Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JerryL said:I'm not aware that I jumped on you.
So was this to NetDoc or to me? Seeing as all I was doing was interpreting NetDoc's "definition" of love.JerryL said:Not that I think it's an entirely accurate set of symptoms (you've never loved someone you didn't trust? Would you love your mother if she had a brain tumor, or rabies, or alsheimers? Would you trust her then?
I don't consider the presented symptom (you presented it, asserting that it's NetDoc's) is accurate in describe what you assert he believes is "love".Ryan2065 said:So was this to NetDoc or to me? Seeing as all I was doing was interpreting NetDoc's "definition" of love.
Dude, change your color when you respond to me..JerryL said:Yes, thoughts are material; composed of matter-energy located in vriousparts of your brain.
Yes, all "things" are composed of matter-energy. Abstracts in a mind are also composed, to exist in the mind; but abstracts in abstract are not.So everything is matter to you right?
Assembling matter-energy, yes.If this is true, we should be able to configure thoughts by assembling atoms in a lab (in theory). Should we not?
The light striking the photoreceptors in your eyes creates an electrical charge, which travels down the optical nerve and enters your brain's neural network, yes.And what we see, is matter. That matter is seen by your eyes and is interpreted by your brain, correct?
Interpretation is a physical act.What I am trying to say is that there is a dead space (space between what you see and the matter in your brain) that is not accounted for. So in this case matter DID NOT physically trigger or move the matter in your brain. Rather the interpretation (Information) of your brain is what triggered the matter in your brain and called upon a thought stored in your brain. You with me now?
Really? So this must mean that cavaties in my brain can fill up with thoughts. Can we measure this? This is new to me.JerryL said:Assembling matter-energy, yes.
I thought light was not matter? I want my money back..:149: Professor told me it wasn't.JerryL said:The light striking the photoreceptors in your eyes creates an electrical charge, which travels down the optical nerve and enters your brain's neural network, yes.
Not fully convinced as of yet.JerryL said:Interpretation is a physical act.
It's as close of a comparison you can come up with but they certainly differ and it didn't move an inch in me captivating as you see it.JerryL said:When I type on a keyboard, the closing of the circuit under the key causes an electrical signial to run down the KB cable and into the motherboard. It runs through the southbridge controller, and into the processor where it is interpreted into a keystroke.
My keystrokes may make the computer put out sound, or shut off, or turn on, or just align little magnetic bits on the hard-drive. Like your brain, the PC has taken the same basic raw input and contexutally interpreted it into action.
The actual physical function of a PC is different than your brain... different materials and methods of moving information, and a centralized and physcially non-adaptive structure; but the basic function of internalizing input is the same.
It was an honest observation...JerryL said:That "dead space" is somtehing you are imagining out of an ignorance of how signal processing and thought work.
I have no idea where you get this thought, nor am I entirelly clear what you mean.Really? So this must mean that cavaties in my brain can fill up with thoughts. Can we measure this? This is new to me.
Light is not in matter form. Did I say otherwise?I thought light was not matter? I want my money back..:149: Professor told me it wasn't.
Your response is rhetorical. I cannot cause you to begin to reason.It's as close of a comparison you can come up with but they certainly differ and it didn't move an inch in me captivating as you see it.
I did not call it dishonest, just ignorant.It was an honest observation...
JerryL said:I have no idea where you get this thought, nor am I entirelly clear what you mean.
What cavaties are you thinking about, and how does something "fill with thoughts"?
No you didn't. But you did say:JerryL said:Light is not in matter form. Did I say otherwise?
If light is part of the interpretation process and it's not matter. How can it be a "physical act"?JerryL said:Interpretation is a physical act.
JerryL said:Your response is rhetorical. I cannot cause you to begin to reason.
Perhaps with star-trek technology.I said it in such a fashion because matter takes up space. That's where the "fill with thoughts" came from. We should be able to measure this, no?
Energy is physical.If light is part of the interpretation process and it's not matter. How can it be a "physical act"?
If you have trouble understanding something I've said, you are welcome to ask for clarification. It's more likely I'm choosing my words for their precision than fancyness.No you can't but what you can do is clarify things in laymen terms. Or is using fancy words trigger some happy feelings?
I thought you said light was not matter? :help:JerryL said:Energy is physical.
I did. Light is not matter (particle-wave issues notwithstanding). Light is energy. Energy is physical.Victor said:I thought you said light was not matter? :help:
Gotcha...:bounceJerryL said:I did. Light is not matter (particle-wave issues notwithstanding). Light is energy. Energy is physical.