This is disgusting [modified]
-
Oakman wrote:
So it's just semantics?
I would hardly call 'thing that happens' arguing semantics.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, you have no idea?
I have some idea. For example, an infant has about 10 times more synaptic connections than an adult. I was just weakly asserting it, because when I say things with more certainty you always disparage me for it.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it's rediculous. We know exactly how lightbulbs came to exist, why they are created,and who made them. Unless of course, you are saying they just spontaneously came about when lightning struck some primordial chemical soup. You know a lot, grasshopper, but your analogy sucks scissors sideways.
Only because you suck at interpreting them. I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Dancing is yet to be proven, but it has been linked to accelerated marriage plans.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
It is/was a common refrain in fundamentalist Christian preaching that dancing leads to premarital sex. In keeping with the theme of the sub thread, I was stating the reverse. :)
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand
There are, of course, many people who think that there are no physical processes we do not understand. The technical term for such a perion is "idiot." But I await your attempts to prove that there is nothing left to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Where was the mind - or soul- before there was a brain? Where does it go after the brain ceases to function? Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. To believe that there is nothing in this universe than can be created or destroyed is not particularly unscientific. To assume, for some reason, that the human mind/soul is the only thing that can be destroyed, appears to me to be a belief-structure and not observation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
:sigh: I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Seriously
That's what's so funny!
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Yes you do. You believe that the mind is not physical and refuse to acknowledge the significant quantities of evidence that suggests you're wrong. Moreover, you never will change your opinion. That's the definition of prejudice.
-
You're such a "troll" :thumbsup: ... if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them. :thumbsup:
Butt out of this, dickface.
-
You're such a "troll" :thumbsup: ... if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them. :thumbsup:
Ilíon wrote:
if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them.
Don't be silly, Troy. I don't think you have *ever* written a post based on the premise that no-one, not even *you*, could speak definitively about everything. Far more than any of my partners in this discussion, you are someone who asserts the unknowable and unprovable as cosmic truths that the *kiddies* are too blind to comprehend even though you provided a *link* to someone with an *opinion* Have a *nice* day. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
I never said that... :confused:
-
Oakman wrote:
is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed. We force things to conform to some predefined rationality. But there can be no true progress unless you are capable of stepping outside that box.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed.
Not at all. Everyone thinks that the scientific community is conspiring against them when it doesn't accept their ideas, but the fact is that if you had solid evidence and not just a garbled mess of ill-defined words, then men of science would happily cast Earth to the periphery of the great unknown.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand
There are, of course, many people who think that there are no physical processes we do not understand. The technical term for such a perion is "idiot." But I await your attempts to prove that there is nothing left to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Where was the mind - or soul- before there was a brain? Where does it go after the brain ceases to function? Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. To believe that there is nothing in this universe than can be created or destroyed is not particularly unscientific. To assume, for some reason, that the human mind/soul is the only thing that can be destroyed, appears to me to be a belief-structure and not observation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human.
Show me some evidence for that. (and you're right, i should have said 'that we _can_ understand,' not what we understand. Pedant. :P)
- F
-
You're a biochemist, right?
-
Heh, not so much anymore - did my undergrad in biochem, now I'm about halfway through my MD. I've been in school forever! :~
- F
MD...you're becoming a doctor? (Sorry if I'm wrong, I don't actually know anything)
-
MD...you're becoming a doctor? (Sorry if I'm wrong, I don't actually know anything)
-
Oh cool! :) What are you specialising in?
-
Oh cool! :) What are you specialising in?
Oh, I have no clue yet, hee. Edging more towards a medical specialty than surgical right now, but they tell us not to worry too much about it, we'll figure it out once we start full-time at the hospital next year. I'm just looking forward to getting out of the books :thumbsup:.
- F
-
Oh, I have no clue yet, hee. Edging more towards a medical specialty than surgical right now, but they tell us not to worry too much about it, we'll figure it out once we start full-time at the hospital next year. I'm just looking forward to getting out of the books :thumbsup:.
- F
Ohh, OK. Awesome. So, quick quiz: 1) How many layers does the pericardium have? 2) How many ATPs are produced by aerobic cellular respiration? 3) How many sacral vertebrae form the sacrum? ;P Good luck!
-
Butt out of this, dickface.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Butt out of this, dickface.
Ah! The conjunction of your two favorite things.
Ilíon wrote:
Ah! The conjunction of your two favorite things.
Ooh, clever. You should either join in the discussion or shut yer cake-hole. I know you feel valiant when you dart in and out calling people trolls and scattering asterisks all over the floor, but you actually just appear dick-in-butt retarded.
-
Oakman wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human.
Show me some evidence for that. (and you're right, i should have said 'that we _can_ understand,' not what we understand. Pedant. :P)
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oakman wrote: Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. Show me some evidence for that.
Show that they don't have to be? Shall I understand that you think they are the same or are you indulging in rhetorical tricks?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oakman wrote: Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. Show me some evidence for that.
Show that they don't have to be? Shall I understand that you think they are the same or are you indulging in rhetorical tricks?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yes. Show me some evidence that says there is a soul, a mind, something that is measurably distinct from the brain. Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience. If you have evidence for a soul or a mind separate from that process, let's hear about it. It's absolutely a serious question.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed.
Not at all. Everyone thinks that the scientific community is conspiring against them when it doesn't accept their ideas, but the fact is that if you had solid evidence and not just a garbled mess of ill-defined words, then men of science would happily cast Earth to the periphery of the great unknown.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Everyone thinks that the scientific community
I wasn't referring to the scientific community. I was refering to you, fisty, and the entire social movement that uses every otherwise unrelated bit of scientific research to give its political views some sort of phoney legitimacy. I realize that it might be difficult for you to accept, but you have no relationship at all to any entity that can be legitimately called 'the scientific community' and probably never will.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.