Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 16826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #348 on: December 22, 2011, 05:06:03 PM »
No, but the trigger is certainly a force pushing back against your finger force, inhibiting the firing of the gun until enough finger force is applied. 

This is somewhat of a mentally retarded way of viewing things.  By saying the trigger is inhibiting the firing of the gun would mean that the gun is all the time working hard to fire, and the trigger is what holds it back.  The presumption being that if you remove the trigger, the gun would never stop firing.  That's just... stupid.  It doesn't work that way and you know it. 

So, the neuron, 'pushes back' so-to-speak, on the force of energy building up against it, until it reaches it's limit, then passes the signal forward. 

Gill, what is the neuron doing when there is no force of energy building up against it?  Is it resisting nothingness? 

You're just wrong Gill.  Nerves lie in wait for a stimulus.  And when that stimulus is sufficient, it fires the action potential.  It's not 'pushing back' so to speak.  It is not actively seeking to stop the initiation of an action potential as if that would be some sort of detrimental event. 

What you are describing is more like a dam breaking, where the dam is resisting the flow of water until it can no longer do so, then it lets go.  A nerve isn't resisting the stimulus; it's responding to it. 

And since the majority of neurons aren't firing simultaneously, the majority then are 'pushing back' at any one instant.  So for me to say that the primary force is inhibition, I don't see how that's controversial.

LOL!  It's not controversial.  It's absolutely fucking ridiculous.  You are insinuating that every neuron in your body is attempting to fire simultaneously, and that because they are not, they are primarily involved in inhibition.  It's just not even remotely true. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #349 on: December 22, 2011, 05:15:58 PM »
According to your link Gill, inhibitory neurons are not part of the neurons we have been discussing. There are a number of different types of neurons. Inhibitory neurons release GABA, the stop signals to the neuron which carry info across the synapse.
 
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #350 on: December 22, 2011, 05:23:09 PM »
No, but the trigger is certainly a force pushing back against your finger force, inhibiting the firing of the gun until enough finger force is applied. 

... mentally retarded ....That's just... stupid.   

What else did you say?  Doesn't matter anymore to me because I'm done conversing with anyone anymore who has to resort to insults to try and get their point across.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 05:27:40 PM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #351 on: December 22, 2011, 05:26:32 PM »
According to your link Gill, inhibitory neurons are not part of the neurons we have been discussing. There are a number of different types of neurons. Inhibitory neurons release GABA, the stop signals to the neuron which carry info across the synapse.

Ok.  The main point of the link was to show that, yes, neuroscientists do consider inhibition in the brain a very important property of neurons.  So then for anyone to try to say my premise of all neurons having a role in such inhibition,  therefore a filtering effect, I don't see how that's such a ridiculous idea to bring up.


Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #352 on: December 22, 2011, 05:32:48 PM »
According to your link Gill, inhibitory neurons are not part of the neurons we have been discussing. There are a number of different types of neurons. Inhibitory neurons release GABA, the stop signals to the neuron which carry info across the synapse.

Ok.  The main point of the link was to show that, yes, neuroscientists do consider inhibition in the brain a very important property of neurons.  So then for anyone to try to say my premise of all neurons having a role in such inhibition,  therefore a filtering effect, I don't see how that's such a ridiculous idea to bring up.

The inhibition is not a property of the neuron which is "fired" across the synapses. It is a property of GABA which is released by the inhibitor interneuron.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #353 on: December 22, 2011, 05:51:10 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

Quote
There are several stimuli that can activate a neuron leading to electrical activity, including pressure, stretch, chemical transmitters, and changes of the electric potential across the cell membrane.[13] Stimuli cause specific ion-channels within the cell membrane to open, leading to a flow of ions through the cell membrane, changing the membrane potential.

Besides there being a variety of neurons there are a number of ways that they can be stimulated into producing electrical activity as seen above. So does consciousness act upon, stretch and pressure as well?

Also, how does consciousness act upon a sponge (which has no neurons)?
Well I suppose a sponge is a pretty good filter. ;D
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 05:56:52 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #354 on: December 22, 2011, 10:53:20 PM »
What else did you say?  Doesn't matter anymore to me because I'm done conversing with anyone anymore who has to resort to insults to try and get their point across.

That's fine Gill.  You go ahead; take your ball and go home.  I don't blame you.  It's far easier to run away than to simply brush aside my personal opinion of your position and respond to the content of the post.  I never called YOU stupid, I called your position stupid.  It's not like I called you a fucking ass hole or something.  If that tiny bit of criticism is more than you can handle, then perhaps you should grow a thicker skin before engaging in argumentation that may get even slightly heated at times. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #355 on: December 23, 2011, 02:12:31 AM »
Where does this consciousness reside?
 
Everywhere.
Quote
How do you know where it resides? 
Well if it's an indefinite substance, then it must be all places simultaneously.  Like gravity.
Quote
Is it prone to errors when the filtering mechanisms become faulty?
Awareness is prone to errors if the brain is in dysfunction.  But consciousness is not right or wrong.
Quote
  What is this consciousness made of?
Nothing. It's an immaterial substance.
Quote
All of the answers you can come up with here are going to be made up answers with no facts to back it up.  That type of thing doesn't sit well with me because it's so often completely wrong.
My answers are all rational deductions from my original premise that consciousness is immaterial and indefinite.   If you think rationalism is just 'making things up', then you should discount all of mathematics.

Gravity is not everywhere simultaneously.

To quote Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" For you that word is "indefinite". Please stop using it and substitute another word so we can see if you understand what you are saying. (Yes I said that the way I wanted to.)

"immaterial substance"? A material which is immaterial? So do you mean it is 'unimportant' or 'irrelevant'?

I have an uncomfortable feeling that "Gill" is intelligent enough to know that what he is saying is garbage and that he is feigning innocence and ignorance so he can jerk us around. He demonstrates a wide enough knowledge base but then when he talks about things he gets them so very wrong in a limited way. It feels as if he is making deliberate mistakes just so he can play with us.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #356 on: December 23, 2011, 02:30:11 AM »
According to your link Gill, inhibitory neurons are not part of the neurons we have been discussing. There are a number of different types of neurons. Inhibitory neurons release GABA, the stop signals to the neuron which carry info across the synapse.

Ok.  The main point of the link was to show that, yes, neuroscientists do consider inhibition in the brain a very important property of neurons.  So then for anyone to try to say my premise of all neurons having a role in such inhibition,  therefore a filtering effect, I don't see how that's such a ridiculous idea to bring up.

You lied in the portion I made bold. The link showed that a very specific type of neuron - the interneuron - has a role in some inhibition of signals. You took that and distorted it to create your false position: you altered the information to support your reversal of other facts. And this lead us away from the little detail that you neatly derailed the deconstruction of your empty premise of consciousness having a supernatural basis.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10614
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #357 on: December 23, 2011, 02:32:53 AM »
I have an uncomfortable feeling that "Gill" is intelligent enough to know that what he is saying is garbage and that he is feigning innocence and ignorance so he can jerk us around. He demonstrates a wide enough knowledge base but then when he talks about things he gets them so very wrong in a limited way. It feels as if he is making deliberate mistakes just so he can play with us.

Already called it a long time ago, IIRC.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5375
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #358 on: December 23, 2011, 02:34:21 AM »
I remember building a battery out of a potato in science class. An electrochemical reaction. Was that caused by consciousness or a difference in potential?

any Devo tee would know it was consciousness. ;)

........just another spudboy looking for a real tomato
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #359 on: December 23, 2011, 02:41:07 AM »
I have an uncomfortable feeling that "Gill" is intelligent enough to know that what he is saying is garbage and that he is feigning innocence and ignorance so he can jerk us around. He demonstrates a wide enough knowledge base but then when he talks about things he gets them so very wrong in a limited way. It feels as if he is making deliberate mistakes just so he can play with us.

