|
Psychology NOT religion
Has anyone tried to use the optional line:
Comp Family Requirement := in the CompEnhancement.txt file? I can't seem to get the darn thing to work. I have no problems with the enhancement untill I add the line in then "poff" it just stops working after that. [ December 08, 2002, 05:31: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
The latest Gold Version of P&N uses that for shield generator mounts on units.
Add that line, and fill in the family numbers (separated by commas) for the components that mount is allowed on. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
HA-HA-HA-HA
HA-HA-HA-HA HA-HA-HA-HA I got it, thanks SJ |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
That is refering to a story in which there are prisoners chained up inside a dark cave. They are in a position in which they can only see shadows on the wall when some people from the outside walk past, carrying treasures. One day, one of the prisoners breaks free and sees the outside world for the first time. When he returns to the cave to tell the other prisoners, they think he's crazy.
... or something like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Kamog, Physics NOT philosophy, eh. A well rounded physicist can use philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
And a very round physicist could use some exercise and a better diet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
My favorite physicist is Richard P. Feynman. He won the Nobel Prize in 1965 for his work in quantum electrodynamics.
Like many great thinkers, Feynman was very well rounded. Not only did he study other areas of science such as chemistry and biology, he painted and played drums and other musical instruments. His book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is a fascinating and very entertaining book. I highly recommend it. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Kamog, excellent choice. An QED, is interesting stuff. Well, to some it interesting anyway!
My favorite physicist would have to, but not limited to, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac or Enrico Fermi. Their early work in the field (no pun intended) set the stage for present day theory. Both Nobel Prize winners as well. Oh, I have read "Surely You're Joking" by Mr. Feynman! Cheeze, LOL mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Kamog, you would happen to be a member of IAMP, would you? As for reading. Might try, if you haven't already that is; "Infinite in All Directions" (1988) or "Disturbing the Universe" (1979) both by Freeman J. Dyson.
mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
OK, I got here by clicking on the link you provided in the Lurker Report thread.
No, I'm not a member of IAMP. Thanks, mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , I'll check out those books by Dyson you recommended! I love physics... |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
Yes, He was a teacher. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
I think every one should read it, think on it, then read it again. These are words (sometimes difficult to follow) that still hold truth in our modern age of "knowledge" and "enlightenment". |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ November 30, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
---------- [Socrates] AND NOW, I SAID, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: BEHOLD! HUMAN BEINGS living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette? players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. [Glaucon] I see. [Socrates] AND DO YOU SEE, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. [Glaucon] YOU HAVE SHOWN ME a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. [Socrates] LIKE OURSELVES, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? [Glaucon] TRUE, HE SAID; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? ---------- ... This is long. Get the rest from here: http://www.geocities.com/lucid_dawn/cave.html |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
The sight I pulled it from was:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/ALLEGORY.HTM Hope that hyperlinks auto. By a show of hands (ha) how many people would say that we [Homo Saipen Saipen] are for the most part xenophobic. Answer carefully becouse I have the ultamite can of worms that I have wanted to pop the lid open on in this forum. Maybe I should just leave this one alone? Um? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
OK, I say that humans are for the most part NOT xenophobic.
...what is this can of worms you mentioned? |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
I'm gonna let that one slide for now, put the ole can back on the shelf so to speak. Let's kill this topic my friends. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
KILL IT! We were having a perfectly nice discussion about Physics and Physicists. Until YOU came along! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
Ok, lets open this can up. Part one: Are humans: Mostly zenophobic or not? I say we are. Look at the way we portray them in our movies, etc. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
Kids can find something wierd under a rock, then laugh and play with it. Adults will generally recoil in disgust. I imagine the same sort of thing could happen with non-toxic aliens. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Now that IS a good point SJ. Any other thoughts before I break the main point out in the open?
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
I have a lot of thoughts. But my mommy told me to wait until I know the whole story. Before I voice my opinion.
Not that I really ever listen to her, when I was much much younger! The older I get. The smarter she becomes! SJ, excelleent points! By the way. mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Go ahead mlmbd say what you want, this is just a forum and only a forum. Had this been a real debate you would have heard the opening of gun ports prior to firing of all weapons.
