Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:45 AM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, vimesey (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,811 Year: 8,847/19,786 Month: 1,269/2,119 Week: 29/576 Day: 29/50 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Man raised back to life in Jesus' name
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 300 (277336)
01-08-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by macaroniandcheese
01-08-2006 9:44 PM


totally uncalled for.
but then i forget that you can do no wrong.

Brenn, this kinda stuff is exactly what you've been warned about.

You are suspended for 24 hours.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-08-2006 08:47 PM


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 254 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2006 9:44 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 257 of 300 (277349)
    01-08-2006 10:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 206 by macaroniandcheese
    01-08-2006 12:38 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Sorry about any misunderstanding. It just seems to me that if its real then its real -- real no matter how far beyond our reach or understanding it might be.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 206 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-08-2006 12:38 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

      
    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 258 of 300 (277350)
    01-08-2006 11:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 249 by AdminPD
    01-08-2006 2:36 PM


    Re: Yellow Alert - No Advancement
    My apologies in advance since this is most likely not the proper place to address this issue. I clicked on the link "General discussion of moderation procedures" and found it closed.

    Is it possible to open a new one so I can discuss this "caution" I received further? Or, could this message be moved to a more appropriate area where we can discuss this further?

    It's my own observation that I am really trying hard to discuss ideas with others here in this thread and consider their ideas with respect. Examples where mutual understandings are trying to be attained, in my opinion, include discussions with Ben and schrafinator within this very thread.

    It's also my observation, on the other hand, that crashfrog has a tendency to get personal with other posters' here at EvC. Here's some beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread:

    crashfrog writes:

    In addition to what? A nursing student's list of anecdotes? There's no indication in any of these stories that the recipients weren't told about their donors. A girl completing phrases of songs she's never heard before? I doubt a 16-year-old teenager is capable of writing anything but the most banal, predictable songs in the first place. I regularly am able to accurately predict the ending of movies I've never seen before. Am I a sorcerer? Or just somebody familiar enough with basic movie plotting to pick up on the forshadowing?

    Seriously, I'd recommend a little less credulousness on your part.

    In response to this, I replied:

    Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

    How old are you crashfrog?

    I asked this question because the flippant nature of his post seemed rather juvenile.

    To this, crashfrog replied:

    crashfrog writes:

    Old enough to know better. What's your excuse?

    Since I felt that I had explained myself clearly, I retorted:

    Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

    I don't need an excuse.
    But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?

    To this crashfrog replied:

    crashfrog writes:

    To completely avoid my questions with an ad hominem attack against my age? You're damn right you need an excuse.

    How about you answer my questions? How about you address my point?

    With this I replied (once again):

    Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

    How about you answer my question?

    Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

    But, since you seem to be suggesting that your answer (old enough to know better) somehow excused you of something in contrast to my reply, I'll ask what you felt you needed an excuse for?

    I'll check to see if you answered this later on tonight. :)

    To this, crashfrog answered:

    crashfrog writes:

    Your question doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appear to be on topic.

    In fact it doesn't appear to be anything but a dodge. How about you answer my questions now? Or is nonsense the best you're capable of?

    After this, of course, was the caution (yellow alert) from message 249 (which I am seeking more clarification about now).

    I'll also note some more beautiful examples of crashfrog's eloquence so far from this very thread.

    For example, here's an entire section of text where we were replying back and forth:


    crashfrog writes:

    What makes you think you get to ask one question and not the other? I mean, that seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask about souls - where the fuck do they come from? How does a gamete know when to generate a soul? Or do all gametes have mini-souls? Where in the cell is this soul stored?

    Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

    Here's a better question: Who cares?

    I was responding to sidelined's question:

    sidelined writes:


    These wave like properties are also detectable. Are you aware of any studies that have detected such?

    I answered his question as best as I could. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.

    If you want to find out how sex produces souls, maybe you should go watch a porn movie and take notes. Or, better yet, spend time with your S.O. and find out for yourself.

    You do have an S.O., correct?


    I'll note that my own retort here was a very strong suggestion via his own sexual analogies that he stop trying to derail the topic into boundaries beyond what is currently being discussed.

    We are trying to discuss exactly what the soul is in scientific terms and give a proper definition of it in theoretical terms. If we can't even agree with this part, then what good is it to jump ahead of the game invoke the ideas of how sex produces souls in the first place?

    It seems to me that one ends up derailing the original thought with bizarre questions that are so right out in left field that one can scarcely believe what they've read as a response.

    In fact, this is exactly what happened.

    Observe:

    crashfrog writes:

    I've had sex with my wife a number of times, and other women before that, but never once have I been a part of an act of sex that created some kind of standing-wave time-portal to the initial conditions of the Big Bang. (No pun intended.) You'd think something like that occuring in my partner's vagina would be something she would notice. Like, you'd think it would be a burning sensation, considering that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were ALMOST INFINITE HEAT!

    I'll note that there's enough raw material within this one message noted above to keep one laughing for the next month. But, in all seriousness, how exactly does one respond to questions and/or statements like this?

    Furthermore, how exactly do statements like this enhance EvC's dedication to "helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue"?

    Again, my apologies in advance since this is most likely not the proper place to address this issue. I clicked on the link "General discussion of moderation procedures" and found it closed.

    Is it possible to open a new one so I can discuss this "caution" I received further? Or, could this message be moved to a more appropriate area where we can discuss this further?

    Thank you for your time.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 249 by AdminPD, posted 01-08-2006 2:36 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 259 by AdminNWR, posted 01-08-2006 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded
     Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2006 1:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 259 of 300 (277351)
    01-08-2006 11:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-08-2006 11:02 PM


    Re: Yellow Alert - No Advancement
    I clicked on the link "General discussion of moderation procedures" and found it closed.

    Try the corresponding link at the bottom of this message.


    To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 11:02 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 260 of 300 (277357)
    01-08-2006 11:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 203 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-08-2006 12:25 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Mr. Ex Nihilo

    But just because it exists outside of the known universe and does not follow the laws that we are familiar with does not make it unreal.It's just beyond our current ability to explain.

    How can you say something exists outside the known universe and state that it does not follow the laws that we are familiar with? How can you know this is the case? How do you know it exists outside our universe in the first place? What does it mean for something to exist outside our universe?

    This is pretty much the definition of unreal actually.

    Main Entry: un·re·al
    Pronunciation: -'rE(-&)l, -'ri(-&)l
    Function: adjective
    : lacking in reality, substance, or genuineness : ARTIFICIAL, ILLUSORY; also : INCREDIBLE, FANTASTIC


    But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 203 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 12:25 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 261 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 11:29 PM sidelined has responded

    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 261 of 300 (277361)
    01-08-2006 11:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 260 by sidelined
    01-08-2006 11:17 PM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    If it's real then it's real. Even in the case where something normally exists outside the the laws we are familiar with -- if it is real then it is real.

    Consider the multiple universe theories going about. In theory normally they exist outside our universe. But, under certain conditions, they can apparently affect the outcome of other universes -- including perhaps our own.

    Here's an intersting discussion related to this very idea.

    This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 11:32 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:17 PM sidelined has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 262 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:57 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

      
    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 262 of 300 (277369)
    01-08-2006 11:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-08-2006 11:29 PM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Mr.ExNihilo

    If it's real then it's real

    This is redundant

    Even in the case where something normally exists outside the the laws we are familiar with -- if it is real then it is real.

    We cannot know it exists outside of the laws we are familiar with now can we?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 11:29 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 264 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 12:08 AM sidelined has responded

    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 263 of 300 (277370)
    01-09-2006 12:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
    12-27-2005 2:56 AM


    Re: Absolute claims
    Actually, I saw it as a statement of belief too.

    This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-09-2006 12:02 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2005 2:56 AM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 264 of 300 (277372)
    01-09-2006 12:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 262 by sidelined
    01-08-2006 11:57 PM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    M Theory

    and...

    The Official String Theory Web Site

    It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 262 by sidelined, posted 01-08-2006 11:57 PM sidelined has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 265 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:12 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded
     Message 267 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:20 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

      
    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 265 of 300 (277374)
    01-09-2006 12:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-09-2006 12:08 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Mr. Ex Nihilo

    The obvious question that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?

    That is a erroneous question sir.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 12:08 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 266 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 12:13 AM sidelined has responded

    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 266 of 300 (277376)
    01-09-2006 12:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 265 by sidelined
    01-09-2006 12:12 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Why?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 265 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:12 AM sidelined has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 268 by sidelined, posted 01-09-2006 12:29 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

      
    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 267 of 300 (277381)
    01-09-2006 12:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-09-2006 12:08 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Damn double post

    This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2006-01-08 10:27 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 12:08 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

    sidelined
    Inactive Member


    Message 268 of 300 (277384)
    01-09-2006 12:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-09-2006 12:13 AM


    Re: Ghost limbs
    Mr. Ex Nihilo

    Because spacetime started with the big bang. There was no "before" as this is a term that deals with time.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 12:13 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 272 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 1:24 AM sidelined has not yet responded

    Mr. Ex Nihilo
    Member (Idle past 4711 days)
    Posts: 708
    Joined: 04-12-2005


    Message 269 of 300 (277396)
    01-09-2006 1:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
    01-08-2006 1:25 PM


    Re: Mind and matter
    nwr writes:

    I disagree with that.