Already called it a long time ago, IIRC.

I missed that - sorry. I needed to skim portions of this thread because of Gill's re-interpretation of reality.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10614
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #360 on: December 23, 2011, 03:12:46 AM »
I missed that - sorry. I needed to skim portions of this thread because of Gill's re-interpretation of reality.

Sorry for what? :S
I was just pointing out that I agreed.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #361 on: December 23, 2011, 04:20:46 AM »
I remember building a battery out of a potato in science class. An electrochemical reaction. Was that caused by consciousness or a difference in potential?

any Devo tee would know it was consciousness. ;)

........just another spudboy looking for a real tomato

It wuz obviously caused by teh Potatoe God! Surely you don't believe in science, I mean, where's the evidence?
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #362 on: December 23, 2011, 06:00:08 AM »
Quote from: Anfauglir
Every aspect of our society is geared around the idea that we HAVE free will.........every aspect of the world persistently and continuously reinforces, from birth to death, the idea that we have free will, that we have choice....despite all logic and argument making it clear that we do not.
I didn't need anyone to tell me I had free will when I was young in order to believe it. It was an intuitive sense. Your stance seems to be that an intuitve sense should be ignored as giving any information if it doesn't fit with a logical premise, which may not even apply to it.

Oh, well fair enough then.  Don't bother to address any of the points I made - you feel it is different, so that's that, end of story.

From reading all your comments about neurons, it sems that you're not really interested in what things "really are" - you'd rather alter them to fit your view of the world.  Again, that's fine - go for it.  But I can't see any point in continuing to engage with you, since you've made it clear that you simply won't even consider any view that doesn't fit how you "feel".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #363 on: December 23, 2011, 09:08:51 AM »
Well, Gill it' been fun learning stuff. It's why I participate on this forum-to learn. I am interested in evolution, the properties of light and of neurons.

Biology, Neuroscience and physics explain these things very well, and satisfactorily answer most of my questions. I never feel a need to make something up to fill in the gaps in my understanding.

The problem is, unless you can explain a mechanism by which an immaterial substance acts upon the material, we'll get nowhere in these discussions. At least I won't be persuaded that this immaterial substance exists. And if you can show me that it acts upon the material world it would not be immaterial. I guess that's why you use the term immaterial substance. Something that is and is not.

If consciousness is not immaterial substance than it is material substance and we can then observe it,  measure it and test it.

Now we can search for the origin of the electrical potentials in covalent bonds next, I suppose. Then we would have to go deeper into quantum electrodynamics to understand that. However, I am not convinced that you would accept any facts as evidence that your idea(s) is/are wrong since as you say, it comes down to philosophy. Besides, you haven't seemed to be able to accept that you have been wrong on a number of things throughout this thread from my (and others) perspective.

So, I think  I'm opting out of this one and seriously considering weather or not it is a good idea to engage you at all. I work very hard at trying to understand someone's pov and the subject matter discussed. It needs to be reciprocated.

I'll offer this last little tidbit: It's hard work, but take control of your rational mind. If our parents, relatives, friends, teachers and authority figures didn't already indoctrinate us with their beliefs, myths and superstitions, we would have created our own.  When others don't make up stories, we make up our own. It's what we do. We are hard wired for it as part of a survival mechanism. More of our brain real estate is dedicated to processing our imagination than our reasoning. Our limbic system (thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus) overrides our frontal lobes and overpowers our rational mind.  The brain's center for reasoning is the last to mature in a teen.  Faith trumps reason any time...But take control of your rational mind.

There 's no need to make up immaterial stuff when material stuff is so interesting.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #364 on: December 23, 2011, 06:15:46 PM »
Hi Azd, kin hell, Jeff.

I've been doing some reading about our discussion, and am trying to assimilate it. I'll get round to replying to you in due course...

You might be interested in this piece I found, part of a philosophy doctoral thesis by someone who says he lives without the illusion of Free Will, and who accepts that people are not morally responsible for their actions. He discusses how a FWS (free will sceptic) might react to a marital infidelity, for example, and whether children should be taught that they are not morally responsble for their actions, or should be lied to instead. (It's a whole chapter, 32 pages, but clearly written and non-technical i.e. I understood it).

I also found this NY Times piece which mentioned some of my concerns (my bold):
Quote
But in another way it makes perfect sense to hold Bill fully accountable for murder. His judges pragmatically intuit that regardless of whether free will exists, our society depends on everyone’s believing it does. The benefits of this belief have been demonstrated in other research showing that when people doubt free will, they do worse at their jobs and are less honest
and:
Quote
“Free will guides people’s choices toward being more moral and better performers,” Dr. Vohs said. “It’s adaptive for societies and individuals to hold a belief in free will"
... which is what I was saying. But I haven't followed that up yet...

Cheers,

Gnu.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #365 on: December 23, 2011, 06:56:33 PM »
Gnu, are you willing to answer the challenge I put to you and Gill back in post #116?

Gill responded that our brain cells should violate the laws of physics and chemistry.  Do you believe similarly, and if not, then at which scale or part of our brain do you think that the laws of physics and chemistry break down?

We should be able to test for this, of course.  Would you want such testing to be done?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #366 on: December 23, 2011, 11:10:29 PM »
Hi Azd, kin hell, Jeff.

I've been doing some reading about our discussion, and am trying to assimilate it. I'll get round to replying to you in due course...

You might be interested in this piece I found, part of a philosophy doctoral thesis by someone who says he lives without the illusion of Free Will, and who accepts that people are not morally responsible for their actions. He discusses how a FWS (free will sceptic) might react to a marital infidelity, for example, and whether children should be taught that they are not morally responsble for their actions, or should be lied to instead. (It's a whole chapter, 32 pages, but clearly written and non-technical i.e. I understood it).

I also found this NY Times piece which mentioned some of my concerns (my bold):
Quote
But in another way it makes perfect sense to hold Bill fully accountable for murder. His judges pragmatically intuit that regardless of whether free will exists, our society depends on everyone’s believing it does. The benefits of this belief have been demonstrated in other research showing that when people doubt free will, they do worse at their jobs and are less honest
and:
Quote
“Free will guides people’s choices toward being more moral and better performers,” Dr. Vohs said. “It’s adaptive for societies and individuals to hold a belief in free will"
... which is what I was saying. But I haven't followed that up yet...

Cheers,

Gnu.

Gnu,

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it sounds like the point you are trying to make is that we should continue along with the illusion of free will and live our lives as if it is a fact of life.  I would like to say that I don't see a single thing wrong with that at the moment.  In fact, I would support it until I found a reason not to.  I live my life as if I have free will, and I spend about as much time dwelling on it as I do thinking about my atoms being almost entirely free space, or that my actions, in the grand scheme of things, are basically meaningless.  It's a powerful illusion, and who knows... maybe Dr. Vohs is right.  Maybe the perception of free will gives us an evolutionary advantage? I don't know.   

Telling a child he or she is morally responsible, however, just plays into the notion that the sum total of ALL our experiences are what lead us to make the decisions we make.  It very well may make people do better at their jobs and to be more honest if they feel they have the free will to make choices.  I think that is very debatable.  I might even throw my hat into the ring in favor of the illusion side on that one.       

This also dovetails nicely into the question of whether the belief in any particular religion has a positive or a negative impact on growth and development of a society as a whole.  I think that is also a debatable question.  The question of whether the Christian religion is TRUE or not... well... that's pretty much gone.  I just happen to think the bad of Christianity FAR outweighs the good, which is one of the reasons I spend so much time here.  It's not the same with free will.  The good that comes from following the illusion outweighs the alternative, IMO.

I am open to being proven wrong, however, if evidence can be brought to the table that would make me believe living under the illusion of free will is more dangerous to myself, others, or society as a whole, than living life without it.

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline rickymooston

Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #367 on: December 24, 2011, 03:52:46 PM »
I didn't need anyone to tell me I had free will when I was young in order to believe it.

That doesn't mean you have free will. It merely means you think you do. "You" dont' know what rules control your feelings ...

Quote
Your stance seems to be that an intuitve sense should be ignored as giving any information if it doesn't fit with a logical premise, which may not even apply to it.

I missed the orginal argument but the value of intuition depends how its used. Intuition is useful but it is often wrong.

Quote
But the main purpose of neurons

This sounds like a completely silly tact to take. The brain is a machine. We understand partly how it works but not all the details.  The details of which components of the brain have which function won't really affect the argument.

At the most, you will show your own ignorance on the details of that sign and possibly the ignorance of the person you are conversing with.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #368 on: December 24, 2011, 08:03:20 PM »
Well, Gill it' been fun learning stuff. It's why I participate on this forum-to learn. I am interested in evolution, the properties of light and of neurons.
...

I'll offer this last little tidbit: It's hard work, but take control of your rational mind. If our parents, relatives, friends, teachers and authority figures didn't already indoctrinate us with their beliefs, myths and superstitions, we would have created our own.  When others don't make up stories, we make up our own. It's what we do. We are hard wired for it as part of a survival mechanism. More of our brain real estate is dedicated to processing our imagination than our reasoning. Our limbic system (thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus) overrides our frontal lobes and overpowers our rational mind.  The brain's center for reasoning is the last to mature in a teen.  Faith trumps reason any time...But take control of your rational mind.

There 's no need to make up immaterial stuff when material stuff is so interesting.

Yeah, I'd say I do tend to get more philosophical than anything.  I can see how that might annoy some people at times, but that's just the nature of debates, even I get annoyed at times.

Glad to hear you've gotten something out of these debate.  I have too. A lot of you put in some really thoughtful and interesting posts at times and gave me insights.  So it was definitely worth my time coming here but I need a break.... bye.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 08:06:03 PM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #369 on: December 24, 2011, 08:32:37 PM »
To quote Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" For you that word is "indefinite". Please stop using it and substitute another word so we can see if you understand what you are saying. (Yes I said that the way I wanted to.)

"immaterial substance"? A material which is immaterial? So do you mean it is 'unimportant' or 'irrelevant'?

Alright, I'm back again for a minute, feel like addressing this.

No, 'immaterial' as in not quantifiable.
Quote
I have an uncomfortable feeling that "Gill" is intelligent enough to know that what he is saying is garbage and that he is feigning innocence and ignorance so he can jerk us around. He demonstrates a wide enough knowledge base but then when he talks about things he gets them so very wrong in a limited way. It feels as if he is making deliberate mistakes just so he can play with us.

lol. No.  Everything I've ever posted on this board I did so in a serious manner, not to play games with anyone. 

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #370 on: December 24, 2011, 08:42:21 PM »
Quote from: Anfauglir
Every aspect of our society is geared around the idea that we HAVE free will.........every aspect of the world persistently and continuously reinforces, from birth to death, the idea that we have free will, that we have choice....despite all logic and argument making it clear that we do not.
I didn't need anyone to tell me I had free will when I was young in order to believe it. It was an intuitive sense. Your stance seems to be that an intuitve sense should be ignored as giving any information if it doesn't fit with a logical premise, which may not even apply to it.

Oh, well fair enough then.  Don't bother to address any of the points I made - you feel it is different, so that's that, end of story.

From reading all your comments about neurons, it sems that you're not really interested in what things "really are" - you'd rather alter them to fit your view of the world.  Again, that's fine - go for it.  But I can't see any point in continuing to engage with you, since you've made it clear that you simply won't even consider any view that doesn't fit how you "feel".

/sigh, sucked back in again to this convo.  Maybe I don't have free-will, hehe.

I'm saying I don't personally think all valid knowledge about objective reality has to come from logic or empirical evidence.  This knowledge can come from intuition alone in some cases, free-will being one to consider.

Aren't all sources of knowledge inevitability based on assumptions of truth anyway?  I mean, if you think empirical evidence and rational thinking is the only source of valid knowledge for the question of free-will, why?

At some point you must have made an assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms, that this was the case.    That assumption could be based on personal experience, a choice, or simply an intuitive sense.

So then to say an intuitive sense is not valid, I think is not being reasonable.

* p.s. merry xmas.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 08:49:17 PM by Gill »

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5375
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #371 on: December 24, 2011, 10:05:48 PM »


I'm saying I don't personally think all valid knowledge about objective reality has to come from logic or empirical evidence.  This knowledge can come from intuition alone in some cases, free-will being one to consider.



thus the flat earth   
thus using mercury to cure syphilis 
thus burning witches

what you are describing is "feelings" or guessing.

Intuition would only ever be of any value if it came with a "this intuition is false" and/or "this intuition is true" indicator.
It doesn't and is therefore a ridiculous thing to present as a worthy (sensible or trustworthy) tool for making decisions about the real world.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #372 on: December 25, 2011, 11:02:30 AM »


I'm saying I don't personally think all valid knowledge about objective reality has to come from logic or empirical evidence.  This knowledge can come from intuition alone in some cases, free-will being one to consider.



thus the flat earth   
thus using mercury to cure syphilis 
thus burning witches

what you are describing is "feelings" or guessing.

Intuition would only ever be of any value if it came with a "this intuition is false" and/or "this intuition is true" indicator.
It doesn't and is therefore a ridiculous thing to present as a worthy (sensible or trustworthy) tool for making decisions about the real world.

I said it's useful for somethings, not everything.   So when a person feels hungry, they shouldn't trust that intuition?  If a person feels responsible for their action, they shouldn't trust it?  Yet, I'm sure you do, and wouldn't consider yourself to be ridiculous...

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #373 on: December 25, 2011, 11:50:04 AM »
So when a person feels hungry, they shouldn't trust that intuition?

Being hungry is not an intuition.

Quote
If a person feels responsible for their action, they shouldn't trust it?

Neither is a sense of personal responsibility.

Quote
Yet, I'm sure you do, and wouldn't consider yourself to be ridiculous...

Correct.   :)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #374 on: December 25, 2011, 12:58:00 PM »
So when a person feels hungry, they shouldn't trust that intuition?

Being hungry is not an intuition.

Quote
If a person feels responsible for their action, they shouldn't trust it?

Neither is a sense of personal responsibility.

Quote
Yet, I'm sure you do, and wouldn't consider yourself to be ridiculous...

Correct.   :)

Oh, okay, so I guess you all had to prove somehow that you needed to eat or die when you were kids before you made that decision.  It wasn't  an innate sense of reality.  Also, you must of had to prove you were responsible too,  it wasn't an innate sense (intuition) you developed.  Got it.

webster: intuition - "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference"
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 01:00:20 PM by Gill »

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #375 on: December 25, 2011, 01:07:27 PM »
Oh, okay, so I guess you all had to prove somehow that you needed to eat or die when you were kids before you made that decision.  It wasn't  an innate sense of reality.

Eating is an instinctual behavior.  It isn't something that needs to be learned or intuited.  (Good thing, too, otherwise few animal species, if any, would be able to survive.)

Quote
Also, you must of had to prove you were responsible too,  it wasn't an innate sense (intuition) you developed.  Got it.

Unlike the hunger sense, a conscience is, indeed, something that develops over a number of years, but most human beings will develop it naturally, even if not given the proper guidance during childhood.  In most cases, if you can get people to talk about it, they'll admit that they did lousy things in childhood that they now deeply regret.  I will grant you, though, that the issue of a conscience is not so concrete as instinctively responding to the body's hunger signals.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #376 on: December 25, 2011, 01:13:59 PM »
Alight, fair enough.  But the fact that all people do develop that sense of agency, to a degree, I find that to be interesting, and seems pretty close- minded if someone just brushes it off as completely illusionary, when they'll admit their other senses are telling them things about the world.