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
President Elect Shang,
Quote:
Quote:
I have a small story to tell you. A very very wise man gave me this advise, "don't worry about those that find the need to boast or brags. About their debating prowess. They are simply dealing with an inferiority complex!" This sage advise was given to me on the day of my first collegiate debate. My coach (the individual I am referring to), could tell I was concerned how well I was going to do, in the debate. The team we were facing was the previous years "National Collegiate Debate Tournament Winner". I had good reason to worry, or so it seemed until he dropped that little pearl of wisdom in my lap. So please don't misinterpret my lack of response, as my being inadequate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
The can of worms is taken off the shelf! I am glad that we did not kill this topic, although it was President Elect Shang's prerogative to do so, as he was the initiator of this topic.
I say that humans for the most part are NOT xenophobic. If we were xenophobic, we would all be living in a primitive, stone-age society in which all of us spend our lives in our own close-knit little villages, with little knowledge of what is occuring elsewhere in the world. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Good point Kamog. Very good point and shame on me. Kamog (for anyone that is just reading this) is correct. From a pschology point of view fear of large crowds is around number 8 on the most reported scale (can't remember the precise position now. Shame on me, shame on me. I should have been more clear to ask:
Do you think that humans are xenophibic toward the concept of extraterrstrials? Let me retract my first question and replace it with the correct one above. Shame on me I should have known better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif [ December 05, 2002, 15:32: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
I never read it that way mlmbd. I never even thought along those lines. Most likely since I lack an ego (that was Freud's little pearl of ignorance) I view everyone as equals till they prove themselves different. Did I mention Freud was a quack? Well that’s a whole debate in itself and I don’t want to go there right now.
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate?
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
"Speaking of weird things under rocks, where did the phrase "open a can of worms" originate?"
Probably those joke things where you open a can and a bunch of fake worms fly out in your face. Phoenix-D |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
President Elect Shang,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since a concept is something we "CONCEIVE". In the abstract I would have to say humans in general are very xenophobic about extraterrestrials. capnq, Quote:
mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Yes, I agree that humans are xenophobic toward the concept of extraterrestrials. In general, humans tend to fear the unknown. In fact, the fear of the unknown can be a stronger emotion than the fear towards a known danger. Since we know nothing about extraterrestrials, not even if they exist or not, it is natural that people feel fear about the idea.
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Are humans xenophobic? Hell yeah! It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human". We are the meanest, most aggressive, most bloodthirsty race on the planet. If we weren't we never would have made it this far.
Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation that promotes the survival of your own genepool. It ensures that you won't waste valuable resources on the preservation of someone (or something) elses genetics. However, the other trait that seems to be distinctly human (besides being ornery bastards) is our capacity to over-ride instinct. This is especially true when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed, in the case it would be survival. For the most part we no longer need to worry about day-to-day survival and so we afford ourselves the luxury of equality. When I say equality I don't just mean among humans. Animal rights activists, greenpeace, and vegitarians are all products of our self-assured survival. This would apply to extra-terrestrial contact as well. So long as said contact was peaceful (ie. did not threaten our survival) our species wide benevolence would continue. If, however, our survival were to be called into question we would have no difficulty in reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Are humans xenophobic? Not according to this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Are humans xenophobic? Hell yeah! It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human". We are the meanest, most aggressive, most bloodthirsty race on the planet. If we weren't we never would have made it this far. I think that has more to do with religion denying the idea of other Homonids than it does with xenophobia. Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation that promotes the survival of your own genepool. It ensures that you won't waste valuable resources on the preservation of someone (or something) elses genetics. I am majoring in Psychology and what you are speaking of has more to do with the gene conservation theory. Xenophobia is not even a factor. Xenophobia is mainly a nominal fallacy and not an evolutionary trait. However, the other trait that seems to be distinctly human (besides being ornery bastards) is our capacity to over-ride instinct. This is especially true when the motivating force behind the instinct has been tamed, in the case it would be survival. For the most part we no longer need to worry about day-to-day survival and so we afford ourselves the luxury of equality. I won’t even touch that. Needless to say you are WAY off. Sorry don’t take it personally it’s only a thread. If you would like me to e-mail you with what’s wrong in that statement than let me know? Long story short is that it would take about a page to show you. Once again what you are speaking of has more to do with the structure and use of English than anything in psychology. When I say equality I don't just mean among humans. Animal rights activists, greenpeace, and vegitarians are all products of our self-assured survival. This would apply to extra-terrestrial contact as well. So long as said contact was peaceful (ie. did not threaten our survival) our species wide benevolence would continue. If, however, our survival were to be called into question we would have no difficulty in reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be. I feel faint, sorry my friend, I truly feel bad because I most whole heartedly promise I am NOT attacking you or attempting to provoke a defense response from you, but you are way, way, way off. Sounds good in English but it just don’t hold up. Also, there ENTIRE Hominid line has only been around for about 4 to 5 million years. I believe that 2 BILLION would put you in the age of dinosaurs. [ December 07, 2002, 01:35: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
"I feel faint, sorry my friend, I truly feel bad because I most whole heartedly promise I am NOT attacking you or attempting to provoke a defense response from you, but you are way, way, way off. Sounds good in English but it just don’t hold up."
