Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

[flip]

No it's not like that though. I had a concept I was trying to develop, but 'some' of these guys are so conditioned as to what to think, they will give place to nothing else, even just to talk about it. If someone believes or not is not up to me, but I do like the argument and if some just want to be an ass and have fun at each others expense, well, I can do that too. LOL

EDIT:Where's Waldo?

[Top Gun]

...seriously, flip, what are you even talking about anymore? I can't follow any sort of consistent argument through your posts, at least not over the last page or so. And I have no idea where you're getting these "conditioning" or "prejudice" ideas...hell, all I really see are a bunch of people confused about what you're actually trying to say.

[Jeff250]

Flip, flesh out any point you have, if you have one.

[flip]

It's there. it's consistent, I have no idea what is so hard about the concept of "conditioning" which is the point of "Pavlovs" studies. Psychology by the way Ferno, not biological. Also not worth my time because I expect a little bit of respect in a conversation. In real life people try to make the conversation keep going by trying to understand each other. From my first post About Pavlov's Dog's I have consistently re-iterated and used others here to demonstrate conditioning, as it applies to that experiment.

EDIT: Cuda, Your right of course, that is best initially until you realize exactly how insignificant you are.

[flip]

Is there not a psychological aspect to that experiment? That was the direction I was trying to go.

[fliptw]

Psychology by the way Ferno, not biological.

Psychology is directly affected by biology. Mind you Ferno was referring to himself in his last post.

[Tunnelcat]

Like you said, total accident is betting way against the odds.

But not impossible either.

[flip]

I've said nothing to dispute the least 2 responses and they still exemplify how the point gets missed to continue the argument. There is a psychological aspect firstly, but the point I was trying to make instantly got attacked for being heresy. See, we're not so different, or rather you all are not.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand that up to this point in this discussion, all of your responses have been conditioned so I don't totally hold you at fault. It's because you have been conditioned all your lives to think this way.

[Krom]

[flip]

LOL, man that reminds me of how i used to torment my little sister when I was a kid. Everytime she would try and say something, I'd plug my ears and holler "Ican't hear you, I can't HEar you......etc" ★■◆● was hilarious and by the end of it she would be pissed as hell. Good memories

EDIT: added the word "be" between the words "would" and "pissed" so the meaning would not get lost somehow. LOL.

[Grendel]

LOL, man that reminds me of how i used to torment my little sister when I was a kid. Everytime she would try and say something, I'd plug my ears and holler "Ican't hear you, I can't HEar you......etc" ★■◆● was hilarious and by the end of it she would be pissed as hell. Good memories

Looks like you haven't changed since then...

[flip]

Wow, the old guard. I'm just trying to fit in. Seems to be the going rate around here and a long time from the looks of it. I'm just having fun though. Still curious as to others opinions are to the Why I asked, I've already got a good handle on the response I'd get for questioning it.

[flip]

Slick, in your opinion, how has the elite managed to control the masses till this date?

[callmeslick]

Slick, in your opinion, how has the elite managed to control the masses till this date?

very nicely, thank-you. Seriously, the answer to that is so multifaceted as to take far longer than is practical. A short group of examples can be seen in the economic retrenchment which happens in every economic 'downturn'(most families of old money made a killing on the Great Depression and are zooming ahead the past 3 years from this recession), the wholesale acceptance of the whole "anyone can make it in America/Horatio Alger" type ideal by folks with utterly no chance to realize it, the wholesale acceptance that inheritance taxes are a bad thing, the development of what is called the 'consumer credit economy' and the ovewhelming dominance of Ivy League/Southern Ivy graduates in positions of power. That is just a handful of examples that could easily go into the hundreds of how that control has been exerted in just the recent time period. Historical examples would require a book or two to cover.

On that note, I commence to pack for the Assateague Rockfish Tournament. 4 days of fishing in bitter cold for large critters!
Take care, all!

[Ferno]

It's there. it's consistent, I have no idea what is so hard about the concept of "conditioning" which is the point of "Pavlovs" studies. Psychology by the way Ferno, not biological. Also not worth my time because I expect a little bit of respect in a conversation. In real life people try to make the conversation keep going by trying to understand each other. From my first post About Pavlov's Dog's I have consistently re-iterated and used others here to demonstrate conditioning, as it applies to that experiment.

EDIT: Cuda, Your right of course, that is best initially until you realize exactly how insignificant you are.

1) WTF?

2) You don't ever ever demand respect. Ever. You earn it.

