h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin, I think "something more general" sounds like the most digestible option on the table.

Then again, giving it a miss might work even better.

Sorry, blicky, I didn't mean to interrupt -- I posted without checking first for simulposts.

I agree (in general terms, at least) with what you say, btw.

<>

Um, yeah, right. Great answer.

az

I think you're probably right, Lear.

I shall just confine myself to saying that almost all the arguments require an assumption of Dualism, but none of the four principles of sufficient reaon (the four necessities) require this.

Noggin

The Mathematician of Gloom Our motto (Zsquared - C)

Noggin

I don't disagree with what you say, BB, but isn't the above an oxymoron?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

English ws never my strong suit which is a shame as its the only language I speak.

one love

<>
Excellent point. An anthropologist (I don't remember who) said people should be called 'Homo Ludens'..

A good point, Lear, I am sorry, I don't have permission... I apologise, I just never thought of it. As Homer Simpson would say "D'oh" (isn't that a smiley?)

Traveller in Time in the mirror
"Just observing self"

"Should we not add (3) playing, as in useless to survive or useless as exercise. Just for the fun we do things, even whithout any reward "

Well, humans and primates aren't the only animals that play--all mammels do it as young. It's a good way for them to learn survival skills later in life. It's just that we keep doing it all our lives. It fits into the idea that a major part of becoming more intelegent as a species is for youthful characteristics to survive into adulthood. We keep playing and learning all our lives, so we learn more to pass on to our young than the animals that stop when they reach maturity. This means that less relies on instinct.


---Lemon Blossom, Boycotting FOX at A2595747

I'm boycotting Woo for the repulsive action-crap 'Paycheck' that once was the genius of Phillip K. Dick. If there were an artistic Hell, Woo would already be burning in it. Wooden dialogue. Wooden acting. Wooden delivery. Of course, that would help with the burning . . .

Peace (to everyone but Woo!)

Re: Mammals at play: Adult Grizzly Bear males also 'play' together at some Salmon run in Alaska (?) Why, god, oh why??

Tongue-so-firmly-in-my-cheek-I-think-I've-swallowed-it

Apart from Bladerunner I can't think of a single movie adaption of a Philip K. Dick story I've enjoyed, and even that was almost a totally different story from the 1 he wrote. I'm just dreading the day when they turn The Man in the High Castle into an action movie

Who or what is Woo?

I'd think John Woo, a film director who began making low-budget Hong Kong action flicks and now makes big budget Hollywood action flicks

Re: Woo: Minority Report & Imposter - - - excellent P.K.D!

<<(1) Abstract thinking (2) delibarate, rational willing>> and even (3) playing*

Why should any of these require a soul? All any of them require is a representation of the world, a goal (a representation of a satisfying outcome**), and a set of rules for processing information to get from one to the other.

Noggin

* The technical term for the preservation of juvenile characteristics into adulthood is "neoteny"

** Freudian slip department - for some reason I initially typed this as "a satisfying income", which is of course only a subset.

Traveller in Time just imaginary sitting on his head
"Indeed the three aspects just only suggest some kind of intelligence. They do not even proof it, as I can imagine a computer program doing the same. (or would that proof the program to be intelligent?)

Well, I think we need to get to some kind of definition what is continuing after dead before we even come close to the question.

NB I thought 'neoteny' was the name for the physical juvenile characteristics.
"

Well the author of that article is right on at least one thing - the existence of nonexistence of an afterlife is something you can't prove one way or the other to the satisfaction of the scientific method (yes, I know the scientific method isn't a being that can be satisfied, but I'm sure you can figure out what I actually mean - I'm referring of course to the standards and nature of proof required by the scientific method). This is because it lies by its very nature in a domain that science hasn't really figured out how to explore yet.

Notice I say that it hasn't done it yet, rather than that it's impossible, because I believe, along with at least a few other Pagans, that all the things like reincarnation, magic, psychic activity and so forth aren't outside science or the laws of nature, they're merely aspects of reality which science has not yet penetrated, explained, defined and categorised. Of course, there's so much for science still to do, that it'll probably be a while before someone comes up with the necessary insight to accomplish the start of this feat. I for one have no idea how I'd go about it.

But I think it's important to realise that science and religion/faith aren't opposites, except in the way that they're opposite ends of the same thing, both marching full-tilt toward the middle. One day they'll collide (although it's possible that there's an infinite distance between them, in which case I certainly don't plan to sit up waiting for it to happen).