In this thread, science gets disproven

[Amake]

Even if you could begin to prove that no original thoughts can be formed, you're missing the point. Building a house doesn't involve creating matter, or even making an original design. You're still changing things, forming things into new shapes. Imagination is the same thing except with no physical component. I'm imagining building a house right now. I have not done this before. That's pretty boring stuff but the point is the process involved in me forming those thoughts is a valid reality. Not the thoughts themselves, nor the physical world.

It's not much of a theory and probably not what you wanted to talk about. I really just like saying "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real."

[BitVyper]

If you're using scientific method to disprove itself, you've either proved nothing, or proved that it works. Besides; proving theories wrong is half of what science is for.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Even if you could begin to prove that no original thoughts can be formed, you're missing the point. Building a house doesn't involve creating matter, or even making an original design. You're still changing things, forming things into new shapes. Imagination is the same thing except with no physical component. I'm imagining building a house right now. I have not done this before. That's pretty boring stuff but the point is the process involved in me forming those thoughts is a valid reality. Not the thoughts themselves, nor the physical world.

The way you make thoughts is dictated by the physical world. If the physical real is false, so is your imagination.
As my good buddy, John P Lacan would say- You are Never Alone- the Big Other is watching you. Even in the shower.

Originally Posted by BitVyper

If you're using scientific method to disprove itself, you've either proved nothing, or proved that it works. Besides; proving theories wrong is half of what science is for.

I was using logic to show that the scientific method is internally limited, not that it was wrong, just that it can only represent certain things.
Learn to readzzzzz.

Originally Posted by Geminex

As for a theorem...
What would you do if I dared you to take apart Marxism? It's arguably a science.

Part 7) I've just read all of Capital. OH fuck is it dumb. If people don't get rewarded based upon job performance noone is going to go to work, there will be no production. Human race extinct.
Yeah you would like that you little German fuck wouldn't you, Marx.

Part 8) Pain is a warning mechanism designed to create a fight or flight mechanism. Sadomasochism

IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!

Originally Posted by Geminex

The more Smarty posts, the less I am convinced that he is not constantly drunk. On Vodka. Communist vodka.

Are you suggesting I would be drunk on this most important of all days, that of glorious electoral uprightness? ARE YOU SAYING I@M NOT DOING MY CIVIC DUTY.

[Geminex]

The way you make thoughts is dictated by the physical world. If the physical real is false, so is your imagination.

What if the source, or defining element of imagination were non-physical, an abstract entity that we would describe as a "soul"?

[Si Civa]

I've this theory that you're right about things, you know, about those little things. Would you like to disprove that?

[Amake]

Sure, the immaterial may be dictated by the material world, we'll accept that for the sake of the discussion. But why would that mean it shares the same validity? Who can say where reality begins?

I think we're both overcomplicating things. When I quote Promethea, "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real", I'm assuming the world we know is possibly an illusion, a popular philosophy. The line is simply pointing out that if what we see and what we are is an illusion, we are still evidently something that is capable of observing something, and that act of observation can't in itself be illusion* any more than the shaft of light from a torch can shine on itself. Or something.

*At least not our illusion.

[Grimpond]

Oh man smarty, you are such an asshole, I mean, I am busting my gut at these shenanigans. so silly.

[Kim]

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."

[Grimpond]

Originally Posted by NonCon

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."

Doesn't that kinda go without saying here?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Geminex

What if the source, or defining element of imagination were non-physical, an abstract entity that we would describe as a "soul"?

Are we talking some kind of interactionism? If that's the case I need to find my cheesecutter and pipe before I answer that. You know, cause it from the 19th century.

Originally Posted by Si Civa

I've this theory that you're right about things, you know, about those little things. Would you like to disprove that?

While normal minds would ignore this as A) it's not a published theory b) it's not even a scientific theory c) it's not even postulated properly but luckily for you I'm an intellectual Titan and thus will take it on.
While my own mental postulates are self-evidentely genius, the medium of expression that I rely upon to transmit them to others rely upon socially integrated means of communication which are inherentely flawed and so my genius ideas are distorted in the telling and such the representation of them in my own mind will distort to fit that telling as numerous studies upon memory have shown that it is highly susceptible to how we are prompted to remember events.

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Sure, the immaterial may be dictated by the material world, we'll accept that for the sake of the discussion. But why would that mean it shares the same validity? Who can say where reality begins?

I think we're both overcomplicating things. When I quote Promethea, "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real", I'm assuming the world we know is possibly an illusion, a popular philosophy. The line is simply pointing out that if what we see and what we are is an illusion, we are still evidently something that is capable of observing something, and that act of observation can't in itself be illusion* any more than the shaft of light from a torch can shine on itself. Or something.

This idea has been throughly and recklessly questioned over hte last hundred years of philosophy. It is hardly self-evident and people have postulated everything from social structures to language to physical forms to be ontologically more present than that of hte individual mind.
Go look up consciousness on wikipedia or something.

Originally Posted by Grimpond

Oh man smarty, you are such an asshole, I mean, I am busting my gut at these shenanigans. so silly.

Are you suggesting I am anything but a humble seeker of truth.

Originally Posted by NonCon

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."

Logic is inherentely limited- see ref point 3 and the incompleteness theorum. Also see analysis of neural structure and linguistic and musical forms- logic is possibly a product of our brain interpretation of the universe not the other way around. Also this is not a scientific problem for me to challenge.

Originally Posted by Grimpond

Doesn't that kinda go without saying here?

Again, lies and slander. I am foremost a gentleman, secondly a scholar.