• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

Argumemnon said:
I didn't. I addressed it, remember?



Please write my name correctly.



Just because I pointed out that you made an error doesn't mean you have to accuse me of doing the same over and over. That's what a child does.



And yet you just can't seem to let it go.
Click to expand...



I can show you a few scenarios online, where I had come to acknowledge any error made.

Likewise, if I had made an error here, I would have long acknowledged such; for such is how one may evolve. I have made no such error; I have nothing to gain by ignoring my invalidities.
You continued to ignore the factum that bateria can think, contrary to your invalid comment that they can't.



argumemnon said:
You're ignoring the crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now. But ignoring or cutting out parts of other people's arguments seems to be your modus operandi. I'll try again:
That other species or families manage fine without feature X does not negate the fact that feature X is a useful evolutionary feature to OUR species. Can you address this, at some point?
Click to expand...

There is no scientific data showing that belief is essential, for continued species success'.
Contrarily, it is scientifically observable that belief opposes science, whence science is mankind's largely useful/prominent tool.

It is thusly silly to express that belief is a useful evolutionary tool for humans.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You continued to ignore the factum that bateria can think
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that they cannot. Perhaps you should read that article again.

There is no scientific data showing that belief is essential, for continued species success'.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. Address the point I made, not some imaginary one.

Contrarily, it is scientifically observable that belief opposes science, whence science is mankind's largely useful/prominent tool.
Click to expand...

Again, this does not counter my argument. That X is better than Y doesn't mean Y isn't evolutionarily useful.

It is thusly silly to express that belief is a useful evolutionary tool for humans.
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow.

You are terrible at logic.
 
I think it follows from his terrible attempts at trying to sound erudite in English.

Thusly it sounds silly and is filled with prior invalidities.

Seriously PGJ, real people don't talk like that.
 
The opening section of your book that's available to read for free on Amazon immediately makes me want to not buy your book.

First of all, the fact that the first thing your book says is that "no opinion, faith, emotion nor bias was utilized in the composition of this book. Thusly it doesn't contain any wishful thinking, but science instead" makes me immediately think that the book is full of woo. Maybe it's not full of woo and it's a paragon of revolutionary rational scientific thinking, but the fact that you feel the need to immediately declare your own opinion about your own book does not inspired me with confidence that these things are actually true.

Like probably most regulars on these forums, I've read a fair number of books on science, philosophy, history, etc. In all of the books I've read, the proof is in the pudding. If the book is unbiased, factually based, properly researched, well sourced, rationally sound, scientifically based, etc. then that will be apparent by actually reading the book. I don't need the author to tell me the book is unbiased, unopinionated, unemotional and scientific in order to determine if it is actually these things.

As a result, that opening declaration immediately sets off a red flag to me and I'm sure it will set off the same red flag to a lot of people who might otherwise might want to read the book.

On another note, the introduction is terribly written. I appreciate that it might not be the entire introduction because I'm only basing this opinion on what's freely available on the Amazon website, but to me it just reads like a disconnected set of sentences. Upon reading the introduction (or the section of the introduction that's available), I'm actually none the wiser about what the book is actually about. The introduction randomly rambles from vague references to artificial intelligence to the meaning of life to Christianity and biblical contradictions, with no obvious connection between these disparate subjects. As a result, I don't actually know what the book is actually going to be about. Is it going to discuss subjects ranging from Biblical contradictions to the meaning of life to artificial intelligence?

This may all sound rather harsh, but this is just the feeling I get from reading the short free sample available at Amazon.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
Click to expand...
The fact that bacteria don't require belief to do whatever it is they do, is no indication that belief is something that humans can or should do without.

Snakes can climb without having any fingers, but does that mean that fingers are superfluous to humans and that we should dispense with them and that we should be able to climb without them?

Note: This is not an argument in favour of or against belief, just pointing out that the fact that bacteria do their thing without having beliefs is a truly terrible argument that belief is something that humans can or should do without.
 
Argumemnon said:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that they cannot. Perhaps you should read that article again.
Click to expand...

I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.


Argumemnon said:
I never said it was. Address the point I made, not some imaginary one.

