|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2005 : 16:46:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have come to the realization that most of your guys consciousness lies in your ...
Brains?
quote:
You want extraordinary proof... Do the research...
Let's for arguments sake say that a guy named John Riordan claims that he has located the cystic fibrosis gene on human chromosome 7, and that a molecular characterisation makes it look as if the gene encodes an ion channel. Lets then say that I want to know how he knows this. He could give several answers (two are listed here):
1) You want proof... Do the research...
2) See my article: Riordan et al; Identification of the Cystic Fibrosis Gene: Cloning and Characterization of Complementary DNA; Science; Sep 8, 1989; 245, 4922.
Which do you think is the better answer? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 16:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Most of you are all just True Believers anyway...
That is a fairly typical response from the woo-woo crowd when confronted with a demand for evidence. It is also called an ad-hominem argumentive fallacy when used in this context.
If you can't provide real, verifiable, and repeatable evidence within the context of a falsifiable hypothesis, then don't get pissed of at us when we ask for it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2005 : 17:21:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
6) Since the earliest any of these three could have worked together is 1971, you will need to provide the source for this assertation.
Psssst... Val... You misspelled 'latest' and 'four' as 'earliest' and 'three', respectively.
But, you've mentioned the point I would have made. Anyone who rests an argument on "evidence" which is at least 34 years old in the fast-paced and ever-changing field of neuroscience is doing themselves a grave disservice. The implication of Storm's assertions here is that brain research has stagnated, and none of those four people (were they all alive today) would say to a reporter "oh, yeah, that quote was based on what we knew then. If you ask me now, I wouldn't say that."
And... The exact quote supplied by Storm appears on the following pages, according to Google:A lot of these appear to be "reprints" of Rogge's original article, some without credit, too. Storm isn't alone in leaving off proper attribution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 06:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawk
quote:
Brains?
no I was thinking more on the line of Asses!!!!
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
I have read some articles, not very many, on ghosts, and I have found them all to be just that. If you give me a specific article to read, I'll read it, but I'm not going to go wading through bullshit for hours on end to find it.
The key here Ricky is not many... One must wade through bullshit usually to find some truth.... You all expect me to do my research but yet it seems you all don't have the time for what I mention...but yet you have the balls to completely disagree with it...
Originally posted by V.D.
quote:
Links were invalid to this claim, sassy.
Only my husband calls me Sassy!!!!!
Originally posted by V.D.
quote:
Philisophic is fine.
You guys wouldn't know philisophical if it hit you in the face!!!!!
Not one of you could take a moment to philosophically think about the statement... to contemplate without immedietly becoming defensive and down right rude... I once thought highly of this group... but unfortunetly I no longer do... Now I realize you all are a bunch of true belivers... I was fooled...now I realize why I have not been around... |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 07:30:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
6) Since the earliest any of these three could have worked together is 1971, you will need to provide the source for this assertation.
Psssst... Val... You misspelled 'latest' and 'four' as 'earliest' and 'three', respectively.
It was a long day. You are correct. The latest these four dead people could have worked together was 1971.
Thanks. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 07:38:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
Originally posted by V.D.
quote:
Links were invalid to this claim, sassy.
Only my husband calls me Sassy!!!!!
I appologize for the offense. It was meant to lighten the mood, not insult or demean you.
quote:
Originally posted by V.D.
quote:
Philisophic is fine.
You guys wouldn't know philisophical if it hit you in the face!!!!!
Not one of you could take a moment to philosophically think about the statement... to contemplate without immedietly becoming defensive and down right rude... I once thought highly of this group... but unfortunetly I no longer do... Now I realize you all are a bunch of true belivers... I was fooled...now I realize why I have not been around...
You did post this in pseudoscience. This is where we investigate claims or look for confirmation/refutation of questionable science.
Perhaps General Discussion or Religion would have been a more appropriate place for the discussion.
In addition, if you merely wanted to share this by way of philosophical contemplation, it might be worded better to directly convey that message. There are no non-verbal cues in this venue to tell us what you mean. We can't see your face. We can't hear your voice. There is nothing within tone or inflection which we can gather what it is you want us to contemplate. We saw a claim, we asked for sources and evidence. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 07:43:51 [Permalink]
|
Here is a good website and some good articles on Consciousness... Although most will criticize...
http://www.closertotruth.com/participants/index.html
On ghosts start with these books....
