Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, 'parapsychology' tends to be the remit of slight dubious, effete men with improbably hair styles...

 

 

Rather like the 'supernatural', there is no such thing as the 'paranormal' or 'parapsychology', just gaps in the models we use to understand 'nature' and like any model, it can be improved.

[dano]

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'.

 

Then whether he mugs her or doesn't mug her, depends on what his priorities are at the moment.

 

I was of the opinion that muggers were chronic hooky players of Sunday school, and non muggers were card carrying Christians.

 

Or you could say it another way: Stupid people, with stupid parents, seventh generation welfare types, are more likely to mug little OLE ladies than graduates from Harvard, who are making three mill. a year.

[Grandpa Harley]

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 minuscule 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'.

 

Then whether he mugs her or doesn't mug her, depends on what his priorities are at the moment.

 

I was of the opinion that muggers were chronic hooky players of Sunday school, and non muggers were card carrying Christians.

 

Or you could say it another way: Stupid people, with stupid parents, seventh generation welfare types, are more likely to mug little OLE ladies than graduates from Harvard, who are making three mill. a year.

 

Everyone's choices are wholly contextual, even when the context is 'WWJD'

 

I was grimly amused by the context of this chap's choices... and the way justice was served...

[Skankboy]

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.

You may want to vere away from the "randomness". Mutation may be, but selection is most definitely not.

 

I guess the point I was trying to make before is that societies that didn't produce individuals with "character" probably don't last. And don't forget, we've "broken" the evolutionary rules in many respects by trading physcial adaptation for cultural. It still possess evolutionary themes (selection, adaptation, etc), but not in the same manner as the biological version. So a purely biological reason for "character" really isn't necessary. All you really need is the seed (empathy) and cultural pressure does the rest.

 

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

Buddy

LOL... It's not a bad connotation. You just don't understand the reference: Skank = dance style popular amongst the punk/ska crowd. Me = ska fan. Therefore = Skankboy. That... and I'm a total whore...

[dano]

My dog spot, can tell time.

Every night at exactly 10;30 she comes down the stairs and waits to be let out.

 

She also sees ghosts. There is particular place on the floor of the living room that she is terrified about walking across.

 

If I grab her collar and try to drag her across that spot she fights and digs her claws in and growls.

 

I have become a firm believer that she can tell time, and she sees ghosts!

 

Have you ever noticed that psychics all have "That look?"

 

Why is it that all people who believe in reincarnation believe that they were royalty in their past lives?

 

Do you think God will make it so, that "Jamika" wins the money in "Big Brother"?

[Sparrow]

Oh Buddy, don't Bitch slap me now

...

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!)

 

This is really your problem. You don't talk straight.

 

Yes, I'm not an english speaker, but don't play that game with me - ergo "superficial " and subtle innuendo. Even though I am not a native English speaker, I'll gurantee you that I'll tear you apart with language.

 

Don't be stupid Buddy. Just because you are a native english speaker, make no mistake that the subtley of your arrogance and nastiness is lost on me. It's not.

 

Just think for a second buddy, that maybe there is someone out there who knows what game you are playing.

 

Last chance.

 

Spatz

[Grandpa Harley]

A-men sister!

 

[Sparrow]

A-men sister!

 

 

Mich, du auch!!!!

[Grandpa Harley]

Bitte!

[Sparrow]

Bitte!

 

Bitteschön meine Liebe!!

 

 

Spatz (Willa)

[BuddyFerris]

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.

...

HanS.

 

Do a little distinction between brain and mind for me; the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably here. The way I see it follows; feel free to adjust my thinking.

Science observes and describes. That's not a criticism. When science extrapolates from a few facts to a grand inclusive theory, that's asinine (that's a criticism). For an exaggerated example of bad thinking, consider, I might be able to induce an epileptic-like seizure by a pattern of flashing lights; therefore I might from the single fact incorrectly conclude that all epileptic seizures must in some fashion be related to flashing lights. Or by analysis of multiple brain activity sensors, I locate the areas where the brain seems most active during fight or flight responses; therefore, the fight or flight response must be caused by the brain at that point. In each case, no. An examination and description of the BRAIN activity associated with various MIND functions says little or nothing of the provocation, logic, or conclusion to that which is observed.

 

So help me understand your use of the words. If the brain is a physical organ, perhaps the mind is the occupant. Thoughts?

 

You suggest that a person helps because they were taught to do so; I might therefore incorrectly conclude that each who helps does so because they were taught to do so, and each who does not lacked the teaching event. If that were so, the function would be predictable and without virtue or blame. It isn't. People choose to do or not do certain things based less on physiological brain function (deterministic) than on mind activity (reason). For one fellow, to walk past the old lady without doing her harm is the norm for him; for another, it may be a great moral victory in a fierce internal struggle against the norm. Do both appear in the scientists brain analysis and extrapolation? No. Neither appears. Science speaks authoritatively only about those things which it has observed, as is appropriate.

 

Don't presume that I am critical of science, or even all scientists. I appreciate scientists, especially the honest and not overly ambitious type. Such a scientists might say, if asked to tell you whether that house over there were of brick or stone, "It appears to be brick, at least on this side." The ambitious type might say, "It's obviously common brick, and any suggestion otherwise is uninformed. It was obviously built with the rest in the subdivision by a developer with a target of middle-class white collar types employed at the local aircraft industry around 10 years ago." If you asked the owner, he might tell you, "I built this one; it's hard-burned SW brick all around which I laid myself." Only two of three provide useful information.

 

Dawkins, a source quoted here occasionally, seems frequently to epitomize the ambitious type. Although popular for his significant contributions to science, he has garnered the reputation for over-reaching, applying narrow observations to broad areas without adequate grounds. Worth reading, of course, but with a reserve of critical judgment.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Oh Buddy, don't Bitch slap me now

...

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!)

This is really your problem. You don't talk straight.

Yes, I'm not an english speaker, but don't play that game with me - ergo "superficial " and subtle innuendo. Even though I am not a native English speaker, I'll gurantee you that I'll tear you apart with language.

Don't be stupid Buddy. Just because you are a native english speaker, make no mistake that the subtley of your arrogance and nastiness is lost on me. It's not.

Just think for a second buddy, that maybe there is someone out there who knows what game you are playing.

Last chance.

Spatz

Sparrow,

Your English is quite good, though you might occasionally miss the fine line between insult and humorous sarcasm. I intend neither nastiness nor harm, and I'll do my best to watch for arrogance. If there's a game afoot, I haven't signed on. That said, if your pleasure here is tearing me apart with language, far be it from me to deny you the opportunity. I'll talk as straight as you like if you'll respond in kind.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

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.

I appreciate the benefit of scientific analysis, and you're correct, parapsychological testing has produced ambiguous results, often statistically significant, but difficult to reproduce in the lab at will. Per your rule then, all such events in environments other than the lab should be considered valueless. Even in the single, statistically isolated case where there were no misses against which to compute averages. Even when it happens in an environment adequately objective to satisfy the several observers. Available information suggests that something out of the ordinary occurred for which no test methodology has yet been defined. Deciding that all such events should in fact be ignored on the basis of one study being debunked is perhaps simplistic. While parapsychotic weirdos appear on TV and elsewhere, the majority of whom may well be charlatans or just clever tricksters, we're left with accounts of visions and such by people we know who cannot be so classified. Baby and bathwater, Vigile. Refine your aim a bit and tell me what you'll do with them.

 

Buddy

[Mankey]

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.

There is no unless about it.

 

The burden of proof is on you only. A rational belief is based on good evidence, and not on confirmation bias. Prove it the right way -sans fallacious methodologies.

