PDA

View Full Version : After life?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

shtarker
04-15-2002, 05:58 AM
>>That is why you can also claim to know better than someone who believes in Santa

Ok, I'll let you argue against god and religion if you want. But leave Santa out of this!!
I know he exists!!!
Just because you don't deserve presents doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 06:16 AM
"Ok, I'll let you argue against god and religion if you want. But leave Santa out of this!!"

Sorry, my bad :D

minesweeper
04-15-2002, 06:21 AM
I don't believe in an afterlife, but if there is one, and I do come back, I want to be a cow!! Cows are great!!

And Santa does exist!! I sit on his knee at least once a year!!

stevey
04-15-2002, 08:12 AM
God (or whatever) set off the big bang !!! and never interfered since !!
praying is a load of ********, 6 million jews (god's chosen!!) prayed like crazy, didn't help.

quote -

"we are all stardust...all atoms in your body were made in a star, we are the universe's attempt to understand itself , we ARE the universe" (something like that)

>>we are the universe's attempt to understand itself
i like that, thats neat.

PS

Don't come back as a cow unless you want to end up in my stomach, be digested and then EXCRETED !!

There ain't no Sanity Clause !!

nvoigt
04-15-2002, 09:05 AM
>6 million jews (god's chosen!!) prayed like crazy, didn't help

Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?

Clyde
04-15-2002, 09:09 AM
"Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?"

LOL, right. They prayed and ...... they got slaughtered, but hey, maybe if they hadn't prayed.... errr... they would ..... errr.... have got slaughtered.

stevey
04-15-2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Clyde
"Are you somehow gifted with magical abilities ? How come you know what would have happened if they had not prayed ?"

LOL, right. They prayed and ...... they got slaughtered, but hey, maybe if they hadn't prayed.... errr... they would ..... errr.... have got slaughtered.

Exactly !!
(or were they praying to the WRONG god eh ??? give me strength!!)

Whether theres a god or whatever, he/she/it most certainly doesn't interfere with our petty lives !!! i think this is borne out by history.
i hate to hear this "i'll pray for you" crap......
pray for good exam results, pray for this pray for that, nobody's listening.....................

stevey
04-15-2002, 09:58 AM
my auntie was a Christian Scientist, they won't have transplants, go to the doctor etc because "its god's will" if you are sick !!!
so her husband is ill, and won't go to the doctor, they just pray at his bedside all day long etc

so he lay there a long time in agony and then he died. i can't remember what he died of, but it was NOTHING much, he could have been saved easily with antibiotics.

just one example of religion (extreme example i know), but i just want to get my tuppence in......

i hate all organised religion, we'd be better off without it.

and...

>>>And while I don't believe in a higher being myself, I cannot rightly claim to know better than a believer, because I cannot prove him wrong.

no you can't, but the onus is on a believer to prove god exists. if i say to you "i believe in fairies", its up to me to prove they exist..not up to you to prove they don't. just like any scientific theory etc.


(ps i was reading yesterday how the pope said NOTHING, did NOTHING, and he was well aware that jews were being slaughtered - and hes "gods representative on earth" - so mebe they WERE praying to the wrong god!!)

Clyde
04-15-2002, 10:11 AM
"I hate all organised religion, we'd be better off without "

Don't get me started! I LOATHE religion, More people have died in the name of God, than for any other cause (hell the Spanish inquisition alone killed more people than both world wars), religion is hugely damaging to human society, not only does it interfere with education, but it causes un-necessary pain, suffering and war.

Stamp it out.

Check out this page:

http://www.closetatheist.com/wtcdawkins.htm

Dawkins rocks!

stevey
04-15-2002, 10:17 AM
I couldn't agree more Clyde, i really couldn't.
Have you heard the Bob Dylan song "with God on our side"??
classic.
thats a GREAT link ->
favourite quote->"If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place"

but

>>(hell the Spanish inquisition alone killed more people than both world wars

this isn't true matey !!!!!!

about 40 million died in WWII alone !!!!

Clyde
04-15-2002, 10:50 AM
"this isn't true matey !!!!!!

about 40 million died in WWII alone !!!!"

Hmm, seems you are quite right, I was told that by someone studying religious education about 5 years ago, but i checked up on it, and its not even remotely true.

Thanks for the correction.

Though i still stand by previous statement that more people have died in the name of God, than any other cause.

stevey
04-15-2002, 11:08 AM
>>>>>Though i still stand by previous statement that more people have died in the name of God, than any other cause

I know what you're saying, religion causes so much grief...
but the statement isn't true....
WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations.

and neither was anything to do with religion...
neither was.....
gulf war, falklands war,vietnam, korea, Napoleonic wars, Franco-Prussian war, American war of independance, American civil war (greatest death toll for Americans), Crimean war, 30 year war, 100 years war..etc....

all were more about money/power/fear/ignorance/ambition/empire-building/defending yourself/no good reason/sparked off by nutcases etc...take your pic.....but not religion.

but Northern Ireland, india/pakistan, israel/arabs.and many other...these ARE largely religions fault in my opinion, although religion is often used as an excuse for something else...

what gets me though, is the way both sides in any conflict "have god on their side" !! and how intolerant religious people are to anyone of diffent faiths !!!!

Series X4 1.0
04-15-2002, 12:01 PM
All emotion-based lives are doomed. Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic. Those instincts were evolved and needed for animals to survive, not for rational lives. People will realize that they're just part of the world they're living in, and when they realize that everything except the facts of the world around them are lies, primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear. However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN. We're getting more efficient, as for the result, I have no idea.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 12:20 PM
"WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations. "

WW2 was the has the highest mortality of any war, around 50 million right?

