Why Humans Are Smarter Than Animals
Traveler
memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-humans-are-smarter-than-animals.html
The Magical Human Brain
Unlike a computer, the brain does not have the ability to instantly
scan a random series of locations in its memory. To do so would
require that every memory location be connected to every other
location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
Alternatively, it would require an address bus, a data bus, a memory
controller and RAM, much like a computer. This is not the case either.
Human memory does have a random access capability but it is extremely
slow compared to a computer: the axon of a neuron must grow until it
physically establishes a synaptic connection. And yet, amazingly,
human memory acts as if it does have instant random access capability.
For example, we can instantly record (memorize) any short sequence of
random musical notes and instantly recite it with no trouble even if
we have never heard or used that sequence before. How can this be? How
does the brain instantly record a random sequence of events that it
has never encountered before and play it back in the same order?
The act of recording a sequence of events presupposes the existence of
a recording medium. The only biologically plausible way to record and
play back a sequence of events is to use a control neuron that is
physically connected to all the neurons that represent the events in
the sequence. One can imagine using synaptic strengths to encode the
delays and a steady oscillatory firing of the control neuron to
trigger each node at its assigned time. One can even imagine using a
faster or slower oscillation frequency to play the sequence under
different tempos. The point I am driving at is that, in order for the
human brain to be able to instantly record and play back short random
melodies, it would need a pre-wired network of all such possible
sequences to serve as a universal medium. This is an extremely huge
number even if we limit the melodies to seven notes each, the capacity
of human short-term memory. If we include all the other possible event
sequences that human memory can instantly record, the number becomes
astronomical. There is no evidence for the existence of such an
immense pre-wired network. In fact, the evidence is that much of the
wiring of the brain occurs during learning. Is the brain using some
kind of magic to do its amazing tricks? The answer depends on what one
calls magic. I call it something else. I call it the spirit.
snex
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
no need to go into whats wrong with his "understanding" of how memory
works, because what kind of idiot isnt aware that some animals can
memorize and play back music too?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Traveler" <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote in message news:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
Hmmm. So 'spirit' is required to explain the human brain. I wonder
what explains the parrot brain. Maybe parrots don't use spirit or
huge pre-wired networks. Maybe they use Memorex.
Traveler
wrote:
That's not the point of the article. The point is that human
short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well. An
animals' short term memory is limited in this respect because it is
genetically pre-wired for a narrow cognitive domain.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
ahaha... This is getting funny. Obviously parrots have a huge
pre-wired network dedicated to sounds. But it's severely limited. They
can't go much beyond repetitions and have a coherent conversation.
That requires an unlimited ability to record all sorts of random
sequences, not just sounds. That's the point of the article.
Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
ahahaha...
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:22:53 -0500, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
> >"Traveler" <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in messagenews:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
> >> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
so parrots have an unembodied spirit that is dedicated to sounds only,
but the human unembodied spirit is dedicated to more things? maybe you
should take some time to discover how memory in brains actually works
before spouting this nonsense.
>
> Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
> ahahaha...
atheists arent the ones who point at a problem and say "i dont
understand this, so clearly the only possible explanation is a 2000
year old mythology that i was taught by my parents."
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:10:58 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
with you and wont ask tough questions.
the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
a narrow cognitive domain."
>
Kermit
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
So, when a computer, programmed to learn, learns to repeat a simple
sequence, it is using its spirit? When my cat learned to rattle the
screen door to get in, was she sorting thru a vast array of
possibilities that included screen doors, or was she using her spirit?
Kermit,
who prefers his spirits distilled.
Traveler
wrote:
>why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
>clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
>with you and wont ask tough questions.
By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
>a narrow cognitive domain."
ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
Louis Savain
Traveler
Another shit-for-brains atheist. Is there a factory around somewhere?
ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
>On Nov 20, 3:31 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
Show how you derive this assumption. It's neither in the article nor
my reply. What is it with you, man? Do you have shit between your ears
or something?
> maybe you
>should take some time to discover how memory in brains actually works
>before spouting this nonsense.
Maybe you should blow some of the shit out your skull. ahahaha...
>> Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
>> ahahaha...
>
>atheists arent the ones who point at a problem and say "i dont
>understand this, so clearly the only possible explanation is a 2000
>year old mythology that i was taught by my parents."
Yep, I'm right. A shit-for-brains autistic atheist. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha... See ya around. ahahaha...
Ouroboros_Rex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <sn...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
>>clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
>>with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
>>the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
>>a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
fail
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
how about this one: what is a "spirit?" how does it enable us to
explain human memory? how do we measure it?
get back to me when you can answer any of the above.
>
> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
the same chess that computers defeat human grandmasters in? do
computers have unembodied spirits dedicated to chess?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
Fine...your work is almost complete...
Now, define what you refer to as "spirit", and describe how this mechanism
physically manipulates brain chemistry. Also, let us all know how we can
test your theory. Be sure to show your work...
JR
Traveler
wrote:
>On Nov 20, 3:42 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
>> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
>> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>>
>> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
>how about this one: what is a "spirit?" how does it enable us to
>explain human memory? how do we measure it?
>
>get back to me when you can answer any of the above.
That's not the subject of the article. The subject is that biological
neurons cannot account for the infinite and instantaneous random
access capability of human memory. I realize that you're autistic but
try staying in focus. ahahaha...
>> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
>> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>>
>> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
>> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>
>the same chess that computers defeat human grandmasters in? do
>computers have unembodied spirits dedicated to chess?
ahahaha... Are you stupid or something? The article specifically says
that, unlike biological neurons, computers do have the capability to
access random memory location, instantly. Computers don't need a
spirit for that reason but the human brain does. Wake up! A huge part
of your brain went to sleep, methinks. Or it could be that, unlike the
rest of us, atheists have a partial or defective spirit. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Greg G.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
Hey, Rainman! Why are you moving the goalposts over to a new field?
Are humans smarter than chimpanzees because they can lose in chess to
a computer, but a chimp can't?
The human brain is four times the size of a chimpanzee's brain. I
think that is a better explanation than making up a "spirit". That
also explains why damaged, drunk or aged brains have less efficient
memories. Why should rohypnol affect a spirit's memory?
Some chemicals block the neurons from forming new dendritic
connections and keeps the brain from forming new memories. Short-term
memory is thought to be somewhat like the after-image when you look at
a bright object for a while, then look away.
There are far better explanation than desperate claims of a spirit.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
--
Greg G.
The Prime Directive doesn't apply, Tuvok. They've got coffee!
.
Curt Welch
> The point is that human
> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
> melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well.
You know this because you can recall everything?
Did you ever stop to think that your brain is actually failing to record
most of the data, but that you are simply not aware of what it failed to
record because your brain failed to record it? You have no memory, and no
awareness, of what you brain is failing to recognize, and failing to
record, because of the fact your brain is failing to recognize it exists in
the first place.
It's quite trivial to do controlled experiments to show how little humans
are able to remember and how often they are wrong about what they are sure
happened. Human memory is weak, inaccurate, and not magical in any sense.
The signals that flow in your brain is what you are aware of. To
"remember" a past event, is nothing more than an act of the brain
duplicating some of the same signal patterns a second time (typically a
small subset of the original patterns).
To suggest this sort of power is magically is to suggest that it is
unreasonable for a signal processing machine to repeat the same temporal
pattern of signals twice. That's just an odd thing to believe.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Traveler
Are all of you atheists, autistic or something? Stay on topic,
goddamnit! The article has nothing to do with the composition of the
spirit or how it interacts with neurons. It has to do with the fact
that neurons and biology alone cannot account for the instantaneous,
unlimited random access capability of human memory. This is not a
theory, it is an observation. If you don't like it, hey, kiss my you
know what. ahahaha...
As a Christian, I posit that there is a spirit in the brain. You
shit-for-brains atheists (I like the sound of that. ahahaha...) have
no explanation other than making fools of yourselves and putting your
feet in your mouths like idiots. I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:55:51 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 20, 3:42 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
> >> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
> >> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> >> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
> >how about this one: what is a "spirit?" how does it enable us to
> >explain human memory? how do we measure it?
