Crusader King on Microevolution

Last post 12-11-2010, 3:13 AM by Kangaroo Love. 28 replies.
Page 2 of 2 (29 items)   < Previous 1 2
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  12-10-2010, 2:53 PM 964167 in reply to 964158

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.


    justjtealouse:

    From what I understand from this forum is that "kangaroo love" is the boss around here and theres some poser named "sPro Mitch?" who keeps saying he's the best but he's not.
  •  12-10-2010, 3:13 PM 964181 in reply to 964167

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.

    Oh, I know most atheist don't believe it, but that is what Sam Harris is writing a book on. Look it up. He's an idiot and gives a bad name to atheists everywhere.

    As far as the Leibnizian gap goes... the problem works like this; imagine you can (shrink down and go inside the brain)-the old version/(completely know how the brain works)-newer version; even then you still wouldn't see the person's qualitative experience. You have your own qualitative experience, and the other person has his/hers. We only know that we are conscious, and no one else. This is just because we are the stuff that is conscious. I don't see how neuroscience could ever overcome this. Although it could completely explain the brain in terms of the behavior of observed matter. You could make the objection that this is an argument from lack of imagination (as the Churchlands do), but I don't much care for that objection in general. Isn't VALIDITY an argument from lack of imagination? After all, the validity of an argument is merely defined as the consequent necessarily following from the antecedent.

    I don't think neuroscience can explain the qualitative aspect of consciousness simply because it is ontologically identical with what we perceive to be the matter of the brain. We can only experience matter as a representation in our own minds, to perceive the qualitative nature of matter would mean that the matter we were studying would have to be subjectively present to our own consciousness, which sounds nuts unless you believe in yogic perception or something like that. Actually people have argued (David Chalmers) that consciousness exists on the quantum level, and so it behaves a bit more eerily than we would think according to classic biological models, while still operating within the realm of physics. It's an interesting idea, and would actually make room for the idea of an afterlife/reincarnation that is compatible with physics. Too bad it's virtually impossible to prove either way.


    What is happiness but the feeling of power increasing, and obstacles being overcome? -Nietzsche
  •  12-10-2010, 3:21 PM 964187 in reply to 964181

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.

    Oh, I know most atheist don't believe it, but that is what Sam Harris is writing a book on. Look it up. He's an idiot and gives a bad name to atheists everywhere.

    As far as the Leibnizian gap goes... the problem works like this; imagine you can (shrink down and go inside the brain)-the old version/(completely know how the brain works)-newer version; even then you still wouldn't see the person's qualitative experience. You have your own qualitative experience, and the other person has his/hers. We only know that we are conscious, and no one else. This is just because we are the stuff that is conscious. I don't see how neuroscience could ever overcome this. Although it could completely explain the brain in terms of the behavior of observed matter. You could make the objection that this is an argument from lack of imagination (as the Churchlands do), but I don't much care for that objection in general. Isn't VALIDITY an argument from lack of imagination? After all, the validity of an argument is merely defined as the consequent necessarily following from the antecedent.

    I don't think neuroscience can explain the qualitative aspect of consciousness simply because it is ontologically identical with what we perceive to be the matter of the brain. We can only experience matter as a representation in our own minds, to perceive the qualitative nature of matter would mean that the matter we were studying would have to be subjectively present to our own consciousness, which sounds nuts unless you believe in yogic perception or something like that. Actually people have argued (David Chalmers) that consciousness exists on the quantum level, and so it behaves a bit more eerily than we would think according to classic biological models, while still operating within the realm of physics. It's an interesting idea, and would actually make room for the idea of an afterlife/reincarnation that is compatible with physics. Too bad it's virtually impossible to prove either way.

    IN other words your smart and have derived that everything is subjective???? No your saying that you listened in collage<--(haha) rather than thinking about parties??? No,your a gate student???? No you write books and are an ancestor of the great philosopher Jesus???You have an IQ of 140???? I am lost, but I cant watch the video.
    I love playing with mini toys.
  •  12-10-2010, 3:33 PM 964201 in reply to 964187

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    Shirly Forge:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.

    Oh, I know most atheist don't believe it, but that is what Sam Harris is writing a book on. Look it up. He's an idiot and gives a bad name to atheists everywhere.

