Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 06-11-2014, 03:52 PM   #6361
Weaponized
UG Member
 
Weaponized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Maybe so but if someone says "I felt it in my soul" I know exactly what they mean and I'm not going to go "pfft the soul doesn't exist you sheep" and tip my fedora.

well yes and I don't call soul music "lol that doesnt exist" music
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
Is the officer going to ask for the butt, so he or she can check whether it is hot?


last.fm
Weaponized is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 03:53 PM   #6362
Rust_in_Peace34
Pancakes are my business
 
Rust_in_Peace34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home in the Northern Cold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashaal
So I had a sort of general question.

The bible has a lot of stories in it. I haven't read it in a long time, so sorry if I'm a little rusty, but it begins with people living to be hundreds of years old, it also has a story about Jonah being swallowed by a whale (or fish) for three days and surviving, when likely the whales stomach acids would have killed him or something. There are many more instances, but none of these seem to be even feasibly possible at all. And if they are allowed by God, why does nothing like this happen anymore at all?

So that leads me to the conclusions that these are fables. So if these two things are fables and are claimed to be more just metaphors, then is there any stance where someone can logically argue that anything in the bible is actually accurate? It doesn't seem possible to pick and choose which parts are true like a lot of people seem to do.


It can be argued that the stories are allegories illustrating a particular moral message depending on the story. But then again the moral lessons would still be inaccurate or lacking due to the nature of the stories' inaccurate premisses or purposely skewed scenarios.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcw00t
"so you mean if the father is sterile, the kid will be sterile too?"

Proof God exists and evolution is a lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elguitarrista3
the prove is u because u did n create urself and ur parents dindt and their parents didnt and so on and we are not monkeys peace

Rust_in_Peace34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 05:39 PM   #6363
Ticket48
-Thread Killer-
 
Ticket48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashaal
So I had a sort of general question.

The bible has a lot of stories in it. I haven't read it in a long time, so sorry if I'm a little rusty, but it begins with people living to be hundreds of years old, it also has a story about Jonah being swallowed by a whale (or fish) for three days and surviving, when likely the whales stomach acids would have killed him or something. There are many more instances, but none of these seem to be even feasibly possible at all. And if they are allowed by God, why does nothing like this happen anymore at all?

So that leads me to the conclusions that these are fables. So if these two things are fables and are claimed to be more just metaphors, then is there any stance where someone can logically argue that anything in the bible is actually accurate? It doesn't seem possible to pick and choose which parts are true like a lot of people seem to do.

The Bible consists of different books. Depending on the book, there might be a more moral message or a more literal message. Also, depends on who you ask.

As for interpretations of the stories you brought up. I may get yelled at by a few people (mostly an old professor for what I'm about to admit) because I have mostly forgotten this information. Hopefully someone else can clue you. If you asked me this three years ago I may have been all over this. But sadly, I no longer know as much.

Anywho, to keep it short. Jewish people never really had the easiest time throughout history. Celebrating their religion wasn't something a lot of other groups liked them to do. One theory is that the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people through allegories and metaphors. It let them pass on stories to preserve and celebrate their religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Maybe so but if someone says "I felt it in my soul" I know exactly what they mean and I'm not going to go "pfft the soul doesn't exist you sheep" and tip my fedora.


I like that. I find the middle ground is always the best. If someone carries a different belief than you, it's all right. You don't need to flip out on them. I'm not saying people here are doing that, just making a general statement. Now, if what they believe is hurting you and you strongly believe they are wrong. Cool, fine, don't deal with that shit. But, if it's harmless or it helps them in life, people can afford to let it go.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizkitday4eva
You know suicide is just as bad as killing yourself



Taco Man of the Jhonen Vasquez/Invader Zim Club. PM HolyWars90 to join
Ticket48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 05:56 PM   #6364
k.lainad
yumnuts
 
k.lainad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Texas
what's god?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadsmileyface
hello i am a big fan of tony loomi he is the best guitarist led zeppelin ever had

CHECK OUT MAH CHANNEL:
youtube.com/laxedskater009
k.lainad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 05:35 AM   #6365
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Soul is a mythological term....because it like doesn't make sense. Is it consciousness? Is memory? Is it emotion? Is it personality? What is it?

If you think it's like an amalgamation of the above, then yeah, how can it exist without the brain? All of that stuff above emerges from the brain.
But, yeah, maybe, maybe, you could have something that has that exact same emergent properties. Maybe you have a bunch of spirit gas from the spiritual world, which, when interacting with each other, create those exact same properties from above, making another "you". Though I think it would behave eerily similar to the brain. Like, just "changing neurons for spirit gases in a 1-to-1 bijection"-way.
But well, oh, who knows? When you show me a spirit gas we can talk about it. Until then I think neurons are the only thing that can make stuff like this happen


Precisely.
There's no evidence to suggest that souls or any other form of human conciousness exists outside of the human body, so there's no reason to assume that they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weaponized
The soul and the afterlife are one of those ancient belief's that people, even logical people won't give up because they are so romantic. The only reason they have more proponents than ghosts and fairies is because it would be pretty sweet if they were real.

Humans probably invented the notion of the afterlife as a coping strategy, because we're possibly the only species that's intelligent enough to realise our own impending fate of death. The soul is said to be the part that survives death, because, let's face it, empirical evidence shows us that dead physical bodies just don't reanimate, so if you want to believe in an afterlife, you're pretty much obliged to come up with another way to survive death other than 'physicaly'. So eventualy someone once said something along the lines of "What if an invisible part of us survives and continues after death?" and others liked the idea of that and adopted it as a belief without any evidence for it even being plausable, let alone true, ever being established.

According to science, according to logic, according to pure common sense, it's impossible for the conciousness to exist after the brain's death. Of course, one can always say "Well science doesn't know everything." but then if you accept that seemingly impossible things are not only possible but infact probable and maybe even real, then you have to start accepting things like magic, fairies and other mythological stuff as 'real' as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashaal
So I had a sort of general question.

The bible has a lot of stories in it. I haven't read it in a long time, so sorry if I'm a little rusty, but it begins with people living to be hundreds of years old, it also has a story about Jonah being swallowed by a whale (or fish) for three days and surviving, when likely the whales stomach acids would have killed him or something. There are many more instances, but none of these seem to be even feasibly possible at all. And if they are allowed by God, why does nothing like this happen anymore at all?

So that leads me to the conclusions that these are fables. So if these two things are fables and are claimed to be more just metaphors, then is there any stance where someone can logically argue that anything in the bible is actually accurate? It doesn't seem possible to pick and choose which parts are true like a lot of people seem to do.


There are plenty of true things in the Bible, for example we know that historicaly most of the places mentioned in it actualy existed. We know that the Census of Quirinius (mentioned in the Gospel of Luke as apparently causing Mary and Joseph to have to travel to Bethlehem, where Mary gave birth to Jesus, to be registered for the census) actualy happened. It started in 6AD when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria... 10 years after Herod the Great's death, who a different Gospel (Matthew) strangely says was still alive when Jesus was born. And of course, we also know that the Romans didn't actualy order people to travel to the homes of their ancestors during a census, infact people were ordered to stay in or near their homes until the census had passed.... so that bit probably isn't true either, but, although it looks like lots of stuff was made up about events during the time when Jesus was born, the Census of Quirinius itself is known to have historicaly happened.

Incidently, Herod the Great, regardless of whether he was alive or not when Jesus was born, was a real person, we know lots of stuff about him and his family members from plenty of other trusted historical sources, which is a damn sight more than can be said for Jesus of Nazereth.

