You are looking at posts that were written in the month of April in the year 2008.
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the
Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)
The [Samaritan] woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he
who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all thing.” 26
Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” (John 4:25)
On Apr 30, 9:55 am, Caprice wrote:
> Any thoughts on this subject?
Any more questions?
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
> I submit that just as with the Berlin experiment, (for which I await
> confirmation), the Ramachandran effort is flawed for the same
> reason. i.e. It negates any possibility of free will, by virtue of the
> apriori instruction to the brain prompting anticipatory expectation
> for action. ( If we have a free will it relies in this case on
> spontaneity
> without suggestion.) In this case the brain is told prior to the
> action
> what it must do.
I must disagree with that, a most nuanced way. It is a possibility
that when the brain is expecting a particular decision making, it
readies itself in advance to do such a thing in a qualitatively
different way than when it merely decides things on-the-fly. But that
possibility doesn’t necessarily negate “any possibility of free will,
by virtue of the apriori instruction to the brain prompting
anticipatory expectation for action” the results still could have been
different in that test. [and indeed, (here is another objection that
you might enjoy as well) you might say as well that the experiment is
also flawed, as it is further possible that we have free will of a
sort that we are simply NOT aware of; as if the conscious side of
decision making wasn’t in fact the ‘free’ part of it, but that the
free part of it might simply still be of a non-mechanistic (soul-like)
nature that we are simply not consciously aware of]
However, the methods by which one determines what is most likely to be
true need not account for infinite imaginable explanations for what
has been observed. To determine what is most likely true, one simply
must (to be productive at all and not simply get waylaid by solipsism)
assume that what has been observed is representative of the general
state of things and reach a conclusion based off of that — and as the
observations and conclusions are intrinsically tied together and
science never precludes the possibility that those conclusions may be
wrong; the best and most likely true explanations are still found.
In other words, yes, you may be right, those experiments may lead to
observations and conclusions that aren’t representative of reality,
but as there are not experiments and subsequent observations that
would lead us to believe that those conclusions are NOT representative
of reality; we must simply make the only useful decision and assume
that they are in fact representative of reality.
Hope that makes sense.
On Apr 30, 12:53 am, Lawrey wrote:
> AF.
>
> I submit that just as with the Berlin experiment, (for which I await
> confirmation), the Ramachandran effort is flawed for the same
> reason. i.e. It negates any possibility of free will, by virtue of the
> apriori instruction to the brain prompting anticipatory expectation
> for action. ( If we have a free will it relies in this case on
> spontaneity
> without suggestion.) In this case the brain is told prior to the
> action
> what it must do.
>
> On Apr 29, 11:42 pm, Dag Yo wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the link. Anything with Ramachandran is badass.
>
> > On Apr 29, 1:23 pm, AE wrote:
>
> > > The neuroscientist Vilanajur Ramachandran spoke of some interesting
> > > experiments in his Reith Lectures (which are available to listen and
> > > download from the BBC website - highly recommended!). The experiments
> > > involved monitoring which parts of the brain are active when a person
> > > is told to perform a voluntary act, such as chosing at which moment in
> > > time between the counts of 1 to 10 to move their index finger.
> > > Fascinatingly, areas of the brain were seen to activate before the
> > > person knew of their intention, but were accurate predictors of the
> > > intention. Roughly a second before the person thought they wanted to
> > > move their finger, the machine could predict the intention. This would
> > > suggest, at least on the surface, that free will is illusory, since a
> > > person’s intentions can be predicted in this way. The subjects who
> > > were shown the predictions as they tried to decide when to move their
> > > finger, were amazed, and believed the machine to be able to predict
> > > their thoughts! From the sounds of it, this is not Ramachandran’s own
> > > research, but he said that at the time the results were announced,
> > > they sent philosophers into a mad scramble to interpret what this
> > > means for free will. It remains an interesting question. I’ve tried to
> > > contact Ramachandran to ask him for journal references to read the
> > > study myself, but I’ve not heard anything back. If anyone out there
> > > knows about this, I’d really love to hear it. Cheers.
>
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
All it takes is an in-depth study of the innumerable factors upon which life
depended upon to come about and to flourish. Then, the factors which
produced and which sustain sentient, human life. Factors we depend on, the
precision, the mathematical balance and particular laws of physics, of
chemistry and the dynamic functioning of biological organisms. Look at a
single cell which is a lot like a miniature factory. Cranes, machinery that
sorts, and assembles proteins. Messenger molecules, whirring molecule-sized
motors and energy synthesis and storage. All traceable back to a “big bang?”
A random happenstance? Dumb, blind luck? I don’t think so.
On 4/30/08, hardlyhome@mindless.com wrote:
>
>
> On May 1, 2:43 am, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> > A person can be entirely reasonable, sensible, and logical and conclude
> that
> > intelligent design is a reality.
>
> Then perhaps you can give us these reasonable, sensible and logical
> reasons that lead you to come to this conclusion? I, and others, have
> asked you for them on many occassions now Keith and you seem to be
> incapable of articulating them. Could you try that now please?
>
> Have fun,
> Craig
> >
>