    A few years ago, while driving, I was applying the breaks. The car was pretty slow. It should have stopped within another six inches. It didn't. It lurched into the car in front, causing significant damage to both.

    Did my car have a mind independent of its physical components? No, it was just that somebody crashed into the rear of my car, and the force of the collision overrode what would normally have been able to control it.

    It is the same with the experiments you are describing. Electrical signals were injected, and these directly stimulated motor neurons, causing the movement. The injected signals overrode the volitional control signals from other parts of the brain. I really don't think there is any mystery here.

    First of all, the car does have a mind independant of its physical components.

    You.

    The car would be more like your brain & body -- which executes/performs the commands which come from the consciousness. The car left to itself would do nothing without a driver running it.

    You, as the driver of the car, are actually more like the consciousness which embodies the car itself (and enables or directs the car as per your instructions). If you get out of the car and walk away, the car's consciousness is working independantly of its own brain & body.

    Finally, the car that rear-ended your car could be considered the eletrical impulse -- so we are in agreement here because the effect does indeed overide the consciousness in either case.

    But the assumption that the impulse overode the "volitional control" part of the brain is what I question.

    What is the "volitional control" part of the brain?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 244 by nwr, posted 01-08-2006 1:25 PM nwr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 274 by nwr, posted 01-09-2006 1:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

      
    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 270 of 300 (277403)
    01-09-2006 1:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
    01-08-2006 11:02 PM


    Re: Yellow Alert - No Advancement
    It's also my observation, on the other hand, that crashfrog has a tendency to get personal with other posters' here at EvC.

    Personal? You're the one that made it personal, as your post proves. In fact the whole post is nothing but a personal attack against me, and a dodge against my questions.

    Not a single one of the statements that you've quoted is a personal attack, so it boggles my mind that I'm the one being accused of making it personal.

    What I meant by "old enough to know better" is that I'm old enough to know better that to dismiss an argument based on the age of my opponent; what I asked was "what's your excuse for trying to dismiss my argument based on my age?"

    Your post is simply a personal attack. You haven't substantially responded to a single point of mine. Why is that?

    It's my own observation that I am really trying hard to discuss ideas with others here in this thread and consider their ideas with respect.

    Is that why you asked how old I am? To respect me?

    quote:
    I asked this question because the flippant nature of his post seemed rather juvenile.

    Oh, I guess not. But I'm the one making personal attacks, eh?

    Hilarious.

    We are trying to discuss exactly what the soul is in scientific terms and give a proper definition of it in theoretical terms. If we can't even agree with this part, then what good is it to jump ahead of the game invoke the ideas of how sex produces souls in the first place?

    Let's try to bring it back to the topic. If your model of the soul in scientific terms can't answer any questions about souls, then what is even the point of considering it? Do you understand that a scientific model needs to actually answer questions?

    What question, exactly, does your hypothesis purport to answer? Judging by your responses so far, it answers nothing. But feel free to prove me wrong.

    I'll note that there's enough raw material within this one message noted above to keep one laughing for the next month.

    Hey, I'm glad you found it amusing. That was the intent; I'm trying to keep it jovial and friendly. Which makes it all the more flabbergasting for you to descend into these breathless screeds against me.

    Furthermore, how exactly do statements like this enhance EvC's dedication to "helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue"?

    How can I understand your model if you refuse to answer questions about it? The lack of furthering understanding is entirely your fault, Mr. Ex. If unerstanding is to be furthered, you have to be a part of the discussion. That requires more than ad hominem. It requires a response to relevant points raised against your position, instead of dodges and personal attacks.

    I'm hoping you can start being part of the discussion. If you came here to insult and not discuss, you're at the wrong forum.

    But, in all seriousness, how exactly does one respond to questions and/or statements like this?

    By answering the questions. It's really not all that hard.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-08-2006 11:02 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-09-2006 1:25 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    151617
    18
    1920Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019