>
> >get back to me when you can answer any of the above.
>
> That's not the subject of the article. The subject is that biological
> neurons cannot account for the infinite and instantaneous random
> access capability of human memory. I realize that you're autistic but
> try staying in focus. ahahaha...
and you think a "spirit" can account for it. so lets hear how.
>
> >> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
> >> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> >> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> >> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>
> >the same chess that computers defeat human grandmasters in? do
> >computers have unembodied spirits dedicated to chess?
>
> ahahaha... Are you stupid or something? The article specifically says
> that, unlike biological neurons, computers do have the capability to
> access random memory location, instantly. Computers don't need a
> spirit for that reason but the human brain does. Wake up! A huge part
> of your brain went to sleep, methinks. Or it could be that, unlike the
> rest of us, atheists have a partial or defective spirit. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
you still havent answered anything.
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:25:13 -0800, <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >news:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
> >> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
where did you get your degree in neurology, to be making such
authoritative statements on what neurons can or cannot do?
Tim DeLaney
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
>
> The Magical Human Brain
>
> Unlike a computer, the brain does not have the ability to instantly
> scan a random series of locations in its memory. To do so would
> require that every memory location be connected to every other
> location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
> Alternatively, it would require an address bus, a data bus, a memory
> controller and RAM, much like a computer. This is not the case either.
> Human memory does have a random access capability but it is extremely
> slow compared to a computer: the axon of a neuron must grow until it
> physically establishes a synaptic connection. And yet, amazingly,
> human memory acts as if it does have instant random access capability.
> For example, we can instantly record (memorize) any short sequence of
> random musical notes and instantly recite it with no trouble even if
> we have never heard or used that sequence before. How can this be? How
> does the brain instantly record a random sequence of events that it
> has never encountered before and play it back in the same order?
>
> The act of recording a sequence of events presupposes the existence of
> a recording medium. The only biologically plausible way to record and
> play back a sequence of events is to use a control neuron that is
> physically connected to all the neurons that represent the events in
> the sequence. One can imagine using synaptic strengths to encode the
How can you know what is "The only biologically plausible way ..."? Do
we know enough about the way the brain organizes information to judge
what is plausible and what is not?
If you had described the capabilities of Google to somebody in 1975,
they might have said that such a thing was "technologically
implausible". If you told this person that millions of people have
free 24/7 access to such a thing, they might have called it
"economically implausible"
You don't know -- and cannot know -- what is "biologically
plausible".
The remainder of your post simply confirms this.
Tim
Traveler
wrote:
[stupid crap deleted. ahahaha...]
>The human brain is four times the size of a chimpanzee's brain. I
>think that is a better explanation than making up a "spirit".
You're just another stupid atheist. ahahaha... Even a rat has enough
neural processing power to play chess if it could be so programmed.
Wake the fuck up! A bee has only 1 million neurons and yet it has an
amazingly sophisticated behavioral repertoire for communication,
navigation, foraging and reproduction. Why? Because it is genetically
preprogrammed for it. Humans can play chess because they can make an
unlimited number of temporal associations that animals cannot match.
That's all. The point is that the human brain should not be able to
have this capability given the slowness of neurons to make new
connections.
Did somebody just open the stupid gate or something? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
Surely you have done some work in this area to come up with your astute
observation. What qualifications do you have to support your stated
incredulity?
>
> As a Christian
A rude Christian, I must say.
>, I posit that there is a spirit in the brain.
Why? Why not a pixie? Feel free to just say your a Christian, so you
believe that this "spirit" exists. If that's the case, why try to justify
your faith with all this other nonsense. Is your faith so weak?
>You
> shit-for-brains atheists (I like the sound of that. ahahaha...) have
> no explanation other than making fools of yourselves and putting your
> feet in your mouths like idiots. I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
How very Christian of you. Does your mother know that you are playing
around on the internet?
Homer Sapiens
>
Major Snippage:
"It has to do with the fact
that neurons and biology alone cannot account for the instantaneous,
unlimited random access capability of human memory."