Again, this does not counter my argument. That X is better than Y doesn't mean Y isn't evolutionary useful.
Click to expand...

That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
The fact that bacteria don't require belief to do whatever it is they do, is no indication that belief is something that humans can or should do without.

Snakes can climb without having any fingers, but does that mean that fingers are superfluous to humans and that we should dispense with them and that we should be able to climb without them?

Note: This is not an argument in favour of or against belief, just pointing out that the fact that bacteria do their thing without having beliefs is a truly terrible argument that belief is something that humans can or should do without.
Click to expand...

[IMGw=480]http://i.imgur.com/B64mky1.jpg[/IMGw]


(PART A)

Regardless, there exist non-human animals, that are better at complex tasks, despite the fact that humans have many more neurons enabling higher thought cycles.
For example, humans with several more neurons than chimps, are far more likely to reject evidence; (there are chimps that can count, but there are theists that refuse to count properly; ie theists with much fervor, believe the earth is 6000 years old, contrary to evidence, they refuse to count properly.)


(PART B)

The original post had long expressed that beings use the sub-optimal mechanism of belief, instead of science; belief can allow a large degree of non-science/non-sense, where as scientific methodology allows not non-scientific methodology.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
The opening section of your book that's available to read for free on Amazon immediately makes me want to not buy your book.

First of all, the fact that the first thing your book says is that "no opinion, faith, emotion nor bias was utilized in the composition of this book. Thusly it doesn't contain any wishful thinking, but science instead" makes me immediately think that the book is full of woo. Maybe it's not full of woo and it's a paragon of revolutionary rational scientific thinking, but the fact that you feel the need to immediately declare your own opinion about your own book does not inspired me with confidence that these things are actually true.

Like probably most regulars on these forums, I've read a fair number of books on science, philosophy, history, etc. In all of the books I've read, the proof is in the pudding. If the book is unbiased, factually based, properly researched, well sourced, rationally sound, scientifically based, etc. then that will be apparent by actually reading the book. I don't need the author to tell me the book is unbiased, unopinionated, unemotional and scientific in order to determine if it is actually these things.

As a result, that opening declaration immediately sets off a red flag to me and I'm sure it will set off the same red flag to a lot of people who might otherwise might want to read the book.

On another note, the introduction is terribly written. I appreciate that it might not be the entire introduction because I'm only basing this opinion on what's freely available on the Amazon website, but to me it just reads like a disconnected set of sentences. Upon reading the introduction (or the section of the introduction that's available), I'm actually none the wiser about what the book is actually about. The introduction randomly rambles from vague references to artificial intelligence to the meaning of life to Christianity and biblical contradictions, with no obvious connection between these disparate subjects. As a result, I don't actually know what the book is actually going to be about. Is it going to discuss subjects ranging from Biblical contradictions to the meaning of life to artificial intelligence?

This may all sound rather harsh, but this is just the feeling I get from reading the short free sample available at Amazon.
Click to expand...



If you don't fancy science, and instead prefer wishful thinking select another book.

Rather than declare opinion, I avoided such, as one tends to express nonsense/non-science, when one expresses opinion.


FOOTNOTE:
There are several valid sources included in the book, including source 1, and others.

By extension, biblical contradictions are a non-trivial portion of silly constructs believed by billions of humans..., that should be self-explanatory to some.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.

That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?
Click to expand...

"Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.

And why are you writing in such a weird style?
 
Argumemnon said:
No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.
Click to expand...

Article:

" It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings from researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known."

Argumemnon said:
"Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.


And why are you writing in such a weird style?
Click to expand...


Evolution gave rise to our ability to wield guns, to commit murder.
There is however a choice; one can choose not to do the above.

Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Article:

" It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings from researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known."
Click to expand...

Cherry picking won't help your case, Jordan. Individual bacterium do not think.

Evolution gave rise to our ability to wield guns, to commit murder.
There is however a choice, one can choose not to do the above.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of belief as an evolutionary trait.

It seems like you simply don't understand the first thing about what's needed to follow this sort of discussion.

Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.
Click to expand...

That's like saying you have a choice to find pastry tasty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom