Regular Bullshit

[COOL-MAN]

Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.

http://britfa.gs/sfw/?p=1

[Insomniac]

[AgentOfChaos]

Progressive evolution, technologically elongated life, extraterrestrial communication, reanimation, immortality.

Let's do this.

Eff Descartes.

Bad idea bro....

Progressive evolution= KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

technologically elongated life: WE'RE THE BORG, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

extraterrestrial communication: Ever seen Pocahontas breh? Throughout history, when two civilizations met, the less technologically advanced civilization gets fucked.

reanimation: frankenstein, and ZOMBIES!!

Immortality: Jason Voorhees and Q.....I don't know which is worse.

[Insomniac]

I was rooting for Khan.

[ToughGong]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Apparently not when Picard is in the equation

[AgentOfChaos]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Apparently not when Picard is in the equation

So true.

[hydrogen]

Google wants to create servers which humans can upload themselves onto and things such as sleep will not existence since you have control over yourself. They want to create virtual worlds which people can go to ergo the immortality doesn't become mundane after a while. But...

What if the servers crash? Every existing human will be in perpetual suffering

[hargaysaay]

Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.

Bro how you doing horta ... this is your 4th post and you already dropped a bomb . the only thing science has no prove of is hereafter , and frankly
We don't need Science to prove its existence . maybe you should read The Holly-Quran , all this will be clear . you wont have to call them regular bulshit .

Avoid darkness and join the Light young solider , I see you already tripping mid-way through the test of Life . that kinda deep thinking is gonna get you lost and sad .

[InaSamaale]

Hargaysaay, did you read the opening post till the end or you quit at philosophical ideas?

[SultanOrder]

Hargaysaay, did you read the opening post till the end or you quit at philosophical ideas?

[hargaysaay]

There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed .

thats his whole point . the rest is a cover up for the above content . The guy is basically telling us that since Science cant prove existence of Heaven and Hell
in other words Cilm-Alqaib then they must not exist .

[InaSamaale]

Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.

In short, our emotions can cloud our judgement even in the face of empirical evidence, which was the main contention and how this can be problematic in science. I have no idea how you extrapolated afterlife given science cannot test that.