351. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181133 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Diacanu-

I managed to miss most of the sock-puppetry, so I can only go by what others have written. But I certainly don't think it was a smart thing to do.

Speaking of the cult- did you hear that the remaining cult members have come out of the caves? Apparently one of the other "leaders" has said that their actions have now postponed the Apocalypse by thirty years. How very convenient.

352. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181126 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Caudimordax-

I've flagged him as a troll a few times, I just ignore his posts now. Whether I flag people as trolls depends on the circumstances.

353. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181122 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

You sure about that? Personally, I think he would tell us.

354. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181109 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm

From his martyred tone when discussing his departure from RD.net, I suspect that he does genuinely think that we drove him away from the site.

Anna, don't forget: it's not just scripture, but his new personal feelings as well. Entirely subjective, and not something that anyone else can use to determine whether it's true or not. But feelings change.

355. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181057 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 11:14 am

MaxD-

We do. That's why I'm saying thanks!

356. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181048 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 11:01 am

MaxD-

thanks for putting my name in the same line as Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Saddam!

HungarianElephant-

PM for you.

357. Malaysia woman scores rare legal win to quit Islam

Comment #180943 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

AshtonBlack-

it's new to this site, I think.

358. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180896 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 am

Black Wolf-

Take a Dharma wheel, attach scythes to the hubs, roll at your enemies. Job done.

359. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180890 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 3:08 am

rotaTOR-

what about the Star of David? That could do some damage if it got lobbed at you.

360. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180857 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:19 am

Goldy, Diacanu, Righton, 10-

PM for you.

361. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180657 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

MaxD-

Did you know I've also agreed with Anna in the past? Clearly I'm after her as well.

362. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180595 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 am

Peacebeuponme-

I did consider that, but I'm not sure how he'd feel about it. Plus, there are probably plenty of people who aren't particularly interested, so might not want it on the thread.

363. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180586 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

Keith, MaxD-

PMs awaiting your attention.

Peacebeuponme-

the latest, real one of course.

364. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180573 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 8:21 am

MaxD-

who said they were slaves? My mutant creatures are well-paid for their loyalty! Don't jump to conclusions.

PM on the way.

365. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180565 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 8:09 am

If anyone is interested, Richard Morgan e-mailed me a copy of his conversion story last month. In the e-mail he said that I was free to reproduce it if I wanted, without asking his permission.

If anyone would like a copy, let me know and I will PM one to you.

366. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180560 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 am

Artful_Dodger-

On the contrary. My point (which you now seem to accept) is that universal physical laws WERE in place before anyone was around to observe them, and would therefore exist even if they could not be perceived by anyone. The law of gravity (to name but one) certainly existed before any human being was around to record it or even feel it. There are many laws which are in force as we speak but which have not been identified, and maybe never will.

We agree on that. I was just trying to establish your position on the matter.

Naturally a "sentence" being formulated by a conscious agent will register its presence somehow or other on the brain. But the sentence does not reside in the brain. No amount of neurosurgery could extract sentences or memories or thoughts from the subject. We may be able to detect the signals, but not find the thoughts themselves.

The thoughts ARE the signals, don't you get it? Our thoughts are created and intrinsically a part of the neurons, synapses and synaptic pathways within our brain.

There is no evidence for thought or mind existing independent of the brain. If you have some, please provide it. Currently you are simply making assertions that mind and thought have a separate existence. But where is the evidence?

367. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180556 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 7:46 am

MaxD-

I'm a fan of causing a person's heart to rip itself straight out of their chest.

But when I'm busy, I delegate to my army of mutant hybrid creatures.

368. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180547 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 7:28 am

Artful_Dodger-

So you agree that universal physical laws exist BEFORE they are apparent to anyone's senses. That is a very non-empirical claim, is it not?

So is it your assertion that universal physical laws would not exist if there was no-one around to perceive them?

Have you abandoned your "sphere above nature" contention? What about my point re your claim about the existence of sentences?

369. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180533 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 7:07 am

Artful_Dodger-

Every sentence a writer pens exists in his or her mind before they pen it. Every thought, every word, every number exists quite apart from its physical materialisation.

The existence of a sentence within the mind of a writer IS a physical manifestation, merely within the brain of that writer as opposed to being on paper.

Every thought, every word, every number exists quite apart from its physical materialisation.

Actually, numbers don't exist. They are a concept, they have no abstract existence. It's not like you look out of the window and see a load of "two" passing by.

But prime numbers are actually among the clearest proofs of the pre-empirical non-material reality of certain truths

Wrong. The concept of prime numbers are human expressions of the results of universal physical laws. They don't exist independently of material reality. You're floundering. Have you abandoned the "sphere above nature" argument now?

370. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180527 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 6:58 am

Annabanana-

PM for you.

371. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180520 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 6:41 am

Incredulous-

I'm glad somebody gets what I'm trying to say!

372. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180518 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 6:37 am

Artful_Dodger-

Quetzalcoatl, you are missing the obvious. If nature is all there is how can we rise above it? What do we rise into? Can't you see that that is why I'm saying that Dawkins is dualistic? You and he are explicitly acknowledging the existence of a sphere which is "above" nature

That's not what I'm saying at all, although I acknowledge I could have been more precise. It would be better to say that humans, thanks to our evolution, have the potential to rise above the "short-term" advantage part of evolution. Obviously we are still part of nature and the universe. But we can rise above it in the sense that we don't necessarily have to be purely dictated to by our genes, but are instead able to plan for the future, and build society and culture.

It is not that there is a sphere above nature, that is just the way you seem to be used to thinking of it.

373. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180508 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 6:16 am

Incredulous-

I alter spelling and grammar mistakes without saying so. There's no problem with that as far as I'm concerned. The concern is more with removing or modifying entire sentences or paragraphs.

374. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180501 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 6:04 am

Artful_Dodger-

Rather like someone trying to pull themselves up by their own proverbial bootstraps

Firstly, thanks for ignoring the rest of my comment.

Secondly, you undoubtedly intended that to be disparaging, but I agree with it. Why should we not attempt to improve ourselves? Humans have intelligence, self-awareness, the ability to plan, and to create language and culture. Why should we not use the tools that evolution has handed down to us to rise above nature and improve ourselves?

375. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180497 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 5:45 am

Artful-

Quetzalcoatl, I'm sorry but you need to read Dawkins' words more carefully. He says on the one hand that "nature is pitifully indifferent".

It's you who needs to read more carefully. He said "pitilessly indifferent".

The full quote was:

I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems.

You said:

If his definition of "nature" does not encompass everything, then we are appealling to some quality or property that transcends nature, which is clearly dualistic and even mystical. It is mystical and mystifying because it appeals to an unexplained, unexamined "upper storey" which is exempted from the pitilessness and indifference that define nature.

There's nothing in the article to suggest that he is appealing to anything that "transcends nature".

When he says that human being are unique, in what sense does he mean this? Well he says so quite explicitly. We are unique in the sense of having more highly evolved brains. But on what grounds does this allow us to no longer be dictated to by our genes, which are our "natural" legacy. Are we thus moving into a territory where "nature red in tooth and claw" no longer prevails. What is that territory? Where is it, if it is not part of the natural realm, which is pitiless and indifferent?

I can't work out whether you're misinterpreting deliberately or not. Dawkins also said this:

One of them is language. Another is the ability to plan ahead using conscious, imagined foresight. Short-term benefit has always been the only thing that counts in evolution; long-term benefit has never counted. It has never been possible for something to evolve in spite of being bad for the immediate short-term good of the individual. For the first time ever, it's possible for at least some people to say, `Forget about the fact that you can make a short-term profit by chopping down this forest; what about the long-term benefit?' Now I think that's genuinely new and unique

Of course we are moving into territory where "nature red in tooth and claw" no longer prevails. But we do so not as a consequence of any mystical, transcendental properties, but thanks to our natural evolution.

Our brains have attained sufficient complexity to enable us to become self-aware. With that, we are able to plan on longer scales than evolution would allow for. We can take short-term disadvantage in favour of long-term benefit. But since evolution is a purely natural, unguided process, it selects for that which benefits the organism in the short term.

You said: "Where is it, if it is not part of the natural realm, which is pitiless and indifferent?"

Pitiless and indifferent TO HUMAN CONCERNS. But since we humans have the attributes I mentioned above, we are able to overrule nature and move forward through society, culture and so forth. But all this is a product of our evolved brains, and therefore a result of nature.

In any case, your assertion that Dawkins is in some sense a dualist is flawed. Quite aside from the fact that he does not mention the concept, there is nothing in the article to suggest that he has that opinion. You are simply cherry-picking parts of his statements in order to try and prop up your floundering dualism idea.

376. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180475 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 3:59 am

Didn't Hitler have brown hair anyway?

377. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180471 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

Jayalenik-

Quetzalcoatl

You are still a punctuation policing pedantic.

What wonderful webs of wordplay we willingly, wantonly, weave. Why? When we wish and are willing, we will.

When in rome.

When in Rome, you should probably use a capital "R".

378. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180463 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 2:48 am

Txpiper-

Once again, the odds are stacked enormously against evolutionary ideas about mutations changing fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles and reptiles to birds and mammals. To make that pitiful notion more so, only one out of millions of candidates are going to actually be involved in reproduction. To think that the mutants would consistently be the lucky ones often enough to define something like the ten layers in the retina of the human eye is again, beneath ridiculous.

You simply do not have a statistical case for believing this nonsense.

I wonder what the "statistical case" would be for an incredibly complex God having created everything a few thousand years ago, in direct contradiction to the mountain-ranges of evidence against such a notion. Oh, and let's not forget the turbo-charged Antichrist. What's the statistical likelihood for that?

TXpiper, your posts are descending into a long series of arguments from incredulity: "I don't see how it's possible", "it doesn't seem very likely to me". Maybe you genuinely can't see it, but evolution is overwhelmingly better than any of the other alternatives that have ever been presented.

379. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180443 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

Richard Morgan-

But are temporary brain infarctions and epileptic fits life-changing?

They can be: your's seems to have been.

You keep talking about April the 12th being a sudden, unexpected, decisive change. But from reading your posts on the FCOS forum in the days prior t the revelation, it was pretty obvious that you were gearing yourself up to make that jump, so it didn't exactly come as a tremendous surprise to me.

380. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180441 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 1:06 am

Artful-

That settles it. He's a dualist!

The statement you quote says nothing of the kind.

381. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180318 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Diacanu-

for the less selfish, the sappy comfort is balanced by the endless attempts to justify all the bad things that happen in a world overseen by an all-powerful, all-loving God. Still doesn't seem worth it.

382. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180317 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Colwyn-

excellent.

Logicel-

that's probably the worst joke I've ever read.

383. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180310 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

BNCbright-

stars are balanced between the expansive effect of the fusion and the contracting gravitational effect of its mass. With the outer burning layers blown off, the inner layers are cooler, and gravity wins the battle. It collapses inwards. The key thing is the star becomes very dense as the matter is compacted around the core. That's why neutron stars (for instance) have savage gravity when they are comparatively small.

384. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180308 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Diacanu-

you forgot "gets the credit when small children miraculously survive natural disasters, not blamed for the many other deaths".

385. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180295 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Very cool.

386. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180289 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Epeeist-

his book, "Black Man" is pretty good. He's got a fantasy book coming out in the summer, that ought to be an interesting take on the genre!

387. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180143 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 9:13 am

Tyler-

I think the Northwest passage has been navigable before now. And the Antarctic is actually getting colder overall.

388. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180131 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:54 am

al-rawandi-

you're not feeling too optimistic today, are you?

I'm not tremendously worried about global warming, since we should be able to adapt to it. Personally, I think it's quite likely there'll be big wars to come in the Middle East.

389. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180129 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:48 am

A railgun could work, but it would have to be pretty powerful to accelerate anything to escape velocity.

EDIT- magnetics would have to be used.

390. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180125 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

There's a lot of work going into suborbital craft at the moment, they could be an option. Scramjet research could also be promising.

The space elevator idea is a good one. It would be a monstrous initial cost, and we'd have to knock an asteroid into orbit to tether the other end to. But once the elevator was built, it would be a relatively cheap and safe way to transport things to and from orbit.

391. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180115 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:26 am

Anna-

It isn't enough that we've polluted the earth? Now we have to extend it to space?

It would hardly be "polluting" space. Besides, we have plenty of rubbish up there already, defunct satellites, discarded rocket boosters and the like.

392. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180112 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:23 am

Al-Rawandi-

Why don't we just load rockets up with the nuclear waste and shoot it at the sun, or random directions into space? That would get rid of it no?

Fat chance. People are too phobic about nuclear waste, and would go on about "what if the rocket exploded? Then the waste would be scattered everywhere" and blah blah blah. This is part of the reason the idea of using nuclear engines to power spacecraft never took off.

393. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180106 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 8:17 am

Caudimordax-

Pebble Reactor

I have the same problem with the Posting Guidelines. When you open it, if you highlight the text and drag down, it will scroll down further so you'll be able to see the URL information. Hope that helps.

394. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180066 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 6:53 am

Tyler-

careful, he has a problem with people who are picky about punctuation.

395. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180055 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 6:37 am

Well, I only said it because I watched Apocalypse Now yesterday.

396. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180049 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 6:26 am

Al-Rawandi-

Dodging IED's is a far better way to prove your dedication. IMHO.

Perhaps. But flying over the streets of down-town Basra in a helicopter firing on insurgents to the strains of "Ride Of The Valkyries" would probably be cooler.

397. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180039 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 6:15 am

Al-Rawandi-

purely out of curiosity; can you become a citizen after joining the navy, marines and air force as well, or is it just the army?

398. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179958 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 3:15 am

Epeeist-

as long as they're feathered snakes with wings, I'll be happy.

399. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179952 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

Corylus-

do you mean this one?

400. A natural selection

Comment #179903 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 1:23 am

Philip-

it's essentially the default statement on evolution, so he had to say it. But otherwise, this is very reasonable behaviour.