My Youtube: Science of Consciousness

2»

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    onelongsong wrote:
    i never said anything about sin. i also never said the child would do wrong either.

    as for love; you cannot explain why in a room of say 20 women; i may only be attracted to one. nor can you explain how someone can be attracted to someone over the internet.

    Actually I can. But if you really wanted to understand this stuff you'd read up on it yourself, and I don't mean the bible. I've repeatedly posted the science of love on this board, and had you ever read it, with some inductive reasoning you could answer those questions yourself. That would of course mean disregarding the concept of free-will for the sake of assuming there is something more to be understood.

    How can you watch a video of a puppy being murdered and feel sad? The same way you can feel love over the internet.
    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
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    DNA only determines physical attributes. clones do not think like the donor. cloned animals act differently although having the same DNA as the donor. another example is identical twins. each has his/her own soul or spirit as you call it and therefore thinks and acts independantly of the other.

    since when did youtube become an authority on science? have you seen some of the crap on there?

    Oh man....if I had a nickel for every youtube link I clicked on.... :)

    I am probably the farthest thing from an authority on this subject. I do not wish to change or impress my beliefs on others, I can only relay various thoughts ideas, concepts, and observations. My learning and understanding is very much an ongoing work in progress.

    To be honest I rarely talk about this kind of thing, as rocking someones foundation on this personal level brings me very little satisfaction.

    I am most happy and content when others around me are as well.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Oh man....if I had a nickel for every youtube link I clicked on.... :)

    I am probably the farthest thing from an authority on this subject. I do not wish to change or impress my beliefs on others, I can only relay various thoughts ideas, concepts, and observations. My learning and understanding is very much an ongoing work in progress.

    To be honest I rarely talk about this kind of thing, as rocking someones foundation on this personal level brings me very little satisfaction.

    I am most happy and content when others around me are as well.

    These are the comments I received to my vids

    nervousneuron (10 hours ago)
    Awesome! The bit on NCC was interesting. I love the quote at the end.

    Science of Consciousness
    rvwissen (4 hours ago)
    Libet's research is very interesting, but it doesn't really convince me though. Determinism doesn't make much sense to me. This is really a nice video, the volume should be a little harder maybe, 4/5 stars.

    Re: Determinism and Free-will
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-rXCxFj134
    AndrewJCar (11 hours ago)
    I couldn't agree more. All your points are well thought out and I agree. Punishment is a way to form behavior. Especially liked the part about pedophiles. It should not be equated with child molestation unless they act on these uncontrollable feelings. The large majority keeps it to themselves, I'm sure. They cannot help their thoughts about children just like homosexuals cannot help their thoughts about the same sex and straights cannot help their thoughts about the opposite sex.

    It seems to me that even one who disagrees with me did not take the video as an attack, apart from the quote at the end all I did was cite scientific experiments. I would say that the offensiveness of the video is inversely related to how the video challenged your beliefs, based on your interpretation of 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
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Ahnimus wrote:
    These are the comments I received to my vids

    nervousneuron (10 hours ago)
    Awesome! The bit on NCC was interesting. I love the quote at the end.

    Science of Consciousness
    rvwissen (4 hours ago)
    Libet's research is very interesting, but it doesn't really convince me though. Determinism doesn't make much sense to me. This is really a nice video, the volume should be a little harder maybe, 4/5 stars.

    Re: Determinism and Free-will
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-rXCxFj134
    AndrewJCar (11 hours ago)
    I couldn't agree more. All your points are well thought out and I agree. Punishment is a way to form behavior. Especially liked the part about pedophiles. It should not be equated with child molestation unless they act on these uncontrollable feelings. The large majority keeps it to themselves, I'm sure. They cannot help their thoughts about children just like homosexuals cannot help their thoughts about the same sex and straights cannot help their thoughts about the opposite sex.

    It seems to me that even one who disagrees with me did not take the video as an attack, apart from the quote at the end all I did was cite scientific experiments. I would say that the offensiveness of the video is inversely related to how the video challenged your beliefs, based on your interpretation of it.

    I only speak for myslef. I'm not implying anything other than my own personal perspective on how I feel about this topic with regards to others. I have persuaded more than a few religious types in the past, and ultimately did not like how I made them feel about themselves afterwards. I can be very persuasive in person. It's definitely an interesting topic. Absolutely.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I only speak for myslef. I'm not implying anything other than my own personal perspective on how I feel about this topic with regards to others. I have persuaded more than a few religious types in the past, and ultimately did not like how I made them feel about themselves afterwards. I can be very persuasive in person. It's definitely an interesting topic. Absolutely.

    I agree, I was just stating that the video was an attempt at rocking foundations but citing science as per the relevancy of consciousness. If the science had of been pro-free-will, then I would have cited it as well, and instead I'd be a dualist.
    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
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I agree, I was just stating that the video was an attempt at rocking foundations but citing science as per the relevancy of consciousness. If the science had of been pro-free-will, then I would have cited it as well, and instead I'd be a dualist.

    I definitely appreciate your contributions. I am very open to this entire area of thought, and I believe you have made some very acute observations on the subject.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    Ahnimus wrote:
    For example love...

    The pheramones emitted by person A is detected by the Vomeronasal organ in person B, the VNO performs a DNA comparison and 'rates' the difference in nervous systems, this result is passed onto a biochemical system that incorporates other details such as visual attractiveness and personality mapping, this biochemical system then produces a 'cocktail' or mixture of several peptides (biological chemicals) Norepinephrine, Testosterone, Vesopressing, etc.. that stimulates various receptors in the brain and body producing the ontologically subjective sensation of love. This is a deterministic explanation, the alternative (of free-will) would simply suggest "I love so and so of my own free-will" and no further explanation can be given or else the free-will is slave to it's explanation.

