On the socialization of children

[Jasper]

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


There I fixed it.

This thread:  

Smug science major is smug.

We snark you, smug science major!

But really though, there is some research behind this.

You are religious, go away.

[Kai]

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.

No, because then someone will claim the dead person's experience is all subjective.  

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

Bas analogy, because an email doesn't possess life to begin with.

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.

Smug? No. Closeminded? No. Annoyed? Absolutely.

"Scientific Materialism doesn't" is a good way to set off my bullshit-o-meter.

I mean, postmodern criticism is good to a point, but arguing consciousness doesn't have a biological basis and is not subject to biological death is about 200 years too late. Because that's really what someone is saying when they "scientific materialism doesn't know what happens to consciousness after death".

But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.

[Adios]

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


There I fixed it.

This thread:  

Smug science major is smug.

We snark you, smug science major!

But really though, there is some research behind this.

You are religious, go away.

Research without a proven conclusion is just research and will remain unproven until it is proven.

[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.

No, because then someone will claim the dead person's experience is all subjective.  

Thank you. Therefore in true scientific research a controlled sampling would be needed and individual subjectiveness weighed. Until this happens all we have is speculation.

[Vene]

And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.

And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.

[Adios]

And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.

And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.

I think we are done. Thanks for your professionally scientific responses.

[Jasper]

But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.

It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is.  But it's all about you, so forget it.  Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.

@Hawk, I never said anything was proven.  If you're looking for 100% certainty, science won't be much help.

[Vene]

And your stance is stupid. Your stance is saying we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll float into space tomorrow because we don't know what will happen tomorrow because we haven't seen it. Belief is not a bad word, unevidenced belief is bad, unwavering belief is bad. Scientists have beliefs you fucking morons, we're not vapid airheads who say nothing is knowable. We know that that if I inject air into your bloodstream that you'll have a heart attack. Its' not some 50/50 chance bullshit. It is known, it is what fucking happens. We know that if, as GA pointed out, that if certain parts of the brain are removed that people lose abilities. Just look at people who've had lobotomies. If I were to cut out your motor cortex, congratulations, you're not moving, if I were to remove your occipital lobe, congratulations, you're never going to see anything again, ever. To even consider the ethereal, prove the god damn thing even exists in the first place, until then, you're just masturbating.

And Hawk, prove what exactly? That when the heart can't deliver oxygenated blood to the brain that it's deprived of oxygen? Nobody has ever been revived from cellular death, you're no different.

I think we are done. Thanks for your professionally scientific responses.

[Kai]

And your stance is stupid.

Actually, I stopped reading right there.

So much for "siding with", huh? 

[Adios]

But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.

It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is.  But it's all about you, so forget it.  Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.

@Hawk, I never said anything was proven.  If you're looking for 100% certainty, science won't be much help.

This is exactly my point. It is all speculation.

[Golden Applesauce]

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?  

Out of you curiosity, how does this impact your assessment of risky behaviors?  I ask because when I was a child I genuinely had no understanding of the fear of death because I believed in a Christian afterlife.  I remember attending my grandmother's funeral (I must have been less than 4) and being puzzled because all the adults seemed so sad ... and yet they kept telling me that "God had called her to come be with him" and that "she was in Heaven now."  I understood that Grandma was not here anymore, and that the so very cold body in the casket with the rosary on the hands wasn't inhabited anymore, but not why this was such a bad thing.  She was in the same place as God now, reckoned by all to be a pretty good person, in a place of eternal happiness.  It wasn't even as if we couldn't talk to her anymore - everybody knows you can communicate with the blessed deceased through prayer and they can talk back through your dreams!

[Adios]

And your stance is stupid.

Actually, I stopped reading right there.

So much for "siding with", huh? 

With support like that Kai, you have all the enemies you need.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Smug? No. Closeminded? No. Annoyed? Absolutely.

"Scientific Materialism doesn't" is a good way to set off my bullshit-o-meter.

I mean, postmodern criticism is good to a point, but arguing consciousness doesn't have a biological basis and is not subject to biological death is about 200 years too late. Because that's really what someone is saying when they "scientific materialism doesn't know what happens to consciousness after death".

But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.

As far as I'm aware it's not even research. We know that, prior to death, consciousness behaves a certain way and appears to be an emergent property of molecular biochemistry. What hasn't been adequately proven, one way or another, is the capability of this emergent property to exist beyond the biochemical stuff. Given that the emergent property itself seems to be largely unmeasurable, unquantifiable and even unprovable (without employing logical philosophy, which isn't really science) statements about this emergent property are merely flights of fancy and have no fucking place in scientific theory at this time.

Therefore I put it to you that jumping on an "I'm a scientist and therefore know everything" high horse and proclaiming that you know everything there is to know about life after death or the transference or transcendence of consciousness is way outside your remit. You want me to believe what you believe? Forget it. I don't believe in gravity, FFS, I merely agree that, until proven otherwise, the theory holds true.

Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights 

[Bruno]

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.

La-tee-fucking-da.

Now get back in the lab and invent me a flying sandwich.

[Kai]

But if this is about siding with someone, you might as well "side with" pent because I don't give a fuck if anyone "sides with" me. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing just like Pent is at this point, because this is really all just about monkey posturing.

It's not, it was the friendliest way I could try to point out how shitty your whole attitude is.  But it's all about you, so forget it.  Enjoy your ridiculous "I date a porn star" ego trip, and go piss up a rope.

So's your mom!


Are we done yet?

And your stance is stupid.

Actually, I stopped reading right there.

So much for "siding with", huh?  

With support like that Kai, you have all the enemies you need.

Meh. Enemies. This is PD.com. We argue, for no reason other to argue, and are still friends afterwards.

If it was anything more than that, I would have posted a rant in OKM.

And to the OP, I am sorry for derailing your thread. Somewhat.