I have no "vision of Ahnimus". I have a vision of your ideology
I do have a prejudice against you.
Because I disagree with you. The same reason I have prejudices against others here.
Huh? All you seem to have is an index of names and some wikipedia articles.
How could I envy you? What do you have that I want?
And pride, when justified, looks great on anyone.
Good question. I'm still waiting for you to answer it.
Clearly this goes beyond disagreeing with me FFG. Don't kid yourself.
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
Clearly this goes beyond disagreeing with me FFG. Don't kid yourself.
Are you suggesting that I have some personal disdain for you that goes beyond your ideology? And are you suggesting that I'm acting out on that disdain? That seems odd since our discussions typically end with you calling me names, Ahnimus. I'll happily stick to the ideologies. You, however, seem intent on making things personal the instant someone puts you in a corner. So please don't project your own flaws on me, or on anyone else here.
My ideological disagreements with you remain, and they'll continue to motivate my posts in response to yours. I'll continue to point out the contradictions in your philosophy whenever you show them. Such as just now when you claimed to respect something while your professed ideologies would completely preclude the concept of respect.
Perhaps it's my resourcefulness and thirst for knowledge that leads me to amazing revelations and little-known discoveries. I don't know, but pride don't look good on anyone.
It's congruent with most scientists of consciousness. I could care less what some dudes said 3,000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. We have brain imaging devices now that allow us to monitor live brain activity, we also have equipment to perturb the brain of a live subject. Our understanding of ourselves is about to make some huge leaps. It already has. I'm on top of it, reading everything that comes out. I'm reading "Conversations on Consciousness" now by Susan Blackmore, prof of psychology at the university of england. I've got Francis Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis" on order, Crick and Koch spent 30 years in Neuroscience studying the neural correlates of consciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness" contains transcripts of interviews with the following people; Bernard Baars, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Francis Crick, Daniel Dennet, Susan Greenfield, Richard Gregory, Stuart Hameroff, Christof Koch, Stephen LaBerge, Thomas Metzinger, Kevin O'Regan, Roger Penrose, V.S. Ramachandran, John Searle, Petra Stoerig, Francisco Varela, Max Velmans and Daniel Wegner. Individually I'm familiar with many of these people, I've read alot of their personal works, and this book brings it together.
Sorry, what are you basing your ideology on?
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
Are you suggesting that I have some personal disdain for you that goes beyond your ideology? And are you suggesting that I'm acting out on that disdain? That seems odd since our discussions typically end with you calling me names, Ahnimus. I'll happily stick to the ideologies. You, however, seem intent on making things personal the instant someone puts you in a corner. So please don't project your own flaws on me, or on anyone else here.
My ideological disagreements with you remain, and they'll continue to motivate my posts in response to yours. I'll continue to point out the contradictions in your philosophy whenever you show them. Such as just now when you claimed to respect something while your professed ideologies would completely preclude the concept of respect.
As I recall, it was a perfectly normal conversation, until Dan shot his mouth off, you followed suit and OLS opened his trap. Who's lacking respect?
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
How is it Ironic, did you assume that with that statement came sentiments of pride? Why would you assume such a thing? Is it consistent with your behaviour?
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
Your ideology is one wherein man in simply the effect of non-man.
It's congruent with most scientists of consciousness. I could care less what some dudes said 3,000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. We have brain imaging devices now that allow us to monitor live brain activity, we also have equipment to perturb the brain of a live subject. Our understanding of ourselves is about to make some huge leaps. It already has. I'm on top of it, reading everything that comes out. I'm reading "Conversations on Consciousness" now by Susan Blackmore, prof of psychology at the university of england. I've got Francis Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis" on order, Crick and Koch spent 30 years in Neuroscience studying the neural correlates of consciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness" contains transcripts of interviews with the following people; Bernard Baars, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Francis Crick, Daniel Dennet, Susan Greenfield, Richard Gregory, Stuart Hameroff, Christof Koch, Stephen LaBerge, Thomas Metzinger, Kevin O'Regan, Roger Penrose, V.S. Ramachandran, John Searle, Petra Stoerig, Francisco Varela, Max Velmans and Daniel Wegner. Individually I'm familiar with many of these people, I've read alot of their personal works, and this book brings it together.
Awesome. Shouldn't there be some Wikipedia links in here too?
Sorry, what are you basing your ideology on?
That which you are hell-bent on destroying: volitional reason. I guess my list isn't as long as yours, huh?
As I recall, it was a perfectly normal conversation, until Dan shot his mouth off, you followed suit and OLS opened his trap. Who's lacking respect?
hahaha... it was a conspiracy! you were all lying in wait and lured him into your debate!
can you not see that your views are a little bit nutty to everyone else around here? regardless of their truth or lack thereof, what surprises me is your consistent astonishment at the fact that we dont fall all over ourselves to thank you for enlightening us every time you post. you've said this stuff many many many many times before, and nobody has ever seen things your way. why do you continue to expect you will not meet with opposition when you express your views?
How is it Ironic, did you assume that with that statement came sentiments of pride? Why would you assume such a thing? Is it consistent with your behaviour?
becos you call your own statements on here "amazing revelations" and then promptly dismiss somebody else's with accusations of pride.
hahaha... it was a conspiracy! you were all lying in wait and lured him into your debate!
can you not see that your views are a little bit nutty to everyone else around here? regardless of their truth or lack thereof, what surprises me is your consistent astonishment at the fact that we dont fall all over ourselves to thank you for enlightening us every time you post. you've said this stuff many many many many times before, and nobody has ever seen things your way. why do you continue to expect you will not meet with opposition when you express your views?
As I recall, it was a perfectly normal conversation, until Dan shot his mouth off, you followed suit and OLS opened his trap.
"Normal"? Meaning what, exactly? One wherein only you get to act in the very manner you'll later lampoon?
Who's lacking respect?
There is a difference between lacking respect and being incapable of it, Ahnimus. The former implies the possibilty of respect. The latter, however, attempts to disprove it.
Actually OLS, the engrams in your brain are far stronger than mine, according to Hebb's rule, you are an "old dog" to which "new tricks" can not be taught. I'm the opposite, I learn new tricks every day. I even gave you a neuroscientific explanation for your behaviour.
OH; DO TELL MR SCIENCE. i'm all ears. what can you teach this 33 year science vetren.
haha this thread is turning into a fucking laugh.....
you guys are all freakin Nietzsche!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
OH; DO TELL MR SCIENCE. i'm all ears. what can you teach this 33 year science vetren.
How to spell
Do you know what Hebb's Rule is? Also known as Hebbian Theory?
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
Are you suggesting that I have some personal disdain for you that goes beyond your ideology? And are you suggesting that I'm acting out on that disdain? That seems odd since our discussions typically end with you calling me names, Ahnimus. I'll happily stick to the ideologies. You, however, seem intent on making things personal the instant someone puts you in a corner. So please don't project your own flaws on me, or on anyone else here.
My ideological disagreements with you remain, and they'll continue to motivate my posts in response to yours. I'll continue to point out the contradictions in your philosophy whenever you show them. Such as just now when you claimed to respect something while your professed ideologies would completely preclude the concept of respect.
Explain how my ideology precludes the concept of respect?
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
Your ideology is one wherein man in simply the effect of non-man.
Do you have a better explanation. Is God man? Would you argue the chicken came before the egg? At what point does one's volition become independant of physical or divine determinants?
Awesome. Shouldn't there be some Wikipedia links in here too?
If you want.
That which you are hell-bent on destroying: volitional reason. I guess my list isn't as long as yours, huh?
"volitional reason" I'm not familiar with that. Explain what "volitional reason" is.
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
hahaha... it was a conspiracy! you were all lying in wait and lured him into your debate!
can you not see that your views are a little bit nutty to everyone else around here? regardless of their truth or lack thereof, what surprises me is your consistent astonishment at the fact that we dont fall all over ourselves to thank you for enlightening us every time you post. you've said this stuff many many many many times before, and nobody has ever seen things your way. why do you continue to expect you will not meet with opposition when you express your views?
Plenty agree with my views. Perhaps they are nervous of the social ramifications of expressing their viewpoint.
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
becos you call your own statements on here "amazing revelations" and then promptly dismiss somebody else's with accusations of pride.
Not statements belonging to me. Much of what I say is the opinion of the majority of philosophers and scientists.
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
"Normal"? Meaning what, exactly? One wherein only you get to act in the very manner you'll later lampoon?
Meaning a reasoned debate where the statements made are pertinent to the topic.
There is a difference between lacking respect and being incapable of it, Ahnimus. The former implies the possibilty of respect. The latter, however, attempts to disprove it.
Well, it may come as a surprise that I have the utmost respect for Angelica and her views. It's my understanding that she also respects my views. Which may seem odd because we've historically disagreed on many things.
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
Explain how my ideology precludes the concept of respect?
my first science professor told us that science will never answer every question. he said only a fool would beleive science was the answer to every question of the universe.
so you're like God then; as long as nobody questions what you say; or challenges what you spew?
interesting.
You are well allowed to challenge what I say. I'd prefer you do it with some backbone though. Referring to scripture is not going to convince me you are right.
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
Explain how my ideology precludes the concept of respect?
Ahnimus, my question to you was to explain how your ideology doesn't preclude the concept of respect. Your response was to simply repeat my question to you, then to complain about me not liking you as a person for some reason, and then to list the books you've read and their authors. In a sense, it seems you're demanding that I respect you and, because of that, retreat from my simple question to you so that you don't have to answer it.
my first science professor told us that science will never answer every question. he said only a fool would beleive science was the answer to every question of the universe.
it's hard to respect a fool.
Ah the divine word of a science professor. Given enough time, science will provide understanding for everything which an understanding can be provided. The alternative is absolute speculation.
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
Ahnimus, my question to you was to explain how your ideology doesn't preclude the concept of respect. Your response was to simply repeat my question to you, then to complain about me not liking you as a person for some reason, and then to list the books you've read and their authors. In a sense, it seems you're demanding that I respect you and, because of that, retreat from my simple question to you so that you don't have to answer it.
The question presupposes that my viewpoints preclude respect, which is not the case at all. In-fact, my views of hard determinism requires a level of respect for all rational deliberators. I realize the efficiency of one's rational deliberation is the sole cause of physical determinants. That demands all respect.
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
The human brain contains a huge number of chemical synapses, with young children having about 1016 synapses — 10,000 billion (long scale).[1] This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for an adult vary from 1015 to 5 × 1015 synapses (1,000 to 5,000 billion).
The word "synapse" comes from "synaptein" which Sir Charles Scott Sherrington and his colleagues coined from the Greek "syn-" meaning "together" and "haptein" meaning "to clasp".
To clasp, or more aptly, the word grasp could apply.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Meaning a reasoned debate where the statements made are pertinent to the topic.
So telling Dan that you no longer respect him and that his comments are "verbal diarreah" is "pertinent to the topic"?
Well, it may come as a surprise that I have the utmost respect for Angelica and her views. It's my understanding that she also respects my views. Which may seem odd because we've historically disagreed on many things.
That's wonderful! I'm glad to hear that you and angelica share a mutual respect, despite your disagreements.
The question presupposes that my viewpoints preclude respect, which is not the case at all. In-fact, my views of hard determinism requires a level of respect for all rational deliberators. I realize the efficiency of one's rational deliberation is the sole cause of physical determinants. That demands all respect.
So you're saying existence as a rational deliberator, regardless of the contents and attributes of that deliberation, demands "all respect"?
Comments
Clearly this goes beyond disagreeing with me FFG. Don't kid yourself.
Are you suggesting that I have some personal disdain for you that goes beyond your ideology? And are you suggesting that I'm acting out on that disdain? That seems odd since our discussions typically end with you calling me names, Ahnimus. I'll happily stick to the ideologies. You, however, seem intent on making things personal the instant someone puts you in a corner. So please don't project your own flaws on me, or on anyone else here.
My ideological disagreements with you remain, and they'll continue to motivate my posts in response to yours. I'll continue to point out the contradictions in your philosophy whenever you show them. Such as just now when you claimed to respect something while your professed ideologies would completely preclude the concept of respect.
the irony of this statement is awesome.
It's congruent with most scientists of consciousness. I could care less what some dudes said 3,000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. We have brain imaging devices now that allow us to monitor live brain activity, we also have equipment to perturb the brain of a live subject. Our understanding of ourselves is about to make some huge leaps. It already has. I'm on top of it, reading everything that comes out. I'm reading "Conversations on Consciousness" now by Susan Blackmore, prof of psychology at the university of england. I've got Francis Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis" on order, Crick and Koch spent 30 years in Neuroscience studying the neural correlates of consciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness" contains transcripts of interviews with the following people; Bernard Baars, Ned Block, David Chalmers, Patricia and Paul Churchland, Francis Crick, Daniel Dennet, Susan Greenfield, Richard Gregory, Stuart Hameroff, Christof Koch, Stephen LaBerge, Thomas Metzinger, Kevin O'Regan, Roger Penrose, V.S. Ramachandran, John Searle, Petra Stoerig, Francisco Varela, Max Velmans and Daniel Wegner. Individually I'm familiar with many of these people, I've read alot of their personal works, and this book brings it together.
Sorry, what are you basing your ideology on?
As I recall, it was a perfectly normal conversation, until Dan shot his mouth off, you followed suit and OLS opened his trap. Who's lacking respect?
How is it Ironic, did you assume that with that statement came sentiments of pride? Why would you assume such a thing? Is it consistent with your behaviour?
Your ideology is one wherein man in simply the effect of non-man.
Awesome. Shouldn't there be some Wikipedia links in here too?
That which you are hell-bent on destroying: volitional reason. I guess my list isn't as long as yours, huh?
hahaha... it was a conspiracy! you were all lying in wait and lured him into your debate!
can you not see that your views are a little bit nutty to everyone else around here? regardless of their truth or lack thereof, what surprises me is your consistent astonishment at the fact that we dont fall all over ourselves to thank you for enlightening us every time you post. you've said this stuff many many many many times before, and nobody has ever seen things your way. why do you continue to expect you will not meet with opposition when you express your views?
becos you call your own statements on here "amazing revelations" and then promptly dismiss somebody else's with accusations of pride.
dont you know size matters?
AMEN. SS; you hit the nail on the head here.
"Normal"? Meaning what, exactly? One wherein only you get to act in the very manner you'll later lampoon?
There is a difference between lacking respect and being incapable of it, Ahnimus. The former implies the possibilty of respect. The latter, however, attempts to disprove it.
OH; DO TELL MR SCIENCE. i'm all ears. what can you teach this 33 year science vetren.
so you're like God then; as long as nobody questions what you say; or challenges what you spew?
interesting.
you guys are all freakin Nietzsche!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
How to spell
Do you know what Hebb's Rule is? Also known as Hebbian Theory?
Explain how my ideology precludes the concept of respect?
Do you have a better explanation. Is God man? Would you argue the chicken came before the egg? At what point does one's volition become independant of physical or divine determinants?
If you want.
"volitional reason" I'm not familiar with that. Explain what "volitional reason" is.
Plenty agree with my views. Perhaps they are nervous of the social ramifications of expressing their viewpoint.
Not statements belonging to me. Much of what I say is the opinion of the majority of philosophers and scientists.
Meaning a reasoned debate where the statements made are pertinent to the topic.
Well, it may come as a surprise that I have the utmost respect for Angelica and her views. It's my understanding that she also respects my views. Which may seem odd because we've historically disagreed on many things.
my first science professor told us that science will never answer every question. he said only a fool would beleive science was the answer to every question of the universe.
it's hard to respect a fool.
You are well allowed to challenge what I say. I'd prefer you do it with some backbone though. Referring to scripture is not going to convince me you are right.
Ahnimus, my question to you was to explain how your ideology doesn't preclude the concept of respect. Your response was to simply repeat my question to you, then to complain about me not liking you as a person for some reason, and then to list the books you've read and their authors. In a sense, it seems you're demanding that I respect you and, because of that, retreat from my simple question to you so that you don't have to answer it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMFAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ah the divine word of a science professor. Given enough time, science will provide understanding for everything which an understanding can be provided. The alternative is absolute speculation.
The question presupposes that my viewpoints preclude respect, which is not the case at all. In-fact, my views of hard determinism requires a level of respect for all rational deliberators. I realize the efficiency of one's rational deliberation is the sole cause of physical determinants. That demands all respect.
The word "synapse" comes from "synaptein" which Sir Charles Scott Sherrington and his colleagues coined from the Greek "syn-" meaning "together" and "haptein" meaning "to clasp".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presynaptic
To clasp, or more aptly, the word grasp could apply.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So telling Dan that you no longer respect him and that his comments are "verbal diarreah" is "pertinent to the topic"?
That's wonderful! I'm glad to hear that you and angelica share a mutual respect, despite your disagreements.
So you're saying existence as a rational deliberator, regardless of the contents and attributes of that deliberation, demands "all respect"?