What many parts of the Bible appears to do is exaggerate the truth.
For example, the Book of Genesis that deals with creation has the story of God creating Adam and Eve, the first ever humans, in the Garden of Eden, which was, According to the Book of Genesis, apparently located near the Euphrates river in ancient Mesopotamia, but read the story carefully and it becomes apparent that it involves agriculture and civilisation. It takes place in a 'garden' where fruit was being grown, Adam and Eve's sons Cain (who went on to build the first city called 'Enoch' after his son) and Abel were agriculturalists because Genesis says that one grew crops while the other raised sheep and the story is also set around 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Interestingly, the area of Mesopotamia is academicaly considered to be the place where agriculture and civilisation first occured between 6 and 10 thousand years ago.

We know that Adam and Eve couldn't possibly have literaly been the first humans to exist because fossil records show that humans have been around a lot longer than 6 to 10 thousand years and it would have been impossible for Cain to people his city if they were, but there appears to be elements of possible truth within the story.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 12:45 PM   #6366
beadhangingOne
Gnomesaiyan?
 
beadhangingOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Do you guys think there is a difference between our perception of an object and the object itself? Can we ever 'reconcile' the two?

Follow-up: Is the perceiver an object of perception? Can he be?
__________________
Ours is but a fragile existence

The Spirit shall look out through Matter's gaze
And Matter shall reveal the Spirit's face.
beadhangingOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 01:08 PM   #6367
willT08
Rap Game Joan Fontaine
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: waiting for milk
Quote:
Originally Posted by beadhangingOne
Do you guys think there is a difference between our perception of an object and the object itself? Can we ever 'reconcile' the two?

If there is but we never perceive it, i guess it doesn't really matter. Are there things we know act in a way incongruent with how we know them to be? Even then we might just be wrong about what we know

I don't know how you'd reconcile them without us doing something beyond our perception, or monitoring them in a way that makes the inperceptible part of them perceivable in some way. But that's just science and that, which I'm not sure is what you meant.

I have nowhere near the facilities to think about your follow up at all
willT08 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 02:01 PM   #6368
beadhangingOne
Gnomesaiyan?
 
beadhangingOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
If there is but we never perceive it, i guess it doesn't really matter. Are there things we know act in a way incongruent with how we know them to be?


It may not matter, since our own experience of the world is all we have. Yet

Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
Even then we might just be wrong about what we know


This is definitely an important consequence of the conclusion.

Quote:
I don't know how you'd reconcile them without us doing something beyond our perception, or monitoring them in a way that makes the inperceptible part of them perceivable in some way. But that's just science and that, which I'm not sure is what you meant.


I think what it entails is what the previous discussion was referring to. Consciousness cannot be reduced to its physical counterparts; it is a product of those things. But if it is a quality and not physical, then what is it? Are we 'perceiving' it? Or is perception a consequence of consciousness?

(Warning: I may be rambling)

Quote:
I have nowhere near the facilities to think about your follow up at all


It may have been partially rhetorical. As an analogy, often it's posited "can the camera look at itself?"

I suppose no one here is a reductionist, so there probably are not going to be any qualms with saying that the experience of something cannot be explained solely by its physical properties.
__________________
Ours is but a fragile existence

The Spirit shall look out through Matter's gaze
And Matter shall reveal the Spirit's face.
beadhangingOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 02:11 PM   #6369
willT08
Rap Game Joan Fontaine
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: waiting for milk
Quote:
Originally Posted by beadhangingOne
I think what it entails is what the previous discussion was referring to. Consciousness cannot be reduced to its physical counterparts; it is a product of those things. But if it is a quality and not physical, then what is it? Are we 'perceiving' it? Or is perception a consequence of consciousness?

That's actually quite an interesting question, I'd never thought about that before. It certainly feels like we are innately conscious, not perceiving it. If we agree that consciousness is a result of the mind and that 'we' cannot be separated from that, then I'd pitch myself on the "perception is a consequence side". Which I guess means I don't think a camera can look at itself
willT08 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 02:27 PM   #6370
WhiskeyFace
NSFW
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by beadhangingOne
I think what it entails is what the previous discussion was referring to. Consciousness cannot be reduced to its physical counterparts; it is a product of those things. But if it is a quality and not physical, then what is it? Are we 'perceiving' it? Or is perception a consequence of consciousness?

