of 2
2
Right or Wrong
Posted: 30 May 2011 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
toombaru - 30 May 2011 01:35 PM
NicholasLawson - 30 May 2011 01:19 PM

I am a man so I have no idea what it is like to have a living creature grow on my person but I leave it up to the mother. If a mother feels like a child should die after it spent time in her womb I think society should support her decision to make an adult decision. Sometimes someone has to make a hard decision. I am certain its never a beautiful day when you place a stone in a childs throat but the mother has the right to be pro hard choices. I support a womans right to end a life and I dont think babies are so special that they should be spared the difficulties of life as we have no trouble sending adult useful grown men to die in combat. Death is as normal as birth if you are strong enough to be able to survive then that is amazing for you and if not then there isnt much anyone has to say to you.


So “moral” decisions are determined by the individual?


If you have free will, can you choose not to have it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2011-05-29

Yes its usually called joining the workforce.

 Signature 

cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm http://www.knowledgenation.us cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
NicholasLawson - 30 May 2011 04:09 PM

Yes its usually called joining the workforce.

Free will and the sense of self are allusions.
The brain “decides” and the sense of self emerges down stream from that action.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2011 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2011-05-29

Yeah I dont know how it workis either. Hell I dont even know why I exist. I just know that thirty years ago i did not exist and then i did and now i still do. all of this is a mystery that I am still barely beginning to understand. that is why i hope for long life, so that one day i will have the chance to understand.

 Signature 

cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm http://www.knowledgenation.us cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2011 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
NicholasLawson - 31 May 2011 08:37 AM

Yeah I dont know how it workis either. Hell I dont even know why I exist. I just know that thirty years ago i did not exist and then i did and now i still do. all of this is a mystery that I am still barely beginning to understand. that is why i hope for long life, so that one day i will have the chance to understand.


The you that wants to understand does not exist.
It is a conceptual entity.
It lives in a conceptual reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2011 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2011-05-29

That the me that wants to understand is typing right now the me that understands does not exist, yet.

 Signature 

cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm http://www.knowledgenation.us cool hmm  cool hmm  cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2011 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
NicholasLawson - 31 May 2011 03:16 PM

That the me that wants to understand is typing right now the me that understands does not exist, yet.

Do you believe that any human anywhere, at any time, has understood the conundrum of which you speak?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
toombaru - 31 May 2011 03:39 PM
NicholasLawson - 31 May 2011 03:16 PM

That the me that wants to understand is typing right now the me that understands does not exist, yet.

Do you believe that any human anywhere, at any time, has understood the conundrum of which you speak?

In the book, ‘LIFE ASCENDING - The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution’ by Nick Lane - check out chapter 9, ‘Consciousness’.

On page 234 he writes: 

“I should say at the outset that this chapter is different from the other chapters in this book, in that not only does science not (yet) know the answer, but at present we can barely conceive of how that answer might look in terms of the known laws of physics or biology or information.  There is no agreement among scholars of the mind about exactly how the firing of neurons could give rise to intense personal sensations.

“But that is all the more reason to enquire what science can tell us about the workings of the human mind, and where those efforts meet a wall of unknowing.  The Pope’s position strikes me as defensible, insofar as we do not know how ‘mere matter’ generates the perceived immateriality of mind; indeed, we don’t even know what mere matter actually is, or why matter exists, rather than nothing at all (in some ways a similar question to that of why consciousness exists, rather than non-conscious information information processing).  However, I think, or perhaps I should say I believe, that evolution does explain the most ethereal monuments of mind.  And more: the known workings of the human mind are so much more marvellous than the untutored mind can even begin to imagine that there is every reason to ground the dignity of the person in the majesty of the biological mind.”

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
unsmoked - 01 June 2011 02:31 PM
toombaru - 31 May 2011 03:39 PM
NicholasLawson - 31 May 2011 03:16 PM

That the me that wants to understand is typing right now the me that understands does not exist, yet.

Do you believe that any human anywhere, at any time, has understood the conundrum of which you speak?

In the book, ‘LIFE ASCENDING - The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution’ by Nick Lane - check out chapter 9, ‘Consciousness’.

On page 234 he writes: 

“I should say at the outset that this chapter is different from the other chapters in this book, in that not only does science not (yet) know the answer, but at present we can barely conceive of how that answer might look in terms of the known laws of physics or biology or information.  There is no agreement among scholars of the mind about exactly how the firing of neurons could give rise to intense personal sensations.

