Recent content by Sikz

If all changes involve position, and motion is "change in position over time" (or anything involving position and change), couldn't motion be seen as more fundamental than change? In which case, it would make no sense to say that motion reflects change; change would, rather, reflect motion.

The point of the original poster is that a "description" is not a "law". While we may find scientific, mathematical descriptions that fit all the observable data, there is no logical reason that one should be constrained to continue to fit the predictions of the descriptoins; what we call...

It isn't linguistics that I'm attempting to explore, but the idea of motion in general. It seems that physics is largely built upon the study of motion--really, every interaction can be explained in terms of motion and energy is only detectable when it becomes a form of motion (be it the...

Is it possible to define motion--to give it some definition as an the independent concept (if not phenomenon) that it is (in other words, to give "motion" a definition apart from just "change in position over time")? If it is, what are your thoughts on what that definition would be?

Hmm... I see where you're coming from; and I do agree that we need boundaries to feel safe-- but I don't think those boundaries are really pre-stamped. We have to have SOME boundaries, and as a young child there is only so much that we can experience and thus there are certain boundaries that...

That should be (ignoring your use of "dunno") "I dunno; you can't even punctuate a sentence but want to discuss the limits of the human mind." And "Here's a few exclamation points also." should be "Here are a few exclamation points also." "...if that consideration isn't to much to ask?"...

At the moment of conception we are nothing. A human, at least in the sense of a conscious human being, does not exist until the brain begins to function. If you don't think the brain is necessary, what is? What would you say we are at the moment the egg cell that will eventually become us...

The soul, by definition, is meta-physical. As such, it does not "occupy" any physical organ/location; the soul would be connected to the brain, not within the brain. The brain is important because it allows for memory and information processing; without these, consciousness could not record...

The soul is consciousness or contains consciousness, and if it stores memory it stores it separately from the brain, in a place not accessible by the same methods as physical memory. Even if brains can be transplanted by half, this will not disprove the existence of the soul; this is by the...

Perhaps. But you might also consider the definition of bald as "having no hair". There is no king of France; so, naturally, the king of France has no hair. So "The king of France is bald." is actually a true statement. But that doesn't mean your idea won't hold in principle.

Mm... Well, thanks for your time.

Imagine that I have a couch; this couch is either flourescent, or a light is shone upon it. I sit in your dark, sterile room with two windows; the couch is outside one of the windows. Assuming, as in your experiment, that I do not go to the window and look out of it, I will not see the couch...

It isn't that I do not understand your words, but that they are incorrect. You are proposing as a "reasonable" scientific theory a jumble of pseudo-science and vague postmodern attempts at philosophy; your "theory" has exhibited no evidence of being testable, measurable, or of even having the...

...No, I'm not in error. You are in error. As I said, it is one possible interpretation; "reading on the subject" will get you information "on the subject", but you can't catagorize all of that information as the subject itself. If I read "on the subject" of elephants, I will undoubtedly come...

If I have a siamese twin who slaps me in the face, am I slapping myself in the face?