| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2007 05:36:26 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
On Dec 31, 2:53=A0pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a=
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical=
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim tha=
t
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitu=
r.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experienc=
e
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
The question seems back-to-front to me.
Because brain states are correlated with the contents of consciousness,
why does it follow that only brains are accompanied by consciousness?
Think about an AI program observing its own activity as
we might observe the activity of our brain. Would you
not agree in such a world it would be reasonable for
the AI program to infer that this observation was an
observation of its own observing process?
May I take it that you are using the word "observing ..."
to mean "acquiring information about ..."? If not then
please elaborate, but if so then what has this to do
with *conscious experience*?
We infer a physical world "out there". Our subjective experiences are
constrained. These constraints are the makeup of what we call the physic=
al
world of objects.
One of those objects is a brain which we know now correlates with our
experiences. It flags to me that there is an important connection with t=
he
point of view of my subjective experiences and the object of that point =
of
view.
The assumption that we are nothing but the activity of neurons fits in
with what we experience. We don't float around, we are tied to a brain
view point. Thus we can infer the brain object of our subjective
experiences is involved in those experiences.
We can then move on and analyze how it is that the brain's point of view=
is in the form of the subjective experiences we have.
There's a "what it's like to be a brain".
Why does this mean that there can't be a "what it's like to be a kidney"?-=
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
| User: "Dag Yo" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 03:32:46 AM |
|
|
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:25:48 PM |
|
|
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 02:45:55 AM |
|
|
In article <WfadncJ1ZccouhHanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
Really? Where in TOOCITBOTBM does Jaynes say anything remotely like
that drivel?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow
n_of_the_Bicameral_Mind>
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 06:46:58 AM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <WfadncJ1ZccouhHanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
Really? Where in TOOCITBOTBM does Jaynes say anything remotely like
that drivel?
Seems I've stepped on a rare sort of sore toe. Think of the term
schizophrenia and then imagine the obvious connection between Janes'
"bicameral mind" and the above's 'quantum brain'.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow
n_of_the_Bicameral_Mind>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 04:12:02 PM |
|
|
In article <L6ydnaM8zeymNhHanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <WfadncJ1ZccouhHanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
Really? Where in TOOCITBOTBM does Jaynes say anything remotely like
that drivel?
Seems I've stepped on a rare sort of sore toe.
Maybe it's rare where you hang out, but in sci.logic it's common for
rubbish to be challenged.
Think of the term
schizophrenia and then imagine the obvious connection between Janes'
"bicameral mind" and the above's 'quantum brain'.
Perhaps my imagination is not as fecund as yours, but I see no relevant
connection at all. And in particular, you have provided no evidence
that "Jaynes ... would find such notions palatable", even after I
politely asked you for a reference.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow
n_of_the_Bicameral_Mind>
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 04:30:15 PM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <L6ydnaM8zeymNhHanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <WfadncJ1ZccouhHanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
Really? Where in TOOCITBOTBM does Jaynes say anything remotely like
that drivel?
Seems I've stepped on a rare sort of sore toe.
Maybe it's rare where you hang out, but in sci.logic it's common for
rubbish to be challenged.
Think of the term
schizophrenia and then imagine the obvious connection between Janes'
"bicameral mind" and the above's 'quantum brain'.
Perhaps my imagination is not as fecund as yours, but I see no relevant
connection at all. And in particular, you have provided no evidence
that "Jaynes ... would find such notions palatable", even after I
politely asked you for a reference.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow
n_of_the_Bicameral_Mind>
First let's go to a url that actually says something about Janes' book:
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
Second: read the book.
Third: we can then discuss it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: sci. logic off topic |
15 Jan 2008 03:20:58 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <WfadncJ1ZccouhHanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. It was the marriage of heaven and hell. However, as we
became afraid of that relationship, we began to substitute more
stultified matter for the living dynamic matter of sheer evil.
Subjectivity and objectivity were both toned down and a multiplicity
rather than a dynamic unity came into being. As all of this worked
itself out, the quantum brain came into existence as a final
substitute for the dynamic materiality of sheer evil.
Ayer is probably spinning in his grave over this drivel.
