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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Gibberish. You are drawing conclusions based on no discernible research or experimentation, and predicated by you upon a basis that has no relevant scientific foundation. You are very good at looking up words in common lay references, but you demonstrate no sophistication.

One may avoid embarrassment, amidst a trivial google search:

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, people are not stupid because they dispute your claims. Please attempt a less arrogant posture.

See a quick google outcome, concerning belief's definition.

Thusly, such and outcome is but not "mine".

 

[JayUtah]

One may avoid embarrassment, amidst a trivial google search.

Do real scientists base their research on Google searches? As I said, you are adept at consulting common lay references. You display no further eruditions in the fields that pertain to your findings.

 

[JayUtah]

Thusly, such and outcome is but not "mine".

Straw man. I addressed no specific aspect of your claim.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, I'm not interested in reading your other self-published puffery. Do you have any peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate journals for cognitive neuroscience and folklore and mythology?

Here are some conveniently posted image abstracts, regarding "Thought Curvature":

(1) "Thought Curvature":

(2) Supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning:

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do real scientists base their research on Google searches? As I said, you are adept at consulting common lay references. You display no further eruditions in the fields that pertain to your findings.

There are several scientists that use standard words, whilst communicating.

Such scientists are google use able.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You describe yourself as a "programming god" in your nick, despite having limited practical experience and, by your own admission, a lower than typical level of education for someone in your vocation. Given that the median age of my software development team is around 40, and that their median level of experience is somewhere around 20 years, I think you're making a very hubristic claim. I would expect that hubris to rub off in other areas.

See this quote of mine below, that approaches my profile name:

Astronomy once included mythical components, amidst science in antiquity.

Like astronomy, the archaic God concept is scientifically re-definable/updatable, such that nonsense is purged.

The resulting definition:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/i5xkPKI.png[/qimg]

As such, humans thereafter persist as Gods, as scientifically redefined; and one need not believe in empirically observed sequences, such as humans.

Thereafter, God as scientifically redefined, need not be believed in, as such persists as an empirically observable distribution; i.e. humans.

Thusly, one may be an atheist, and observe the redefinition as valid, as one need not believe in such a redefinition as scientifically prescribed.

http://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scientific_redefinition_of_God_by_an_atheist

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I taught in the field so I'll keep my own counsel regarding whether computer science is a science in the sense that you intend. Had you consulted instead the article on "Computer Science," rather than trying to equivocate on the identity of "scientist," Wikipedia would have told you that "Its fields can be divided into a variety of theoretical and practical disciplines." You have been trained in the practical discipline of programming a computer. You have not been trained as a scientist. Nor is any part of computer science concerned with comparative literature or cognitive neuroscience, the fields that pertain to your claims regarding human belief.

Further, it's cute that you think that having earned a baccalaureate degree in computer science makes you a computer scientist of any stripe. I'm sure you realize there are degrees beyond the bachelor's, and that your professors would probably be considered computer scientists while you -- their student -- are not. For example, there exists an academic field called "construction science." That's different than simply working as a construction worker.

Quite the inconsequential, invalid, value-less comment of yours.

You need not distort the Wikipedia data.

That computer scientists are divided among practical and theoretical disciplines, does not suddenly render one division as non-scientist.

Please attempt to avoid silly irrelevant anecdotes.





FOOTNOTE:

It is unavoidable, that computer scientists, are scientists, regardless of your feelings.

[IMGw=700]http://i.imgur.com/O4DXOot.png[/IMGw]

 

[JayUtah]

There are several scientists that use standard words, whilst communicating.

Irrelevant. The question was whether they relied upon Google to inform of them of the meaning of the words, or whether they relied upon the nomenclature of their specialized fields. The difference is that between lay references and references within the field.

Such scientists are google use able.

That wasn't the question. The question is whether real science relies upon Googled-up definitions, or whether it relies upon sources common in the field -- although possibly unkonwn to laymen? You constantly rely only on lay sources and references, not upon common works in the fields to which you allude.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Further, when you deign to tell people what is or isn't science, then yes you are implying you are knowledgeable enough to make that judgment. I do not accept you as an expert on what constitutes science.

I needn't manufacture that which is science bound, nor do I need manufacture constructs that oppose science; I simply underline the science-opposing nature of commonly embraced constructs (i.e. belief) that are long dictionary described to oppose science.

Such is valid, regardless of my existence.

You are claiming expertise you cannot demonstrate that you have. Further, the expertise you are claiming is not relevant to the conclusions you're drawing regarding the nature of belief in humans.

I don't agree, and I cannot see where you have done an appropriate level of research, experimentation, or study to support such a conclusion. Nor have your attempts to defend it here exhibited any sort of suitable erudition.

See a demonstration concerning a description of mine, par quantum computing:

 

[JayUtah]

Quite the inconsequential, invalid, value-less comment of yours.

This seems to be your new method of sidestepping information that is inconvenient to your claims. When one of your critics refutes you, you simply declare him to be "inconsequential."

You need not distort the Wikipedia data.

You provide no evidence to show I have distorted anything. I quoted directly from the article. Normally I would not rely upon Wikipedia, but I felt that it was important to show that your own chosen source disputes your assessment.

That computer scientists are divided among practical and theoretical
disciplines...

That distorts the Wikipedia article. The article divides the body of knowledge between the practical and the theoretical. it does not divide its practitioners accordingly. I employ several people who are extremely well versed in the theoretical aspects of computer science and are also quite adept at the practical elements. You display a level of practical proficiency commensurate with your claimed level of education. You display absolutely no proficiency in the rest, nor of the fields that pertain to your claims, which have nothing to do with computers.

...does not suddenly render one division as non-scientist.

That a division in a field exists between the practical and the theoretical does not allow you to claim that you are a master of one by virtue of being a master in the other. Further, my superior experience in the field informs me that a baccalaureate degree does not generally provide much in the way of theory. Further, your admission that the degree you earned was of below-average quality only confirms that it likely did not include enough of the theoretical elements -- which are generally only reserved for advanced study in the field -- to claim any sort of special training as a scientist.

You are not a scientist.

Please attempt to avoid silly irrelevant anecdotes.

My post was neither an anecdote nor irrelevant. You are attempting to blur a distinction that is made plain in your source. That distinction is also well represented in the field.

 

[Loss Leader]

That one is old does not suddenly grant one basic sense.

You completely missed the point of the post. The argument was that all of your use of colors and fonts is actually making it more difficult for you to communicate. The author has a duty to engage the audience - at least he does if he wants to communicate a message. The poster was telling you that your style of posting is not engaging, it is in fact distracting.

You should thank him for the constructive criticism and strive to improve your method of interacting with your audience.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Rather, the claim that belief opposes science is simply invalid. Non-beliefism is irrelevant to the truth of that. However, that you've included that claim as a central part of non-beliefism is sufficient reason to treat non-beliefism as invalid.

Your comment is absent value.

Science does not especially concern non-evidence, by definition.

Belief especially concerns non-evidence, by definition.

It is not difficult to observe, that Belief opposes science.

 

[JayUtah]

I needn't manufacture that which is science bound, nor do I need manufacture constructs that oppose science; I simply underline the science-opposing nature of commonly embraced constructs (i.e. belief) that are long dictionary described to oppose science.

Word salad. You are drawing conclusions according to sciences in which you can display no proficiency.

See a demonstration concerning a description of mine, par quantum computing:

I grow weary of your irrelevant efforts to impress. The more you pretend to be a "god," the sillier you look.

Your conclusions regarding human belief are more properly the purview of cognitive neuroscience, not computer programming. Do you have any qualifications or peer-reviewed writings in that field? Yes or no.

 

[JayUtah]

Your comment is absent value.

Science does not especially concern non-evidence, by definition.

Belief especially concerns non-evidence, by definition.

It is not difficult to observe, that Belief opposes science.

This conclusion is naive, drawn upon pidgin interpretations of the relevant concepts. You are not a scientist, so I do not accept your simplistic conceptualization of science. You have no qualification in cognitive neuroscience, so I do not accept your simplistic conceptualization of human belief.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

This seems to be your new method of sidestepping information that is inconvenient to your claims. When one of your critics refutes you, you simply declare him to be "inconsequential."

