Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, Peter said: To me the idea that the women were at fault (they made him do it) is what all predators, including child molester’s say. Peter, Anyone who has ever worked in show business knows how gobs of women throw themselves at famous and powerful men. God knows I've seen my share. The character part of Trump's tape was when he said he chased a lady, but didn't get her. That means he didn't intimidate her into sex with him. He might have pushed, but he respected her consent. No predation. The rest of this affair is a lot of horseshit from a lot of hypocrites. Take any one of those Republicans calling for Trump's head and look into their own private lives. In fact, that is exactly what killed Bill Clinton's impeachment. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 24 minutes ago, Jules Troy said: Greg read Julian Janes The origins of consciousness. He has a pretty good grasp of were God came from.... That book is an excellent testimonial to the infinitely wise design of the human mind which offers everyone the free choice to aspire to grow in moral character which defines a man... or to return to the apes. Everyone's free choice to either affirm or deny God will never be violated by proof in either direction. You will always be free to choose and you will always see the literal results of your choice that you deserve in your own life. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 34 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: I find Jayne's thesis amusing but in the absence of scientific corroboration I do not take it seriously. Bob, I am only marginally informed about Jaynes's ideas. That means I know summaries from others although I do have his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Once, I even started it. I am going through the following book right now. It seems to be more accurate about the bicameral mind than historical speculation, although I haven't seen McGilchrist use the term bicameral mind yet (I'm only at Chapter 3). The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist This book, in fact, is turning out to be just as important to my thinking as one I did finish (and am going through a second time): Why We Snap: Understanding the Rage Circuit in Your Brain by Douglas Fields. I suppose my interest in this stuff is due to the large number of blackouts I had during my alcoholic days. I lived these experiences and they still blow my mind. I want to figure out what happened. I used to drive for miles, for example, and not be consciously aware of it nor remember it. But I always got home safely. It used to scare the shit out of me the next day, but that wasn't enough to stop me from drinking back then. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Bob, I am only marginally informed about Jaynes's ideas. That means I know summaries from others although I do have his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Once, I even started it. I am going through the following book right now. It seems to be more accurate about the bicameral mind than historical speculation, although I haven't seen McGilchrist use the term bicameral mind yet (I'm only at Chapter 3). The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist This book, in fact, is turning out to be just as important to my thinking as one I did finish (and am going through a second time): Why We Snap: Understanding the Rage Circuit in Your Brain by Douglas Fields. I suppose my interest in this stuff is due to the large number of blackouts I had during my alcoholic days. I lived these experiences and they still blow my mind. I want to figure out what happened. I used to drive for miles, for example, and not be consciously aware of it nor remember it. But I always got home safely. It used to scare the shit out of me the next day, but that wasn't enough to stop me from drinking back then. Michael science deals with brains, not minds. The human body has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of a non-material mind has ever been found. Mind is a made up concept cooked up in human BRAINS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: science deals with brains, not minds. The human body has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of a non-material mind has ever been found. Mind is a made up concept cooked up in human BRAINS. blah blah blah... Where have I heard that before? Repetition of a dogmatic statement is not proof of anything. As Terence McKenna said: "Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'" For example, here is a new book I just got: Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman. I haven't read it yet, but it is full of science. I saw a video with Lanza and instead of dismissing him dogmatically, I decided to look a little further to see what he has to say. I'll probably report on this later. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Getting back to the sex stuff: Certainly has been an interesting 24 hours!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: blah blah blah... Where have I heard that before? Repetition of a dogmatic statement is not proof of anything. As Terence McKenna said: "Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'" Michael I repeat it only because its true. You may be the only human on the planet with a mind. You have never objectively established that anyone but you has a mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Just now, BaalChatzaf said: You may be the only human on the planet with a mind. And you may be the only human on the planet without one. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Cool! Yeah he unfortunately died before finishing part 2.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And you may be the only human on the planet without one. Michael I most certainly am. All the scans I have undergone have revealed only a working brain in my body. There is not one shred of objective evidence that I have a mind. You talk of Minds. Soon you will be talking about spirits, souls and gods, not to say anything about demons, angels and devils.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For example, here is a new book I just got: Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman. I haven't read it yet, but it is full of science. I saw a video with Lanza and instead of dismissing him dogmatically, I decided to look a little further to see what he has to say. I'll probably report on this later. Michael Beware of Proof by You Tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 20 hours ago, Peter said: God Speaks to Greg Via Short-Wave Radio!!! If Trump is elected, the end of the world is near!!! Sorry, never heard any voice of God even though I know God exists. By design, experience is non transferrable to others and is only of personal value so as not to violate the free choice of others of either affirmation or denial. However, everyone does hear thoughts, and almost everyone believes that they are the supreme god creator of them... because isn't that what thoughts tell them? It takes a special kind of narcissistic fool to believe they are the god of intellect. (by the way... I also deny the existence of the televangelist god same as you ) Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Beware of Proof by You Tube. There is no proof either way, Bob. You're totally on your own to choose either affirmation or denial... ...and you'll always get what you deserve either way. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 46 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Beware of Proof by You Tube. And beware of people who don't read before they opine. Robert Lanza Not a YouTube warrior. He's one of the top scientists of stem cell research, cloning, etc... Shall we play gotcha on who is being irrational and unscientific? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 The list of Republicans who are shunning or denouncing Trump is growing. I think this could cost Trump the election, unless it is remedied. Robert De Niro has a rant against Trump that is effective propaganda. He calls Trump a “punk.” And he says he would like to punch Trump in the face. Robert is an odd, old fart who only marries black women. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as Jerry Seinfeld said, but De Niro has an unconventional, mafia and leftist combination, sort of mind. I wonder what his Italian American buddies think of him . . . . Trump may have one more minus and Hillary a thousand more minus’s, both sets of minuses still unknown, but those two facts after new exposures in the next few weeks, will play out differently in the minds of the electorate, simply because of the amount of exposure and twist they will get from the drive by media, propaganda machine.. Trump’s latest, “new” minus is old news recently brought to our attention and Hillary’s transgressions are “old” news brought to our attention a decade ago, rendering the news old to our thinking. It was already hashed out in the media and in our minds. If there were a recent instance of Hillary defending Bill’s past actions that could count to the electorate as an equal to Trump’s locker room talk of a decade ago. Does that make sense? Trump’s old actions caused new thoughts. Hillary’s old actions, produced old thoughts, but nothing new. So, during the debate this Sunday night and on the October 19th debate, Donald Trump should and must get Hillary Clinton to re-defend Bill’s despicable past actions. How he can do that? That is the question. She will be waiting for that moment with a defensive pivot, and an emotionally charged question for Trump. Will he fall for it? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Peter said: The list of Republicans who are shunning or denouncing Trump is growing. I think this could cost Trump the election, unless it is remedied. Peter, Really? Don't forget Trump won the primaries without the Republican establishment. In fact, the Republican establishment was fighting him all the way to the bitter end. Oh... it's nice to have them on board, I suppose, but Trump sure as hell doesn't need them to beat Clinton. Nor do the voters... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Ha! Erick Erickson, still trying to stay relevant, asked Scott Adams about Trump's naughty talk. Here is what Scott had to say: Why Does This Happen on My Vacation? (The Trump Tapes) A few highlights: Quote If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. . . . I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives. . . . Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it. . . . My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances. . . . My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump. Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 This should go in the Trump Humor thread, but I kinda like it here. The following screenshot of a Facebook post shows what a typical Trump supporter really feels about this sex thing: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And beware of people who don't read before they opine. Robert Lanza Not a YouTube warrior. He's one of the top scientists of stem cell research, cloning, etc... Shall we play gotcha on who is being irrational and unscientific? Michael I generally read what a scientist has to assert from refereed journals. I do not take any utterance by a scientist out of this context as authoritative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: science deals with brains, not minds. The human body has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of a non-material mind has ever been found. Mind is a made up concept cooked up in human BRAINS. Let's paraphrase that. Science deals with hardware, not software. Computer hardware has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of software has ever been found. Software is a made up concept cooked up in hardware. My computer has no software. There is no such thing as software. Dissecting the hard drive will not reveal software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Just now, jts said: Let's paraphrase that. Science deals with hardware, not software. Computer hardware has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of software has ever been found. Software is a made up concept cooked up in hardware. My computer has no software. There is no such thing as software. Dissecting the hard drive will not reveal software. But if you remove certain sections of physically stored data from your computer's memory it may cease to function as you expect or as advertised. If your computer comes with a document showing what the programs are and where they are located in storage and you find what is asserted in the document then you may conclude what you saw in storage is a program. Also if a large section of storage contains known encoding of computer instructions and binary sequences that could be addresses in storage you may suppose with some confidence that what you seen or dumped is a program. And no one has asserted that a program is any more that a sequence of instructions to make the computer do things. Whereas the mind is treated as though it were an immaterial object which has no discernible mass or location. A program or what is taken to be a program can be located in storage. A mind cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: But if you remove certain sections of physically stored data from your computer's memory it may cease to function as you expect or as advertised. So what? If parts of the brain are removed or damaged, the mind will cease to function as it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Nigel Farage talks to Cavuto about pottymouthgate, the debate, brexit, and more: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 51 minutes ago, merjet said: So what? If parts of the brain are removed or damaged, the mind will cease to function as it did. You merely assume the existence mind, but you have sliced up a physical brain, which clearly exists.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: science deals with brains, not minds. The human body has been scanned, sliced and diced and no trace of a non-material mind has ever been found. Mind is a made up concept cooked up in human BRAINS. True. Mind is an idea. I think of it as a bridge between the brain and consciousness. It denotes a static state: "I have a mind to punch you in the nose." "My mind tells me . . . ." Etc. Now, for consciousness itself: to be conscious is to be aware. It comes in straight off axiomatic reasoning. Proofs are impossible. One has consciousness because it is self evident hence consciousness exists. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now