2 of 3
2
The limits of intelligence
Posted: 05 November 2011 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 06:44 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 05:50 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 03:42 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 03:53 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 12:40 AM
factfinder - 03 November 2011 04:54 AM
ShadowSot - 03 November 2011 01:20 AM

You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.

“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.

For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.

Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.

Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.


How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?

  It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.

Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?

As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition.  Try again.

http://www.imagery-imagination.com/wherebrain.htm  Here is something that might help with the evidence part;  in regards to measurment/definition, you’re right sort of-subjectivity can not be avoided. However, some workable way of measuring an individual’s imaginative capacity can still be accomplished.

That link is not evidence. It merely restates your position that the brain is the source of imagination, ideas, thinking, etc. without offering any evidence in support of that contention.  Atheists seem to be relying on revelation for their theories and not the evidence-based processes that they claim to be using. But revelation is exactly what Atheists condemn in other religions. There seems to be a contradiction in Atheist Land.

The article was interesting, however, in that it specifically said that the brain/nervous system is not the entire source of mental activity and that other parts of the body are involved. Oops, there goes your brain theory.

For starters, I suggest that you read Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

Instead of googling and pasting, have you ever considered actually reading and thinking about what you encounter?

Again, could you present some evidence that imagination consists of the brain and nervous system?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2011 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 05 November 2011 04:26 AM

Your entire rant depends upon the theory that the brain has something to do with imagination and metaphysics (which, by the way, is not possible since “metaphysics” means beyond the physical and the brain is physical, so the two are mutually exclusive).

The word “metaphysics” comes from the redactors of Aristotle’s works. It was the stuff that came “after the physics”, or after Aristotle’s book on physics. It does not mean “beyond the physical” nor imply “non physical” in the sense you claim.

Any worked out system of philosophy including physicalism will have a metaphysics. The branch of metaphysics that deals with what things are made of is called “ontology”. Physicalists will have an ontology that only includes physical things. Naturalists (at least in the standard sense) will have an ontology that only includes ‘natural’ things, or things from one or another of the branches of science.

“Metaphysics” in the sense you’re using it is the sense that Barnes and Noble puts nonsense books about spiritualism, ghosts and tarot under the heading “Metaphysical books”. That usage has no place in philosophy; it’s basically a marketing term for woo.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2011 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 05 November 2011 05:46 AM
factfinder - 05 November 2011 04:26 AM

Your entire rant depends upon the theory that the brain has something to do with imagination and metaphysics (which, by the way, is not possible since “metaphysics” means beyond the physical and the brain is physical, so the two are mutually exclusive).

The word “metaphysics” comes from the redactors of Aristotle’s works. It was the stuff that came “after the physics”, or after Aristotle’s book on physics. It does not mean “beyond the physical” nor imply “non physical” in the sense you claim.

Any worked out system of philosophy including physicalism will have a metaphysics. The branch of metaphysics that deals with what things are made of is called “ontology”. Physicalists will have an ontology that only includes physical things. Naturalists (at least in the standard sense) will have an ontology that only includes ‘natural’ things, or things from one or another of the branches of science.

“Metaphysics” in the sense you’re using it is the sense that Barnes and Noble puts nonsense books about spiritualism, ghosts and tarot under the heading “Metaphysical books”. That usage has no place in philosophy; it’s basically a marketing term for woo.

You are merely repeating your bias. AGAIN.

Your attempted etymology of “metaphysical” is erroneous. You got the origins part right but you messed up on the derivatives part in that you failed to cover all the uses of metaphysical.  You employed only those meanings that suit your bias. You omitted, in fact, derided those meanings that contradicted your narrow world view. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

But next time, try to avoid the mistake of the circular argument. If you need some additional tutoring on this but want to avoid embarrassing yourself further in public, let me know, and we communicate outside of this club.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2011 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  96
Joined  2010-09-10

You are merely repeating your bias. AGAIN.

You talk a lot, but say   little that isn’t insult.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2011 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14

factfinder, your responses consistently demonstrate the arrogance that only ignorance provides. Instead of repeating factually incorrect claims of one or another fallacy, it would be better to actually try to understand the positions you avoid. Your strategy certainly appears gratuitously combative with the intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique any particular idea or point of view.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2011 08:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2665
Joined  2011-04-24
factfinder - 05 November 2011 04:39 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 06:44 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 05:50 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 03:42 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 03:53 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 12:40 AM
factfinder - 03 November 2011 04:54 AM
ShadowSot - 03 November 2011 01:20 AM

You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.

“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.

For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.

Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.

Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.


How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?

  It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.

Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?

As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition.  Try again.

http://www.imagery-imagination.com/wherebrain.htm  Here is something that might help with the evidence part;  in regards to measurment/definition, you’re right sort of-subjectivity can not be avoided. However, some workable way of measuring an individual’s imaginative capacity can still be accomplished.

That link is not evidence. It merely restates your position that the brain is the source of imagination, ideas, thinking, etc. without offering any evidence in support of that contention.  Atheists seem to be relying on revelation for their theories and not the evidence-based processes that they claim to be using. But revelation is exactly what Atheists condemn in other religions. There seems to be a contradiction in Atheist Land.

The article was interesting, however, in that it specifically said that the brain/nervous system is not the entire source of mental activity and that other parts of the body are involved. Oops, there goes your brain theory.

For starters, I suggest that you read Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

Instead of googling and pasting, have you ever considered actually reading and thinking about what you encounter?

Again, could you present some evidence that imagination consists of the brain and nervous system?

What would you consider to be hard evidence; aside from somebody performing brain surgery on you and destroying everything that makes your “essence”, what can be done to convince a person like yourself?  Any scientific study that shows the supernaturalist view of cognition to be a load of BS will just be dismissed by you as close mindedness by mean atheists!!  BTW, Candace Pert is a well known woo meister, and other parts of the body being part of mental activity is very well established by science-those other body parts are connected to the brain, so the “brain theory” still lives.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 05:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
ShadowSot - 05 November 2011 10:47 AM

You are merely repeating your bias. AGAIN.

You talk a lot, but say   little that isn’t insult.

I point out the factual and/or logical errors upon which Atheism is based.

Whether you choose to heed what is said instead of dismissing it is up to you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 05:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 05 November 2011 12:36 PM

factfinder, your responses consistently demonstrate the arrogance that only ignorance provides. Instead of repeating factually incorrect claims of one or another fallacy, it would be better to actually try to understand the positions you avoid. Your strategy certainly appears gratuitously combative with the intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique any particular idea or point of view.

If you choose to characterize the detailing of your (and others) factual and logical errors as “gratuitously combative” that is up to you.
I can understand why it must be irritating for you to have to face up to the fact that your “position” is based on error. To accept your errors means that you must change your position and, of course, you do not want to do that.

But it is clear that your (collective) positions are erroneous and due to fear resulting from some psychological problems or mental inabilities.

I’m still waiting for you to correct the two logical errrors, circularity and equivocation, that you employed in your last post.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
mid atlantic - 05 November 2011 08:22 PM
factfinder - 05 November 2011 04:39 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 06:44 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 05:50 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 03:42 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 03:53 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 12:40 AM
factfinder - 03 November 2011 04:54 AM
ShadowSot - 03 November 2011 01:20 AM

You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.

“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.

For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.

Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.

Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.


How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?

  It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.

Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?

As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition.  Try again.

http://www.imagery-imagination.com/wherebrain.htm  Here is something that might help with the evidence part;  in regards to measurment/definition, you’re right sort of-subjectivity can not be avoided. However, some workable way of measuring an individual’s imaginative capacity can still be accomplished.

That link is not evidence. It merely restates your position that the brain is the source of imagination, ideas, thinking, etc. without offering any evidence in support of that contention.  Atheists seem to be relying on revelation for their theories and not the evidence-based processes that they claim to be using. But revelation is exactly what Atheists condemn in other religions. There seems to be a contradiction in Atheist Land.

The article was interesting, however, in that it specifically said that the brain/nervous system is not the entire source of mental activity and that other parts of the body are involved. Oops, there goes your brain theory.

For starters, I suggest that you read Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

Instead of googling and pasting, have you ever considered actually reading and thinking about what you encounter?

Again, could you present some evidence that imagination consists of the brain and nervous system?

What would you consider to be hard evidence; aside from somebody performing brain surgery on you and destroying everything that makes your “essence”, what can be done to convince a person like yourself?  Any scientific study that shows the supernaturalist view of cognition to be a load of BS will just be dismissed by you as close mindedness by mean atheists!!  BTW, Candace Pert is a well known woo meister, and other parts of the body being part of mental activity is very well established by science-those other body parts are connected to the brain, so the “brain theory” still lives.

Despite all of your stonewalling, you have yet to produce ANY evidence that the brain is responsible for imagination. Your bluster doesn’t rise to the level of proof and your evasiveness implies you don’t have any other evidence.

Your ad hom dismissal of Dr. Pert, someone who has better credentials than you, is revealing. Your defense seems to be based on a misguided bullshit-baffles-brains school of debate.

Here’s a question for you. What is a “supernaturalist view of cognition”? It would be good to define our terms before heading down this road.

While you are formulating a response, read any books by Dr. Judy Orloff, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
factfinder - 06 November 2011 05:24 AM

I point out the factual and/or logical errors upon which Atheism is based.

The problem is that you don’t actually point out errors. What you do is either to assert that there are errors with no actual errors elucidated, or to engage in straw man fallacies of such obviousness that nobody is willing to waste much time rebutting them. (E.g. that “Imagination is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community” or that “the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists”). Further, when it is pointed out to you that you are misreading your own sources (as with Dr. Lorber), you ignore the evidence and repeat the same erroneous conclusions you made before.

We value vigorous debate on this Forum, and we have had theists willing to come here and debate at length. But there is a difference between debate and trolling. Simply posting in a gratuitously combative manner with no actual interest in the arguments or facts provided amounts to trolling. Consider this your last warning.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2665
Joined  2011-04-24
factfinder - 06 November 2011 05:51 AM
mid atlantic - 05 November 2011 08:22 PM
factfinder - 05 November 2011 04:39 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 06:44 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 05:50 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 03:42 PM
factfinder - 04 November 2011 03:53 AM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2011 12:40 AM
factfinder - 03 November 2011 04:54 AM
ShadowSot - 03 November 2011 01:20 AM

You need imagination. Computers have great intelligence, but no imagination to do anything with it aside from what’s provided by it’s user.
Likewise, great leaps in understanding come from people who are very intelligent and very imaginative.

“Imagination” is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community. Atheists are only interested in what is “real”, ie. evident to their senses, measurable and definable, to them. This precludes the use of imagination.

For Atheists, imagination is part of the metaphysical. And the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists.

Which brings up something that you omitted from your response - intuition, the ability to know something without conscious reasoning. Intuition includes the wide range of spiritual ways of knowing that eludes Atheists.

Actually imagination is quite welcome in the “atheist community”; it’s not hard to measure or define it either.


How would one measure imagination? Of what does imagination consist?

  It consists of the brain and nervous system; A person’s imagination could be measured by how productive they are as a result of using it.

Oh, please. Imagination consists of the brain and nervous system? Could you present some evidence of that?

As for productivity, your “definition” depends on how productivity is measured, who is doing the assessment and what his or her world view is. Subjectivity does not rise to the level of definition.  Try again.

http://www.imagery-imagination.com/wherebrain.htm  Here is something that might help with the evidence part;  in regards to measurment/definition, you’re right sort of-subjectivity can not be avoided. However, some workable way of measuring an individual’s imaginative capacity can still be accomplished.

That link is not evidence. It merely restates your position that the brain is the source of imagination, ideas, thinking, etc. without offering any evidence in support of that contention.  Atheists seem to be relying on revelation for their theories and not the evidence-based processes that they claim to be using. But revelation is exactly what Atheists condemn in other religions. There seems to be a contradiction in Atheist Land.

The article was interesting, however, in that it specifically said that the brain/nervous system is not the entire source of mental activity and that other parts of the body are involved. Oops, there goes your brain theory.

For starters, I suggest that you read Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

Instead of googling and pasting, have you ever considered actually reading and thinking about what you encounter?

Again, could you present some evidence that imagination consists of the brain and nervous system?

What would you consider to be hard evidence; aside from somebody performing brain surgery on you and destroying everything that makes your “essence”, what can be done to convince a person like yourself?  Any scientific study that shows the supernaturalist view of cognition to be a load of BS will just be dismissed by you as close mindedness by mean atheists!!  BTW, Candace Pert is a well known woo meister, and other parts of the body being part of mental activity is very well established by science-those other body parts are connected to the brain, so the “brain theory” still lives.

Despite all of your stonewalling, you have yet to produce ANY evidence that the brain is responsible for imagination. Your bluster doesn’t rise to the level of proof and your evasiveness implies you don’t have any other evidence.

Your ad hom dismissal of Dr. Pert, someone who has better credentials than you, is revealing. Your defense seems to be based on a misguided bullshit-baffles-brains school of debate.

Here’s a question for you. What is a “supernaturalist view of cognition”? It would be good to define our terms before heading down this road.

While you are formulating a response, read any books by Dr. Judy Orloff, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA

  A supernaturalist view of cognition means that something beyond our natural world gives humans their mental functions. Orloff is also a flake.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14

mid atlantic, might be good to give some citations of why Orloff or Pert are flakes. At least it would help advance the argument to move beyond epithets.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2665
Joined  2011-04-24

http://candacepert.com/  A link to her website;  Candace Pert started out as a real scientist, doing major research on neuropeptides in the 1970’s.  More recently, she’s become an advocate of alternative medicine.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2011-09-18
dougsmith - 06 November 2011 06:21 AM
factfinder - 06 November 2011 05:24 AM

I point out the factual and/or logical errors upon which Atheism is based.

The problem is that you don’t actually point out errors. What you do is either to assert that there are errors with no actual errors elucidated, or to engage in straw man fallacies of such obviousness that nobody is willing to waste much time rebutting them. (E.g. that “Imagination is not something widely esteemed in the Atheist community” or that “the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists”). Further, when it is pointed out to you that you are misreading your own sources (as with Dr. Lorber), you ignore the evidence and repeat the same erroneous conclusions you made before.

We value vigorous debate on this Forum, and we have had theists willing to come here and debate at length. But there is a difference between debate and trolling. Simply posting in a gratuitously combative manner with no actual interest in the arguments or facts provided amounts to trolling. Consider this your last warning.

Au contraire, you and others are loathe to acknowledge the factual and logical errors that I point out in their statements. Your denial is characteristic of the responses. That is a logical error. When denial is found to be insufficient, you resort to threats. Another logical error. Not too impressive a record.

And for the record, (1) my statement,  “the metaphysical doesn’t exist for Atheists”, is verifiably true by the woo-woo slurs it elicits and references to the “supernatural” as well as equivocation error of switching meanings and (2)  the Atheist comments regarding Dr. Lorber, including yours, I believe, amounted to nothing more than denial and dismissal without evidence. 

Your rebuttals are mere denial and, having made that denial, you then consider it to amount to proof of an erroneous conclusion in latter posts. FYI: It does not amount to proof but does imply a lack of evidence for disproving the conclusion under consideration

Here is a logic tip for you: assertion is not proof. In other words, your saying so, doesn’t make it so. If you want to debate first, state your position without factual or logical error. Then, avoid dismissal, denial, threats and other logical errors when responding to counterpoints. If you are able to do this, you might actually learn something.

By the way, have you enrolled in the logic course, that I suggested for you? Or, you would you like some off-site private tutoring?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2011 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2665
Joined  2011-04-24

http://www.drjudithorloff.com/  This person is simply a joke; her website speaks loudly for itself.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2