"No seriously, you aren't clearly subjective if you trump all objectivity?"

did i post that?

no

this is what i posted, in part: 'if scientists, tomorrow, prove without a doubt that i'm just a bio-machine with no special relevance in the world, i should do 'what' because of this information?'

'i can't imagine such information having any effect on my life...my own, subjective, self-definition as 'henry quirk' trumps all objective definitions...'

context is everything...

Yah, I got that. But see, I lost interest when you got combative. Bored. lol!

if i bore you: don't waste your (or my) time responding... ;)

*sigh*

yes: i'm an asshole...sorry

i forget sometimes: all this, as substantial as angel farts and ghost whispers...and worth about as much... --henry

I got that after about post 3, but so am I whats yer point?

I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread.

So have I.

Me too, and I dont understand why all of a sudden he became a target.

Yeah, I'm not getting that either. I like Henry, and think he has a lot to add to the conversation.

I do hope he learns to use the quote tags, though. ;)

"whats yer point?"

my point: i don't need to be an asshole so early in the conversation

that is: nothing happened in this thread or forum to set off my assholism gland

that's why i apologized

i can take it back if you like... ;)

-----

"I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread."

thank you, dana!

-----

"So have I."

and: thank you too, classic!

-----

"Me too, and I dont understand why all of a sudden he became a target."

it's very simple, pico/me: i'm an ill-fitting piece without tact

-----

"Yeah, I'm not getting that either. I like Henry, and think he has a lot to add to the conversation."

thanks, shawnee!

"I do hope he learns to use the quote tags, though."

HA! not bloody likely... :)

;) Aw come on, give it a try. It's FUN.

"Aw come on, give it a try. It's FUN"

my way is simpler, more fun, and more in keeping with 'me' (a bold and combative contrarian)

after all: my signature IS 'non serviam' ;)

SIMPLER? Dude, highlight text, hit quote bubble. You don't have to quote from a post. No more keystrokes than quotation marks and the value-added bonus that it's easier to read.

Or not, do what you want, henry quirk. ;)

"SIMPLER?"

for me

"do what you want"

...non serviam, non serviam, non serviam...

;)

Get on your knees, henry quirk. :lol:

;)

on <my> knees: only to provide a service to a willing and worthy grrrl... ;)

Great! I'll take a cheeseburger and a coke. :lol:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So do I. He is just the new kid on the block to be subjected to be bullied because 1) he is new 2) people want him to conform.

I'm not sure I'd class it as bullying. A difference of opinion and a possible clash of personalities. Nobody appears upset or overwhelmed.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but this Mongolian beef tastes awesome!

Cic, I don't think I have even seen a place to get good mongolian beef since we lived in Hawaii in the late 80's.

well, just finally read through all the replies *mops brow*

it's been interesting to read everyone's points of view.

I realise I didn't phrase the start very well, my main point was about whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind, such as how can we account for what it is like to perceive the colour red (just saying that's what light of a certain wavelength looks like doesn't seem to provide enough of an explanation), or what it is like to have a thought about something - to say it's neurons firing again doesn't seem to get us very far. It was misleading of me to mention the soul, as that's really a separate issue.

btw Henry I wasn't suggesting that the answer to any of these questions should change your life, I was simply interested in peoples' views. I personally have a fascination with philosophy/psychology but if you're not interested or don't care then fine.

...just the new kid on the block to be subjected to be bullied because 1) he is new 2) people want him to conform.

(((it's no big thing)))

(((i'm a big boy, with thick skin)))

(((i can take a hit or two...and dish it out just as well)))

(((so, again: no big thing...)))

-----

.....my main point was about whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind, such as how can we account for what it is like to perceive the colour red (just saying that's what light of a certain wavelength looks like doesn't seem to provide enough of an explanation), or what it is like to have a thought about something - to say it's neurons firing again doesn't seem to get us very far. It was misleading of me to mention the soul, as that's really a separate issue.

(((my point, in response, is the mistake is to seek a duality or a division in the person)))

(((it's a wrong-headed to talk about the soul as it is neurons firing)))

(((in the first case: there's no evidence to suggest an in-dwelling spirit...in the second: what and who i am as henry quirk is not merely about brain, but about the totality of the flesh, from the top of my bald head clear down to the tips of my gargoyle feet)))

(((the human individual, to be understood as human individual, is irreducible to piece and part; indefinable as simply member of a species...to begin even scratching the surface of the human individual one must investigate the whole of the individual, as objective artifact AND as subjective entity...in other words: to suss out the individual one must approach him or her AS individual: singular, unique, idiosyncratic)))

(((and redness IS in the light, but the meaning of redness is only in 'me')))


...I personally have a fascination with philosophy/psychology but if you're not interested or don't care then fine.

(((i do care...deeply...i just have a different approach than you...*shrug*)))

if one conceives "soul" as something coexistent with Self and inhering therein, i can see no need for a separate word ("soul") and would thus want to borrow the razor to excise it as a superfluity. if, on the other hand, one conceives "soul" as perhaps something outside Self that simply reaches into Self temporarily, like water filling a crack, until a 'person' dies, i must wonder what distinguishes this from "life force" or "god" or whatever.
and, while the answer might be interesting, i doubt we are constitutionally equipped for answering it in a way that would satisfy any scientist. we may indeed gather more information as we extend our reach and our eyes with the tools we construct, but there may yet be mental limitations to contend with. just as the questions of quantum physics reduce to questions of an uncaused cause we cannot conceive, so too may we be unable to comprehend a "soul" greater than the individual.
as far as i can tell consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity, achieving 'reality' only as does a virtual particle, when its existence is suspended (as a ping-pong ball might be 'suspended' on a cushion of air, not in the sense of 'suspended animation') by a certain threshold and concentration _of activity. 'self', then, would be a construct representing what consciousness 'controls' or finds most permanently attached (to it'self', haha). if there is a "higher" (greater) consciousness (universal 'soul') arising from the activity of All, we would have to comprehend All to comprehend _it. a part that can comprehend the whole seems a bit paradoxical.
hope that's not a thread-killer lol

__________________
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. --Emerson