Recent content by Iacchus32

Note: For anyone who may be thrown by the original post, the first question was more rhetorical, and was in response to a question someone else had posed elsewhere, regarding the nature of structure versus intelligence. Obviously, fish do have brains. Okay? Thanks.

Well, if the brain was merely a matter of being "physical" ... then yes. :wink:

Perhaps we are all just legends in our own minds, huh? :rofl: Of course without the "physical" world, to interact with our "physical" senses, what would our minds interact with? At least we know this "interaction" is real ... I guess?

Do fish have brains? It's a simple enough question isn't it? Cleary if fish exist -- as a "structure" -- and, fish have brains -- within that "stucture" -- we must consider the whole of the fish, when referring to the intelligence and, structure of that fish. Correct? So, in what way does...

What is the difference between intelligence and structure? Obviously you can't have intelligence without structure can you? In fact that's all intelligence is -- or, let's say derived from -- a highly advanced form of structure. Indeed, without the stucture of the human brain, the most advanced...

So, why does the Universe seem so comprehensible and completely "intelligible?" Indeed, if the Universe were not so intelligently bound, what pray tell do we need logic for, to try and describe it?

Hey, is existence disprovable? Or, perhaps I've missed something here? How would we go about "proving" that we don't exist? Indeed, even in our attempts to prove that we didn't, would prove that we did. Because who is that's doing the proving? Obviously we can't prove that we didn't exist if, it...

So, who created the neurons? Or, would you have us believe there is something about neurons which go uncaused?

So, is it possible that the mind does not arise from the brain itself, and exists within its own continuum (another dimension), of which all things become manifest, even that which is "physical?"

Yes, but why does reason have to be circular? It's none other than the means by which to explain cause-and-effect is it not? Is that to say that all scientific investigation which, "must" be observed via a reasoning mind, comes to naught? At what point does our examination of the evidence not...

If, in fact we have to rely wholly on sentience in order to interpret our world, why should we deem sentience circular? If so, then our attempts to define who and what we are -- or, for that matter, anything -- is worthless. And, while we may stress the need for "empirical evidence," who or what...

Unless, of course, we ourselves have a spirit.

What is the effect, generally, but the "hybrid" (result) which is generated by the relation between two or more things? Obviously, it is possible for one agent to induce an effect upon (and hence modify) another.

Yes, but how can one "live in the moment" and have someone ram the idea of it down your throat at the same time? Your prejudice is not unfounded.

Not even cause-and-effect?