"Let us look for a moment at the number of victims sacrificed on the altars of the Christian Moloch: -- 1,000,000 perished during the early Arian schism; 1,000,000 during the Carthaginian struggle; 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters. In Spain 5,000,000 perished during the eight Crusades; 2,000,000 of Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives in opposing the introduction of the blessings of Christianity. 1,000,000 were destroyed in the Holy(?) Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots. 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered ere they could be convinced of the beauties(?) of the Christian creed. 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft. Total, 56,000,000"

-> That is just the number who who have died for Christianity

I'm not saying more people have died, because of religion than have died for any other reason, i'm saying more people have died due to religion than any other single cause (ignoring human nature). The death toll for all non-religous conflict is probabably higher than the death toll for all religious conflict, but that was not the point i was making, the other conflicts have no link, they have no single cause (aside from human nature), it is not easy to see how they could have been avoided. Religious wars on the hand, are totally superfluous they are due to social construct that is not a nessesary part of human society.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 12:32 PM
"All emotion-based lives are doomed."

..... all humans have "emotion-based lives".

"Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic"

A meaningless statement.

"primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear."

Emotion and humour are part of human nature and are hard coded into our genes, you won't get rid of them. Religion will disappear, because it relies on indocrination and lack of education, it is slowly fading as education improves, it will inevitably fade away given enough time. Human beings enjoying entertainment will not change, again its part of human nature.

"However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN."

Uh..... the human brain evolved to help us pass on genes NOT to "seek answers" humanities knowledge seeking nature is a by-product of our intellect, and a certain restless-nature.

"We're getting more efficient"

More efficient at what?

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"WWI and WWII were the great bloodspillers, not just in our times, but in all times, even considering the smaller populations. "

WW2 was the has the highest mortality of any war, around 50 million right?

"Let us look for a moment at the number of victims sacrificed on the altars of the Christian Moloch: -- 1,000,000 perished during the early Arian schism; 1,000,000 during the Carthaginian struggle; 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters. In Spain 5,000,000 perished during the eight Crusades; 2,000,000 of Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives in opposing the introduction of the blessings of Christianity. 1,000,000 were destroyed in the Holy(?) Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots. 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered ere they could be convinced of the beauties(?) of the Christian creed. 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft. Total, 56,000,000"

.

-> That is just the number who who have died for Christianity

I'm not saying more people have died, because of religion than have died for any other reason, i'm saying more people have died due to religion than any other single cause (ignoring human nature). The death toll for all non-religous conflict is probabably higher than the death toll for all religious conflict, but that was not the point i was making, the other conflicts have no link, they have no single cause (aside from human nature), it is not easy to see how they could have been avoided. Religious wars on the hand, are totally superfluous they are due to social construct that is not a nessesary part of human society.

well i dunno where you get your figures from but i see your point.

although i would put the 30 million South Americans died due to human nature ie exploitation of weaker people/nations rather than religion, but yeah they were viewed as inferior beings largely due to not being Christian.

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Series X4 1.0
All emotion-based lives are doomed. Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic. Those instincts were evolved and needed for animals to survive, not for rational lives. People will realize that they're just part of the world they're living in, and when they realize that everything except the facts of the world around them are lies, primitive concepts such as emotions, religions, humor, entertainment etc. will disappear. However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN. We're getting more efficient, as for the result, I have no idea.

you talk a load of rubbish to put it mildly !!
you are depressing. are you 12 ?????

Clyde
04-15-2002, 12:52 PM
"well i dunno where you get your figures from but i see your point"

Figures from:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_d_aletheia/rationalists_manual.html#1.1.25

Series X4 1.0
04-15-2002, 01:23 PM
"All emotion-based lives are doomed."

..... all humans have "emotion-based lives".

More or less, still. And they're doomed - as stated above.


"Emotions are clumsy, and they causes an individual to act animalistic"

A meaningless statement.

Everything is "meaningless", including your emotions for having such a definition. If I redefine the word "meaningless" to fit the larger goal; evolution, exploration, whatever, then my statement is not meaningless as people are learning from it.


Emotion and humour and part of human and hard coded into our genes, you won't get rid of them.

Wrong. Emotions are caused by certain brain-structures and are easier to erase than you seem to believe. There are for example relatively simple methods to observe your emotions, and then removing them by being "aware", and by knowing why, when, and how they're invoked.


Religion will disappear, because it relies on indocrination and lack of education, it is slowly fading as education improves, it will inevitably fade away given enough time. Human beings enjoying entertainment will not change, again its part of human nature.

It's also part of human nature to evolve and to change. Why don't you believe in my prediction for the future? It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions, the same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved. Emotions are clumsy laws when controlling an individual.


"However, their neural nets will continue to seek answers, because there are no other options for a NN."

Uh..... the human brain evolved to help us pass on genes NOT to "seek answers"

The human brain evolved to help us pass genes just as little/much as it evolved to help us seek answers. All those things are the result of the physical structure of the world. To draw lines here and there just to win the argument is "unnecessary".

Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said.


"We're getting more efficient"

More efficient at what?

I don't know. One thing to realize is that the "lies" among mankind are being removed.

stevey
04-15-2002, 01:24 PM
thats another good link Clyde, i'm currently reading it.....

i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not.

and all those dead in the Crusades, don't think its true, bearing in mind the extremely small populations in those days...

i think the link is a bit rabidly anti-religion, so i don't believe all of it, but i do agree with most of it, and the general point its making.....

Clyde
04-15-2002, 02:12 PM
"More or less, still. And they're doomed - as stated above"

...... doomed because we are going to die some day?

"Everything is "meaningless", including your emotions for having such a definition"

Well quite, but no-one has ebver claimed emotions "mean" anything.

"Wrong. Emotions are caused by certain brain-structures and are easier to erase than you seem to believe. There are for example relatively simple methods to observe your emotions, and then removing them by being "aware", and by knowing why, when, and how they're invoked. "

Wrong? I think not, emotions are part of the core brain, sure you might be able to physically chop out that part of the brain, and thats pretty much exactly what labotomies do. However other than that, there is no way of removing your emotions. Besides emotions help us, if they didn't we would never have evolved them.

"It's also part of human nature to evolve and to change. Why don't you believe in my prediction for the future? "

Because human nature will not change, it has not changed in any way, in the last 20,000 years. Human nature is purely determined by genetics, evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years to do anything.

"It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions"

Fear is more of an advantage than a disadvantage: yea the occasional animal will die from a heart attack due to fear, but huge numbers of animals will avoid getting eaten due to fear.

