(quote not shown) I was assuming that the "barrier of the brain" is something like using a brain to understand a brain. And I was also assuming that breaking it would be a complete understanding of how the brain works. I realize now that they could mean something completely different though.

Cronos988 wrote:

FALCON wrote: Therefore to understand everything we must break the barrier of the brain,

True, and impossible.

Why do you think it is impossible? We have made significant advances in neurobiology and the trend doesn't seem like it is slowing down any.

I still would like to know why Antone considers Communism so bad. To say that history has proven it is a gross misunderstanding of the what Communism is. I could easily say that history has proven that Capitalism is bad as well, and the response to that would be something akin to "True Capitali...

Keith Russell wrote:Are you arguing that human beings do not exploit other humans? Are you arguing that we don't (currently) have theft, rape, murder, slavery, or genocide?

His argument is not that those things don't occur, but is instead suggesting that you are essentially arguing that those things should be allowed, or even encouraged.

Hello Kevinandrew, and welcome to the online philosophy club forums!

I have a question for you.

Do you have any formal training in philosophy, such as a degree in the field, or any classes? Or are you just an enthusiast in the field?

(quote not shown) Why should only the inventor of the vehicle have the right to operate it? What if the inventor's goal is purely personal gain? (quote not shown) That is a ridiculous assumption. Time travel may very well be possible, it may even be within our reach. Furthermore, time travel may alr...

Cr1571 wrote:Any person that is waiting for others to help him and who is not willing to work in order to support his own life is a wortless bum.

So infants and children are worthless bums too. . . .

Shane Hanley wrote:Mark is right. Principally, the lives of those who are living are predestined. Life is predestined by God. We should all endeavor to find his will and fulfill our purposes.

Why should we endeavor to do that if what we do is predestined anyway?

Mark wrote:

PhilosophiliacEdward wrote:(I'm currently reading John Stewart Mill actually), and welcome discussions.

Stuart...

Haha, thanks for the catch. I'll be sure to point out any spelling errors to return the favor

Hello and welcome!
Don't feel bad about being new to philosophy we were all new at some point! And even those of us who have been studying for years still have much left to learn

Anyway, I hope we have some good discussions

(quote not shown) Just to clarify, you know that utilitarianism doesn't imply that a majority decides what is good or right, correct? Also, utilitarianism has nothing to do with political philosophy either, it's an ethical theory. As for the OP, hello and welcome thinker! I am also interested in uti...

What "hard evidence" are you referring to?
Also, what do you mean by "outstandingly dangerous"?

Admiral usher wrote: Now which came first thought or language?If It's thought then how can we have thought without language? If it's language how can we have language without thought?

That is a question that is largely debated within the field of Philosophy of Mind. Like Mark said, imagistic theories of thought are one of the theories, but there are a few others that each have strong and weak points.

(quote not shown) My point is that the outcome is not random though. (quote not shown) I would like to read these articles that you mentioned, if you would be so kind. But also note that I am referring to new born babies or babies that have had limited human contact. (quote not shown) We agree on th...

(quote not shown) Is that really what you mean? Or do you mean to say that as long as the ethics and morals are compatible with each other? For example, I believe that killing (cateris paribas) is wrong on utilitarian grounds. Whereas a Christian may think it is wrong on different grounds (such as n...