(September 5, 2011 at 5:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The simplest way to explain "Hive Mind" is to use ants. Birds and fish flock or school, which is a migratory behavior, not nearly the same things as a "Hive Mind". Bees are more elaborate because of their directional dance. So I think I'll go with the ants for now, unless we have reason to delve any further.
Uh, ok. But birds and fish exhibit group mind, which is what I asked about. You brought up hive mind. I enjoyed your explication, but I'm not sure what the conclusion was as far as demonstrating group mind or dismissing group mind.
Quote:You keep bringing up the quote, to which I've already responded.
No. You skipped over the main point. Still are. Why you won't touch it is best known to yourself, but the fact that you have is visible for all to see. One last chance: Do you agree or disagree that materialism is an a priori stance and why?
Quote:If you're going to continue asking questions and demanding answers while giving none in return, this will be a frustrating conversation for both sides. Is it surprising to you that I would disagree with a "giant in the field"? What authority does his status as a scientist confer to the statement that he made? I stand by my original response.
Has this shit worked for you in the past? Your original response was a stab at a subpoint, tossed off because you didn't know who the guy was and couldn't be bothered to find out, so you didn't even know who you were dismissing. What authority does his status as an eminent scientist confer on him to make the statement that materialism is an a priori stance? Uh, how about the crazy idea that he's qualified to speak on his own field, since he's an eminent player upon it? Is that somehow suspect?
Noticed you skipped over the bit about Dawkins. You are all aflutter about an expert speaking about his own field, yet have no problem with a guy waxing on about a domain he doesn't understand beyond the cartoon level? Uh, ok.
Quote:It might also be useful to note that stumping an atheist or a materialist won't provide any evidence at all for your position. You must do that yourself.
Heh. Small steps. You do realize that if you are correct in your assertion here that it also holds for the atheist as well, right? Kicking fundies may be good sport for you guys, but it does nothing to support the atheist or materialist position. The myths are wrong proves exactly that, nothing more. You ever call out anyone on your team on these points, or is this stuff just reserved for those you don't agree with?
Regardless, my position is that materialists and atheists hold problematic views they have difficulty supporting with reasoned discourse or evidence and that both positions are as faith-based as any other; the credo that either is based solely upon science and reason is a charade. And so far, it looks like I'm getting lots of help supporting it, thanks.
Quote:(I was just perusing your link to the western buddhist review............)
Of course. Instant dismissal is always the first step. The second step, if pressed to take it, is finding the tree that you can chop down so as to then assert there is no forest. The third step, demonstrating that it's wrong, well, steps one and two are supposed to negate that bother.
