oneshott Posts

Bad Science eh? Mind POINTING OUT the bad science instead of simpyl saying it's bad?

This is a consistent problem with you, "Oh you use bad logic." "Oh you use bad science." And when I ask you to point out what mistakes I've made, you refuse to do so, accuse me of trying to twist your words around, and insult me some more.

Please provide an actual argument, instead of a substance-less post that's nothing more than "BigLundi's dumb lol."

...Do you think people ask questions only because they dn't have an opinion as to the answer already? It's not like my opinion won't be swayed by any reasoning or new evidence on the matter. I am aware I answered the poll, but I didn't answer why I think people might accept Duality, or even what a nonphysical substance is. That's hwere the conversation can continue, and it's something I laid out in my very first post.



...What do you mean what comes after that? The calmness induces chemical reactions in the mind that allow clarity and thoughtfulness...it's actually pretty basic neuroscience. It's not that 'not everything can be scientifically proven' it's that the entirerty of everything hasn't been scientificaly proven YET(keyword).




Wrong. Neuroscientists have a very good idea as to what love actually is. In fact, it can be artificially induced. As I said before, it's just about oxytocine levels. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist/philosopher that explains this in debth, look him up.



As far as we know, body related topics appear to be the only ones.




Ok, you're not quite getting what I'm telling you. See, if all we can observe, and experience...is physical...then there's no such thing as the nonphysical, or at least it's impossible to distiguish the nonphysical from the nonexistent. You're saying you just FEEL spiritual things, well these feeligns you have can be naturally explained. You accept this, but you also say, "But it's spiritual too, so..." And that's the strangest leap of logic I've seen in awhile. If we can explain these feeings naturally, WHY are we presupposing 'spiritualness' in there

Point by point. Meditation is the completely secular act of focusing one's thoughts to induce a calming effect. Praying also induces this calming effect. Both are explained in neuroscience as simply being a balancing of oxytocine levels in the brain. Sleeping is also pretty well explained, we can even divide sleeping up into two seperate stages, explain dreams, and explain where the subconscious thoughts that construct our dreams originate. We can study the brain, we can see different parts of the brian that react to certain stimuli, and what parts of the brain are active during certain types of thoughts...these things ARe explainable by physical nature, and scientific observation.



What was the subjective question that I asked and answered? And who am I criticizing or denouncing?

Sorry, but it seems you're simply bias against me for no real reason. :

So in other words: You don't have an opinion on mind body dualism. And, since you don't understand my opinion, you don't feel the conversation should continue.

That about right?

I mean I asked a yes or no question, do you accept dualism or not? And if you do, why? And what is a nonphysical substance?

mean, even if you don't understand me that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the matter.

But it also strengthens your body against diseases, so : /. Priorities son.

All I know is the one person I DON'T want to win, and that's Rick Perry. Fuck. Him. I didn't know a lot about him until a month ago, when my brother brought him up. A man who ignores his advisor's advice on almost aall economic problems, then blames them anyway for te huge debt Texas gets, a man who encourages the young earth creationism and science bastardization of the texas school board, AND he holds a day of prayer back in August so people can try to fix things by wishing really hard?

Fuck. Him.

There isn't a single thing that is 'just the way it is'. I firmly believe everything that is objectively true about the universe, can be demonstrated in some manner. I've yet to find a single thing that exists, that can't be demonstrated. Even THOUGHTS can be demonstrated to exist.

Also, I feel it necessary to point out that when you say "Scientists can't prove or even research on 'spiritual senses' as it has NO shape or form, but it exists" I have to ask. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

I understand what is frustrating you, but please isten when I tell you this analogy fails.

I'm not asking you to define nonphysical. I get that nonphysical is quite simply, nonphysical, not a physical thing.

I get it. I really do.

What I'm asking you to do, is define what a nonphysical SUBSTANCE is.

And, if your definition is no more informative than saying, "Magic", "I don't know" or "It's nonexistent" Then WHY is there any reason to accept it in the first place? And THAT, by the way, is why I aimed the question at thos rthat ACCEPT Mind Body duality.

Ok, you're not getting the problem with what you're saying.

I appreciate that you can go to a merriam webster's dictionary and define a nonphysical substance as something that doesn't have the properties of a physical substance. I really do.

But you see, and I'm going to say this very slwoly so that you'll understand:

You're still not telling me what a nonphysical substance IS, you're just telling me what it's NOT.

And what you fail to understand about THAT, is that that's the same problem philosophers have had for centuries when trying to argue the case for mind body dualism. This isn't a simple matter of "What is a nonphysical substance?" and going to a dictionary. This is a philosophical PROBLEM that still ha never been adequately defined.

The definition you've given me is no better than saying, "A nonphysical substance is something that does not exist." or, and here would be a definition telling me what it IS, "A nonphysical substance is an imaginary thing nobody has any way of knowing is real." And if THAT'S what a nonphysical substance is, that defeats the entire idea of mind body dualism, as the mind is simply an imaginary concept, or even, nonexistent.

