Do people really believe in Angels?

[futuremd]

Yeah, you're frustrated because you can't pull up any stats to prove me wrong.

Actually, this phrase is not cogent.

You don't say "well you can't prove me wrong"

Thats not how this works.

If you assert something, you have to back it up. 

No one says "well this proves you wrong"

You can not prove a negative. You haven't even substantiated what you're saying in the FIRST place. You can't work off the assumption that you're automatically correct, in addition to your argument making no sense, and the go forward to make more logical fallacies on top of that.

I'm not making up a definition. I'm telling you what I think it is. Why are you so mad?

Need I say more?

Everything in Science starts as a theory. Just because I can't prove it at the moment doesn't mean I'm wrong. 

So don't assert that you're right.

Remain where you actually are: With an unsubstantiated claim. 

Otherwise, don't go forward and assert your claim as a given, when it is in fact, NOT. 

It doesn't give you the leeway to come in and tell me I'm wrong.

Actually...


It gives me the leeway to tell you to not make unsubstantiated claims, as i've done SEVERAL times.

I haven't even said you're wrong. 

I've said that if you're going to assert something  YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING THAT CLAIM.

I'm telling you what I feel and I'm stealing work? Okay. 

I DO NOT care what you're feeling or what you're thinking.

If you're going to assert what you "think" then take it to be indicative of some sort of transcendent truth, then you're responsible for supporting why that claim is universally true, real, or valid.

Otherwise, save it.

I, personally, won't be bothered by the fact that "you have ideas" but all of a sudden you can't be bothered with actually having to support what you're saying.

You're being ridiculous and almost, dare I say, irresponsible by refusing to even be accountable for your own wild speculation.

Yeah. I have ideas too. Spiderman exists because I say he does. I don't have to prove anything to you. So there. You're just mad that you can't prove me wrong. 

Oh and we're all turtle at our core. You're just not educated. 

Yeah, we're vessels meaning we DICTATE what we do with our body and mind. Your brain and mind don't control you, you control them.

Actually, your brain (namely your brainstem) controls quite a bit of you, beyond what you think you have direct control over. 

Try again.  

But if you're content thinking that we're artificial intelligence created by our brain, I'm not mad at you.

What does this phrase even mean? 

You JUST said individuality is what you make it. Who is you? 

You are whatever you say you are or whatever representation of yourself you are comfortable with  

 

[brainwashed21]

man i guess my thoughts dont count unless i have facts to back it up lol.. not everything has a beginning tho?  

 

[futuremd]

If an atheist is from Anaheim, and is a fan of the Los Angeles ANGELS of Anaheim, does that mean he believes in Angels??

Do you believe in the Yankees or the US Mens Basketball team?

How do you believe in an entity? 

It exists. The Angels Baseball team exists. What is there to "believe" in.

Thats why I don't like the word "belief" because it asserts that you have a choice in the matter of deciding what you choose to make more real, true, or valid, aside from what actually is. 

 

[futuremd]

man i guess my thoughts dont count unless i have facts to back it up lol.. not everything has a beginning tho?  

Nope.

Unless you can show that it does. 

There are advances in quantum mechanics that show that *gasp* particles can pop in/out of existence.

Now you can say "well that can't be"...and thats the problem with relying merely on assertions that you make and only saying that you'll align yourself with things that only make sense to you.

Well sometimes reality doesn't correspond to what we expect so the only way we can (more important now than ever) learn more about things is to follow the evidence because all too often, our "expectations" fall extremely flat. 

 

[KMante]

If an atheist is from Anaheim, and is a fan of the Los Angeles ANGELS of Anaheim, does that mean he believes in Angels??

Do you believe in the Yankees or the US Mens Basketball team?

How do you believe in an entity? 

It exists. The Angels Baseball team exists. What is there to "believe" in.

Thats why I don't like the word "belief" because it asserts that you have a choice in the matter of deciding what you choose to make more real, true, or valid, aside from what actually is. 

Okay. I wasn't that serious, but thanks for the response!

With your response, I have a serious question.

If you are a fan of a team, and the team name has a word or phase that you don't "believe" in, why would you be a fan of that team?

I ask this because if you are a fan of a certain team, that means you support (stand by) them, right? Is that too much of a reach?

Side note: I wished the Yankees never existed! 

 

 

[brainwashed21]

lol well i havent brushed up on my quantum physics.. but watched a video on netflix. i remember the whole thing of a basketball, different realities nd those moments where things pop up for no reason. still tho theres an origin to all that happens.. somehow. i have no fact but my own sense of hope keeps me going.. i refuse to die thinking this is it.. i dont care for all the religious hoopla... but man is life a waste full of senseless restrictions, if it turns out my being is as significant as being a roach

 

[boys noize]

Philosophy is nothing more than people speculating from their intuition.... You say science is not a thing but supported by fact. I say screw science being the one that says what's real or not. What's intuition? direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. Or the ability to acquire knowledge without inference and/or the use of reason. Now in no way am I saying that this credits religion/angels to be real... But as I said, can science deny beginning from intuiton? The man that made fire.. you don't think that was out of neccessity? He didn't have proof from anywhere to be able to make that.. electricity? You think that man just woke up one day nd made it? He thought about it, he believed it could happen.. they never saw it until they created it.. a person believing in a higher power is wrong because you can't see it? How did people make it through slavery, crossing crounties to the states? Off hope that there would be better days.. a belief nd faith you can't see.. regardless if they believed in god or buddha.. once they overcame that obstacle it became real. I don't understand how you don't see that.. your science is created by philosophy and intuition.. everything has a beginning

You wouldn't be saying this if, Pluto forbid, you found yourself stretched out across a table in the ER. Who you putting your life in the hands of? "God"? or the doctor in the scrubs getting ready to do all he can with all the knowledge he's accumulated over the years of rigorous study and practice?

 

[longstroke]

This is where you came in to challenge, what I stated to Future MD

Hope does not force humanity to coexist so that we survive. Nor does it drive humanity. You need to brush up on your history and philosophy and then your history of philosophy.

It does, know why? If  we do not know the answer to certain circumstances, situations, we HOPE to find an answer to them. If I cannot communicate with you, I HOPE that I can reach you in some manner, thus the intervention of the good doctor. 

Has nothing to do with humanity's motivation, struggle to survive, or any of your aforementioned claims. Hope isn't keeping humanity in it's current state, Aristotle, Confucius, Kant, Lu Bu, the age of reason, the Renaissance, and several other philosophers and important figures, past world events/periods can all tell you that and are evidence of it. Granted it's important but is not responsible for what you say.
This continued attempt to insult in such a condescending nature just makes you look petty. If your stance has nothing supporting it stop replying I pretty much could already tell given your first response to me. If you can't or don't want to defend your stance that's fine too but either way you'd still be wrong

According to who, you?

I also made no mention of HOPE keeping humanity in its current state.

Just because you can spout off the names of certain philosophers, those who were wrong about many things themselves, like Aristotle,  Galileo proved him wrong by rolling two balls of different masses down an incline plane and timing them using a water clock. He found that the mass of an object does not affect how quickly it accelerates  due to gravity, showing Aristotle that his theory was nothing but a guess, doesn't make you seem smart. You wanna talk about Confucious? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that's funny! He sure didn't visit the projects in Chicago, where many young black men today are devoid of HOPE, with proof being the current murder rate in that city, which shows them turning on themselves in obscene numbers, which also proves that without HOPE, often times a solution to life's most simple problems will never be realized.

You see, this is why quoting Dr. Seuss makes sense when discussing the matter of HOPE with you. Your reality exists in a vacuum, where 17th century beliefs are no better than that of the King James Bible.  

Having HOPE is what allows you to change what seems to be FATE. This drives humanity, forces us to seek change where needed.

So going back to Dr Seuss, that great twentieth century philosopher, SAM I AM persisted, HOPING that my man would actually try Green Eggs and Ham.

Sam I Am's persistence wins out in the end, and I am sure that you understand that, don't you? 

Without HOPE, Sam I Am would not have even tried.

