Music Talk Board

Full Version: The Religion and Philosophy discussion thread!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I was gonna call you a dick for making fun of her being a biological hermaphrodite but yeah that's pretty annoying talking about it all the time.
If you see me bitching about someone that's "different" they're usually annoying about it.
While we're talking about hemaphrodites, theres this he/she at my school who totally gives me the heebiegeebies. (Apparently its a dude who is sort of in the process of getting a sex change. Has boobs, and wears skirts, talks in a sort of feminine range.) At first I felt bad because I thought he/she creeped me out because of the whole sex change thing, but then one day he/she walked past me in the hall and I realized its not that at all. Just as a dude he/she would have been the most creeper/pedophile looking motherfucker on the planet. Especially with the scraggly facial hair. And really gross greasy hair. (You'd think if you were trying to become a girl you'd at least shave...). So anyway, I'm proud of myself that I only judge people because they're actually absurdly creepy, not because they're trying to express their gender differently.
I don't know what to respond to that :haha:
i don't even know where this would go so i'm putting it here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-barto...56114.html
lol

damn this 5 character limit shit grungie
I keep forgetting I have it, as admin, those don't affect me.
wait so you can change it
I think so, like I said, I forget it exists because admins aren't affected by posting restrictions.
So I've had this theory for a while now but I never talked about it seriously before. It could potentially reconcile idealism with realism to a certain extent and I don't know if it's already been proposed. It also may suggest evidence for Cartesian mind-body dualism, as well as qualia.

Essentially, objects exist realistically, both spatially and temporally. A tea kettle sitting on a hot stove right in front of me actually is spatially and temporally in front of my body, and I can perceive the kettle itself with my sight, the aroma of the tea with my smell, the flavor of the tea with my taste, the whistle of the kettle with my hearing, and the hot steam with my touch/sense of heat. Theoretically, any of our senses allow us to perceive the world. One knows one is inside a boat because of one's sense of balance (equilibrioception) combined with the bobbing motion of the boat.

All this considered, we can only perceive what our brains interpret. In the case of the kettle, the light that is deflected off of it hits my cornea, the eye transforms it into a nervous input, which gets transferred to the brain, which reads it as nervous information, and thus allows me to "see" the kettle. But I don't actually see the object; rather, I see my own, subjective, personal interpretation of it. Same thing applies to the whistle it makes when the water inside it boils; the sonic information hits my outer ear which amplifies the sound, which in turn transmits it to my tympani, allowing the information to be intercepted by the nervous membranes in my inner ear and thus interpreted by the brain. But again; I am not hearing sound in the classical sense; I am merely interpreting it. In other words, all the sounds of the universe are written on proverbial sheet music and my brain plays the symphonies for me, and like all musicians, it can strike a wrong note or skip a beat. Likewise, Chopin played his sonatas differently from contemporary pianists and there's no real way to know exactly how his performances sounded, even though it's not much of a stretch to assume that they weren't that much different from how they are performed today.

With all this in mind (no pun intended), idealism and realism aren't mutually exclusive, and it shows positive evidence regarding qualia and subjective perception of the world. This theory can also pose certain problems, of course; naturally, a brain can be dysfunctional or perverted, so this theory does not entirely, if at all, resolve philosophical skepticism. On the other hand, accepting the theory would almost necessarily entail a Cartesian mind-body dualism, as I can perceive and perhaps even "feel" my brain, but not my conscience as a tangible object. Note that I'm not referring to self-awareness, which in reality is awareness of one's own material existence and one's ability to perceive the world; I cannot feel, touch, perceive what ultimately allows me to interpret the world. The penultimate object that allows me to interpret is my brain, which I can perceive.

So what are your opinions or refutations on this matter?