In this thread, science gets disproven

[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.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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.

There is a great difference between explaining the limitations of logic and using incredibly faulty logic to come to incorrect conclusions as "proof" that logic is flawed.

Also this is not a scientific problem for me to challenge.

But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[BloodyMage]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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

It's written not spoken therefore it's libel, not slander, no?

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Part 2: Colour
Red and yellow mixed make green.

Complete thread collapse in three sentences, impressively executed.

[Amake]

Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

Although I will give The Origin of Consciousness another try. I've been looking for an excuse to read it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by NonCon

There is a great difference between explaining the limitations of logic and using incredibly faulty logic to come to incorrect conclusions as "proof" that logic is flawed.

Godel disagrees with pages and pages of maths.

But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

I'm not sure what the question is here. Do I need to disprove that kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Because this thread is about destroying science not proving it.

Originally Posted by 01d55

Man you lyin'. You a lyin' commie.

9) See 7 where I dismiss Marx as a hack

Originally Posted by BloodyMage

It's written not spoken therefore it's libel, not slander, no?

10) I spoke it aloud as I read it.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Complete thread collapse in three sentences, impressively executed.

11) Thread still going, postulate disproven.

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

Although I will give The Origin of Consciousness another try. I've been looking for an excuse to read it.

Bridges that have been shown to rely heavily on physical world. No matter how you spin it, your imaginary functions relies upon physical processes.

12) Human intelligence lead to tool making, dominance over other animals
Latest poll result shows Tories leading by wide margin. Thus humans are stupid, thus this is fault.

13) Neurotransmitters only work in certain kinds of neuroreceptors based on lock and key type mechanisms- Patentely false, molecular mechanic hard sphere type models consistently fail in modelling organic processes due to theri soft electron systems which are easily perturbed, particularly the pi bonding networks of neurotransmitter type molecules.

14) Origin of life started in water- Water promotes hydrolysis of early peptide bonds rather than their formation, solutions would be too diluted to feasibly react, common energy sources for the reactions are hindered by the presence of water.

Originally Posted by Archbio

The mind itself still isn't disprovable, re: Descartes via Nietzsche (something thinks, therefore something is.) Of course, that's not science, but so isn't this thread!

Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Lacan- all would take you up on that.
Also of course this thread isn't Science- it's showing Science is wrong!

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

11) Thread still going

[BloodyMage]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

10) I spoke it aloud as I read it.

That's still not slander, as slander requires publication. You could argue that, because Libel requires publication too, it isn't libel either due to internet forums not being a viable form of publication (at least not yet). Either way you're still wrong, because it isn't 'lies and slander' it's just lies.

[Archbio]

Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

The mind itself still isn't disprovable, re: Descartes via Nietzsche (something thinks, therefore something is.) Of course, that's not science, but so isn't this thread!

[Amake]

It's only physical tools that have shown the physical world to be the origin of all existence. I think it was Buddha who said, "We are spiritual beings having a human experience".

But anyway, like I said, even if imagination is a product of a physical world which is a figment of imagination, that's no reason to assume imagination also is a figment of imagination.