THOUGHTS, personalities ARE NOT SEPARATE, they are RESULTS, OUTCOMES.

Again, if you think that then try measuring the speed of a car that is not moving. What we call "self" is merely the outcome of material processes, just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car. They cannot be seperated.

If you could, then you could blow your brains out and still think without a brain. I would not recommend you try that.

(June 5, 2012 at 9:42 am)Brian37 Wrote: THOUGHTS, personalities ARE NOT SEPARATE, they are RESULTS, OUTCOMES.

Again, if you think that then try measuring the speed of a car that is not moving. What we call "self" is merely the outcome of material processes, just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car. They cannot be seperated.

If you could, then you could blow your brains out and still think without a brain. I would not recommend you try that.

Separate no. Distinct yes. You can slice up a brain anyway you like and you won't find a thought. Of course thoughts stop when the brain stops functioning. But that doesn't mean they are the same. The difference isn't all that subtle. Think again.

(June 5, 2012 at 8:37 am)whateverist Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 9:57 am)Chuck Wrote: Science is a very particular subset of philosophy that has been both uniquely and extraordinarily successful. But other parts of philosophy will continue to exist so long as men feel the need to overreach his own knowledge and teach what he does not know at the expense of his fellow men.

But unless philosophy continues where will the next branch of science come from? Philosophy is how we find our way into new questions. Interestingly some questions resist settling out into science.

---

.

Science is philosphy. Next branch of science will flow from the present state of science. But it may receive some initial proximal encouragement from other field of philosphy, or it may not.

Science certainly rest on philosphyical foundations which would not appear to causal detesters of philosophy to be philosphy. They just take these to be evidently true, as if that view is not itself philosophical.

Every question settled by science can be said to have resisted settling by science. Science by its nature does not declare problem solved by fiat, perhaps unlike some other versions of philosphy. So do not confuse painstaking care and rigorous honesty with lack of productivity.

(June 5, 2012 at 10:09 am)Chuck Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 8:37 am)whateverist Wrote: But unless philosophy continues where will the next branch of science come from? Philosophy is how we find our way into new questions. Interestingly some questions resist settling out into science.

---

.

Science is philosphy. Next branch of science will flow from the present state of science. But it may receive some initial proximal encouragement from other field of philosphy, or it may not.

Science certainly rest on philosphyical foundations which would not appear to causal detesters of philosophy to be philosphy. They just take these to be evidently true, as if that view is not itself philosophical.

Every question settled by science can be said to have resisted settling by science. Science by its nature does not declare problem solved by fiat, perhaps unlike some other versions of philosphy. So do not confuse painstaking care and rigorous honesty with lack of productivity.

Looks like I agree with you after all. I misunderstood you to be saying that having contributed to the rise of science nothing further was needed of philosophy.

(June 5, 2012 at 10:04 am)whateverist Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 9:42 am)Brian37 Wrote: THOUGHTS, personalities ARE NOT SEPARATE, they are RESULTS, OUTCOMES.

Again, if you think that then try measuring the speed of a car that is not moving. What we call "self" is merely the outcome of material processes, just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car. They cannot be seperated.

If you could, then you could blow your brains out and still think without a brain. I would not recommend you try that.

Separate no. Distinct yes. You can slice up a brain anyway you like and you won't find a thought. Of course thoughts stop when the brain stops functioning. But that doesn't mean they are the same. The difference isn't all that subtle. Think again.

"Speed" is the car in motion. "Self" is the brain in motion.

I think we are into arguing semantics here. Outcomes are the processes in motion. So they are not separate in that sense.

The are distinct just like one car is traveling at 40mph and another is traveling at 60mph. But neither can have "speed" without motion.

(June 4, 2012 at 10:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: Once you have a cell phone you'd be stupid to want to use what Edison did, and not all of Edison's inventions went somewhere.

History Lesson: That would be Alexander Graham Bell.

This has turned into one of the better discussions hereabouts.

(June 5, 2012 at 10:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 10:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: Once you have a cell phone you'd be stupid to want to use what Edison did, and not all of Edison's inventions went somewhere.

History Lesson: That would be Alexander Graham Bell.

Thanks for the correction. But see here is the thing, when I am wrong, I admit it. But you will STUPIDLY confuse the natural flaws in humans which we all have, and say "since you got that wrong, you are wrong about everything"

I got the two confused, but like being corrected when I make a mistake.

Try it yourself sometime.

(June 5, 2012 at 10:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 10:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: Once you have a cell phone you'd be stupid to want to use what Edison did, and not all of Edison's inventions went somewhere.

History Lesson: That would be Alexander Graham Bell.

Its true Alexander Graham Bell owns the patent. However, he stole the invention from Elisha Gray.
Moral of the story? Don't take good inventions to any patent office. Take it straight to the head.

(June 5, 2012 at 10:53 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(June 5, 2012 at 10:37 am)ChadWooters Wrote: History Lesson: That would be Alexander Graham Bell.

Its true Alexander Graham Bell owns the patent. However, he stole the invention from Elisha Gray.
Moral of the story? Don't take good inventions to any patent office. Take it straight to the head.

As an aside, for the Simpson cartoon fans, there was an episode where the family went to a museum. You know how some displays have buttons you press and a historian tells you about the display. In this episode there were paintings of Bell next to Gray.

They press the Grey button and the picture becomes animated and says "You stole that"

Then they press the Bell button and it jumps out and shouts "READ THE PATIENT NUMBER BITCH"!

Ok, back to the topic. Just thought that was funny.