That Boat Don't Float!!

[sandwiches]

Much of what you two are discussing I don't get, at all

He's trying to convince us that because some people claim humans don't go feral, we can't be animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Much of what you two are discussing I don't get, at all

I get [pardon the pun] bugged when evolutionists say we are animals, but then stop short when it comes to sharing the same terminology.

We go to doctors -- animals go to veterinarians.
We are civilized -- animals are tame.
We rear our children -- animals raise their young.
We murder -- animals kill.
We go temporarily insane -- animals go feral.
etc.

 

[sandwiches]

I get [pardon the pun] bugged when evolutionists say we are animals, but then stop short when it comes to sharing the same terminology.

We go to doctors -- animals go to veterinarians.
We are civilized -- animals are tame.
We rear our children -- animals raise their young.
We murder -- animals kill.
We go temporarily insane -- animals go feral.
etc.

Yea, and baby dogs are called 'puppies' and baby bears are 'cubs.' So? It merely shows we used different terminology for different animals. Also, don't forget that when languages formed, humans thought (and most still do, like yourself) they were superior or completely unlike all other animals. So, why is it surprising that we have different terms for human-related things?

Or are you saying that all terminology used for any other animals should always be used for humans? Do humans ruminate? Do humans fly? Do humans roost? Do humans lay eggs? Do humans spawn?

 

[sandwiches]

We murder -- animals kill.

Don't forget that according to you, your god also kills, not murders, as I've been corrected many times by you. So... what does that say about your god?

 

[Hespera]

The problem here, I believe is you confuse the following...

abscence with total abscence

More correctly cold is a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or (electromagnetic energy) (which we call heat) in Matter.

Cold is not a force, nor can it be measured. It is simply the lack of something that can be measured - heat.

If you don't believe me, check it out next time with your teacher.

I'm not confused, but you should be sure to check with your teacher how to spell "absence". She may also tell you that "matter" is not a proper noun and isn't capitalized.

I'm not even going to go into this stuff about electromagnetic energy.

This isn't even entertaining.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yea, and baby dogs are called 'puppies' and baby bears are 'cubs.' So? It merely shows we used different terminology for different animals. Also, don't forget that when languages formed, humans thought (and most still do, like yourself) they were superior or completely unlike all other animals. So, why is it surprising that we have different terms for human-related things?

Or are you saying that all terminology used for any other animals should always be used for humans? Do humans ruminate? Do humans fly? Do humans roost? Do humans lay eggs? Do humans spawn?

And you know exactly what I'm saying -- (I'm sure) -- so I won't dignify this with a response.

 

[sandwiches]

And you know exactly what I'm saying -- (I'm sure) -- so I won't dignify this with a response.

I do know what you're saying and I'm saying you're wrong. Using different terminology for different animals doesn't make us any less animals. Is this you conceding the point, finally, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

I do know what you're saying and I'm saying you're wrong. Using different terminology for different animals doesn't make us any less animals. Is this you conceding the point, finally, AV?

Nope -- I'll believe you guys are sincere about we being animals when I see you guys start calling your doctors veterinarians, instead of doctors.

Like I say, we're not animals -- and deep down, I wouldn't be surprised if you guys agree as well.

Your word choices give you away.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Nope -- I'll believe you guys are sincere about we being animals when I see you guys start calling your doctors veterinarians, instead of doctors.

Like I say, we're not animals -- and deep down, I wouldn't be surprised if you guys agree as well.

Your word choices give you away.

Hey in the town I grew up in we ised to joke that it was safer to go the vet than the doctor. The vet was pretty good and the doctor was a hack.

 

[sandwiches]

Nope -- I'll believe you guys are sincere about we being animals when I see you guys start calling your doctors veterinarians, instead of doctors.

Like I say, we're not animals -- and deep down, I wouldn't be surprised if you guys agree as well.

Your word choices give you away.

So, you don't think we should use different words for different situations? I mean, should we call all young animals, pups, cubs, kids, babies, or kittens? I mean, they're all animals, right? Or should we make an exception here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey in the town I grew up in we ised to joke that it was safer to go the vet than the doctor. The vet was pretty good and the doctor was a hack.

A true evolutionist, in my opinion, wouldn't get the gist.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you don't think we should use different words for different situations? I mean, should we call all young animals, pups, cubs, kids, babies, or kittens? I mean, they're all animals, right? Or should we make an exception here?

I'm more interested in my example, than yours.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm more interested in my example, than yours.

Why is that?

 

[Skaloop]

Nope -- I'll believe you guys are sincere about we being animals when I see you guys start calling your doctors veterinarians, instead of doctors.

How be we start calling our vets doctors, since that is what they are. Doctors of Veterinary Medicine.

Like I say, we're not animals -- and deep down, I wouldn't be surprised if you guys agree as well.

We are by every single possible definition of the word, except the one you apparently use that nobody else does.

Your word choices give you away.

Except that they are not "our" choices, they are not choices at all; they are just the language we use. So we say "doctor" instead of "veterinarian". So does everybody else; it would be a bit confusing if we started interchanging them.

Besides, if our word choices betray us, yours betray you. You're the one saying those Columbine kids went feral, and animals go feral, but then turn around and say that humans aren't animals.

Suggesting humans go feral shows that you deep deep down know that they are animals.

 

[Freodin]

I explained this by way of analogy.

Sorry, but you didn´t. You explained the "positive" part, but not the "negative".
(have to shuffle part of your quote here, for relevance sake)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What 'baseline'?

You have explained the cause of "positive" behaviour: God. Tapping into God´s love and all that. But you have never given an explanation for the negative behaviour. Absence of something cannot cause behaviour.

Allow me an analogy of my own: Newton´s laws of motion state that an object won´t change its speed or direction unless a force acts on it. We have one force identified, let´s call it "God´s love", making the object move to the right (good behaviour).
Now according to Newton´s Laws, the absence of this G-L-Force would not make the object move to the left (bad behaviour), but simply keep its state. We need a different force, a cause, for a movement for the left.

In our case, we do have such a movement. We have an active "bad" behaviour. We have the desire to harm. Either there is a cause for such a behaviour, or this behaviour is the "baseline". The "state of rest", the state that exists when no forces/causes act on our object.

So you either need to find a cause... or you need to explain why the "baseline" of human behaviour would be "wanting to harm".


You asked for reasons, causes of behaviour, and what we think these causes are. I gave you my explanation, now give me yours.

Most importantly you and others are getting away from the issue of 'good' by talking about how we perceive real things around us - such as a glass of milk.

If you think 'goodness' exists externally in the same way physical/material stimulii do, please show me what scientific experiments exist to prove the existence of 'goodness'. What measure is used in dealing with 'goodness'.

I don´t think that, I never made a claim even close to that and I don´t know how you would even get that notion. "Goodness" is not physical stimulus or has external existence... it is a concept, and thus part of your "internal" system. Just like "clockwise" or "english".

No. The 'external' only reaches your brain because of the 'internal'.

If I took out your ears (internal) then you'd not have external sources of sound being perceived

Yes? I that case, you wouldn´t react to it, wouldn´t show any related behaviour. And if you lost relevant parts of your brain, related behaviour will also be changed... which is evidenced in clinical tests. There are even cases where brain damage removed the "goodness" from a person.

So how does that negate getting a bag of chemicals reacting a certian way not being a person?

Huh? You only had a bag of chemicals. I have given an alternative: a bag of chemicals acting and interacting in a certain way. The first is not a person, the second is. A bunch of wheels and springs is not a watch. A bunch of wheels and springs in a certain combination is.

What makes them consistent? Define consistent

Not random. Repeatable. Testable.

There's a difference to me because I don't think I'm solely a bunch of chemicals (reacting in a certain way).

Hey, it´s only the chemicals in your brain making you think that! They are devious little bastards, these chemicals.

Seriously: it is possible that there is "more" to persons than a "bunch of chemicals". But while it can be shown that this "bunch of chemicals" is indeed a very large part of what we would call "you" - by seeing the changes when we remove/add them, it is not possible to find that "other" thing in any way. As soon as we exclude the "bunch of chemicals", it is no longer possible to find the "you" to see what it is like... or if it is still there.