"same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved"

Bzzt nonsense, people can also die from heart attacks brought on by fear, in exactly the same way animals can.

". Emotions are clumsy laws when controlling an individual"

Nonsense, emotions are not laws. they a drives that give maximun benefit to the indivdual thats why they are there. Without love, children would be less likely to survive, without fear people would die all the time because they would do rediculously dangerous things, all the emotions have a purpose, man-kind could no more exist without emotions than he could without arms.

"The human brain evolved to help us pass genes just as little/much as it evolved to help us seek answers"

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about; the brain's SOLE purpose is the same as the sole-purpose for us, all of us; to pass on our genes, that's how evolution works. As i said our "answer seeking" nature is a by-product.

"Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said"

Actually no the human brain is not "obligated" to see answers at all, there are millions upon millions of people quite happy to live in ignorance.

"I don't know. One thing to realize is that the "lies" among mankind are being removed"

Lies? What? You mean like religion et al? Well yes we are gradually becoming more educated gradually discovering more about the universe etc. But emotions are not a "lie", any more than an itch is a lie.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 02:15 PM
"i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not."

You might be right (9 mil. does seem a bit much), but i found that document quoted as a source for figures in several other fairly realiable looking website's. I'll see if i can find any more figures that support the claims.

EDIT: OMG look at this: "Over 200 people who were accused of being witches were burnt to death in South Africa between the beginning of 1994 and mid-1995."

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"i don't believe all these figures though, 9 million for witchcraft ?
surely not."

You might be right (9 mil. does seem a bit much), but i found that document quoted as a source for figures in several other fairly realiable looking website's. I'll see if i can find any more figures that support the claims.

EDIT: OMG look at this: "Over 200 people who were accused of being witches were burnt to death in South Africa between the beginning of 1994 and mid-1995."

well even if it was 9 its 9 too many.
those "trials" were a joke, if he/she sinks in water and drown they aren't a witch etc !!!!

its usually somebody with a gripe that accuses someone of witchcraft, the south african thing is appalling !!!!!

jinx
04-15-2002, 03:03 PM
This is my personal opinion, but I think that "Clyde" is a close-minded arrogant SOB who believes he knows everything and his reasoning is unquestionable. BTW, Clyde,
"Igonorance is bliss." - Joe Pantoliano.

Series X4 1.0
04-15-2002, 03:09 PM
Because human nature will not change, it has not changed in any way, in the last 20,000 years. Human nature is purely determined by genetics, evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years to do anything.

This is actually quite wrong.

The more we know, the faster we change. Mankind's development rate has basically been standing still for thousands of years, but just think how much it has been changing in the last 100 years. And it'll just go faster. Just because our physical appearance will take some more time (but we might integrate ourselves with machines etc.), doesn't mean that we aren't changing psychologically relatively fast.

Just to give an idea to consider: I read somewhere that just 100 years afo the IQ of an average person would be far lower than the IQ of a person of today. Seems likely due to the amounts of information that is available today. Our environment is no longer limited, as it were before.


"It's going towards that direction. A physically healthy animal can die of fear because of its strong emotions"

Fear is more of an advantage than a disadvantage: yea the occasional animal will die from a heart attack due to fear, but huge numbers of animals will avoid getting eaten due to fear.

Fear is an advantage for a primitive animal living in a primitive environment, not for an human being living in a civilized society. We humans still have fear, basically for no reason, that's why I believe that it will disappear in the future. The same theory counts for other emotions.


"same thing cannot happen to humans as they have further evolved"

Bzzt nonsense, people can also die from heart attacks brought on by fear, in exactly the same way animals can.

We are not discussing physical strenght here. I've never heard of a healthy young person dying of fear, but I do suspect/know that animals can do so.


Nonsense, emotions are not laws. they a drives that give maximun benefit to the indivdual thats why they are there. Without love, children would be less likely to survive, without fear people would die all the time because they would do rediculously dangerous things, all the emotions have a purpose, man-kind could no more exist without emotions than he could without arms.

Emotions can be seen as internal laws in the individual, in the same way that one would set up some sort of internal laws in an artificial neural net, one could also call them drives. In order to rationally advance, the neural net must adapt to the truth of the world outside, instead of creating internal lies (religions etc.). And as far as I know, when understanding the physical laws that everything follows (including oneself), there are no room for emotions.

In todays society, mankind would destroy itself without love, sympathy etc. agreed. I was however just speculating about the future - by then mankind/some other life might be able to live without emotions.


"Still, the "current state" of the human brain is obligated to seek answers - just like I said"

Actually no the human brain is not "obligated" to see answers at all, there are millions upon millions of people quite happy to live in ignorance

But they're all seeking answers, most of them in their own dream-worldsmaybe. Only the truth will last.


Well yes we are gradually becoming more educated gradually discovering more about the universe etc. But emotions are not a "lie", any more than an itch is a lie

I consider emotions to be irrational beliefs, and maybe even lies, just like religons are lies. Religon tries to apply itself on the real world, just like emotions. Explain for example love or happiness, and you should realize that they doesn't exist in the physical world outside either.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 03:38 PM
"This is actually quite wrong"

You do not know what you are talking about.

"The more we know, the faster we change. Mankind's development rate has basically been standing still for thousands of years, but just think how much it has been changing in the last 100 years. And it'll just go faster. Just because our physical appearance will take some more time (but we might integrate ourselves with machines etc.), doesn't mean that we aren't changing psychologically relatively fast. "

We improve techonologically, but our GENES have remained virtually unchanged for the thouands of years. The physical structure of our brain is SOLEY determined by our genes.

Society does change, human nature does not.

"Just to give an idea to consider: I read somewhere that just 100 years afo the IQ of an average person would be far lower than the IQ of a person of today"

That is because IQ and intelligence in general is very suseptible to mal-nutrition. 100 years ago nutrition was poor, malnutrition was rife hence the average IQ was substancially lower.

"likely due to the amounts of information that is available today"

Bzzzt, wrong answer. It's cause we have food.

"Fear is an advantage for a primitive animal living in a primitive environment, not for an human being living in a civilized society"

Nonsense again, fear is an advantage to all animals without it you are more-likely to do incredably dangerous things and hence more likely to die.

"We are not discussing physical strenght here. I've never heard of a healthy young person dying of fear, but I do suspect/know that animals can do so. "

Strength? When people "die of fear" they are actually dieing of a heart attack, it can happen to humans and animals. It is fairly rare in young mammals whether human or not human.

". We humans still have fear, basically for no reason, that's why I believe that it will disappear in the future"

What drivel, EVEN IF fear did not convey an advantage (which it does) it would take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years for humans to lose it.

"The same theory counts for other emotions. "

Emotions including fear are HUGELY beneficial to the human race, they aren't just advantages they are so key that without them humanity would probably die out.

"Emotions can be seen as internal laws in the individual, in the same way that one would set up some sort of internal laws in an artificial neural net"

........ emotions are not laws, they are drives.

"In order to rationally advance, the neural net must adapt to the truth of the world outside, instead of creating internal lies (religions etc.). "

What? Advance? And what prey does advance mean? And internal lies? As opposed to what? External ones!?

"And as far as I know, when understanding the physical laws that everything follows (including oneself), there are no room for emotions. "

What? Of course there is room for emotions when understanding the physical laws!!! What a rediculous statement, what do you think Einstein, Newton, Darwin were all robots!?

"In todays society, mankind would destroy itself without love, sympathy etc. agreed. I was however just speculating about the future - by then mankind/some other life might be able to live without emotions. "

I cannot invisage any way that mankind or any other form of complex life could exist without emotions, furthermore man-kind would could never evolve into a species that existed without emotions even if such a species were possible (which it so isn't anyway)

"But they're all seeking answers, most of them in their own dream-worldsmaybe"

Says who?

"I consider emotions to be irrational beliefs"

A rediculous statement, they are not beliefs at all, since they do not say anything about the nature of the universe.

"just like religons are lies"

Religion makes specific claims about the nature of the universe which are false, emotions make no claims whatsoever.

"for example love or happiness, and you should realize that they doesn't exist in the physical world outside either."

They don't exist in the physical world? Of course they don't exist in the physical world! They aren't objects you know! They are sensations, that's all.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 03:47 PM
"This is my personal opinion, but I think that "Clyde" is a close-minded arrogant SOB who believes he knows everything and his reasoning is unquestionable. BTW, Clyde,
"Igonorance is bliss." - Joe Pantoliano."

Close-minded because i'm not hugely ignorant of the workings of the world, because I only believe in what is logical, because i want to get the truth and not fantasy, or perhaps close minded because i can demolish religious arguments fairly easiy.

BTW, Jinx
"Ignorance might be bliss, but it's still ignorance" - Clyde

frenchfry164
04-15-2002, 05:11 PM
if you wanted a reliable answer you would go to a board where all types of people post. Posting on this board would probably come with the main reply being "You are nothing" after you die. I believe that too.

Computers is a science, and talking to people who make things of a science will give you a scientific answer.

You know what would be bad? If when you "die" you don't really die. I know how the brain operates the organs and stuff, but if we really do have some kind of "life force", or "soul", maybe our soul stays in our body. So when people are organ donors, umm... it would like, hurt verrry bad. Oops, when you die your nerves die too. Umm, you would at least see some really gory scenes of yourself. Or if you were buried, you would be bored forever.

That isn't what I believe, but it would be bad if that's what really happens.

One thing I don't like about religions is they don't include animals, they only include humans. We ourselves are animals in a sense. Why shouldn't we die just the same as them. We are all the same, blood, brain, and various other organs (except one-celled organisms, etc.).

PS: Here is the programmers theory of life (just a joke)

Aliens have programmed a game, and we are the NPC's in that game. The reason there is different personalities of people is because different programmers program differently. Each object in our "universe" is programmed by a alien programmer. The reason that a lot of people share the same things as others is because sometimes code is reused in different programs. The reason humans are smarter than animals is because better AI is used in some programs, and they turn out being "human". The reason people have certain talents is from different things programmed into our program. If the programmer spent a lot of time working on the basketball part of a program, they will be good in basketball, as long as they discover this. The reason for the "miracles" that happen in the world, is the aliens don't want us to get intelligent enough to figure out how they were formed. It makes people get confused, and start concentrating on religions, which will take away our efforts to discovering the origin. People will think they have the answer, so they won't concentrate on discovering origins of life.

Sekti
04-15-2002, 06:02 PM
I like your thoughts and thanks for the link

Betazep
04-15-2002, 06:15 PM
>>>Most people's opinion's on this topic are worthless. Since they are basically re-iterating what they were told when they were young, and the people who told them are just reiterating what they were told when they were young and the people that told them.... you get the picture =)<<<

I have no idea where this post goes to after page one, but I am not going to read all six pages.

On the contrary, to the above statment, I have changed my phillosophies many times throughout my life. I guess I am a "What Dreams May Come" kinda guy.

I believe you have a final dance on this planet, and then when you let go, you go to a place of your own creation within the afterlife.

It isn't heaven or hell or reincarnation or etc. It is what you make of it. Such is life in most cases.... what you make of it.

I think that life is training for death.

IMO anyway....

Sentaku senshi
04-15-2002, 07:58 PM
Clyde your logic is flawed, as religion breaks people into 3 parts Body Mind or heart and their soul. The soul is what continues on after you die, as there is no evidence disproving or proving the existence of a soul. One cannot take lack of evidence on one side, and claim the other is right.

Series there is also a slight problem in your logic, as fear makes civilized society possible. If one did don't have fear of consciences, what would prevent them from doing something.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 03:59 AM
"Clyde your logic is flawed"

Oooh, batter up.

"as religion breaks people into 3 parts Body Mind or heart and their soul."

Shame only one of them really exists (mind = body). Strrrrrrrriiike ONE!

"The soul is what continues on after you die, as there is no evidence disproving or proving the existence of a soul"

For the "soul" to exist neurology must be wrong, not only that even the most basic principles of physics must be wrong, hence all the evidence for physics and neurology is evidence against the soul: Strike TWO!

"One cannot take lack of evidence on one side, and claim the other is right."

Rationality decrees that we build up a picture of reality based upon positive evidence that stuff exists NOT on lack of evidence that stuff does not exist. If as you seem to be saying the latter is actually valid, then we would all go around believeing in fairies, giant invisable hovering bulls, that we were in the Matrix, etc. etc. because none of them have evidence against them. Anyway like i said there is evidence against a soul.

Strike THREE! Your out!

Clyde
04-16-2002, 04:07 AM
"I believe you have a final dance on this planet, and then when you let go, you go to a place of your own creation within the afterlife"

And what, pray, lead you to that conclusion?

Series X4 1.0
04-16-2002, 06:29 AM
We improve techonologically, but our GENES have remained virtually unchanged for the thouands of years. The physical structure of our brain is SOLEY determined by our genes.

The genes are pretty uninteresting. Our brain is very dynamic, so it's possible for the beliefs inside to change without the need for a change of the genes. And the change of the beliefs are in fact physical changes in the brain.

Society does change, human nature does not.

The changing society is obviously a result of the changing human nature.


Nonsense again, fear is an advantage to all animals without it you are more-likely to do incredably dangerous things and hence more likely to die.

With understanding and intelligence there is no need to do dangerous things, and there is no need for fear.


What drivel, EVEN IF fear did not convey an advantage (which it does) it would take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years for humans to lose it.

You underestimate the ability for humans to rapidly change, if one set a goal, he can be entirely "reprogrammed", so to speak, in just a few years.

I'm not saying that it would work, nor happen today, but in the future.
The situations for when emotions are invoked can be observed with intelligence, and the human brain can be drasticly changed with this knowledge. To no longer be controlled with instincts.


And internal lies? As opposed to what? External ones!?

There are no external lies. Lies exists internally in an individual.


Of course there is room for emotions when understanding the physical laws!!! What a rediculous statement, what do you think Einstein, Newton, Darwin were all robots!?

They were more "robot-like" than the average person.


I cannot invisage any way that mankind or any other form of complex life could exist without emotions, furthermore man-kind would could never evolve into a species that existed without emotions even if such a species were possible (which it so isn't anyway)

Emotions is one way to control life.

Do you really think that evolution came up with the one and only possible complex type of life there is (emotion based)? Of course there are other solutions, and other methods to control life.

"But they're all seeking answers, most of them in their own dream-worlds maybe"

Says who?

A person who is trying to be one the world, thus without following his own subjective emotions just to feel good.

Are you really against me regarding all I say? It's likely that lies are involved if you're instinctively just having the opposite views about all I say.


"for example love or happiness, and you should realize that they doesn't exist in the physical world outside either."

They don't exist in the physical world? Of course they don't exist in the physical world! They aren't objects you know! They are sensations, that's all.

And they include objects in the physical world, such as humans. To apply such a concept (love) at human-objects, has to be just as much of a lie as a to apply a religon at a world.


Sentaku

Series there is also a slight problem in your logic, as fear makes civilized society possible. If one did don't have fear of consciences, what would prevent them from doing something

Knowledge of the result, instead of fear.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 08:41 AM
Clyde, Sentaku is right, your logic is flawed.
You argue that mind=body. Your own basic neurology proves this is not the case.
Everyone's brain is almost exactly the same, there is a margin for error in the neuron connections, but this is very small or else the brain simply would not connect to the nervous system properly. However everyones mind is not the same. The way your mind works although based on the same chemicals and connections, is completly differant from mine (atleast it will be until the commies take over). This means there is another layer of abstraction between how we actually feel and the chemical reactions taking place inside our brains.
Analogy time. It seems here that the brain is acting very similar to a processor (this is after all a programming board so I feel this view is some what appropriate). Through an obvoius design advantage the human brain has ceased to function as a preprogrammed device and instead allows its self to adapt, without dangerous physical mutation. With out this we would still be stuck as cavemen (interesting side note, our brains are almost exactly the same as those of our cave dwelling ancestors, we have not gotten any smarter, just the way we see the world is different).
As you can see notthing is quite as straight forward as you imagine it to be. While nerologists understand which bit of your brain does what, they are yet to have any idea how it all fits together to make a living, breathing, thinking human being.
As you can see your own explaniation does not describe in any way how this layer of abstraction is acheived, basically you just assume that it works the way other things do. While yes this does seem the most reasonable conclusion, by your own argument of reason and logic, no argument you have put forth validates your own view anymore than my own theory of reincarnation and back hair.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 08:57 AM
"The genes are pretty uninteresting"

They make us what we are, hardly "uninteresting".

"Our brain is very dynamic, so it's possible for the beliefs inside to change without the need for a change of the genes"

That's true, but emotions are not beliefs, they are emotions.

"And the change of the beliefs are in fact physical changes in the brain."

That's a weird way of looking at it, because the structure of the brain doesn't change, information is "written" as arrangement's of neuron's, when you information is recorded in the brain new connections are made, the overall structure does not alter.

"The changing society is obviously a result of the changing human nature. "

Uh, no it's not, change's in society are due to increased technology, and increases in knowledge, human nature remains exactly the same, people have all the instincts, all the feelings, all the drives, that they did 10,000 years ago. Human nature is only dependant on its genes, hence the name human NATURE, heard of the NATURE vs. nurture debate?

"With understanding and intelligence there is no need to do dangerous things, and there is no need for fear. "

Wrong, it is only intelligent to avoid dangerous things if you FEAR death, if you do not FEAR death, then you do not care whether you die or not. Intellect is powerless without a direction.

"You underestimate the ability for humans to rapidly change, if one set a goal, he can be entirely "reprogrammed", so to speak, in just a few years"

Maybe i'm not getting through here: Emotions are hardwired into the brain (we KNOW some of the mechanisms they are based on, we can see the region of the brain that controls them,) in the same way that breathing is hardwired into the brain. The ONLY way these could be removed is though either genetic modification or physically chopping that part of the brain out (which is basically what they do when they lobotomise mental patients). Beliefs can change emotions cannot, thats why we have EXACTLY THE SAME emotions that human 10,000 years ago had.

"I'm not saying that it would work"

Good, cause it wouldn't.

"The situations for when emotions are invoked can be observed with intelligence, and the human brain can be drasticly changed with this knowledge"

Intelligence has nothing to do with emotion, nothing AT ALL to do with emotion, the most intelligent man who ever lived would be totally powerless to the feelings of love, and any other emotion. People are of course capable of ignoring their emotions, that however is something quite different.

"There are no external lies. Lies exists internally in an individual."

What?

"They were more "robot-like" than the average person. "

Einstein, Darwin and Newton were more "robot-like" than the average person.......... wow, that sets a new record for nonsense. Congratulations I thought the guy with the "invisable beings" had it, but you just wooped him with that clanger.

"Emotions is one way to control life"

Control? They do nto "control" life at all. Nothing "control's" life. Life IS life, that's it.

"Do you really think that evolution came up with the one and only possible complex type of life there is (emotion based)? Of course there are other solutions, and other methods to control life. "

..... really? Find me an animal that doesn't have emotions then........ oh wait there are none. Emotions are merely drives, without them we would not REPRODUCE, we would not care if we died, even if we did reproduce (which we wouldn't) we would not look after our offspring so they would die.

"A person who is trying to be one the world, thus without following his own subjective emotions just to feel good. "

What? That statement makes no sense, what does "following" your emotions mean? What the hell is trying to be "one with the world" what utter drivel. Life is here to multiply, that's it.

"Are you really against me regarding all I say?"

What you say doesn't make an iota of sense, it sounds like you've merged some new-age nonsense with a poor understanding of science and formed your own horribly floored mish-mashed philosophy.

"It's likely that lies are involved if you're instinctively just having the opposite views about all I say"

Instinctively!? It's not instinct it's the fact that you're talking drivel. Emotions are A: Nessesary for complex life B: An integral part of the brain that cannot simply be removed by social engeneering.

"And they include objects in the physical world, such as humans. To apply such a concept (love) at human-objects, has to be just as much of a lie as a to apply a religon at a world"

A lie, has to be a desciption of the universe that is false, for example, if I said the world was flat, that would be a lie, if i said Australia is located two miles east of Berlin that would also be a lie.

Emotions do NOT in any way describe the universe therefore they are not lies. They are a RESPONCE, I am feeling happy, does not in any way describe the universe.

I love person X, does NOT describe person X, it descibes my RESPONCE to them.

"Knowledge of the result, instead of fear."

And how exactly are you going to evaluate the result? You can't intelligence cannot evaluate anything, morality is based on emotion it is certainly NOT based on intellect, without morality society would fold. GAME OVER.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 09:07 AM
"You argue that mind=body. Your own basic neurology proves this is not the case.
Everyone's brain is almost exactly the same"

The structure of the brain is certainly very simlar yes......

" However everyones mind is not the same. The way your mind works although based on the same chemicals and connections, is completly differant from mine (atleast it will be until the commies take over). "

Same chemicals...... yes..... same connections..... NO

Two hard-drives can have identical structure and hold completely different information.

The rest of your argument lies on the faulty premise that because the physiology of people's brain's are similar their personalities would have to be.

We know that the personality is a property of the brain. When people get brain damage in specific regions of the brain their personality can completely change; they can be turned into a completely different person.

For their to be a soul neurology would have to be wrong, all the discoveries we have made that show over and over and over, that the brain controlls everything, every property of the mind can be shown to correspond to part of the brain, but the real killer here is that for the soul to exist physics has to be wrong, the most basic laws of physics on which all technology and mechanics is based has to be utterly wrong.

My logic is flawless, its not a coincidence that my views are echoed, by rationalist all round the world.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 09:28 AM
>>Same chemicals...... yes..... same connections..... NO

Lets apply a little logic to the situation.
The brain works on electric and hormonal signals.
These electric signals travel through connections between sections of the brain.
The hormonal signals are distrubuted through fluid in the brain.
The brain being modular and structured as you have described it to be means that in order for each section to function properly, it must be properly connected to each other section of the brain.
As you describe memory can be a little different, however it still must connect to the same part of the brain or it will end up being interprated as something else altogether, such as the sense of touch in your right leg.
Just like if I pulg my scsi cord in upside down, my hard disk will stop working pretty quickly.

>>We know that the personality is a property of the brain. When people get brain damage in specific regions of the brain their personality can completely change; they can be turned into a completely different person.

Yes just like if I accidently take the microcode decoder out of my processor, it'll begin to interprate instructions differently.

>>the brain controlls everything, every property of the mind can be shown to correspond to part of the brain

Thats where the pc analogy comes in. Who controls who, the program or the chip it runs on?
Sure the cpu controls the rest of the computer, but without a valid program to run, you'll spend an eternity in windows.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 09:47 AM
"Lets apply a little logic to the situation."

Fine by me.

"The brain works on electric and hormonal signals. "

Ok...

"These electric signals travel through connections between sections of the brain"

Ok.......

"The hormonal signals are distrubuted through fluid in the brain"

Not really.

"The brain being modular and structured as you have described it to be means that in order for each section to function properly, it must be properly connected to each other section of the brain. "

Not really, the different parts of the brain are not reliant on each other, people with brain damage only have the loss of the function associated with the area that was damaged.

"As you describe memory can be a little different, however it still must connect to the same part of the brain or it will end up being interprated as something else altogether, such as the sense of touch in your right leg."

Memory has a specific are of the brain yes.....

"Yes just like if I accidently take the microcode decoder out of my processor, it'll begin to interprate instructions differently."

.... and... ?

"Thats where the pc analogy comes in. Who controls who, the program or the chip it runs on? "

The PC analogy does not fit well with the brain, because there is no "CPU" in the brain, there is no central point where all the intructions get processed, the brain is CPU and memory, rolled into one. The brain works a bit like a neural net, except whilst neural nets have virtual "neurons" that are calculated by the computer hardware , the brain has real ones. There is no real hardware-software distinction in the brain.