 

People who have had near death experiences? Some have been in the same boat but had no stories to tell. Occams razor helps us in having the most rational beliefs on the matter. Delusions exist. We know that. Hallucinations exist. We know that. People can lie to themselves in support of what they want to believe. Even doctors are not immune...we know this. Even if there was an afterlife of some kind as things stand now there is no reason to hold to that belief. To hold that belief is irrational. Unreasonable. So in important matters theists should shut their superstitious mouths and let rational methods be used in all things. 1st hold rational beliefs. 2nd decide how you feel based on a rational position.

 

A little something from the BBC news. Out-Of-Body Experience Recreated, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm

 

One of my uncles got in a motorcycle accident. The brain damage done has reduced his ability to empathize with others ; so much for a divine external standard.

 

His personality is different due to the damage to his brain. So logically what does that imply Buddy? If parts of the mind can be destroyed then the whole mind can be destroyed. IOW when we die thats it. Lights out. Oblivion. You are a bigot that irrationally and narrow mindedly holds to a soul and an afterlife. This is not a rational position to hold to. It is unreasonable. Stop attacking rational methods for the sake of your superstition. Doing that makes you a bigot.

 

Remember, rationally it is not for us to disprove your delusions about your idol. We base our knowledge on what can be demonstrated and not on ridiculous bullshit that only makes naked assertions cloaked in logical fallacies in order to comfort the sheeple. Christianity is bullshit.

 

The more Christians keep pushing science around the more people who actually practice science will debunk your bullshit. Thats right Christians, keep pushing, keep it up and all you are going to get is more and more people who actually do science angry -angry enough to start dispelling the delusions of theism.

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?

This is no argument for a soul or an external divine standard. You are very disingenuous. Either rationally help in answering these questions with other rational people or kindly keep your delusions to yourself. There is no room for your superstitious delusion in these matters. All you are doing is trying to find fault with rational methodologies so that there appears to be room for anti-intellectualism. There is no room for the Christian religion what so ever when it comes to rationally discriminating and neither is Christianity ( the bible ) a method in helping us to answer these questions. It does not matter how many things you question about rational methods.....doing that alone is not making your case for your superstitious beliefs. Grow up.

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.)

For a beginning? More twisting on your part. We have no idea what all science may be able to do in the future. Your whining about our ignorance is not building your case for a soul, an afterlife, or an external divine standard. Every time you dodge I will remind you that you are in no way building a case for your superstition and that you are only trying to make circular reasoning and arguement from ignorance seem reasonable. Your idol is just as ridiculous as any other superstitionists idol. Your spiritual beliefs are ridiculous.

[Vigile]

all such events in environments other than the lab should be considered valueless.

 

I would prefer to say that there is no reason to give credence to the idea that there might be something else when there is no verifiably statistically significant data supporting the claim. To do so isn't making room for some as yet unknown truth, but making room for what we just think might be true. The reason we think these phenomena might be true is due to good imagination and the poor ability the brain has at analyzing hits and misses without tools.

 

in the single, statistically isolated case where there were no misses against which to compute averages

 

What could possibly be garnered from a single isolated case? Coincidence.

 

Available information suggests that something out of the ordinary occurred for which no test methodology has yet been defined.

 

Such as?

 

that all such events should in fact be ignored on the basis of one study being debunked is perhaps simplistic.

 

No, again, considering that there is something paranormal going on without any, nada, niente, nechivo, verifiably statistically significant data opens the doors to believing any ol' thing might be possible; including the tooth fairy.

 

we're left with accounts of visions and such by people we know who cannot be so classified

 

Again, examples?

[dano]

This is really your problem. You don't talk straight.

 

Yes, I'm not an english speaker, but don't play that game with me - ergo "superficial " and subtle innuendo. Even though I am not a native English speaker, I'll gurantee you that I'll tear you apart with language.

 

Don't be stupid Buddy. Just because you are a native english speaker, make no mistake that the subtley of your arrogance and nastiness is lost on me. It's not.

 

Just think for a second buddy, that maybe there is someone out there who knows what game you are playing.

 

Last chance.

 

Spatz

 

Yea but can you go 59 pages pretending the premise that you are a rock solid Christian on an ex-Christian website, while disowning all of the basic dogma of Christianity with "I don't know the answer to that" "I'm not sure I believe that," and basically assuming the stance of an agnostic.

 

Spatz. I think Buddy is just lonesome because he has isolated himself from all other humans with his need to believe that he is an intellectual.

 

He sincerely cannot see or refuses to see the fallacy of his thinking, even when people of superior intellect point it out to him.

 

His ability to think, and speak clearly, and to the point, is damaged beyond repair.

 

We need to just humor him at best, or ignore him at worst just as he ignores, and cherry picks the subjects that he does such a mediocre job of pretending to know something about.

 

I love your clear direct speech, and your transparency, and abhor people like buddy who have gone through their whole lives thinking that they have fooled everybody with their verbose word machinations.

[dano]

Since the idea of a benevolent God needing to kill someone (himself) so that he can forgive our sinfulness (That he invented), is so obviously an idea, that is Pagan, and copied from pagan religions that preceded Christianity, and is so completely devoid of logic and rationality, to the point of being asinine, we can come to only one conclusion.

 

We haven't evolved enough yet, into intelligent beings.

[Legion]

We haven't evolved enough yet, into intelligent beings. [/b]

I think we have a consciousness with training wheels.

[BuddyFerris]

all such events in environments other than the lab should be considered valueless.

I would prefer to say that there is no reason to give credence to the idea that there might be something else when there is no verifiably statistically significant data supporting the claim. To do so isn't making room for some as yet unknown truth, but making room for what we just think might be true. The reason we think these phenomena might be true is due to good imagination and the poor ability the brain has at analyzing hits and misses without tools.

 

in the single, statistically isolated case where there were no misses against which to compute averages

What could possibly be garnered from a single isolated case? Coincidence.

 

Available information suggests that something out of the ordinary occurred for which no test methodology has yet been defined.

Such as?

 

that all such events should in fact be ignored on the basis of one study being debunked is perhaps simplistic.

No, again, considering that there is something paranormal going on without any, nada, niente, nechivo, verifiably statistically significant data opens the doors to believing any ol' thing might be possible; including the tooth fairy.

 

we're left with accounts of visions and such by people we know who cannot be so classified

Again, examples?

Good morning, Vigile. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

You make a good point for scientific method and an adequate sample set. Further, suggesting that one such event might be valid raises the specter of all such events being significant in some way; not an easily managed concept. I'm aware of our tendency to selectively remember supporting data and discard similar data which would detract from our preferred conclusion. The need for analysis under controlled conditions is perhaps legitimate but difficult to construct if the contention is that there are two parties involved and you can only guarantee the participation of one.

 

The underlying thought to this line of posts began with my recounting for Dano an event of what could be called a vision. 'Vision' is a bit of a religious term that evokes old correlations; it might be more accurately called a mental picture....

 

As I sit here writing, there's a lady on the news who supposedly communicates with the spirits of the dead; Lady Diana in this case. Holy crap, she's trying to tell us that Diana's spirit says her death was an accident. And she (Diana) is hanging around to watch over her children; apparently (according to lady) we all hang around for awhile and do good things for those we've left behind. Nuts. Here's a good example (on national news, no less; must be a slow news day) of that specter; if you give credence to any such event, others will dilute the argument to nonsense.

 

Where was I? Mental picture... Dano was begging (humorously) for something he could play with, so I told him my account of one such mental picture. The elements were simple:

- the picture was unbidden, out of mental context, and persistent (by comparison to familiar imagination where the scenery shifts more or less continuously)

- the picture was detailed, easily examined for additional detail, available for inquiry for the duration (a few minutes as opposed to a brief snapshot)

- the picture was unrelated to my current list of interests, was not about me or anyone close to me, but about a fellow with whom I had infrequent contact, none recent

- the picture's central details were pointedly relevant to the fellow and contained a specific element (as opposed to a vague reference) regarding his future about which he had just been informed

- the central element was sequentially discovered; it didn't begin with with the fellow but with a series of observational steps leading to a logbook entry with his name and upcoming assignment.

