That's it? That's all you can say? Where's the "scientific" discourse? Let me remind you (I often see how this so-called "science-orientated" fellows have selective amnesia, wonder why?) what Max Planck said when he got the Nobel prize for Physics in 1918: P.S. Oh, boy! Kids, these days...
@Socrat: Some day, it will become clear to them. I hope it's a joyous epiphany and not a painful experience that makes it so. Only time will tell...
All these marijuana smokers living in their personal illusions of grandeur. I have quotes too, not only you. The most intelligent thing any of you could say is you don't know, but well ego doesn't allow any of you to say that does it now ?!
@R29k: careful with the ego-thingy...some "scientists" around here don't like that word. I highly doubt it that Max Planck was speaking out his ego at that moment. But...if it makes you feel comfortable, have it your way.
About what? Your imbecile behaviour? What does that prove? Because a scientists is right about one thing doesn't mean every opinion he utters is free from critical thinking and must be taken at face value. Science is free from authoritarian figures whose words are always true, something people especially like when thinking is too hard for them - someone to tell them what to think. What Planck said there was nothing more than an unprovable opinion, backed by no facts whatsoever. The danger of doing so can be seen right here - idiots who take it as a self-referencing proof for their misguided beliefs. I don't see anywhere in scientific literature that an omnipresent intelligent being is regarded as a proven theory because of what Planck said. So who cares what he said if it's of no consequence for the human knowledge pool? Oh yeah, the nutjobs.
Usually spelling is learned in 1st grade...usually. Really? Are you sure? Really, really sure? Check the history books, kiddo. You're going to have a surprise. My dear TCM, Max Planck got the Nobel Prize for Physics for studying that "physical thingy" and his opinion is more than qualified on the matter. Probably it's too hard for you to grasp and digest that idea simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs...that you can't prove in any way, by the way. Oh, boy...kids these days...
Opinions are worthless. Weak minds look to authority to tell them anything, and anything that remotely fits their own belief is taken as facts, because "nobel prize said so!". That's not how science works. Edit: And what kind of infantile bulls**t is that? First you quote me wrong, then you complain about behaviour vs. behavior, both of which would be correct? I'd rather complain about your school education which taught you nothing about critical thinking and science. That's much worse.
Why do you express yours then? Ahem, ego issues, kiddo? Show us, oh! The great one! Ahem...maybe you need some glasses after all, kiddo. I'm not complaining at all, I just give you...science. In this case it's called spelling. So how exactly you do this "critical thinking"? Kicking your "opponent" in the nuts?
I thought we want to stay 'scientific'. We are talking about proof, not 'what is right to you'. Also it has nothing to do with an assumed emotion, hate, you cannot argue with that. (Just to add I do not hate my body...why should I?) We have the observer (subject) and the objects which are observed. The observer cannot be an object of observation. The object cannot observe. If you violate this logic then you duplicate the subject. I observe 'me'. Are there 2 subjects? So who/which is real? Second. Your body (actually the object of observation) is constantly changing. The cells, the molecules of your body today are not those in the future. So who exists? Third: When you observe your body in the mirror you say this is me. Let’s imagine you lose one leg. Then you observe your body without that leg and say this is still me. It seems that what is you is NOT your leg. Continue with other objects of your body. So ‘where’ are you/do you exist? Einstein was one of those who had a great understanding of human consciousness/being. Not many scientists had that attribute. BTW: Einstein described time and space as continuum, rather than a fourth dimension. Also they have the same attribute there is no direct proof of existence. Space can be determined between 2 relative objects, but space is actually ‘nothing’, it does not exist. Time also, between 2 events, but does not exist. I have mentioned that already several times. People who are able to understand Einstein will recognize that it is similar to that what ‘spiritualists’ say. Only the ignorant cannot notice that. Time needs 8 minutes from sun to earth, but time itself does not age. One cannot determine one’s absolute position in the universe. We need a point to where we relate. Usually it is our body on earth to something else. From the view of this body light takes 8 minutes from the sun to come to us. But from the perspective of light, there is no space to travel through. The same applies to the 'subject' which is the absolute.
What is an Alzheimer's patient to you? Ask his relatives if he is still his former self. Is his "self" lost somewhere? No, it changed, just like his body, with a disease that changed the signals in his brain. If you assume all kinds of invalid stuff, you can draw all kinds of conclusions you like. Doesn't mean your conclusion is valid. "You" are a bunch of electrical signals in a lump we call a brain. "You" change every second with every new signal your sensors provide to your brain. How are "you" not an observer? You are an observer with very flawed observation tools, but an observer nonetheless. If you look in the mirror, you see a resemblance of your body. If you look at a brainwave monitor, you see a resemblance of the signals that make up the "you". You seem to have a big problem with the fact that there is no "you" that is not changing. The consciousness that is "you" is changing and the body it is contained in is changing. You can objectively measure that change with the right tools. Unless you prove otherwise, this is the reality you live in and as much as you don't like it, you don't get to substitute your own without evidence. You can think so how much ever you like, but if you proclaim something as facts, you better back it up or keep it to yourself. Edit: It's me without my leg. It's me without my arms. As soon as you cut into vital organs, I'd like to see you claim what is still you and what isn't. The "me" is the signals in my brain. If, somehow, you could reduce a body down to a brain with two eyes dangling from it and still have it process all signals as usual, the brain could see itself and think "this is me, without all of my body execpt my brain and my eyes".
Well, the way Hungarians (and partly Austrians) are behaving, you may be right... Hohooo, nice one, must note that down... Being from EX-YU/Balkans myself, I have the right to say the above... Btw, a helluva lot of this is soooo petty... yuck!