“But that is all the more reason to enquire what science can tell us about the workings of the human mind, and where those efforts meet a wall of unknowing.  The Pope’s position strikes me as defensible, insofar as we do not know how ‘mere matter’ generates the perceived immateriality of mind; indeed, we don’t even know what mere matter actually is, or why matter exists, rather than nothing at all (in some ways a similar question to that of why consciousness exists, rather than non-conscious information information processing).  However, I think, or perhaps I should say I believe, that evolution does explain the most ethereal monuments of mind.  And more: the known workings of the human mind are so much more marvellous than the untutored mind can even begin to imagine that there is every reason to ground the dignity of the person in the majesty of the biological mind.”

 

There is an insurmountable problem that occurs when the thinking mind is imagined to be an object that can understand itself.
There would have to be a part of it that understands and a part that is understood.
The objectifying mind cannot “see” anything unless it turns it into a conceptually separated entity.
In actuality, there is no such thing as a mountain, a river, or a wave.
And yet the mind of man swears that there is.
There is no such thing as “mind”.
And yet there is an attempt to understand its origin and nature.
It’s a hell of a problem…...that cannot be resolved on its own level.
It would be like a dream character trying to understand the nature of reality by studying the perceived objects in her own dream.
She would be chasing here own tale.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
unsmoked - 01 June 2011 02:31 PM
toombaru - 31 May 2011 03:39 PM
NicholasLawson - 31 May 2011 03:16 PM

That the me that wants to understand is typing right now the me that understands does not exist, yet.

Do you believe that any human anywhere, at any time, has understood the conundrum of which you speak?

In the book, ‘LIFE ASCENDING - The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution’ by Nick Lane - check out chapter 9, ‘Consciousness’.

On page 234 he writes: 

“I should say at the outset that this chapter is different from the other chapters in this book, in that not only does science not (yet) know the answer, but at present we can barely conceive of how that answer might look in terms of the known laws of physics or biology or information.  There is no agreement among scholars of the mind about exactly how the firing of neurons could give rise to intense personal sensations.


The self is a mental hologram that is constantly reenforced and restructured by the frontal cortex using incoming experiential data that is referenced off of its personal mnemonic accumulations.
It has no actual reality.
Its speculations concerning its own nature and its magical-religious schematics are meaningless.
It can never transcend its circumstances any more than the wind can escape its own movement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2011 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
toombaru - 01 June 2011 04:12 PM

The self is a mental hologram that is constantly reenforced and restructured by the frontal cortex using incoming experiential data that is referenced off of its personal mnemonic accumulations.
It has no actual reality.
Its speculations concerning its own nature and its magical-religious schematics are meaningless.

Speaking of the magical-religious schematics of the self, I just saw Michael Shermer interviewed re. his book, ‘THE BELIEVING BRAIN’ .  Check out customer reviews at:

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/0805091254

Regarding the OP of this topic, I’m imagining the members of the African tribe reading Shermer’s book and discussing and questioning their mores.  This seems more likely than Christians discussing the Jesus miracles and deciding that they didn’t really happen - deciding that the Jesus story is a legend, not the gospel truth.

mores  n pl  1 :  the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group (Webster)

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2011 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
unsmoked - 02 June 2011 03:11 PM
toombaru - 01 June 2011 04:12 PM

The self is a mental hologram that is constantly reenforced and restructured by the frontal cortex using incoming experiential data that is referenced off of its personal mnemonic accumulations.
It has no actual reality.
Its speculations concerning its own nature and its magical-religious schematics are meaningless.

Speaking of the magical-religious schematics of the self, I just saw Michael Shermer interviewed re. his book, ‘THE BELIEVING BRAIN’ .  Check out customer reviews at:

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/0805091254

Regarding the OP of this topic, I’m imagining the members of the African tribe reading Shermer’s book and discussing and questioning their mores.  This seems more likely than Christians discussing the Jesus miracles and deciding that they didn’t really happen - deciding that the Jesus story is a legend, not the gospel truth.

mores  n pl  1 :  the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group (Webster)

 

Within your statements is the assumption of a separate autonomous entity that possesses the belief structure.
That is the way language is structured.
I would suggest that the beliefs are themselves the persona and that there exists no actual entity that can say ‘I am”.
For the sense of self, the above realization is scary as hell.
It is, I believe, what is commonly called “enlightenment”.
When a shadow is enlightened…....it disappears.
Actually there is no such thing as enlightenment…....and nothing to whom it could apply.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2014 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2012-07-06

WHATEVER DO YOU MEAN BY ASKING IF ITS RIGHT OR WRONG KILLING A NEWBORN BABY?!?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed