Qualia and trees

[Attila]

Maybe you could explain why you think neuron bundles are an electrical matrix. But please first explain what an "electrical matrix" is.

Short for ‘a bio-electromagnetic matrix’ that’s all.

And if it's not too picky, I have to say it would be great if your explanation avoided non-statements like

To know something is to possess and understand its information.

I don't see what's so incomprehensible; I am only asking what is there in the world, nothing more. though I admit some of my posts have been a bit obscure, but then so is reality, no?
my last post is nothing more that asking what is there, and showing that a purely physical answer is simply not true. perhaps read up on the holographic model of the universe so as to know why i view informations to be so important to the debate, essentially it states that the universe is like a hologram derived of information.

[Jake]

Maybe you could explain why you think neuron bundles are an electrical matrix. But please first explain what an "electrical matrix" is.

Short for ‘a bio-electromagnetic matrix’ that’s all.

This is a restatement, not an explanation.

What exactly is a "bio-electromagnetic matrix"? And what leads you to believe this is a decent description of neuron bundles?

And if it's not too picky, I have to say it would be great if your explanation avoided non-statements like

To know something is to possess and understand its information.

What does this mean? It's another non-statement.

I admit some of my posts have been a bit obscure, but then so is reality, no?

You certainly seem to think so.

my last post is nothing more that asking what is there, and showing that a purely physical answer is simply not true.

But you "show" through casuistry.

You're ignoring mounds of evidence uncovered by neuroscientists over the past few decades as well as the fascinating and cutting edge work being done on the origins of consciousness in the body's interactions with and embedment in the world because, as has been demonstrated time and again, your philosophy privileges the pure and ethereal (and entirely alleged) "non-material" over the sticky and sensuous "material" world in which we actually "live and move and have our being."

When you start from a false premise (e.g. the "mind" is something separate from the "body") it's not difficult to prove a false conclusion. The argument may be perfectly logical (or not). But the conclusion is still false.

[Attila]

Is your reply not casuistic? If I linked you to papers on neuronal matrixes would you even read it? I just wonder because you made no attempt to answer to my inquiry; what is information in physical terms.

A neuron is a cell that has an electromagnetic polarity which is changeable, the walls of those cells are neutral. You get collections of neurons which are positively or negatively charged, so the whole thing forms a matrix of such charged particles. it’s a little bit like a computer processor is mostly a collection of transistors, each one is switched either on or off or the gate is closed/open, the collection denotes what the processor does ~ the calculations it makes etc.

If you want a more detailed explanation google for some papers on the issue.

You're ignoring mounds of evidence uncovered by neuroscientists over the past few decades as well as the fascinating and cutting edge work being done on the origins of consciousness in the body's interactions with and embedment in the world

I am not and I don’t disagree with any of it in terms of being the source of sensory input [i am not taking anything away from them], but I do question weather or not that adds up to consciousness. Essentially they are saying that consciousness is electromagnetic, a frequency and or a field which is frankly ridiculous. At school and collage we were taught that colour was an electromagnetic frequency, then upon further study we find out it is not [scientists agree with that as I am sure you know [even Richard Dawkins said so on one documentary]]. So what I am saying is that the very same questions can be asked about electromagnetic frequencies in the brain, I don’t think they contain consciousness any more than they contain colour in the em spectrum.

The key to the argument is in understanding what info and qualia are.

The reason why I added ‘mind’ to the equation below;
*Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind.

Is that consciousness responds to sensory stimuli, so it seams reasonable to assume the premise;

a) if we cannot state that consciousness is literally in the neuronal matrixes, then there is something else acting in response to them. I.e. mind ~ the mental or whatever you wish to call it.
b) that as consciousness occurs as a response to physical stimulus, then consciousness itself is a relationship between that other something [mind] and sensory input.

If you or anyone else can explain any of the elements* away then do so!

[Jake]

Is your reply not casuistic?

I don't think it was. Sorry if so.

If I linked you to papers on neuronal matrixes would you even read it?

Maybe.

FYI, a neuron bundle (more precisely, a bundle of peripheral axons) is simply what's more commonly called a nerve. It's odd, fairly inaccurate, and not at all descriptive to define it as a "bio-electromagnetic matrix."

I just wonder because you made no attempt to answer to my inquiry; what is information in physical terms.

I didn't notice any inquiry, sorry. Information is an ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message. Like the nucleotide sequence UUA which when read by RNA roughly translates into "insert HO2CCH(NH2)CH2CH(CH3)2 [i.e. Leucine] here."

A neuron is a cell that has an electromagnetic polarity

Neurons transmit information electrochemically, which is not quite the same thing as electromagnetically. Unless what you're talking about is ephaptic coupling. Is it?

which is changeable, the walls of those cells are neutral. You get collections of neurons which are positively or negatively charged, so the whole thing forms a matrix of such charged particles.

A neuron has a semi-permeable membrane that allows some electrically charged particles (ions) to pass through and blocks others. The ions that usually matter most for neurons are calcium (++ [double positive charge]), potassium (+), sodium (+), and chloride (-).

Each neuron has an axon, a long sort of tail which extends out from the cell and through which impulses are carried. Axons contact other cells (neurons or otherwise) through a junction called the synapse. When a neuron fires, the exchange of positive and negative charged ions across the neural membrane causes an action potential which when it reaches the end of the axon releases neurotransmitter molecules across the synapse which in turn activate receptors in the other cell.

That's what a chemical synapse looks like anyway. In an electrical synapse current is passed, not neurotransmitters, and voltage changes in the first cell induce a corresponding change in the second.

And neurons connect to form neural networks, which are a little more complicated than simply a "matrix" of "charged particles."

it’s a little bit like a computer processor is mostly a collection of transistors, each one is switched either on or off or the gate is closed/open, the collection denotes what the processor does ~ the calculations it makes etc.

Sure if you want to look at it that way. But that seems awfully mechanistic, squared off, and unnatural, not to mention grossly oversimplified. I prefer to see the process for what it is - living cells communicating with other living cells in a vast and beautifully complicated oceanic network of interaction and negotiation.

If you want a more detailed explanation google for some papers on the issue.

I think I'm comfortable with my clearly basic and limited grasp of the subject for now. And if I get the itch to learn more, I know where to look (which probably won't be a Google search). But thanks for the offer.

You're ignoring mounds of evidence uncovered by neuroscientists over the past few decades as well as the fascinating and cutting edge work being done on the origins of consciousness in the body's interactions with and embedment in the world

I am not and I don’t disagree with any of it in terms of being the source of sensory input [i am not taking anything away from them],

That's gracious of you. However, a lot more is being talked about and done in the world of neuroscience than only sensory input. You know they can take a peek inside your brain and see what it looks like when you think about "roast chicken" or "cuddly puppies" or "Beethoven" or "sexy parts," right? We're learning the "language" of the nervous system. It's extremely complicated and it may be a while before we can even ask for directions to the nearest tourist attraction or public toilet, let alone read a newspaper, but it's happening. And it's marvelous.

but I do question weather or not that adds up to consciousness. Essentially they are saying that consciousness is electromagnetic, a frequency and or a field which is frankly ridiculous.

Who is saying? Johnjoe McFadden and who else? The "electromagnetic theory" of consciousness is hardly the most widely accepted. In fact, it's fringe at best. So let's be sure we're not beating up strawmen.

The key to the argument is in understanding what info and qualia are.

I think the difference is you're interested in some "argument" which you think is proven by deductive reasoning, equations, and ever-increasing abstraction. I'm interested in what is.

The reason why I added ‘mind’ to the equation below;
*Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind.

Is that consciousness responds to sensory stimuli, so it seams reasonable to assume the premise;

a) if we cannot state that consciousness is literally in the neuronal matrixes, then there is something else acting in response to them. I.e. mind ~ the mental or whatever you wish to call it.
b) that as consciousness occurs as a response to physical stimulus, then consciousness itself is a relationship between that other something [mind] and sensory input.

If you or anyone else can explain any of the elements* away then do so!

Whatever. I guess this just goes way over my head.

[Attila]

Ok jake it seams I got you wrong so lets start again eh

May I reiterate that I am not trying to take anything away from science, just to clarify as to what is physics and metaphysics here.
.

