Do you believe in anything supernatural? (soul, paranormal, gospel, Biblical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, at best Mystic is a flawed scientist whose erudition has been compromizsd by his personal conviction that God is (or was) speaking to him and all evidence must be either fitted into that Faith - and Faith it is - or rejected as unproven gueswork, just as he rejects the massive corpus of evidence for evolution.
I will write this off as lack of attention rather than deliberate lying . . . because I have never rejected evolution theory . . . only the use of our ignorance AS IF it was scientific explanation (i.e., random, "natural" . . . instead of guided but not understood). In fact . . . I have incorporated the principle into the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God via genetic and epigenetic processes of brain development.
Quote:
I like him and I think he's clever. I think the same about Campbell43, too, but their Faith - and Faith it is - prevents them from really approaching things in a logical and scientific way.
But . . . this attempt to smear and discredit by association is unacceptable and clearly deliberate. C34 is a fundamentalist reveling in ignorance as a virtue of faith and devotion to the literal bible (His God). Knock it off.
Quote:
So, Lady Ice, you did well and I think you are on topic as the whole supernatural argument is likely to be used as the thin edge of the wedgie for God
There is no such thing as "supernatural, period!!!!
The definition I gave was quoted exactly from my text book written by Neil R.Carlson of Massachusetts University who has been writing text books for university students all over the world for more than thirty years. I injected nothing into it. If you have a problem with his definition then I suggest you take it up with him.
I understand your acquiescence to authority at this stage of your learning process . . . it is very typical and necessary. But eventually the end result of a PhD is to attain the knowledge and confidence to be self-directed and rely on your own reasoning and investigatory skills to work on the frontiers of knowledge and develop new insights. THAT is why I made the post-doctoral comment . . . not to be condescending or insulting.
Quote:
Then why did you state that me and my mentors were writing off 95+% of the universe? By your own admission, you don't know everything about the universe so how do you know this? You have still not answered the question as to exactly who is writing it off and how you know it.
Google astrophysics, dark energy and matter, baryonic and non-baryonic . . . then get back to me.
Quote:
::sigh:: I know you really, really want to believe in dualism but the scale is tipping toward monism, sorry. The brain does not need anything or anyone external to process it. It is simply an organ that among other things has evolved to process and respond to external stimuli in a unique way. I am receiving stimuli from your words on my computer, I process them, try very hard not to let you get me too angry, and then respond. Just because it is complicated, does not mean that there has to be an other controlling it. In fact a lot of what is defined as consciousness is linked directly to the speech centres in the brain. As language evolved, our thoughts (internal speech) became more abstract. None of this points to a separate spirit. Just a highly evolved brain.
When a person is suffering from damage to the parietal lobe it is usually on one side only. They lose sense of ownership on the opposite side of their body. The other cerebral hemisphere is still intact and that is the region that is claiming ownership of it's corresponding half of the body. Although there is a difference between how the left and right brain react to this, so there is hope for you there, maybe you could look into that.
The superficiality of this analysis is why you are not yet equipped to even ask the right questions about consciousness. You have no idea what I am referring to when I ask for the seat of this collective processing of the state of the brain. The physical state of each physical component of the brain constitutes an essential part of the state of the entire "state machine" at any moment in time . . . so they cannot possibly be the locus of the composite evaluation and processing of the "state" of all the components. The "Self" does that . . . and it has to have a non-material substrate within which to do so. Do yourself a favor and just think instead of negatively and superficially reacting to me or your perceptions of mysticism. I am FULLY grounded (over 3 decades) in the science you are so enamored with and are discovering the utility of.
Quote:
There is no bias in research, it leads us where it leads us. In fact great pains and a lot of thought go into avoiding any bias. The original question was just what we are arguing, that is dualism versus monism and I'm telling you that monism is the POV that is being supported in the research.
Empiricism assumes the conclusion (materialistic monism) as its founding premise . . . not very neutral.
Quote:
You have yet to show that you are at that level either, but, this was not what I found insulting. What I find insulting is being told that a concept might confuse me. I am not confused by anything you say, surely you can make a point without resorting to such cheap tactics, or perhaps you know that they do not stand on their own merits.
Anyway Mystic, this is getting boring and going around in circles. I'm sure you'll want the last word so have at it. I'm sure it will be just as condescending and insulting as usual. My apologies to Thomas R for taking this thread off topic.
This seems on topic to me. I may be far too direct and objective in my communications (think male "Bones") . . . but the condescension is all in the receiver. I admit that I have little doubt that my intellect is indeed above many of those with whom I am communicating here on this forum . . . but I have no need to establish that intellectual superiority. On the other hand . . . how exactly would you suggest I hide it or make it less obvious? I know what I know and I am certain of what I am certain of . . . so?
Tsk, Tsk, Mystic. Sorry but Bones the TV character is of the highest standard in LOGIC, intelligence and also beauty(Emily is such a classic beauty). I'm watching Bones now. I have to disagree with your self assessment.
Tsk, Tsk, Mystic. Sorry but Bones the TV character is of the highest standard in LOGIC, intelligence and also beauty(Emily is such a classic beauty). I'm watching Bones now. I have to disagree with your self assessment.
I will write this off as lack of attention rather than deliberate lying . . . because I have never rejected evolution theory . . . only the use of our ignorance AS IF it was scientific explanation (i.e., random, "natural" . . . instead of guided but not understood). In fact . . . I have incorporated the principle into the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God via genetic and epigenetic processes of brain development. But . . . this attempt to smear and discredit by association is unacceptable and clearly deliberate. C34 is a fundamentalist reveling in ignorance as a virtue of faith and devotion to the literal bible (His God). Knock it off. There is no such thing as "supernatural, period!!!!
You demonstrate your talent for theist - type evasion. Whether simply sloppy reasoning or deliberate misdirection I don't know.
I used the evidence of evolution as indication that natural (unconscious) forces of matter were a good enough mechanism to explain the development of life without postulating a conscious cosmos. you rubbished that so dismissively that I can hardly be blamed that I only NOW find out that you DO accept the evidence for evolution.
Well, so do Creationists, except that they only accept it so long as it doesn't go back as far as the dinosaurs. It seems that you only accept it if it doesn't go all the way back past the link of inanimate to animate compounds (1) and right back to basic combinations of matter. Because, if you did, there would be no peg on which to hang your theory.
Though you dance little **** of fury when Creationism or 'belief' (in the sense of Blind faith) is mentioned, your argument is just as creationist as theirs and is just as faith - based as a true Believer's and, while dressed up in better scientific jargon, is actually less well supported than Campbell's Ark. At least there is some kind of evidence for that.
(1) I am well aware that this is not covered by evolution theory as correctly used, but I use the theist - debating definition: "evolution (see evilution) - A satanic lie of the Darwinist Religion designed to persuade people that the universe came about by mere chance.'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2010 at 03:09 AM..
What a coincidence...Our infamous evofreaks (sock puppet king) also was enraptured with the tv character, bones....Could joykeenan be another in the long series of sock puppets?...Fess up evo...
That is the second time 'Bones' has come up as a paradigm of logic. I haven't seen it but the description sounded awfully like the 'Straw Vulcan' - a misrepresentation of a logician by people who had to produce a TV show episode by monday and actually didn't understand logic all that well.
You demonstrate your talent for theist - type evasion. Whether simply sloppy reasoning or deliberate misdirection I don't know.
I used the evidence of evolution as indication that natural (unconscious) forces of matter were a good enough mechanism to explain the development of life without postulating a conscious cosmos. you rubbished that so dismissively that I can hardly be blamed that I only NOW find out that you DO accept the evidence for evolution.
Well, so do Creationists, except that they only accept it so long as it doesn't go back as far as the dinosaurs. It seems that you only accept it if it doesn't go all the way back past the link of inanimate to animate compounds (1) and right back to basic combinations of matter. Because, if you did, there would be no peg on which to hang your theory.
Though you dance little **** of fury when Creationism or 'belief' (in the sense of Blind faith) is mentioned, your argument is just as creationist as theirs and is just as faith - based as a true Believer's and, while dressed up in better scientific jargon, is actually less well supported than Campbell's Ark. At least there is some kind of evidence for that.
(1) I am well aware that this is not covered by evolution theory as correctly used, but I use the theist - debating definition: "evolution (see evilution) - A satanic lie of the Darwinist Religion designed to persuade people that the universe came about by mere chance.'
Just because you ignorantly ASSume all the actual evidence is NOT an inscrutable God but an inscrutable "Nature". . . and you limit your acceptance of reality to the baryons (less than 5%) that we can measure . . . you eliminate all evidence of God and destroy the very PREMISE that your materialism relies on. Too bad your logical abilities are insufficiently developed to actually see that.
Chance is a an artificial mathematical figment of our imagination and ignorance . . . NOT an actual characteristic of our universe. To assign anything to it is to use an "imaginary mathematical friend" . . . no different from your favorite pejorative for God.
Just because you ignorantly ASSume all the actual evidence is NOT an inscrutable God but an inscrutable "Nature". . . and you limit your acceptance of reality to the baryons (less than 5%) that we can measure . . . you eliminate all evidence of God and destroy the very PREMISE that your materialism relies on. Too bad your logical abilities are insufficiently developed to actually see that.
Oh come on, Mystic. I at least once gave you credit for trying to politely argue your way out of the conundra you so often find yourself in. But to go hog-wild on badly camo'd ad hominems, and so frequently? This reeks of a sweaty-browed mindset! And will I now be the luckless recipient of your pot-shots as well?
Shall I go wash off my intellect? I have, after all, been working with my dusty chickens who nonetheless listen with an obvious keen intent. They don't auto-dismiss.
Chance is a an artificial mathematical figment of our imagination and ignorance . . . NOT an actual characteristic of our universe. To assign anything to it is to use an "imaginary mathematical friend" . . . no different from your favorite pejorative for God.
Chance & chaos is precisely what it is. Or isn't. No constructs required. It's a recognition of the mis-order that initiates order. Why? How? Because of the undeniable built-in order of molecules, their little sub-atomic components, and whatever makes up those innocent participants.
Well, perhaps there is a God twiddling away his lonesome hours, but of course, we cannot apply any logic to any of this, since one is then left with wondering, logically, why he would be so mini-minded to bother with such trivia. What, just to create a horrifyingly inept and purposefully illiterate species, a percentage of who seem bent of grovelling at His feet?
But if so, WOW! I however, can think of a lot of things I, as The Supreme Being, would far rather do than that. Perhaps God is but an inmate in some ethereal, celestial nut house, and this universe is what they bring Him each day to play with.
At least that would explain a lot of what we see and you believe in. Talk about imaginary friends!
Now you have a nice day, y'hear?
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Arrogant Privileging of Our Own Paradigms"....
I was reminded of most theist posters who can get beyond "Jesus said he was God and millions believe it, so there!"