That's...not a definition. It's strange that you think it is. At least, it's not a GOOD definitino, if any definition at all. Like most people when they trry to define it you're not telling me what the nonphysical thing IS, you're telling me what it's NOT. That's not a definition.

I mean, can you give me a single thing that we can confirm exists in any way, that's nonphysical? that we cannot percieve? If not what's the difference between a nonphysical thing, and a nonexistent thing?

You're like the 4th person to say I've answered my own question.

What question? Have I already decided dualism isn't accurate? Yes, but I'm starting a conversation here. I wonder why it's so hard for people to see this...

In any case, you still didn't give a definition. But you did give examples, unfortunately you didn't give any examples that are in any way demonstrable. See, I asked the question specifically too those that accept mind body dualism because I'm wondering how one takes on the idea that the mind is indeed a fundamentally seperate thing from the body? If it's not percievable, how in the world can you decide it's true in any way?

I still have no clue what exactly constitutes as a non physical thing.

What you're proposing has no explanatory power either, you're basically saying the mind is both a part of the brain and not. But you can't really explain how you GET to the not part.

As to your definition of what a nonphysical thing is...you didn't define it, you just said it's not physical. Can you give an example of a nonphysical thing?

Well Gravity, all I'm rely trying to do is spark up conversation. Fakku has people of all kinds, christians, muslims, atheists, militant atheists...it's not like I'm believing my original post is the end all be all, and ends the whole conversation before it starts. I even ended it with a question.

A long time ago, philosophers like Plato(among others) presented the philosophical proposition of mind body dualism. The proposition was simple: There are two fundamentally different aspects of the human body. The physical(body) and the nonphysical(the Mind).

Here's my opinion. I'm sort of on the side of Thomas Hobbes.

You have a mind, and a body...now...under Dualism, how exactly do these things interact?

If all there is, is the brain and physical body, there are still some mysteries, but not teribly profound ones. I can explain how one gets drunk, and what happens when they get drunk. It's not a perfectly clear and easy explanation, but it's a working model.

But if there's an addition to the body and the brain, which would be The Mind, this ppresents a problem. I mean, it goes Alcohol to mouth, mouth to stomach, stomach to blood, blood to brain...and then...somehow it gets to this Mind thing...and how does it do that? How does that work?

Renee Descartes figured future scientists would be able to figure this problem out. He even dissected some corpses and looked at brains, and found what HE felt might be the answer. the Penea gland. It's a small walnut sized gland that straddles both hemispheres. He proposed that the peneal gland controls consciousness, and the Mind stems from it. Of course, the gland does not do any such thing, which we know today, as one can REMOVE the gland and be perfectly fine, aside from slight alterations to body chemistry.

The question still remains though...why is my consciousness tied to this body? Why is it I can only see out of my eyes? I mean, if there's just a brain, there's no mystery. My eyes are connected to my brain through nerves, and yes, that's all I can see from. If therer's a seperate Mind though, wouldn't it be possible to just...disconnect? Go around and Astrally View things?

Ultimately, there have never been a satisfactory explanation of these things, mainly because everyone it, comes completely from the imagination, people are making shit up.

Imagination is a great place to start, don't get me wrong, but ultimately imagination has to connect with reality in order for it to have any sort of explanatory power.

In my opinion, modern neuroscience has shot mind body dualism all to hell.

We can do damage to people's heads and completely warp their personality, we can explain memories, we can explain senses, emotions, all of these things are now explicabe in terms of the central nervous system.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand our understandings of the brain still are in its relative infancy, while we can explain most of these things, we can't explain them 100%, however i am of the volition that since these things are backed up by research and data...there's no reason to accept that the Mind is this seperate nonphysical thing.

As an added question, to anyone who answers yes, you do believe, can you define for me what a nonphysical thing is?

Not only that, it's just fundamentally impractical.

I mean, yes. If every single step to the manifesto were followed to a T, the economy would be solid.

The problem is, that's such an unrealistic standard. It requires SO many things to happen that are simply counter intuitive to basic human nature. People deciding they're ok with not ascending to high places of import, those in power deciding actively to give it up, money becoming a second thought to work...There's a reason communism has never actually been SEEN in the world. Not pure communism anyhow. Even China hasn't been able to pull it off.

It beats for you so listen close
Hear my thoughts in every note
Oh oh.

Make me your radio
Turn me up when you feel low
This melody was meant for you
So sing along to my stereo


Gah I love that song. It's not my favorite of all time, but the rado hasn't played it enough for me to be overly annoyed by it yet.


Is there a song out there that you guys listen to that you could listen to...like all day long, and still not be tired of it?

No offense, but that is a horrible idea. The more a government rules over the harder it gets to implement actions, and enforce laws, and regulations.

Look at the governmnets all over the world. Some fail, others persist.

Now think about it in terms of one universal governmnet for the world.

Imagine if just that one government failed in any way.

The domino effect would be catastrophic.

aso, how in the FUCK would we get anything done? Have representatives from every county, in every territory, in every part of the world come together and debate things until they did a humongous, "Who all is for, and who all is against?" vote? Do you have any idea how incredibly difficult it would be just to be able to find a meeting place everyone has access to?

