:: Community ::
ForumsMessagesGroupsChat (1)Friends
 

Forums :: Other Junk :: Off-Topic :: On The Legalization of Marijuana

You must sign in to post.

Page 4 / 5 1   2   3   4   5 

Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Feb 28, 2012 @ 11:44am

 moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 944
Location: Mooooooooo

It's not unecessarily complex. I declare you statement dogma until you prove it. It's simple. We experience the real world in order to understand it. If we only receive knowledge from the outside world, we only have knowledge of the idea of a tree (the real tree does not go into your mind). If we only project an outside world, we our operating with our own presuppositions first and still only are operating with the knowledge of ideas (Your idea is sent out and so your idea of "tree" is already known, but it's still only an idea). Instead, what is necessary is an operation of both receiving and projecting as an interaction. Without both, there is no experience and we don't actually know the real world. It is a necessity that there be experience.
post updated on Feb 28, 2012 @ 11:47am
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Feb 28, 2012 @ 12:43pm

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

"(...)  Without both, there is no experience and we don't actually know the real world. It is a necessity that there be experience."

That's what I said before; we indeed don't know the real world. The knowledge of the whole real world can't fit in a mind, especially not when the real world includes the own mind it is having acknowledge of. You sense a projection of reality.

I could go on explaining this but I don't think that's necessary, because you seem to suggest that animals and computers can't "experience". When an animal sees a tree then this animal also gets the idea of the tree in his head. Same as that I can experience a film of a tree playing on my computer; I will experience this tree, so would an animal if it was watching. This tree (no matter how boring that film would be) did not multiply in my computer trough which I experienced it.

So again, humans and animals both see true reality, they'll individually make a selective projection of that reality constantly in their minds. The only difference is that the human is consciously aware of this process, the human will know it is experiencing.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 1, 2012 @ 8:49am

 moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 944
Location: Mooooooooo

First, Kant is dumb. Stop reading him.

Second, "...we indeed don't know the real world" and, "So again, humans and animals both see true reality..." How can we see it and not know it?

Third, "You sense a projection of reality." Why is what I'm receiving from reality the same as everyone else?
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 1, 2012 @ 10:40am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

"(...) "...we indeed don't know the real world" and, "So again, humans and animals both see true reality..." How can we see it and not know it?"

Well yea, I wrote a whole page about this subject, but I'll try to give a brief explanation here. Reality is numbers, as a human or animal we receive some of these numbers trough our senses; we, then, individually give a meaning to these numbers.

Maybe it gets clearer when we take an example we used earlier: "the tree". When you look at a picture of a tree then this is not the real tree you're looking at, the real tree is somewhere else. Even when I'm standing in front of the real tree and see it, then this picture of the tree I get in my mind is not the real tree; reality did not duplicate in my mind. My mind shows a selective simplified picture of reality, that is "the projection of reality", and this is different for everyone.

"Third, "You sense a projection of reality.""

If I said this then I apologize cause that is wrong. You sense true reality; you experience it as a projection.

"Why is what I'm receiving from reality the same as everyone else?"

It isn't. But it would illogical not to assume that both our projections of reality are very close. Just because our projections of reality are not 100% equal does not mean that when I see a tree; you see a boat. Our human eyes and mind are very similar to each other, though they are not exactly the same.

When it comes to defining more complex situations in reality then both our projections of reality do not only get defined by the differences of our eyes (for example), but also your method of questioning starts to play a significant role; your memory, personality, etcetera.

Example: You and me, again, both still looking at that tree which we both agreed is a tree (btw: giving it the name "tree" is part of our method of questioning; it's taught). Suddenly between the leaves of that tree a little squirrel shows his head. You look at it and smile "aaawww, cute little squirrel!". At the same time I scream and take it for a run; when I was a kid my little brother got eaten and killed by a squirrel. Our methods of questioning are completely different for defining a squirrel; though we both still might give the animal the same name, we experience it in a whole different way.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 1, 2012 @ 3:29pm

 moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 944
Location: Mooooooooo

I read this and got excited. You keep using the word "projection", but you're not meaning it like philosophers use it today. You're saying that reality projects, but that we receive it differently. You are a receptionist. This makes me happy.

It is true our eyes and mind are different. You're little brother was eaten by a squirrel when you were little and therefore your scared of squirrels. However, is what you're scared of (squirrels) different from what I think is cute? Reality is projecting itself, but it projects itself truly. This is known through multiple ways, but the more Eastern/Continental way is probably better in this situation.

Phenomenology. To be continued.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 1, 2012 @ 3:50pm

 sidekick

Joined: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 2059
Location: Doylestown, PA

Hollander is foreign, no need to correct the foreigners!
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 1, 2012 @ 4:41pm

 moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 944
Location: Mooooooooo

Sidekick, shoo.

Phenomenology and intersubjectivity will, I think, be most effective for you because it is a common European way to prove the outside world shows itself truly and maybe the culture similarities will make it easier to understand. All of this is what I remember of Husserl, who, like Kant, wanted to save science from philosophy saying you can't know anything.

Phenomenology is the study of happenings. Things happen and we get to take them in, one way or another. All our knowledge is based upon the experiences of these phenomena. Without experience, there is not very much learning. We can do some ontological thought, but most of this requires a bright developed mind. We have a few innate abilities, like breathing and knowing how to suckle and this and that, but experience is the main source of our knowledge.

When we go experience the world, we have not only consciousness of self, but consciousness of time. We know what is in the past, what is in the present, and, most importantly, we can predict the future. If I were to mix hydrochloric acid and magnesium, there will always be a reaction. I can predict this. While philosophers like Hume say that we only have records of what hydrochloric acid and magnesium have done so far, Husserl will come back and say that hydrochloric acid is showing what it does. It will always react because it is hydrochloric acid. That is how hydrochloric acid is built, and it will always react in this very same way. Hydrochloric acid has completely revealed itself to us. There is no difference in the projection of reality between people here.

The other way to show the objective world is intersubjectivity. This, basicially, means that the interactions we have within culture shows the real world. Through these interactions, everyone can know squirrels are cute and they won't eat your little brothers. Through these many many eyes, everyone can look at a tree and then communicate the tree through language. All projections of reality, if there are projections (I disagree, personally), are communicated through language and the original reality is understood fully.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 2, 2012 @ 10:49am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

"I read this and got excited. You keep using the word "projection", but you're not meaning it like philosophers use it today. You're saying that reality projects, but that we receive it differently. You are a receptionist. This makes me happy."

Our projection of reality we get in our mind is also still a part of reality. With the projection of reality I do not mean that reality projects itself, it's that the picture we see and understand of reality is a projection. Like same as a photo of a tree is a projection of the real tree. Try not to categorize my ideas with the work of others too much. I try to use very basic english, not only because that's all I'm capable of, but more importantly because I'm looking for something simple; logics are simple, our idea of reality will get simpler and simpler. Terms philosophers use are often vague and originate from past philosophers who were most likely even more vague, that's a lot of vagueness.

"It is true our eyes and mind are different. You're little brother was eaten by a squirrel when you were little and therefore your scared of squirrels. However, is what you're scared of (squirrels) different from what I think is cute?"

Are all squirrels truly murderers? I came back with a helmet and I'm ready to look at the tree with you again where the little squirrel is still calmly nibbling on a nut he found. We look at the same squirrel but we both experience it in a different way because of our different methods of questioning. You now explain me that the average squirrel is friendly and cute, and that the squirrel that killed my brother was possibly some kind of mutant squirrel. I agree with you because I haven't had any bad experiences with squirrels since that day my brother died; we both agree squirrels are cute and we believe this is the truth. It seems this is logically true to us, but there can still be someone else believing something different.

The squirrel is part of reality and does therefore truly exist, and there also is an absolute truth defining the squirrel a monster or a cute pet. Absolute truths are everywhere, the problem just is that we can't be absolutely sure of them. The only absolute truth I can be sure of is that I have a conscience, all other truths I believe to be true bear at least a tiny bit of uncertainty. Except my conscience I believe in logical truths, one of those is that I believe that you, also, believe in logical truths.

"(...) All of this is what I remember of Husserl, who, like Kant, wanted to save science from philosophy saying you can't know anything."

Science is part of philosophy. Reality is true; reality is infinite; reality is deterministic; reality is perfect. Put these four together and the consequences for us are that we can never be sure if reality is really true, we can only experience reality finitely, we can understand reality only indeterministically, and reality will to the individual always be experienced as imperfect.

"Phenomenology is the study of happenings. Things happen and we get to take them in, one way or another. All our knowledge is based upon the experiences of these phenomena. Without experience, there is not very much learning. We can do some ontological thought, but most of this requires a bright developed mind. We have a few innate abilities, like breathing and knowing how to suckle and this and that, but experience is the main source of our knowledge."

Experience is our only source.

"When we go experience the world, we have not only consciousness of self, but consciousness of time."

You make it unnecessarily complex again. Most animals and humans are aware of self and time, the only difference is is that humans have conscious awareness. ALL what humans experience, can be experienced consciously.

"We know what is in the past, what is in the present, and, most importantly, we can predict the future."

Again, same as animals. We can only try to predict the future logically.

"If I were to mix hydrochloric acid and magnesium, there will always be a reaction. I can predict this."

You predict it will bubble and some smoke will come of, and this will always be true. But you cannot understand and therefore predict this reaction absolutely accurately; deterministically. Reality cannot happen before it happens, the uncertainty lies in how it reacts; science is incapable in predicting how many bubbles will precisely pop up with some dose of hydrochloric acid and magnesium. The reaction of hydrochloric acid and magnesium is never exactly the same, or at least you can never know.

To name something else: I can weigh an apple and my weighting machine will tell me it's 104 grams. This is logically true but only (assuming my weighting machine is accurate) because it bears some sort of uncertainty, the apple can still weigh 104,00000001 grams or 103,999999999 grams. The apple does have a true weight as it is part of reality, but I can never know what that is absolutely, all logical truths bear space of inaccuracy or plain vagueness.

In the past you named another example, you said something like "water always boils at a temperature of 100C". It never boils at exactly 100C (let out the fact that you can boil water when it's only 70C), if we boil water with normal air pressure it will have a temperature of 100C; it still can be 100,0000001C or 99,9999999C.

So you can't measure something and get absolute results, neither can you predict something with absolute results. Also you can't prove to me that I'm not living in the Matrix without stating that that would be plain illogical.

"While philosophers like Hume say that we only have records of what hydrochloric acid and magnesium have done so far, Husserl will come back and say that hydrochloric acid is showing what it does. It will always react because it is hydrochloric acid. That is how hydrochloric acid is built, and it will always react in this very same way. Hydrochloric acid has completely revealed itself to us."

I agree that hydrochloric acid revealed itself to us within our range of knowledge. Like I said this means it will always start to bubble when you mix it with magnesium, and it will never suddenly poof in a clump of pure gold (what is what Hume states is possible).

"There is no difference in the projection of reality between people here."

There is, but not noticeable within our way of defining this reaction.

"The other way to show the objective world is intersubjectivity. This, basicially, means that the interactions we have within culture shows the real world. Through these interactions, everyone can know squirrels are cute and they won't eat your little brothers. Through these many many eyes, everyone can look at a tree and then communicate the tree through language. All projections of reality, if there are projections (I disagree, personally), are communicated through language and the original reality is understood fully."

Understood logically; not fully. The reason I say this is, if we go back to the apple, because when I say "the apple weighing 104 grams is an absolute truth" then I would say that this apple is both 104,00000001 grams and 103,999999999 grams, what is nonsense; an apple can't have two different weights at the same time. In Quantum Mechanics we can only calculate with uncertainties, modern science is already indeterministic.
post updated on Mar 2, 2012 @ 10:50am
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 8, 2012 @ 9:34am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

Why did this discussion die Tx? Is it because of your indulgence (I hope not) or because of my obstinate view; unaccommodating to your visions? :D
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 8, 2012 @ 10:36am

 moooo

Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 944
Location: Mooooooooo

Mid terms. I promise I'll get to this at some point. I haven't forgotten.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 8, 2012 @ 10:54am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

Haha ok ;)
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 8, 2012 @ 11:29am

 grimfandango

Joined: Mar 6, 2011
Posts: 489
Location: Land of the Dead

Actually I would argue that using marijuana can be a intellectual pursuit and ergo an intellectual one, as it certainly allows things to be viewed from a different perspective, maybe thought's or internal reference or reality it's self and thus a new model of psychology is born, one that can both be studied from an internal or external perspective.   

As for any legal status and I think this is important to point out..

Globally the war against drug's profit's not only the criminal's but society it's self think how many people are employed on a Global scale in the effort maybe.. grabbing a number out of the air.. 1 million directly and 2 million indirectly, I am of the notion maybe more than this on a global scale, esp if you include agency's and company's involved in it but not as a primary focus ie. armed forces.. Now put them all out of work, unemployment high in your area, no just the consenting adult's.

But the unemployment would go up if we legalize "Drug's" if we study the "illegal narcotic" economy that is now so much a part of the global economy closing this market would in my opinion cause more issues than highlighted in original post, it ok in my opinion was born out of recognition of it's own profitability to both sides of the equation, no Government really cares if you use "drugs" or not, sure individual's who make up the governing body might, and popular consensus might lend an over all protective feeling, but the true governance here is one of money and greed on both sides of the fence.

Be that as a measure of lower unemployment or counting the beans as the meth leaves the lab, oh got myself started there.. cause actually the corruption runs much much deeper, regardless of whether you live in a country like me with state funded health care or like most country's where private medical insurance is the norm for most residents..


What go's around comes around, the powers that be allowed this to come into existence I can assure you as usual not for the benefit of you or me unless you the reader are part of that power.. 

As for intellectual banter just remember the dictator of the forums does not like it, he is a simple crab like creature, need I say more..
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Mar 8, 2012 @ 11:46am

 marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7248
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
Leave out of your pot speech. He has no part in this debate.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 9, 2012 @ 5:26pm

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

Bump.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 2:44am

 sbdxaric

Joined: Apr 13, 2009
Posts: 599

Leave out of your pot speech. He has no part in this debate.

But maaaaaarrrkkkkyyyy, the lord created pot for us to indulge in, just like He created deers, beauty, and racism! WOOO WEEDFIEND2O12 #n0r3gr3t$
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 5:32am

 garbasko

Joined: Jul 3, 2011
Posts: 44
Location: #All about Ambition

Should be legal, does no harm to anyone. If people gets hustled its their problem.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 7:10am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

"Should be legal, does no harm to anyone. If people gets hustled its their problem."

Should xtc, by that logic, be legal to?
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 8:19am

 dart

Joined: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1756
Location: Ready to destroy you.

Should be legal, does no harm to anyone. If people gets hustled its their problem.


Should stay illegal, cause a bunch of nutballs, would over use it... as always.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 8:47am

 Nanno

Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 4644
Location: Colorado

The Queen Bee
Dart, how does banning something make it inaccessible? Does no one learn from history? Prohibition doesn't work, people. We tried that back in the 1920's and it was a miserable failure. I don't see how drugs are any different than alcohol. Overdosing on toxins (legal or otherwise) should be considered a health problem, not a criminal problem. Only if you harm someone else as a result of your intoxication should it become a criminal issue.
Re: On The Legalization of Marijuana :: Jun 16, 2012 @ 10:48am

 hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

The most important thing you should do is explain people why they shouldn't do it. By just forbidding it you don't take away the need people have.
post updated on Jun 16, 2012 @ 10:48am

Page 4 / 5 1   2   3   4   5 

You must sign in to post.