I'm not sure if they're as separate from each other as that, because you can only think about something or have perception of something. A camera can't look at itself because the camera is the looking












bro

I hope that made sense.

EDIT:

from the Tractatus:

5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be
found?

You will say that this is exactly like the case of the eye
and the visual field. But really you do not see the eye.

And nothing in the visual field allows you to infer that it
is seen by an eye.

5.6331 For the form of the visual field is surely not like this

__________________
Hors Phase~

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornmancer
Forget the fundamentals of filmmaking, this thread needs the fundamentals of condom wearing.
'There is hope - but not for us'

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : 06-13-2014 at 02:31 PM.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 03:38 PM   #6371
Bikewer
Registered User
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
I'm currently re-reading Ornstein's The Evolution Of Consciousness. This is an older book that was re-issued in the early 90s with an updated edition. It's quite an eye opener for anyone interested in neuroscience and how our little brains work... And how they got that way.

Ornstein points out that all of our sensory perceptions developed through history essentially to keep us alive. We are presented a construct of reality sufficient to let us identify danger sources, food sources, and the like.
Memory, for instance, is seldom an accurate representation of the past, as all we police officers know. Rather, it is continually edited and altered into a "story" that we find coherent.

We are not equipped to perceive physical reality, though we have developed the means, through science, to examine it in great detail.
If we pick up a rock, we see it's shape and color and feel it's weight and know that it's heavy and perhaps even know what kind of mineral it is.
However, we do not see it radiating heat in the infrared if it's been sitting in the sunshine, nor do we have any notion of it's atomic structure.
Most would not believe that the actual matter represented by the rock would take up a microscopically-small space if the inter-atomic distances could be removed.
These things are not necessary for us to live in the world.

However, the notion that we are "creating reality" by our perception of it, so common in philosophical circles, is nonsense. The universe existed for many billions of years before it was possible for anything living to exist and have perceptions.
As one biologist said..." If we generate reality with our minds, I wonder what the universe looked like when there was nothing more evolved than a sea slug?"
Bikewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2014, 03:48 PM   #6372
Weaponized
UG Member
 
Weaponized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikewer
I'm currently re-reading Ornstein's The Evolution Of Consciousness. This is an older book that was re-issued in the early 90s with an updated edition. It's quite an eye opener for anyone interested in neuroscience and how our little brains work... And how they got that way.

Ornstein points out that all of our sensory perceptions developed through history essentially to keep us alive. We are presented a construct of reality sufficient to let us identify danger sources, food sources, and the like.
Memory, for instance, is seldom an accurate representation of the past, as all we police officers know. Rather, it is continually edited and altered into a "story" that we find coherent.

We are not equipped to perceive physical reality, though we have developed the means, through science, to examine it in great detail.
If we pick up a rock, we see it's shape and color and feel it's weight and know that it's heavy and perhaps even know what kind of mineral it is.
However, we do not see it radiating heat in the infrared if it's been sitting in the sunshine, nor do we have any notion of it's atomic structure.
Most would not believe that the actual matter represented by the rock would take up a microscopically-small space if the inter-atomic distances could be removed.
These things are not necessary for us to live in the world.
Very intersting
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
Is the officer going to ask for the butt, so he or she can check whether it is hot?


last.fm
Weaponized is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 04:57 PM   #6373
TSmitty6
In the traphouse
 
TSmitty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: L-o-c-a-t-o-i-n. Location. *ding*
How we alter memories is of interest to me on a personal level.

My "life memory" is poor compared to my friends. Yet, my "Jeopardy" memory I call it, is much stronger. Like if we play a game or do trivia I always win, but as far as things we've done or said, I can't recall those at all. I'll tell the same story two different ways, not that I'm lying, but that's how I truly recall it happening. I've told my friends that it's not that I don't care about your life events, or I'm lying, it's that you remember better than I do.

Like you were saying about the police, same thing with law. Good lawyers know how to bend memories or create doubt based on the way they phrase questions.

Plus we only really record major areas of memories, the who what when where. A common hallmark of liars is that they will often list irrelevant, miniscule details in order to convince someone they were there, where as someone who was there will be too focused on the event to record miniscule details, and would also not be inclined to list them when recanting a story. They may list some details that were peculiar or personal to them, but not irrelevant ones that a liar would. Rule of thumb, if there's no reason behind the miniscule details (such as peculiarity or personal significance) than they are more likely to be fabricated or exaggerated.
__________________
113-78 NFL Thread Pick Em.
TSmitty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2014, 06:05 PM   #6374
Ticket48
-Thread Killer-
 
Ticket48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Human memory is malleable. It's pretty interesting actually. The way you word questions can influence how you remember something. Look up Elizabeth Loftus. She was a big name in this research in the 70's.

Also, the best way to lie is to use or base it off a grain of truth. Makes it easier to believe.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizkitday4eva
You know suicide is just as bad as killing yourself



Taco Man of the Jhonen Vasquez/Invader Zim Club. PM HolyWars90 to join
Ticket48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 07:47 AM   #6375
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Yeah that is a known fact.

Just tell someone something like "Hey, remember last summer when Pete ****ed a bear? lol crazy times, what were you doing at the time? I was eating ice cream with Sharonna" and then you'll say "Oh lol yeah, I was at the parking station. That crazy Pete!", when in fact, that someone was not eating ice cream with Sharonna. The way he phrased the sentence made you change your memory of what happened.
The human brain is kind of shitty at times
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 10:41 AM   #6376
TSmitty6
In the traphouse
 
TSmitty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: L-o-c-a-t-o-i-n. Location. *ding*
I know basically what you're saying, but you lost me at ****ed a bear, and now I have My Sharonna stuck in my head. Ma ma ma My Sharonna. Thanks.
__________________
113-78 NFL Thread Pick Em.
TSmitty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 09:00 AM   #6377
Jehannum
Registered Abuser
 
Jehannum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Birmingham, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSmitty6
I know basically what you're saying, but you lost me at ****ed a bear, and now I have My Sharonna stuck in my head. Ma ma ma My Sharonna. Thanks.


Commiserations. That's the most annoying song I've ever heard.
Jehannum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2014, 01:06 PM   #6378
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
 
Arby911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Yeah that is a known fact.

Just tell someone something like "Hey, remember last summer when Pete ****ed a bear? lol crazy times, what were you doing at the time? I was eating ice cream with Sharonna" and then you'll say "Oh lol yeah, I was at the parking station. That crazy Pete!", when in fact, that someone was not eating ice cream with Sharonna. The way he phrased the sentence made you change your memory of what happened.
The human brain is kind of shitty at times


Get "You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself "by David McRaney.

Good Read!
__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.

Last edited by Arby911 : 06-17-2014 at 01:20 PM.
Arby911 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 04:06 PM   #6379
shawnkenneth
UG's Favorite Trollbait
 
shawnkenneth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
"When will they wake up? When will they realize the wrong they've done?" Someone once asked me.

They won't wake up.You can't wake someone who's pretending to be asleep.

^This was an enlightening thing to read. Do you guys have any similar quotes that made you change the way you look at the world?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seref
Sounds like someone who could use a swift kick to the whatever-they-don't-actually-have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by slapsymcdougal
No, I judge people based on how similar they are to me.
The greater the similarity, the more of a total ****ing **** they are.
shawnkenneth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2014, 10:10 AM   #6380
Nietsche
Registered Hoover
 
Nietsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Maybe of interest to people in this thread, YaleCourses has a lectures series on the Old Testament which discusses it's connections to other myths and legends of ancient near eastern cultures.
__________________
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
- Frank Zappa -
Nietsche is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 PM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.