Theists don't have an absolute purpose either. They just believe they do.

(August 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: If you honestly believe it to be evidence, then I have to ask if is a paper that has been scientifically peer-reviewed by people who study conciousness, the brain, and any other area of study where that 'evidence' would be highly influential if it had any chance of being an accurate view of conciousness.

It's not that complicated. It doesn't need scientists to peer review it. The general public can review it and decide.

---

(August 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Eddie baby does your 'paper' have anything to say on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10925841

The brain works like the internet.

I love this quote from the article:

You would be amazed at how much of the current experimental neuroscience literature is dominated by 'top down-bottom up thinking', which goes back to the 19th Century, especially in neurology," Professor Swanson told BBC News.


This article was published on the 10th of August. On the 9th of August we all believed in the hirearchical model. Guess we were wrong. Now we'll believe this bit until, I suppose, October, then it will be something else.

The third part of my paper that deals with the absurdity of intelligent neuronal triggers is not really affected by this finding. But thanks for posting the link.

(August 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Edward the Theist Wrote:

(August 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: If you honestly believe it to be evidence, then I have to ask if is a paper that has been scientifically peer-reviewed by people who study conciousness, the brain, and any other area of study where that 'evidence' would be highly influential if it had any chance of being an accurate view of conciousness.

It's not that complicated. It doesn't need scientists to peer review it. The general public can review it and decide.

Swing and a miss my friend. If it explains what you claim it's going to require a hell of a lot of math and physics knowledge to prove, not to mention testing. That's going to get scientific peer review, and if we can't test or prove it then it's useless, I will admit though I am quite curious to read it.

Quote:All I can say Eddie is that you are going to be surprised as all when you die to find out that you are just fucking DEAD.

Quote:Then again, we kinda already know what it's like being dead.

Quote:Yeah... I guess theists aren't going to realize death is just that, the end.

Some atheist statements just bear repeating.

I gave you kudos because two out of three of the quotes you posted in the above post are indeed kinda silly and are by atheists.

(It is in no way because of the atheism of the atheist(s) in question though of course. Atheism is merely being without theism: Without belief in God. You seem to fail to understand that so far).

(August 10, 2010 at 6:04 pm)ABierman1986 Wrote: Swing and a miss my friend. If it explains what you claim it's going to require a hell of a lot of math and physics knowledge to prove, not to mention testing. That's going to get scientific peer review, and if we can't test or prove it then it's useless, I will admit though I am quite curious to read it.

No, not just providing rationales for consciousness being external to central nervous systems. It's pretty straight forward. The entire cosmology will have mathematical models and philosophical arguments and hopefully make some predictions that if proved will confirm its validity. It may even have some profound religious implications, but that's a ways off.

This paper is just the first step. It's the rationale for even considering consciousness to be one of the primordial forces, because if consciousness is not external to the CNS, then it can't be a primordial force. So, I was glad to be challenged a few days ago to produce it, because it has kind of kicked things off for me. I'm just editing it now and formatting it in PDF. It should be up on my website, and blog by tomorrow, and I'll post a link to the PDF in here.

It will be interesting to see what atheists think of it.

---

(August 10, 2010 at 6:22 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I gave you kudos because two out of three of the quotes you posted in the above post are indeed kinda silly and are by atheists.

(It is in no way because of the atheism of the atheist(s) in question though of course. Atheism is merely being without theism: Without belief in God. You seem to fail to understand that so far).

I think I gave you kudos as well for giving me kudos. I'm still figuring out how all this works. What I'd like to know is what happened to my reputation points. I think I was up to -7. Perhaps they just reset, or do they wear off after a certain time?

I hope they weren't just erased because they looked more cool than yall's green positive points. Why do I get the feeling that's exactly what happened, though?

(August 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm)Edward the Theist Wrote: I hope they weren't just erased because they looked more cool than yall's green positive points. Why do I get the feeling that's exactly what happened, though?

Because the mods would rather remove an entire section of functionality than deal with abusive posters.

Quote:I think I gave you kudos as well for giving me kudos. I'm still figuring out how all this works. What I'd like to know is what happened to my reputation points. I think I was up to -7. Perhaps they just reset, or do they wear off after a certain time?

Actually all negative reps have been removed. It's been agreed that this happens. It solves a few things you see. Which I happen to agree with.


Edit: Fuck, Syn beat me to it!

Bastard!

(August 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Edward the Theist Wrote: It's not that complicated. It doesn't need scientists to peer review it. The general public can review it and decide.

I'm sorry, but truth isn't won by popular vote.
Peer review is done by a community of experts who could put a thoery through the ringer through experimentation and other methods to test a theory's validity.
It's a failing of religion (and conservatives in this country) that popular ideas are directly correlated with the truth of a theory, statement, or whatever.

(August 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Edward the Theist Wrote: This article was published on the 10th of August. On the 9th of August we all believed in the hirearchical model. Guess we were wrong. Now we'll believe this bit until, I suppose, October, then it will be something else.

Indeed. Science is a self-correcting process where ideas are frequently and fervorently tested, which means that definitions, theories, and 'common knowledge' change with each passing discovery.
That's actually one of the best things about the scientific processes.

(August 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm)Edward the Theist Wrote: It will be interesting to see what atheists think of it.

I'm going to go ahead and predict that I will find it to be an utter waste of time. What credentials do you have that make you so confident that you will be able to disprove neurologists?