The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits by Rosemary Guiley
Investigating the Paranormal by Tony Cornell
Pseudoscience and the Paranormal by Terence Hines
Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death by Fredereick Myers
If you are interested in gaining the knowledge then do the work... I am a guide to the information not the teacher...
originally posted by Ricky
quote:
I don't see any reason you wouldn't tell us. The only one I can fathom would be because you don't know where any are.
That is bullshit Ricky for many months I have given you numerous links and information... what you do with it and how you interput it... is up to you.... but please don't claim I have not or do not know... Do not go down the root of Dude!!!!! |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 08:39:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
You did post this in pseudoscience. This is where we investigate claims or look for confirmation/refutation
Oh please don't make excuses for your peers or yourself!!! No matter what folder I put this in it still would have been ripped apart!!!
Just wanted to discuss not argue... Discuss the very words and phrase.. the Brain is messenger to consciousnes... i have done and have been doing much research on consciousness..whether you believe it or not.. i do not know everything and do not claim to... I thought that without immediate critisicm and having to know the immediate source someone on here could just contemplate.. maybe it is you all who are not knowledgable in the subjects I discuss...
originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
You did post this in pseudoscience. This is where we investigate claims or look for confirmation/refutation of questionable science.
Perhaps General Discussion or Religion would have been a more appropriate place for the discussion.
So move it... see if the attitudes change
|
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 09:20:22 [Permalink]
|
| George Nugent Merle Tyrell (1879-1952) noted Mathemmatician and engineer contributor to the development of the radio belived that human personality underwent varying amounts of disintergration after death, and it was these fragments with which the medium came in touch with, thus being able to recreate a personality more or less like the original |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 09:30:27 [Permalink]
|
Storm
I suggest reading our Determinism where we discuss and amazingly philosophize on free will, which is a very related subject to your idea of a separate conscious (this even comes up in our discussion).
I went to the site you provided, but wasn't sure where to go, so I picked this transcripthttp://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/204/204transcript.html (Do Brains Make Minds)
It was actually a fairly interesting read, but I came away with several important points:
#1) There is no conclusive data for OBE's, as not one of the panelist contested John's statement.
quote:
JOHN: If you had some really conclusive data, sure. But there's nothing in the neuroscience literature offering conclusive data for out-of-body conscious experiences. You don't want to exclude the possibility a priori, but if I'm a neuroscientist with a job to do, I'm going to spend my time figuring out how the brain does it. And if somebody can then give me solid data demonstrating that there's stuff going on outside the brain, that's terrific. That would mean there are diseases that aren't caused by the germ theory.
#2) We really don't know enough of the brain yet to say either it is a purely biological entity limited by the its biochemistry or if there is some sort of 3rd party agent. In other words as John put it, we are just now studying and identifying correlations, and we are only now persisting to find causes for these correlations.
quote:
JOHN: I think this whole debate so far is totally misconceived, and I can't resist saying a little bit why. Of course we're going to find correlations, just as we did with the germ theory of disease. But then the next step--again, just as with the germ theory of disease--is reduction, to find out cause. [Ignaz] Semmelweis in Vienna, with his obstetrics patients, first found a correlation; then he found causation. First you find a correlation, then you find a causal relation and a causal mechanism. Now, this is precisely how we're going to do it in brain research. Once we move from correlation to cause in neuroscience, then all these old-fashioned categories, like materialism [only the physical is real] and dualism [some nonphysical entity is needed to explain mind], will fall by the wayside.
These folks were asking some of the same questions we were asking in Determinism, can computers have a conscience? or is the brain capable of Causal mechanisms (First Causes)?