 

[noblekane]

If an atheist is from Anaheim, and is a fan of the Los Angeles ANGELS of Anaheim, does that mean he believes in Angels??

lol

 

[offwhitewhite]

Good and evil are just concepts and can simply be defined as things you do and don't like or things that are in your best interest or not. There's plenty of other ways to simplify and get to the core of those two things. More than one way to look at it. That'd be an issue falling in the realm of philosophy, specifically dealing with philosophy of ethics/morals.
The soul though, not so much. You'd need to at least have a definition of it or an example or are you saying the soul is just a concept that can be simplified down to something else and can be as random and arbitrary as any other act of good or evil? There's proof for consciousness, there are tests to tell if a person has one and/or if it's working correctly. I know it's formed by electrical synapses in the brain though, so it'd be somewhere there.
What you're saying he's saying isn't making sense. How can free will be an illusion and that everything we do is limited by our brain's capability? The capability of the brain is what allows free will to exist. When did he say we are artificial intelligence?
If it's your brain, it's you're doing. You're talking like the brain is separate from yourself. As if it's controlling you and your actions and has it's own agenda. It's really not making any sense and I'm pretty sure I haven't read anyone saying in this thread until your post. It honestly feels like I'm reading science fiction with what you're saying he's saying.

First, science does not prove anything. Science provides supports for or fails to provide support for a hypothesis. When there is enough support it becomes accepted (often as a fact) until alternative hypothesis that are better explanations gather evidence for support and the old fact (the atom is the smallest unit of matter possible) is replaced with new information.

If you believe free will and consciousness are created by and limited by the brain's capability, that means you believe we are artificial intelligence. It's the same as a programmer created a very, very advanced A.I system. Will that A.I ever do things on it's own and outside of what's programmed? NO. 

“Where is the experience of red in your brain?” The question was put to me by Deepak Chopra at his Sages and Scientists Symposium in Carlsbad, Calif., on March 3. A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as “redness”) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong. “The idea that subjective experience is a result of electrochemical activity remains a hypothesis,” Chopra elaborated in an e-mail. “It is as much of a speculation as the idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it causes brain activity and creates the properties and objects of the material world.”

 

[Master Zik]

This is where you came in to challenge, what I stated to Future MD

Hope does not force humanity to coexist so that we survive. Nor does it drive humanity. You need to brush up on your history and philosophy and then your history of philosophy.

It does, know why? If  we do not know the answer to certain circumstances, situations, we HOPE to find an answer to them. If I cannot communicate with you, I HOPE that I can reach you in some manner, thus the intervention of the good doctor. 

This is NOT true for all and every situation. You're speaking so loosely and in generalizations as if it's an absolute. If you don't understand me I don't have to hope you one day will. That goes for all of humanity. Instead of that I could say easily kill you for disagreeing with me. Hope is not forcing humanity to survive. You speak as if that's what makes ppl act on things. That is limited.

The fact that you thought Dr. Seuss would've helped make your point clearer is pretty funny though.

Has nothing to do with humanity's motivation, struggle to survive, or any of your aforementioned claims. Hope isn't keeping humanity in it's current state, Aristotle, Confucius, Kant, Lu Bu, the age of reason, the Renaissance, and several other philosophers and important figures, past world events/periods can all tell you that and are evidence of it. Granted it's important but is not responsible for what you say.

This continued attempt to insult in such a condescending nature just makes you look petty. If your stance has nothing supporting it stop replying I pretty much could already tell given your first response to me. If you can't or don't want to defend your stance that's fine too but either way you'd still be wrong

According to who, you?

According to various other philosophies on humanity and how we function and interact. According to various events in history. I'm beginning to think you're not even comprehending what I've been saying and that's why you wasted several prior posts trying your best to insult me and avoid addressing what I said.

I also made no mention of HOPE keeping humanity in its current state.

If you're saying that hope forces humanity to survive does that not include humanity in it's current state today? or were you making that blanket statement as if it were a fact only for the past?

Just because you can spout off the names of certain philosophers, those who were wrong about many things themselves, like Aristotle, Galileo proved him wrong by rolling two balls of different masses down an incline plane and timing them using a water clock. He found that the mass of an object does not affect how quickly it accelerates
 due to gravity
, showing Aristotle that his theory was nothing but a guess, doesn't make you seem smart. You wanna talk about Confucious? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that's funny! He sure didn't visit the projects in Chicago, where many young black men today are devoid of HOPE, with proof being the current murder rate in that city, which shows them turning on themselves in obscene numbers, which also proves that without HOPE, often times a solution to life's most simple problems will never be realized.

This is so irrelevant, I gotta assume you're doing this on purpose. What does Aristotle being wrong about the different mass of two objects not changing its acceleration have to do with this statement you made that deal with the motivations and specifically the philosophy of man and why we coexist, a claim you still have yet to support in anyway shape or form? Do you know of any of the ideas Aristotle put forth? Confucius? Dog, I study this. I'm not just naming names to name them. The same thing when I mentioned specific events. Confucius or Plato didn't need to go to Chicago to speak on the nature of man. I really think there's a wide divide on this subject that you're either purposely ignoring, arrogantly dismissing, or simply do not understand all in efforts to make yourself think you're right about your statement.

You see, this is why quoting Dr. Seuss makes sense when discussing the matter of HOPE with you. Your reality exists in a vacuum, where 17th century beliefs are no better than that of the King James Bible.  

We're not just discussing hope though. You're saying that forced humanity to survive. That it drives humanity. You're ignoring so many other things yet my reality is the one that exists in a vacuum. Egoism, utilitarianism, kantianism, intellectualism, etc.

Having HOPE is what allows you to change what seems to be FATE. This drives humanity, forces us to seek change where needed.

Son who the **** SAYS FATE EXISTS? Who is acknowledging fate? Seems only you are. If fate plays a large part in you trying to support this statement then please tell me why fate or "what seems to be fate" should even be factored in? If someone sees an obstacle, sees a wrong, sees a norm that they disagree with it doesn't mean that it's something that seems to be fate. You can easily be from one place go to a different culture and know there's a better way. From that point action in order to change and the outcome would be based off the outcome of past experiences and observations.

So going back to Dr Seuss, that great twentieth century philosopher, SAM I AM persisted, HOPING that my man would actually try Green Eggs and Ham.

Sam I Am's persistence wins out in the end, and I am sure that you understand that, don't you? 

Without HOPE, Sam I Am would not have even tried.

First, science does not prove anything. Science provides supports for or fails to provide support for a hypothesis. When there is enough support it becomes accepted (often as a fact) until alternative hypothesis that are better explanations gather evidence for support and the old fact (the atom is the smallest unit of matter possible) is replaced with new information.

Now I didn't say anything about science in that post but you claiming a soul exists is not supported by science.

If you believe free will and consciousness are created by and limited by the brain's capability, that means you believe we are artificial intelligence. It's the same as a programmer created a very, very advanced A.I system. Will that A.I ever do things on it's own and outside of what's programmed? NO. 

You're missing something here to make this connection. If our free will acts in unison with out consciousness how are we artificial intelligence? Who is the programmer? What was programmed?

“Where is the experience of red in your brain?” The question was put to me by Deepak Chopra at his Sages and Scientists Symposium in Carlsbad, Calif., on March 3. A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as “redness”) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong. “The idea that subjective experience is a result of electrochemical activity remains a hypothesis,” Chopra elaborated in an e-mail. “It is as much of a speculation as the idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it causes brain activity and creates the properties and objects of the material world.”

Duality.

 

[futuremd]

Zik, what people aren't getting is that they're asserting things they've taken to already exist without actually substantiating that the concepts they are basing their arguments on are themselves baseless assertions.

Thats the problem. 

These terms: Fate, intuition, etc. 

These are concepts which have not been substantiated so to then base an argument on those makes your argument flawed if you're not going to show why these things are even valid in the first place. 

On top of that, WANTING something to be true, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. 

 

[brainwashed21]

You wouldn't be saying this if, Pluto forbid, you found yourself stretched out across a table in the ER. Who you putting your life in the hands of? "God"? or the doctor in the scrubs getting ready to do all he can with all the knowledge he's accumulated over the years of rigorous study and practice?

i never said im counting on god to help me through that.. but what i am saying is that a person goes in that room with their own view on life.. they could put their life in that mans hands believing that god is going to help them through it, nd if that works for them thats fine. doesnt make the doctor any less briliant. doesnt make god any less real.

