DescentBB

flip wrote: Psychology by the way Ferno, not biological.

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

flip wrote: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

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

flip wrote: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.

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.

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

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

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 wrote: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.

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

CUDA wrote: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.

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)

Grendel wrote:

CUDA wrote: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.

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]

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

flip wrote: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 wrote: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.

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.