Well, there are those like Jaynes who would find such notions palatable.
Really? Where in TOOCITBOTBM does Jaynes say anything remotely like
that drivel?
Seems I've stepped on a rare sort of sore toe. Think of the term
schizophrenia and then imagine the obvious connection between Janes'
"bicameral mind" and the above's 'quantum brain'.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow
n_of_the_Bicameral_Mind>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
31 Dec 2007 05:45:41 PM |
|
|
On Dec 31, 6:36=A0pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53=A0pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have=
a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practic=
al
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our=
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does no=
t
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim t=
hat
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequi=
tur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experie=
nce
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. =A0It's like
the old nursery rhyme: =A0Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. =A0In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. =A0Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels. =A0
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RaaN" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
05 Jan 2008 10:42:03 AM |
|
|
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim that
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experience
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels.
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"The Science of Superman" was entertaining and inspired speculation on
some differing explanations for his powers, especially flight. (the
details are hazy presently) Certainly the questions are moot but in
the past such speculation has resulted in ground breaking discovery of
hitherto unknown and unimagined principles. Perhaps in time
speculations about God might bear the fruit of insight and
enlightenment. Let's just hope that the raft is dropped once that
shore is reached as the saying goes.
--
RaaN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 03:15:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:42:03 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim that
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experience
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels.
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"The Science of Superman" was entertaining and inspired speculation on
some differing explanations for his powers, especially flight. (the
details are hazy presently) Certainly the questions are moot but in
the past such speculation has resulted in ground breaking discovery of
hitherto unknown and unimagined principles. Perhaps in time
speculations about God might bear the fruit of insight and
enlightenment. Let's just hope that the raft is dropped once that
shore is reached as the saying goes.
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
I know where I'd put my money.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:09:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:42:03 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim that
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experience
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels.
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"The Science of Superman" was entertaining and inspired speculation on
some differing explanations for his powers, especially flight. (the
details are hazy presently) Certainly the questions are moot but in
the past such speculation has resulted in ground breaking discovery of
hitherto unknown and unimagined principles. Perhaps in time
speculations about God might bear the fruit of insight and
enlightenment. Let's just hope that the raft is dropped once that
shore is reached as the saying goes.
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
What beside some toys and suppression of and diversion from reality has
the religion of atheistic science delivered?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 11:44:46 PM |
|
|
In article <_bqdnZ1IufZJvhHanZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
What beside some toys and suppression of and diversion from reality has
the religion of atheistic science delivered?
A good deal more than the pentateuch.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
18 Jan 2008 12:20:46 AM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 1:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:42:03 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim that
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experience
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels.
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"The Science of Superman" was entertaining and inspired speculation on
some differing explanations for his powers, especially flight. (the
details are hazy presently) Certainly the questions are moot but in
the past such speculation has resulted in ground breaking discovery of
hitherto unknown and unimagined principles. Perhaps in time
speculations about God might bear the fruit of insight and
enlightenment. Let's just hope that the raft is dropped once that
shore is reached as the saying goes.
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Handsomely. It has delivered both long life and cancer. It has
delivered both chemical mastery and pollution. The It has delivered
both the study of ecology and ecological disaster. It has delivered
both the tools for humanitarianism and the weapons for human
extinction.
Surely science has delivered. Science is Abraxas of the modern age.
"Abraxas speaketh that hallowed and accursed word which is life and
death at the same time. Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and
evil, light and darkness in the same word and in the same act.
Wherefore is Abraxas terrible." -- Carl Jung (The Seven Sermons to the
Dead)
I know where I'd put my money.
Politics. Politics and empire rules all.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RaaN" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 07:20:17 AM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:42:03 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:36 pm, wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:53 pm, "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote:
"casey" wrote:
"andy-k" wrote:
"casey" wrote:
I think we can infer brain activity as a requirement
of subjective experiences even if we only know
of this brain activity as a subjective experience.
What makes you think so?
Because our subjective experience has a view point.
It is from the point of view of a particular body even if we only have a
subjective experience of having a body. It is a reasonable and practical
inference that we are a process which involves a brain. We have no
experience of having an experience without a brain. The content of our
experience changes with the brain.
Yes, the *contents* of experience change with changes in brain state,
and from this a *correlation* may be inferred. But a correlation does not
permit the nature of the relationship to be inferred -- i.e. the claim that
brain activity is a *requirement* of conscious experience is a non-sequitur.
If our subjective experiences didn't require a brain why do we experience
having a brain?
Because we are afraid of good and evil, especially evil. It's like
the old nursery rhyme: Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater, had a wife and
couldn't keep her; so he put her in a shell, and there he kept her
very well. In the beginning there was pure subjectivity or God and
pure materiality or Lucifer, etc. Lucifer was the most loved of the
angels.
Please provide evidence for the existence of this creature. Before you
do so, all your speculation upon its nature, its behavior, and its
desires are moot.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"The Science of Superman" was entertaining and inspired speculation on
some differing explanations for his powers, especially flight. (the
details are hazy presently) Certainly the questions are moot but in
the past such speculation has resulted in ground breaking discovery of
hitherto unknown and unimagined principles. Perhaps in time
speculations about God might bear the fruit of insight and
enlightenment. Let's just hope that the raft is dropped once that
shore is reached as the saying goes.
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
I know where I'd put my money.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
So your speculation then, is that there is no God.
--
RaaN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 06:54:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 05:20:17 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
So your speculation then, is that there is no God.
Why the singular?
You start with an assumption that I reject.
In effect, that renders your question is meaningless.
(You must be a 'philosopher'.)
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:22:26 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 05:20:17 -0800 (PST), RaaN <raan2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
So your speculation then, is that there is no God.
Why the singular?
You start with an assumption that I reject.
In effect, that renders your question is meaningless.
(You must be a 'philosopher'.)
Answer the question, sheepling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 12:00:11 AM |
|
|
In article <U_qdnRSrMLN3uxHanZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
So your speculation then, is that there is no God.
Why the singular?
You start with an assumption that I reject.
In effect, that renders your question is meaningless.
(You must be a 'philosopher'.)
Answer the question, sheepling.
You mean "Why the singular?"
Cannot Lorr see that Michael is the one asking the question, so is not
obligated to answer it too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Awaken21" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 06:54:52 AM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 4:15=A0am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true. Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion? A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person, but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dag Yo" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 07:27:20 AM |
|
|
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
Speaking for MG for a moment, he'd put his money on what works. And
science works, for everyone dammit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:13:55 PM |
|
|
Dag Yo wrote:
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
Speaking for MG for a moment, he'd put his money on what works. And
science works, for everyone dammit.
The religion of science promises immortality. Can you show how that
promise is being fulfilled/working? Is that what you're putting your
money/faith on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 11:49:46 PM |
|
|
In article <4LqdnVNmqOFxuRHanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Dag Yo wrote:
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
Speaking for MG for a moment, he'd put his money on what works. And
science works, for everyone dammit.
The religion of science promises immortality.
Which "science" does that? All the sciences that I am aware of areeither
neutral on the matter of immortality or downright antagonistic to it.
But perhaps "science", as with so many other things, has , for Lorr, a
meaning all Lorr's own, unshared with anyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Awaken21" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 11:10:58 AM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 8:27=A0am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
Speaking for MG for a moment, he'd put his money on what works.
No need, we already agreed on that.
=A0And
science works, for everyone dammit.
Science has taught you how to be a happy person and lead a fulfilling
life ? No doubt science works for what it is intended to do, but
placing up as the only answer to everything, which would be
approaching science like a religious zealot BTW, is expecting too much
from it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
06 Jan 2008 12:41:31 PM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 7:54=A0am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15=A0am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:15:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:54 am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
I see, the religion of science simplifies life. LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 11:52:45 PM |
|
|
In article <4LqdnVJmqOHLuBHanZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
I see, the religion of science simplifies life.
As there is nothing of either religion or science in the statement Lorr
is commenting on, Lorr is again seeing things which are not there.
He does that almost as reliably as his incessant managing not to see
things that are there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Awaken21" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
13 Jan 2008 03:07:39 PM |
|
|
On Jan 6, 1:41=A0pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:54=A0am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15=A0am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Interesting belief. Seems to me sincerity exists without need of
verification, outside of my own ability to sense my own state of mind.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
Your reading comprehension is a little lacking. I did not say science
was religion, I said expecting it to answer everyting is approaching
science in the same way religious zealots approach their religion.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
Exactly. Science does not have all the answers for human beings. Good
tool within it's scope.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
Yes, most people seek fullfillment in their lives outside of science,
including scientists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
13 Jan 2008 10:18:07 PM |
|
|
Awaken21 wrote:
On Jan 6, 1:41 pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:54 am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Interesting belief. Seems to me sincerity exists without need of
verification, outside of my own ability to sense my own state of mind.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
Your reading comprehension is a little lacking. I did not say science
was religion, I said expecting it to answer everyting is approaching
science in the same way religious zealots approach their religion.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
Exactly. Science does not have all the answers for human beings. Good
tool within it's scope.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
Yes, most people seek fullfillment in their lives outside of science,
including scientists.
quite a few of them join string quartets.
robert
- - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 09:20:42 PM |
|
|
Robert Epstein wrote:
Awaken21 wrote:
On Jan 6, 1:41 pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:54 am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Interesting belief. Seems to me sincerity exists without need of
verification, outside of my own ability to sense my own state of mind.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
Your reading comprehension is a little lacking. I did not say science
was religion, I said expecting it to answer everyting is approaching
science in the same way religious zealots approach their religion.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
Exactly. Science does not have all the answers for human beings. Good
tool within it's scope.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
Yes, most people seek fullfillment in their lives outside of science,
including scientists.
quite a few of them join string quartets.
The religion of science makes music a science. Everything is science to
the science supplicant. Materialism is a faith based religious concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
14 Jan 2008 11:54:51 PM |
|
|
In article <U_qdnRWrMLMYuxHanZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> wrote:
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
Yes, most people seek fullfillment in their lives outside of science,
including scientists.
quite a few of them join string quartets.
The religion of science makes music a science.
The religion of Lorr makes music a religion and religion a farce.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Epstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Neuroscience and Consciousness |
15 Jan 2008 01:47:22 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Robert Epstein wrote:
Awaken21 wrote:
On Jan 6, 1:41 pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:54 am, Awaken21 <lukecar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:15 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We'vee been waiting for more than 60,000 years for religion to
deliver, and what so far?
Only negatives, and suppression of reality.
Well for me it saved my life and I'm less than 50 years old.
Since modern ATHEISTIC science sprang up after say, 1600, it has
delivered reliably and consistently.
Yes, science tells me that religion does one of two things to a
person, it makes them happier and opens up their minds or it has no
effect on their happiness and closes their minds.
I know where I'd put my money.
On what works for you? Interesting you think other's who are doing the
same are idiots.
And phucking woo-woos like you can give it all to a priest who will
***** it up against a wall, whilst laughing at your sheer gullibility!
Ewwww, cynicsm. You know if you don't believe sincerity exists you'll
end up living a reality where that is true.
Sincerity exists where the skeptical are allowed to measure and
verify.
Interesting belief. Seems to me sincerity exists without need of
verification, outside of my own ability to sense my own state of mind.
Many scientists are also
religious, where does that leave the priests of science which you
believe in as a religion?
Calling science a religion shows that you know nothing about either.
Your reading comprehension is a little lacking. I did not say science
was religion, I said expecting it to answer everyting is approaching
science in the same way religious zealots approach their religion.
A shame science couldn't teach me how to be
a happy balanced person,
Your emotional weaknesses are not the responsibility of the scientific
method.
Exactly. Science does not have all the answers for human beings. Good
tool within it's scope.
but then christianity couldn't do that for me
either. Seeking through reason of result can be a tedious thing.
Most of the happy people I know do not "seek" anything other than
their lover's affection, their child's smile, and a really good meal.
I think most people make life much more difficult than it needs to be.
Yes, most people seek fullfillment in their lives outside of science,
including scientists.
quite a few of them join string quartets.
The religion of science makes music a science. Everything is science to
the science supplicant. Materialism is a faith based religious concept.
You seem prejudiced. The scientists I recall hearing about who play
music use it as a break from thinking about science, not another example
of science. They're not computers, they're people.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
