Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

OK, I knew I had read about it somewhere:

As mentioned above, the human sensitivity to the fixed stare may have partially innate components complemented by experience with aggressive social encounters. This innate portion could be a vestigial remnant of survival-oriented behavior deeply rooted in man's evolutionary history. for several years, I have been interested in tracing the evolutionary development of the fixed stare and concomitant avoidance behaviors in a wide range on animal species when they encounter their own species or predators face-to-face.

The most primitive vertebrate animal examined, the African jewel fish, displays one large concentric eyelike spot on each gill cover that resembles the jewel fish eye. During territorial fights, jewel fish will rush a rival an suddenly flare open widely their gill covers, that presenting the illusory image of two staring eyes from a larger, closer and more formidable opponent.

Fighting is often less intense when both fish present their eyespots frontally in full view rather than less visible oblique angles.

Therefore, it is possible that this type of threatening eyespot display as a protective behavior patters to discourage intense territorial fighting that could be physically damaging to the species as a whole.

Of course, this hypothesis assumes that jewel fish are inherently sensitive to eyelike patterns and that these eyespots evolved as a parasitic by-product capitalizing on the fear generated by two staring eyes.

(from Evil Eye: A Casebook by Alan Dundes, 1992 http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0299133346)
 
Last edited:
I have seen dogs go absolutely berserk in front of the bronze moose that stands in front of the entrance of the biological museum of Helsinki.

The same reaction to the bronze bear in front of the Oslo Central railroad station.

Staring is obviously just one of the many things that signal the presence of a predator.
 
jond said:
Yes, but the point is he was severely injured in his hand and unable to play until he figured out how to re-manipulate his digits to play the music that was in his brain.
Click to expand...

Bireli Lagrene visited this island recently.
You have to see it to believe it.
(he has two hands so he has nothing to do with this discussion)
 
What to the posts above have to do with Materialism making reason impossible?
 
joobz said:
seems you have resorted to cutesy antics instead of actually answering my question. It is clear to all why. It is a shame.
Click to expand...

True. It is because your sloppy use of language does not merit anything better.
You boot up a just box. Not a word about what's in it.

Now, imagine that you somehow got into a position where you got a secretary.
She's telling you that she needs a new computer.

You show up, boot your 'box' to an OS, rip off the monitor, the mouse and the keyboard and all proud of your excellent performance say: "There, your newcomputer".

And after a while: "Mrs. Wilson, did I just see you spitting in my coffee?"

It is a bit the same thing with the guy show thinks he is his brain.
His friends are playing soccer and they need another guy.
They message this chap Akh who says OK he'll be there.

But after a while you hear them wonder about what is this bubbling vat with a blob in it and decide that they call somebody else. Unfortunately, they forget the vat in the scorching sun....

And we can read here on the forum how this Akh is burning for his love of Nefernefer...until there is no more messages. Too bad for the forum.
 
lemurien said:
True. It is because your sloppy use of language does not merit anything better.
Click to expand...
I recommend not accusing me of being sloppy when all you have been offering is equivocations. I used "box" to refer to the core computer machine without anything attached. This is a common expression.

Now, care you actually address my hypothetical?

If you chop off a head, where does the dying consciousness reside? In the head, or in the torso?
 
Imagine a black box PC, as we have been discussing, with no external connections, but we had advanced enough detectors to display the computations inside. The PC runs pre loaded calculations, then obeys rules to analyze the data.

Would not that fulfill all requirements?
 
NavyPack said:
Imagine a black box PC, as we have been discussing, with no external connections, but we had advanced enough detectors to display the computations inside. The PC runs pre loaded calculations, then obeys rules to analyze the data.

Would not that fulfill all requirements?
Click to expand...


For what it's worth, I believe so, but joobz is OIC that hypothetical so I'm happy to wait for his response.

Lemurien won't like it, of course.
 
I'm not sure what the analogy is supposed to be for exactly, as what constitutes a "peripheral" has yet to be defined.

But in your scenario, NavyPack, what is the purpose of the advanced detector? Wouldn't it suffice in order to know the calculation has been performed, for you to hook up ordinary peripherals after the fact to get the results--especially if the calculation takes a while?
 
yy2bggggs said:
I'm not sure what the analogy is supposed to be for exactly, as what constitutes a "peripheral" has yet to be defined.

But in your scenario, NavyPack, what is the purpose of the advanced detector? Wouldn't it suffice in order to know the calculation has been performed, for you to hook up ordinary peripherals after the fact to get the results--especially if the calculation takes a while?
Click to expand...

You're correct, the detectors are not required to fulfill the examples. I just threw that in to go ahead and preclude the, "But how would we know it's actually doing anything"....

I also wanted to specify that the PC is not "transmitting" the info in any way, that it is an entirely self contained, internal process.
 
Last edited:
lemurien said:
I have seen dogs go absolutely berserk in front of the bronze moose that stands in front of the entrance of the biological museum of Helsinki.

The same reaction to the bronze bear in front of the Oslo Central railroad station.

Staring is obviously just one of the many things that signal the presence of a predator.
Click to expand...

And those dominance gestures are partly learned and expressed by non goldfish? :)
 
lemurien said:
OK, I knew I had read about it somewhere:

As mentioned above, the human sensitivity to the fixed stare may have partially innate components complemented by experience with aggressive social encounters. This innate portion could be a vestigial remnant of survival-oriented behavior deeply rooted in man's evolutionary history. for several years, I have been interested in tracing the evolutionary development of the fixed stare and concomitant avoidance behaviors in a wide range on animal species when they encounter their own species or predators face-to-face.

The most primitive vertebrate animal examined, the African jewel fish, displays one large concentric eyelike spot on each gill cover that resembles the jewel fish eye. During territorial fights, jewel fish will rush a rival an suddenly flare open widely their gill covers, that presenting the illusory image of two staring eyes from a larger, closer and more formidable opponent.

Fighting is often less intense when both fish present their eyespots frontally in full view rather than less visible oblique angles.

Therefore, it is possible that this type of threatening eyespot display as a protective behavior patters to discourage intense territorial fighting that could be physically damaging to the species as a whole.

Of course, this hypothesis assumes that jewel fish are inherently sensitive to eyelike patterns and that these eyespots evolved as a parasitic by-product capitalizing on the fear generated by two staring eyes.

(from Evil Eye: A Casebook by Alan Dundes, 1992 http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0299133346)
Click to expand...

Is that a gold fish ? ;)
 
Akhenaten said:
For what it's worth, I believe so, but joobz is OIC that hypothetical so I'm happy to wait for his response.

Lemurien won't like it, of course.
Click to expand...

It's not my hypothetical, but one that was created by lemurein trying to explain that you need all of the other "stuff" to make a computer a computer. But the problem here is, of course, an issue of equivocation.
My argument has been all along that who we are, what allows us to self-identify as us, is our brain. Meaning, our brain/brain algorithms. At each and every juncture, Lemurein has attempted to find fault with my argument by applying definitions of words in ways that I do not intend. In other words, using words out of context. It's a rather terrible argument.

But getting back on point, in this hypothetical, the computer is our brain. The programming/operating system is the "Self" that runs on that brain. I find this a rather poor metaphor as the programming cannot rewrite the hardware of the machine, and the hardware does not rewrite the programming. It is for this reason that I call us the brain. The software and wetware are too interconnected and as such we are our brain.

Now, his point is that the computer isn't just the main box and stuff inside. It is that AND the interface stuff that connects to it which allows it to interact with the surroundings. I find this simply false. It is true that this stuff changes the self, but it doesn't eliminate that self.

A person's sense of self doesn't exist in the hand when it is cut off. It exist in the body that remains. Cut off the legs the arms, and the self resides in none of those parts but the head. remove a kidney, switch out a liver, a heart, lung, spleen..., and the person's self wasn't transplanted. Get a face transplant, and the new face doesn't cause the self of self to be lost. that sense is in the brain. It is the brain. To be even more specific, that sense seems to reside commonly in the frontal lobe.

And the fact is I think Lemurein knows this and this is why he is avoiding my hypothetical. If you chop off the head, no one would think the person's last bits of identity would be in the big toe, the heart or anything else. It would be in the head. This point perfectly illustrates what I have been saying all along and his reluctance to address it is tacit admission that he knows I am right.
 
joobz said:
It's not my hypothetical, but one that was created by lemurein trying to explain that you need all of the other "stuff" to make a computer a computer. But the problem here is, of course, an issue of equivocation.
My argument has been all along that who we are, what allows us to self-identify as us, is our brain. Meaning, our brain/brain algorithms. At each and every juncture, Lemurein has attempted to find fault with my argument by applying definitions of words in ways that I do not intend. In other words, using words out of context. It's a rather terrible argument.

But getting back on point, in this hypothetical, the computer is our brain. The programming/operating system is the "Self" that runs on that brain. I find this a rather poor metaphor as the programming cannot rewrite the hardware of the machine, and the hardware does not rewrite the programming. It is for this reason that I call us the brain. The software and wetware are too interconnected and as such we are our brain.

Now, his point is that the computer isn't just the main box and stuff inside. It is that AND the interface stuff that connects to it which allows it to interact with the surroundings. I find this simply false. It is true that this stuff changes the self, but it doesn't eliminate that self.

A person's sense of self doesn't exist in the hand when it is cut off. It exist in the body that remains. Cut off the legs the arms, and the self resides in none of those parts but the head. remove a kidney, switch out a liver, a heart, lung, spleen..., and the person's self wasn't transplanted. Get a face transplant, and the new face doesn't cause the self of self to be lost. that sense is in the brain. It is the brain. To be even more specific, that sense seems to reside commonly in the frontal lobe.

And the fact is I think Lemurein knows this and this is why he is avoiding my hypothetical. If you chop off the head, no one would think the person's last bits of identity would be in the big toe, the heart or anything else. It would be in the head. This point perfectly illustrates what I have been saying all along and his reluctance to address it is tacit admission that he knows I am right.
Click to expand...

Lemurian has raised some good points though. If you are your brain, Joobz, then you must weigh about three pounds. :rolleyes:
 
joobz said:
It's not my hypothetical, but one that was created by lemurein trying to explain that you need all of the other "stuff" to make a computer a computer. But the problem here is, of course, an issue of equivocation.
Click to expand...


My apologies. I misspoke.

I perhaps meant to say that you were at the van of dealing with that particular hypothetical, but to tell the truth I've lost track to the extent that I now consider myself hypothetically challenged.

I'll just be over here scaring the goldfish if anyone needs me.
 
Malerin said:
Lemurian has raised some good points though. If you are your brain, Joobz, then you must weigh about three pounds. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the equivocation I was referring to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom