On the socialization of children

[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.

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.  

Don't, it's a much better thread now.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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!

I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.

[Jasper]

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

Don't get me wrong, I actually do dislike you personally.  

[Adios]

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!

I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.

This. If you're not going to use the life you have try to figure out a way to give it to somebody that will use it.

[Kai]

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

Don't get me wrong, I actually do dislike you personally.  

*shrug* We've got a history.

And I admit, I'm a downright asshole this week, probably a combination of too much coffee, too little sleep, and too many presentations on multiple stressors and carbon cycling.

Or it could be that Roger's mind control lasers have caused me to become his surrogate in his absence.  

[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.

La-tee-fucking-da.

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

[Golden Applesauce]

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  

Discounting hypotheses is what science does.  You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.)  In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.

Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.

ETA: I'm more of a mathematician / computer science guy than a science major, in case that matters to any bandwagon-forming.

[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!

I am a risk taker. I don't fear death. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm much more scared of a slow painful build up. I like the feeling of the adrenaline rush that comes when you are in mortal danger so I pursue things that make me feel that way. Otherwise life is boring and I can't really be fucked with it. With regards afterlife or whatever, my reasoning is thus - if there is something after I die then I'll find out whenever it happens. If there isn't then there wont be a me to be pissed off about this. If there is and it turns out to be one of those elaborate - it was all a test- scenarios then I'll be pissed off. The rules were never made clear to me, the odds were stacked against me, I'll have a hard time finding a way to respect a divine adjudicator like that so I'm hoping that's not the case.

Fair enough.

[Adios]

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 

Discounting hypotheses is what science does.  You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.)  In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.

Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.

Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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  

Discounting hypotheses is what science does.  You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.)  In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.

Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.

ETA: I'm more of a mathematician / computer science guy than a science major, in case that matters to any bandwagon-forming.

The problem that Hawk and Pent seem to have is the same as my own.

What happens after death is not falsifiable or remotely testable.

By claiming certainty about it, you're going beyond science and entering the land of religious atheism.

And by cloaking your argument in scientific evidence you're trying to use scientific authority to support an unscientific statement.

That's where honest scientists are content to admit that for now, it's unknowable.

[Vene]

Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.

[Golden Applesauce]

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 

Discounting hypotheses is what science does.  You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.)  In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.

Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.

Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'

It isn't that science is "in a hurry" to find answers that they take shortcuts, as much as we need working solutions now.  Scientists understand that theories are subject to revision - it's not "we'll believe this theory because nobody has a better one yet, case closed" but rather "we'll believe this theory because as of right now there isn't a better one, but if a better one comes along we'll look into that."

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."

Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know.  There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet.  Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations.  And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.

Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.

Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.

You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.

Do try again.

[Vene]

Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.

Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.

Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.

You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.

Do try again.

The left and right hemispheres are, more or less, copies of each other, that's not really a good comparison. You can remove half because there are structures in the other half that do the same job. And if this was an absolute, then why do we see differences in people before and after they are lobotomized?

[Golden Applesauce]

Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.

Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.

Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.

You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.

Do try again.

True, but during the period of time after the relevant tissue is damaged but before the adjacent brain tissue begins to cover for the damaged tissue, you do have a loss of functionality.  (and the brain doesn't always repair itself, especially not fully.)