Secular Morality?

[seer]

I think they word you meant to use there was inferrence

Oh, and on everything? Your entire reply style is based upon a lack of knowledge in the fields your discussing, some google searches to find scientific articles to quote mine, and flat rejection of anything that contradicts your religious beliefs.

So so boring

No, I mean assumption. Unproven assumption. In this thread I have show that one must reject accepted definitions of "reasoning" "reason" and "abstract thinking" to make the argument work. And if that is the case then why not define what ants and bees do as reasoning? I offered links where their behavior certainly appeared rational. But no, you won't, you are wedded to your hypocrisy.

[Jaecp]

Lol but you're a humorless one. Your insistence on calling inference from study an assumption is laughable. As is your PRATTing on about bees that was answered well over a week ago. Up your game, dude, this is getting pathetic

[seer]

Lol but you're a humorless one. Your insistence on calling inference from study an assumption is laughable. As is your PRATTing on about bees that was answered well over a week ago. Up your game, dude, this is getting pathetic

Of course it is an assumption Homer. Do you know how the ape or bird actually "reasons?" What actually goes through their mind? How they come to the behaviors they come to?

[Jaecp]

If you'd read the articles with an eye towards understanding, instead of being set against it from the start, then you'd already know the answer to that question.

DOH!

[seer]

If you'd read the articles with an eye towards understanding, instead of being set against it from the start, then you'd already know the answer to that question.

DOH!

Really Homer? Where does any article tell us how the Raven actually comes to his conclusions? It is the height of hubris to suggest that we could understand what goes on in the mind of a bird. Heck, you can not even know what is going on in the mind of a fellow human being.

[Jaecp]

Deep breath hombre

In

Fer

Ence

Deeeep breaaaath

In fer ence.

Not everything is math. Not everything is clean and can be deduced. We're dealing with behaviors and brains. Every question you asking of me is answered to the capacity it currently can be in the dozen+ articles that have been linked.

[seer]

Deep breath hombre

In

Fer

Ence

Deeeep breaaaath

In fer ence.

Not everything is math. Not everything is clean and can be deduced. We're dealing with behaviors and brains. Every question you asking of me is answered to the capacity it currently can be in the dozen+ articles that have been linked.

Actually no my question has not be answered, because it can't be answered. Please link where it was. I read all the links thus far BTW.

[Jaecp]

Can't be answered? LOL

That's your problem, bro, you don't want an answer. You don't understand the science behind this stuff you keep telling us you're reading and you imagine that you're clever for saying that the barrier for knowledge is, conveniently, at some distance beyond the studies in question as though your persona; proclivities are super relevant to setting that bar.

It's a riot, that.

You ever brought up the claim that we can't even know whats going on in another humans brain, which is silly. It's superficially true on a pedantic level, but so incorrect as to be laughable. Seriously, what is your educational background? Have you never heard of mirror neurons? Any, like literally any, study that had to with psychologists, neurologists, or neuroscientists doing things with fMRI's? Have you never had a pet? Cmon man, this play at solipsism for rhetoric just makes you look like you have no knowledge, whatsoever, about our modern understanding of how brains work.

[seer]

Can't be answered? LOL

That's your problem, bro, you don't want an answer. You don't understand the science behind this stuff you keep telling us you're reading and you imagine that you're clever for saying that the barrier for knowledge is, conveniently, at some distance beyond the studies in question as though your persona; proclivities are super relevant to setting that bar.

It's a riot, that.

You ever brought up the claim that we can't even know whats going on in another humans brain, which is silly. It's superficially true on a pedantic level, but so incorrect as to be laughable. Seriously, what is your educational background? Have you never heard of mirror neurons? Any, like literally any, study that had to with psychologists, neurologists, or neuroscientists doing things with fMRI's? Have you never had a pet? Cmon man, this play at solipsism for rhetoric just makes you look like you have no knowledge, whatsoever, about our modern understanding of how brains work.

No, you are ignorant. You can not know what I'm thinking. You can not know my motivations. Went I was caring for my dying mother what was my motivation? Was I doing it for love, or to make sure that I was her beneficiary? And a MIR can not know when I'm thinking of the letter A for instance unless I first tell them I'm thinking of the letter A. Then they can map those particular neurons. So in the future when those neurons are firing you can be fairly sure that I am thinking of the letter A. And how do you do that with a Raven that can not self-report? You can't idiot.

[Truthseeker]

In fact, as previously stated, many physicists think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.
<snip>
There the odds are very much in favour of all these questions having a natural explanation. Furthermore there is considerable evidence of complexity arising from simplicity:
<snip>
How do you know that the universe is not a consequence of highly intelligent aliens devising a Matrix-like virtual reality for purposes of their own?

The last sentence seems silly. As for the preceding sentences quoted above, estimating probabilities is vain regarding questions concerning the existence of the Creator. Did not science take as a premise that the universe was not created by a Creator?

