0/0

Bot: لما اتهم بالزندقة، ضربه الجلاد ثلاثة عشر سوطا، فكان كلما ضربه سوطا يقول بشار بن برد: أوجعتني ويلك! فقال الجلاد: يا زنديق أتضرب ولا تقول، باسم الله؟ فيقول بشار : ويلك؛ أثريد هو فأسمي الله عليه؟ ومات من ذلك الضرب ....

ف واحد ساله شنو الشيفران؟ كلة واني شمدريني من تشوف حمار اسأله

وع اساس الحمار بالحلم كال هالابيات سَيِّدي مِلْ بِعَناني = نَحوَ باب الأَصْبهاني إنَّ بالبابِ أتانًا = فَضَلَتْ كُلَّ أتانِ تيَّمتني يَومَ رُحْنا = بثناياها الحِسانِ تيَّمتني بِبَنانٍ = وَبِدَلٍّ قد شجاني وبِحُسنٍ ودلالٍ = سَلَّ جِسمي وبراني ولها خَدٌّ أسيلٌ = مِثلُ خَدِّ الشَّيفرانِ فبها مِتُّ ولوعِشْـ = ـتُ إذن طال هواني

بشار بن برد جان عندة حمار ف مات الحمار وهو كلش ضاج عليه ف اجوي اصدقاءة يعزوا ف هو كاللهم اني حلمت بي الحمار كلي انو مرة جنت راكبة يم باب الاصفهاني وشاف اتان يعني حمارة وحبها

"Non scholàe sed vitae." "We learn not for school, but for life."

Saint Jerome Writing Painting by Caravaggio

وإنَّ جراح الحُر نورٌ لقلبهِ تهذِّبهُ حتى يُجيدَ التفرُّسا

*bot*

مرحبا طلاب🤗 عطلة سعيدة وانشالله تكونون بخير جميعاً عدنا استبيان بسيط عن مدى انتشار تهيج القولون العصبي بين طلاب الطب حصراً ومحتاجين ٣٠٠ سامبل حنكون مُمتنين جداً إذا مليتوه ودزيتوه لغيركم يمليه🙏🏻 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17wQg2MF7AkzMH9SCdzG8_zhNt9nWDIJl_ZdZwJlt1y8/viewform

عِلمٌ لا ينفع

Why science will never solve the problem of consciousness? Science interprets the world mechanistically; it aims to see the—material—mechanisms of things; the cogs and gears inside the grand machine of the universe. In other words, it tries to understand the world through the perspective of a watch-maker or a mechanical engineer. It purposefully (and justifiably) omits the human perspective (human experience) even when it studies the human (just think of medical sciences and Foucault's medical gaze). It's a materialistic, and objective method (not that it represents "Truth," but only in the sense that it neglects the human perspective and experience of the phenomena it studies). This becomes a major problem especially in two places: First, when we misidentify science as a worldview and try to derive from it the laws of morality, aesthetics, and a sense of purpose. We fail miserably, or worse, we end up with mutilated, still-born proto-philosophies: morals give way to a deviant, machiavellian "explanations" of behavior speculatively derived from evolutionary psychology. Aesthetics give way to a cold lesson of the visual system in the brain. And whatever purpose we may possibly derive via science is continually assassinated by some new telescope image of "our place in the universe." The second is when we study the "human experience" or what it feels to be a human. Think about love, for example: you can understand its mechanisms scientifically through the study of the brain and hormones, or you can understand it poetically and philosophically, through a poem or a song. The first approach tells you nothing about the human perspective of being in love, it merely expresses the cogs and gears under the hood, as opposed to the latter approach which tells you how it feels to be in love; it's as if you're translating a beautiful song into sign language. Another example is consciousness, which we can define as "the point of view from which humans experience the world and themselves." Science and the very scientific methodology are not designed to deal with such a concept, because the goal of the scientific methodology is to investigate the world "objectively" and independently from the observer (the human). When science tries to account for consciousness, the tool of investigation itself is not suitable for such an endeavor. It's as if we're using a hammer as a spoon. Just like a hammer was not designed to be a kitchen utensil, science was not designed to study "the human perspective." To be clear, it is very plausible that one day we might develop a coherent scientific theory of consciousness, but the moment we discover such a thing, we'll also discover a great disappointment; this theory still doesn't account for how it feels to be conscious. It will be as if one made a love poem entirely out of biochemistry and neuroscience jargon. It's an answer to a misunderstood question; an (I want to raise my blood sugar and lower my serum ghrelin level.) to a (what do you wanna eat?).

Why science will never solve the problem of consciousness? Science interprets the world mechanistically; it aims to see the—material—mechanisms of things; the cogs and gears inside the grand machine of the universe. In other words, it tries to understand the world through the perspective of a watch-maker or a mechanical engineer. It purposefully (and justifiably) omits the human perspective (human experience) even when it studies the human (just think of medical sciences and Foucault's medical gaze). It's a materialistic, and objective method (not that it represents "Truth," but only in the sense that it neglects the human perspective and experience of the phenomena it studies). This becomes a major problem especially in two places: First, when we misidentify science as a worldview and try to derive from it the laws of morality, aesthetics, and a sense of purpose. We fail miserably, or worse, we end up with mutilated, still-born proto-philosophies: morals give way to a deviant, machiavellian "explanations" of behavior speculatively derived from evolutionary psychology. Aesthetics give way to a cold lesson of the visual system in the brain. And whatever purpose we may possibly derive via science is continually assassinated by some new telescope image of "our place in the universe." The second is when we study the "human experience" or what it feels to be a human. Think about love, for example: you can understand its mechanisms scientifically through the study of the brain and hormones, or you can understand it poetically and philosophically, through a poem or a song. The first approach tells you nothing about the human perspective of being in love, it merely expresses the cogs and gears under the hood, as opposed to the latter approach which tells you how it feels to be in love; it's as if you're translating a beautiful song into sign language. Another example is consciousness, which we can define as "the point of view from which humans experience the world and themselves." Science and the very scientific methodology are not designed to deal with such a concept, because the goal of the scientific methodology is to investigate the world "objectively" and independently from the observer (the human). When science tries to account for consciousness, the tool of investigation itself is not suitable for such an endeavor. It's as if we're using a hammer as a spoon. Just like a hammer was not designed to be a kitchen utensil, science was not designed to study "the human perspective." To be clear, it is very plausible that one day we might develop a coherent scientific theory of consciousness, but the moment we discover such a thing, we'll also discover a great disappointment; this theory still doesn't account for how it feels to be conscious. It will be as if one made a love poem entirely out of biochemistry and neuroscience jargon. It's an answer to a misunderstood question; an (I want to raise my blood sugar and lower my serum ghrelin level.) to a (what do you wanna eat?).

Coronary circulation of the heart

وَرِثتُ عن أجدادي تَرَحُّلَهم أصنَعُ حَيثُ ارتَحَلتُ أوطاني عِناقُنا رُقعةٌ مُحَرَّرةٌ حدودُها الصَدرُ والذِراعانِ مَن ذاقَ هذا فلا شَكا أبدًا جَورَ مُلوكٍ وضِيقَ بُلدانِ لَم يَظلِمِ الدهرُ مَن أُتيحَ له هذا الهوى مِن إنسٍ ومِن جانِ دَعِ الهوى يُحيي أو يُميتُ فلا فَرقَ فهذا وذا مُريحَانِ — تميم، تقبيل

وَرِثتُ عن أجدادي تَرَحُّلَهم أصنَعُ حَيثُ ارتَحَلتُ أوطاني عِناقُنا رُقعةٌ مُحَرَّرةٌ حدودُها الصَدرُ والذِراعانِ مَن ذاقَ هذا فلا شَكا أبدًا جَورَ مُلوكٍ وضِيقَ بُلدانِ لَم يَظلِمِ الدهرُ مَن أُتيحَ له هذا الهوى مِن إنسٍ ومِن جانِ دَعِ الهوى يُحيي أو يُميتُ فلا فَرقَ فهذا وذا مُريحَانِ — تميم، تقبيل

لو كُنتُنّ تَدرينَ كم قوةً تبثّها فينا ابتسامتكنّ وقولكنّ لنا "تهونُ يا ابن عَم،" لو تَدرين كَم عدوًا تهزِمن حينَ تفتَحنَ لنا ملاجئ بينَ كفوفِكُنّ وكَم جريحًا تَشفين، وأنتُنّ كالنوارس تُبشرنَنا بالأرض والبحرُ يرمينا يمينًا وشمالًا. وربّما عَطِشَ الإنسانُ للأرضِ عَطَشَه للماء. — تميم، الأُمهات العذارى

مَن أَخطَأَتهُ سِهامُ المَوتِ قَيَّدَهُ طُولُ السِنينَ فَلا لَهوٌ وَلا جَذَلُ وَضاقَ مِن نَفسِهِ ما كانَ مُتَّسِعًا حَتّىٰ الرَجاءُ وَحَتّىٰ العَزمُ وَالأَمَلُ