Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#621346 May 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The unknown aspects of one paradigm can be compared to the unknown aspects of another paradigm.
In short you cannot build theory on the unknown and expect to answer the question.
What question? what answer? What unknown aspects??

But that's what a theory is, if it wasn't unknown it would be known, so would be a fact and nobody would bloody argue about it!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#621347 May 4, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Timn aka Hiding is as dumb as a rock. Apologies to rocks.
Stop apologizing for your brain.

Have you ever seen Arrested Development?

I think you would have liked it before the atrophy.

Oh well.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#621348 May 4, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>BY the way, who cares what you think, since you are clearly an idiot. Clearly evolutionist are simply mythical based religious atheist who need a basis for their delusion dogma. Derp.
I call 'em brain-washed slaves of Darwinian theory!!! lol, it has a nice ring to it and it's cute!!! They worship Darwin, he's their God that could say no wrong!! Any evolution theory that goes against Darwinian evolution MUST be wrong, don't even look at it and throw it in the bin!!!!

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621350 May 4, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Actually idiot, there is no clear evidence that gravity exists as you would imply it. It is simply a theory. Since, I know you are stupid, then explain the evidence of gravity in space or the effects of gravity at lower sea levels and on mountains. Saying that there is clear evidence of gravity is ludicrous, without defining what you mean.
The moon?s gravity not only moves the oceans, but also moves the ground beneath our feet. As the moon orbits, it pulls the Earth?s crust slowly up and down, generating Earth tides. The pull from the sun?s gravity also contributes to this motion, but not as much as the moon?s, because it is so much farther away. We can?t feel this motion (which can be over 10 inches, depending on how the sun and moon are aligned), because it happens so slowly over the course of a day, but very sensitive scientific instruments such as GPS (Global Positioning System) or gravimeters can measure these slight motions of the Earth?s surface.
Gravity acts differently on different substances, depending on how dense the substance is (the amount of mass in a given volume). Air is much less dense than water, so bubbles under water feel a much smaller downward pull from the Earth?s gravity, and they quickly make their way to the surface. Similarly, magma at depth can be much less dense than the surrounding rock, so it tries to rapidly escape to the surface and erupt.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2...
The weak force is infinite, so the weakest force in your world, though 26,000 light years away Sgr A Star is the dominate and most powerful attraction you could ever try to understand.
By far exceeding the reach of the moons dismal effect.
In fact the barycenter of the Earth and moon is below the surface of Earths crust, which means Earth is dominate to the moon, as the Sun is dominate to Earth, as the entire solar system is dominated by Sgr A Star.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#621352 May 5, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
I asked Siri.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tOE-4C491VoXX
That was her first response.
I asked again and again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I feel like an idiot. I just now got a youtube downloader.

I knew they existed. I don't know why I waited.

By my calculations, I'll run out of hard drive space in less than two months.

I'll run out of good Jackie Chan movies in less than 10 minutes.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#621354 May 5, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>No, Timn is Hiding. If you know you are not her,then you know that he is. If you know you are Hiding, then you know that he is too.
I swear i'm not 'Hiding'! I guess Timn is then!

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#621355 May 5, 2013
Clementia wrote:
Is everyone 'Hiding'?? i don't believe it, coz people thought i was 'Hiding' too, so i'm not gonna go there!
If you're Hiding, you'll be able to explain genetic drift.

Well...let's hear it.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#621356 May 5, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean the atrophy of you leg or the amputee of your brain?
haha, you are done. Lonely and all alone. Come on Tammy, your old WV friends are now mine.
Derp.
What?