- relating the picture to the fellow accomplished the following (observed):

- he was mildly surprised by the external source (me; I don't do that sort of thing as part of my routine. I prefer to steer clear of such things. It would bother me greatly if such a thing happened and turned out to be bad pizza; I'd remember a miss.)

- he was able to immediately point to the relevance (specific travel and training assignment, including subject area)

- we were both surprised at the precision of the central element and were encouraged (by God's attentive oversight) along with being a little spooked by the whole thing

 

Along with you, I would gladly discount the event (as I will the lady on the national news).

 

Assigning it to coincidence is a bit of a stretch. It would require me to coincidentally be thinking about something which doesn't exist at the time; specifically, a logbook entry inside a particular logbook inside a compartment on a particular aircraft at an airport in the coincidentally convenient moment before the person (the named fellow in the logbook) walked into the room. It would be a particularly unlikely coincidence since I wasn't thinking about concrete matters at all at the time the persistent picture was inserted up front in my awareness.

The argument might be made that such things can be stimulated by chemical imbalance, psychotic episode, or a blow to the head. It would be an extraordinary coincidence that such an event would happen moments before the subject individual entered the building. Without requiring anyone to agree, my impression is that it was a purposeful event for the fellow's encouragement and perhaps for mine as well.

 

Should I give any credence to the single event that I experienced personally? I do, albeit with reservations. If I do so, do I also have to give credence to the lady on tv who visits with Princess Di's not-quite-departed spirit? I don't, no reservations. How do I decide? I don't know anything about the lady, nor am I inclined to go chase after her; arbitrary decision on preference, personal relevance, time available to devote to such things.

 

There are perhaps dozens or thousands of personalities who claim supernatural ability, all of whom I will discount (as you will) should I have occasion to notice them at all. Is it possible that there are people with such abilities? I don't think so, as ability implies an inherent trait in a few individuals (for something uncommon in the general population) which should be testable under controlled circumstances. Might there be people who have been spoken to in some manner; that's what I expect the case to be with more than one point of origin being possible. Thus the difficulty in establishing a valid test case; examining people for telecommunications implies a requirement for the phone to ring during the test.

 

I would prefer such things be religious relics of the past, quietly left behind for the near-mythic prophets and seers to have experienced without modern counterpart being necessary. I might discount all such accounts were not one of them personal and compelling. I'm left with a personal attempt at objective analysis with the help of others present for the event and subsequently validating what I've experienced against the record of similar events.

 

This aspect of spirituality is not central to my personal belief, only peripheral. It is not the thing that persuades me to my belief, only consistent therewith. It doesn't occupy any regular place in my thoughts. I'd be quite content without it.

 

Buddy

[Vigile]

That was a thoughtful answer Buddy.

[Ouroboros]

Random chance.

 

Have a group of 1,000,000 people.

 

Lets say 1,000 of them think of someone else at a given moment (during a period of one week).

 

Let these 1 million people randomly meet other people.

 

There is a chance that one out of these 1,000 people will meet one of the people they were thinking of at one given point in time. (I'm not gonna do the calculation, but to me it's obvious that the probability exists)

 

So was this event a divine intervention or was it pure chance?

[alanh]

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.

Hi Mankey, sorry I didn't make myself more clear. What I'm talking about is how we understand things like thoughts, feeling and actions. You are absolutely right, the brain is where consciousness resides, and the more we understand how the brain works, the more we understand consciousness. But I think there are practical limits to understanding thoughts and actions through physiology alone, sheer complexity being perhaps the biggest obstacle. So I would say physiology is necessary, but not sufficient for understanding consciousness.

How else, in addition through physiology can it be understood.

There are a number of contexts:

cosmological

evolutionary

genetic

cultural

linguistic

psychological

physiological

physical

 

I don't think we can look at any one particular context and say that it is sufficient to explain consciousness. However, when apologists start talking about the "limits" of science, they typically say something like "according to scientists, appreciation of a sunset is just a release of certain chemicals in the brain." That is certainly a part of the phenomenon, but the fallacy is thinking that it is the complete explanation. My concern is that we don't accept the apologist's strawman caricature of science and start arguing that appreciation of a sunset is indeed nothing more than biochemistry. Hope that makes some sense.

[dano]

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.

There is no unless about it.

 

The burden of proof is on you only. A rational belief is based on good evidence, and not on confirmation bias. Prove it the right way -sans fallacious methodologies.

 

People who have had near death experiences? Some have been in the same boat but had no stories to tell. Occams razor helps us in having the most rational beliefs on the matter. Delusions exist. We know that. Hallucinations exist. We know that. People can lie to themselves in support of what they want to believe. Even doctors are not immune...we know this. Even if there was an afterlife of some kind as things stand now there is no reason to hold to that belief. To hold that belief is irrational. Unreasonable. So in important matters theists should shut their superstitious mouths and let rational methods be used in all things. 1st hold rational beliefs. 2nd decide how you feel based on a rational position.

 

A little something from the BBC news. Out-Of-Body Experience Recreated, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm

 

One of my uncles got in a motorcycle accident. The brain damage done has reduced his ability to empathize with others ; so much for a divine external standard.

 

His personality is different due to the damage to his brain. So logically what does that imply Buddy? If parts of the mind can be destroyed then the whole mind can be destroyed. IOW when we die thats it. Lights out. Oblivion. You are a bigot that irrationally and narrow mindedly holds to a soul and an afterlife. This is not a rational position to hold to. It is unreasonable. Stop attacking rational methods for the sake of your superstition. Doing that makes you a bigot.

 

Remember, rationally it is not for us to disprove your delusions about your idol. We base our knowledge on what can be demonstrated and not on ridiculous bullshit that only makes naked assertions cloaked in logical fallacies in order to comfort the sheeple. Christianity is bullshit.

 

The more Christians keep pushing science around the more people who actually practice science will debunk your bullshit. Thats right Christians, keep pushing, keep it up and all you are going to get is more and more people who actually do science angry -angry enough to start dispelling the delusions of theism.

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?

This is no argument for a soul or an external divine standard. You are very disingenuous. Either rationally help in answering these questions with other rational people or kindly keep your delusions to yourself. There is no room for your superstitious delusion in these matters. All you are doing is trying to find fault with rational methodologies so that there appears to be room for anti-intellectualism. There is no room for the Christian religion what so ever when it comes to rationally discriminating and neither is Christianity ( the bible ) a method in helping us to answer these questions. It does not matter how many things you question about rational methods.....doing that alone is not making your case for your superstitious beliefs. Grow up.

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.)

For a beginning? More twisting on your part. We have no idea what all science may be able to do in the future. Your whining about our ignorance is not building your case for a soul, an afterlife, or an external divine standard. Every time you dodge I will remind you that you are in no way building a case for your superstition and that you are only trying to make circular reasoning and arguement from ignorance seem reasonable. Your idol is just as ridiculous as any other superstitionists idol. Your spiritual beliefs are ridiculous.

 

Actually Mankey, I find Buddy to be very interesting. His ability to color every natural event with his persistent desire to witness to heathens and agnostics, and Buddhists, and Muslims anal of the other non Christians, to the extent that he will even inject the slightest nuance of his pretense of believing, into everything he says, is fascinating.

 

He can't use Occams Razor, because Occams razor doesn't include an ever, overriding clause that says, the simplest answer to anything must include the possibility of an old man up in the sky watching everything we do, and ready to ban us from heaven at the slightest infraction of the rules.

 

What make it even more fascinating, is he doesn't realize that he has discounted virtually every aspect of his creed at one time or another during these discussions.

 

I know that these are the same points that you so artfully articulated, so I guess what this post is really doing is congratulating you.

 

Good job Mankey!

[Sparrow]

This is really your problem. You don't talk straight.

 

...text...

 

Spatz

 

Yea but can you go 59 pages pretending the premise that you are a rock solid Christian on an ex-Christian website, while disowning all of the basic dogma of Christianity with "I don't know the answer to that" "I'm not sure I believe that," and basically assuming the stance of an agnostic.

 

Spatz. I think Buddy is just lonesome because he has isolated himself from all other humans with his need to believe that he is an intellectual.

 

He sincerely cannot see or refuses to see the fallacy of his thinking, even when people of superior intellect point it out to him.

 

His ability to think, and speak clearly, and to the point, is damaged beyond repair.

 

We need to just humor him at best, or ignore him at worst just as he ignores, and cherry picks the subjects that he does such a mediocre job of pretending to know something about.

 

I love your clear direct speech, and your transparency, and abhor people like buddy who have gone through their whole lives thinking that they have fooled everybody with their verbose word machinations.

 

Dearest Dano,

 

You may be right, but I just can't help myself - hence my following posting.

 

Spatz

[Ouroboros]

Do a little distinction between brain and mind for me; the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably here. The way I see it follows; feel free to adjust my thinking.

Science observes and describes. That's not a criticism. When science extrapolates from a few facts to a grand inclusive theory, that's asinine (that's a criticism). For an exaggerated example of bad thinking, consider, I might be able to induce an epileptic-like seizure by a pattern of flashing lights; therefore I might from the single fact incorrectly conclude that all epileptic seizures must in some fashion be related to flashing lights. Or by analysis of multiple brain activity sensors, I locate the areas where the brain seems most active during fight or flight responses; therefore, the fight or flight response must be caused by the brain at that point. In each case, no. An examination and description of the BRAIN activity associated with various MIND functions says little or nothing of the provocation, logic, or conclusion to that which is observed.

 

So help me understand your use of the words. If the brain is a physical organ, perhaps the mind is the occupant. Thoughts?

What is a movie? If you have a DVD disk, where and what is the movie when you play it in your DVD player? Does it exist somwhere in some ether before you played it, or is it a result of a process?

 

Where is Microsoft Windows? Is it on a CD, on a HD, or does it only exist when you run it on a computer complete with CPU, RAM and video card? I don't think you believe Microsoft Windows exists in the spiritual world before it enters existence into our world when you turn on the power.

 

The Mind in my opinion is the result of the process and activity of the brain. The Mind can't exist without the processor (brain matter), and the Mind is a result of the process. It's metaphysical in that sense. Exists beyond or top of the physical, but not without it.

 

 

You suggest that a person helps because they were taught to do so; I might therefore incorrectly conclude that each who helps does so because they were taught to do so, and each who does not lacked the teaching event.

Again, you stretch it too far to one or the either side, only because you don't like that answer. It isn't either or. It isn't black-and-white.

 

Do you know anything about artificial neural nets? And how they are trained? If you understood how computers are made to imitate the brain, you'll also understand the how probability works for the decisions a brain makes. By training to make certain decisions more likely, but the basis for a decision is so much more complex than to just say we make it from a robotic response to a given event. We judge the situation from thousands, maybe millions parameters. So by learning that it is "right" to help a lady or to help anyone in need, only increases the chances of your decision, and it does not create a boolean switch.

 

If that were so, the function would be predictable and without virtue or blame.

No, because of what I said above. Training increases the tendency to the behavior, it does not create robots. Besides the brain very likely reacts to quantum events too, which causes a slight randomness in the decision making. And also, you have to include the faults of the brain and physics itself. The brain isn't a relay station, but a very complex neuro-net, and some of the "chips" in there might die or fail, and the signals will take a different path all of a sudden, and you come to a different decision.

 

You see the brain as a light-switch, and that is wrong. The PC you have in front of you only represents about 1% of the brain. Wait a few years (about 10) and we'll have computers powerful enough to show you how instable the design is. (If you haven't noticed it already with your computer. That friggin Windows just works different from time to time, and it does it without any new software installed. It's the matter of complexity.)

 

 

It isn't. People choose to do or not do certain things based less on physiological brain function (deterministic) than on mind activity (reason).

So how do you reason? Using your brain.

 

On what do you reason, and with what tools do you reason? With language, that you have learned, and with knowledge that you also have learned.

 

Reason isn't supernatural.

 

For one fellow, to walk past the old lady without doing her harm is the norm for him; for another, it may be a great moral victory in a fierce internal struggle against the norm. Do both appear in the scientists brain analysis and extrapolation? No. Neither appears. Science speaks authoritatively only about those things which it has observed, as is appropriate.

What is "norm"? Something that is a norm to do, something which is common to do, something you have learned to do often.

 

What would cause him to have a internal struggle? A thought? Based on something he heard, or learned? Or do you claim God is giving people thoughts to help ladies over the street, while he gives some mom the thought of drowning her children?

 

And you're correct. Most science study what is observed. Neuroscience, psychology, philosophy and sociology does study these subjects in a somewhat scientific way. But since the subject is very "dynamic" and "fluid" it isn't as measurable and testable as most physical science. But it is still natural in nature, and not supernatural.

 

Buddy, anything supernatural will by its own definition always be unpredictable. How can you test and re-test something you know very likely not happen again? Science like you said, have to deal with observations.

 

I guess, what you're trying to say is that science doesn't contradict religion, and religion doesn't have to contradict science. And I agree there. I'm not anti-religious, or anti-theist, but I am quite upset with too many religious that are anti-science and anti-reality. I think that's where we have to start, to make sure people pull themselves out of the delusion of dumbamentalism.

 

Don't presume that I am critical of science, or even all scientists. I appreciate scientists, especially the honest and not overly ambitious type. Such a scientists might say, if asked to tell you whether that house over there were of brick or stone, "It appears to be brick, at least on this side." The ambitious type might say, "It's obviously common brick, and any suggestion otherwise is uninformed. It was obviously built with the rest in the subdivision by a developer with a target of middle-class white collar types employed at the local aircraft industry around 10 years ago." If you asked the owner, he might tell you, "I built this one; it's hard-burned SW brick all around which I laid myself." Only two of three provide useful information.

That's how I see the fundamentalist religious people do too. If science, natural and reality contradicts their faith, they rather believe some unknown author from 2000 years ago, than thousands of scientists and tested theoris in present time. Very radically ignorant. My brother believes that gravity is something Jesus is doing actively. The moon only spins around Earth because Jesus is making sure it does. He's older than me, and I don't feel comfortable to talk bad about him, but that's one of my family members... and I used to be like that too. Anti-scientiific.

 

The only religion I can approve of is the one that allows itself get modified when new evidence and provable theories is brought to our knowledge. A religion that rather believe than know, will be destructive at some point or the other. So as long as you keep an open mind to what science say, then I'm fine with whatever you believe. But if you close your mind to what science say than you can't complain about scientists being closed minded, since you are closed yourself. Agree? Jesus hated hypocricy, I wish most Christians would too.

 

Dawkins, a source quoted here occasionally, seems frequently to epitomize the ambitious type. Although popular for his significant contributions to science, he has garnered the reputation for over-reaching, applying narrow observations to broad areas without adequate grounds. Worth reading, of course, but with a reserve of critical judgment.

I think Dawkings is a bit strong worded sometimes too. I'm not as hard core, anti-religious, but I do think he makes a lot of good points.

 

Atheism, non-theism, agnosticism etc, is very individual. Each one of us got their own little view of life, and there's very little common dogma that we all have to follow... actually we don't have any at all.

 

Religion tends to bind people and force them to believe the same things, and the options and free will is taken away. The religious person who doesn't let themselves be tied up, can be free to research and find their own answers.