Comments by epeeist

Comment #139296 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Comment #139292 by Bonzai

Phenomenon precedes theorization.

I'm not sure how you mean this. What generally precedes theorisation is a problem, that problem may be because of inconsistency between current theory and new data, or it may be that it is something that we now see is a problem which we never thought of before.

It is like saying cognitive science is physics, biology is physics, in fact everything is "identical" to physics because what is there beneath physics?

But "In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting." ;-)

2152. Fleabytes

Comment #139264 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #139262 by _J_

(On the question of how the FCOS forum works: we may accuse David Robertson of various things, but rampant censorship ought not to be one of them.

Hi _J_ nice to here from you again.

For what it is worth, it looks as though the post that went missing (and I say it no more strongly than that) looks as though it exposes some differences between DAR's description of his enrolment here as "clearthinker" and the admins spotting said enrolment and being informed of the probable identity of "clearthinker".

2153. Fleabytes

Comment #139261 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #139256 by Steve Zara

(Well, what else did you expect from me, huh?)

Music!

Both together - Emma Kirkby, one woman I really do have the hots for (fortunately my wife doesn't read the content on this site).

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Stands-Still/dp/B000002ZIN

2154. Fleabytes

Comment #139246 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #139243 by Richard Morgan

Like Bach's "Art of Fugue" it seems to go on for ever, but the same theme keeps recurring and it is never boring.

Just so long as it doesn't end for the same reason as the "Art of Fugue" did...

2155. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139239 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:05 am

Just for wooter's benefit.

If god created the universe in 4004BC, then lots of things we thought we knew are wrong. Evolution would be one example, Sumerian literature written on stone tablets would be another, the varves in lake Suigetsu would be another. In which case we obviously can't rely on our senses.

The question is, can god rely on his? How does he know he wasn't created in 4005BC?

2156. Fleabytes

Comment #139237 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #139234 by Steve Zara

I have also realised the irony of talking about different brains processing information in different ways on a thread in which atheists are attempting (without much success it seems) to communicate with a theist, and in which there has been so much misunderstanding over words.

But this is back to language again.

The paper is essentially about recognising bitmaps, we may assign some meaning to these but I suspect this is observer neutral.

One is obviously doing more interpretation when it comes to language.

How about an intermediate experiment - music recognition. More structured than a picture, less structured than natural language. Alternatively, something that requires additional interpretation such as short poems or mathematical proofs.

2157. Fleabytes

Comment #139232 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 10:47 am

Comment #139037 by Steve Zara

Is it reasonable to assume that different brains process information in the same way?

In general terms, I guess it is, because we would not be able to relate to each other at all if not, but in terms of specifics, perhaps not. There are major differences between cultures.

Serendipity - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/05/healthandwellbeing

2158. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139179 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Wooter - since you seem to be having problems answering Jon_sociologist's questions how about reducing it to answering one simple question from the Reverend:

What date did god create everything?

And to add a little addendum of my own

What evidence do you have for this?

2159. Fleabytes

Comment #139104 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #139054 by clodhopper

You see we make a division between the experiencer and the experienced which may be entirely false. Many many years ago I had an 'experience' where this division completely dissapeared and no, I was not on drugs. Actually I was picking runner beans in a market garden (holiday job). The experience was quite extraordinary and has not been repeated. There just was NO division between 'me', the beans, the bees on the flowers, the wind blowing through them, that person on the bike over there, the sunshine, the whole damn universe. My brain had also stopped jabbering and was completely silent, just looking on while this took place.

Sounds like a Maslow "Peak Experience".

2160. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio

I think you've misread my post.

I don't believe I have.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play.

I didn't say they hadn't, what I did intimate was that they should not be able to decide on policy, this should be down to elected representatives.

(automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with)

Agreed you didn't use it.

But what you are committing is the democratic fallacy. The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer. The same is true of virtually every other topic on which a church official opines apart from the rituals of their particular faith.

