Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 142 (429959)
10-22-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kitsune
10-22-2007 9:17 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I would REALLY like to see your reply to Annafan's message #93, LindaLou, as I've more or less said the same thing to you at least two or three times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2007 9:17 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 2:46 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 97 of 142 (429963)
10-22-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Annafan
10-22-2007 10:18 AM


humility
quote:
And humility is indeed the right word here, contrary to the accusations that skeptics are so certain of themselves, so arrogant.
Well, when skeptics are accused of arrogance, I think what people are really saying is, "You are arrogant because you don't unquestioningly believe whatever I tell you in the same way I unquestioningly believe what somebody else told me."
Skeptics don't react this way to rational questioning or reasonable doubt. We welcome probing, investigative inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Annafan, posted 10-22-2007 10:18 AM Annafan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 142 (430056)
10-23-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kitsune
10-23-2007 5:15 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
People have been debating about the nature of truth for thousands of years. The specialty of this forum is scientific truth. I have no trouble accepting that fossils are found in a geologic column containing rocks that can be dated by a number of methods.
But you do have a problem with accepting anything science says regarding any of the unsupported stuff you, personally, like to believe in, like poltergeists and medical conspiracy theories.
You disregard science constantly, for exactly the same reasons creationists do.
quote:
The truths that a person might learn from life experiences, other people, spiritual experiences, meditation, etc, are of a different nature.
Aesthetic or moral "truths" are not the purview of science, but natural "truths" certainly are.
Where the "truths" derived from the above subjective sources you listed claim something about the natural world that contradicts the scientific evidence about the natural world, the subjective experiences should always be discarded in favor of the scientific.
In other words, when trying to understand the natural world, scientific evidence always trumps subjective evidence.
quote:
To call them nothing more than subjective opinions is to grossly belittle them.
But they are nothing but subjective opinions.
We can't test someone's personal spiritual experience, can we?
How are they useful in understanding the natural world? How do subjective opinions improve inquiry? How do we judge one person's personal "truth" to be more accurate than any other person's personal "truth". There's no way to tell.
That's not saying that people's personal "truths" aren't valuable to them.
quote:
They should be questioned and discussed, yes. There will be some who disagree and see things differently maybe. That's fine. But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock?
It isn't a matter of throwing them out.
It is a matter of understanding that they are subjective, and therefore are based upon personal opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 5:15 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 142 (430411)
10-25-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Damouse
10-23-2007 11:46 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What an interesting response. Im kinda sad we drove you out.
Well, it just goes to show you that most people really don't like it when their cherished faith-based beliefs are critically examined and when their bad arguments are pointed out.
Isn't it sad that an obviously bright, thoughtful person like LindaLou thinks it is somehow undesireable to use critical thinking.
She is doomed to be wrong about a lot of stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Damouse, posted 10-23-2007 11:46 PM Damouse has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 142 (430413)
10-25-2007 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by petrophysics1
10-23-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Petro, I wondered if you missed this message?
#55

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by petrophysics1, posted 10-23-2007 7:10 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by petrophysics1, posted 10-25-2007 9:16 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 142 (430477)
10-25-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AdminQuetzal
10-25-2007 9:53 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Er, whasn't Petro using his own claimed ability to read minds as support of the idea that "thoughts are transcendent", which is also the topic of this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AdminQuetzal, posted 10-25-2007 9:53 AM AdminQuetzal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 142 (441920)
12-19-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 9:29 AM


Re: What's wrong with neurons?
quote:
The question, however, is this: is the activity within these regions of the brain the cause, or the consequence, of the thought or experience?
If you change the brain's activity - by giving a psychoactive drug - you change a person's conscious experience. You stimulate parts of the brain electrically, you change a person's conscious experience. You damage the brain, you change a person's conscious experience.
These cases show that changes in the brain cause chages in conscious experience, and that consciousness is the consequence of brain activity, not vice versa.
quote:
According to this study of patients who have received transplanted organs, particularly hearts, it is not uncommon for memories, behaviours, preferences and habits associated with the donor to be transferred to the recipient.
That's not a study, LindaLou.
It is a list of stories.
The case studies aren't double blind, nor even single blind. None of the people were evaluated beforehand.
This is the absolute worst quality unscientific garbage that I've seen in a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 9:29 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 140 of 142 (441926)
12-19-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 12:56 PM


Re: What's wrong with neurons?
quote:
The neurologist says the question "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?" is hyperbole -- of course it is necessary. What's interesting is how many of these people function as well as the rest of us, even though some of them have only 5% of what we would consider to be a normal brain. This in itself ought to be the catalyst for some major studies, but instead it seems to have been mostly swept under the carpet.
Of course, they must be "sweeping things under the carpet". Bunch of dishonest charlatans, those scientists!
...except if they study Evolution. Evolutionary Biologists are honest and you can trust what they conclude, but not those sneaky brain researchers!
Anyway, what makes you think that such findings haven't spawned a lot of research, or isn't widely discussed in the field?
The article by Lewin about the work of Lorbor appeared in Science, one of the two most prestigious and high-profile scientific journals in existence. Science devotes its pages to the very most cutting-edge, groundbreaking, and high-quality science being done today.
According to Google Scholar, the Lewin Article has been cited by 52 other papers, which strongly implies a lot of interest in the scientific community in it.
The fact that you can consider an article being published in one of the very most prestigious scientific journals in the world as it being "swept under the carpet" is simply more evidence of your general prejudice against any science that does not agree with your preconceived beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 12:56 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024