No limits?

[locke_key]

since i dont really have the time to isolate myself in a cave so i can decide whether i really exist or not, i will trust some of the accepted rules that our scientist brothers have given us. that does not mean that i dont reflect on or question it… and by no means am i following a flock

i will consult my companion “webster” for this argument…

philosophy 1. n., a. A logical and critical study of the source and nature of human knowlege. b. A formal system of ideas based on such a study. 2. The sciences and liberal arts with exception of law, medicine, and theology

ok Cerberus, the kind of philosophy you talk of doesnt even require the use of discussion. i think you should see the fine lined equilibrium.

All people would turn out a lot better if they found their own way through problems. Your a scientist not a philopsher and so all your views are based on facts. Philospohy is an educated guess on something.

what? even though history tends to repeat itself, it is pertinent to at least try not to make the same mistakes over and over… the sounds like antisocailism. my friend, we are social creatures and we do need the communication.
you are refering to scientism, and my thoughts are far from that method of belief. and no not all of my views are based on fact, or necesarily the socially accepted truths in my culture.
i think you need to elaborate on what you think what philosophy is, and no, not all scientists do “experiments.”

i do see where you are coming from however, and you do have a point.

[BluTGI]

thx L&Key but i think most of the sharper points were aimed at me.

Im gona answer your MOST IMPORTANT thing you said in that post, the most thought provoking thing first.

And is the recognition of a change more important than that change?

Id say yes, the Recognition would define the change. BUT the recognition can not happen with out the change. Its like a drunk, he wont start sobering up till he hits rock bottem, You supposedly hit rock bottem by recognising what has happend in your life and recognising it is wrong before you can change it. So its like a cause and effect that causes its self. Which came first the recognition or the change?

As for Science vs Philsophy. Well thats such a fine line and your not paying attention to it. Science is right 75% of the time. Philosophy is right the other 25% (when they disagree) but they are normally right 100% when they agree.

NOW. Why do i deny the fact that you can put your hand through a flame? (well since you called me a scientist) if you put your hand in it 100x it will burn you depending on the lenghth of time in the flame 100x. Yes I follow the flock in this subject, Because I know with out experimentation that i will burn if i put my hand in a flame. That is common sense.

As for Limits. A MAN is limited by death. a GOD has no limits. A man Philisophicaly COULD become a GOD. But he would not be a MAN he would be a GOD. The question is will he still be affected by his development as a man? will he still like chicks, like pizza, dislike his dislikes and like his likes.

IF a man expanded his mind, he would no longer be a NORMAL man. He would live in a whole new set of variables. But If he can die then his limit is till death.

Can we break physical limits Yes it is Possible, WILL we? doubt it.
Can we Change? Yes its possible, WILL we? doubt it.
Can somebody expand their mind so they have no limits? Yes its probable. Will I be able to do it tomarrow? Doubt it.