Awareness of your feet on the floor is merely a conscious interpretation of what the nerves in you feet have detected--that is, our perception of our feet against the floor. but ever if we remove that conscious perception, that interpretation of the event, it still does not refute the fact that your feet are still touching the ground. If that were the case the comatose would have no present existence, and yet we can measure the neural signals that would correspond to the conscious expression of pain when we prick them. How can you ever be sure that a moment has past. If you woke up in a bed the next day with no memory of yourself and were surrounded by strangers who insisted that you were a Super Saiyan and 62 feet tall, how would you verify it? You would look at yourself in a mirror and judge their claims against what you are presently experiencing. Moreover, how can you deny what you are currently perceiving and experiencing when you read this post?
If you are presently standing in a room are you not aware of the feel of the floor against your feet just as you are consciously aware of being there?
Empathy and sympathy are as far as we can go to truly understand someone else other than ourselves. While we can certainly infer the thoughts and intentions of others we lack what is called their phenomenological consciousness--that is, what it is like for that person to be that person. Case in point, I only know what it is like to be White_Rook, because I experience my consciousness first-hand. I can certainly try to guess and form a hypothesis about what daxma is feeling or thinking, and in most cases I will most likely be right. But I can never know what it is like to truly be him, because I'm not him.
And here's where things get a little Matrix-ee. Our sensations and perceptions when distilled into their purest data forms correspond to neuronal activity within the brain. interestingly enough REM sleep, that is the state the corresponded to dreaming, produces brain activity no different from the activity observed when we're awake and interacting with the world. During this phase of sleep the body is also under a form of paralysis that effectively prevents much movement. Since there's very little actual movement and interaction to provide an accurate sensory-perception the brain can almost have a blurring or even all out cancellation of the real by the imaginary during sleep. So in actuality we do feel and experience in our dreams. Sex dreams, for example, tend to be very vivid and experiential.
How do you figure it wasn't just a very vivid dream?
That's actually a misunderstanding of the original quote. When the field was still trying to learn about the basic physiology of the brain, neurologists would often destroy parts of the brain of live animals to see what those certain areas were responsible for. Overall this was a poor way to go about it because it assumed that a function belonged to the region just destroyed, but i digress. Even with 90% of the brain destroyed it was found that said test animals could still function to some degree--that is they were still alive. What the quote really refers to is the fact that we can still survive with only 10% of our brain in tact. Even still not just any 10% will do, we need the lower brain regions to effectively live.
We use our brains to their fullest capacity in terms of output and processing power. As accurate accounts and measurements of this type of phenomena do not exist there's no proof to motivate their legitimacy. it's either poor science at best or argument out of ignorance, whereby a regular person doesn't understand some phenomena so they jump to a radical conclusion.
Well even if we were to take the difficulty of proving infinite probability, given the number of choices in our daily lives it's not unreasonable to think that the world would be slightly different if we had chosen to do one thing instead of another. That being said we could conceive of an actual place where we did that one thing instead of the other. In some other possible world, for example, I haven't made this post.
First thing's first find out why. Second: You can never forget them because there are usually more happy moments than terrible ones. What you want is closure and the ability to get used to your own company. That said you need to produce some space between yourselves. First block and remove her from all your chat programs facebook, etc. But don't make this permanent because if she still wants to be friends completely shutting her out is a dick move. After she's been been removed, try to avoid a few of the places that you know she'll be unless you absolutely have to go there. Going to places associated with the relationship just make you wallow in sadness even more. With that in mind see if you can find some new places to go to that are engaging and fun. Hang out with other friends, preferably those that aren't close to her. With time you'll be fine.
What will happen in 2012 is the same thing that happens with every new year.The stop in the Mayan calendar is and has been the subject of a great deal of hearsay. Nothing more.
Infinite probability doesn't necessarily imply a guarantee for something. All it ensures is that every possible outcome has some chance of manifesting somewhere at some point in time. As I mentioned previously this means that in every universe for every one thing that contributes to the existence of an entity there are just as many things that contribute to the non-existence of it. And since this isn't finite we're not limited by any real constraints. Non-existence might range from a miscarriage all the way up to a purple hippopotamus eating the parents.
You already pay for independently run medical and health care services already. And from what I'm understanding the tax hike is reasonable considering it costs an arm and a leg already for some of the services you have to pay for out of your own pocket. In Canada and the U.K. what would be freely available to the public is capable of bankrupting the average American. Long term cancer treatment alone for the average American is enough to put a family so far into debt that it's almost inhumane. As for the freedom to choose, the right to vote for it's instatement will have it's time. But as far as I'm aware most Americans can barely afford certain medical procedures and services because the insurance companies don't provide enough coverage. While it may seem to infringe on the constitution, the system you have already currently infringes on a person's right live a happy and healthy life.
Not entirely. The existence of an infinitely expansive multiverse would allot a probable occurrence of all possible outcomes. To say that there are multiple multiverses is redundant, as the multiverse includes all probable permutations. And again, nonexistence of an entity is probable in every possible universe. Just as there are an infinite number of reasons for my existence as well as my counter-parts' existences there are an infinite number of reasons for our non-existence. So it's not just that I could have not existed in this universe. I could have not existed in any universe.
You mean them same alignment of the cosmos that happens every year? Real spooky there. Every country comes to its end at some point. Will the US disband or fall any time soon in our life time? Probably not. Economically, it certainly makes it's share of messes. But the market always rebounds as long as people are willing to trade something shiny. I fail to see how making quality health care more accessible ends up being socialist or even a bad thing. Canada and a number of other countries are thriving with that kind of system. Besides I fail to see how a government taking care of its people is a bad thing.
While it might tick someone off it's more along the lines of an empty rationale. If we don't accept "god works in mysterious ways by making Charles Manson kill all those people" we shouldn't accept it on it's own. All it is is an empty rationalization. You're no better off saying that then you are "oh well cupcakes did it".
I believe the line is "A man shall not lay with another man". Lay is a very ambiguous word. It's simply been interpreted as homosexuality, kind of like how Islamic fundamentalists interpret the Qur'an for their violent purposes. That being said interpretations don't carry as much weight as people think. Moreover, if god is the creator of everything then homosexuality ends up on his list of creations in some form or another. Again we have a case of the watchmaker blaming the watch for his shoddy craftsmanship.
The advancement or ability of a higher power being greater than our understanding says nothing about whether or not it had anything to do with creation, let alone whether or not said creation was begotten from intelligent or purposeful design. I would be ignorant given the vastness of the universe to think that something much larger than ourselves does not exist. Whether or not it is god is remains to be seen. Moreover, even if intelligent design gains some favour down the road it still doesn't explain any anatomical inconsistencies. It is assumed that features follow some sort of logical and practical function. You could say that some physiological inconsistency has some purpose not yet known to us, but there has to be an upper limit to what you can suggest it does. That being said inefficiencies are just that; they're shortcomings that imply imperfection, and this calls into question the so called power of god. And with god called into question everything religious scripture and authority says can be called into question.
Some species of fish all start out as male/female. When the time to reproduce comes around some undergo hormonal changes to lay eggs. you could say that they technically become "female" but the process reverts after that. In all, and given our limit view on the entirety of nature, it only seems that nature favours male to female pairing in reproduction. For the most part our physiology agrees with this. But as to the entirety of nature, that's a bigger fish to fry. it's a subjective value judgment given our current understanding of things.
Had no chance to not exist? As in I was meant to exist, or that I could have not existed? The double negative is throwing me off. Unless it's a typo. would you mind clarifying that? The assumption here is that my individuality is a necessary part of some universe. But if we're dealing with infinite probability--that is EVERY outcome is given a chance in each universe-- then it is probable for me to not have existed in ANY universe. It's possible that anything close to being/resembling White_Rook could not have existed anywhere at all. Again if anything is possible I and any of my counter-parts could have never existed anywhere. But the me that you are talking to right now is a contingent entity. Again you're assuming that we're necessities to any universe. It's possible for me to have never existed anywhere at all such that we would never have a conversation like this. That is to say this conversation could never have existed anywhere.
But you're assuming that these features didn't develop over time in coordination with one another. The way that you've presented it yourself implies an interdependence among each of those features. One may have started it first but the others would've occurred to play catch-up due to pressures from natural selection. Evolution as a whole is non-directed and essentially random, but natural selection screens via reproductive fitness. The long neck may be a case in point. As the necks of giraffes increased due to those with longer necks being able to increase their foraging and thus sustainability (and thus those giraffes that sustained themselves with food in more places outlived those that were limited to foraging on the ground), those with weaker hearts would've died off since their brains wouldn't have received enough oxygen. Those giraffes with strong hearts were the one's that survived and were allowed to pass on their genes for stronger heart muscles. Over time hearts that were too strong ended up crushing certain giraffes' skulls with a combination of blood pressure and gravity when they bent down to drink water. Those giraffes with slightly less constricted portions of arteries were able to stave off the increased pressure to allow their hearts to adjust and survive to pass on their genes. How it became a spongy blockage I don't know for sure. It's possible that variable pressure dilation's and constrictions across the vascular portion of the neck didn't work out so the blockage developed as a means to allow for consistent pressure throughout. That way getting up to run away from a lion and bending down to take a drink result in the same amount of pressure throughout the movement. those giraffes that got up too fast to run away allowing gravity to force a lot of blood from their heads were eaten. Those whose arterial and venial pathways possessed inconsistencies in pressure throughout were better able to survive and pass on their genes. Again the blockage eventually became porous in order to maintain a consistent dilation/constriction across that portion of the vascular area in order for the heart to have time to slow down/speed up. Thus the vascular region in the neck allots for blood pressure differences throughout the span of slow bends and quick raises of the neck so that the heart can shift between higher and lower "gears". Those that possessed this trait outlived and reproduced more than those that didn't not. Again, the features that you described are interdependent on one another. The acquiring of traits doesn't occur in a vacuum consisting of a single trait. A shift in one selection pressure more often than not compromises a number of other features forcing them to go along with the change as well. Now that that is sorted out the philosophical implications of your post come to mind: that the giraffe is a product of intelligent design. While this is a very thin assumption to begin with it only comes back to my comment about the laryngeal nerve. If a god did all that for the giraffe's circulatory system, why the botched laryngeal nerve?