[shunyadragon]

The last sentence seems silly. As for the preceding sentences quoted above, estimating probabilities is vain regarding questions concerning the existence of the Creator. Did not science take as a premise that the universe was not created by a Creator?

As for the highlighted, NO, the premise of science is that it cannot be determined with Scientific methods whether the universe did nor did not have a Creator.

[Jaecp]

No, you are ignorant. You can not know what I'm thinking. You can not know my motivations. Went I was caring for my dying mother what was my motivation? Was I doing it for love, or to make sure that I was her beneficiary? And a MIR can not know when I'm thinking of the letter A for instance unless I first tell them I'm thinking of the letter A. Then they can map those particular neurons. So in the future when those neurons are firing you can be fairly sure that I am thinking of the letter A. And how do you do that with a Raven that can not self-report? You can't idiot.

Unless you're some sort of sociopath, odds are you did it because of love. Ocytocin is a hell of a drug. We don't even need an MRI (shh, fMRI) to know this. Our brains are machines. Complex machines, but still machines. While getting the data might be difficult since there isn't someone following you around making sure you aren't the kind of monster who'd pretend to love his mother for money there is no particular reason why can't know why you're doing things. People aren't tragic, Shakespearean characters. Motivation is not especially complicated compared to the rest of neurological study. Seriously, man, mirror neurons. You aren't some sort of Machiavellian mastermind able to deceive all around you.

Also, yeah, you again prove your utter ignorance of Psychology with claims regarding reporting and fMRI's. Researchers, right now, are working on brain mapping people in comas. No self reporting required. You'd know this if your basis for your claims was rooted in a cursory knowledge of the field instead of abject ignorance.

This is laughable seer. You're trying to use your own faulty grasp of quickly googled psychology papers to claim that the field isn't advancing. That is so silly it hurts.

What the heck is your educational background dude, this is getting ridiculous. Seriously, what is it?

[Tassman]

I think they word you meant to use there was inferrence

Oh, and on everything? Your entire reply style is based upon a lack of knowledge in the fields your discussing, some google searches to find scientific articles to quote mine, and flat rejection of anything that contradicts your religious beliefs.

So so boring

No Tass, there are copies because in time there is an original. The first Tass, even if you only came about a second before the other Tasses. Max Tegmark himself, calls them copies. And as he stated in his paper this is where any multi-verse theory must lead. So am I speaking to the original Tass or a copy? And this is the nonsense you are willing to believe to keep a creation event, and a Divine foot out of the door.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PD...erse_sciam.pdf

Try to understand that the "copies" are identical is every respect to the "original" therefore they are all the same. You really don't know what your talking about.

More to the point your argument, such as it is, is the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Ridicule, i.e. it intends to mock rather than examine the evidence...a standard ploy of yours. And your appeal to incredulity (another logical fallacy) at the seeming paradoxes of multiverse theory is utterly irrelevant to it, it certainly doesn't invalidate it.

The last sentence seems silly. As for the preceding sentences quoted above, estimating probabilities is vain regarding questions concerning the existence of the Creator.

No more silly than positing "god-did-it" when there's no good evidence suggesting this is the case. OTOH we do understand about creating virtual worlds in principle, therefore it is quite feasible that an advanced alien intelligence...they probably exist...has already achieved this end and that possibly we are products of it. I'm not saying we are, but it's hypothetically possible.

Did not science take as a premise that the universe was not created by a Creator?

Science has nothing to say regarding the existence or non-existence of deities.

[Jaecp]

Sure, but like, I would seriously buy the man a pizza if he could actually actually express his views on the science in a way that isn't laughably ignorant of the science

I don't really care about deconverting the "guy who may or may not have stayed with his sick mother for nefarious reasons" guy, but the dude needs to up his game. This is just sad.

[seer]

Unless you're some sort of sociopath, odds are you did it because of love. Ocytocin is a hell of a drug. We don't even need an MRI (shh, fMRI) to know this. Our brains are machines. Complex machines, but still machines. While getting the data might be difficult since there isn't someone following you around making sure you aren't the kind of monster who'd pretend to love his mother for money there is no particular reason why can't know why you're doing things. People aren't tragic, Shakespearean characters. Motivation is not especially complicated compared to the rest of neurological study. Seriously, man, mirror neurons. You aren't some sort of Machiavellian mastermind able to deceive all around you.

More unfounded assertions Jaecp. No you can not know my motivations when it came to my mom. You can assume. But this applies across the board. When I see the color blue, do I see the same shade as you? When my heart is broken does it feel the same for me as it would for you? You can not know. And are you seriously going to tell us that you don't have private thoughts or feelings that you don't share with others? How does science "know" those? What is my favorite color? My favorite food?

Also, yeah, you again prove your utter ignorance of Psychology with claims regarding reporting and fMRI's. Researchers, right now, are working on brain mapping people in comas. No self reporting required. You'd know this if your basis for your claims was rooted in a cursory knowledge of the field instead of abject ignorance.

Did you even get my point? No. Of course you can map the physical brain. But do you know what the people in the coma are actually thinking about? That is the upshot Homer.