:-)

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621358 May 5, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Is everyone 'Hiding'?? i don't believe it, coz people thought i was 'Hiding' too, so i'm not gonna go there!
You mustn't submit to the ramblings of a deceptive lunatic who doesn't deserve the pity it receives.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#621360 May 5, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're Hiding, you'll be able to explain genetic drift.
Well...let's hear it.
I understand geologic drift. Can I be Hiding tomorrow?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621361 May 5, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
What question? what answer? What unknown aspects??
But that's what a theory is, if it wasn't unknown it would be known, so would be a fact and nobody would bloody argue about it!
No it isn't , you mistake hypothesis for theory.
Theory is the explanation. Hypothesis is the word that conjures into the unknown.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621363 May 5, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>No, Timn is Hiding. If you know you are not her,then you know that he is. If you know you are Hiding, then you know that he is too.
We know only that you are insane, despite your attempts to appear otherwise. Your insanity will not show us Tim is Hiding, thats just not even feasible. But on another note you could reveal to us the working of a damaged mind by revealing all your assorted socks.
We know they are many, but just how many is left to speculation.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621364 May 5, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>So, you agree that Timn is a juvenile rote thinker, with base understandings at best.
I agree that you disagree with Tim who makes more sense than you.
You are worse than damaged goods, damage can be repaired.
We hold no hope of your deranged mind being retrieved to usefulness.
You are broken beyond repair.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#621365 May 5, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
I understand geologic drift. Can I be Hiding tomorrow?
Hiding does things.

Strange things.

Exciting things.

Yes.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621366 May 5, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously do not understand the point. You have to be intentionally misrepresenting what I write; no one can misunderstand it that many times.
What I said was that mass is associated with gravity just as molecules are associated with consciousness, so obviously mass does have something to do with gravity. You're an @$$, you can quit the game now.
We have no idea what that association is, dipsh*t.
So are you going to acknowledge the obvious truth that science cannot make a statement as to whether a molecular mechanism to consciousness is more likely than a quantum mechanism, or freekin what? Gonna keep ignoring that? That's the whole argument right there, and you never address it. WTF? Cmon, you wanted to knock it off too, so just admit that and we can be done.
Stop being a baby and throwing fits when I disagree with you.

You said "mass clearly has something to do with gravity" when I noted the association between mass and gravity, but you refuse to extend this same logic to consciousness (I can dig up the post if you want). Mass and gravity are associated, therefore, according to you, they clearly have something to do with eachother; however, when I point out the association between consciousness and the brain, you insist that it is only an association and that I can't assert that they have something to do with each other.

Finally, no, I am not going to "admit" that your quantum woo is a reasonable explanation for consciousness - to me, it is nothing but a god of the gaps argument dressed up in scientific language; you might as well be using the words "magic" or "soul" instead of "quantum."

The only thing I will concede is that the exact mechanism by which consciousness emerges from the brain is indeed inexplicable, which is what I have been saying from the beginning. That does not mean, however, that your nebulous, poorly defined conception of quantum consciousness holds any water.

Again, I am not saying that quantum phenomena can't possibly have anything to do with consciousness, just that you have done nothing to explain in what way this might be possible, aside from a lot of hand waving and one huge appeal to ignorance. I would be more likely to accept "QC" as a possible explanation for consciousness if you could even begin to explain how it *might* work, but you are either unwilling or unable to give me even a guess. "Like molecular consciousness but quantum" is not a suitable explanation. That doesn't even make any sense. The macro world does not work like the quantum world.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#621367 May 5, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Hiding does things.
Strange things.
Exciting things.
Yes.
I was trolling for Dorkfish.

I caught one.
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Learning is not what you have been taught, it is what you have learned.
Should I cut bait?