Too many problems, and that's just off the top of my head.

Didn't you read this in the link you provided?

"Phlogiston theory permitted chemists to bring clarification of apparently different phenomena into a coherent structure: combustion, metabolism, and configuration of rust. The recognition of the relation between combustion and metabolism was a forerunner of the recognition that the metabolism of living organisms and combustion can be understood in terms of fundamentally related chemical processes."



since you haven't shown global warming is a theory in the FIRST place, and scientists all over the world acknowledge that the world warming is an unavoidable fact of life...no...I don't think so. Also, your objection to peer review isn't an uncommon one among people who don't trust science as much as they claim to. The fact of the matter is, scientists are getting paid to review other scientists' work, and paid even MORE for finding errors in their wk. there is no bias to push some papers through, or keep some papers out in peer review. That's what it was built to get RID of. Do scientists think alike? Yes, because science is a very particular philosophy.



Two points. One: there is no such thing as "Darwin's theory of Evolution". There's just "Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and common descent". Which, by the way, has been confirmed via transitional fossils. The missing link is INDEED an untenable idea, because as soon as transitional ape to man fossils are found, creationists have a consistent denial basis, and not only that, will then create two more gaps, for 2 more missing links, for every transitional we've ever found. Austrolepithicus Afarensis is as transitional as a transitional fossil can get, yet creationists still say, "No, it was just a strange bipedal chimpanzee." while no scientist denies its veracity as a transitional.



If you had bothered to exercise any critical thought at all, you'd be able to discern that the MOST the discovery mentioned in the non peer reviewed news article would say, was that some older species of ape-to-man transitionals were extant during the lifespans of other, later transitionals. This isn't even uncommon. you are aware there is evidence that our most recent ancestors lived up until as recently as 12 thousand years ago, while we(homosapiens) have been around for up to about(as far back as we've been able to date) 200,000 years. Oh yeah, and that Bill Gates quote? It had NOTHING to do with evolution, or any sort of support for any arguments from complexity. That's a quote from his autobiography about how interesting his biology professor made thingsas compared to his computer technology professor. We call quotes like that, that don't support your argument whatsoever, 'quote mines'.

Next thing you'll be telling me is Darwin doubted his own theory because of the complexity of the human eye.



In other words, the only things that go against the bible are things you don't take seriously anyway, in your opinion. Good lord.



In other words, you don't seem to have a single clue as to how a theory could be used. You DO understand that all of modern medicine is thanks to Evolutionary Theory, right? Do you honestly think that there's any use in saying, "This might be the chance, but meh, we don't know' is an acceptable outline to base work and studies on? If you do, your'e deluded, and don't understand the scientific process.



Since that's not what I'm saying, nor is it relevant to the topic, I'm ignoring this.

[/quote] And weren't you the one who told me that there is nothing such as 100% in science? Doesn't this mean a person cannot claim he is correct or better yet 100% correct nor can he claim he is wrong.[/quote]

The reason for this is because ANYTHING, in science, is possible. There is a possibility I wil explode, right now, as I type this to you. However I know for a very large certainty that such will not happen. It is thanks to scientific biological and chemical theories that I'm able to know this. Theories are the framework for knowledge, without them we wouldn't know, ANYTHING.



Wah. The bible is a scientifically innacurate storybook written by goat herders who were for the most part illiterate, and possibly hallucinating.



FYI: Science doesn't deal in proofs. So no, they're not disproven.

...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.

If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.

I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.

So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.

Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.

Oxymoronic statements are fun.



I've already explained innumerous times. Evolution IS a fact. Change over time in allelic frequency in biological populations of organisms is an observed FACT.



Yes they do. They just also recognize it's the strongest theory in existence.



Allow me to quote a christian evangelical.

"Even if we disregard every transitional fossil. The DNA evidence alone for evolution is enough to prove beyond any rational doubt that evolution is a fact."

-Francis Collins



If you're being intellectually honest about the bible? Yes, they DO contradict the bible. AsI've said before, the only way people don't see science as contradicting the bible, is if they refuse to believe about all of the bible as literal fact. As another christian evangelical said

"If you stop taking Genesis as a literal fact, where does it stop? Why would you take anything else in the bible as true?"

-Ken Ham (Answersingenesis)



Good job, you typed a LOT of words and said pretty much nothing.

What I'm getting from you is, "IF something's a theory, it's not right or wrong, it's ust an idea."

that's idiotic. IF theories were treated the way you're defining them, then we wouldn't be able to derive any USES from them. Theories are made for the explicit purpose of being able to be used in developing science. Theories aren't like the bible, they're not just ideas that people came up with one day while they were drinking or hallucinating. They're testable, repeatable, and can be verified, repeatedly.

If some people follow science blindly, I don't think they should, but it beats following a religion blindly, as science is always, consistently more reliable than ANY religious book in all of history. If I were to worship ANYTHING, it'd be the scientific method as an epistomological necessity.