Announcement

**plumflower_pm** · 04-20-2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by flamestep

i heard buddha meditated and fasted under a tree for a year or something like that, and everytime he got ungry he would eat one hemp seed.(WEED SEED

.)after that he then had revelations which are the backbone of the buddhist religion.

this is nitpicking, but hemp and marijuana are different. (same species, different strain) Hemp makes rope, marijuana makes frito-lay stockholders happy.

**zachsan** · 04-20-2005, 09:06 AM

well for starters, if you didn't eat for a year, you'd be dead.

but anyway.

science says that they can track thoughts through specific brainwave patterns, yet they cannot place a thought in a controlled environment and conduct experiments on it. therefore they cannot prove that a thought exists.

no, we just have a new understanding of how "thought" works, namely, brain activity. go back and re-read the thread "proving the existence of the mind" (which you started, by the way). i pretty much say the same thing there: just because we now better understand how thought works, doesn't mean that the act of thinking is somehow cheapened, and it doesn't mean that "thought" never existed in the first place. maybe it just didn't exist in the way we had previously assumed it to exist.

there is a science of the spiritual and supernatural, i think its called metaphysics.

metaphysics are not science, but philosophy. a metaphysical claim cannot be tested empirically, and thus has no place in science.

**Fa Hui** · 04-20-2005, 09:24 AM

"i heard buddha meditated and fasted under a tree for a year or something like that, and everytime he got ungry he would eat one hemp seed.(WEED SEED .)after that he then had revelations which are the backbone of the buddhist religion."

Flamestep, where did you hear a piece of shit story like that?

Good grief.

read Old Path White Clouds by Thich Nhat Hanh if you want to learn about the Buddha's life. And don't listen to potheads when they are trying to give history lessons. They'll end up having great historical figures sharing a bowl at the end of every story.

The Historical Buddha did in fact exist, without the magic though. The Buddha never created Buddhism though. Just like Jesus didn't found Christianity, these people were too intelligent for organized religion.

To me, trying to find why the universe is this or that is pointless. You're better off shoving a rose bush up your ass, it'll be more productive.

**master splinter** · 04-20-2005, 01:14 PM

OKAY, NO JOKE! i really read that in a real book, i even think it was a childrens picture book. Seriously

pm_= hemp is the stem of bud, it is pulled like string cheese then woven into rope. onesping<= i have changed from caterpillar to butterfly...i mean monarch. fa hui: does sticking A ROSE BUSH IN YOUR BOOTIE HELP? so how have you benefited from it? damn, i gotta go wasnt done yet either.....................heheheh till next time fellas!!!! peace.

**plumflower_pm** · 04-20-2005, 02:19 PM

ask Miss Science

Sorry guys, kinda OT...

Rob, both are cannabis, but different subspecies. All cannabis plants contain cannabinoids. One type of cannabinoid is THC, which i'm sure you know about. The other type is CBD, which has the opposite effect of THC on your brain. Marijuana plants are high in THC, and low in CBD. Hemp varieties are super low in THC, high in CBD and way more fibrous and woody.

it's like poppies, some kinds of poppy seeds can be made into opium, and different kinds are used for cooking.

**master splinter** · 04-20-2005, 03:52 PM

what??? i thought hemp was what clothes were made out of...

you can make rope out of the stem of any bud plant, if its long enough. the stem isnt what contains thc, its the leaves.

**master splinter** · 04-20-2005, 03:53 PM

hemp is bud, just another word for it. trust me, ive smoked enough of it.

**daodejing** · 04-20-2005, 05:01 PM

Rob, plum's right about the bud issue, let it die.

as for the whole issue of creationism vs accidentalism, all i have to say is this

The laws of conservation of matter and energy are only applicable (given the violations of said law in nuclear reactions) if we admit that matter is a state of energy and energy is a state of matter.

To assume that because our have memories have an apparent creation and an alleged end, the universe must have been created is ludicrous.

Everything that is always was and shall be, and only appears to begin and end when things change forms.

**master splinter** · 04-20-2005, 05:15 PM

PLUM IS NOT RIGHT!
hemp and weed are the same thing. yes there are different strains, (sativa and indica) but weed and hemp are the same goddam thing. what do you sober people know about weed. if any thing plum learned that in high school.
NOT RIGHT>>>

as for what you said, i see where youre coming from, but the way you compare the theories of energy and matter is contradictory, science cannot support the fact that matter and energy "will be and has always been" it states that matter can not be created nor destroyed, yet logic, (the backbone of science) or logically, that is impossible.

**zachsan** · 04-20-2005, 05:31 PM

hey, who you callin sober?

states that matter can not be created nor destroyed, yet logic, (the backbone of science) or logically, that is impossible.

well i'm having a tough time making sense of that... but anyway. the laws of conservation of matter and energy (to which you are referring) are somewhat outdated as absolutes, and as dao said, only apply when you also accept that matter can be "destroyed" and converted into energy, and vice versa. this is happening in the center of the sun right now, it's called nuclear fusion.

the thing about science is that it grows and changes with evidence. science is a method of obtaining knowledge, not a body of knowledge itself. therefore, if you refute a belief commonly held by scientists through evidence, you're not refuting science itself, but rather playing a part in the natural progression and growth of scientific knowledge.

**master splinter** · 04-20-2005, 05:39 PM

okay, this subject is officially above me.......

as for the quote i meant that logically it is impossible that energy and matter have been introduced into the physical realm of existence without being created. they cannot simply exist.

**zachsan** · 04-20-2005, 05:51 PM

they came from something, true (in a sense). but that doesn't logically imply a conscious creator.

what are you doing on this board? it's 4/20 for chrissakes.