    Let's say, for one minute, biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology aren't old studies and all there is to understand in the human body hasn't been understood yet. Now, keeping this in mind let's say that on the biochemistry of love we don't have all the info yet to map out a correct or "true" explanation of what happens when we fall in love. So, still in total imagination, we have only a partial view of what is happening in the human body and try to fill in the blanks by expressing theories and predictions though further studies must be made.
    Now, considering all this, how is your explanation more valid than the free will one? Both don't account for a whole and correct explanation. You, as a "nerdcore" might feel better expressing your feelings under obscure acronyms, but my little sister feels better expressing hers with poetic words. You both are wrong in your explanations but who cares?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Kann wrote:
    Let's say, for one minute, biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology aren't old studies and all there is to understand in the human body hasn't been understood yet. Now, keeping this in mind let's say that on the biochemistry of love we don't have all the info yet to map out a correct or "true" explanation of what happens when we fall in love. So, still in total imagination, we have only a partial view of what is happening in the human body and try to fill in the blanks by expressing theories and predictions though further studies must be made.
    Now, considering all this, how is your explanation more valid than the free will one? Both don't account for a whole and correct explanation. You, as a "nerdcore" might feel better expressing your feelings under obscure acronyms, but my little sister feels better expressing hers with poetic words. You both are wrong in your explanations but who cares?

    That's using free-will as a fill-in-the-blank placeholder. We don't know, so let's say it's free-will, oh the pancreas stopped producing islets, well I guess diabetes isn't free-will then. Point is this concept of free-will exists only as long as we don't have explanations. But some people will reject explanations anyway. For example a guy at work said the virginia tech gunman may have had a brain tumor, he says "Don't look for excuses, he fucking did it". Don't try to figure it out, just be ignorant and call it free-will because it's self-satisfying. I'm not saying all dualists feel that way entirely, but never-the-less belief in free-will is entirely a matter of faith and to me that's not something to set policy 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
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That's using free-will as a fill-in-the-blank placeholder. We don't know, so let's say it's free-will, oh the pancreas stopped producing islets, well I guess diabetes isn't free-will then. Point is this concept of free-will exists only as long as we don't have explanations. But some people will reject explanations anyway. For example a guy at work said the virginia tech gunman may have had a brain tumor, he says "Don't look for excuses, he fucking did it". Don't try to figure it out, just be ignorant and call it free-will because it's self-satisfying. I'm not saying all dualists feel that way entirely, but never-the-less belief in free-will is entirely a matter of faith and to me that's not something to set policy on.

    On the point that we should never use free-will or god as a unique explanation, I agree. We should, and actually do, look for other explanations. Such as scientific ones. It's just that with our, current, limited understanding of the biochemical reactions in the human body and the correlations with genetics, I think it's arrogant and wrong to state that "love in nothing more than a biochemical reaction". You don't know, I don't either, so your explanation is no more valid than mine. Now we'll both be looking for an explanation as we aren't satisfied with the ones we have, but for now neither one of us can claim "I know the truth!".
    I won't speak about free will because obviously we disagree, but it's all the same. If you don't have empiric or mathematical proof of what you claim, you're as wrong as I am. Whatever unconvienent truth you wish so much to believe in.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Kann wrote:
    On the point that we should never use free-will or god as a unique explanation, I agree. We should, and actually do, look for other explanations. Such as scientific ones. It's just that with our, current, limited understanding of the biochemical reactions in the human body and the correlations with genetics, I think it's arrogant and wrong to state that "love in nothing more than a biochemical reaction". You don't know, I don't either, so your explanation is no more valid than mine. Now we'll both be looking for an explanation as we aren't satisfied with the ones we have, but for now neither one of us can claim "I know the truth!".
    I won't speak about free will because obviously we disagree, but it's all the same. If you don't have empiric or mathematical proof of what you claim, you're as wrong as I am. Whatever unconvienent truth you wish so much to believe in.

    I don't really want to believe in it. I don't believe in it for me. Unless of course I get a brain tumor and kill a bunch of people. Then I'll want it for me while I'm rotting in jail. It's more or less that it's the moral thing to do. As far as I know the guy was a good guy, I've no reason to doubt that, and this invader in his brain caused different behavior. It's not unreasonable. But I also think the brain is very plastic and how one person thinks is not at all how another person thinks. It's the same basic idea, but some are more finely tuned for emotion or logic, and some aren't equipped with either.

    "That guy is a fucking moron." "What a tool" "n00b" "idiot".. All these statements imply that an idiot would not be an idiot if he simply chose to not be an idiot. Why would anyone want to be an idiot in the first place? As if he has the free-will to know the answers to the universe. He can't rub his stomach and pat his head at the same time. You know? This is where I look at it and think, the guy is an idiot and that's not his fault. Nobody decides they want to be mentally retarded. They didn't say "Hey mom can you smoke some more crack so I can be totally retarded?"

    Some things I don't have an explanation for. Is causality infinite or is their a causal loop, is there some incomprehensible thing that exists without cause. I simply don't make a presuppositions about that. Everything I do has cause and effect, everything I do has effect, why wouldn't it have cause?

    I made a youtube video about it, tried to get all of it in there in the 10 minute time frame, but went over by 40 seconds and didn't want to cut it anymore, so I split it in two segments. It's only 10:40 roughly. I'd prefer you watch it because text is two-dimensional.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC-amGODYSA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoPoZEuA3IA
    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

Categories