Whence nonsensical comments are observed to clearly contrast publicly available facts, such are unavoidably, inconsequential, value-less.

You provide no evidence to show I have distorted anything. I quoted directly from the article. Normally I would not rely upon Wikipedia, but I felt that it was important to show that your own chosen source disputes your assessment.

That computer scientists are divided among practical and theoretical
disciplines...

That distorts the Wikipedia article. The article divides the body of knowledge between the practical and the theoretical. it does not divide its practitioners accordingly. I employ several people who are extremely well versed in the theoretical aspects of computer science and are also quite adept at the practical elements. You display a level of practical proficiency commensurate with your claimed level of education. You display absolutely no proficiency in the rest, nor of the fields that pertain to your claims, which have nothing to do with computers.

My post was neither an anecdote nor irrelevant. You are attempting to blur a distinction that is made plain in your source. That distinction is also well represented in the field.

[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/kFdLQf8.jpg[/IMGw]

Where in the Wikipedia content, does it express that some division of computer scientists, designate that one division no longer comprises of scientists, as you expressed in reply 388?
Where did I supposedly "distort" the article 'wise' one?

Where did I supposedly blur any source?

How is it not clear to you, that a computer scientist, is not surprisingly, a scientist?

 

[Loss Leader]

Science does not especially concern non-evidence, by definition.

Okay.

Belief especially concerns non-evidence, by definition.

No, that's wrong. Belief is simply what a person thinks is true. That person may be strongly swayed by evidence such that her beliefs are co-extensive with what science can demonstrate. The person may have some beliefs based on facts and some based on lesser information. The juror who convicts the suspect believes her to be guilty based on evidence, some of which may be decidedly scientific in nature - evidence that erases all reasonable doubt.

The two concepts - fact/belief - are not opposites. They're more like passing acquaintances.

That's just obvious.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Okay.

Belief especially concerns non-evidence, by definition.

No, that's wrong. Belief is simply what a person thinks is true. That person may be strongly swayed by evidence such that her beliefs are co-extensive with what science can demonstrate. The person may have some beliefs based on facts and some based on lesser information. The juror who convicts the suspect believes her to be guilty based on evidence, some of which may be decidedly scientific in nature - evidence that erases all reasonable doubt.

The two concepts - fact/belief - are not opposites. They're more like passing acquaintances.

That's just obvious.

Quite the valueless, invalid response of yours.

Please use the dictionary.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Word salad. You are drawing conclusions according to sciences in which you can display no proficiency.

One need not a diploma, such that one observes that a system absent high concern for evidence, opposes a framework that highly concerns evidence (i.e science)

I grow weary of your irrelevant efforts to impress. The more you pretend to be a "god," the sillier you look.

Your conclusions regarding human belief are more properly the purview of cognitive neuroscience, not computer programming. Do you have any qualifications or peer-reviewed writings in that field? Yes or no.

I tire of your value-less, inconsequential responses.

I simply responded to your prior statement, that had requested a range of demonstration sequences.

One need not a neuroscience degree, such that one possesses basic dictionary usage ability.

 

[JayUtah]

...such are unavoidably, inconsequential, value-less.

No, you're just scrambling for excuses to ignore your critics because you can't answer the criticism.

Where in the Wikipedia content, does it express that some division of computer scientists, designate that one division no longer comprises of scientists...

That was not my claim. You cited the article "Computer Scientist" and noted that it referred to a scientist. From this you hoped that all possible connotations of "scientist" would be thereby subsumed, in equivocal fashion. I instead referred you to the article on "Computer Science," which more carefully defines the science as being composed of both practical and theoretical elements. You, having been trained as an undergraduate in the practical elements, are trying to claim also a proficiency in the theory -- irrelevant as it is to your claims. You still have not addressed that there exist other certifications beyond yours, and that the farther one goes in the field the more emphasis is placed on the theoretical aspects.

Where did I supposedly "distort" the article 'wise' one?

When you conflated the concepts of science and scientist. You took the discussion of the science and tried to apply it to the definition of the scientist. I already explained this.