The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

kiffer · 21-08-2013 7:06pm

nagirrac wrote: »

How can the matter and energy of the brain be "mindless" if it gives rise to mind?

Exactly, it gives rise to mind, not the other way round.
Clocks are made of cogs, but cogs don't know what time is.

doctoremma · 21-08-2013 7:11pm

nagirrac wrote: »

How can the matter and energy of the brain be "mindless" if it gives rise to mind?

I was quoting someone else's inanity.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2013 7:16pm

nagirrac wrote: »

That's sounds a bit wooish:P

What form of energy do you think a thought consists of?

That which is recorded by electroencephalography.

nagirrac · 21-08-2013 7:19pm

kiffer wrote: »

Some scientists...? who?

Susan Pockett.
She is not the only one proposing an EM field theory of consciousness, our very own John Joe McFadden also has a competing theory (the CEMI theory).

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/psych/shared/about/our-people/documents/sue-pockett/TheNatureofConsciousnessAHypothesis.pdf

It is much too simplistic to state that mind emerges from brain. There are no known mechanisms at this point to explain how a single thought is generated by the brain, let alone explain the complexities of the binding problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

nagirrac · 21-08-2013 7:28pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That which is recorded by electroencephalography.

EEG measures electrical activity in the brain, actually on the surface of the scalp. We know virtually nothing about how electrical activity translates to mind, there are countless theories on consciousness, most of them highly speculative. What is interesting about McFadden's and Pockett's theories is that they actually have quite a bit of supporting experimental evidence.

kiffer · 21-08-2013 7:44pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Susan Pockett.
She is not the only one proposing an EM field theory of consciousness, our very own John Joe McFadden also has a competing theory (the CEMI theory).

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/psych/shared/about/our-people/documents/sue-pockett/TheNatureofConsciousnessAHypothesis.pdf

It is much too simplistic to state that mind emerges from brain. There are no known mechanisms at this point to explain how a single thought is generated by the brain, let alone explain the complexities of the binding problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

It might take a while to work my way through that 120 page document... care to enlightened us as to what her main points are?

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2013 7:45pm

nagirrac wrote: »

EEG measures electrical activity in the brain, actually on the surface of the scalp. We know virtually nothing about how electrical activity translates to mind, there are countless theories on consciousness, most of them highly speculative. What is interesting about McFadden's and Pockett's theories is that they actually have quite a bit of supporting experimental evidence.

It's all Greek to me.

kiffer · 21-08-2013 8:05pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's all Greek to me.

That's probably the point...

nagirrac · 21-08-2013 8:14pm

kiffer wrote: »

It might take a while to work my way through that 120 page document... care to enlightened us as to what her main points are?

I never claimed to understand it:), I just posted it as a response to the question on scientists who have proposed theories of consciousness that provide a contrast to Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" that billions of firing neurons somehow generate conscious awareness.

Have to run but I will provide my best shot at summarizing her work later. Her basic hypothesis is that consciousness consists of spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field, and that the brain generates these patterns and also responds to patterns i.e. firing neurons generate certain EM 3D patterns and 3D EM patterns cause neurons to fire.

swampgas · 22-08-2013 11:56am

nagirrac wrote: »

I never claimed to understand it:), I just posted it as a response to the question on scientists who have proposed theories of consciousness that provide a contrast to Crick's "astonishing hypothesis" that billions of firing neurons somehow generate conscious awareness.

Have to run but I will provide my best shot at summarizing her work later. Her basic hypothesis is that consciousness consists of spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field, and that the brain generates these patterns and also responds to patterns i.e. firing neurons generate certain EM 3D patterns and 3D EM patterns cause neurons to fire.

Isn't every EM field "spatiotemporal" (i.e. has time and spatial dimensions) ?

What does the word "spatiotemporal" actually add to the description?

I have always assumed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, based on how neurons interact. That interaction may be a combination of chemical and electromagnetic (EM) processes. Are you suggesting that EM fields being involved somehow ups the "woo" level?

Sarky · 22-08-2013 12:04pm

In before 'quantum'.

Again.

robindch · 22-08-2013 12:09pm

swampgas wrote: »

What does the word "spatiotemporal" actually add to the description?

The air of ineffable.

darjeeling · 22-08-2013 12:49pm

Sarky wrote: »

In before 'quantum'.

Again.

Never underestimate the solace of quantum.

nagirrac · 22-08-2013 3:09pm

Considerable levels of argument from ignorance in the prior 4 posts, a bit surprising from some who generally favor science over ignorance:rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with quantum, although there are quantum theories of consciousness (Penrose, Hameroff, Stapp). There are broadly speaking four categories of consciousness theories, the EM field theory is one of them.

Yes, all EM fields are spatiotemporal in that they are fields in space time. However, EM fields take on different spatial shapes depending on their source, this has been known since the time of Faraday and Maxwell. These shapes or patterns can be in 1D, 2D or 3D. Think about a magnet and iron filings around a magnet, that's a simple example.

What Pocket is proposing (and her use of the term spatiotemporal is hers not mine) is there are specific 3D patterns that are created by certain sequences of neuron activity (and not by others) that are the source of consciousness. This suggests consciousness is digital information stored in EM fields and could explain how information flow gets around the brain, explaining the binding problem for example which at this point we have no other known mechanism for. It also suggests that consciousness does not require a brain as the same fields could be generated by hardware other than a brain.

The attached paper explains EM fields and digital information. Interestingly the author in this case is specifically referring to the use of specific spatiotemporal EM fields carrying digital information in AI. A future with conscious robots would be interesting, might improve the level of discourse on this thread:P

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701081.pdf

nagirrac · 22-08-2013 3:16pm

swampgas wrote: »

Isn't every EM field "spatiotemporal" (i.e. has time and spatial dimensions) ?

What does the word "spatiotemporal" actually add to the description?

I have always assumed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, based on how neurons interact. That interaction may be a combination of chemical and electromagnetic (EM) processes. Are you suggesting that EM fields being involved somehow ups the "woo" level?

Yes, all EM fields are in space time, like everything we know about in the universe. Pockett is referring to specific 3D EM field patterns, should maybe have made that more clear. This theory fits within your broad description, as consciousness arises from specific sequences of neuron firings.

robindch · 26-11-2013 5:14pm

Anybody in Athlone Institute of Technology who might know why this piece of stinky poo might have been given airtime there today?

Sarky · 26-11-2013 5:18pm

Argh! One J C thread is more than enough! Close it! Close it with fire!

I've forwarded the pic to Athlone IT's Twitter, anyway, maybe they'll find an answer.

PopePalpatine · 26-11-2013 5:30pm

FSMdammit, that poster is so misleading.

Turtwig · 26-11-2013 5:31pm

I tried to ban Rob but my computer exploded.

Sarky · 26-11-2013 5:33pm

Their rather disappointing response:

"Third level is also about hearing & respecting opinions different from our own."

robindch · 26-11-2013 5:34pm

Sarky wrote: »

Argh! One J C thread is more than enough! Close it! Close it with fire!

One thread for good stuff, one thread for idiocy and, uh, that should be enough!

The FB page on Comfort's page is here for anybody who'd like to comment:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=683678811652595&set=a.122900324397116.15609.110962898924192&type=1&theater

robindch · 26-11-2013 5:35pm

Sarky wrote: »

"Third level is also about hearing & respecting opinions different from our own."

Does this fine third-level institution give airtime to flat-earthers too?

Turtwig · 26-11-2013 5:45pm

I'm going to try ban myself now for resurrecting this thread.

robindch · 26-11-2013 5:51pm

Thread renamed for lame reasons. Take it away folks!

[-0-] · 26-11-2013 5:57pm

Can we merge the threads?

robindch · 26-11-2013 6:04pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Can we merge the threads?

From an organizational point of view, I think it's neater to keep this thread for creationism and the other thread for more serious discussion of evolution, biology etc. We can see how it pans out anyhow.

Turtwig · 26-11-2013 6:05pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Can we merge the threads?

We can and we could but we're not going to because YOU suggested it.
Edit : Rob is way better at this PR thing than I am.

Sarky · 26-11-2013 6:28pm

Ray Comfort is on Twitter saying he got a prayer request for the screening of that 'film. 5,000 students attending, apparently. Athlone IT has a little over 6,000 students according to its website. I think someone's telling porkies.

gaynorvader · 26-11-2013 6:42pm

Sarky wrote: »

Their rather disappointing response:

"Third level is also about hearing & respecting opinions different from our own."

If only those opinions weren't been presented as facts. If you were to make a video about the deep-seated corruption that exists in Athlone IT, in your opinion, but presented it as fact, I wonder if they'd allow that?

[-0-] · 26-11-2013 7:03pm

Jernal wrote: »

We can and we could but we're not going to because YOU suggested it.
Edit : Rob is way better at this PR thing than I am.

Yeah, Rob is not a dick. Good to know, you stay classy Jernal.

robindch · 26-11-2013 7:06pm

Jernal wrote: »

Rob is way better at this PR thing than I am.

Learnt all I know off Dades + Asiaprod - they're pro's at that

gaynorvader · 26-11-2013 7:28pm

Jernal wrote: »

We can and we could but we're not going to because YOU suggested it.
Edit : Rob is way better at this PR thing than I am.

....Prime Ribs?

J C · 26-11-2013 9:15pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Boy JC you sure do know how to tell a joke.

By the way did you know the single most important article in the US constitution establishes both freedom of speech and the wall of separation between church and state.

The first bit doesn't affect what I highlighted, but the second shows that you don't know **** about the situation in America. The wall of separation clause means that no state institution (including the Dover Area School District) can support the process of religious indoctrination out of state funds (if a pastor wants to rent out school rooms after school-hours to brainwash the children of his flock is a slightly different matter, settled on a state by state basis), and teaching creationism is religious indoctrination. Therefore the religiously partisan, and incidentally unconstitutional, ruling would have been to allow the teaching of creationism, because it would privilege several religions over all the others.

You see JC the founding fathers of the US took the eminently sensible chain of decisions that a) nobody should be persecuted for their religious beliefs (if those beliefs were the cause of unlawfullnes, e.g. a religion proscribing the monthly murder of multiple maidens, then they could be prosecuted), b) the state had no business interfering in private affairs (as long as they didn't affect others), and c) the best way to do this was for the state to stay out of religion and religion to stay away from the state. Therefore in the US if you want your child brought up religious, you either have to do it yourself or take them to Sunday school, a private, religiously run system with no state funding or interference.

A classical example of 'fighting the last war' ... the founding fathers of America were trying to protect people's freedom of religion (following on from the religious oppression suffered by themselves as immigrants into the USA, in their home countries) ... but they never took account of the fact that irreligion could be just as pernicious in both the proselytisation of its own ideas ... and its suppression and intolerance of alternative opinion.
... and now we have the weird situation that the American 'state-protected religion' is irreligion ... with all of its basic principles and dogmas protected by law and taught in public schools ... and all opposing principles and ideas banned by law ... in the name of religious freedom, no less!!!
You just couldn't make it up!!!

gaynorvader · 26-11-2013 9:17pm

J C wrote: »

A classical example of 'fighting the last war' ... the founding fathers of America were trying to protect people's freedom of religion (following on from the religious oppression suffered by themselves as immigrants into the USA, in their home countries) ... but they never took account of the fact that irreligion could be just as pernicious in both the proselytisation of its own ideas ... and its suppression and intolerance of alternative opinion.
... and now we have the weird situation that the American 'state-protected religion' is irreligion ... with all of its basic principles and dogmas protected by law and taught in public schools ... and all opposing principles and ideas banned by law ... in the name of religious freedom, no less!!!
You just couldn't make it up!!!

And yet you did.

Delirium · 26-11-2013 9:17pm

J C wrote: »

A classical example of 'fighting the last war' ... the founding fathers of America were trying to protect people's freedom of religion (following on from the religious oppression suffered by themselves as immigrants into the USA, in their home countries) ... but they never took account of the fact that irreligion could be just as pernicious in both the proselytisation of its own ideas ... and its suppression and intolerance of alternative opinion.
... and now we have the weird situation that the American 'state-protected religion' is irreligion ... with all of its basic principles and dogmas protected by law and taught in public schools ... and all opposing principles and ideas banned by law ... in the name of religious freedom, no less!!!
You just couldn't make it up!!!

Ironically, you just did.

nagirrac · 26-11-2013 9:24pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

If only those opinions weren't been presented as facts.

Have people actually watched the movie? It consists of a creationist interviewing college professors and 3rd level students, all of whom identified as atheists. It is actually quite entertaining, the funniest moment for me was when a UCLA professor was asked to name a famous atheist and after careful consideration she said Newton. Newton! Better than the students interviewed though who were stumped. The most disturbing thing about the movie was the appalling inability of the 3rd level students interviewed, some of whom were biology majors, and all of whom were science majors, to answer a few basic questions about evolution.

It is quite disturbing that some atheists are asking, even demanding censorship, an indication that they want one form of intolerance replaced by another. The same atheists who would be screaming blue murder if the government, churches, or whoever were advocating censorship. A free society is one that allows dissent, regardless of how strongly individuals feel about the subject. Its a movie ffs, should the poor impressionably students in Athlone be protected from it? How arrogant.

If one student walked out of the movie convinced against the fact of evolution because of that movie, they are in the wrong place and should do something else with their time.

J C · 26-11-2013 9:30pm

robindch wrote: »

That paper doesn't seem to control for age of the father, so is is right to assume that the 128 mutations figure is the average for all males?

I'm asking since women produce their eggs at birth (so replication errors will be low) while male's sperm-producing cells reproduce constantly, so they'll carry a greater and greater number of reproduction errors as the male ages.

Its the opposite actually ... background mutagenesis affects the egg cells as they age ... leading to greater genetic issues with children of older mothers ... while the genetic correction mechanisms present in all reproducing cells ensure that newly produced sperm are genetically almost as good in a 60 year old man as in a 20 year old ... and that is why the age of the father isn't linked to genetic issues in children!!!

A forty five year old egg cell has much greater potential to be mutated than a 60 day old sperm cell.

[-0-] · 26-11-2013 9:32pm

JC wrote:

the founding fathers of America were trying to protect people's freedom of religion (following on from the religious oppression suffered by themselves as immigrants into the USA, in their home countries)

Looks like you don't know your history either JC.

There is quite a large list of founding fathers, but the key ones are known as the following: John Adams(born in Braintree, MA), Benjamin Franklin(born in Boston, MA) , Alexander Hamilton(born in Charlestown, Nevis, British West Indies), John Jay(born in NYC, New York), Thomas Jefferson(born in Shadwell, Virginia), James Madison(born in Fort Conway, Virginia), and George Washington(Westmoreland, Virginia, British America).

Also, they're not the founding fathers of America. They are the founding fathers of the United States of America. There's lots of Ameircas: North, South, Central.

Brian Shanahan · 26-11-2013 9:40pm

J C wrote: »

A classical example of 'fighting the last war' ... the founding fathers of America were trying to protect people's freedom of religion (following on from the religious oppression suffered by themselves as immigrants into the USA, in their home countries) ... but they never took account of the fact that irreligion could be just as pernicious in both the proselytisation of its own ideas ... and its suppression and intolerance of alternative opinion.
... and now we have the weird situation that the American 'state-protected religion' is irreligion ... with all of its basic principles and dogmas protected by law and taught in public schools ... and all opposing principles and ideas banned by law ... in the name of religious freedom, no less!!!
You just couldn't make it up!!!

JC not only are you **** at science, you're **** at both legal studies and basic english too. I'm getting mightily sick of listening to you peddle the same lies over and over again, so for this reason you're going on my ignore list. I'll still get enough of your idiocy, but it will be only when someone with intelligence responds and destroys whatever utter ****e you've just posted.

nagirrac · 26-11-2013 9:44pm

The founding fathers of the USA were mainly deists and were driven by the desire to keep religious intolerance out of state affairs.

gaynorvader · 26-11-2013 9:46pm

J C wrote: »

Its the opposite actually ... background mutagenesis affects the egg cells as they age ... leading to greater genetic issues with children of older mothers ... while the genetic correction mechanisms present in all reproducing cells ensure that newly produced sperm are genetically almost as good in a 60 year old man as in a 20 year old ... and that is why the age of the father isn't linked to genetic issues in children!!!

A forty five year old egg cell has much greater potential to be mutated than a 60 day old sperm cell.

Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

And I have as much evidence as you gave!

J C · 26-11-2013 9:49pm

Sarky wrote: »

J C completely misses the point of evolution by saying "millions of years later they're still bacteria". You're damn right they're still bacteria, they've evolved to become really good at being bacteria. And millions of years after the last human dies off and the planet becomes a radioactive wasteland, they'll still be there, winning at evolution.

... its a big problem for the theory of Evolution, which claims that in the 26 million or so supposed generations of mammalian evolution that a rat-like creature evolved into a Human ... yet over the same number of generations, in a thousand years ... bacteria are still 'muching about' in the dirt ... as bacteria.
... thereby providing evidence of stasis/oscillation within Kinds rather than evolution out of them.

J C · 26-11-2013 9:59pm

nagirrac wrote: »

The founding fathers of the USA were mainly deists and were driven by the desire to keep religious intolerance out of state affairs.

What you say is quite true and keping religious intolerance out of state affairs is indeed a laudible objective IMO ... but the founding fathers, by accident or design, left the door open to irreligious intolerance raising its head in state affairs ... and that's what has now happened.

... and anybody who says that irreligion cannot be intolerant of religion or dedicated to proselytising its own beliefs, need only visit this thread ... to be rapidly disabused of this notion.

Pherekydes · 26-11-2013 10:04pm

J C wrote: »

... and anybody who says that irreligion cannot be intolerant of religion or dedicated to proselytising its own beliefs, need only visit this thread ... to be rapidly disabused of this notion.

You seem to be arguing for compulsory religion. But which religion do you want to force on everybody?

J C · 26-11-2013 10:05pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

And I have as much evidence as you gave!

It's an accepted biological fact that late motherhood is higher risk for both the mother and the child ... while late fatherhood carries none of these risks.
... although, speaking personally, I'd have no great desire to be still changing dirty nappies at 50 TBH!!!:)

J C · 26-11-2013 10:08pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

You seem to be arguing for compulsory religion. But which religion do you want to force on everybody?

I'm arguing for the state to not favour either religion or irreligion.
... but if the ideas and dogmas of irreligion (like materialistic Evolution) are to be favoured to the point of being mandated by law ... then the ideas and dogmas of religion should be equally favoured.

[-0-] · 26-11-2013 10:13pm

J C wrote: »

I'm arguing for the state to not favour either religion or irreligion.
... but if the ideas and dogmas of irreligion (like materialistic Evolution) are to be favoured to the point of being mandated by law ... then the ideas and dogmas of religion should be equally favoured.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

Quacked, JC.

J C · 26-11-2013 10:17pm

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Its the opposite actually ... background mutagenesis affects the egg cells as they age ... leading to greater genetic issues with children of older mothers ... while the genetic correction mechanisms present in all reproducing cells ensure that newly produced sperm are genetically almost as good in a 60 year old man as in a 20 year old ... and that is why the age of the father isn't linked to genetic issues in children!!!

A forty five year old egg cell has much greater potential to be mutated than a 60 day old sperm cell.

gaynorvader
Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

... do all Evolutionists believe this stuff ... or is it just you?:)

Pherekydes · 26-11-2013 10:20pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

J C wrote: »

... do all Evolutionists believe this stuff ... or is it just you?:)

There ya go, JC.

[-0-] · 26-11-2013 10:22pm

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

Quacked, JC.

Similarly, the US Government regulates the meat industry. Should the Jainists, Hindus and Buddhists be up in arms over this?

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments