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.
While I would agree that is a good argument for the mind being a product of the brain, I can see that Mystic would argue that a radio won't receive signals without the working, but that doesn't mean there are no signals. Mystic's line is that the brain is just an organic mechanism for perceiving the 'God- consciousness'.
Sure, his ideas work regardless of what the data says. That's not exactly a strength, though - it means that the idea doesn't actually predict anything.
Quote:
The thing about Mystic's theory is that he makes some attempt to provide a mechanism.
Not that I can see. Simply naming the magic a universal field doesn't make it any less of an appeal to magic. Look at how quickly he retreats to it being unobservable - just like other believers do with god when the going gets tough.
You are wrong and have in no way discredited my Serpent analogy. The "old brain" . . . i.e., the limbic system and spinal chord are not separable functionally . . . but they are separable from the cerebral cortex. They do not only resemble a Serpent in the photograph . . . they are functionally indistinguishable from a Serpent in their automatic stimulus response.
You disparage me, my knowledge, my competency and my currency . . . and then whine about being smeared???? I check my facts, am not driven by religious beliefs, am not rigid or irrational and I was making an ANALOGY work through functional distinctions . . . not neuroanatomical ones. I thought the Serpent in the photograph was quite striking as a visual analogue. I really tire of these attacks on my knowledge or competency or currency when they have nothing to do with what I am discussing.
You assume because I embrace certain beliefs that I am not rational. That is called bias and bigotry. You have no idea what I know or do not know . . . nor how I arrived at my current positions. I was a more competent atheist than you pretend to be prior to my experiences in deep meditation. I was very diligent in vetting the information I used to try to explain it to my intellect and I produced a Synthesis (again using analogies) that encompasses what we DO know with what I experience and extrapolate as hypotheses. You need not agree . . . but attack and I will respond in kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
*sigh* go read your own OP again. Go read up again on the model you are trying to base it on. Go read up on the basic functional areas of the brain. How many times do I need to point it out? Do you want me to address your other errors in your OP too? You are ignoring the facts and rigidly and irrationally clinging to an idea that just doesn't work. The facts don't fit with your "Serpent" analogy, so you are trying to change the facts, rather than your analogy. When you include the limbic system (or paleomammalian brain) it doesn't 'look' anything like a serpent. The 'basal ganglia', as you wrote in your opening paragraph, does not include the limbic system- which you are now trying to add in - but if you do, your serpent doesn't look remotely like a serpent anymore. I get that you might feel 'threatened' by having your analogy challenged with the facts and are attacking as a response. That's still not going to change the facts, no matter how hard you try to twist and turn to avoid them. I don't need to 'assume' anything. It's all right there in your posts.
::Sigh::I have very specific reasons for my posts that do NOT involve hosting classes on neuroanatomy or neuroscience (or any of the other sciences I use). Those who are knowledgeable can use their anti-God, anti-religion biases to try to undermine my efforts to reach those unfamiliar with the sciences . . . or they could try to understand my actual purposes for the analogies I use. The clear trend here seems to be the former. In this thread I was drawing FUNCTIONAL distinctions in the sources of our behaviors and attitudes . . . and I was using a striking visual photograph of the brain to enforce the analogy and its parallels to the dominant Eden myth in Christianity. Instead of nitpicking the neuroanatomy with details that do NOT affect the broad functional distinctions I have drawn in futile attempts to discredit me or my knowledge. Defend your negation of the broad FUNCTIONAL distinctions I have drawn.
OK.
First of all, it wasn't just a "striking visual photograph of the brain ".
And looking at only "striking visual photograph of the brain " would never, ever, ever have made me think of a serpent in your manufactured Rorschach image.
There's a long, rather slender section with a somewhat bulbous top. You obviously only saw what you wanted to be there.
That alone makes all the rest of it.......uh......useless.
::Sigh::I have very specific reasons for my posts that do NOT involve hosting classes on neuroanatomy or neuroscience (or any of the other sciences I use). Those who are knowledgeable can use their anti-God, anti-religion biases to try to undermine my efforts to reach those unfamiliar with the sciences . . . or they could try to understand my actual purposes for the analogies I use. The clear trend here seems to be the former. In this thread I was drawing FUNCTIONAL distinctions in the sources of our behaviors and attitudes . . . and I was using a striking visual photograph of the brain to enforce the analogy and its parallels to the dominant Eden myth in Christianity. Instead of nitpicking the neuroanatomy with details that do NOT affect the broad functional distinctions I have drawn in futile attempts to discredit me or my knowledge. Defend your negation of the broad FUNCTIONAL distinctions I have drawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
OK.
First of all, it wasn't just a "striking visual photograph of the brain ".
And looking at only "striking visual photograph of the brain " would never, ever, ever have made me think of a serpent in your manufactured Rorschach image.
There's a long, rather slender section with a somewhat bulbous top. You obviously only saw what you wanted to be there.
That alone makes all the rest of it.......uh......useless.
I never expected to reach everyone, old_cold . . . you least of all. You have expressed your antipathy to me and my views quite strongly and unambiguously.
I never expected to reach everyone, old_cold . . . you least of all. You have expressed your antipathy to me and my views quite strongly and unambiguously.
Mystic, much of the criticism you receive is not because of your views, but because of how you choose to support them. I disagree with your views, but very rarely do I even comment on them, they are your views, you have a right to them. What I do comment on is when you use dodgy argumentation, like playing definitional games, creating single axiom syllogisms, or as in this case, trying to use a flawed understanding of science to make a point.
I have no problem with analogies, but as was pointed out, the portions of the brain responsible for 'serpent' behavior, don't actually look like a serpent. You can still try to make the point that the Genesis Serpent is a metaphor for our 'base' mind, but the visual analogy doesn't support it. Ultimately analogies are supposed to communicate something. If your's does not communicate what you want, blaming the reader seems counterproductive. Find a different way to explain your point...
::Sigh::I have very specific reasons for my posts that do NOT involve hosting classes on neuroanatomy or neuroscience (or any of the other sciences I use). Those who are knowledgeable can use their anti-God, anti-religion biases to try to undermine my efforts to reach those unfamiliar with the sciences . . . or they could try to understand my actual purposes for the analogies I use. The clear trend here seems to be the former. In this thread I was drawing FUNCTIONAL distinctions in the sources of our behaviors and attitudes . . . and I was using a striking visual photograph of the brain to enforce the analogy and its parallels to the dominant Eden myth in Christianity. Instead of nitpicking the neuroanatomy with details that do NOT affect the broad functional distinctions I have drawn in futile attempts to discredit me or my knowledge. Defend your negation of the broad FUNCTIONAL distinctions I have drawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Mystic, much of the criticism you receive is not because of your views, but because of how you choose to support them. I disagree with your views, but very rarely do I even comment on them, they are your views, you have a right to them. What I do comment on is when you use dodgy argumentation, like playing definitional games, creating single axiom syllogisms, or as in this case, trying to use a flawed understanding of science to make a point.
In order to claim that my understanding of science is flawed . . . my critics have to establish that they have at least as much understanding of the science as I do. Aside from completely missing the point of my analogies . . . that seldom happens. When anyone has engaged me substantively . . . the results reveal irrelevant concerns over jargon . . . not substance. This venue is NOT the place for learned academic treatises. It is a discussion forum!!
Quote:
I have no problem with analogies, but as was pointed out, the portions of the brain responsible for 'serpent' behavior, don't actually look like a serpent.
HORSEPUCKY!!!! Nit-picking the "old brain" components and limbic system apart and making that assertion is completely disingenuous. If you cannot see the resemblance to a Serpent in the photograph . . . you are trying NOT to see it.
Quote:
You can still try to make the point that the Genesis Serpent is a metaphor for our 'base' mind, but the visual analogy doesn't support it. Ultimately analogies are supposed to communicate something. If your's does not communicate what you want, blaming the reader seems counterproductive. Find a different way to explain your point...
-NoCapo
You make your points the way YOU want and I will make mine the way I want. Perverse anti-religion, anti-God distorters of my posts and views can pretend they know more than I do and some will be fooled. But the truly discerning will not be. The criticisms focus on irrelevant points that have no impact on my use of the information and do not involve any lack of knowledge on my part.
OK.
First of all, it wasn't just a "striking visual photograph of the brain ".
And looking at only "striking visual photograph of the brain " would never, ever, ever have made me think of a serpent in your manufactured Rorschach image.
There's a long, rather slender section with a somewhat bulbous top. You obviously only saw what you wanted to be there.