[flip]

In my experience Ferno, respect is something that is lost. It's a matter of conditioning. Each person you meet has the same potential, but time and behavior will determine if you retain respect for that person or not. I do not respect your ability to constantly change topics and inconsistent thought. Because of you, we started out talking about how psychological conditioning results in biological responses, and end up talking about respect but that's only because you have a hard time grasping anything other than the way you have been conditioned to think. So, instead of intelligently discussing possibilities you immediately start your same old tirade. You are more closed minded than those you accuse of it and so blind you can't even see that.

EDIT: You can also believe that the scientists who were conducting this experiment had the foresight and open-mindedness to speculate how this behavior translated over to humans. I would have liked to be a part of their argument. No telling what we would have come up with.

[flip]

What Slick calls "wholesale acceptance" , I call conditioning.

[flip]

My observations so far:

1). People who have been taught evolution from childhood believe it wholesale.

2). People who have been taught evolution from childhood have been discouraged to actually prove it out by means of peer pressure and "wholesale acceptance".

[Top Gun]

Holy crap, flip...you do realize that religious beliefs in general are one of the most blatant examples of "conditioning" out there, right? And I say that as a religious person myself. The "taught from birth," the "peer pressure"...for most religious people, that's exactly how things start out. You may come to your own independent take on your beliefs eventually, but even then, you have a very strong positive bias for the belief system you were brought up in. If I had to ask myself if I would have wound up Catholic had I not been raised that way from birth, I honestly wouldn't know either way. For better or worse, there are many things about my faith that I've been conditioned to accept.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, man, but evolution via natural selection is a real thing. We have reams of physical evidence from the past, and we can see it actively occurring in the present. I'm not "conditioned" to believe this...I've taken an informed look at the evidence, and at what a bunch of very smart people have done with that evidence, and it holds up. It's true. You can deny that it's true, that's fine, you have every right to do so...but by doing so, you're sticking your head in the sand. And you should fully expect the people you aren't to not place any stock in your opinions about the subject.

[flip]

Holy crap, flip...you do realize that religious beliefs in general are one of the most blatant examples of "conditioning" out there, right? And I say that as a religious person myself. The "taught from birth," the "peer pressure"...for most religious people, that's exactly how things start out. You may come to your own independent take on your beliefs eventually, but even then, you have a very strong positive bias for the belief system you were brought up in. If I had to ask myself if I would have wound up Catholic had I not been raised that way from birth, I honestly wouldn't know either way. For better or worse, there are many things about my faith that I've been conditioned to accept.

Exactly, but once you realize that it loses it's power no?

And I'm sorry to break it to you, man, but evolution via natural selection is a real thing. We have reams of physical evidence from the past, and we can see it actively occurring in the present. I'm not "conditioned" to believe this...I've taken an informed look at the evidence, and at what a bunch of very smart people have done with that evidence, and it holds up. It's true. You can deny that it's true, that's fine, you have every right to do so...but by doing so, you're sticking your head in the sand. And you should fully expect the people you aren't to not place any stock in your opinions about the subject.

Again, I have not argued anything about evolution. We are talking about morality and how it is inherent after being conditioned. This is what is being demonstrated over and again. Can we stay on topic?

[flip]

If this is a true statement:

We are talking about morality and how it is inherent after being conditioned.

Then long before I'd even consider biological changes, I'd wonder how we gained the choice. That seems most important to me. Why only consider physical appearance when the most intriguing thing is the consciousness we gained?

[Jeff250]

I was raised to believe in creationism. I rejected it because I only like good tools. Unlike evolution, creationism has no explanatory or predictive power. It's not good for anything. Evolution can help us explain what we observe and help us predict the future. It's a useful tool. It's as simple as that. You don't need any other argument to explain why people believe in evolution.

[Top Gun]

Exactly, but once you realize that it loses it's power no?

Not really. Simply knowing that you've been preconditioned towards a certain viewpoint doesn't change the fact of said conditioning. It's still going to affect your thought processes, unless you make a prolonged conscious effort to try to mitigate it.

Again, I have not argued anything about evolution. We are talking about morality and how it is inherent after being conditioned. This is what is being demonstrated over and again. Can we stay on topic?

...you literally just mentioned evolution in your last post. That's what I was responding to.

[CUDA]

You're arguing 2 different points here people. Evolution and origin of species are NOT the same thing. there is clear evidence for some forms of evolution. that cannot be denied. but there is WAY too little evidence to conclude that life started from nothing to evolve into its current state.

Now if you want to argue Creation Vs Origin of Species that's different. but as of now you're talking apples and oranges

[flip]

What Cuda said. The only reason I mention evolution is because everyone else continually keeps going there. Evolution does nothing to explain how we gained self-consciousness and the ability to discern right from wrong. Whereas all other animals seem to born pre-conditioned, humans seem to be with an empty slate.

[flip]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Grendel]

Evolution does nothing to explain how we gained self-consciousness and the ability to discern right from wrong. Whereas all other animals seem to born pre-conditioned, humans seem to be with an empty slate.

Uhm, we are not "empty slates" when born. Did you read my link and followed up on it by chance ?

Here's a start: God didn't make man; man made gods.

As for explaining consciouseness w/in the framework of evolution -- there's a lot research out there. This should get you jump-started.

You're arguing 2 different points here people. Evolution and origin of species are NOT the same thing. there is clear evidence for some forms of evolution. that cannot be denied. but there is WAY too little evidence to conclude that life started from nothing to evolve into its current state.

Huh ? Evolution explains the origin of species. Keep in mind that a species doesn't just appear from one day to another, the process takes a very long time. Even more so from the beginning of life to the present day. I don't know about you but I have a hard time imagining time frames greater than 100 years, let alone 13.000, 200.000, 2.5 million, 65 million, or the 3.5+ billion it took to get to today.

[flip]

Lol, funny ★■◆● Grendal. I watch the weather channel, and they say they have very limited knowledge of how storms even form, or why, and yet this article you link theorizes to know how the brain evolved to make conscious thought possible. I like from the beginning to theorize only on those things that are observable. Then you can establish a truth and work from there. I've seen more coherent works written by Hitler 'a madman', than that article you linked .

EDIT: If I appear to be be an ass, I'm not, it's apathy :p. Lol. Case in point and why these online discussions are so difficult I guess. I know in real life it's easier to keep people on point. It's been this way this whole entire thread. I make a statement:

Evolution does nothing to explain how we gained self-consciousness and the ability to discern right from wrong. Whereas all other animals seem to born pre-conditioned, humans seem not to be compared to animals. (edited for clarity)

and you totally miss the point and latch on to my misuse of the words "empty slate". It should be obvious by this point in the discussion that I didn't mean "empty" entirely. I reject your work submitted unless you can establish at least one truth from it.

[CUDA]

You're arguing 2 different points here people. Evolution and origin of species are NOT the same thing. there is clear evidence for some forms of evolution. that cannot be denied. but there is WAY too little evidence to conclude that life started from nothing to evolve into its current state.

Huh ? Evolution explains the origin of species. Keep in mind that a species doesn't just appear from one day to another, the process takes a very long time. Even more so from the beginning of life to the present day. I don't know about you but I have a hard time imagining time frames greater than 100 years, let alone 13.000, 200.000, 2.5 million, 65 million, or the 3.5+ billion it took to get to today.

HUH hardly. there is evolution. Macro not Micro

have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion

Geologists as long ago as William Buckland (1784–1856) realised that a dramatic step-change in the fossil record occurred around the base of what we now call the Cambrian.[6] Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[78] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[79] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[80] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[81]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[82]

[flip]

Cuda linked to something observable.

[Top Gun]

Cuda linked to an article that itself notes that the Cambrian "explosion" may not have been quite as dramatic as initially thought, as more recent fossil discoveries have demonstrated that many of the phyla seen to have originated there had roots earlier on, and didn't truly establish themselves until a bit later. There are also a number of potential theories listed, including the idea that there isn't any external cause that needs to be attributed to the event. Regardless, nothing about the event creates any problems for the concept of macroevolution.

While Darwin was the author of Origin of Species, he and other 19th-century biologists were obviously working from a much more limited knowledge base, and many of the concerns they raised have long since been dealt with. There is indeed much evidence for transitional forms appearing in the fossil record, despite creationist groups' claims to the contrary, and that's even taking into account the fact that the fossil record is incomplete by nature, so the chances of finding such forms are often very slim in the first place. The topic is essentially one big strawman.

(Also, the Dr. Michael Denton that Cuda cites is an individual whose work has been widely criticized as erroneous and misdirected by the scientific community.)

And what, flip, you're going to disagree with a scientific paper just because you find its conclusions upsetting to your previous world view? As i said, head in the sand.

[flip]

Your gonna just wholesale accept it. Like I said "head in the clouds".