It sounds more like attacking than an explanation would frankly. "You are wrong" doesn't get us very far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif "Also, there ENTIRE Hominid line has only been around for about 4 to 5 million years. I believe that 2 BILLION would put you in the age of dinosaurs." Eh-eh. Last dinosaur dropped dead around 65 million years ago. 248 million years ago is around when they first appeared. I think what he's refering to with 2 billion years of evolution is every single organism between him and the first early life. Looks to be about the right time scale. Phoenix-D |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Quote:
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Phenix-D: I’m not sure about the time scale, you sound about right though. If you read his post again it seems clear (to me) that he is referring to the Hominid line only. Drawing the [starting] line for life is just too difficult to mention in any thread of this type.
It sounds as if I have offended you, I apologize and if this is the direction the thread is turning than we should all let it just slip into the oblivion at the bottom. As far as what I was referring to I could not agree more with your point that: “It sounds more like attacking than an explanation would frankly. "You are wrong" doesn't get us very far.” That is why I was careful to point out: “If you would like me to e-mail you with what’s wrong in that statement than let me know? Long story short is that it would take about a page to show you.” Since it would take so much I skipped it and left the option open. Thank you for pointing that out though, if you missed it than someone else may also. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Tisk, tisk, tisk! Shame, shame, shame!
Oh HI, Kamog! mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Shang, you can't simply say "you're wrong". You need to show how the person is wrong. Leaving it to private email doesn't really work for a public forum. What about everyone else that is/was reading and responding to the Posts? Why should they be excluded?
|
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Ok, let me start off by saying that Imperator Fyron is correct when he states “Leaving it to private email doesn't really work for a public forum. What about everyone else that is/was reading and responding to the Posts? Why should they be excluded?”
This is an excellent observation and I stand corrected. Thank you Imperator Fyron. I am not offering an excuse for myself I simply want to point out that most people cringe when psychologists enter a room. It is my speculation that this reaction is thanks to Freud. Before I begin allow me to set up four conventions. First: The explanation I offer is for critical reading and though it reflects the knowledge and training I have gained thus far in psychology it may prove to be wrong. Psychology is a living science and as with any living science there is always room for error and thus growth. This is merely a reflection given to the best of my ability. Second: As I create this explanation I will attempt to keep it as lay but concise as possible. This is not mean to be an insult. I only intend to make for easy reading, not sound like a textbook so to speak. I am sure that I will sound like a textbook, as the number of errors made by QuarianRex is numerous. Third: To shorting this post I have attempted to avoid reposting QuarianRex but it was necessary in some parts, where necessary I will proceed QuarianRex with a (Q). I had to so that I could formulate a proper reply and you may want to read it to follow along. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. Also I am not an English major so don’t beat me down for any type O’s. Fourth: A person in the Cognitive paradigm may not agree with my answer in part or whole. I respect my brothers and their viewpoint; however, I am of the Behavioral paradigm and thus cannot answer as they would. (Q) “It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be “human.” This may be correct; my point was not over the validity of the statement but over the accuracy. It can be debated that our inclusion of other species of hominid, which I believe QuarianRex means by “human” is a reflection of the development of xenophobic viewpoints. I however believe that the church has more to do with it than anything. The admittance of other hominids is disruptive to the concept of a god created man. In other words evolution vs. creationism is not my field and I am not attempting to point fingers or support either view. (Q) “Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation…” This is referred to as reification. Meaning that you have given name to an abstraction and treating it as if it is real. No one can open up your head, remove and measure something called xenophobia. I called it a nominal fallacy earlier and must correct myself now. The instinct that (Q) is referring to psychologist have studied in detail. If it was xenophobia than all animals can be called xenophobic. This is clearly wrong. The “Social Exchange Theory” which simply put states: When a member of a species commits an altruistic act it is only when they are most likely to receive help back