On the socialization of children

[Kai]

You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU 

How about the 160 years of neurobiology going back to dear old Phineas Gage? Countless cases of people with brain damage showing that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of neural networks?

Hey, if thats not good enough, I'll just leave you to your solipsism.

[Jasper]

You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU 

How about the 160 years of neurobiology going back to dear old Phineas Gage? Countless cases of people with brain damage showing that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of neural networks?

Hey, if thats not good enough, I'll just leave you to your solipsism.

One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed.

So sayeth the great syphilis philologist.

Your tone is smug and close-minded sounding.  I don't know if that's intentional or what, but even though I generally agree with what you're saying, the way you're saying it is making me want to side with pent.

[Adios]

Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.

Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.

[P3nT4gR4m]

If you change the brain, you change the consciousness, therefore it follows that if you remove the brain, you remove the consciousness. To use the knot analogy, the knot is not the rope, but you can't have the knot without the rope. Consciousness may not necessarily be the brain, but you can't have it without the brain. Life is not the body, it's the processes the body does, but you can't have these processes without the body. You need the hardware to have the software.

Never takes long to get on the subject of software. So riddle me this - if you send and email to someone, do they receive the same message you sent?

If so why doesn't the email die in transit?

If not - what's the difference?

Bad analogy.

Perfectly good analogy. Seems like you just don't understand it is all.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.

Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.

This! Anything less than being 50/50 undecided is showing how much of an idiot you are.

[Vene]

Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.

Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.

Fail, not how evidence works. I don't have to personally witness an event to figure out what happened. There are proxies for discovering that. Like, we know from fMRI scans of the brain that thoughts are due to electric and chemical impulses, so, you remove the ability for it to be transmitted, and you lose the thought. We know how memories are formed, for an example of how, there's long term potentiation. This is chemistry, if you remove the chemicals, no more memory. Like, I can figure out the mechanism of a chemical reaction, but I can't ever observe it directly. I can observe the start of it, I can observe the end result. I can change the chemical environment to disrupt the pathway I think is happening to see if it works or not, but I can't ever see the actual reaction. And yet, I can tell you the mechanism and how the electrons are moving and this information can be used to make new things. I can map evolutionary histories despite not being there, I can look at the fossils, I can look at the genes, I can map out ERVs and compare protein sequences. I don't have to be there to know what happened. This is the same kind of inference and the same kind of reasoning.

Oh, and for the email analogy, the cords are hardware, they send the message, not that far off from an axon. It has to be stored somewhere in some physical medium, remove that and you lost the email.

[Golden Applesauce]

What Kai said.  If you selectively destroy parts of the brain, you can cause all kinds of nifty forms of mental damage.  You know those diagrams of the brain in anatomy/neurology/psychology textbooks, where sections are labeled with functions?  This part plays a crucial role in planning and forethought, this part is necessary to understand speech, this part is necessary to produce coherent speech, you need this part to regulate emotions, this part is in some way critical to your personality, etc?  We learned about almost all of those by finding a number of people with lesions in very specific areas of the brain who also had very similar impairment in specific areas of function, including personality, memory, emotions, and reasoning.

That isn't consistent with the hypothesis that human consciousness exists independently of a material substrate.  Damaging the substrate damages the consciousness; how could completely destroying a damaged substrate restore the consciousness?

Keichu built a computer with a hundred processors.  Take away the processors, the memory, the I/O, and what remains?

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said

[Adios]

Evidence.

I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.

Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.

Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?

Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.

THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.

Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.

Maybe I misunderstand science. Didn't it used to say if it can't be proven then it can't be proven? Has science moved into the ethereal now? Fact is there is no real evidence either proving or disproving what happens after death. To propose something based on what a brain does while it is alive and to extropulate that out to what happens after the brain dies is just silly.

[Vene]

I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said

Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.

Evidence.

I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.

Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.

Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?

Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.

THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.

Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.

No, that's not useful, you were not neurologically dead, your brain was oxygen starved and unreliable.

[Golden Applesauce]

Meh. A lot of talk going on about something we know nothing about.

Evidence required; A dead person come back to tell us what happens, all else is speculation. IMO.

This! Anything less than being 50/50 undecided is showing how much of an idiot you are.

There is no "back" to come from.  If you burn a piece of lumber, the tree cannot come back.  It isn't somewhere else, it flat-out does not exist - a cloud of carbon dioxide and water vapor is not a tree.  Memories of the tree, ideas of the tree, whatever, but unless you want to put forward the argument that a thing is identical with the perception of that thing, pulping someone's head erases the person's existence.

And being 50/50 undecided?  Among what possibilities?  Do you give equal credence to the idea that after death a consciousness remains to contemplate the perfect oneness of the unit circle and the idea that after death a consciousness is implanted into a new body which is then trampled by 1.7 elephants for every time the person said the word "eggplant" aloud in life?

[Adios]

I'm out of here. You scientists have your beliefs. I don't. Nuff said

Our beliefs give the world things like medicine, computers, and automobiles, we win.

Evidence.

I died on the operating table 2 times in '07. There were no bright lights, no collective conscience, no family waiting with smiles.

Conclusion; there ain't shit when we die.

Does this make a case for proof or is it an isolated incident?

Fact; we still don't know shit about what happens after we die.

THIS IS HOW EVIDENCE WORKS.

Otherwise it's all a bunch of speculation somebody made up.

No, that's not useful, you were not neurologically dead, your brain was oxygen starved and unreliable.

I added more after your post, sorry.


Prove it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Science is great if you use it as a tool and stick to the formula. If you start believing the shit then it's just another fucking religion. Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkins ... all heretics who challenged the high priests of the god of science and dragged it kicking and screaming back into the realms of system and out of the domain of religion.

Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist?  

[Adios]

Science is great if you use it as a tool and stick to the formula. If you start believing the shit then it's just another fucking religion. Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkins ... all heretics who challenged the high priests of the god of science and dragged it kicking and screaming back into the realms of system and out of the domain of religion.

Just to clarify my position - I don't believe that consciousness survives death. I also don't believe that it doesn't. Now ... who's the fucking scientist?  

This is my stance. Science has an obligation to be detached and unbiased. Otherwise it needs to move to the Vatican and start chanting like primitive witch doctors.

[P3nT4gR4m]