    As far as the Leibnizian gap goes... the problem works like this; imagine you can (shrink down and go inside the brain)-the old version/(completely know how the brain works)-newer version; even then you still wouldn't see the person's qualitative experience. You have your own qualitative experience, and the other person has his/hers. We only know that we are conscious, and no one else. This is just because we are the stuff that is conscious. I don't see how neuroscience could ever overcome this. Although it could completely explain the brain in terms of the behavior of observed matter. You could make the objection that this is an argument from lack of imagination (as the Churchlands do), but I don't much care for that objection in general. Isn't VALIDITY an argument from lack of imagination? After all, the validity of an argument is merely defined as the consequent necessarily following from the antecedent.

    I don't think neuroscience can explain the qualitative aspect of consciousness simply because it is ontologically identical with what we perceive to be the matter of the brain. We can only experience matter as a representation in our own minds, to perceive the qualitative nature of matter would mean that the matter we were studying would have to be subjectively present to our own consciousness, which sounds nuts unless you believe in yogic perception or something like that. Actually people have argued (David Chalmers) that consciousness exists on the quantum level, and so it behaves a bit more eerily than we would think according to classic biological models, while still operating within the realm of physics. It's an interesting idea, and would actually make room for the idea of an afterlife/reincarnation that is compatible with physics. Too bad it's virtually impossible to prove either way.

    IN other words your smart and have derived that everything is subjective???? No your saying that you listened in collage<--(haha) rather than thinking about parties??? No,your a gate student???? No you write books and are an ancestor of the great philosopher Jesus???You have an IQ of 140???? I am lost, but I cant watch the video.

    Lol. It's interesting if you read the stuff.

    @ bolded... who thinks about parties? There isn't thinking at parties; quite the opposite. In fact, it's kind of something you do when you don't want to think.


    What is happiness but the feeling of power increasing, and obstacles being overcome? -Nietzsche
  •  12-10-2010, 3:45 PM 964208 in reply to 964201

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    ReiverCorrupter:
    Shirly Forge:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.

    Oh, I know most atheist don't believe it, but that is what Sam Harris is writing a book on. Look it up. He's an idiot and gives a bad name to atheists everywhere.

    As far as the Leibnizian gap goes... the problem works like this; imagine you can (shrink down and go inside the brain)-the old version/(completely know how the brain works)-newer version; even then you still wouldn't see the person's qualitative experience. You have your own qualitative experience, and the other person has his/hers. We only know that we are conscious, and no one else. This is just because we are the stuff that is conscious. I don't see how neuroscience could ever overcome this. Although it could completely explain the brain in terms of the behavior of observed matter. You could make the objection that this is an argument from lack of imagination (as the Churchlands do), but I don't much care for that objection in general. Isn't VALIDITY an argument from lack of imagination? After all, the validity of an argument is merely defined as the consequent necessarily following from the antecedent.

    I don't think neuroscience can explain the qualitative aspect of consciousness simply because it is ontologically identical with what we perceive to be the matter of the brain. We can only experience matter as a representation in our own minds, to perceive the qualitative nature of matter would mean that the matter we were studying would have to be subjectively present to our own consciousness, which sounds nuts unless you believe in yogic perception or something like that. Actually people have argued (David Chalmers) that consciousness exists on the quantum level, and so it behaves a bit more eerily than we would think according to classic biological models, while still operating within the realm of physics. It's an interesting idea, and would actually make room for the idea of an afterlife/reincarnation that is compatible with physics. Too bad it's virtually impossible to prove either way.

    IN other words your smart and have derived that everything is subjective???? No your saying that you listened in collage<--(haha) rather than thinking about parties??? No,your a gate student???? No you write books and are an ancestor of the great philosopher Jesus???You have an IQ of 140???? I am lost, but I cant watch the video.

    Lol. It's interesting if you read the stuff.

    @ bolded... who thinks about parties? There isn't thinking at parties; quite the opposite. In fact, it's kind of something you do when you don't want to think.

    If your any good at this game and dont care about a pixel unit send me a friend request and we can play and discuss your interesting stuff. EMEROLDtriangle....you might be hated by everyone but you will see I am nothing like my pretend forum identity.
    I love playing with mini toys.
  •  12-10-2010, 3:57 PM 964213 in reply to 964208

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    Shirly Forge:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Shirly Forge:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:
    Kangaroo Love:
    ReiverCorrupter:

     

    ReiverCorrupter:

    El Diego:The real thing I find funny is how Kangaroo tries so hard to be like Dawkins, except he replaces relevancy and facts with elaborately worded insults.

    Obviously you aren't that familiar with Dawkins.

    Kangaroo Love:Dawkins is the champion of condescending insults.

    His group calls themselves the 'Brights'. Since his father was a South African Apartheidist I think it's no coincidence it rhymes with 'Whites'. I don't get the whole 'New Atheism' thing. Atheists used to just be the intellectual elite who were unconcerned with religious people, now they've turned it into a f***ing religion, trying to convert all the believers. It's funny how Dawkins makes all sorts of claims about human nature in his arguments against religion, only to not realize that belief is belief. It's human nature that's sh*t; religion is merely a symptom.

    I think it's good that he considers the philosophical implications of the falseness of religion.

    Atheism has a following in most wealthy countries, which is of course affected by the same sheep effect that religion is as the following grows. Isn't believing in something reasonable like Atheism because your community does better than believing in magic?

    To call Atheism a religion is wrong because it doesn't suppose the supernatural, but I can see what you mean.

    The main problem I have with it is people like Sam Harris who tell us we can derive morality from science. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The scientific method can only tell us about causal relationships; it can tell us the outcome of our actions. But it can't tell us what to value.

    The other thing is that we can explain the behavior of the brain as matter, but no one can cross the Leibnizian gap and explain qualitative consciousness itself scientifically. Some choose to simply say that we aren't conscious just so they don't have to explain it, which is far more retarded that believing in creationism (see Descartes). Personally it seems obvious to me that consciousness is merely another aspect of the physical world that we are unable to observe; token-token identity with matter. But the placing of science on a pedestal convinces people to reject any such considerations dogmatically, simply because the scientific method is incapable of dealing with the problem.

    Morality can't be derived from science. The morals of humans are derived from our genetics and reinforced by social influence in upbringing. It's a mistake to try and look for religious answers in science and I don't think that represents the vast majority, at least until the more religious-minded people start to join the Atheist craze. Also, considering studies have proven nearly identical morals based on moral questions for all religious and non-religious denominations, most Atheists can tell that it's genetic.

    About the Leibnizian gap, that's just something we haven't put enough research into, like most neuroscientific problems. It's unfair to reject something like that as unobservable when so much headway is currently being made regarding the human brain. If anything, I think that scientists have been happy to accept the unexplainable (for the time being) in the past. For example, some of the critical and unexplainable assumptions made in physics such as dark matter.

    Oh, I know most atheist don't believe it, but that is what Sam Harris is writing a book on. Look it up. He's an idiot and gives a bad name to atheists everywhere.

    As far as the Leibnizian gap goes... the problem works like this; imagine you can (shrink down and go inside the brain)-the old version/(completely know how the brain works)-newer version; even then you still wouldn't see the person's qualitative experience. You have your own qualitative experience, and the other person has his/hers. We only know that we are conscious, and no one else. This is just because we are the stuff that is conscious. I don't see how neuroscience could ever overcome this. Although it could completely explain the brain in terms of the behavior of observed matter. You could make the objection that this is an argument from lack of imagination (as the Churchlands do), but I don't much care for that objection in general. Isn't VALIDITY an argument from lack of imagination? After all, the validity of an argument is merely defined as the consequent necessarily following from the antecedent.

    I don't think neuroscience can explain the qualitative aspect of consciousness simply because it is ontologically identical with what we perceive to be the matter of the brain. We can only experience matter as a representation in our own minds, to perceive the qualitative nature of matter would mean that the matter we were studying would have to be subjectively present to our own consciousness, which sounds nuts unless you believe in yogic perception or something like that. Actually people have argued (David Chalmers) that consciousness exists on the quantum level, and so it behaves a bit more eerily than we would think according to classic biological models, while still operating within the realm of physics. It's an interesting idea, and would actually make room for the idea of an afterlife/reincarnation that is compatible with physics. Too bad it's virtually impossible to prove either way.

    IN other words your smart and have derived that everything is subjective???? No your saying that you listened in collage<--(haha) rather than thinking about parties??? No,your a gate student???? No you write books and are an ancestor of the great philosopher Jesus???You have an IQ of 140???? I am lost, but I cant watch the video.

    Lol. It's interesting if you read the stuff.

    @ bolded... who thinks about parties? There isn't thinking at parties; quite the opposite. In fact, it's kind of something you do when you don't want to think.