in the future. The genes for pure asterism have most likely been removed from the gene pool by natural selection. Simply a birds warning call puts that one bird at a greater risk since it attracts the attention of the predator. Thus birds that made warning calls all the time for any species have been removed from the gene pool already. Humans display what is termed altruistic behavior but this is simply not true. Yes you may stop to help that stranger in need but ask yourself whom you are more likely to help a stranger or one of your neighbors? There are also a few other factors involved all of which have been studied. For example the bystander effect: you are less likely to assist if many other witnesses are present, guilt will increase the likely hood of helping, mood at the time and even more that I will not mention. (Q) states that we can override instinct. I agree with this but his calling it tamed is in question only because tamed is a term better applied to beasts. There is no debate that we override or instincts but it is more likely to be a combined factor of culture and our parenting along with genetic influenced aggressive tendencies. Our ability to “think” and “reason” weighed with the knowledge of the laws of our culture are also factors to consider. If being tame was truly the factor in question than we would not need to have the laws against murder and theft to name a few. Ask yourself when the Last time was you have seen a tame dog attack a human. They can be provoked, and in some inbreeding has caused mental instability but it is not the norm only the exception. As for (Q’s) claim to day-to-day survival this is simple not true. This viewpoint is most likely created by human egotism and the miss leading effect of the English language. Day-to-day survival is very much alive and well, it is the force that makes humans get up and go to work for instance. It may not have the classical guise of hunting for pray but you cannot refer to any instinct in a partial manner (as (Q) does) any more than you can refer to partial gravity or partial physics. It is simply not scientific. For the statement of equality I would like to know what is equal in our culture or any for that matter. If humans, in the partial context (Q) refers to, where truly equal than there would be no need for animal rights activists. The green peace movement is not just for the animal habitat it is also recognition of human dependency on the environment. This is getting lengthy and I did warn of it before hand. Stay with me I am almost done. Vegetarians are a choice in diet and should not be assumed as anything else. Humans are omnivores by evolution but particular tastes and choices of food vary by availability and culture and not by a desire to save the animals, if this where the case than vegetarians are taking from the herbivores. In all of human history there is far fewer years of peace compared to years of war (to the best of my knowledge), therefore I submit to you the reader my conclusion that there is no such thing as “[(Q)] our species wide benevolence.” If such a thing did apply than it would apply to us before it applied to another life extraterrestrial or otherwise. (Q) himself points to animal rights activists, why do we have them if we are benevolent? He is also contradicting himself when he makes the statements that we are “the meanest, most aggressive, most blood thirsty race on the planet.” How can you be both benevolent and bloodthirsty? “… reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be.” This is a colorful metaphor but does not hold water so to speak. At what point did humans throw off the tendencies to not destroy? To the best of my knowledge it is the ongoing process of destruction that leads to global wars and armed uprising to mention a few. (Q) also seems pretty specific in that two billion years of evolution refers to humans and not all life. As I stated above you cannot call a dog or frog xenophobic so he must be referring to humans. This is simply not a true statement for any other reason than humans have only been on this world in any form for four to five million years. After a little research at the University of Berkeley website I found Phonix-D’s statement that two billion years is pre-dinosaur was correct. Two billion years ago is the beginning of the first fossil records of life on earth. I really doubt they where xenophobic at any point. Finally let me say that you cannot label genes as xenophobic that would be teleological. Meaning that it would say or imply that genes of any species evolved for xenophobia. This put another way would imply that genes themselves are capable of directing their own evolution to some goal or purpose. I could be wrong but I believe that Darwin put that notion to rest; I believe that what (Q) is referring to would be closer to Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution. Thank you for your time and patients, President-Elect Shang Edit: I like this new avatar so much! [ December 07, 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Please define what is meant by "Cognitive paradigm" and "Behavioral paradigm". I don't know if I support either viewpoint, because I don't understand what they are.
Regarding "reification", I don't understand the point that was being made. We have to give xenophobia a name, even though it is an abstraction, because we cannot have a discussion without a name for it. I don't see a problem with that. But I don't think that was the point... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Sure Kamog, let me see if I can help out. In psychology today there are two prevailing viewpoints; called a paradigm you may look the word up in a dictionary if I am not clear enough. These are not the only two mind you, just the major two. The Cognitive paradigm attempts to understand behavior not just (over simplified) by the actions or behavior of the organism, but also by the mental processes going on in the brain. The Behavioral paradigm is not attempting to infer or understand the mental process, it is much too difficult because it cannot be measured or quantified, and thus it is scientifically inadequate. An example may help:
You open the fridge door to get milk. Cognitive paradigm: Not sure what they would say, maybe along the lines of you open the fridge because you are thinking about how thirsty you are. To be clear you will need to find someone of this discipline and ask him or her the same question. Behavioral paradigm: In the past you have had success at getting milk by going to the fridge and opening the door, the proximate cause may be inferred as a signal from the brain in response to a chemical imbalance that creates thirst. I could go on further but it not important for our example. Why did you get milk? Heck if I know ask a biologist. What is the signal from the brain? Ask a neuroscientist. As to the xenophobia yes it is the topic of the discussion. If you read what Q wrote in his post he is applying xenophobia to all species. This is what makes it reification. To be clearer he is moving it from a topic of discussion and applying it to humans etc as if it is a real and quantifiable thing. For comparison (not a very good one mind you but it makes the point) we may debate what a rock is made of (quartz, gypsum, granite) but we do not debate the rock itself. We can debate the notion or concept of xenophobia in all it’s forms, but we cannot measure it with our current technology, so we must avoid giving it permanency. The English language however is structured to give all things a name and place in the world and this can cause and has caused for many misunderstandings. For example the psychologist Richard Dawkins was physically attacked and badly beaten because a layperson did not take the time to understand what he was saying. Psychologists are not here to take away god or confuse and confound you. Psychology like any other science is here to improve humankind and since it is still a relatively new discipline (only about 150 or so years old) there remain many misunderstandings and bigotries toward the field and it’s students. I am getting wordy again so let me cut this post off now. [ December 07, 2002, 23:23: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
IMHO, both paradigms are insufficient explanations of human behavior. The behavioral paradigm ignores any mental process because it cannot be quantified. In essence, it reduces everything to a biological or chemical function. The cognitive paradigm, on the other hand, attempts to scientifically approach the unscientific. You can't observe or quantify or even verifiably repeat mental processes.
IMHO, the main failure of mainstream psychology is a focus on the observable and material, while excluding the existence of a spiritual aspect to man. Psychology may not try to get rid of God or any religion, but its theories exclude the possibility of the existence (or at least the influence) of anything extra-observable. |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
You point out that both are insufficient. I suppose that physics and all other sciences should take into account the effects of a spiritual aspect. Do you really believe this? You’re counter point does not hold weight in any true debate because you are speaking and viewing in a most non-scientific light. Spiritual does not fit into any modern day science. You’re reaction is just the one that I was referring to when I stated that the opinion toward psychologists has already been tainted. Did it ever occur to you that Copernicus faced the same difficulty in his time? That style of thinking did not change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. I am sorry but I cannot see what you’re point is other than to throw what I have stated here out the window because it makes the idea of the spirit and god come into question. If all science relied on that style of thinking we would be living in thatched huts plowing with crude iron tools.
What is IMHO anyway? |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Pres-Elect Shang, since you qualified your post as to it's intent and content
Quote:
I would like to expand on your template, If I might? First, [quote] (Q) "It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be "human." If we except "Last couple hundred years" as 2(two) or 3(three) at the very most. That is totally incorrect! One example is a man named " Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)" or "Ganesa (1507-some time after 1564)". I could continue, but I am sure you get my point! I did say since all of your post was qualified, I wouldn't disagree with YOUR comments! Second, Quote:
Third, and Last, Quote:
Krsqk, your opinions and objections are noted! I do not Subscribe to a single "paradigm", though. Since "paradigms," or "conceptual world-views" are varied, so must my "paradigms" be! mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif [ December 08, 2002, 00:05: Message edited by: mlmbd ] |
Re: Psychology NOT religion
Thanks for the break, I am not asking anyone to prescribe to my point of view so it is really pleasant to see someone keeping an open mind and reading for readings sake.
I don’t really see what you are driving at with first point. There are many races amongst humans and we are the only “human species” (if I may be so loose) on this planet since the other two died out x amount of years ago. Can you explain you’re point some for me please? I’m ok with the paradigm part it really has nothing to with the topic and was only my attempt to answer a very good question. If you look in Webster’s though it should give one definition of a paradigm as a set of beliefs that belong to a common view or something to that effect. When I read your line it tends to reminded me more of a schema than a paradigm. [ December 08, 2002, 00:28: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.