It's exciting.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621368 May 5, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>That's "what we have" but that has nothing to do with even the first detail to a mechanism.
As soon as you can show *how* molecules can cause themselves to become aware of themselves, let me know.
Again, and absurd way to "defend" QC. Do we need to show how the EM force came into existence in order to make meaningful observations about it?
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>I explained this but you didn't bother reading it and if you did, you surely didn't understand it. If consciousness were ethereal then it would never "shut off". Misrepresenting or misunderstanding me?
Your senses turn off; your memory turns off (unless you are dreaming) but how do you know that your 'sense of being' turns off? Just because you have no memory of "being" doesn't mean you "weren't".
That's my point. If it ethereal, then why does it seem to "shut off?" Why would a "recording device" be necessary to have a sense of being? You seem to like to make this stuff up as you go along. People with damage to their hippocampus certainly seem to have a sense of being (albeit a fractured one) even in spite of the fact that they can't make any new memories. They spend their lives in a perpetual state of forgetfullness, yet they certainly "are." And yes, they have some older memories to draw upon, but so should an etheral consciousness whose "recording device" is simply turned off for the night.
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Your definition of consciousness seems to be, simply, the senses. But you don't know if our 'sense of being'/'awareness' carries on after falling "asleep", with the brain's recording device is turned off. Like I said, the 'sense of being', if it is separate from the other five senses, is likely something that cannot produce a memory because it is not associated with any "event". And if something cannot produce a memory then how can it be remembered? Therefore we have the illusion that we were unaware of our own sense of being for a time that we sleep.
No, my definition of consciousness is not simply the senses. In fact, it was me that had to explain to you the distinction between awareness, consciousness, and metacognition. Again, refer to my point about people with a damaged hippocampus. They retain some sort of a sense of being in the absence of the ability to record new information, which renders impotent your assertion that memory is required to "be." It certainly helps, but even in real world cases a sense of being can persist without the ability to "record;" and it certainly makes no sense that an immaterial consciousness should need the ability to record new information to have a sense of being.
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you like to contemplate these issues before forming beliefs, or else you would at least understand me even if you don't agree with me in your belief.
Ever wonder why our sense of being never seems to grow old like the rest of our body and brain? Not that that proves anything. A little humility goes a long way.
What issues? You haven't raised any. You respond to any point I try to make, any flaw I point out with the entire concept of an immaterial consciousness, with a new way of phrasing the same appeal to ignorance.

I am humble about my beliefs, which is why I don't claim to know, or even believe things for which there are no evidence. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the brain creates consciousness because it simply appears to do so. I don't claim to "know" this, I just think that given the available evidence, it is the most reasonable explanation.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#621369 May 5, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
I was trolling for Dorkfish.
I caught one.
<quoted text>
Should I cut bait?
It's exciting.
I recommend electroshock therapy.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621370 May 5, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Do you now how easy it is to telling that you are "Hiding", because both Dave and Doc served you regarding your plagiarizing and second rate writing. Remember it is a grammatically. Perhaps, you should have read the article, which identified the errors and flaws in the operation and utilization of physics at the quantum level.
You are "OWNED".
You are so weak, Hiding, now go play with your dolls, this is a man's world. Note your male moniker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jCkf96m5YWQXX&feature=you tu.be&noredirect=1
I am not hiding, first of all.

I don't know who "dave" and "doc" are.

I never plagarize, and on the rare occasion that I copy/paste something to supplement a post, I cite it.

"Remember it is a gramatically." Was that supposed to mean something?

What article should I have read? What flaws did it highlight? What do you even mean "utilization of physics at the quantum level?" Classical physics do not apply at the quantum level.

I have a "male moniker" because I am a male. Or do you actually think that HFY created two totally seperate accounts and has made thousands of posts on each; additionally, do you really think that HFY has been posting from this account since sep. of 2011?

Your hilarious mysogyny has been noted, however. It's funny that you are so weak minded that you think you can "win" an argument by calling someone a girl. What are you, 10 years old? Stuck in grade school?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621371 May 5, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Timn, r u honestly comparing gravity with evolution??? Really??
Yes, I am. Both are facts, and both are explained by robust, nearly universally accepted theories.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
how to choice a good store for shopping?do you ... 15 min Ritazhu 1
what do americans think of mexicans? (Sep '08) 16 min UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 398
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 17 min janeebee 3,956
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min RoSesz 585,786
sex (May '13) 46 min rajivas 153
Is it a good choice shopping online?how about b... 47 min Ritazhu 3
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 53 min Student 40,223
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Paul Porter1 99,270
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 10 hr dr Shrink 611,943
More from around the web