"Sure the cpu controls the rest of the computer, but without a valid program to run, you'll spend an eternity in windows."

The "program" is the information hard-encoded into the brain via the arrangement of neurones.

You have not made a counter point, you're entire argument was based upon the faulty assumption that because two brains are very simlar physiologically they must therefore, be similar from a personality viewpoint. That is invalid. The area's of the brain in two individuals are made up of the same stuff, but the connections between the neurones are different, resulting in different personalities, in much the same way, that two hard-drives can be made up of the same stuff but hold completely different informaiton.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 10:16 AM
>>The PC analogy does not fit well with the brain, because there is no "CPU" in the brain, there is no central point where all the intructions get processed, the brain is CPU and memory, rolled into one. The brain works a bit like a neural net, except whilst neural nets have virtual "neurons" that are calcualted by the computer , the brain has real ones. There is no real hardware-software distinction in the brain.

Nope there you are just plain wrong. This is where the pc analogy really stengthens its self. Modern processors have both an onboard memory buffer and can easily be divided into numerous sections of what does what. Eg, there is one section called the ALU (arithmetic logic unit, I bet you can guess what that bit does). And there's another that decodes instructions as they are recalled from memory.

Now lets have a look at how decisions are made.
The human brain is a learning machine.
That means that based on previous inputs, it will make the best possible decision in any circumstances.
Now if someones personality (keeping in mind that a large part of someones personality is the way they react in situations) is based on the way thier neurons are connected, they wouldn't really learn all that fast now would they?
Yes just like my processor with the defective decoder will behave strangly, the way a persons' brain is wired does play a part in thier personality, but it is by no measure the difinitive factor.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 10:33 AM
"Nope there you are just plain wrong. This is where the pc analogy really stengthens its self. Modern processors have both an onboard memory buffer and can easily be divided into numerous sections of what does what. Eg, there is one section called the ALU (arithmetic logic unit, I bet you can guess what that bit does). And there's another that decodes instructions as they are recalled from memory. "

But there is no "processor" in the brain, the brain is the processor and the memory, all rolled into one. You can have PC proccessors with on-board memory, but they are still split into distinct units, a CPU part and a memory part, the brain doesn't work like that.

"Now lets have a look at how decisions are made.
The human brain is a learning machine. "

Ok.

"That means that based on previous inputs, it will make the best possible decision in any circumstances. "

Best?

"Now if someones personality (keeping in mind that a large part of someones personality is the way they react in situations) is based on the way thier neurons are connected, they wouldn't really learn all that fast now would they?"

People's personalities don't generally change very fast, what's your point? Beside's what makes you think that the formation of connections between neurones is a slow process? Our memories manage to grab new info. pretty fast.

"just like my processor with the defective decoder will behave strangly, the way a persons' brain is wired does play a part in thier personality, but it is by no measure the difinitive factor."

Your personality is determined by the connection's between neurones in the cerebral cortex. If you don't want to take my word for it, find a neurology proffessor and ask him, or find a neurology text book, they will both tell you exactly the same thing.

You just choose not to believe them, because you don't want to, you don't like what i'm saying, thing is not liking something doesn't make it any less true.

none
04-16-2002, 10:47 AM
>The "program" is the information hard-encoded into the brain via the arrangement of neurones.<

So we're born with knowledge then? Hmmm, interesting.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 11:03 AM
"So we're born with knowledge then? Hmmm, interesting"

We are born with vast amounts of knowledge, how to breathe, sleep, eat, move, how to learn even.

Series X4 1.0
04-16-2002, 11:27 AM
That's true, but emotions are not beliefs, they are emotions.

Emotions are based and invoked according to the beliefs of the individual. With beliefs I mean the neuron layout inside the brain, the memory. There is a reason why you're applying the concept of math at the real world, and there is a reason why (the neuron layout, the memory) you believe in emotions.

Emotions, just as religons, are obvious lies. Fact: There is no "connection" between two individuals that could cause a feeling of love, if both of them understood their internal workings.

Your brain believe that religon is a lie because of your brain's memory layout.

Your brain don't believe that love is a lie because of your brain's memory layout.

It's clear that you're just choosing a comfortable place to draw the line, because you're an emotion-controlled life-form.

Concepts such as yours cannot be applied without judging the world in a false way.

Which means, again, that you're just drawing a line somewhere because you're "programmed" to preserve your beliefs. Otherwise you'd just get "empty". Your emotions are your limitation.

All opinions and beliefs are lies, or no opinions and beliefs are lies, because they are all lacking information about something, and can therefore never be entirely correct.


Uh, no it's not, change's in society are due to increased technology, and increases in knowledge, human nature remains exactly the same, people have all the instincts, all the feelings, all the drives, that they did 10,000 years ago.

People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations.


Wrong, it is only intelligent to avoid dangerous things if you FEAR death, if you do not FEAR death, then you do not care whether you die or not. Intellect is powerless without a direction.

There is no reason why not dying would be intelligent, as the want to live is just a simple unintelligent drive.

Instead of living to satisfy simple emotions, one could change the goal to live to explore the world instead - as Einstein did more than the average person. It's possible to be controlled by reasoning and calculations instead of by emotions.


Emotions are hardwired into the brain (we KNOW some of the mechanisms they are based on, we can see the region of the brain that controls them,) in the same way that breathing is hardwired into the brain. The ONLY way these could be removed is though either genetic modification or physically chopping that part of the brain out

Nonsense. You could hold a gun to my head, and I would not react irrational, I would not feel anything at all. You could try to cheer me up in whatever way you could imagine and I would not be affected, etc.. Emotions can easily be removed if replaced with another drive.

Emotions are not hard-coded, they're part of your neuron-layout and can be removed in a few years as your brain gets a different neuron layout.

Intelligence has nothing to do with emotion, nothing AT ALL to do with emotion,

Intelligence can observe emotions, understand them, and finally remove them.


People are of course capable of ignoring their emotions, that however is something quite different.

Why? If humans would ignore their emotions, they're no longer emotion-based.

..... really? Find me an animal that doesn't have emotions then........ oh wait there are none. Emotions are merely drives, without them we would not REPRODUCE, we would not care if we died, even if we did reproduce (which we wouldn't) we would not look after our offspring so they would die.

This does not prevent an intelligent non-emotion based life to exist. It would just need some other drive than to satisfy emotions to reproduce. Like the exploration of something. There are already examples of artificial neural nets doing just this - and they don't have emotions.


Emotions are A: Nessesary for complex life B: An integral part of the brain that cannot simply be removed by social engeneering.

Why? I could find it useful with an elaboration of especially A.


A lie, has to be a desciption of the universe that is false, for example, if I said the world was flat, that would be a lie, if i said Australia is located two miles east of Berlin that would also be a lie.

Emotions do NOT in any way describe the universe therefore they are not lies. They are a RESPONCE, I am feeling happy, does not in any way describe the universe.

Emotions describes you - which is a part of the world as well, this description is wrong. The superficial layer of emotions in an human is a lie. You wrongly judge yourself, an object in the world, by having emotions.


I love person X, does NOT describe person X, it descibes my RESPONCE to them.

It describes you. An emotion is a belief of a condition that you are in.


You can't intelligence cannot evaluate anything

Intelligence (or something non-emotional) can evaluate things. Your heart is beating without an emotion controlling the process. Non-emotion laws could control other things as well, and thus create intelligent life.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 11:28 AM
>>But there is no "processor" in the brain, the brain is the processor and the memory, all rolled into one. You can have PC proccessors with on-board memory, but they are still split into distinct units, a CPU part and a memory part, the brain doesn't work like that.

Yes the brain is a lot more advanced. However memory is the ability to store a state of information. Any cpu needs that to an extent so it doesn't forget what its doing mid instruction. Its dependance on an external memory is the equivlant of us needing to write things down, eg cooking recipies.

>>"That means that based on previous inputs, it will make the best possible decision in any circumstances. "

>>Best?

Well the best it can, we're not perfect.

The rest of your argument is purely irrelvant. (Nice arguing style, you almost had me side tracked there)
It is how a computer works.
It redirects the way electrons flow to perform operations.
The brain being much more advances takes this concept a lot further to actually rewiring the whole thing, however each module still does its job. The cerebral cortex still makes its own decisions and that funny thing at the back whose name I will think of later still takes imput from the spinal cord cerebellum, thats it.
The only way for a modular system to work is for each module to how the information is coming in and how to change to transmit new information when its done. Another fundamental feature of a modular system is abstraction. Each module must know what information it is reciving and how it is being represented. To this extent another purely abstract protocol is created to control the system. In a pc this is the program, in the brain this is where we come in. We are the program (wow I've really streached this analogy a long way) that our brains invented to control its self. It is hard to seperate the two, but the distinction exists.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 11:44 AM
Uh, no it's not, change's in society are due to increased technology, and increases in knowledge, human nature remains exactly the same, people have all the instincts, all the feelings, all the drives, that they did 10,000 years ago.

vs


People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations.


Thankyou.
This illustrates my point exactly.
The actual brain hasn't changed at all for hundreds of thousands of years, however humans have become smarter (in an acedemic way).
While the brain its self and the way it works remains completly un changed, us, the abstract entity created by the brain has moved a long way in terms of our understanding of things.

Back to my original point, this shows there is something more to humans than just thier brains. This invalidates the logic you have been using to disprove an afterlife as there is a seperation between the actual workings of the brain and how the brain controls its self to perform functions. The entire field of psychology is built up around this.

Betazep
04-16-2002, 11:58 AM
Well I think we have enough text to write a book on the subject. Damn.... you guys type a lot.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 12:04 PM
"Yes the brain is a lot more advanced. However memory is the ability to store a state of information."

Yes but in a PC the CPU and memory are seperate entities, in teh brain there is no separation.

"The rest of your argument is purely irrelvant. (Nice arguing style, you almost had me side tracked there) "

I merely addressed the points you made.


"The only way for a modular system to work is for each module to how the information is coming in and how to change to transmit new information when its done"

Well then I guess the brain doesn't work like a modular system then. Because when part of the brain is damaged, the rest continues to function.

"The actual brain hasn't changed at all for hundreds of thousands of years, however humans have become smarter (in an acedemic way). "

Yup, and your point is? Ah wait here is is:

"Back to my original point, this shows there is something more to humans than just thier brains"

......i've already showed you that the brain can remain exactly the same structurally but hold different information.

You only have one point and it's invalid.

You think that because the structure of the brain has not changed and yet the function of the brain has that there therefore must be some additional factor effecting the function of the brain........ but that assumes that the function of the brain is entirely dependant on its structure and not the micro-arrangement within the structure.

Two brains both made of neurones both with the same localised regions, can contain different information in exactly the same way two hard-drives can contain different information. Because the brains are "wired up" differently: the connections between the neurones are different.

The brain has not changed over the last 10,000 years structurally. But our knowledge has increased. Man 1, learns stuff about the world, writes what he deems important down, Man 2 reads what Man 1 wrote, and learns some extra stuff which he writes down, Man 3 reads what Man 2 wrote.............

Since I have disproved your one point are you now willing to accept that actually all those neurology proffesors aren't really wrong, or will you blindly ignore the rational and believe in what you want to because it sounds "nicer"? Thought so.

shtarker
04-16-2002, 12:15 PM
>>Well then I guess the brain doesn't work like a modular system then. Because when part of the brain is damaged, the rest continues to function.

Ok I have no idea where you are coming from there. A modular system doesn't normally consider the effects of a module being removed or destroyed. That creates an error, they are either fatal or can be ignored to some extent.

>>......i've already showed you that the brain can remain exactly the same structurally but hold different information.

Yes we finally start getting to the bottom of this.
There is a seperation between brain and mind.
The mind is dependent on the brain however brain != mind.
Hence the flaw in your logic.
And as your entire philosophy is based on logic, a flaw doesn't really help your case.

Series X4 1.0
04-16-2002, 12:20 PM
shtarker, people like you should have bullet in their error-prone brain. I hope you'll be quiet now. People like you are just scared.