2161. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #139076 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #138840 by Affront

If only Islam could take on board the idea of 'having a sense of humour' but I guess that we'll have to wait a few more centuries for that.

OK, for the benefit of our UK readers there was evidence for deviation and repetition in the article, but what about hesititation?

2162. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice.

You are confusing two issues here:

The UK is a representative democracy. Those who make the decisions should be the people we have elected.
There should be no restrictions on any one voicing their views, whether they are Christian, atheist, businessman or union leader. However, none of these people should be granted any automatic deference purely because of their position.

Personally, I have fairly strong views about the role of the House of Lords and undue influence on the legislative process by particular groups of people but I don't these are appropriate for me to voice here.

2163. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139044 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 4:27 am

Comment #138205 by Geoff

Stat a new thread on here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

You'll be made to feel very welcome.

You sent him there ;-)

Just one word, Calilasseia. Be afraid, be very afraid.

2164. Fleabytes

Comment #139031 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #139007 by Steve Zara

For computers, it doesn't. The company Sun Microsystems has a slogan: "the network IS the computer".

What interests me is what it would feel like to have some kind of "network" between two brains.

(Being able to share what it is like to have a "revelatory experience" would be useful)

But there is (now) a common, low level protocol that allows one machine to communicate with another. And of course it still doesn't necessarily work, what if I am talking telnet and you are talking ssh? Or you are ASCII and I am UTF-16? What if my machine is a 64 bit SPARC and your machine is a 32 bit i386?

Is it reasonable to assume that different brains process information in the same way? Would it be reasonable if we were discussing visual or olfactory information, but not auditory information that included language if the sender and receiver had different primary languages, or different language groups (e.g. a Romance language and Chinese).

What kind of protocol could we imagine that would allow interchange of information between two brains?

2165. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138972 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #138954 by wipeout

I ain't no willing to intervine any stupid argument on this web page, but i am really tempted when i see twisted minds or mindsets obsessed with sex and related swearing- they think this is an ace card to use against anybody who are against them, like me or schemezers or kringski or wooter guy. If these are scientific answers, then, I know nothing about science.

If wooter wanted to show how much better he is than us he would ignore all the expletives and simply answer the questions jon_sociologist posted and that I reframed to make them easier to answer point by point.

That is all that is wanted. We don't want to know that "god did this" and "god did that". What we want to know is how and when he did it with some evidence that substantiates the claims.

2166. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #138554 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It might be dead, but it certainly doesn't want to lie down - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/03/will-we-be-hear.html

2167. Fleabytes

Comment #138252 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #138226 by Peacebeuponme

- I don't think they are liars unless they state the opposite though - you can't lie by being silent.

You obviously weren't brought up a Catholic - sins of commission and sins of omission.

2168. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138206 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #138191 by wooter

You can talk to Darwin and Bertrand Russell who were looking for amino acids in the soup and when you find it, it is your turn again. By the way thank you for your very descriptive language of yourself and this web page features. Way to go. You are almost there to prove that E.T is not fact but only a vocabulary of foul language. By the way you live along with Mr Dawkins?

Wooter - you have asked questions, you have been given answers (at least some by a Ph.D. and post-doctorate level biologist). Now it is your turn. Please answer the questions in my reformulation of jon_socialist's post. You can find it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2299,The-Salamanders-Tale,Richard-Dawkins-RodHullIAmHim,page4#136363

2169. Fleabytes

Comment #138127 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:09 am

Comment #138121 by LorienRyan

If you could extend it to include all the 'omni...'s' and make it succinct and catchy I'd be for it.

EDIT: or do a series, one for each 'omni'.

I would be for the latter. Keep each separate and focused, and do a follow up article tying the whole thing together at the end.

It would be too easy for detractors to lead discussion up side-shoots if you try to make too many points in a single article.

2170. Fleabytes

Comment #138124 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #138117 by MPhil

Say, what would you (directed at all) think of me combining, refining an expanding my posts on The impossibility of omnipotence

I for one would like to see this.

