RE: Dawkins' BBC Interview/church and 'happiness'

Frank 013

Quote:
Halo
Jesus*: for you, Frank. If, he, provably, lived. Oh, and you said,

"Frank starts at consciousness and nature ends at instinct."

But our conscious selves experience intellectual 'instinct' which has nothing to do with survival, and our instinctive selves can be objectively coerced in to obeying stop signs.

I don’t completely agree (its most likely just a difference in our use of the word instinct) instinct is what I would label as biological urges and needs.

Training yourself and your reflexes to respond to stop signs is a learned skill not instinct.

Quote:
Halo
It is almost as if you describe your entire physiological Frank as separate from, you, "thinking therefore you are", Frank.

I was not trying to spawn a discussion about nature and consciousness; I do know that I am part of nature, created by nature. But without consciousness I could not be Frank either.

Heck it’s just something I jotted down off of the top of my head, and it sounded good at the time.

Later

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: fireworks

Quote:
Niall
How do you support this assertion?

Because of the way it was explained to me by Mad. This unknown thing must topple our current set of scientific theories rendering them completely invalid, and yet remain invisible to our senses.

Quote:
Niall
No doubt, it is difficult, to imagine a world where the actions of something beyond the potential reach of science could affect the workings of the aspects of reality that can be measured and observed without having some material impact, but that amounts to a lack of imagination. You cannot say that just because you cannot imagine something, it is impossible.

But again just because I can imagine something does not mean that a philosophy of doubt should be built around its “potential” existence.

First find some evidence of said unknown, then we can consider its impact.

Later

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: fireworks

Frank 013: Because of the way it was explained to me by Mad. This unknown thing must topple our current set of scientific theories rendering them completely invalid, and yet remain invisible to our senses.

When did I say that?

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: fireworks

Mad
When did I say that?

This is an extension of the other thread and we were debating the accuracy of our senses, and our possible "faulty" view of reality, where I misunderstood your argument as the extreme view.

Later

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: fireworks

So... um... did I say it, or didn't I?

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: fireworks

I thought you implied it.

The implications of faulty senses and our reality being fundamentally different than what we perceive (at the extreme) are confounding.

Later

Edited by: Frank 013 at: 4/4/07 9:16 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT