You know a film is probably a touch on the awful side when it makes the star destroy anything related to it, lash out at any mention of it and give up acting forever.

(January 5, 2016 at 4:47 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(January 4, 2016 at 9:39 pm)MJ the Skeptical Wrote: 1. "In nature the small merge into the big." and "A drop of water will sooner or later merge into the creek." and "The creek will merge into the river and the river will merge into the big ocean."

No to all 3 of these unscientific claims. Ironically, you're scientifically inept in your first sentence, bravo.

2. "A cell is composed of matter and consciousness."

Cells are not conscious nor do they have consciousness, gonna have to ask you for a citation for that testable scientific claim you just made.

3. This consciousness can be tiny as much as you want but nevertheless there is a minute tiny amount of consciousness."

No there isn't even a drop of consciousness in a cell, billions of neuron cells make up consciousness. You fail.

4. "When we eat we absorb these cells, The physical side of these cells build our body but what happen to the consciousness side of the cells?"

The physical side of the cell? as opposed to what? the spiritual side of a cell? or whatever new age woo you believe in...

5. "Will it die or will enter or better say merge into our bigger consciousness?"

Of course that cell dies, but yes, it does become part of that larger thing that ate it, whether it's small like a cell or large like us. What do you think happens to your food? the cells just think to themselves, gee I can't wait to get out of this guy's ass and into a stinky ass sewer and sewage treatment plant.

6. "According an Atheist point of view when the body die also the consciousness die so there is nothing left there other than the physical side that build up our body. Does this belief make any sense?"

There is no one atheist point of view, you get more wrong by the sentence, it's amazing. There are atheists who believe in afterlife stories, there are atheists who don't adhere to proper scientific standards, there are bat-shit crazy atheists who believe all sorts of things. Maybe you should qualify your statement with most atheists or the majority, or some other quantifiable term than a blanket statement of all atheists. And yes, it does make sense that the meat suit you're wearing will rot away and die, and nothing will happen to you as there is no empirical evidence of a spirit or soul.

7. "If it does make sense than why carnivorous people are more aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?"

Physiologically we are Omnivores, nobody is strictly a carnivore or they would die of malnutrition. Plus, you made yet another unfounded statement, this time about people who eat meat. Is what you're saying true? maybe, but bring some citations if you ever reply to this.

8. "It seems that what we eat determine the way we act and think and therefore make sense to say that the consciousness of the cells in the food that we are eating merge into our consciousness."

It seems that way? Either it is, or it isn't true. I'd love to see your evidence on this, I generally am curious.

9. "If we follow this line of thinking then we also have to consider what happen when our body die."

We already know what happens, you rot away, and there's no magically soul that comes flying out, they've done plenty of tests on dead bodies. And no, cells are not conscious, that's just new age spin trying to mix religion with science saying, oh cells are conscious, therefore when you die the cells are the ones that bring you to an afterlife, is that where you're going with this weird premise you have?

10. "Will our consciousness die when our body die or will carry on and merge into what our feelings wish to take us?"

Your consciousness is your Brain. Your brain is the thing that makes consciousness, so yes, when your brain does, so do you.

11. "Why would our consciousness die when as we can see in nature nothing die?"

Did your dumbass just say nothing dies? Or that we can't see things die in nature if our consciousness dies? Did I just reply to a troll comment?

12. "The small always merge into the big so to me it is totally UNSCIENTIFIC to say that with the physical death everything die"

Almost everything you've said is easily falsifiable, unscientific and hogwash, including this regurgitated line you started off with. Enjoy the pwnage, friend.

Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?
Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness.
You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness.
Sorry son. Tut Tut
You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory. Indubitably
You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else. Smile

A. "Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?"

There is such a thing, it's called a vegetative state. But that wasn't your argument, your unscientific claim was that cells are conscious.

B. "Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness."

The cell is not defined as a body at all, and no scientist would identify cells as having consciousness, let alone sentience.

C. "You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness."

I gave you pointed criticisms, line by line, and you give me this dodging bullshit? Your ADD must be worse than mine.

D. "Sorry son."

Ugh.. idiot. I'm face-palming this very second.

E. "You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory."

Nah, I'll leave that kind of thinking for the religious.

F. "You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else.  "

Fucking wow, I asked you for the evidence, produce it or admit you're a pseudo-scientific cultist.

(January 5, 2016 at 4:28 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(January 4, 2016 at 7:17 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The non-physical doesn't exist.  It's just your made-up name for the mental.  And science does study the mental.

Gee, i didn't know that you are an expert in science.  
Please Yog try to help LR to understand.
Now i am getting lost.  
Who decide to start the action?
The I or the mind?

This is a false dichotomy. The 'I' is part of the mind. 

(January 5, 2016 at 4:28 am)Little Rik Wrote: One more thing if you don't mind.
There is any difference between the mind and a storage of information?  

Yes, there is.

Rik = Karl Pilkington.

(January 5, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 4:28 am)Little Rik Wrote: Gee, i didn't know that you are an expert in science.  
Please Yog try to help LR to understand.
Now i am getting lost.  
Who decide to start the action?
The I or the mind?

This is a false dichotomy.  The 'I' is part of the mind.

(January 5, 2016 at 4:28 am)Little Rik Wrote: One more thing if you don't mind.
There is any difference between the mind and a storage of information?  

Quote:Yes, there is.

Oh, that is very interesting yog.
So the mind is not a storage of information and the I and the mind are the same thing.
So who store the information and who decide to get the information from where?
But wait a minute yog.
Everything is as one.
There is no difference between the I the mind and the place where the information are located.
Or not.?
Or yes.?
Oh, maybe?
Oh, yes is all very clear.
Oh, not nothing is clear.
But let us start from the beginning.
Suppose you start thinking.
Who start thinking other than you?
At this stage you decide to start thinking about something but that something is not yet in your mind
until you get into that storage of information so it is clear that the I and the storage of information are two separate things otherwise you wouldn't need to think.
Correct?
Now where that storage of information that is separate from the I suppose to be?
Up in the moon or inside your mind?
So if it is inside your mind it means that mind and the I are two separate things and your ideas are incorrect.  

(January 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm)MJ the Skeptical Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 4:47 am)Little Rik Wrote: Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?
Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness.
You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness.
Sorry son. Tut Tut
You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory.  Indubitably
You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else.  Smile

A. "Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?"

There is such a thing, it's called a vegetative state. But that wasn't your argument, your unscientific claim was that cells are conscious.

B. "Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness."

The cell is not defined as a body at all, and no scientist would identify cells as having consciousness, let alone sentience.

C. "You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness."

I gave you pointed criticisms, line by line, and you give me this dodging bullshit? Your ADD must be worse than mine.

D. "Sorry son."

Ugh.. idiot. I'm face-palming this very second.

E. "You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory."

Nah, I'll leave that kind of thinking for the religious.

F. "You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else.  "

Fucking wow, I asked you for the evidence, produce it or admit you're a pseudo-scientific cultist.

Sorry son but the evidence point to the fact that anything alive must have some degree of consciousness.
Cells have far too many similarities to our human bodies therefore they are bodies and bodies need consciousness to be alive.


Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells, there are no physiologic functions in our bodies that were not already pre-existing in the biology of the single, nucleated (eukaryotic) cell. Single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba or paramecium, possess the cytological equivalents of a digestive system, an excretory system, a respiratory system, a musculoskeletal system, an immune system, a reproductive system and a cardiovascular system, among others. In the humans, these physiologic functions are associated with the activity of specific organs. These same physiologic processes are carried out in cells by diminutive organ systems called organelles.


https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/art...sciousness


Once again i have to say that you still live in the mental caves of the prehistory.  

Not only that but as far cells have consciousness it is obvious that everything is made of consciousness
and consciousness goes well behind this created universe.  

(January 6, 2016 at 8:22 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is a false dichotomy.  The 'I' is part of the mind.

(January 5, 2016 at 4:28 am)Little Rik Wrote: One more thing if you don't mind.
There is any difference between the mind and a storage of information?  

Quote:Yes, there is.

Oh, that is very interesting yog.
So the mind is not a storage of information and the I and the mind are the same thing.
So who store the information and who decide to get the information from where?
But wait a minute yog.
Everything is as one.
There is no difference between the I the mind and the place where the information are located.
Or not.?
Or yes.?
Oh, maybe?
Oh, yes is all very clear.
Oh, not nothing is clear.
But let us start from the beginning.
Suppose you start thinking.
Who start thinking other than you?
At this stage you decide to start thinking about something but that something is not yet in your mind
until you get into that storage of information so it is clear that the I and the storage of information are two separate things otherwise you wouldn't need to think.
Correct?
Now where that storage of information that is separate from the I suppose to be?
Up in the moon or inside your mind?
So if it is inside your mind it means that mind and the I are two separate things and your ideas are incorrect.  

You can't even get it correct when I spoon feed it to you. The 'I' and memory are separate functions of the mind, not necessarily separate parts. Indeed the memory would have to include parts of the 'I' or else there would be no transfer of information from the memory to the 'I', so they can't be entirely separate. What, do you think memories are shipped to the 'I' by postal delivery? No, part of the machinery of memory bridges into the 'I' to create the images of the past within it. And I never said that memory and the 'I' were not separate parts; that's some nonsense you added by mistaking the implication of certain granted differences.

What you wrote is complete bollocks.

(January 6, 2016 at 8:52 am)Little Rik Wrote: Sorry son but the evidence point to the fact that anything alive must have some degree of consciousness.
Cells have far too many similarities to our human bodies therefore they are bodies and bodies need consciousness to be alive.


Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells, there are no physiologic functions in our bodies that were not already pre-existing in the biology of the single, nucleated (eukaryotic) cell. Single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba or paramecium, possess the cytological equivalents of a digestive system, an excretory system, a respiratory system, a musculoskeletal system, an immune system, a reproductive system and a cardiovascular system, among others. In the humans, these physiologic functions are associated with the activity of specific organs. These same physiologic processes are carried out in cells by diminutive organ systems called organelles.


https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/art...sciousness

Arguing by bad analogy again.  No wonder you didn't respond when I pointed out the problem with arguing by analogy.  In this case, the analogy fails because single celled organisms do not have anything which is like the brain or mind.  There are parts that very vaguely perform similar functions, but only vaguely.  There is nothing that in any meaningful sense corresponds to the brain.  Analogy failure.  And since there's good reason to believe that consciousness resides in the brain, that disanalogy would mean that consciousness doesn't reside in the cell.  You failed again.

Quote:Conventional opinion considers the nucleus to be the “command center” of the cell. As such, the nucleus would represent the cellular equivalent of the “brain.”

https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/art...sciousness

The nucleus doesn't perform a function even remotely like a brain.  And the same goes for the cell membrane.  Your author has overreached.  "As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)."(http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/) Your author has departed greatly from the similarity of the cases. Really? The cell membrane is like a brain? No it is not.

Quote:As a liquid crystal semiconductor with gates and channels, the membrane is an information processing transistor, an organic computer chip.

https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/art...sciousness

An information processing transistor isn't anything like a computer chip.  This article is nothing but garbage and word salad.  The author again overreaches.

Your article is nothing but a bunch of new agey bullshit.

About the author:

Wikipedia" Wrote:Bruce Harold Lipton (born October 21, 1944 at Mount Kisco, New York), is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs.

Rik, I see Jormungandr beat me to taking you to task for your reliance on bad analogies to make your bogus points. You really need to stop arguing that way; it does nothing for your already-practically-non-existent credibility.

And speaking of credibility, Bruce Lipton? Really?!? His ideas are roundly rejected by the entire scientific community. You should be ashamed of yourself for even referencing him.

I am very impressed at the determination of you guys to try and get through to him.

The deconstruction will also hopefully help any lurkers to see through the smoke and mirrors.

Analogies are not evidence. Metaphors are not evidence. Thank you, drive through.