2 of 5
2
The Limits of Intelligence and Rationality
Posted: 27 October 2011 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14

I should add, re. John Lorber, I suggest looking through the thread I cited earlier. E.g., THIS post and THIS post.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM
factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:03 AM

Wrong. For example, at the University of Sheffield, neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber conducted research on one of the mathematics students and noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. Lorber found the student that the student was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however,
Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.

Evidence for this?

factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:03 AM

One of the few biologists to propose a radically novel approach to these questions is Dr Rupert Sheldrake.

Rupert Sheldrake is a crank. And Morphic resonance is nonsense. Really, you need to do some more basic research on these things before bringing them up.

factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:03 AM

Wrong again. Your denial doesn’t amount to refutation. It is interesting that people who hold your view have to rely on someone whose arguments were flawed and who lived 360 years ago but about whom, Blaise Pascal said that “I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God.”  For more contemporary critiques of Descartes read Descartes’ Error by Antonio R. Damasio and then Molecules and Emotion by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

FYI: You have just committed a gigantic circular error. In trying to “prove” your original point that mind is brain all you have done has deny any other position and represent your own as a conclusion given and proven. Nope. Wrong again. For the third time. Hopelessly inadequate

LOL

Pot, meet kettle. The difference is that I’m relying on over a century of brain research and you’re relying on ... Rupert Sheldrake?

Again, your refutation amounts to denial, which is not a valid argument, and now you have added disparagement, which is the ad hominem logical fallacy. Not very impressive for someone who claims to be rational and logical.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 06:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM
factfinder - 27 October 2011 06:04 AM
George - 26 October 2011 06:33 AM
factfinder - 25 October 2011 06:04 PM

Also, you seem to locate both rationality and intelligence exclusively as brain functions but there is a lot of evidence that every cell of the body has intelligence and there are neurons in the spine, etc.

Do you think amputation of your leg would make you less rational?

There would still be millions of cells to do the job.

Funny, your leg is quite a bit bigger than your brain, isn’t it?

See above rely. Repeating your error is not an advisable way to proceed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 26 October 2011 04:10 AM
TromboneAndrew - 25 October 2011 08:56 PM

Whether or not the brain is the originator of every thought (probably not, as pleasure and pain can originate from virtually any part of the body and would constitute a ‘thought’) doesn’t matter so much as recognizing that the brain is the central control organ.

Well, I think this suffers from equivocation over the word “originator”. One sense of “originator” is causal, and another is metaphysical. E.g., what is the ‘originator’ of water? In one sense water originates in the stars and nebulae: they are what caused water to exist. In another sense water originates in H2O; that is, it is metaphysically dependent upon (in this case, identical to) H2O.

When people say that the brain is the originator of every thought they don’t mean that every thought has its causal origins in the brain. Or at least they don’t simply mean this: clearly causation has a long tail and so every thought will of necessity have its origin outside the brain. But the light outside my eyes does not (in your terms) constitute a thought, and neither does the nerve impulse in my finger when I hit it with a hammer. The thought, such as it is, has its origin in (= metaphysical dependence upon) the brain. No brain, no thought.

Put it another way: take away H2O, there is no water, no matter what happens in stars and nebulae. Take away the brain, there is no thought, no matter what happens in external nerve endings. A brainless body has no thoughts, and cannot feel pain, even if it is kept temporarily ‘alive’ on a respirator, etc.

You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you misuse and attempt to redefine “metaphysics”. 

How do you know a “brainless body has no thoughts, and cannot feel pain, even if it is kept temporarily ‘alive’ on a respirator, etc”? What are your sources?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:20 AM

How do you know a “brainless body has no thoughts, and cannot feel pain, even if it is kept temporarily ‘alive’ on a respirator, etc”? What are your sources?

This is so silly a request as not to deserve response. Nevertheless, here goes. A nonfunctioning brain is the legal definition of death in all countries, AFAIK. If you think you don’t need your brain to keep thinking, why not try it by having a brain excision and see what happens? Indeed, what’s the problem with getting shot or hit in the head?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:13 AM
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM

Pot, meet kettle. The difference is that I’m relying on over a century of brain research and you’re relying on ... Rupert Sheldrake?

Again, your refutation amounts to denial, which is not a valid argument, and now you have added disparagement, which is the ad hominem logical fallacy. Not very impressive for someone who claims to be rational and logical.

Um, you really should get your fallacies straight. A fallacy “ad hominem” would be to attack some aspect of your person which is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument in question, like saying, “You’re wrong about there being zombies because you’re a Rangers fan.” What I’ve done instead is to focus on the content of your claims, pointing out that your argument relies on a false premise: that Rupert Sheldrake is a credible or authoritative source. I’ve given evidence why he’s not. I’ve also pointed out that the other sources of your claims were equally flimsy.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 28 October 2011 06:46 AM
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:20 AM

How do you know a “brainless body has no thoughts, and cannot feel pain, even if it is kept temporarily ‘alive’ on a respirator, etc”? What are your sources?

This is so silly a request as not to deserve response. Nevertheless, here goes. A nonfunctioning brain is the legal definition of death in all countries, AFAIK. If you think you don’t need your brain to keep thinking, why not try it by having a brain excision and see what happens? Indeed, what’s the problem with getting shot or hit in the head?

You are all bluster and legerdemain. You sidled from “brainless body” to “nonfunctioning brain”.  Your use of the term “nonfunctioning brain” is but a restatement of your position and therefore both a tautology and a fallacious circular argument. Please spend a bit more time and actually think about the post to which you want to respond as well as to your rely. 

Those who are unable to defend or even articulate their position, as in your case, finally resort to denigration of the views and person of those with whom they dispute, as you are doing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 28 October 2011 06:53 AM
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:13 AM
dougsmith - 27 October 2011 06:15 AM

Pot, meet kettle. The difference is that I’m relying on over a century of brain research and you’re relying on ... Rupert Sheldrake?

Again, your refutation amounts to denial, which is not a valid argument, and now you have added disparagement, which is the ad hominem logical fallacy. Not very impressive for someone who claims to be rational and logical.

Um, you really should get your fallacies straight. A fallacy “ad hominem” would be to attack some aspect of your person which is irrelevant to the soundness of the argument in question, like saying, “You’re wrong about there being zombies because you’re a Rangers fan.” What I’ve done instead is to focus on the content of your claims, pointing out that your argument relies on a false premise: that Rupert Sheldrake is a credible or authoritative source. I’ve given evidence why he’s not. I’ve also pointed out that the other sources of your claims were equally flimsy.

Wrong again. You have only stated that Sheldrake is not credible. Your saying so, doesn’t make it so. In addition, the way you dismissed him constitutes an ad hom.  Also, you have not, as you claim, “pointed out that the other sources of your [my] claims are equally flimsy”, you have merely stated that those claims are wrong (and are only doing that again here). I remind you that your saying so, doesn’t make it so.  Plus, your repetition is the aptly named fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum.

I suggest that you enroll in an introductory course on symbolic logic. It would do you good and you would not embarrass yourself so much.

After taking that course, you could read Voltaire’s Bastards.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 28 October 2011 07:04 AM
dougsmith - 28 October 2011 06:46 AM
factfinder - 28 October 2011 06:20 AM

How do you know a “brainless body has no thoughts, and cannot feel pain, even if it is kept temporarily ‘alive’ on a respirator, etc”? What are your sources?

This is so silly a request as not to deserve response. Nevertheless, here goes. A nonfunctioning brain is the legal definition of death in all countries, AFAIK. If you think you don’t need your brain to keep thinking, why not try it by having a brain excision and see what happens? Indeed, what’s the problem with getting shot or hit in the head?

You are all bluster and legerdemain. You sidled from “brainless body” to “nonfunctioning brain”.  Your use of the term “nonfunctioning brain” is but a restatement of your position and therefore both a tautology and a fallacious circular argument. Please spend a bit more time and actually think about the post to which you want to respond as well as to your rely. 

Er, I used the term “nonfunctioning brain” because it was better for your case. “Brainless body” would have worked as well in my example. I also note you haven’t responded to the rest of my post.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 28 October 2011 07:13 AM

Wrong again. You have only stated that Sheldrake is not credible. Your saying so, doesn’t make it so. In addition, the way you dismissed him constitutes an ad hom.  Also, you have not, as you claim, “pointed out that the other sources of your [my] claims are equally flimsy”, you have merely stated that those claims are wrong (and are only doing that again here). I remind you that your saying so, doesn’t make it so.  Plus, your repetition is the aptly named fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum.

I suggest rereading the posts you reference. You will find there more than mere statement. You will also find links to evidence.

factfinder - 28 October 2011 07:13 AM

I suggest that you enroll in an introductory course on symbolic logic. It would do you good and you would not embarrass yourself so much.

LOL

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
factfinder - 28 October 2011 07:13 AM

Wrong again. You have only stated that Sheldrake is not credible. Your saying so, doesn’t make it so. In addition, the way you dismissed him constitutes an ad hom.  Also, you have not, as you claim, “pointed out that the other sources of your [my] claims are equally flimsy”, you have merely stated that those claims are wrong (and are only doing that again here). I remind you that your saying so, doesn’t make it so.  Plus, your repetition is the aptly named fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum.

I suggest rereading the posts you reference. You will find there more than mere statement. You will also find links to evidence.

Been there, done that, nothing more than mere statement. I’m sure that you are legend in your own mind. But in print? Not so much.

factfinder - 28 October 2011 07:13 AM

I suggest that you enroll in an introductory course on symbolic logic. It would do you good and you would not embarrass yourself so much.

LOL

A laugh to cover embarrassment? Don’t be nervous. Just enroll. Now.

Your repetition is boring. Could we get back to the original topic?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

Having people function normally without having a normally function brain flies in the face of everything we know about biology. This is a fantastic claim and requires fantastic evidence. Please provide us with some documentation.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
TromboneAndrew - 28 October 2011 08:27 AM

Having people function normally without having a normally function brain flies in the face of everything we know about biology. This is a fantastic claim and requires fantastic evidence. Please provide us with some documentation.

It is only “fantastic” if one is mired in stereotype/bias.  It may fly in the face of everything that YOU know about biology, but it is common knowledge elsewhere.

http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
TromboneAndrew - 28 October 2011 08:27 AM

Having people function normally without having a normally function brain flies in the face of everything we know about biology. This is a fantastic claim and requires fantastic evidence. Please provide us with some documentation.

The link I gave above has been sold. However the original article, Lewin, Roger; “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?”,  can found at Science 12 December 1980: Vol. 210 no. 4475 pp. 1232-1234 DOI: 10.1126/science.7434023., Google the title and you can order a pdf or view an extract gratis.

There are hundreds of examples of fully and highly functioning people who have no discernible brain structure.

You and many of the people responding to this thread are victims of their illusions/delusions of knowledge.“It is the commonest of mistakes to consider that limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.” -C. W. Leadbeater.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Speaking of biology, why do you think the brain consumes about 20 percent of the body’s energy? It it were the leg that did the thinking plus the walking, why would the heart pump one fifth of the blood to the brain to feed it?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2