Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Life, The Universe, And Everything


BuddyFerris

Recommended Posts

Okay. Fair enough. Maybe there is a "quantum entanglement" or link between minds beyond the normal physical level. I know this is a stretch, but scientists can make particles that are entangled and act in pair, even when they're separated over long distances. If the universe is a fractal web, then perhaps some minds are closer through the fabric on the universe. It wouldn't be supernatural, but just physical connection through the construct itself.

Sounds like parapsychology to me. Its possible there is something to it, but it doesn't require a "supernatural" being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BuddyFerris

    292

  • Grandpa Harley

    258

  • Ouroboros

    128

  • dano

    120

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Sounds like parapsychology to me. Its possible there is something to it, but it doesn't require a "supernatural" being.

Exactly. Metaphysical or Parapsychological doesn't have to be supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Fair enough. Maybe there is a "quantum entanglement" or link between minds beyond the normal physical level. I know this is a stretch, but scientists can make particles that are entangled and act in pair, even when they're separated over long distances. If the universe is a fractal web, then perhaps some minds are closer through the fabric on the universe. It wouldn't be supernatural, but just physical connection through the construct itself.

Sounds like parapsychology to me. Its possible there is something to it, but it doesn't require a "supernatural" being.

 

Sounds like the Penrose (Roger Penrose) model of consciousness, wherein he..

 

Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness. Penrose hints at the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he terms correct quantum gravity, CQG). He claims that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is a deterministic system that for the most part simply executes algorithms, as a billiard table where billiard balls act as message carriers and their interactions act as logical decisions. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the human mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer -- this is in contrast to views, e.g., Biological Naturalism, that human behavior but not consciousness might be simulated. This is based on claims that human consciousness transcends formal logic systems because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem restrict an algorithmically based logic from traits such as mathematical insight. These claims were originally made by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.

 

In 1994, Penrose followed up The Emperor's New Mind with Shadows of the Mind and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, further updating and expanding his theories. Penrose's views on the human thought process are not widely accepted in scientific circles. According to Marvin Minsky, because people can construe false ideas to be factual, the process of thinking is not limited to formal logic. Furthermore, he says that AI programs can also conclude that false statements are true, so error is not unique to humans.

 

Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have constructed a theory in which human consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated object reduction). But Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions (see linked paper below from Hameroff, Hagan and Tuszyński), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique is invalid (see rejoinder link below). In particular, Hameroff points out the peculiarity that Tegmark's formula for the decoherence time includes a factor of \sqrt{T} in the numerator, meaning that higher temperatures would lead to longer decoherence times. Tegmark's rejoinder keeps the factor of \sqrt{T} for the decoherence time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Welcome to Unitarianism Buddy. Welcome to ex-Christian!

 

Pet peeve, because I am one.....It is Unitarian Universalism.

 

If you are just a Unitarian, then you are not down with the Trinity, but buy the other crap.

If you are just a Universalist, then you think everyone goes to Heaven, Universal Salvation because God is a loving God.

 

But if you are a Unitarian Universalist, you believe that if there is a god, he must be a coffee drinker (unless you prefer tea, or maybe some juice).

 

If you feel Unitartian Universalist is too long a phrase, think about the real alternative: Humanist OR Christian OR Atheist OR Hindu OR Jew OR Muslim OR Materialist OR Pagan OR New Ager OR Buddhist OR Shinto OR Discordian OR Pastafarian OR Rastafarian OR Bob-ism OR Apatheist OR Agnostic OR Sikh OR Spiritualist OR Other - ism.

 

I prefer UU myself. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...Text ...

 

1. Your generous offer of a stroll across the firing line is tempting, I'll admit, but I'll likely pass for the moment. .......

 

2. By the way, the insults through which I waded reviewing your posts were all yours! Impressive. I don't across many people who can string so many together in a near-continuous discharge like that. Well, there was this one Marine Master Sargent who was pretty impressive; you don't by chance come from a military family do you?

 

 

1. Oh Buddy - you can't be serious?!? You're in the Lion's Den - you're already in the firing line!!

 

2. Err .... Buddy ... excuse me .... "marine master sargent"?? errr .... what army was that? The terribly nice army? The army of awfully friendly fellows? Near continuous stream of insults??? - wow!!! You had a sheltered life, didn't you? Buddy, if those insults were as "hard" as you say they were, then what can I say?? How old are you? Sorry Buddy ... but that is really wimpy!!

 

You're not THAT thin skinned, are you? (I suppose this is an insult too).

 

Spatz

 

 

Oh Golly, Goodness Me!!! Where is our Buddy???

 

Oh Yooooooooo Hooooooooooo!!!

 

Gee Willekers!! Where is Buddy?

 

(Hopefully this was not insulting.)

 

Spatz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The problem with most Christians is that they are so UN Christian."

Dano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Gandhi, eh Dano?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking and feeling are purely processes of matter/energy.

Mankey, I agree, however when talking about the significance or importance or "meaning" of thoughts and feelings (which apologists always do) I think we need to to bear in mind the concept of gestalt:

What I underlined is what I do not understand. I do not understand how this changes the fact that as far as we know everything is matter/energy. Any sense of meaning is thought and feeling. All of which takes place in the brain....which is made of matter/energy. I do not understand what this has to with the concept of gestalts. The mind is not immaterial. Nothing is immaterial...hehe.

 

"A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts."

 

Thinking and feeling are physiological processes, but they cannot be fully understood through physiology alone. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is where apologists always intentionally get it wrong with simple-minded reductionist arguments: according to science love is nothing more than a biochemical process, evolution means we're just a random collection of molecules, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

"but they cannot be fully understood through physiology alone"

 

How else, in addition through physiology can it be understood. We know matter and energy exists....what else are you talking about?

 

This is where apologists always intentionally get it wrong with simple-minded reductionist arguments: according to science love is nothing more than a biochemical process, evolution means we're just a random collection of molecules, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

I loathe and do not trust apologists. I would rather point out that their dislikes about the fact that we are matter/energy and nothing else is a fallacious appeal to adverse consequences rather than a real argument for their fantasies. I do not care about persuading apologists. I only care about helping them make fools of themselves in front of potential fence setters or open minded rational theists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To impute a deep meaning to a feeling is like building on sand in earthquake country. Feelings shift, they change, they pass... You cannot fully rely on a feeling (says the man who founded his reputation in industry on his ability to see the 'right' path to get the job done ahead of time and under budget without having all the information, usually on projects that had fallen apart, blown up or been mismanaged to the point that I had to fire everyone and start over...) Not without a solid back stop position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To impute a deep meaning to a feeling is like building on sand in earthquake country. Feelings shift, they change, they pass... You cannot fully rely on a feeling (remove text) Not without a solid back stop position.

I once saw a woman draw two overlapping circles on a chalkboard, a simple Venn diagram. In one circle she wrote the word “emotion” and in the other she wrote “thought.” Where they overlapped, their intersection, she wrote the phrase “wise mind.”

 

I thought it was very simplistic at the time, but the image has stayed with me through the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course the third (fourth?) explanation would be that we have some "soul" or "life force" beyond the natural. Which just validates a million different versions of beliefs.

"Vitalism"/"Immaterialism" and Christian "dualism" have long since been debunked."

By DeludedGod

 

A little bit from the link.

 

"In dualism/immaterialism, there is a “seat” of the the mind, a single, unified essence of a person. This is sometimes called the homonunculus. Unfortunately, that was one of the first things to be flushed down the neuroscience toilet.

...

There is absolutely no reason to posit a soul.

Of course not, Mankey. Unless one must provide a reasonable explanation for those few but well documented out of body events (near death) where the individual watched their own body and the doctors working over it; they could describe the events in the room as if they had been conscious and observant. Of course, one might choose to believe that no such things had actually happened.

 

Of course not. Unless you're stuck with a wonderful description of brain function by a scientist who insists on applying that description to the rest of life. Describing how the brain works says little if anything at all about the mind except at the grossest level of function/dysfunction and injury analysis. Will such a description tell us why a fellow walks by an elderly lady, and doesn't knock her down so as to steal her purse? Or why the next fellow does?

 

We needn't yet posit a soul, however. A mind will do for a beginning.

A description of the brain's functions will serve well for differentiating the conscious and competent from the less fortunate. Among the conscious and competent, such analysis might hint imprecisely at this trait or that, this probability of development or that lack. Will it predict for us which one will be great or good or diligent or thoughtful or fair? Or a criminal? If it could, what would it have said about you? Would it have predicted the young man who was 7th generation poor, ineducable, white trash from south Alabama would become a college graduate and post graduate scholar, a Navy Officer mission commander, and all around opposite of his genetic and cultural heritage? I can't help but wonder if those who insist on such sweeping generalizations from specialized facts didn't flush their ability to reason down that neuroscienctific toilet.

Buddy

(Before you ask, no, it wasn't me, he was a friend of mine though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To impute a deep meaning to a feeling is like building on sand in earthquake country. Feelings shift, they change, they pass... You cannot fully rely on a feeling (remove text) Not without a solid back stop position.

I once saw a woman draw two overlapping circles on a chalkboard, a simple Venn diagram. In one circle she wrote the word “emotion” and in the other she wrote “thought.” Where they overlapped, their intersection, she wrote the phrase “wise mind.”

 

I thought it was very simplistic at the time, but the image has stayed with me through the years.

Hello, Legion.

It's an aside from the subject but well worth punctuating, emotion and thought. Both are essential to our humanity; either one by its' absence would render us inadequate for most useful tasks. I've often wondered about the balance between the two. Some folks I know seem incapable of responding to life circumstances without emotion leading the way. Others feel the same distress but respond thoughtfully, with well considered words and choices.

 

My mother was persuaded that emotions inform the mind profitably but rule as a tyrant if given the chance. She's fought that battle for a lifetime with physical infirmity dogging her steps continually along with the vagaries of 86 (so far) years of gain and loss. She does well, for those who care to notice, at living wisely. I was always a bit of a hot head by comparison.

 

Now, though, if I felt like believing this way or that, I'd lie down 'til I felt better. Feelings as foundations are always a disappointment.

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but that is really wimpy!!

You're not THAT thin skinned, are you? (I suppose this is an insult too).

 

Spatz

Oh Golly, Goodness Me!!! Where is our Buddy???

Oh Yooooooooo Hooooooooooo!!!

Gee Willekers!! Where is Buddy?

(Hopefully this was not insulting.)

Spatz

Sparrow,

I was working a rather long day, but thanks for your concern.

Let me restate a little more clearly what I offered earlier in polite terms. The insults through which I waded, each yours, were impressive only in quantity, not in content. Nothing of substance ('hard') in the lot, nor did I suggest otherwise. If my failing to respond in kind suggests that I'm thin-skinned, you may consider it as you will. What was offered was not complaint, just polite rejoinder to leave the conversational door open.

 

Your style is your own, and quite unique, even entertaining, but I hope you'll understand if I have difficulty finding within your insults that to which I might respond usefully. I am a little curious how you chose your method; does it serve you well? Do Christians usually cower and run away? Continuing the line of thought which we've batted around here, does your style reflect a particular genetic trait or cultural imperative? Or is it just your nature nurture choice destiny emotional inclination well considered choice bad luck?

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but that is really wimpy!!

You're not THAT thin skinned, are you? (I suppose this is an insult too).

 

Spatz

Oh Golly, Goodness Me!!! Where is our Buddy???

Oh Yooooooooo Hooooooooooo!!!

Gee Willekers!! Where is Buddy?

(Hopefully this was not insulting.)

Spatz

Sparrow,

I was working a rather long day, but thanks for your concern.

Let me restate a little more clearly what I offered earlier in polite terms. The insults through which I waded, each yours, were impressive only in quantity, not in content. Nothing of substance ('hard') in the lot, nor did I suggest otherwise. If my failing to respond in kind suggests that I'm thin-skinned, you may consider it as you will. What was offered was not complaint, just polite rejoinder to leave the conversational door open.

 

Your style is your own, and quite unique, even entertaining, but I hope you'll understand if I have difficulty finding within your insults that to which I might respond usefully. I am a little curious how you chose your method; does it serve you well? Do Christians usually cower and run away? Continuing the line of thought which we've batted around here, does your style reflect a particular genetic trait or cultural imperative? Or is it just your nature nurture choice destiny emotional inclination well considered choice bad luck?

Buddy

 

Buddy - you're in the Lion's Den - it was your choice to post in there - if you're not having here then I suggest you take the discussion to a section of the forum where the atmosphere is more cordial and "friendly".

 

Enjoy!!

 

Spatz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The problem with most Christians is that they are so UN Christian."

Dano

 

Grandpa,

 

I guess, you being British, that you are particularly sensitive about folks who plagiarize my good friend Gandhi.

 

I thought I was stealing it from my brother, who used to say it all the time.

 

I live down here in Baptist land, and I had never lived in a place before where everybody was a money grubbing thief, till I moved here.

 

The sons of bitches put signs in their shop windows with "We are a Christian business," and I have learned the hard way, to cross over to the other side of the street before even walking by them.

 

...but it is all part of Gods plan (Christians should prosper), just like babies being born with two faces, and aids, and millions of people starving, and dying from diseases, and chicken flue, and global warming, and that great big rock out there somewhere that is on a collision course with earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy, If you stick around I'll try to help you with your self imposed lack of ability to reason.

 

Buddy said:

"Of course not. Unless you're stuck with a wonderful description of brain function by a scientist who insists on applying that description to the rest of life. Describing how the brain works says little if anything at all about the mind except at the grossest level of function/dysfunction and injury analysis. Will such a description tell us why a fellow walks by an elderly lady, and doesn't knock her down so as to steal her purse? Or why the next fellow does?"

 

The reason why the first guy doesn't steal the little OLE ladies purse is that he was born into a family with better DNA than the second guy.

 

The first guy was smarter, better looking, more successful, and better looking than the second guy, (Sort of like me), and was of the opinion that stealing little OLE ladies purses was stupid.

 

He was also a televangelist with millions of dollars in the bank, and on the way to the airport to board his private jet to his forty-million dollar home.

 

The second guy was poor, stupid, uneducated, and ugly, (With a short forehead) and his momma just sent the televangelist the last twenty dollars she had (The food money), because she had heard him say on TV that she would be blessed "ten fold" if she did.

 

See Buddy, if you weren't so prejudiced toward people who type with two fingers, you could learn a lot!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To impute a deep meaning to a feeling is like building on sand in earthquake country. Feelings shift, they change, they pass... You cannot fully rely on a feeling (remove text) Not without a solid back stop position.

I once saw a woman draw two overlapping circles on a chalkboard, a simple Venn diagram. In one circle she wrote the word “emotion” and in the other she wrote “thought.” Where they overlapped, their intersection, she wrote the phrase “wise mind.”

 

I thought it was very simplistic at the time, but the image has stayed with me through the years.

 

That's because it's trite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dano,

 

and where's the skill in mugging old ladies? The younger ones put up more of a fight and a chase... these days, they're often armed! Nothing like a solid knife fight to get the blood fizzing...

 

 

In all seriousness.

 

To reduce street crime to 'lack of God' or even a eugenicists dream of self selection is a crass over simplification. Always reminds me of the Mormon assertion that black folk bore the Mark of Cain and were thus inferior. 'Random' street crime, insofar as motiveless is miniscule as a statistic, so as to be meaningless unless one is trying to measure the number of primary sociopaths there are in the community.

 

Generally, the difference between an old lady being mugged and not being mugged in a dark alley is a function of need: the potential mugger is not cold enough, hungry enough, in need of the next fix strongly enough, overall not desperate enough, to 'hunt'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To impute a deep meaning to a feeling is like building on sand in earthquake country. Feelings shift, they change, they pass... You cannot fully rely on a feeling (remove text) Not without a solid back stop position.