    If your any good at this game and dont care about a pixel unit send me a friend request and we can play and discuss your interesting stuff. EMEROLDtriangle....you might be hated by everyone but you will see I am nothing like my pretend forum identity.

    I'll start playing again once finals are over. Maybe then.


    What is happiness but the feeling of power increasing, and obstacles being overcome? -Nietzsche
  •  12-11-2010, 12:02 AM 964469 in reply to 964201

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    My response for that would be way too long reiver, cbf.

    lol at emerold claiming that his forum personality is a show.


    justjtealouse:

    From what I understand from this forum is that "kangaroo love" is the boss around here and theres some poser named "sPro Mitch?" who keeps saying he's the best but he's not.
  •  12-11-2010, 12:55 AM 964489 in reply to 964469

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

     
  •  12-11-2010, 12:59 AM 964493 in reply to 964489

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    jackalo:God I hate people that think that their view matters in science just as much as people who have dedicated their lives to study it.

    My view.


    Forge FTW.
    3 accounts in the top 50 1v1 standard.
    Good 1v1 standard non-asian Forge player
    45 TS For 1v1

    URL of the week:
    http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/usa/pacific-time/



  •  12-11-2010, 2:16 AM 964506 in reply to 964489

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    jackalo:God I hate people that think that their view matters in science just as much as people who have dedicated their lives to study it.

    So you can only have a discussion on a subject if you have dedicated your life to studying it?

    You're a retard, bro.


    justjtealouse:

    From what I understand from this forum is that "kangaroo love" is the boss around here and theres some poser named "sPro Mitch?" who keeps saying he's the best but he's not.
  •  12-11-2010, 2:37 AM 964512 in reply to 964506

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

     
  •  12-11-2010, 3:04 AM 964514 in reply to 964512

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    jackalo:
    Kangaroo Love:

    jackalo:God I hate people that think that their view matters in science just as much as people who have dedicated their lives to study it.

    So you can only have a discussion on a subject if you have dedicated your life to studying it?

    You're a retard, bro.

     

    Try reading again. "just as much as"

     

    If I go to a incredibly successful computer designer and say "go plug those wires in left to right rather than right to left as you were going to and it'll work twice as fast" I'd seem like an idiot. Quite rightly since I have almost no idea of how a computer is put together. Why do people think its different when it comes to science?

     

    This is a discussion on personal beliefs, not exact scientific principles.

    The woman in the video isn't a person who just doesn't know about the subject, she just pathologically denies it in the face of very obvious evidence.

    That's very different from a person who just hasn't studied the subject as much as Dawkins. Her view is deliberately distorted.


    justjtealouse:

    From what I understand from this forum is that "kangaroo love" is the boss around here and theres some poser named "sPro Mitch?" who keeps saying he's the best but he's not.
  •  12-11-2010, 3:08 AM 964516 in reply to 964514

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

     
  •  12-11-2010, 3:13 AM 964519 in reply to 964516

    Re: Crusader King on Microevolution

    jackalo:
    Kangaroo Love:
    jackalo:
    Kangaroo Love:

    jackalo:God I hate people that think that their view matters in science just as much as people who have dedicated their lives to study it.

    So you can only have a discussion on a subject if you have dedicated your life to studying it?

    You're a retard, bro.

     

    Try reading again. "just as much as"

     

    If I go to a incredibly successful computer designer and say "go plug those wires in left to right rather than right to left as you were going to and it'll work twice as fast" I'd seem like an idiot. Quite rightly since I have almost no idea of how a computer is put together. Why do people think its different when it comes to science?

    Yes well nobody is actually talking to someone extremely knowledgable about religioius philosophy, nor are they implying that their point of view is the right one. Therefore your comment is entirely irrelevant and I stand by the accusation that you are a retard.

    Either way, this is a discussion on personal beliefs, not exact scientific principles.

     

    That woman says specifically that scientists' views don't matter any more than a regular person's view on science. Therefore my comment is not at all irrelevant. I like your pointless insults btw, I'm so very very ultra mega exa offended.

    I thought you were talking about the discussion in the last couple of pages of the thread, my bad. I changed my post to make it more relevant to the dawkins/stupid bitch discussion.


    justjtealouse:

    From what I understand from this forum is that "kangaroo love" is the boss around here and theres some poser named "sPro Mitch?" who keeps saying he's the best but he's not.
Page 2 of 2 (29 items)   < Previous 1 2
View as RSS news feed in XML