This is disgusting [modified]
-
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was.
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
I think that that's extremely unlikely. Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space and only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter? Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field? And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space
Why would there be space itself?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field?
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
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.
-
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
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's absolutely a serious question.
Thats all we've been saying...
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space
Why would there be space itself?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field?
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
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.
-
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
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience
A hypothesis is not a natural law. Implicit in your question is proof that you are not necessarily right. I have never claimed - read what I wrote instead of the straw-man you wish you were arguing with - that there is a mind/soul only that there is no Scientific Law nor Theory so accepted by the Scientific Community that the matter can be regarded as proven. If you wish to believe as a matter of faith that there is no such critter as a mind or a soul, that is, of course, your right. We have freedom of religion here. But, please, stop asking me to genuflect in front of the altar you have built to a supposition,
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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!
Oh, gawd. 1) I saw this question and my brain yelled, "Three! Myo, epi, pericardium!" Which obviously wasn't right, so I had to Wiki it to find the real answer. No points for me. (If you're interested in a disease process involving the pericardium, check out cardiac tamponade.) 2) ~30 mol ATP/1 mol glucose, IIRC, mostly from the ETC. 4 from glucose-->2 pyruvate and 3NADH+1GTP for the Krebs cycle? I could actually draw the whole damn thing out at one point including enzymes. 3) Usually five, fused. How'd I do? :D
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because right now the simplest and best supported hypotheses say that the workings of the brain is sufficient to explain the human experience
A hypothesis is not a natural law. Implicit in your question is proof that you are not necessarily right. I have never claimed - read what I wrote instead of the straw-man you wish you were arguing with - that there is a mind/soul only that there is no Scientific Law nor Theory so accepted by the Scientific Community that the matter can be regarded as proven. If you wish to believe as a matter of faith that there is no such critter as a mind or a soul, that is, of course, your right. We have freedom of religion here. But, please, stop asking me to genuflect in front of the altar you have built to a supposition,
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
OK, I'm getting a clearer picture of where you're coming from, so I can say I start from the philosophical position: 1) That it's reasonable to require evidence for any belief including the existence of a soul 2) That a simpler explanation not requiring appealing to magical forces is usually a better and more useful one If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural), then I guess that's fine, but I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life. My apologies if I did misrepresent your position.
- F
-
Jesus loves you, why do you keep rejecting Him?
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
-
OK, I'm getting a clearer picture of where you're coming from, so I can say I start from the philosophical position: 1) That it's reasonable to require evidence for any belief including the existence of a soul 2) That a simpler explanation not requiring appealing to magical forces is usually a better and more useful one If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural), then I guess that's fine, but I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life. My apologies if I did misrepresent your position.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Einstein took his hypothesis that better explained observations inconsistent with existing hypotheses and formulated testable predictions from it. Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence. But instead of doing that, you seem to concentrate your discussion on telling me what I think. You really have the temerity to lecture me on the scientific method? When was the last time you were near a science lab or involved in research, the 1950s? The irony here is that if your doctor went to you and said, "Well, your child has leukemia, but it might be because of God's plan, so we might want to just let it go and see what happens, after all, there are things we don't know about the universe" you would throw a shit fit. Nevertheless, this is exactly the attitude you are complicit in encouraging. The simple fact is that while it will always be incomplete about the knowledge of the universe, scientific thinking affords us the luxury of being able to manipulate natural forces for our own benefit, whereas focusing on the fact that aspects of the universe will remain unknowable accomplishes absolutely nothing. I reiterate: It's lazy. The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Einstein took his hypothesis that better explained observations inconsistent with existing hypotheses and formulated testable predictions from it. Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence. But instead of doing that, you seem to concentrate your discussion on telling me what I think. You really have the temerity to lecture me on the scientific method? When was the last time you were near a science lab or involved in research, the 1950s? The irony here is that if your doctor went to you and said, "Well, your child has leukemia, but it might be because of God's plan, so we might want to just let it go and see what happens, after all, there are things we don't know about the universe" you would throw a shit fit. Nevertheless, this is exactly the attitude you are complicit in encouraging. The simple fact is that while it will always be incomplete about the knowledge of the universe, scientific thinking affords us the luxury of being able to manipulate natural forces for our own benefit, whereas focusing on the fact that aspects of the universe will remain unknowable accomplishes absolutely nothing. I reiterate: It's lazy. The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence
English cannot be your first language. I. Have. Never. Said. There. Was. A. Soul! There. Did I type slowly enough? I'm not going to bother taking this any further. Whether you can't understand or refuse to understand, the fact remains that I can't find words simple enough to communicate with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence
English cannot be your first language. I. Have. Never. Said. There. Was. A. Soul! There. Did I type slowly enough? I'm not going to bother taking this any further. Whether you can't understand or refuse to understand, the fact remains that I can't find words simple enough to communicate with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior. Thanks for conceding the point. It's hilarious, however, that you're unwilling to actually take a stance on it. I suppose that when you and Stan take issue with my positions and say "OH BUT SCIENCE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING HA HA" I'm supposed to think this is some kind of deep profound philosophical pronouncement? It just means you don't have the balls to make assertive statements or back them up - you're really just annoyed about the fact that someone knows more than you do and you lack the ability to debate the argument on it's merits. Sorry I made you feel bad. :laugh:
- F
-
Oh, gawd. 1) I saw this question and my brain yelled, "Three! Myo, epi, pericardium!" Which obviously wasn't right, so I had to Wiki it to find the real answer. No points for me. (If you're interested in a disease process involving the pericardium, check out cardiac tamponade.) 2) ~30 mol ATP/1 mol glucose, IIRC, mostly from the ETC. 4 from glucose-->2 pyruvate and 3NADH+1GTP for the Krebs cycle? I could actually draw the whole damn thing out at one point including enzymes. 3) Usually five, fused. How'd I do? :D
- F
You did good! :cool: :rose: I didn't know the answer to the first one either, but the other two are right. I'm a little bit sketchy on the details for number two, but yeah, about 30.
Fisticuffs wrote:
cardiac tamponade
Thanks. I'd never heard of that before. It sounds like a fizzy drink, but it's so much more horrible! :wtf:
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you'd prefer to start from a different philosophical position (i.e. the existence of the supernatural),
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'd argue that my philosophical position has a better track record of improving the sum total of human knowledge and quality of life.
Don't be silly. Your "philosophical position" and Ilion are essentially the same. Both of you claim that your belief system defines the universe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
You need to stop being a jackass. Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing. Just because there is a limit to scientific understanding, doesn't mean that suddenly everything is a possibility. There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that. Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.