Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?
THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.
Its totally FAITH.
Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?
wybmadiity wrote:Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?
THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.
Its totally FAITH.
Mark Twain wrote:Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
wybmadiity wrote:Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?
THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.
subgenius wrote:"If you ask this guy, what -- "all that glitters is not gold," what does that mean?" The patient says, "Well, if it's metallic and shiny, it doesn't mean it's gold. You have to measure its specific gravity, OK?" So, they completely miss the metaphorical meaning. So, this area is about eight times the size in higher -- especially in humans -- as in lower primates. Something very interesting is going on here in the angular gyrus, because it's the crossroads between hearing, vision and touch, and it became enormous in humans. And something very interesting is going on. And I think it's a basis of many uniquely human abilities like abstraction, metaphor and creativity."
subgenius wrote:This is a great example, finally, of what your point is....that validation or invalidation comes from some sort of abstract "repetition". If i make a statement that "feels" right but can be "thought" wrong; or feels "wrong" but can be thought "right"; or etc. etc. ....then what?
will it only be true, in your above described paradigm, if it both "feels" right and "thinks" right?
this is why i mentioned thinking fast and thinking slow...there is a difference....apparently.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:by the way, Bazooka is still waiting for an answer. Your silence on the matter indicates that you don't have one.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:subgenius wrote:This is a great example, finally, of what your point is....that validation or invalidation comes from some sort of abstract "repetition". If i make a statement that "feels" right but can be "thought" wrong; or feels "wrong" but can be thought "right"; or etc. etc. ....then what?
will it only be true, in your above described paradigm, if it both "feels" right and "thinks" right?
this is why i mentioned thinking fast and thinking slow...there is a difference....apparently.
Why are you so fixated on repetition? Yes, repetition is ONE way of testing things...but I think we're getting way off track here. Let's bring the discussion back to my original point. Feelings are not a reliable source of truth about a world external to us.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:As an example, you can "feel" the world is flat all you want, but you can easily study and find out that it is round. Now, you can try to muddy that up with catch phrases like "seeing through our own lens" if you want but it not helpful to the discussion, unless we're going to entertain the possibility that there is no absolute truth and we all live in a reality constructed within ourselves, which is an entirely different discussion and way too much of a tangent.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:You can pray about a truth external to yourself if you want (e.g. is the Book of Mormon the word of God? Was Joseph Smith a true prophet) but my contention is that feelings are not reliable on such topics. This is why we have so many different sects, all with people who have received a "spiritual" confirmation that their church is God's only true one. Most of it (if not all of it) can be explained by psychology and neuroscience.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:that was the scope of my comment. I'm not sure why you feel the need to obfuscate.
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:by the way, Bazooka is still waiting for an answer. Your silence on the matter indicates that you don't have one.