3 ms·

But we are more than that i.e. from a atomic perspective we are an ever changing interaction between atoms. Things are not the models that describe them; thing

But we are more than that i.e. from a atomic perspective we are an ever changing interaction between atoms. Things are not the models that describe them; things are them selfs. Applying a model and saying: "that is the only model" is incorrect. While his model is an accurate representation of something in reality it is only accurate in its own context. I write comments to expand my and others mind not only to socialize whatever that really means. Pushing complex things trough simple language makes them seam simple, but they are not.

krick 7y ago
> from a atomic perspective Sure, and that's the perspective you would take when you are trying to construct a nuclear reactor. But what you are expected by the author to notice is that you are a human, not some detached from flesh abstract entity that can actually do anything... "real", for the lack of a better word. You only act as a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses and what really makes you do things isn't something you acknowledge, and all your "thinking" and "models" and comments and nuclear reactors are just a byproduct of that. That is, you can avoid the "atomic perspective" and all the other perspectives, but you cannot avoid being you, that is a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses that you perceive as feelings. > I write comments to expand my and others mind Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you.
- callesgg 7y ago
  I was not arguing that the atomic perspective is the correct one. I was giving an example that shows that there are other perspectives that are just as true. If you don't like the atomic one but what about me as a musician or an actor or a friend, an employee. > Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you. I am not sure that the author is arguing for that but it is a byproduct of the way he writes.

krick 7y ago

> from a atomic perspective Sure, and that's the perspective you would take when you are trying to construct a nuclear reactor. But what you are expected by the author to notice is that you are a human, not some detached from flesh abstract entity that can actually do anything... "real", for the lack of a better word. You only act as a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses and what really makes you do things isn't something you acknowledge, and all your "thinking" and "models" and comments and nuclear reactors are just a byproduct of that. That is, you can avoid the "atomic perspective" and all the other perspectives, but you cannot avoid being you, that is a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses that you perceive as feelings. > I write comments to expand my and others mind Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you.

callesgg 7y ago
I was not arguing that the atomic perspective is the correct one. I was giving an example that shows that there are other perspectives that are just as true. If you don't like the atomic one but what about me as a musician or an actor or a friend, an employee. > Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you. I am not sure that the author is arguing for that but it is a byproduct of the way he writes.