We've had this discussion in the other thread. It's obvious to everyone you have provided zero proof for your opinions, which are based on opinions and theories of others. Spin as you might, nothing you have provided has delivered conclusive proof of anything to support.
On another note, it's interesting to see a self-proclaimed and self-glorified intellectual, resorting to childish name calling, such as " whiny little kiss-ass " :D Good job there, genius!
Well, I suppose you are a self-proclaimed asshole and that excuses your behavior, does it?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yeah, the differences between people now and 2000 years ago are mostly due to nutrution - not evolution. You need to think more like 2000 generations.
That being said, anyone who tries to censor what a museum exhibits is a facists. As someone who is highly studied in human evolution (as I've said many times before, I'm probably the board's leading expert in the field), and who works in museums, I guess I'm a good one to talk about this (my dislike for some of Richard Leakey's theories aside). Aside from the fact that the museum is presenting the TRUTH according to EXPERTS, not religious nuts with their heads in the sand, museums are important to economies and culture, and a Kenyan museum that did not display information about the country's contributions to the study of human origins would be a crime against humanity.
Whether you think evolution is purely natural (my belief) or guided by "God" (it's not, but I won't get into that), anyone without a severe bias CANNOT deny that evolution is real and we come from ape anscestors.
I'm curious about your interpretation of the evolution of mind. Many biologists seem to believe that our brains have evolved from what they were 2000 years ago. Of course, they base this mostly on the rise of science and the fall of subjectivity. Though, perhaps it is purely nutritional.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Empirical" does not refer to personal subjective experience!
"A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically.""
In order for it to be "Empirical" I have to be able to "Experience" it as well, everyone has to be able to do it.
"In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."
I'm not projecting any lack of understanding. My linkage of "What The BLEEP?" was purely for educational purposes. It explains quite in-depth how certain brain functions work. It explains how subjective experience can differ drastically from objective reality. I never once agreed with it's philosophical view that physical reality does not exist. I acknowledged that that view is a dangerous road. I wanted people to watch it to understand synaptic plasticity and the addictiveness of emotion. Which I applaud the video for illustrating quite well.
Okay, from your own source: "empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience"
Note, Ahnimus, it says observation or experience. Do you realize that this can refer to science observation or LIFE OBSERVATION and experience? For example, I know firsthand that my philosophies work because of my own observations that I became healed from numerous disorders. I found numerous working practical applications and by EXPERIENCE, I OBSERVED consistent healing.
Or from dictionary.com: depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory
WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.
Again, because you are looking at this differently, that does not invalidate this particular interpretation. Besides that fact, do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS. Do you realize that much of this empirical data for my doctors has been my words? It has been their assessment of my truthfulness and my integrity? Because you don't understand this is about you. Because you don't see or comprehend something, does not make it go away--it means you don't comprehend or see it.
When you are trying to be "right", you manage to overlook the numerous interpretations that exist, and their validity. Therefore you undermine your own arguments. With what seems to be your philosophy of "if I don't understand it, it can't be real", you're keeping your hands over your eyes, even when you tell yourself otherwise. It doesn't help your case, it merely keeps you blind to true understanding.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Okay, from your own source: "empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience"
Note, Ahnimus, it says observation or experience. Do you realize that this can refer to science observation or LIFE OBSERVATION and experience? For example, I know firsthand that my philosophies work because of my own observations that I became healed from numerous disorders. I found numerous working practical applications and by EXPERIENCE, I OBSERVED consistent healing.
Or from dictionary.com: depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory
WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.
Again, because you are looking at this differently, that does not invalidate this particular interpretation. Besides that fact, do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS. Do you realize that much of this empirical data for my doctors has been my words? It has been their assessment of my truthfulness and my integrity? Because you don't understand this is about you. Because you don't see or comprehend something, does not make it go away--it means you don't comprehend or see it.
When you are trying to be "right", you manage to overlook the numerous interpretations that exist, and their validity. Therefore you undermine your own arguments. With what seems to be your philosophy of "if I don't understand it, it can't be real", you're keeping your hands over your eyes, even when you tell yourself otherwise. It doesn't help your case, it merely keeps you blind to true understanding.
Come on, just admit that you misused the word. You were digging to make your experience fact. Ask your doctors what empirical means to them. Also ask your doctors what they think of your experiences, as them to give you the data then show it to me. I don't think they are telling you the truth, in fear that you would just walk out, because maybe you can't handle the truth.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I suppose you are a self-proclaimed asshole and that excuses your behavior, does it?
I'm not sure how my behavior has been out of line, considering you were taking shots at us and throwing around little snide remarks through out the that whole thread, and it wasn't till the 12th or 15th page that I finally said something to you about it.
I guess my calling you out on your arrogant and snide jabs, is what you consider bad behavior.
By the way, is my asshole behavior an example of "Free-Will" or was it predetermined by my past experiences, my environment and your bad behavior?:D:D
Oh, and by the way, Ahnimus, approximately 70% of "my" theories are well known and have their empiric roots in the science of psychology where they've been tried, tested and put into place as proven to work EMPIRICALLY. I know this because I got them from there. Because you do not have an aptitude of understanding of psychology does not mean this science does not exist, nor does it mean that it's empirical studies and applications are "imaginary". It means you don't know about or understand them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm not sure how behavior has been out of line, considering you were taking shots at us and throwing around little snide remarks through out the that whole page, and it wasn't till the 12th or 15th page that I finally said something to you about it.
I guess my calling you out on your arrogant and snide jabs, is what you consider bad behavior.
By the way, is my asshole behavior an example of "Free-Will" or was it predetermined by my past experiences, my environment and your bad behavior?:D:D
Actually your first post was on page 4 and you tried to use some argument where an individual could make two opposing choices at the exact same place in space and time. An impossible and irrelevant hypothesis, because it can never happen. Read the thread again.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm curious about your interpretation of the evolution of mind. Many biologists seem to believe that our brains have evolved from what they were 2000 years ago. Of course, they base this mostly on the rise of science and the fall of subjectivity. Though, perhaps it is purely nutritional.
I'm definatly no expert in the mind, but I don't think that people 2000 years ago's minds were much different that ours. They did some pretty incredible stuff 2000 years ago and beyond. If you ask me, I'd say our minds were pretty much set at the current level between 30 to 50000 years ago when there was a huge increase in human material culture. By that I mean, if you travelled back 30000 years, abducted an infant and raised it as your own, you would see no difference in its development from a modern person.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Oh, and by the way, Ahnimus, approximately 70% of "my" theories are well known and have their empiric roots in the science of psychology where they've been tried, tested and put into place as proven to work EMPIRICALLY. I know this because I got them from there. Because you do not have an aptitude of understanding of psychology does not mean this science does not exist, nor does it mean that it's empirical studies and applications are "imaginary". It means you don't know about or understand them.
I know a lot about psychology. What the fuck do you know about it?
Psychology is highly subjective and thus criticized by much of the scientific community. Although it has had some serious changes to make it more empirical. What the fuck is your doctors name anyway? This person is going to get their license suspended for malpractice.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know a lot about psychology. What the fuck do you know about it?
Psychology is highly subjective and thus criticized by much of the scientific community. Although it has had some serious changes to make it more empirical. What the fuck is your doctors name anyway? This person is going to get their license suspended for malpractice.
You may not be able to prove your beliefs, but you sure as heck know how to prove your ignore-ance. Suit yourself. You're representing for yourself. Nice job.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm definatly no expert in the mind, but I don't think that people 2000 years ago's minds were much different that ours. They did some pretty incredible stuff 2000 years ago and beyond. If you ask me, I'd say our minds were pretty much set at the current level between 30 to 50000 years ago when there was a huge increase in human material culture. By that I mean, if you travelled back 30000 years, abducted an infant and raised it as your own, you would see no difference in its development from a modern person.
That's what I'm thinking too, and since you mentioned nutrition I've made a correlate with brain activity. Because much of the synapse is dependent on potassium, sodium and other nutrients. Such as the NA+/K+-pump enzyme.
And of course we know that malnutrition can lead to problems with our brains.
Thanks
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually your first post was on page 4 and you tried to use some argument where an individual could make two opposing choices at the exact same place in space and time. An impossible and irrelevant hypothesis, because it can never happen. Read the thread again.
Actually you misinterpreted my example and I have already corrected you on your misinterpretation. But it's okay if you want to continue on pretending that your inaccurate interpretation, is the correct one. Actually, it's rather funny.
Actually you misinterpreted my example and I have already corrected you on your misinterpretation. But it's okay if you want to continue on pretending that your inaccurate interpretation, is the correct one. Actually, it's rather funny.
A woman walking over a semi-frozen lake falls through a weak and brittle section of the surface. Her hands clutch tightly to thick chunks of ice, as she screams for help.
A man casually walking his dog along the shoreline of the lake, hears the screams and responds to her cries for help. He risks his own life to save the woman from certain death.
Is this not a response through a complex dynamical system of Free Will?
Alternate Version:
Same woman, same lake, same conditions and same deadly mishap. The woman clings for her life as she screams for help.
Same man on the shoreline walking his dog. But he can not bring himself to risk his own life, in an attempt to save the life of the woman. The woman dies
His refusal to risk his life does not make him a coward, but merely a victim of a complex dynamical system?
First of all, the probability of that happening twice is one in a googolplex (estimate 10^10^100) the probability of the person making a different choice the second time is exponentially greater. I don't see the relevance of the statement anyway. Perhaps you can explain it better.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Is this not a response through a complex dynamical system of Free Will?
Free-will by definition is not a CDS.
"freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"
Will is a complex dynamical system, but free-will is not.
Maybe that was the root of the misunderstanding. We really should define the terms we use, I guess.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
First of all, the probability of that happening twice is one in a googolplex (estimate 10^10^100) the probability of the person making a different choice the second time is exponentially greater. I don't see the relevance of the statement anyway. Perhaps you can explain it better.
It was never meant as as it happening twice. It was meant as two different alternatives, to the same situation/crisis, with two different outcomes; which you claim would both be covered by your theory as being predetermined, regardless of which choice is made.
It was never meant as as it happening twice. It was meant as two different alternatives, to the same situation/crisis, with two different outcomes; which you claim would both be covered by your theory as being predetermined, regardless of which choice is made.
So, you are proposing two different outcomes from two different choices at the exact same place in space and time. That's a paradox my friend. It's an irrelevant question, because a person can not make two choices or go back and change their choice. They make one choice which is determined by prior experience, as is the difference between free-will and choice.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Again, because you are not getting what is right before your eyes is not about me "digging" and making things up.
One individual's experience is not fact!
Your theory that you can project thoughts or whatever has no proof outside of your experience. The brain emits EM fields blocked by the cranium, any of the Kaon-Pion theories are immediately debunked when you realize the half-life of the particles is 0.0000000124 seconds.
Shit, if experience is fact then we live in a constant paradox. God exists, but so do Aliens, Spirits and Ghosts, Psionic Matter, the Multiverse, Unicorns, etc.. etc..
What of a person that faints, their experience is of "non-existence" does that mean they don't exist factually? Do I stop existing every night when I fall a sleep?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What of a person that faints, their experience is of "non-existence" does that mean they don't exist factually? Do I stop existing every night when I fall a sleep?
Heh. Good one.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
If I stand up right now, it is a fact that I have stood up. If I eat a sandwich, it is a fact that I have eaten a sandwhich--whether it's proven or not. It sounds like you can understand a science experiment but that you cannot grasp a simple practical, empirical truth. It may not be scientifically proven, and yet it's fact. If you cannot prove what you are doing right now, does that mean your experience is not a fact?
Shit, if experience is fact then we live in a constant paradox. God exists, but so do Aliens, Spirits and Ghosts, Psionic Matter, the Multiverse, Unicorns, etc.. etc..
I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours. I used to have numerous highly observable mental illness behaviours. I no longer have them. That is 100% fact. The more you say it isn't, the more you show you do not understand basic empirics.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So if you listen to your favourite Pearl Jam song, are you saying that is up for interpretation? Are you saying if you listen to your favourite Pearl Jam song that it is not a fact that you did so? If you are saying this, I'm a little bit surprised to hear it, quite frankly.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If I stand up right now, it is a fact that I have stood up. If I eat a sandwich, it is a fact that I have eaten a sandwhich--whether it's proven or not. It sounds like you can understand a science experiment but that you cannot grasp a simple practical, empirical truth. It may not be scientifically proven, and yet it's fact. If you cannot prove what you are doing right now, does that mean your experience is not a fact?
I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours. I used to have numerous highly observable mental illness behaviours. I no longer have them. That is 100% fact. The more you say it isn't, the more you show you do not understand basic empirics.
There is a very very simple distinction between empirical and non-empirical experience. The fact that I type this message is empirically proven by everyone that reads it.
The belief that you traverse the multiverse and project your thoughts is not experientially empirical.
It's kind of funny, because stage hypnosis is viewed as real by the participants. But the person inducing stage hypnosis will tell you that he isn't doing anything, he's just implanting ideas and people feel inclined to carry it out because they are on stage. The feeling that they are acting because they are genuinely hypnotized is just their feeling, it's not real.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is a very very simple distinction between empirical and non-empirical experience. The fact that I type this message is empirically proven by everyone that reads it.
The belief that you traverse the multiverse and project your thoughts is not experientially empirical.
It's kind of funny, because stage hypnosis is viewed as real by the participants. But the person inducing stage hypnosis will tell you that he isn't doing anything, he's just implanting ideas and people feel inclined to carry it out because they are on stage. The feeling that they are acting because they are genuinely hypnotized is just their feeling, it's not real.
I'll take you glossing over these points as that they stand on their own:
"If I stand up right now, it is a fact that I have stood up. If I eat a sandwich, it is a fact that I have eaten a sandwhich--whether it's proven or not. It sounds like you can understand a science experiment but that you cannot grasp a simple practical, empirical truth. It may not be scientifically proven, and yet it's fact. If you cannot prove what you are doing right now, does that mean your experience is not a fact?
I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours. I used to have numerous highly observable mental illness behaviours. I no longer have them. That is 100% fact. The more you say it isn't, the more you show you do not understand basic empirics."
To me the saying: "One individual's experience is not fact!" is self-evidently incorrect. If I smile right now, it is an experience and a fact. Court accepts experiences as facts all the time, depending on simple measures of interpretive truth-assessment.
Conclusion: Experience is fact. I don't have to "dig" to have the self-evident be true.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'll take you glossing over these points as that they stand on their own:
To me the saying: "One individual's experience is not fact!" is self-evidently incorrect. If I smile right now, it is an experience and a fact. Court accepts experiences as facts all the time, depending on simple measures of interpretive truth-assessment.
Conclusion: Experience is fact. I don't have to "dig" to have the self-evident be true.
Oh gee.
Whitness testimony is only 40% accurate, people glorify and magnify their experiences. This is very well-known by the courts as they work closely with the scientific community. The only time whitness testimony is taken as fact is by a jury. However, whitness testimony alone isn't sufficient normally for a conviction. As Paul Zak (Neurobiologist) says "you really need like 5 or 6 witnesses making the same statement."
It's implied that to prove a witness account as 100% factual, there needs to be direct correlations between several witness testimonies. Those people must testify in a controlled environment, they cannot be put in a position to share stories.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Really? Can you provide references? I'd love to read them. I doubt very much that you'd be able to observe any significant anatomical changes between us and people 2000 years ago. We may be taller, but I'd imagine its just because we eat better than they did. PS. hairstyles don't count as significant changes.
But yes. As far as I can tell. Evangelism = lunacy.
Height doesn't have a lot to do with nutrition, though good nutrition during formative years does support natural growth.
Here's some links, though like I said...2000 years is a blip in evolutionary terms.
A recent study (Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004) of mtDNA has demonstrated that gene frequencies have changed over the last 50,000 years i.e. human populations have still been subject to evolution.
Some mutations in mtDNA may make aerobic respiration less efficient, so that the mitochondria generate more heat and less ATP. These mutations will be selected for if they are beneficial to the person carrying them - and they would certainly be advantageous for humans living in the cold climates that prevailed during the Ice Age.
Examination of the mtDNA from over 1,000 people has found that such a mutation is present in populations of Northern Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. Of those in the sample that live in Arctic regions, 75% had the mutation, which was also found in the 14% of the sample living in temperate zones. Some of the ancestors of these groups would have lived in Siberia, and all would have experienced the Ice Age's glacial conditions. However, the mutation is not found at all in people of African ancestry.
The study concludes that the correlation between habitat and presence of the beneficial mutation is evidence of positive selection for the changed gene sequence. That is, the mutation was selected for because those people who had them were able to generate more body heat in an extremely cold climate.
Height doesn't have a lot to do with nutrition, though good nutrition during formative years does support natural growth.
Nutrition during prenatal development is very important.
Excess amounts of Vitamin-C can cause low birth-weight babies. Many, many teratogens exist to cause this same effect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Evolution is simply a change in gene frequencies across generations which, over the course of evolutionary time scales such small incremental changes can accumulate to result in profound changes. Simply because you dont want to believe it doesn't change the fact that it does happen.
If I stand up right now, it is a fact that I have stood up. If I eat a sandwich, it is a fact that I have eaten a sandwhich--whether it's proven or not. It sounds like you can understand a science experiment but that you cannot grasp a simple practical, empirical truth. It may not be scientifically proven, and yet it's fact. If you cannot prove what you are doing right now, does that mean your experience is not a fact?
So whats the problem with evolution? It as as much as fact as earth is round and has been demostrated emperically by thousands of experiments and corroberated by many disciplines including palaeontology.
So whats the problem with evolution? It as as much as fact as earth is round and has been demostrated emperically by thousands of experiments and corroberated by many disciplines including palaeontology.
Angelica doesn't have a problem with evolution. She has a problem with me
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Well, I suppose you are a self-proclaimed asshole and that excuses your behavior, does it?
I'm curious about your interpretation of the evolution of mind. Many biologists seem to believe that our brains have evolved from what they were 2000 years ago. Of course, they base this mostly on the rise of science and the fall of subjectivity. Though, perhaps it is purely nutritional.
Okay, from your own source: "empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience"
Note, Ahnimus, it says observation or experience. Do you realize that this can refer to science observation or LIFE OBSERVATION and experience? For example, I know firsthand that my philosophies work because of my own observations that I became healed from numerous disorders. I found numerous working practical applications and by EXPERIENCE, I OBSERVED consistent healing.
Or from dictionary.com: depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory
WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.
Again, because you are looking at this differently, that does not invalidate this particular interpretation. Besides that fact, do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS. Do you realize that much of this empirical data for my doctors has been my words? It has been their assessment of my truthfulness and my integrity? Because you don't understand this is about you. Because you don't see or comprehend something, does not make it go away--it means you don't comprehend or see it.
When you are trying to be "right", you manage to overlook the numerous interpretations that exist, and their validity. Therefore you undermine your own arguments. With what seems to be your philosophy of "if I don't understand it, it can't be real", you're keeping your hands over your eyes, even when you tell yourself otherwise. It doesn't help your case, it merely keeps you blind to true understanding.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Come on, just admit that you misused the word. You were digging to make your experience fact. Ask your doctors what empirical means to them. Also ask your doctors what they think of your experiences, as them to give you the data then show it to me. I don't think they are telling you the truth, in fear that you would just walk out, because maybe you can't handle the truth.
I'm not sure how my behavior has been out of line, considering you were taking shots at us and throwing around little snide remarks through out the that whole thread, and it wasn't till the 12th or 15th page that I finally said something to you about it.
I guess my calling you out on your arrogant and snide jabs, is what you consider bad behavior.
By the way, is my asshole behavior an example of "Free-Will" or was it predetermined by my past experiences, my environment and your bad behavior?:D:D
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually your first post was on page 4 and you tried to use some argument where an individual could make two opposing choices at the exact same place in space and time. An impossible and irrelevant hypothesis, because it can never happen. Read the thread again.
I'm definatly no expert in the mind, but I don't think that people 2000 years ago's minds were much different that ours. They did some pretty incredible stuff 2000 years ago and beyond. If you ask me, I'd say our minds were pretty much set at the current level between 30 to 50000 years ago when there was a huge increase in human material culture. By that I mean, if you travelled back 30000 years, abducted an infant and raised it as your own, you would see no difference in its development from a modern person.
-Ashley Montagu
I know a lot about psychology. What the fuck do you know about it?
Psychology is highly subjective and thus criticized by much of the scientific community. Although it has had some serious changes to make it more empirical. What the fuck is your doctors name anyway? This person is going to get their license suspended for malpractice.
You may not be able to prove your beliefs, but you sure as heck know how to prove your ignore-ance. Suit yourself. You're representing for yourself. Nice job.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's what I'm thinking too, and since you mentioned nutrition I've made a correlate with brain activity. Because much of the synapse is dependent on potassium, sodium and other nutrients. Such as the NA+/K+-pump enzyme.
And of course we know that malnutrition can lead to problems with our brains.
Thanks
Actually you misinterpreted my example and I have already corrected you on your misinterpretation. But it's okay if you want to continue on pretending that your inaccurate interpretation, is the correct one. Actually, it's rather funny.
First of all, the probability of that happening twice is one in a googolplex (estimate 10^10^100) the probability of the person making a different choice the second time is exponentially greater. I don't see the relevance of the statement anyway. Perhaps you can explain it better.
Free-will by definition is not a CDS.
"freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"
Will is a complex dynamical system, but free-will is not.
Maybe that was the root of the misunderstanding. We really should define the terms we use, I guess.
It was never meant as as it happening twice. It was meant as two different alternatives, to the same situation/crisis, with two different outcomes; which you claim would both be covered by your theory as being predetermined, regardless of which choice is made.
So, you are proposing two different outcomes from two different choices at the exact same place in space and time. That's a paradox my friend. It's an irrelevant question, because a person can not make two choices or go back and change their choice. They make one choice which is determined by prior experience, as is the difference between free-will and choice.
You don't realize experience IS fact?
Again, because you are not getting what is right before your eyes is not about me "digging" and making things up.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
One individual's experience is not fact!
Your theory that you can project thoughts or whatever has no proof outside of your experience. The brain emits EM fields blocked by the cranium, any of the Kaon-Pion theories are immediately debunked when you realize the half-life of the particles is 0.0000000124 seconds.
Shit, if experience is fact then we live in a constant paradox. God exists, but so do Aliens, Spirits and Ghosts, Psionic Matter, the Multiverse, Unicorns, etc.. etc..
What of a person that faints, their experience is of "non-existence" does that mean they don't exist factually? Do I stop existing every night when I fall a sleep?
Agreed, experience is interpretation
-Ashley Montagu
Heh. Good one.
-C Addison
I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours. I used to have numerous highly observable mental illness behaviours. I no longer have them. That is 100% fact. The more you say it isn't, the more you show you do not understand basic empirics.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yikes.
So if you listen to your favourite Pearl Jam song, are you saying that is up for interpretation? Are you saying if you listen to your favourite Pearl Jam song that it is not a fact that you did so? If you are saying this, I'm a little bit surprised to hear it, quite frankly.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is a very very simple distinction between empirical and non-empirical experience. The fact that I type this message is empirically proven by everyone that reads it.
The belief that you traverse the multiverse and project your thoughts is not experientially empirical.
It's kind of funny, because stage hypnosis is viewed as real by the participants. But the person inducing stage hypnosis will tell you that he isn't doing anything, he's just implanting ideas and people feel inclined to carry it out because they are on stage. The feeling that they are acting because they are genuinely hypnotized is just their feeling, it's not real.
I'll take you glossing over these points as that they stand on their own:
To me the saying: "One individual's experience is not fact!" is self-evidently incorrect. If I smile right now, it is an experience and a fact. Court accepts experiences as facts all the time, depending on simple measures of interpretive truth-assessment.
Conclusion: Experience is fact. I don't have to "dig" to have the self-evident be true.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh gee.
Whitness testimony is only 40% accurate, people glorify and magnify their experiences. This is very well-known by the courts as they work closely with the scientific community. The only time whitness testimony is taken as fact is by a jury. However, whitness testimony alone isn't sufficient normally for a conviction. As Paul Zak (Neurobiologist) says "you really need like 5 or 6 witnesses making the same statement."
It's implied that to prove a witness account as 100% factual, there needs to be direct correlations between several witness testimonies. Those people must testify in a controlled environment, they cannot be put in a position to share stories.
Height doesn't have a lot to do with nutrition, though good nutrition during formative years does support natural growth.
Here's some links, though like I said...2000 years is a blip in evolutionary terms.
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2000/dp_0809.html
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/HumanEvolution.shtml
A recent study (Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004) of mtDNA has demonstrated that gene frequencies have changed over the last 50,000 years i.e. human populations have still been subject to evolution.
Some mutations in mtDNA may make aerobic respiration less efficient, so that the mitochondria generate more heat and less ATP. These mutations will be selected for if they are beneficial to the person carrying them - and they would certainly be advantageous for humans living in the cold climates that prevailed during the Ice Age.
Examination of the mtDNA from over 1,000 people has found that such a mutation is present in populations of Northern Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. Of those in the sample that live in Arctic regions, 75% had the mutation, which was also found in the 14% of the sample living in temperate zones. Some of the ancestors of these groups would have lived in Siberia, and all would have experienced the Ice Age's glacial conditions. However, the mutation is not found at all in people of African ancestry.
The study concludes that the correlation between habitat and presence of the beneficial mutation is evidence of positive selection for the changed gene sequence. That is, the mutation was selected for because those people who had them were able to generate more body heat in an extremely cold climate.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Nutrition during prenatal development is very important.
Excess amounts of Vitamin-C can cause low birth-weight babies. Many, many teratogens exist to cause this same effect.
So whats the problem with evolution? It as as much as fact as earth is round and has been demostrated emperically by thousands of experiments and corroberated by many disciplines including palaeontology.
Angelica doesn't have a problem with evolution. She has a problem with me