the mind works on chemicals and electricity...

both tangible.

Let me clarify that I'm not demanding an exact blue print of how you think the mind works in amazing detail. I'm just trying to get a vague outline of what you mean here. So you're saying that the mind is a mix of chemicals with electricity going through it, something of that sort? How does this create thought?

I am not a biology major and wouldn't have the slightest idea what initiates a thought... or where it comes from, but I do know that thoughts can be "seen" via electric charges and chemical signatures.

I am not saying that there are things that I do not understand, im saying that all things can be explained logically with the right data.

But is this thought? Earlier you said that words were sound, but this isn't true; the word "sound" means something very different from the word, well, "word". For instance, even though I'm using a totally different medium than speech, right now I'm relying upon words to communicate with you. Whether through speech or symbols, I can convey the words, because they represent an idea that I'm trying to convey. In other words, words translate an idea into sound, and allow me to translate via sound or text an idea to you. But it cannot be said that the words themselves are the sounds or text. The syllables "Oh" and "Shen" have no meaning at all in the abstract, but I can connect them to convey the idea of a huge body of water.

What makes electric pulses through the brain any different? Are these thoughts, or are they merely evidence of thoughts? You could describe the physical process by which someone is running, and say that that was why they ran; but it would be more accurate to say that they ran because they chose such an action for whatever reason, and the actual tightening of muscles and sinew and electric pulses to the legs are all simply the process by which this will is carried out.

This is a logical impossibility, funnily enough. It is absolutely impossible to have a completely logical explanation of the Universe (or at any rate, reality). If you don't believe me, try one. It doesn't have to be falsifiable or based on actual observation; simply construct a theory that would hold up internally without any testing where logic holds throughout.

so if you cant prove everything is real, then you should automatically allow everything into the realm of possibilities?...

No.

But you shouldn't dismiss something out of hand simply because it doesn't seem rational to you. Nor should you dismiss an idea or theory simply because it operates at a metaphysical level.

I dismiss all things, and find myself less disappointed then the average douche with a candle and a copy of interview w/ a vampire

Reality can be explained with the right tools and knowledge. Just because we do not know how something works does not make it impossible.

It is completely feasable that one day we will understand the machinations behind reality and the universe.

thats what I said

If there's one thing I've learned that has helped me get by in this world, it is this: Be skeptical. If something sounds too silly to be real, it probably is.

either that or it sounds so silly coz it is acutally real

your logic is flawless... I dont know why I didnt see it that way to begin with. thank you for letting me in on that little gem.

Not through logic and the scientific process, it's not. Again, I invite anyone to attempt to construct a model of reality that's internally consistent that doesn't rely upon self-causation or divinity. This model doesn't have to be right, doesn't have to be remotely accurate. Make it as simple as you like. All it has to do is be internally consistent, without an appeal to mysticism or self-cause.

Just because I cannot do it does not mean it is inherently impossible.

I know you said it Manifesto.... I was reiterating for your benefit

DM just because we do not have an explanation does not mean we will never have one. The universe and reality exist and as such have explanations. "chance is but the name for a law not recognized."

Internal Combustion engines exist and yet 200 years ago you would have been hard pressed to get an answer if you asked someone what an internal combustion engine was. The science was there we just did not recognize the process at that point.

You misunderstand. It is not impossible because we don't know the precise details. It's impossible because the theory is fundamentally flawed in construct. It simply cannot be done. That's why I said you didn't have to base your theory on actual facts- the truth of the theory is irrelevant. It's the very concept that doesn't work. If you had actually taken the time to attempt the exercise, you might have realized this. It would tend to go something like this:

Q: What is the origin of the Universe?
A: The Big Bang
Q: What caused the Big Bang.
A: Ah... maybe the remains of a past Universe.
Q: And where did that Universe come from?
A: The Universe before it.
Q: So there's a chain of infinitely self-replicating Universes?
A: Yeah.
Q: Where did an infinite chain of self-replicating Universes come from? Why does it exist?
A: Ummm....


Or it could involve giant squids and peanut butter. Doesn't matter. First cause is going to stump every single attempt you make.

I was not talking about the origin. We do not need to understand the origin of anything in order to understand its nature.

I could care less where the universe came from. It adheres to certain laws as does everything within it and without it. As such those laws can be understood and explained.

he shoots... he SCOOOOOORES!!!

Nice try, but reality is causal. You can't fully understand the form and function of the Universe without an origin. That would be like saying you don't have to know anything about European history to understand EU politics. Time isn't something superfluous you can just ignore because it defeats your point.

The guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

Why does the universe have to start at some point. Human minds are so tiny and weak, they simply cant fully grasp a concept like "infinity". Yes, it is possible that something has simply always been around, and always will be around.