That alone makes all the rest of it.......uh......useless.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?
But you're missing the obvious philosophical implications here - a part of our body might look snake-like, therefore Jesus was sent to earth by a disembodied universal dark-matter powered consciousness creator god field. Why are you such a god hater that you can't acknowledge this obvious reality?
In order to claim that my understanding of science is flawed . . . my critics have to establish that they have at least as much understanding of the science as I do.
I am somewhat confused by this statement. How does one establish their credentials in a forum such as this, and more importantly why would X degree from Y university effect the validity of the argument? It smacks of an appeal to authority rather than an interest in discussing the arguments on their own merits. Would my words have more gravitas if I changed my username to HykerPhD?
Quote:
Perverse anti-religion, anti-God distorters of my posts and views can pretend they know more than I do and some will be fooled.
This statement also seemed odd to me. Could there not be other motives for questioning your statements aside from being "anti-god" or "anti-religious"? Perhaps one might simply disagree...
In order to claim that my understanding of science is flawed . . . my critics have to establish that they have at least as much understanding of the science as I do.
As much understanding as you? What does that even mean?? And how would we know how much understanding you actually have?
Even if you are talking about something that's actually quantifiable such as them demonstrating a degree and/or experience in the fields in question, that would not be a true statement. If you were to say that stars are angel winks, I would not have to be a degreed astronomer with 20 years of experience in stellar physics research to point out that this is not scientifically accurate. Anyone can enter "what is a star" into Google and get the correct answer to the question. Anyone who has successfully been through grade school already knows the answer.
But what I suspect you mean is just a circular definition, something along these lines: "if you don't agree with me you don't understand science as well as I do. And I get to decide what constitutes understanding."
In order to claim that my understanding of science is flawed . . . my critics have to establish that they have at least as much understanding of the science as I do. Aside from completely missing the point of my analogies . . . that seldom happens. When anyone has engaged me substantively . . . the results reveal irrelevant concerns over jargon . . . not substance. This venue is NOT the place for learned academic treatises. It is a discussion forum!!
HORSEPUCKY!!!! Nit-picking the "old brain" components and limbic system apart and making that assertion is completely disingenuous. If you cannot see the resemblance to a Serpent in the photograph . . . you are trying NOT to see it. You make your points the way YOU want and I will make mine the way I want. Perverse anti-religion, anti-God distorters of my posts and views can pretend they know more than I do and some will be fooled. But the truly discerning will not be. The criticisms focus on irrelevant points that have no impact on my use of the information and do not involve any lack of knowledge on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker
Hello MysticPhD.
I am somewhat confused by this statement. How does one establish their credentials in a forum such as this, and more importantly why would X degree from Y university effect the validity of the argument? It smacks of an appeal to authority rather than an interest in discussing the arguments on their own merits. Would my words have more gravitas if I changed my username to HykerPhD?
It has nothing to do with credentials, Hyker and everything to do with knowledge and honest discourse. Those who come here primarily to discredit or otherwise imply that I do not know what I am talking about (which are the majority of my adversaries) . . . have to establish their own bona fides BEFORE they pretend to accuse me of not having accurate knowledge. Since that is difficult if not impossible to do in a forum like this . . . I would recommend they NOT try to discredit anyone on such pretenses and just deal with the material as it is presented. That means when something is presented as a broad brush analogy using functional distinctions in the brain . . . deal with any errors in the broad functional distinctions.
Any disagreements about the analogy and its use have nothing to do with the functional arguments being made or their validity. When the visual evidence of a Serpentlike appearance to the involved brain areas is as clear as it is in the photograph I used . . . disputing it is just arrogant orneriness. It is disingenuous to pretend that any precise delineations involving the use of terms interchangeably as "old Brain," Limbic System, Paleo mammalian brain, basal ganglion, etc. . . . would make the visual representation of the component parts and the integral spinal chord NOT appear as a Serpent. All the non-cerebral portions of the brain and spinal chord would make a very ugly Serpent . . . but its resemblance to a Serpent and its functional distinctions from the cerebral cortex would be undiminished.
Quote:
This statement also seemed odd to me. Could there not be other motives for questioning your statements aside from being "anti-god" or "anti-religious"? Perhaps one might simply disagree...
Thanks.
Yes . . . but in my experience here it seldom if ever IS.
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.