[flip]

Piss on it, since we're gonna debate evolution, I have a question. How close is the genetic makeup of a chimpanzee compared to a human?

[flip]

I said I would accept part of the paper if one truth could be established from it, again that was overlooked. Otherwise it's a house of cards.

[Top Gun]

Your gonna just wholesale accept it. Like I said "head in the clouds".

I accept it because the evidence is physically there. Paleontologists have found a myriad of fossils, and these fossils physically display evidence of species diversity. Since when is opening one's eyes and looking at something considered having one's head in the clouds?

Piss on it, since we're gonna debate evolution, I have a question. How close is the genetic makeup of a chimpanzee compared to a human?

The commonly-cited figure is about 99%, although that apparently decreases a bit to 94% if you include differences in non-coding DNA. Either way, they are the most genetically-similar organisms to humans.

I said I would accept part of the paper if one truth could be established from it, again that was overlooked. Otherwise it's a house of cards.

This statement makes no sense by itself. The paper is full of truths about the physiology of the brain, and it reaches conclusions about how consciousness arose via evolutionary changes. What else do you want from it?

[Grendel]

Flip, the beauty of reason is that you can look "behind the scenes". You get a trail of what a statement or theory is based on so you can come to your own conclusion if you want to accept it as likely true or not. This assumes that you actually do follow that trail and not just take the end or a piece, dismiss it as contrary to your worldview, and declare it wrong because you say so. Works for religious but not for the scientific "truth" (declaration vs. proof.) I posted above links w/ the words "here's a start" and "gets you jump-started" for that reason, both articles cite plenty of work that can be checked for the greater picture. Dismissing these as hilarious just paints you ignorant

[flip]

ABSTRACT The hypothesis of the origin of consciousness
is built upon the unique properties of the mammalian neocortex. The apical dendrites of the pyramidal cells bundle together
as they ascend to lamina I to form neural receptor units of - 100
apical dendrites plus branches receiving hundreds of thousands
of excitatory synapses, the collective assemblage being called a
dendron. It is proposed that the whole world of consciousness,
the mental world, is microgranular, with mental units called
psychons, and that in mind-brain interaction one psychon is
linked to one dendron through quantum physics. The hypothesis is that in mammalian evolution dendrons evolved for more
effective integration of the increased complexity of sensory
inputs. These evolved dendrons had the capacity for interacting
with psychons that came to exist, so forming the mental world
and giving the mammal conscious experiences. In Darwinian
evolution, consciousness would have occurred initially some
200 million years ago in relation to the primitive cerebral
cortices of evolving mammals. It would give global experiences
of a surrounding world for guiding behavior beyond what is
given by the unconscious operation of sensory cortical areasper
se. So concious experiences would give mammals evolutionary
advantage ever the reptiles, which lack a neocortex giving
conscousness. The Wulst of the avian brain needs further
invstigation to discover how it could give birds the consciousness that they seem to have.

And your ready to stake everything on this basis? None of this is observable much less provable. I'd rather be ignorant than gullible. Where have I argued anything religiously? In fact, I'm pretty sure I established how biological responses are the result of psychological stimuli as a fact. This paper on the other hand is full of conjecture and is not reliable.

EDIT: I contest that consciousness is more likened too a light bulb. It is not developed, it's either there or not.

[Top Gun]

Who's staking everything? It's a single scientific paper postulating a mechanic for the rise of consciousness in mammals and suggesting further avenues of study. There's a great deal in there that's observable, and even provable (or more properly, disprovable), given the proper further studies and models.

And okay, that's what you contest. Where's your evidence to back it up? Have you looked at the brain's structures and determined where the on/off switch for this consciousness "light bulb" is located? What's the mechanic by which it was initially "turned on"? Making a declaration is all well and good, but alone it's just that. A scientific paper has actual research and references to previous work to back it up. What do you have?

[flip]

I have at least as much as you and the fact that I know the MOMENT I realize something. You have to be thinking to realize something, critical thinking, not just pre-conditioned reactions that animals exhibit. On that basis, I have to think that awareness is instant, just like waking up from a sleep

More observations:

Evolutionists seem to be conditioned to look at structures and appearances instead of actual operation.

[Spidey]

Ha Ha Ha, that “The hypothesis of the origin of consciousness” made me laugh out loud.

That’s funny. Science doesn’t even know what consciousness is; let alone where it came from.

When science can tell me what “matter” is, I’ll place complete faith in it, but for now, I’m going to use my own insight to try to figure out such things.