Why not? Why truth should manifest itself in different form? There are simple fact they are striving to, such as we are simple living being subjected to gradual decay, our state of life completely depends on our body which is subject to decay, hence everything finishes upon the death. What is wrong with this simple philosophical framework which are based on facts each individual can experience and we have common understanding of it?
What you say here is true but you evaded the issue. This has nothing to do with the issue.
To me philosophy cannot complete the job without science and vice versa since the philosophy is an attempt to acquire knowledge of what is simple from what is composed and science is an attempt to acquire knowledge of what is composed from what is simple. The question like what life, soul, etc are the subject of metaphysics which neither belong to philosophy nor to science but both.
Some things are studied by both philosophy and science. But science is limited to the physical or it is not science but philosophy and most scientists are not trained in philosophy. Philosophy studies being simply as existing and the causes and principles of being…
So it is person dependent. I don’t understand why you said that I am incorrect.
You are not addressing my comments. I simply said some people reject the truth, for one reason or another. And I have already explained why you are incorrect. You have incorrectly extrapolated a lab experiment to life outside the lab. That is invalid. We do not live in Schroedinger’s Box. Also, the experiment is a special case where the apparatus itself has caused the behavior. It has not occurred naturally. Nature was interferred with, so it behaved strangely. And what is strange about that. If I breed a horse to a donky I get a strange result.
I fail to understand why highly educated men get all excited when they find nature behaving wierdly due to their own interference.
Not all people are going to buy that unless unless the soul, our magic box which everything resides within could become objective to itself which is logically impossible.
Have no idea what you mean here. I can’t help what people " buy, " it is the truth. I don’t know what the " box " has to do with it.
That is a indirect way of deducing the presence of an intellect. Scientist however argue that intellect is simply emerges as the matter take a very specific form. They have numerous example which support their idea: liquid, superconductor, glasses, many others. How could you show that the fact which applies to almost everything does not apply to living being?
That just proves that a little education can be very dangerous. I can’t help it if some scientists are absolute idiots. I know lots of Phd’s who are the stupidest men on earth. some of them post on this forum.
Our decision live in a box so called soul. Where they could be otherwise? How they could manifest themselves into actuality if they don’t reside somewhere? You could say that a decision is the result of collective thinking and emerges when all necessary component are in the place, but that is scientific way of thinking. Don’t you agree with this fact that new property can emerges from simple property when everything is in the right place?
No, that is the silliest thing I ever heard.
Bahman. You and at least a couple other individuals on this forum should find something else to discuss. Your ideas won’t sell here, we have our feet firmly on the ground. You won’t find any relativists or idealists or secular humanists in this community - at least I hope not…
Linus2nd