Consistancy doesn't equal truth. Consistancy can be wrong...
Take for example, you're working in a lab, and you want to describe a newly discovered bacteria. You look into the microscope, you see the little bugs moving around in an 'agitated' manner. You publish your findings. Months later other labs around the world read your work. There is some doubt. Other scientists have samples of the bug. Each conducts their own observations under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your paper then enters the main-stream of thought as a 'truth' concerning an aspect of this bug.

BUT WAIT... it's not as simple as that. To observe the bacteria, you used a microscope. You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!
(a paraphrasing of an example from "Chaos" by Gleick)

You are correct... it´s not as simple as that. That´s why I made that distinction between "reliability/consistency" and "truth". It is not that we aren´t aware of the fact that what we see might not be what is, what we conclude might not be correct. This is the reason why science tries to find out ways to remove/decrease this incertaincy. And we also know that we will never be able to eliminate it completely. That goes for your "not-bunch-of-chemicals-you" as well.
To paraphrase Haldane: ""If my mental processes are determined wholly by some unknown untestable "me", I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing mental processes are the result of some unknown untestable "me"".

What if I didn't understand the question. "Meaning" which you can't find physically within the brain matters.

Only goes to show the consistency. You are lacking the relevant, uh, "physical" patterns... and thus the reaction - the understanding - is different.
It would be inconsistent if you did have the same "physical" reactions and wouldn´t understand.

I've already explained this. I cited two quotes that show my beliefs as being beyond ourselves. Did you read latin letters and english words? Did you understand them? Where's the consistency

The consistency is in the fact that we are still talking, and reaction to each others words. The consistency is in the fact that we both are relying on learned and experienced concepts - things that can be shown to work via the brain.

We both read latin letters and connect them with meanings. We wouldn´t do this connection if these were cyrillic letters (in my case, at least very slowly and not at all if these were japanese signs). We both read words and connect them with meanings. We see the light pattern "r e a d" and know that it refers to the act of connecting letters with meaning.

All this works via the "chemcials" of our physical existence, the "seeing" as well as the "knowing". Without them, it wouldn´t work.

 

[SkyWriting]

What would it matter to compare?

Think about the other times you've compared things and consider the benefits you've gotten, then project those potential benefits to this situation.

 

[SkyWriting]

But Christianity isn't too big a group to be 'true'?

"The 12 Disciples" and their documented stories is the subject.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am aware of this. I wasn't the one who put forward the sincerity = truth argument.

You don't have just Jesus believing He is from God - part of God the Father- (the legal reason He was crucified), you have the witnesses and collaborative opinion of 12 people from a wide variety of backgrounds and different ages who all came to the same conclusion and refused to recant their support of the idea knowing that they would loose their lives for these hieratic ideas.

Muslims, must believe that the Koran is God's Holy word. Or face death.
Christianity is accepted on a voluntary basis, so the evidence/testimony of the 12 disciples is different in that way.

 

[Skaloop]

Muslims, must believe that the Koran is God's Holy word. Or face death.
Christianity is accepted on a voluntary basis, so the evidence/testimony of the 12 disciples is different in that way.

Unless, of course, the "disciples" were forced, upon punishment of death, to write that they accepted voluntarily.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry, but you didn´t. You explained the "positive" part, but not the "negative".
(have to shuffle part of your quote here, for relevance sake)

No. I explained the negative by way of analogy too, as in the issue of 'heat' and 'cold'.

You keep saying I've not done this, then oddly enough you immediately argue against that analogy you claim I've not made... you do so here...

You have explained the cause of "positive" behaviour: God. Tapping into God´s love and all that. But you have never given an explanation for the negative behaviour. Absence of something cannot cause behaviour.

Actually you're arguing against youself here. If you believe that certain behaviours are the result of certain chemicals, or even the patter of chemical firing then logically the absence of those chemicals or of that pattern would also cause other behaviours.

You decide to pick up this argument against yourself in another moment when you talk about how goodness can be removed by removing a part of the brain.

Another way of looking at this, by referring to my analogy which apparently you keep missing, an absence of heat - and I shiver.

Hate is the absence of love.

Allow me an analogy of my own: Newton´s laws of motion state that an object won´t change its speed or direction unless a force acts on it. We have one force identified, let´s call it "God´s love", making the object move to the right (good behaviour).
Now according to Newton´s Laws, the absence of this G-L-Force would not make the object move to the left (bad behaviour), but simply keep its state. We need a different force, a cause, for a movement for the left.

God's love doesn't act like motion

So you either need to find a cause... or you need to explain why the "baseline" of human behaviour would be "wanting to harm".

I've asked you to explain this 'baseline' thing of yours and you simply plough on using the term.

You asked for reasons, causes of behaviour, and what we think these causes are. I gave you my explanation, now give me yours.

I've done that. Ask me again.

I don´t think that, I never made a claim even close to that and I don´t know how you would even get that notion. "Goodness" is not physical stimulus or has external existence... it is a concept, and thus part of your "internal" system. Just like "clockwise" or "english".

So you believe in something 'a concept' that exists outside of your chemical world? Where does this concept exist then?

Yes? I that case, you wouldn´t react to it, wouldn´t show any related behaviour. And if you lost relevant parts of your brain, related behaviour will also be changed... which is evidenced in clinical tests. There are even cases where brain damage removed the "goodness" from a person.

Where's the goodness exist? What makes it 'good'? Saying that a part of the brain affects goodness doesn't explain at all what goodness is

Your lack of addressing this too is akin to me saying "This painting is beautiful" and you pointing out that if I were blind I wouldn't be able to see it, which in no way affects what 'beauty' is, nor beauty in relation to this painting specifically.

Huh? You only had a bag of chemicals. I have given an alternative: a bag of chemicals acting and interacting in a certain way.

No. I addressed your objection.

I'm going to have to go over this in baby-steps.

I was talking about a human being being nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

Instead of dealing with that you changed the refernce to human being, being a bag of chemicals acting in a certain way.

This didn't address the point I had made. In the interest of discussion I adapted your definition, and then asked you about the same points in relation to a 'bag of chemicals - acting a certain way'. And you've still not dealt with the point I made.

Not random. Repeatable. Testable.

I gave you an example of repeatable and testable results that are still in error.

You are correct... it´s not as simple as that. That´s why I made that distinction between "reliability/consistency" and "truth".

That doesn't address at all the problem I suggested because the very reliabitliy leads one to believe in 'truth' according to you, and it's in error in the case I exampled.

It is not that we aren´t aware of the fact that what we see might not be what is, what we conclude might not be correct. This is the reason why science tries to find out ways to remove/decrease this incertaincy. And we also know that we will never be able to eliminate it completely.

Then you are arguing against yourself.

You first said that relaibility/consitency is directly linked to a concept of truth.

Now you're saying it's not because the existence of errors is recognised. Then 'truth' isn't 'true' and isnt' shown to be by reliability/consistency.

Only goes to show the consistency. You are lacking the relevant, uh, "physical" patterns... and thus the reaction - the understanding - is different.
It would be inconsistent if you did have the same "physical" reactions and wouldn´t understand.

Which still doesn't show 'truth', and an assumption by you that I am lacking in something, and arguing against yourself about how the lack of something doesn't affect things.

Furthermore you've not addressed what 'meaning' is at all.

The consistency is in the fact that we are still talking, and reaction to each others words.

Put two people in a room, one who speaks only Russian, one who speaks only French and they would doubtless still communicate with each other, and rect to each other

I've no idea what your point is, nor how it addresses what I asked you about what is 'meaning'.

The consistency is in the fact that we both are relying on learned and experienced concepts - things that can be shown to work via the brain.

We both read latin letters and connect them with meanings. We wouldn´t do this connection if these were cyrillic letters (in my case, at least very slowly and not at all if these were japanese signs). We both read words and connect them with meanings. We see the light pattern "r e a d" and know that it refers to the act of connecting letters with meaning.

Still doesn't address 'meaning'

Certainly doens't go towards concepts of 'goodness'.

All this works via the "chemcials" of our physical existence, the "seeing" as well as the "knowing". Without them, it wouldn´t work.

That simply again suggests that chemicals is all we are (even if you want to add your tag 'in a certain pattern). All you've done then is given a repat of your premise without having shown it to be true.