That which is us

”Prove to me that you are.” You may not use source material from those who have not also proven their very existence.One cannot strictly follow scientific thought and accept that they exist.
To accept existence is to have faith. I believe this to be a fundamental truth.To promote the view that an individual is nothing more than a physical object, is an abuse of science. It has become the source of a belief and that is religion. Not only that but it denies the source that conceived the concept of science in the first place.To promote the idea that emotions and behavior are nothing more than chemical reactions and learned responses is an abuse of science. It is denying the existence of will or self and in turn denies the very source of the idea.Every time an idea is shared or put into action it is evidence of the non-physical becoming physical. I believe this to be a fundamental truth.
It happens so often that we have come to take it for granted.
Those who promote or believe some or all of the above mistakes forever forget that they use the terms “Me, myself and I.” Every time they do this they are declaring their existence.NO INDIVIDUAL ON EARTH WILL DENY THE BELIEF IN HIS OR HER EXISTANCEOne can foolishly doubt it but the fact that they doubt is evidence they exist.
When one uses science to arrive at the conclusion that a higher power does not exist then they have abused the process as a religion. You can put forth the theory but belief without physical proof is another matter called faith.For anyone to use science as a tool to explain thier existance and call it the truth, "part of the facts, yes" has used science as a religion.
If the explanation has holes it can be only a theory. You can use science to put forth the theory that you exist but nothing more.We do exist.... well at least I do.... because I say so..... and you must have Faith/trust that I do
or in truth to scientific thinking....deny my existence.Yes...yes...I know...I am merely chemical processes and an intricate string of learned responses emanating from a collective network of single celled organisms ect...ect....
Glad to meet you to... This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 01:37 PMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-21-2006 09:58 PM

Hey 2ice, welcome to EvC! Before I prove to you who I am, (If I so choose to participate in said topic) I may remind you that when we consider opening a topic here, we look for interest and clarity. This topic seems a bit of a philosophical question and I may promote it in a couple of weeks. (By March 1st) Unless another Admin wishes to promote it now.1) I want you to participate in some of the other topics and get to know people at EvC a bit before starting a topic as a new member.2) You may think about editing this topic before we promote it. Go back to your first post and push the EDIT button on the bottem right...you may think about a better way to express yourself.
3) Read the following links first, to get an idea of our way of life here at the little virtual corner of the internet. Are you studying philosophy in school or something? This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-17-2006 10:31 PM

---

---

No...not studying philosophy. Just a person who enjoys pondering why and how like many others.I have a destination. In the context of the forums though...I thought It would be better to take the journey one step at a time. A first small step to see what other routes some might take besides the ones I have stumbled down. I thought it might be a good idea to see if we all get lost on the way to my first step. I fear if I layed the whole journey out we would all run to our own destinations and wonder where everyone was. And there would be the end of a topic before it had begun.
You are correct. Though the question is straight foreward it must be placed withing context. That though may prove difficult without defeating the purpose of the question. I guess I was hoping by nature of the question the context would arive.
I will think on it for a time. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 01:41 PM

I have thunk it fer a bit.
I hope I have acheived an idea worthly of topic status.
It is not a concept that can easily be bottled into a neat topic.
I have tried to aproach this with as much logic as the nature of the topic will allow and to avoid all religious traps. The higher power comment was not put there to imply religion. In fact I am still on the fence with what to do there.
I believe by the nature of my opening request that no religious quotes can be made. This is a stand alone or face non existence kinda thingy.
This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 05:20 PMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 05:30 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I can't see any basis for that. To the contrary, that I can follow scientific thought already seems pretty good evidence that I exist.Note that my response is a basically an argument that goes back to Descartes - "I think; therefore I am." I don't promote that view, so I guess I am safe. But others do promote that view, and I really don't see that they are thereby abusing science. I don't promote that idea either. However, I don't see anything abusive of science in promoting such an idea. It is often said that ideas have effects. Ideas are abstract, while effects are physical. So I suppose you could say that is an example of "the non-physical becoming physical." However, an astute observer might notice that it is not the abstract idea that has effects. Rather, it is physical representations of that idea that have effects. So it really isn't "the non-physical becoming physical."You have made several assertions. You have not made a persuasive case for those assertions.

But certain damage to regions of the brain cause changes in behavioural function. All these areas are mediated by chemical reactions and neural impulses. If we take Phineas Gage as an example, damage to the ventro-medial PFC has the ability to change personality - as Harlow said, "Gage was no longer Gage". The damage to Gage is now called acquired Sociopathy and is close to the characteristics of psychopathy. Psychopathy seems to be due to damage to the same area of the brain as Gage suffered - so are psychopaths evil, or just a victim of dysfuntional biology?Then we can look at the effect of certain chemicals on the brain, they work by altering neurotransmitter functions, causing changes in behaviour and personality.Then we have other psychological disorders, schizophrenia, OCD, anxiety, depression - mainly biology, with a hint of environment. How do we become phobic? Watson made a boy phobic of a rabbit, it was acquired through the biological process of emotional associative conditioning.what makes a person - I think genetics/biology, environment, and learned behaviour. Those chemicals and neural structures, along with some environmental input, shape us as people. It is not demeaning, it's just reality.This message has been edited by melatonin, 02-20-2006 10:11 PM

Nothing in science is proven.

Ask my Creditors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No. I refuse.lfen

Who the man was-was still there. His ability to react in the manner as
we percieved him only changed.
It's as if ones legs were cut off - in a chemical sense

What makes the physical event occur?So the abstract idea is evidence of energy having an effect through a medium?

What makes the physical event occur?So the abstract idea is evidence of energy having an effect through a medium? With intent?

I am new ...forgive my posting abilities on this sight...I'll get the hang....to busy thinkin ;P

The full answer, is that this is unsettled science. Research is still going on.My opinion is that earlier physical events, such as those involved in the brain representation of the idea, are causally involved. The abstract idea is a concept that we use in discussing and theorizing about thinking.