I think the time is coming where we can actually generate this kind of article internally, rather than needing to reference articles from elsewhere.

I don't mean to sound parochial, anything that is grist to the mill is welcome. But there is sufficient talent on the site to generate our own material. A means of collaboration (wiki?) might be useful to get things into shape initially.

2171. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138108 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 12:26 am

Comment #137804 by al-rawandi

2) Please do comment on the Constitution. I hope you, unlike retarded Jay, have actually read portions of the Bill of Rights. So do contribute...

I wouldn't dream of make a comment on the contents, I don't know enough about it.

The only thing I have wondered is whether the process for change is too rigid. You obviously don't want to make it too easy to change, but if it is overly difficult then is there a chance of it becoming irrelevant? Also, is there a chance of America becoming a "people of the book" in the same way some religiously based states are?

As for spelling - I use Firefox with the spell checker switched on. Works for me on Linux, I don't know whether this is possible for those of you running inferior operating systems.

Oh and Goldy - long ago I had to write an essay (like the rest of the group I was in) on chirality in molecular structures. I spelt "asymmetry" wrongly every time. Lecturer knocked a mark off for every misspelling. I, like many others in my class, got a negative mark.

2172. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137795 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #137739 by Diacanu

Fighting a tiger, that might mean something, y'know?

But even then, it's a critter with claws versus a guy with a gun.

Tiger doesn't have much chance really.

How about hunting boar the way they did in medieval times, with a boar spear. Even with the cross-bar on it you stood a good change of being gored if you didn't use it properly. That should add a bit more adrenaline.

Oh, and can I comment on the Constitution? Please, please, I'm English so you know I can add something relevant.

2173. Fleabytes

Comment #137786 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

2946. Comment #137777 by clodhopper

Oooo yes. Remind me which sci fi novel that was?

Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert Heinlein, not one of his best books.

er...I'm thick....how do I put an avatar up?

Click on the "Forum" link at the bottom and select "Control Panel" once you get there. Dig around and you can find it from there.

2174. Fleabytes

Comment #137769 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #137764 by clodhopper

I would like it as a verb; so I can say I pod something. Perhaps meaning 'to understand'.

eg " I do not pod what theologians do for a living"

Why use that when we already have a perfectly good word, i.e. "grok".

2175. Fleabytes

Comment #137558 by epeeist on March 3, 2008 at 6:37 am

Comment #137552 by Quetzalcoatl

Speaking of FCOS- after Robertson replied on his site last night another comment was made, which I now notice has magically disappeared, thanks to the wonders of moderation.

That's dreadful. If posts on this site disappeared like that, even if it was only to the alternate thread, people would immediately complain.

Oh, wait...

2176. Fleabytes

Comment #137190 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #137182 by hello

Which scientific advance is that, then?

The way debate works is that you ask some questions, we give you answers. After that it is our turn.

You owe Paula answers to questions she put to you in #135857 and #135974. Your turn to ask questions doesn't come until you have answered those.

2177. Fleabytes

Comment #137101 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #137095 by Corylus

Of course he really blew it when he linked to a Free Church Magazine. :-))

Nice spot, I think the Nov. 15th "Expelled" post rather gives it away.

2178. Fleabytes

Comment #137092 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

Comment #137087 by Deepthought

What were the real reasons for his banning? I'm fairly certain his are slightly skewed.

Posting in a way to cause flamefests, possibly deliberately. However, having read some of his posts elsewhere this is debatable.

Then quotemining the responses and using them elsewhere to show what nasty people we are.

2179. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136948 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #136944 by Steve Zara

I'm afraid I don't really have the strength of emotional responses you seem to think. I just believe that bullies like you do positive harm to this site. My impression is that this is supposed to be a place where people with different views can express them. Sure, we get insults, but those normally at least contain some content, or have an actual point.

Steve - I think it is a case of penis envy.

2180. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136907 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #136856 by brue68

I'd just like to say that I don't like having seat belt and helmet laws. I use a seat belt, because otherwise I feel like I'm falling out of the seat, but if someone feels like risking their life for perceived comfort or personal preference, I don't see why we should apply a penalty.

I remember when the law was promulgated here in the UK and there were lots of people moaning about it. They had a surgeon on the radio who was all in favour of it.

When asked why he said that it meant that he no longer had to extract large numbers of pieces of glass from people's faces.

2181. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #136904 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #136564 by Mango

Never give in to the demands of terrorists or they will keep up their tactics. This is encouraging extremists to continue to threaten violence because it meets their goals!

Well we in the UK were hassled by the Danes in previous generations but ignoring that, Kipling gets it right.

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:-"
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:-"

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

2182. Fleabytes

Comment #136538 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

Comment #136535 by Paula Kirby

Now I've answered your question, perhaps you would return the favour and answer the two I posted for you yesterday:

I don't think it is going to happen Paula. He (assumption on my part) seems to get to then end of one sentence and then forgets what he has said and so posts it anyway.

Attention span of a small goldfish.

2183. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #136363 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist

It's also your turn.

Agreed

Wooter - the way a debate works is that you ask questions, we provide answers.

We then ask questions, it is your turn to provide answers.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but until you provide answers to all of Jon_Sociologist's questions then I for one will not respond. Just to make life easy for you I have reworded and reformatted his questions so you can answer them more easily.

How did god make our sense of smell?
How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method.
How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same.
What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?
Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers?
Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal god need a penis for?
What goddess is he poking with it if he's the only deity?
What happened to the other gods in the old testament that apparently once existed but don't now (Baal for example)

Your turn wooter, lets have some explicit answers to these questions.

2184. Fleabytes

Comment #136362 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #136357 by D'Arcy

Have you got any thing constructive to say about your ideas, like maybe "there is a God" or "Jesus saves"?

Mindless banter bores me.

Banter? It is all hello can do to get beyond a single sentence response. You can strike banter, constructive and intelligent off the list I'm afraid.

2185. Fleabytes

Comment #136206 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #136184 by Quetzalcoatl

OK, I'm off too then.

Me three.

My best ever pupil came to the club last night. He now lives in London, so this is a rare event.

I started coaching him when he was 10. After a lesson he would go and sit down in a corner and not do anything for 15 minutes or so.

He is now 19 and is on the Olympic Pathway. He came in to make the old duffer who was his coach feel good by asking for a lesson. I gave him the full works, turned it into a tactical/assault lesson. After it was over I went into a corner and quietly died for 15 minutes.

I am still stiff and knackered 24 hours later. Time for bed with a glass of Laphroaig, a bit of Dowland lute music and a book that requires little mental effort.

2186. Fleabytes

Comment #136193 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #136177 by scottishgeologist

The points that I would really like to see the God botherers get to grips with are these:

Those areas, where the "supernatural" (which lets face it cannot be empirically proven) overlaps and influences the "natural"

There was a report on Pharyngula about a debate that PZ did with a particular creationist (I can't find the exact article). Essentially PZ set the topic of the debate as the evidence for creationism. Having done that he would not let his opponent criticise evolution, he kept pulling him back on the topic of the validity of creationism.

I was trying to make a similar point earlier on, though not particularly well. If you have two people arguing on a topic, each trying to prove a particular case then the burden of proof lies symmetrically (hah) on both of them.

If you have a debate where one side is trying to prove a case and the other is merely doubting the validity of the case, then then the burden of proof is strongly on the former and only weakly on the latter.

I have been pleased to see that being emphasised more as these theist-moths have gathered around the flame.

2187. Fleabytes

Comment #136181 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #136174 by righton

I wouldnt suspect such a simple answer. Of course natural selection was working and a neurobiologist would be able to tell you a lot more about the current theories of how intelligence developed. It definitely would not be a simple "I dont know" response.

Accepted - it was such a ludicrous assertion that it needed a response. I should have left it to someone with a bit more clue.

2188. Fleabytes

Comment #136176 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Fencing icon

2189. Fleabytes

Comment #136167 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #136157 by Dr Benway

As our time is not infinite, we ought to begin now. Let's hear your reason for not believing in:

Zeus

I think you may have missed this. Rarely do I say this, but in this case it may just make the point better than you

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/

2190. Fleabytes

Comment #136160 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #136150 by Quetzalcoatl

[Multiverse-sarcasm]Ha ha ha![/Multiverse-sarcasm]

Missed a tempo there Quetz - you should have gone for Aleph One sarcasm - much bigger than Anna's plain infinity.

2191. Fleabytes

Comment #136156 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #136133 by al-rawandi

As for the prefix "a" it means without. As in amelodic, asexual, asymetry.

Just to be a spelling pedant for the moment asymmetry. Spelt it consistently wrongly in an essay once and was deducted marks each time I did it, got a negative mark.

2192. Fleabytes

Comment #136152 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #136118 by whatthe..?!

"No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt that assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist."

MPhil has answered this better than I.

The atheist claims that intelligence arose from mindless matter. Clearly this is inadequate.

Is this a materialist atheist, a New Age atheist, a Buddhist atheist?

If you are talking about someone who works in neurobiology and has some inklings about evolution then I suspect you might get the response that the how intelligence developed is currently unclear.

Of course you are going to tell us exactly how it happened.

2193. Fleabytes

Comment #136143 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #136123 by Goldy

More like stomping on moles...

Hey Anna, a game we can agree on - wanna play "whack-a-mole"?

2194. Fleabytes

Comment #136136 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #136099 by Bonzai

I notice there are a few new names on this thread, all Christians, all post only on this thread in a hit and run fashion.. I am thinking either this is the same person with different handles, or more likely, we are being raid by a group of young Christians, possibly Robertson's minions who have to fill some quotas.

If Al-Rawandi is trademarking "Fucktard" and "StalinIcon" then I want to trade mark "VoxDay'd" - defined as "The invasion of the theists"

2195. Fleabytes

Comment #136084 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #136072 by whatthe..?!

Surely this applies to the atheist as well? After all, it would be absurd to reject theism (in this case 'Christianity') because of a perceived lack of evidence for it if atheism also lacked evidence.

No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt the truth of the assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist.

2196. Fleabytes

Comment #136074 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #136058 by annabanana

[sarcasm]Quetzcoatl, how dare you steal something of mine![/sarcasm]

You still have that StalinIcon?

2197. Fleabytes

Comment #135876 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:11 am

Comment #135866 by hello

..but I doubt very much that it was lack of evidence that led you to choose atheism.

How would you know? In fact Paula has revealed exactly how she came to be an atheist. Just backtrack through her posts to find out. You can also find similar stories from a number of people here.

Just for a change I am going to pre-empt irate_atheist - you are a sanctimonious fucktard.

2198. Fleabytes

Comment #135868 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #135857 by Paula

I won't be able to respond straightaway, since I have to go out now, but I'll be back in an hour or so and can't wait to read what you've given us.

Ooh, are you going to the dress shop? Matching shoes and handbag don't forget.

2199. Fleabytes

Comment #135851 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:48 am

I am a little disappointed with this thread. It is past 2000 now and I was expecting to see Paula in a posh frock.

I realise that she might be "fashionably late" but in the mean time it is a little dispiriting to have to put up with all these people in their sub-fusc attire trying to get a glimpse of the proceedings

2200. Fleabytes

Comment #135817 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #135811 by hello

How predictable are you? What do you friends say about you?

Folks - it isn't worth replying. This isn't a person, it is a bad implementation of the Eliza program produced by a theist.

It definitely fails the Turing test.

EDIT: do you think it gets its login name from the eponymous magazine?