FYI, a neuron bundle (more precisely, a bundle of peripheral axons) is simply what's more commonly called a nerve. It's odd, fairly inaccurate, and not at all descriptive to define it as a "bio-electromagnetic matrix."

I am only repeating what I read in a paper, and the guy was trying to explain it in the simplest of terms before moving on to more complex issues. To wit consciousness itself was described as a matrix and often is?
.

I didn't notice any inquiry, sorry. Information is an ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message. Like the nucleotide sequence UUA which when read by RNA roughly translates into "insert HO2CCH(NH2)CH2CH(CH3)2 [i.e. Leucine] here."

My inquiry is simply asking what information ‘is’, and if it is literally of the physical. The above to me does not denote anything other than mechanistic info which is not the same as the info we think about. In fact I don’t see it as info et al. the ‘ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message’ is to me simply objects or frequencies changing shape relative to one another. What do you mean by ‘message’ here? I can understand the recording aspect of your argument, a magnetic tape can record sounds as em frequencies or arrangements is probably better [still mechanistic].
.

Neurons transmit information electrochemically, which is not quite the same thing as electromagnetically. Unless what you're talking about is ephaptic coupling. Is it?

You mean this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephaptic_coupling

Are you expecting me to be a neuro-surgeon or something?
On the link it says;
Ephaptic coupling is indirect communication within the nervous system through extracellular electric fields

Right so this is where the mix up occurs, they use the term ‘communication’ [weather it is direct or indirect doesn’t matter here] when they mean interaction. Perhaps you could show me how it is not mechanistic and that somehow em fields produce informations ~ that is after you have explained what information is aside from a metaphysical aspect of the world?
See also;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_synapse

Here’s something similar what I was reading;
http://www.healthstairs.com/cell.php
From that link;
“At the beginning it was thought that neurons work as switches. They may be in two states: "on" or "off". If a neuron is "on", it sends signals to the other neurons. When a neuron is "off", it does not send signals. Later, it was discovered that neuron is a very sophisticated system“.
“When positive K+ ions leave the cell, it becomes negative inside“.

Essentially we are seeing a set of electrical charges which change and interact ~ which is what I was saying.
.

I think I'm comfortable with my clearly basic and limited grasp of the subject for now. And if I get the itch to learn more, I know where to look (which probably won't be a Google search). But thanks for the offer.

Well that was a tad churlish, what I meant was this debate is not an examination of neurochemistry, it is asking specifically what qualia are and what consciousness is. In order to denote what consciousness is we need to see what info and other things we usually associate with it are!
.

That's gracious of you. However, a lot more is being talked about and done in the world of neuroscience than only sensory input. You know they can take a peek inside your brain and see what it looks like when you think about "roast chicken" or "cuddly puppies" or "Beethoven" or "sexy parts," right? We're learning the "language" of the nervous system.

Yes I know all of that and I don’t doubt that much is being achieved. I maintain that the brain does not ‘know’ what any of these things are, that is to say; not in the way the consciousness does. It all remains a big set of electrically charged particles which inform the consciousness I.e. what the consciousness can ‘read‘. can you look inside the brain and see colour like a tiny copy of the world the subjective mind is creating, no that would be absurd right, and yet colour quale exist or are real in some way. All of those things you describe are experienced in the mind subjectively as quale, and in the brain as a neuronal matrix. For well accepted and respected philosophers like Daniel Dennett it is ok to use terms like ‘neuronal matrix’ and yet I suppose for me it is not, I am expected to describe the whole of neuroscience *gasp*.
.

I think the difference is you're interested in some "argument" which you think is proven by deductive reasoning, equations, and ever-increasing abstraction. I'm interested in what is.

Not at all, I am also interested in ‘what is’! I brought it down to the simplest things which are; Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind. So now you describe why any of these are not ‘what is’?!!!
.

[Jake]

May I reiterate that I am not trying to take anything away from science, just to clarify as to what is physics and metaphysics here.

OK. Personally I don't find speculative metaphysics to be a meaningful or useful avenue of exploration. Mostly because it's usually just a more academically acceptable term for the supernatural. As such, people can say pretty much anything they want to say and define things however they wish, without any regard for establishing evidence or achieving mutual understanding. In order to have a conversation about metaphysics, it seems to me, one has to accept the other's particular suppositions and categories from the get-go. I think this renders any meaningful or productive conversation impossible.

FYI, a neuron bundle (more precisely, a bundle of peripheral axons) is simply what's more commonly called a nerve. It's odd, fairly inaccurate, and not at all descriptive to define it as a "bio-electromagnetic matrix."

I am only repeating what I read in a paper, and the guy was trying to explain it in the simplest of terms before moving on to more complex issues.

I think "nerve" is a simpler (and far more accurate) term than "bio-electromagnetic matrix," which is itself descriptive of nothing.

In fact I don’t see it as info et al. the ‘ordered sequence of material that transmits or records a message’ is to me simply objects or frequencies changing shape relative to one another.

Yep. That's information.

Right so this is where the mix up occurs, they use the term ‘communication’ [weather it is direct or indirect doesn’t matter here] when they mean interaction.

I think they mean communication.

Perhaps you could show me how it is not mechanistic and that somehow em fields produce informations ~ that is after you have explained what information is aside from a metaphysical aspect of the world?

But I think I've already given the standard definition of information. You reject it because it's not metaphysical (and thus must be "mechanistic" according to your dualistic worldview) and then ask me to explain how information is not metaphysical. But I'm not aware of any information that is metaphysical. All information (from codons, to words, to musical notes, to scents, to what have you) is physical and is created physically, transmitted physically, apprehended physically, recorded physically and interpreted physically.

Here’s something similar what I was reading;
http://www.healthstairs.com/cell.php
From that link;
“At the beginning it was thought that neurons work as switches. They may be in two states: "on" or "off". If a neuron is "on", it sends signals to the other neurons. When a neuron is "off", it does not send signals. Later, it was discovered that neuron is a very sophisticated system“.
“When positive K+ ions leave the cell, it becomes negative inside“.

Exactly. Earlier you wrote:

it’s a little bit like a computer processor is mostly a collection of transistors, each one is switched either on or off or the gate is closed/open, the collection denotes what the processor does ~ the calculations it makes etc.

Having read what you quoted above, how do you feel now about your previous statement?

Essentially we are seeing a set of electrical charges which change and interact ~ which is what I was saying.

No, that's like describing two humans speaking to each other as essentially communication between two masses of air since it's the air in their lungs that makes speech possible. Neurons are not electrical charges, they are living cells. A neuron is not composed of electricity any more than a myocyte or a luekocyte is. And most neurons signal and connect to each other via chemical synapses in which neurotransmitter molecules (matter) are exchanged.

Yes I know all of that and I don’t doubt that much is being achieved. I maintain that the brain does not ‘know’ what any of these things are, that is to say; not in the way the consciousness does.

Consciousness is precisely the process by which the brain "knows." We are our bodies. We are not ethereal passengers or drivers living or contained "inside" the body somehow.

It all remains a big set of electrically charged particles which inform the consciousness I.e. what the consciousness can ‘read‘.

I don't understand what this means.

can you look inside the brain and see colour like a tiny copy of the world the subjective mind is creating, no that would be absurd right,

IBM is ready to go:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20100049076.pdf

All of those things you describe are experienced in the mind subjectively as quale, and in the brain as a neuronal matrix. For well accepted and respected philosophers like Daniel Dennett it is ok to use terms like ‘neuronal matrix’ and yet I suppose for me it is not, I am expected to describe the whole of neuroscience *gasp*.

Nobody can describe the whole of neuroscience (or of botany, or of music). But it's definitely helpful when we understand what terms like "neuronal matrix" actually mean before we go throwing them around or trying to use them to prove a point about something. I'm sure you agree.

So in response to this:

I think the difference is you're interested in some "argument" which you think is proven by deductive reasoning, equations, and ever-increasing abstraction. I'm interested in what is.

You write this:

Not at all, I am also interested in ‘what is’! I brought it down to the simplest things which are; Object > info > Qualia < > info < > consciousness < > mind. So now you describe why any of these are not ‘what is’?!!!

Isn't this exactly what I was talking about? Equations and abstraction? I honestly don't understand it at all and find it simply confusing. Maybe I'm just too thick.

[Attila]

jake

OK. Personally I don't find speculative metaphysics to be a meaningful or useful avenue of exploration. Mostly because it's usually just a more academically acceptable term for the supernatural. As such, people can say pretty much anything they want to say and define things however they wish, without any regard for establishing evidence or achieving mutual understanding. In order to have a conversation about metaphysics, it seems to me, one has to accept the other's particular suppositions and categories from the get-go. I think this renders any meaningful or productive conversation impossible.

I agree, I should just say physical or mental. The mental may be transcendent to the physical but it remains of the world [or of the same hologram projected from information [hence why understanding info is so important]].
.

Yep. That's information.

Nope that remains objects changing shape, this is the critical issue before we even get onto that which can experience being and feelings etc, and that which can ‘know‘ [info].
.

I think they mean communication.

Objects interacting does not necessarily denote an exchange of information, it can just be objects changing shape, like the waves on an oscilloscope as you turn the dial [there is no info being exchanged]. Hence when we use the term ‘communication’ one should perhaps be a little more specific, rounding things up into a convenient label is just semantics.
.

But I think I've already given the standard definition of information. You reject it because it's not metaphysical (and thus must be "mechanistic" according to your dualistic worldview) and then ask me to explain how information is not metaphysical. But I'm not aware of any information that is metaphysical. All information (from codons, to words, to musical notes, to scents, to what have you) is physical and is created physically, transmitted physically, apprehended physically, recorded physically and interpreted physically.

Well we don’t want to confuse terms and meanings here, so what I mean by ‘metaphysics’ simply refers to something that is not an object, even where it specifically related to physical objects. A meaning in my mind is not the same as a bunch of electrical impulses between nerves [or however you wish to term that]. Most ‘info’ [what physically denotes information but isn’t literally that] begins in the world I agree, then when we turn our perspective gaze upon it and hold it up in the consciousness, it is then info proper = meaning [info as we all see it in the minds eye]. The consciousness can then change that meaning ~ and the brain will correlate to the change, and send out new information ~ which is converted to electrical signals in the very same way as to how it can into the consciousness [but an inversion of the process naturally].
.

Having read what you quoted above, how do you feel now about your previous statement?

I said; ‘it’s a little bit like’ ~ I was using an analogy to simplify things as was obvious.
.

No, that's like describing two humans speaking to each other as essentially communication between two masses of air since it's the air in their lungs that makes speech possible. Neurons are not electrical charges, they are living cells. A neuron is not composed of electricity any more than a myocyte or a luekocyte is. And most neurons signal and connect to each other via chemical synapses in which neurotransmitter molecules (matter) are exchanged.

did i say a neuron is composed of electricity?

http://webspace.webring.com/people/al/l ... ghtems.htm

“The physical human mind, and the physical body generate a feild of energy which some researchers
call the Bio-Magnetic Field“.
“Science has long been skeptical about such a feild of energy around the body. Yet it's erroneous to think that this feild does not exist. The human body is electromagnetic, consisting of charged particles such as atoms, electrons, protons and ions. Our human nervous system uses electrical current to send vital information all over the body for a variety of life functions. Our body depends on this feild of energy it creates, to preform vital life functions all the way from computing sensory information, cellular chemistry and firing electrons accross the synapsis“.
If we pretend the body is nothing more than a machine, then it has a variety of sensory organs designed to gather data from energetic feilds. The visible spectrum is one of the main layers of the electromagnetic spectrum that the body uses to visually sense the external enviroment. Ears act as acoustic sensors which pick up vibrational changes in dense electromagnetic feilds.

THE FOUR MAIN BRAIN WAVE PATTERNS
BETA When we are active, our minds function at the beta level which is measured as being in a range of 20-14 cycles per second or 14-20 Hz.

ALPHA When we begin to relax and focus our thinking, we enter more of an alpha state of 8-13 Hz. Alpha contributes to such things as meditation, hypnosis, REM sleep, dreaming, day dreams ect.
THETA This is a deeper level of brain wave activity 5 - 7 Hz. Deep sleep, deep hypnosis and lack of waking consciousness is common in theta brain wave patterns.
DELTA The deepest of the brain wave frequencies. 1-4Hz. No evidence of waking consciousness, deep sleep, drug induced sleep with anesthetics.

Here’s some other brain facts!
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

IBM is ready to go:

Yea I have watched 'fringe' [the show on TV]. That apparatus does little more than design an image upon given data derived from the brain, a bit like a description.

[Jake]

I agree, I should just say physical or mental. The mental may be transcendent to the physical but it remains of the world [or of the same hologram projected from information [hence why understanding info is so important]].

Cool. But it amounts to the same thing. I don't acknowledge the existence of a physical/mental dichotomy any more than a natural/supernatural one. I'm not a dualist. And though I think the kind of property or emergent dualism you're espousing here is preferable to substance dualism, I still think it's ultimately non-useful (and passé).

Yep. That's information.

Nope that remains objects changing shape, this is the critical issue before we even get onto that which can experience being and feelings etc, and that which can ‘know‘ [info].

I've noticed that you like links so here's one:

Information in its most restricted technical sense is an ordered sequence of symbols that record or transmit a message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Objects interacting does not necessarily denote an exchange of information

Sure but in the example you quoted it does denote an exchange of information. That's what neurons do. When neurons transmit molecules that carry the message "feel pain" or "get horny" to each other and to other associated cells, that's communication.

Well we don’t want to confuse terms and meanings here, so what I mean by ‘metaphysics’ simply refers to something that is not an object, even where it specifically related to physical objects. A meaning in my mind is not the same as a bunch of electrical impulses between nerves [or however you wish to term that].

But that's exactly what it is. Depending on how much you're thinking about it, that "meaning" could be the result of millions of electrical and chemical communications between the the cells of your body. And the experience of these processes as a singular meaning or idea is itself a property of the processes. Further, the experience of a constant and enduring sense of "mind" or "self" having the idea is itself a function of the higher nervous system (the medial prefrontal cortex seems to be heavily involved) processing the information being received and exchanged. We are our synapses!

Most ‘info’ [what physically denotes information but isn’t literally that] begins in the world I agree, then when we turn our perspective gaze upon it and hold it up in the consciousness, it is then info proper = meaning [info as we all see it in the minds eye]. The consciousness can then change that meaning ~ and the brain will correlate to the change, and send out new information ~ which is converted to electrical signals in the very same way as to how it can into the consciousness [but an inversion of the process naturally].

Again it makes no sense to me to describe this sort of alleged interaction between the brain and the consciousness because consciousness is itself a process of the brain.

I said; ‘it’s a little bit like’ ~ I was using an analogy to simplify things as was obvious.

Apologies, but it wasn't obvious to me. The two statements (yours and the one you quoted) directly contradicted one another.

did i say a neuron is composed of electricity?

Yes. You said neurons were "a set of electrical charges which change and interact." Perhaps that isn't what you meant to say.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/al/lucidmetro/thoughtems.htm

Good gawd. What a ridiculous website. (But the home page illustration is really hilarious! http://webspace.webring.com/people/al/l ... ilson.html)

I especially like the parts about how to induce Out-of-Body Experiences and how "walking on carpet generating static electricity" is used as proof of "auras."

Attila, are you serious with this? It ranks right up there with the time you cited that white-supremacist website as evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Celts.

Yea I have watched 'fringe' [the show on TV]. That apparatus does little more than design an image upon given data derived from the brain, a bit like a description.

It was supposed to be funny.

So thanks for the convo, both the serious and the (possibly) unintentionally amusing bits. But time for me to take a lesson from another member who's much wiser than myself:

as usual, you've managed to talk me into confusion, and I will rest my argument here.

[Attila]

Well that’s what happens when you google for information, the other link I am sure you will agree was more authoritive and also stated consciousness was EM.

As for the rest, if you wish to acknowledge anything and go deeper then let me know, but tacticle evasion doesn’t prove anything and you never actually answered my questions.

[Jake]

Yes, the other link has accurate basic information (please note, it's a list of facts entitled "Neuroscience for Kids"). And no, it does not state that consciousness is electromagnetic. The only mention of consciousness on the site is, "Time until unconsciousness after loss of blood supply to brain = 8-10 sec."

You can't acknowledge that all your information comes from Google searches, demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that you can't tell a reliable source from some Mickey Mouse cartoonish New Age webring site, and then expect to be taken seriously with a challenge for someone else to "go deeper" when you're splashing around in the kiddy pool.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but the stuff you're posting is just ridiculous. See you around.

[Attila]

jake you're just a bleep

[Explorer]

jake you're just a bleep

But what is more important is that he is right.
Exposing ignorance is also an aspect of looking for Truth.
Thanks for that Jake!

[Dendrias]

Exposing ignorance is also an aspect of looking for Truth.

Exposing ignorance is an aspect of exposing something, only. You can't look for truth while simply exposing something, you can only show off or ridicule.
Looking for truth can be done by looking for it, by discussion and by discerning truth from fiction/delusion.

[Explorer]

Exposing ignorance is also an aspect of looking for Truth.

Exposing ignorance is an aspect of exposing something, only. You can't look for truth while simply exposing something, you can only show off or ridicule.
Looking for truth can be done by looking for it, by discussion and by discerning truth from fiction/delusion.

Ofcourse you can. By cutting away the crap you get closer to the core. It is a bit like sculpting. And there is a hell of a lot of crap in our 'spiritual' circles. It is not the people who expose ignorance and falsehood who ridicule people. It is the ones who spread it, they ridicule themselves.

[Attila]

Q, is science the worse religion in the world?

But what is more important is that he is right.
Exposing ignorance is also an aspect of looking for Truth.

Bollocks! he is not right, he was trying to say the brain is purely chemical when it is not, e.g….

EEG - beta wave frequency = 13 to 30 Hz
EEG - alpha wave frequency = 8 to 13 Hz
EEG - theta wave frequency = 4 to 7 Hz
EEG - delta wave frequency = 0.5 to 4 Hz

He argued that info was purely mechanistic when even the wki link he posted stated otherwise if he had bothered to read it all.

Worse that that I tried to have an intelligent debate and use commonly accepted terminology ~ which jake said was not appropriate when many people all over the net [scientists and philosophers] use it.
Jake has plainly been bent on character assassination and insult rather than a factual and intelligent debate. I don’t mind people being strong minded and making sure argument, but that is not what he has done.

Honestly post after post his replies have been churlish inane and ridiculous. I mean if he was right that the brain is purely chemical interactions, that just makes the materialist argument even worse.

Buy into his arguments and really thats no different to thinking god lives on a cloud.

[DJ Droood]

Perhaps my attention span is fried from years of messageboard reading, but my rule of thumb is if someone can't make their point clearly in a few concise opening sentences, there is probably no "truth" to be found in the next 15 paragraphs.

[Explorer]

Jake has plainly been bent on character assassination and insult rather than a factual and intelligent debate.

That is not how I saw it. I saw somebody tirelessly trying to bend misunderstood terms and misconceptions bend into the proper shape, and in the end becoming irritated and give up when it became clear that nothing he said made a dent. I can relate to that.

But I grant you both that you have more patience than I have, and kept it civil longer than I could have done .

Buy into his arguments and really thats no different to thinking god lives on a cloud.

SSSSSSH, please don't mention the G-word, or the crazy woman who thinks that she has a karmic link with me returns!

[DJ Droood]

SSSSSSH, please don't mention the G-word, or the crazy woman who thinks that she has a karmic link with me returns!

I think she was your wife in a past life.

[Explorer]

SSSSSSH, please don't mention the G-word, or the crazy woman who thinks that she has a karmic link with me returns!

I think she was your wife in a past life.

And you were our dog? (I mean, she said the same thing about you... eh?).

[DJ Droood]

SSSSSSH, please don't mention the G-word, or the crazy woman who thinks that she has a karmic link with me returns!

I think she was your wife in a past life.

And you were our dog? (I mean, she said the same thing about you... eh?).

Maybe I was her second husband...or your first wife....