I once saw a woman draw two overlapping circles on a chalkboard, a simple Venn diagram. In one circle she wrote the word “emotion” and in the other she wrote “thought.” Where they overlapped, their intersection, she wrote the phrase “wise mind.”

 

I thought it was very simplistic at the time, but the image has stayed with me through the years.

 

 

Wasn't that on The Simpsons? The one where Marge tries to cash in on a self-help scam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Fair enough. Maybe there is a "quantum entanglement" or link between minds beyond the normal physical level. I know this is a stretch, but scientists can make particles that are entangled and act in pair, even when they're separated over long distances. If the universe is a fractal web, then perhaps some minds are closer through the fabric on the universe. It wouldn't be supernatural, but just physical connection through the construct itself.

Sounds like parapsychology to me. Its possible there is something to it, but it doesn't require a "supernatural" being.

 

Sounds like the Penrose (Roger Penrose) model of consciousness, wherein he...

Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human consciousness. ...

... It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions (see linked paper below from Hameroff, Hagan and Tuszyński), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique is invalid (see rejoinder link below). In particular, Hameroff points out the peculiarity that Tegmark's formula for the decoherence time includes a factor of \sqrt{T} in the numerator, meaning that higher temperatures would lead to longer decoherence times. Tegmark's rejoinder keeps the factor of \sqrt{T} for the decoherence time.

Hey Grandpa.

Do you have an opinion on the fractal mind meld? Apart from the super-conductor requirements, I mean. While I'm not fond of the subject, parapsychology is a field of study (if not a universally recognized science) based on some number of 'too blatant to ignore' events. We've got to have some category to stuff these things in besides blanket dismissal. I'm open to alternate explanations.

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got to have some category to stuff these things in besides blanket dismissal. I'm open to alternate explanations.

 

Blanket dismissal is a bit of an ad hom. They are dismissed because when tested the number of correct hits are the same as random probability. In a few cases where this has not been true, it has been amply explained that the test was not properly performed. I can't recall the name of the study that was debunked, so can't look it up now, but essentially it was shown that researchers were asking leading questions and offering other hints that explained why the study group got more correct hits than the control group.

 

The "too blatent to ignore" events should in fact be ignored. The human mind remembers hits and forgets misses (answered prayer anyone?). This is why wierd things are so easily believed and why they need to be tested by "evil" rigorous science to get at the truth of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... good character is counter-select, expensive, and of questionable benefit, however admirable it may be. Bad character (or the absence of character, however it might be described) is more prevalent, more likely survival/success/selectable, and much less expensive in terms of individual cost and effort. Character is one in a list of such human experience elements about which science doesn't seem to have much of substance to say regarding its' arrival or continuance. At least that's my impression so far.

 

I would strongly disagree with this. Good character in it's citizens is a great survival tool when considered on the species level. Don't forget, evolution doesn't really deal with the individual, it deals with populations. Morals and "character" are positive co-operative traits when individuals are organized on the level of societies. Is it easier to not have character and morals? In the short-run, individualistic perspective, possilby. But when you combine evloutionary strategies of co-operation with sexual selections based on cultural norms, it doesn't seem too far fetch too me for this to have developed without the need for supernatural intervention of some kind.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Skankboy,

Evolution, as you suggest, doesn't really deal with the individual. In the realm of randomness, it holds up rather well with the occasional successful mutation among the majority which fail to provide utility. It's when spilling over into the realm of non-random interactions (reasoned choice based) that problems seem to arise. System analysis and game theory allow for likely changes to be predicted but not by a cause external to choice. The prediction is in the assumptions that produce the math. Predicting that I will avoid non-air conditioned cars while living in Texas is easy. Predicting the same for the general population of Texas is similarly easy after adding in economic and other factors. Prediction of systematic behavior is easy enough even without the math when dealing with money or resources or even political opinions to some degree. Stretching that to cover character seems over-reaching by several orders of magnitude to me when that to which character refers has a higher energy expenditure and lower return in anything other than self-respect. Suggesting that men who live lives of selfless nobility will be more sexually appealing to women sounds like an infomercial for the latest ED treatment.

 

Pardon my use of the unflattering name; could you not have picked something with a little more positive connotation?

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Your style is your own, and quite unique, even entertaining, but I hope you'll understand if I have difficulty finding within your insults that to which I might respond usefully. I am a little curious how you chose your method; does it serve you well? Do Christians usually cower and run away? Continuing the line of thought which we've batted around here, does your style reflect a particular genetic trait or cultural imperative? Or is it just your nature nurture choice destiny emotional inclination well considered choice bad luck?

Buddy

 

Buddy - you're in the Lion's Den - it was your choice to post in there - if you're not having here then I suggest you take the discussion to a section of the forum where the atmosphere is more cordial and "friendly".

 

Enjoy!!

 

Spatz

Sparrow,

While not as warm and welcoming a place as elementary school, the Lion's Den will do. I'll apologize for the snippy response it that will help; I only hoped to provoke something a little beyond the superficial level from you. We might exchange humorous insults from time to time as a recreational aside so as to keep in proper form for the venue, but wouldn't it be of more interest to add our genuine thoughts? Don't give up so easily.

 

Buddy

(At least give me humor points for the punchline!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, Mankey. Unless one must provide a reasonable explanation for those few but well documented out of body events (near death) where the individual watched their own body and the doctors working over it; they could describe the events in the room as if they had been conscious and observant. Of course, one might choose to believe that no such things had actually happened.

That is true. There are a couple of stories like this. Do we have any scientific study that tried to explain this or test these things? If there was, and they had some natural explanation, would you believe them? What do you think about that OBE can be induced by drugs or other stimuli?

 

Of course not. Unless you're stuck with a wonderful description of brain function by a scientist who insists on applying that description to the rest of life. Describing how the brain works says little if anything at all about the mind except at the grossest level of function/dysfunction and injury analysis. Will such a description tell us why a fellow walks by an elderly lady, and doesn't knock her down so as to steal her purse? Or why the next fellow does?

Okay. Sure. So lets start with the dualistic view of the mind. Now first, how do you test what function of the brain is physical and which one is supernatural? After all, science is about study and organizing and explain, not guess. Scientists prefer to have tools where they test and repeat the tests. What exactly is it that you ask scientists do? Pray? Sacrifice an animal? Chant? Take hallucinogenic drugs and cut themselves? You're criticizing science for doing what they're supposed to do. Science is about natural ontology, not supernatural fideism.

 

A person would help a lady over the street because he was taught to do so. See, that was easy to explain. People learn to cooperate, by family, society, school etc, and some people don't learn it. There are benefits to cooperation in a group of individual (even animals can show sighs of this). I did read about this a few months ago in a science magazine, but I can't remember exactly where and what it was. Some of it had to do with our monkey brain that imitates individuals around us. We learn a behavioral pattern by copying what other people do.

 

We needn't yet posit a soul, however. A mind will do for a beginning.

A description of the brain's functions will serve well for differentiating the conscious and competent from the less fortunate. Among the conscious and competent, such analysis might hint imprecisely at this trait or that, this probability of development or that lack. Will it predict for us which one will be great or good or diligent or thoughtful or fair? Or a criminal? If it could, what would it have said about you? Would it have predicted the young man who was 7th generation poor, ineducable, white trash from south Alabama would become a college graduate and post graduate scholar, a Navy Officer mission commander, and all around opposite of his genetic and cultural heritage? I can't help but wonder if those who insist on such sweeping generalizations from specialized facts didn't flush their ability to reason down that neuroscienctific toilet.

Buddy

(Before you ask, no, it wasn't me, he was a friend of mine though.)

Genes and Memes Buddy. Two concepts that go hand in hand, like CPU and software.

 

Can you look at a CPU at Intel before it has shipped to a customer if it will be running a great operating system that works flawlessly and never gets a virus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Penrose (Roger Penrose) model of consciousness...

Big Wow indeed. That's a lot to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.