Comments by Brian English

1301. The God Delusion

Comment #229630 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 9:24 pm

See ya TWP.

Goldy, do the Kiwis go silly over the Olympics? It's fucking insane over here.

1302. The God Delusion

Comment #229607 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

There you go TWP, you've got what you asked for. :)

1303. The God Delusion

Comment #229604 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Yes, we know Brian

Pouts

Goldy is probably earning his wage.

Di's reply is moronic.

1304. The God Delusion

Comment #229602 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I think it's the undeserved deference that is given to religion. Religion claims to contain knowledge and people uncritically accept this and put it in the same league as science. This is why the God delusion is so important.

1305. The God Delusion

Comment #229600 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Is the it that we're giving attention to me by any chance? I like attention.

1306. The God Delusion

Comment #229598 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 8:40 pm

All the smallish chain bookstores in my area have a section called 'Science/Religion' and they may have 1 book on philosophy jammed in there. It's insane that Darwin's Origin of Species, a seminal work sits side by side with Ratzinger's theology book....

Mike, how goes it?

1307. The God Delusion

Comment #229584 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Good to see that others are prepared to push the line. :)

1308. The God Delusion

Comment #229576 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Suddenly quiet around here. Did I say something?

1309. The God Delusion

Comment #229574 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Sexual frustration will make any man behave weirdly. Look at Ratzinger for example! All that weird clothing and pointy hats. Carrying a crook around to make sure the Altar boys don't escape his reach...

1310. The God Delusion

Comment #229570 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Shame on me? Bloody hell, I'm shamed due to my flatus. I'm shamed due to my efficient method of leaving stuff where I can find it. Such shame.

1311. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229566 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Just checking. I love the way slang evolves and moves from place to place. Anyway, no more Spanish.

1312. The God Delusion

Comment #229564 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:27 pm

That is weird Carto. I arrange everything by leaving it where I last used it. This pisses my wife off a lot, and she keeps moving things and arranging them. I have no idea where most of my stuff is these days. It's so inefficient to have to go the bookshelf to get a book that you left beside the couch a week ago ....

1313. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229559 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:20 pm

In Spain, Echar un polvo (toss dust) means to have a shag or to bonk.

1314. The God Delusion

Comment #229556 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:20 pm

I was just shit-stirring TWP. Goldy is the dangerous one. I think he's a fiend of some sort.

1315. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229551 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:13 pm

yeah, so chaca chaca suggests bonking.
Chaca is apparently catfish, at least google thinks so.

Se dice 'echar un polvo' alli?

1316. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229548 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:09 pm

does it? I see. I guess when the rooms a rocking, don't come knocking.

1317. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229545 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:08 pm

catfish?

1318. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229538 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm

chaca chaca?

1319. The God Delusion

Comment #229535 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm

[exits the room]

What? What did I say? We can have goatse conversations but the moment a fart joke comes along we get all prim and proper eh? ;)

1320. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229533 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Su dice 'joder' en tu parte del mundo?

1321. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229532 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Gracias. No lo sabia. :)

1322. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229527 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:50 pm

boricua, que significa?

1323. The God Delusion

Comment #229525 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Well, drinking beer from a stubby is unnatural. I practice unnatural behaviours.

Farting is unnatural? Are you trying to shame me because of one of my favourite pasttimes?

1324. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229522 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Cojer in Spain means to catch a bus or grab something. I think many a Spaniard has fallen into trouble when he's been in parts of Latin America and said 'Tengo que cojer el bus!' (I have to fuck the bus!)

1325. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229517 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Goldy, TWP needs a few beers, can you help out?

1326. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229516 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Entiendo, pues vete a un bar llevando ropa muy sexy y los chicos te las compraran. ;)

1327. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229513 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Otra sugerencia: Pide al Goldy una cerveza o dos, o tres. ;)

My Spanish is getting poor. I wrote un beer instead of una cerveza. Poor, very poor.

1328. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229512 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Quieras emborracharte? Pues vete a un bar con lo suficiente dinero y bebe. Ya esta!

1329. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229507 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Anoche? No estaba borracho, solo feliz como decimos por aqui.

El dios llamado Quetz estara escribiendo una respuesta a la tonta Di supongo.

No more Usted, ok? I don't like being formal it's unaustralian. ;)

1330. The God Delusion

Comment #229505 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Natural has many meanings. It's a context thing. It can mean pristine, untouched. It can mean following standard function of something. So, unless you define what you mean by natural, unnatural is pretty useless as a term....

1331. The God Delusion

Comment #229491 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Goldy, while that is a possibility, it seems the picture isn't being used to warn about the dangers of enlarged prostates. :)

1332. The God Delusion

Comment #229481 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm

From Wiki:

showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large and disproportionate size, with the inside of his rectum clearly visible. Below his gaping anus, his dangling, semi-flaccid penis and scrotum were visible, as well as a ring on the ring finger of his left hand

Lovely. Well, I guess I'm not having tripe for dinner tonight. Not that I was planning to anyway.

1333. The God Delusion

Comment #229479 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Goatse is some gay fetishist thing I believe. I haven't seen of it, but have heard of it from my days of lurking on slashdot....

1334. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229477 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Did he pop a testicle?

1335. The God Delusion

Comment #229475 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Guys, can't we put our differences to the side and get along in a Christian manner?

/runs away.....

1336. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229473 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Goldy, that was sort of my point. Experience with China is available to you to use as a starting point. It would be unnatural for you not to use it.

1337. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229469 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Why China again?? What you describe is standard fare in Japan for the last 30 years at least.

Goldy's experience of East Asia is through his Chinese wife and family. I think Perhaps Goldy's views on Asia may be an example of the availability bias*. Not that there's anything wrong with that. /takes of psychologists hat.

*I think that's the name of the bias anyway.

1338. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229462 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Yo no estaba dirigiendo ese comentario hacia usted. Es para todo el mundo!!!!

Otra vez! Por que me tratas con el usted y no con el tu? No soy mejor que nadie.

1339. The God Delusion

Comment #229422 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Dude...I called DR's wife a cum-catcher.
How am I not perverse??

That's demeaning to DR's missus. Not as demeaning as being married to DR I'm sure, but still, unnecessary. /bad humour

1340. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229419 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Argentinosaurus

Does this mean Argentine lizard? Or Silver lizard? (Argentina being related to the latin for Silver Argentium due to the río del la plata (River plait) which translates as the river of silver. Named thusly due to it's color)

1341. The God Delusion

Comment #229416 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm

I'm guessing Steve had a bad goatse experience himself.

OK kkelly, there's only room for one poster who crosses the line on this site! I'll leave. :)

1342. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229414 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm

yo entiendo su espanol.

Su? Crees que soy un Conde, o un VIP? Túteame por fa. :)

1343. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229129 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

If you argue like that what is not determined except (perhaps) for wave function collapse? I think the chain of causality becomes not deterministic in a practical sense if at some point you lose track of it and the event outcomes depend on too many interacting factors in a convoluted and sensitive way,--so that a small change anywhere in the chain will lead to drastically different outcome.

Well, isn't that what science is predicated upon? That if we could know the state of all things at a given time, we'd determine the state of all things at a later time given certain laws?

I also am not convinced that everything that we do can "ultimately" traced back to "selection" and "selfish genes", as I said, I think a lot of what we do may be selection neutral, In other words, I don't think there is any evidence that selection alone is sufficient to constraint development to such an extent that it will lead to a unique outcome. I think there may be many possibilities compatible with selection, there may not be unique solutions.

Nor I. My last comment elided natural selection with any form of evolution. We're a social animal, so social forces exert at least as much pressure on our behavior as evolved brain states.

1344. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229126 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:50 am

Bloody stupid site. It didn't post my last comment!

Ahh who cares? I'm just waffling. My above comment didn't exclude social influence, choice or determinism. But, I can't explain it well enough. Probably someone like MPhil is required or the legendary Steve.

Bed time here. Night all. :)

1345. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229124 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:45 am

Anyway, simple idea: We are evolved animals.
If this is true, our brain has evolved.
If this is true, our brain has features, or structures or schemas of behaviour that evolved.
If this is true, then our reactions, behaviors or similars are evolved.

Thus, natural selection is responsible for our behaviour.

1346. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229123 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:43 am

Bonzai, you're right. But most of us don't have the knowledge to specify what we mean when we say 'evolution did it' anyway. We have faith in scientists and science, but I believe it's justified because science produces results and if we don't have a life, we can study hard, gain a degree in the appropriate field and evaluate the evidence if we lack the requisite faith. ;)

1347. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229119 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:39 am

Trivial example: natural selection and the evironment lead to our progenitors developing an enlarged pre-frontal cortex which lead to us developing the ability to do symbolic thinking. With this thinking we developed the ability to make tools which allowed us to develop the ability to reach the moon. Thus natural selection is part of the causal chain (responsible) of man walking on the moon. That's simplistic, but trivial I think.

1348. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229116 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:36 am

Yes he did. Steve is saying that if all our behaviour and knowledge traces back, however indirectly to the selection, then it's been determined. Therefore, when we rail against injustice we are not choosing to do so anymore than we choose to breath to live. Thus determinism reigns....

1349. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229113 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:33 am

Bonzai, I think Steve isn't talking about selection, but determinism.

1350. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229111 by Brian English on August 13, 2008 at 5:29 am

Of course, one could convincingly argue that in the absence of the imaginary 'soul', there is no I.

Enter Hume:

There are at least two broadly different ways of interpreting Hume's views on personal identity. According to the first view, Hume was a bundle theorist, who held that the self is nothing but a bundle of interconnected perceptions. This view is forwarded by, for example, Positivist interpreters, who saw Hume as attempting to specify the "sense-contents" (roughly, bits of sensory-experience) that we refer to when we talk about the self.[51] This account draws on Hume's remarks that a person is "a bundle or collection of different perceptions".[52] A modern day version of the bundle theory of the mind has been advanced by Derek Parfit.[53]

However, some have criticised the bundle theory interpretation of Hume on personal identity. Some account for Hume's talk of people being bundles of perceptions as figurative, and raise the problem for such a view (at least in its basic form) that it is difficult to specify what it is that makes a bundle of perceptions the perceptions of a distinct person; for it seems that we can have similar perceptions to one another, and that the interconnections between our own perceptions (such as causal connections) can be shared with others' perceptual states too.[54]

From Wiki.

I guess I don't know what "fight against our selfish genes" actually means, other than "let's not be social Darwinists". This is a conceptual issue, just because you can't choose your ball, doesn't mean you have to kick it. :P