 

[offwhitewhite]

The reason why I know a soul exists but can't prove it is because it's the same thing as trying to prove a thought exists.

Not written by me but he explains what I was trying to say a lot better.

What are thoughts exactly? When I ask this question, the natural response is to give a physical explanation of what causes thoughts in the brain. But in truth, this is only half of it. Think of an apple in your head. That's a thought, and any physical explanation of that thought, such as neurons making a specific pattern, would not look like the actual experience of the thought at all. "The shape of our thoughts does not quite resemble the configuration of the neurons responsible for them, so where are they?" It would essentially only be saying what caused the thought. Every single thing in the universe is physical, can be probed, tested and understood by these methods, except for the thoughts. One example I read about a while back was if a person grew up in a completely black and white environment, they could still learn all the laws of nature and understand physics, but they could not know, for instance, what the color red looks like. They could however, know the laws of light refraction. This "red" a person can experience is a subjective experience just as a thought, but it has absolutely no location in reality and can not be experienced(This instance of it that person "x" experiences) or detected by anyone else.

And there lies the problem. The question is what is experience, essentially. You experience the thought. The thought itself is NOT the neurons. Like I've heard someone else say: Think of a simply thought, a thought of the color blue. If you look in the brain at the neurons, no where will you see blue, and thus neurons can not equate to thought.

The image is created in our "minds". Where is this? The image exists, because we can "see it in our minds", yet we can not quantify it or see it objectively(ie: someone else seeing the it). According to data and science, my thoughts do not exist to anyone else, because there is no actual quantification of my thoughts for others to examine.

 

[futuremd]

The reason why I know a soul exists but can't prove it is because it's the same thing as trying to prove a thought exists.

Not written by me but he explains what I was trying to say a lot better.

What are thoughts exactly? When I ask this question, the natural response is to give a physical explanation of what causes thoughts in the brain. But in truth, this is only half of it. Think of an apple in your head. That's a thought, and any physical explanation of that thought, such as neurons making a specific pattern, would not look like the actual experience of the thought at all. "The shape of our thoughts does not quite resemble the configuration of the neurons responsible for them, so where are they?" It would essentially only be saying what caused the thought. Every single thing in the universe is physical, can be probed, tested and understood by these methods, except for the thoughts. One example I read about a while back was if a person grew up in a completely black and white environment, they could still learn all the laws of nature and understand physics, but they could not know, for instance, what the color red looks like. They could however, know the laws of light refraction. This "red" a person can experience is a subjective experience just as a thought, but it has absolutely no location in reality and can not be experienced(This instance of it that person "x" experiences) or detected by anyone else.

And there lies the problem. The question is what is experience, essentially. You experience the thought. The thought itself is NOT the neurons. Like I've heard someone else say: Think of a simply thought, a thought of the color blue. If you look in the brain at the neurons, no where will you see blue, and thus neurons can not equate to thought.

The image is created in our "minds". Where is this? The image exists, because we can "see it in our minds", yet we can not quantify it or see it objectively(ie: someone else seeing the it). According to data and science, my thoughts do not exist to anyone else, because there is no actual quantification of my thoughts for others to examine.

Not good enough.

We can prove thoughts exist. Basic memory tests can substantiate this. 

Your notion of color isn't accurate either. There are substrates within the eyes that correspond to various spectrums of the electromagnetic spectrum (and in rare cases further into the UV spectrum) that allow you to interpret color in segments of the brain. There are such things called OCULAR DOMINANCE COLUMNS in the OCCIPITAL LOBES. I could scan some copies from a neuro book I have if you'd like or recommend this to you.

This is what i'm talking about. The guy you quoted is merely taking his own thoughts and asserting them without actually understanding how the process works himself. Its like he just sat around and thought about this stuff and asserted it was true. This is the flaw of philosophy. It can only go so far. You HAVE to get your hands dirty and do research. 

If you're talking about a "soul" then all you're doing is shifting the definition of what you're talking about to fit the desired aim that you want to achieve.

Lets be completely honest here. The notion of a soul was the desire to understand and typify what we now call cognition and discover the link between neurons and how we perceive reality. It seems that there should be more to it. How we think, how we reason, how we learn, how we remember, etc. However, since the 20th century, the advances in neuroscience have largely removed this barrier and broken down how neurons actually are responsible for much of that process themselves. Neurons do have methods of maintaining memory through concepts of potentiation and synaptic pruning. We are learning more about how complex processes are delegated to various centers of the brain to carry out functions long since thought unrecognizable from mere speculation. There are efforts to map out the pathways of complex brain functions and to create universal methods of doing so. I say all of this to say that, as far as we have come, there is a lot that we dont know.

However, what we do know is that the soul isn't really a thing. Its a term that has been adopted by the canon of many religious sects as a means of maintaining a grasp on how to still be relevant in a world where religion is no longer the tune of the day. Thats why the field of theodicy exists to continually serve up apologetic means to make new ways to interpret long outdated concepts. Then you've got the new-age spiritual woo that comes along and invokes its own brand of "awareness" that seeks to steal a few terms from physics they don't understand and craft up a new serving of thought that doesn't really have any basis either. The soul is a concept that could be debunked with a few entry level classes in neuroscience and psychology. We know more now as a society. Its not some complex spirit or connection that allows this to happen. As complex as neurons and their connections are, the process is relatively simple. You are nothing more than a series of receptors for external stimuli that receives information and attempts to transduce it into manageable contexts. 

If a "soul" does exist, and you claim it does, you're responsible for asserting WHAT it is and WHERE it is. Thats the problem with unchecked and rampant speculation, it allows the party responsible to never be accountable for their speculation and they think they can keep building off of unsupported notions. It creates a house of cards of faulty logic that never has any legitimate basis.

I'm not against creative though,t or against dreaming, or even wishful thinking. However, I'm against the notion that merely having a thought means that its correct or even reasonable. Thats just not true. At some point you MUST present a case for your assertions. We can only dream but so much. We have to put ideas to the test. We can't move forward if we don't validate anything. 

I want to learn. I love to learn. i want to know more and I'm excited to get the chance to share what I know. BUT, we can't do that if all we're going to do is allow every single thought that people WANT to be true, accepted as being true only because you thought of it.

The goal here is to adopt as many true things as possible because otherwise, we as a society have no means of validating anything as actually being inaccurate if we don't hold ourselves to some standard.

If we fail to do this, then there is no difference between the tooth fairy and atomic theory. 

 

[futuremd]

You wouldn't be saying this if, Pluto forbid, you found yourself stretched out across a table in the ER. Who you putting your life in the hands of? "God"? or the doctor in the scrubs getting ready to do all he can with all the knowledge he's accumulated over the years of rigorous study and practice?

i never said im counting on god to help me through that.. but what i am saying is that a person goes in that room with their own view on life.. they could put their life in that mans hands believing that god is going to help them through it, nd if that works for them thats fine. doesnt make the doctor any less briliant. doesnt make god any less real.

Actually it does make god less real.

Its like those damn placebo bracelets athletes wear. 

They. Do. Nothing.

its all in the mind. 

No matter how much you believe it, it doesn't make the reality of said effects REAL.

What don't you get.

Its either real, or its not. 

If you believe you're 6' 5" you either are, or you are not. You can't just imagine that you are and then it be true. 

 

[offwhitewhite]

I understand what you're saying. You can explain how it happens, what parts are used in the process and what the process is itself. I understand that.

But you can't explain the result itself with scientific data. If there is somewhere, please point me in the right direction. 

 

[cj863]

So in short, we can't have a discussion about the unexplained on NT because our resident future medical practitioner will stop at nothing to force his belief that science can explain any and everything on us. RIP good threads on NT.

 

[brainwashed21]

but thats where your thinking seems shallow to me.. look i agree with alot of your points. im not fighting whats fact.. nd im also not into religion, but if someone believes something and it works for them, i cant discredit it. i cant see what they see or felt from that belief.. its like the placebo effect you pointed out.. if the dam pill works for them even tho it had no drugs, how can you tell that person the pill or effects werent real? your not experienced in judging other peoples realities.. just your own. not everything has an explanation

 

[brainwashed21]

yo cj who is that?

 

[longstroke]

This is NOT true for all and every situation. You're speaking so loosely and in generalizations as if it's an absolute.

How did the Europeans enslave the Africans?

By taking away any hope of survival outside of slavery, SON. 

How is anyone enslaved and then kept under the thumb of the oppressor?

By eliminating any thought of freedom, of which is inspired through HOPE.

I don't give a damn as who, or what, you've studied from 17th century. We all can read and then comprehend. What they thought back then, is no longer relevant today. Hell, most of those clowns in Europe back then, even the PHILOSOPHERS, thought that simply by taking a bath, that you'd catch your death of cold. So they invented Perfume, instead of soap. Point here is, most of the stuff that they thought to believe, has been proven to be WRONG. 

My point to Future MD was simple, HOPE is what drives humanity forward. Any progress that is made in this world, begins with HOPE. The first person to do anything, didn't know for sure if they were headed in the right direction. In most cases, they stumbled upon stuff by accident in regard to discovery.

There was a time that many of those people that you admire from the 15th century, thought the World was FLAT. Those navigators who went out to see what was really out there, HOPED that they didn't fall off the face of the earth. They didn't know if they would, as those Europeans were also Christian, thinking that the Bible was correct.

Bringing it back to the good Doctor, especially since you still seem to not be able to comprehend, even with all of your so called study,

One fish, two fish.

Red fish, blue fish.

Black fish,blue fish.

Old fish, new fish.

This one has a little star.

This one has a little car.

SAY!

What a lot of fish there are.

-Dr Seuss One Fish Two Fish

The good doctor is talking about discovery. All of which also begins with HOPE.

All journey begins there.

 

[brainwashed21]

How did the Europeans enslave the Africans?

By taking away any hope of survival outside of slavery, SON. 

How is anyone enslaved and then kept under the thumb of the oppressor?

By eliminating any thought of freedom, of which is inspired through HOPE.

I don't give a damn as who, or what, you've studied from 17th century. We all can read and then comprehend. What they thought back then, is no longer relevant today. Hell, most of those clowns in Europe back then, even the PHILOSOPHERS, thought that simply by taking a bath, that you'd catch your death of cold. So they invented Perfume, instead of soap. Point here is, most of the stuff that they thought to believe, has been proven to be WRONG. 

My point to Future MD was simple, HOPE is what drives humanity forward. Any progress that is made in this world, begins with HOPE. The first person to do anything, didn't know for sure if they were headed in the right direction. In most cases, they stumbled upon stuff by accident in regard to discovery.

There was a time that many of those people that you admire from the 15th century, thought the World was FLAT. Those navigators who went out to see what was really out there, HOPED that they didn't fall off the face of the earth. They didn't know if they would, as those Europeans were also Christian, thinking that the Bible was correct.

Bringing it back to the good Doctor, especially since you still seem to not be able to comprehend, even with all of your so called study,

One fish, two fish.

Red fish, blue fish.

Black fish,blue fish.

Old fish, new fish.

This one has a little star.

This one has a little car.

SAY!

What a lot of fish there are.

-Dr Seuss One Fish Two Fish

The good doctor is talking about discovery. All of which also begins with HOPE.

All journey begins there.

and if you need a scientific project to show us hope is real.. im going to be real mad. waiting for response..

 

[longstroke]

My man, biologically, what happens to people when they lose confidence, drive, ambition? It seems that you have indeed studied this.

How important is the psychological state in regard to remaining alive?

 

[papageorgeo510]

Prove to me today there's a tomorrow.

 

[futuremd]

I understand what you're saying. You can explain how it happens, what parts are used in the process and what the process is itself. I understand that.

But you can't explain the result itself with scientific data. If there is somewhere, please point me in the right direction. 

What result are you talking about?

I just told you in very layman's terms how color perception works.