Beyond this, I would say see the Determinism thread where we discuss these very issues, philosophically. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 09:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
George Nugent Merle Tyrell (1879-1952) noted Mathemmatician and engineer contributor to the development of the radio belived that human personality underwent varying amounts of disintergration after death, and it was these fragments with which the medium came in touch with, thus being able to recreate a personality more or less like the original
The problem is he had no evidence and we still don't of any "medium" ever coming into touch with anything. However we do have lots of evidence of cold reading and the effectiveness of these techniques. Thus without any evidence I am more inclined to accept the more parsiminous answer. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 11:07:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Storm:
You guys wouldn't know philisophical if it hit you in the face!!!!!
Not one of you could take a moment to philosophically think about the statement... to contemplate without immedietly becoming defensive and down right rude... I once thought highly of this group... but unfortunetly I no longer do... Now I realize you all are a bunch of true belivers... I was fooled...now I realize why I have not been around...
Sigh… Who is defensive? I went back over this thread. The only one doing any name-calling is you Storm.
I honestly believed that you were interested in critical thinking, skepticism and finding a way, through science, to support your claims of the existence of ghosts, and other claims that appear to be unnatural, as natural and falsifiable. I mentioned a few times that you have a lot of guts placing yourself among some pretty hard nosed skeptics and persisting in that goal. I admire that. Given that I am a bit perplexed at the way you have responded to the usual criticism of a perceived claim. Lets take a look, shall we?
quote:
Brain specialists, Prof. J.C.Eccles, Sir Cyril Burt, Dr.Wilder Penfield and Prof.W.H.Thorpe stated that in their opinion the brain appears to be more a complicated organism to register and channel consciousness rather than produce it.
Is it not fair to ask who these guys are, what is meant by “Brain specialists”, what research lead them to their “opinion” that [the brain is] “a more complicated organism to register and channel consciousness rather than produce it”? Since all claims are not equal, a request for citations, like it or not, is a reasonable request. This is, or at least appears to be a paranormal claim. You should have known that we would want to know exactly how these “authorities” arrived at their opinion. Asking that you provide the sources for that is not being closed-minded. After all, you brought it up. Give us reasons why you believe that this is not a wild goose chase. So far, you have said nothing on the subject beyond your original post. Are we expected to ponder any an all ideas as though all ideas have equal validity? How are we to decide what is worth our time and what isn't? What method do you use to evaluate such things?
quote:
"The brain is messenger to consciousness", Eccles said. In his famous debate with philosopher Popper "The self and its brain" this matter was examined further.
Where is this famous debate? Why are we termed “true believers” (an ad hominem if there ever was one) for asking you to provide us with more thoughts, details and citations? Have you learned nothing about critical thinking in the time you have spent with us?
quote:
Interesting! Thoughts?
You were presented with some thoughts and you took those thoughts as a personal insult. Too bad. Worse, you have called us asses, true believers, defensive, unable to recognize a philosophical construct, rude and more. If you feel fooled it is only because you have ignored our mission statement. At one time, you really did seem interested in having some of the ideas that you have presented held up to the kind of scrutiny you can expect at a skeptic site. Take it or leave it, you put it out there. And I admired you for that |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 11:08:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
Just wanted to discuss not argue... Discuss the very words and phrase.. the Brain is messenger to consciousnes...
OK, Storm, I'll bite-- I don't want you to think we're all jerks!
Still, though, I'm having trouble talking (or even thinking) about this because I don't understand what consciousness is. I mean, we can cite definitions and such, but I am still a bit lost. Moreover, I'm confused about the brain being a messenger. Can you think of an analogy? (I tend to think better by using analogies.) |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2005 : 11:24:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
George Nugent Merle Tyrell (1879-1952) noted Mathemmatician and engineer contributor to the development of the radio belived that human personality underwent varying amounts of disintergration after death, and it was these fragments with which the medium came in touch with, thus being able to recreate a personality more or less like the original
Storm...
What observations led him to this belief? What was the specific hypothesis? What methods did he use to test his hypothesis? Since you are dropping names (an appeal to authority), what qualifies a mathemetician/engineer to speculate about human consciousness? What studies did he publish, and in what journals?
If you can't answer those questions about your "source", then you should expect his speculation, and your conclusions based upon it, to be thoroughly picked apart.
Instead of getting pissed off at us, and calling us names, you should go back to those books you said you were reading on critical thinking and scientific method.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