More Snippage:
"> As a Christian, I posit that there is a spirit in the brain. You
> shit-for-brains atheists (I like the sound of that. ahahaha...) have
> no explanation other than making fools of yourselves and putting your
> feet in your mouths like idiots. I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha..."
Louis, neurons, neourotransmitters, along with an understanding brain
structure and function do explain the dynamics of human memory. Short-
term memory is specifically linked most notably to the temporal lobe
and the hypothalamus. Individuals that have some defect in the brain,
either structural (such as atrophy of the hypothalamus) or chemical
(such as an imbalance of neurotransmitters) will suffer memory
problems. Are you thus trying to imply that the "spirit" rests in the
hypothalamus or that it is carried along on the back of dopamine or
serotonin. Although the mechanisms are not completely understood,
enough is known about memory processes to state there are anatomical
and physiological explanations for how it works. These anatomical and
physiological processes are shared in common with a great many other
organisms. Memory in other species with high cognitive power is also
quite impressive. Do they also have a "spirit" albeit one that may be
a bit slow.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Traveler
<trav...@noasskissers.net>:
Well, since the original post was pathetic, that's a step
forward.
> Obviously parrots have a huge
>pre-wired network dedicated to sounds. But it's severely limited. They
>can't go much beyond repetitions and have a coherent conversation.
>That requires an unlimited ability to record all sorts of random
>sequences, not just sounds. That's the point of the article.
I thought the point of the article was obvious: Make
assertions regarding how the brain "must" operate (even
though all the latest evidence shows it *doesn't* operate
that way), then use the implications derived from those
incorrect assertions to reach a predetermined conclusion.
IOW, the usual fundie technique.
>Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
As dumb as the article? No, they're not. Are all religious
whackos this dishonest?
>ahahaha...
>Louis Savain
>
>Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
>http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Given the content of the article you seem to like so much
(of course you do; it's apparently your article, and you
like the smell of your own farts), I wouldn't trust you to
debug a stopped-up toilet.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
snex
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:33:14 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [stupid crap deleted. ahahaha...]
>
> >The human brain is four times the size of a chimpanzee's brain. I
> >think that is a better explanation than making up a "spirit".
>
> You're just another stupid atheist. ahahaha... Even a rat has enough
> neural processing power to play chess if it could be so programmed.
> Wake the fuck up! A bee has only 1 million neurons and yet it has an
> amazingly sophisticated behavioral repertoire for communication,
> navigation, foraging and reproduction. Why? Because it is genetically
> preprogrammed for it. Humans can play chess because they can make an
> unlimited number of temporal associations that animals cannot match.
> That's all. The point is that the human brain should not be able to
> have this capability given the slowness of neurons to make new
> connections.
show us your calculations on this.
Traveler
>Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that human
>> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
>> melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well.
>
>You know this because you can recall everything?
Our short-term memory is pretty much perfect. I'm not talking about
LTM but STM. We can instnatly record and recall an unlimited number of
nonsensical syllables within the normal duration of our STM. This is
an empirical fact. But then again, some human beings (savants) can
recall everything that happened to them, down to the last detail. This
is even more biologically implausible. In fact, it is biologically
impossible.
[cut]
The rest of your post makes no sense to me.
Traveler
wrote:
[crap]
ahahaha... Pack your opinion up your ass, Cacanova. How about that?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Greg G.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:33:14 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [stupid crap deleted. ahahaha...]
You forgot to delete your reply.
>
> >The human brain is four times the size of a chimpanzee's brain. I
> >think that is a better explanation than making up a "spirit".
>
> You're just another stupid atheist. ahahaha... Even a rat has enough
> neural processing power to play chess if it could be so programmed.
> Wake the fuck up! A bee has only 1 million neurons and yet it has an
> amazingly sophisticated behavioral repertoire for communication,
> navigation, foraging and reproduction. Why? Because it is genetically
> preprogrammed for it. Humans can play chess because they can make an
> unlimited number of temporal associations that animals cannot match.
> That's all. The point is that the human brain should not be able to
> have this capability given the slowness of neurons to make new
> connections.
If a bee can learn and communicate with a million neurons, why would
it be surprising that a human can learn more and communicate more with
a trillion neurons?
Dendritic connections are associated with long term memory and since
it takes some time to establish them, they are less useful for short
term memory. AIUI, short term memory uses feedback stimuli and takes
advantage of neural effects similar to the after-image in vision.
Now, explain how a spirit-based memory system is disrupted by
chemicals.
>
> Did somebody just open the stupid gate or something? ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Apparently so. That's how you got out.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
--
Greg G.
What Jesus fails to appreciate is it's the meek who are the problem.
Bea Mused
> On Nov 20, 3:58 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> > "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> > memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
> How can you know what is "The only biologically plausible way ..."?
Seconds from now, many readers' brains will "magically" recall a ten-
note musical sequence:
How does he know? His bible tells him so!
snex
> On 20 Nov 2007 22:29:27 GMT, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
> >Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
> >> The point is that human
> >> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
> >> melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well.
>
> >You know this because you can recall everything?
>
> Our short-term memory is pretty much perfect. I'm not talking about
> LTM but STM. We can instnatly record and recall an unlimited number of
> nonsensical syllables within the normal duration of our STM. This is
> an empirical fact. But then again, some human beings (savants) can
> recall everything that happened to them, down to the last detail. This
> is even more biologically implausible. In fact, it is biologically
> impossible.
if you hang a man on a cross with nails and he dies, is it
biologically possible for him to get up and walk around 3 days later?
Traveler
<ej.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
[cut]
>Louis, neurons, neourotransmitters, along with an understanding brain
>structure and function do explain the dynamics of human memory.
No they don't.
> Short-
>term memory is specifically linked most notably to the temporal lobe
>and the hypothalamus.
So what?
> Individuals that have some defect in the brain,
>either structural (such as atrophy of the hypothalamus) or chemical
>(such as an imbalance of neurotransmitters) will suffer memory
>problems.
So what?
> Are you thus trying to imply that the "spirit" rests in the
>hypothalamus or that it is carried along on the back of dopamine or
>serotonin.
Did I say one word about the hypothalamus, dopamine or serotonin?
> Although the mechanisms are not completely understood,
>enough is known about memory processes to state there are anatomical
>and physiological explanations for how it works.
I don't think so. If one understands how neurons transmit signals and
how they form new connections (it's not rocket science), it is easy to
see that there is no possible way for human STM to have unlimited
instantaneous random access capability. That would require the use of
a memory controller and RAM. The brain does not work like a computer.
Traveler
>
>A rude Christian, I must say.
Yeah, fuck you. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
jensp...@hotmail.com
> Unlike a computer, the brain does not have the ability to instantly
> scan a random series of locations in its memory. To do so would
> require that every memory location be connected to every other
> location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
> Alternatively, it would require an address bus, a data bus, a memory
> controller and RAM, much like a computer.
Isn´t it kind of sad that you falters even before you come to the
suject you want to talk about. Acessing a random piece of information
can be done in a lot of other ways than the two decribed above.
Actually what is described by you above is fairly uniterresting with
regard to the capabilities of the brain. What is interesting about the
brain is how it's able to form relationships between subjects in
recalling, i.e. associative memory, as this seems to be at the
fundation of concept formation.
You really know very very little about both computers and neurology,
don't you. Why do you find it interesting to expose you lack of
knowledge to the entire world?
J.O.
Traveler
<racg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>How does he know? His bible tells him so!
Pack your stupid opinion up your ass, Beatrice. How about that?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
skyeyes
Pig. Teach. Sing. Don't.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Traveler
wrote:
[crap]
You're fucking stupid, whoever the fuck you are. Fuck you. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
>Isn´t it kind of sad that you falters even before you come to the
>suject you want to talk about. Acessing a random piece of information
>can be done in a lot of other ways than the two decribed above.
Let's hear them, jackass. And it'd better be biologically plausible.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
[rest of your vomit deleted]
skyeyes
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:22:53 -0500, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Traveler" <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in messagenews:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
>
> >> The Magical Human Brain
>
> >> scan a random series of locations in its memory. To do so would
> >> require that every memory location be connected to every other
> >> location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
> >> Alternatively, it would require an address bus, a data bus, a memory
> pre-wired network dedicated to sounds. But it's severely limited. They
> can't go much beyond repetitions and have a coherent conversation.
Um, you never heard of Alex, did you? Does the name "Irene
Pepperberg" ring a bell?
skyeyes
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:38:01 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>
>
>
>
>
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >sequence, it is using its spirit? When my cat learned to rattle the
> >screen door to get in, was she sorting thru a vast array of
> >possibilities that included screen doors, or was she using her spirit?
>
> Another shit-for-brains atheist. Is there a factory around somewhere?
> ahahaha...
Out of ammunition, are you? Can't come up with a coherent argument to
anwer Kermit? Man, you didn't last long.
Oh, I almost forgot the most important part: hahahahahahha...
<Eyeroll>
skyeyes
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:25:13 -0800, <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >news:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
> >> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
Oh, but it *does*, sweetie. You said the only explanation was
something called "the spirit." You don't just get to assert that and
get off scot-free. If you think "the spirit" does it, you have to
define "spirit" and explain it's composition and how it makes the
brain work. *You* opened the door.
> It has to do with the fact
> that neurons and biology alone cannot account for the instantaneous,
> unlimited random access capability of human memory. This is not a
> theory, it is an observation. If you don't like it, hey, kiss my you
> know what. ahahaha...
>
> As a Christian, I posit that there is a spirit in the brain.
See above.
> You
> shit-for-brains atheists (I like the sound of that. ahahaha...) have
> no explanation other than making fools of yourselves and putting your
> feet in your mouths like idiots. I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Does your mommy know you're using her computer?
skyeyes
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:11:53 -0800, <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >A rude Christian, I must say.
>
> Yeah, fuck you. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Matthew 7:20
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Traveler
<sky...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>Um, you never heard of Alex, did you? Does the name "Irene
>Pepperberg" ring a bell?
Oh yeah, Alex the dead bird who could do calculus. Big deal. My cat
can play Beethoven on the piano. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
Fuck you Brenda, whoever you are. If he had read the original post he
would not have asked such a stupid question. That you come out to kiss
his ass in spite of the stupidity, shows me that you're just an ass
kisser. Kissee, kissee. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... See ya.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-11-20, Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
In what sense can this *possibly* be true? In what sense is any
observed property of biological organisms _implausible_?
> http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-humans-are-smarter-than-animals.html
>
> The Magical Human Brain
>
> Unlike a computer, the brain does not have the ability to instantly
> scan a random series of locations in its memory.
No computer has that capability either.
> To do so would
> require that every memory location be connected to every other
> location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
Nor the case in any computer.
> Alternatively, it would require an address bus, a data bus, a memory
> controller and RAM, much like a computer. This is not the case either.
It's staggering that this individual thinks himself competent to talk a
about computers.
> Human memory does have a random access capability but it is extremely
> slow compared to a computer: the axon of a neuron must grow until it
> physically establishes a synaptic connection. And yet, amazingly,
> human memory acts as if it does have instant random access capability.
No. it doesn't.
> For example, we can instantly record (memorize) any short sequence of
> random musical notes and instantly recite it with no trouble even if
> we have never heard or used that sequence before.
No. You can't. And people vary greatly in their ability to do so, even
when given time to do so.
> How can this be?
It can't be. And it isn't.
> How does the brain instantly record a random sequence of events that
> it has never encountered before and play it back in the same order?
It doesn't.
> The act of recording a sequence of events presupposes the existence of
> a recording medium. The only biologically plausible way to record and
> play back a sequence of events is to use a control neuron that is
> physically connected to all the neurons that represent the events in
> the sequence. One can imagine using synaptic strengths to encode the
> delays and a steady oscillatory firing of the control neuron to
> trigger each node at its assigned time. One can even imagine using a
> faster or slower oscillation frequency to play the sequence under
> different tempos. The point I am driving at is that, in order for the
> human brain to be able to instantly record and play back short random
> melodies, it would need a pre-wired network of all such possible
> sequences to serve as a universal medium. This is an extremely huge
> number even if we limit the melodies to seven notes each, the capacity
> of human short-term memory. If we include all the other possible event
> sequences that human memory can instantly record, the number becomes
> astronomical. There is no evidence for the existence of such an
> immense pre-wired network. In fact, the evidence is that much of the
> wiring of the brain occurs during learning. Is the brain using some
> kind of magic to do its amazing tricks? The answer depends on what one
> calls magic. I call it something else. I call it the spirit.
I'd call the author a loon.
Mark
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:11:53 -0800, <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>A rude Christian, I must say.
>
> Yeah, fuck you. How about that?
How about what? I didn't feel a thing... you must be hung like a hamster.
I suggest you fuck something closer, like yourself.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-11-20, Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 20, 2:58 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>>> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
>>> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Magical Human Brain
>>>
>>> Unlike a computer, the brain does not have the ability to instantly
>>> require that every memory location be connected to every other
>>> location, which is clearly not the case, biologically speaking.
>>> controller and RAM, much like a computer. This is not the case either.
>>> slow compared to a computer: the axon of a neuron must grow until it
>>> physically establishes a synaptic connection. And yet, amazingly,
>>> human memory acts as if it does have instant random access capability.
>>> random musical notes and instantly recite it with no trouble even if
>>> does the brain instantly record a random sequence of events that it
>>> has never encountered before and play it back in the same order?
>>>
>>> a recording medium. The only biologically plausible way to record and
>>> play back a sequence of events is to use a control neuron that is
>>> physically connected to all the neurons that represent the events in
>>> the sequence. One can imagine using synaptic strengths to encode the
>>> delays and a steady oscillatory firing of the control neuron to
>>> trigger each node at its assigned time. One can even imagine using a
>>> faster or slower oscillation frequency to play the sequence under
>>> different tempos. The point I am driving at is that, in order for the
>>> human brain to be able to instantly record and play back short random
>>> melodies, it would need a pre-wired network of all such possible
>>> sequences to serve as a universal medium. This is an extremely huge
>>> number even if we limit the melodies to seven notes each, the capacity
>>> of human short-term memory. If we include all the other possible event
>>> sequences that human memory can instantly record, the number becomes
>>> astronomical. There is no evidence for the existence of such an
>>> immense pre-wired network. In fact, the evidence is that much of the
>>> wiring of the brain occurs during learning. Is the brain using some
>>> kind of magic to do its amazing tricks? The answer depends on what one
>>> calls magic. I call it something else. I call it the spirit.
>>
>>works, because what kind of idiot isnt aware that some animals can
>>memorize and play back music too?
>
> That's not the point of the article. The point is that human
> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
> animals' short term memory is limited in this respect because it is
> genetically pre-wired for a narrow cognitive domain.
Yes. It's a stupid claim.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-11-20, Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 20, 3:42 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
>>> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
>>> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>>>
>>> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>>
>>how about this one: what is a "spirit?" how does it enable us to
>>explain human memory? how do we measure it?
>>
>>get back to me when you can answer any of the above.
>
> That's not the subject of the article. The subject is that biological
> neurons cannot account for the infinite and instantaneous random
> access capability of human memory. I realize that you're autistic but
> try staying in focus. ahahaha...
>
>>> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
>>> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>>>
>>> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
>>> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>>
>>the same chess that computers defeat human grandmasters in? do
>>computers have unembodied spirits dedicated to chess?
>
> ahahaha... Are you stupid or something? The article specifically says
> that, unlike biological neurons, computers do have the capability to
> access random memory location, instantly.
It makes that claim. It's a stupid claim, since it is obviously false.
> Computers don't need a
> spirit for that reason but the human brain does. Wake up! A huge part
> of your brain went to sleep, methinks. Or it could be that, unlike the
> rest of us, atheists have a partial or defective spirit. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Mark
Yo Mark. Bend over. Brenda's got something to show you. ahahaha...
Traveler
ahahaha... Another shit-for-brains atheist takes offence. Poor baabee.
Traveler
<sky...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Yo Brenda. Did I already tell you that you're an ass kisser? Oh yeah.
Never mind. And stupid, too. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-11-20, Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
>>Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is that human
>>> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
>>> melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well.
>>
>>You know this because you can recall everything?
>
> Our short-term memory is pretty much perfect.
Nonsense. For instance, I have a particularly hard time remembering
people's names when they tell them to me. If I write them down, I can
remember them, but if I don't, I forget them nearly as soon as the next
sentence. Oddly, I can remember phone numbers and addresses really well.
> I'm not talking about
> LTM but STM. We can instnatly record and recall an unlimited number of
> nonsensical syllables within the normal duration of our STM.
Which must be why the game "Simon" is such a bore, right? Nobody ever
makes a mistake?
> This is an empirical fact.
It's not a fact. It's not even true.
> But then again, some human beings (savants) can
> recall everything that happened to them, down to the last detail. This
> is even more biologically implausible. In fact, it is biologically
> impossible.
Idiocy.
>
> [cut]
>
> The rest of your post makes no sense to me.
Which probably means that it's correct.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>
>>
>>"Traveler" <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote in message
>>> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
>>> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>>>
>>
>>Now, define what you refer to as "spirit", and describe how this mechanism
>>physically manipulates brain chemistry. Also, let us all know how we can
>>test your theory. Be sure to show your work...
>
> Are all of you atheists, autistic or something? Stay on topic,
> goddamnit! The article has nothing to do with the composition of the
> spirit or how it interacts with neurons.
It has nothing to do with anything. It's mindless pap.
> It has to do with the fact
> that neurons and biology alone cannot account for the instantaneous,
> unlimited random access capability of human memory. This is not a
> theory, it is an observation.
It isn't a theory. It isn't an observation. It's lunacy.
> If you don't like it, hey, kiss my you
> know what. ahahaha...
>
> As a Christian, I posit that there is a spirit in the brain. You
> shit-for-brains atheists (I like the sound of that. ahahaha...) have
> no explanation other than making fools of yourselves and putting your
> feet in your mouths like idiots. I love it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
The laughter of hyenas doesn't really signify that they understand
humor. Doubly so for you.
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Oh, and by the way: the article above is absurd too. It's good that you
don't confine your kookery to a single narrow domain. Versatility is to
be commended.
Traveler
ahahaha... You're quoting Bible verses to me, Brenda? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahahah... Bend over, I'll show you a fucking Bible.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
[crap]
Pack your stupid opinion up your ass, BedWetter and see if I give a
shit. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
[crap]
You must be Brenda's bitch, BedWetter. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Mark VandeWettering
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:02:28 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
><wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark
>
> Yo Mark. Bend over. Brenda's got something to show you. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
It's a pity really that you've immediately lapsed into this juvenile
behavior. Your website portrays such a wide variety of lunacy that I
thought you might be amusing for at least a couple of days. Such a
pity.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
Couldn't you just have said "I argue that memory is biologically
implausible"?
Why be so coy?
Mark
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
[crap]
Fuck you, BedWetter. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Mark VandeWettering
><wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Fuck you, BedWetter. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
I had a four year old nephew. He used to go around, look from side to
side, and then say "poopy!" and laugh hysterically. He outgrew it in
a couple of weeks.
I'm left wondering: can you actually beat a dog at chess?
Mark
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
[crap]
Did I already tell you to go fuck yourself, BedWetter? Oh yeah. Never
mind. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
[crap]
Yo, BedWetter. Does your wife know you're talking to Brenda the ass
kisser on usenet? Brenda's into birds, did you know? Kinky shit, man.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Mark VandeWettering
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:29:48 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
><wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Did I already tell you to go fuck yourself, BedWetter?
You're asking? I thought short term memory was supposed to be perfect?
> Oh yeah. Never mind. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
"Laugh at yourself first, before anyone else can."
-- Elsa Maxwell
Vend
<snip worthless crap>
May I ask you a question?
Do you really belive your crap or it's just an excuse to engage in
some name-calling?
Delaware Dave
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:57:24 -0800 (PST), skyeyes
>
I checked out your profile, chucklehead. You spend lots and lots of
time keying ahahahahahahah shit fuck asshole ahahaha but not much
actually debating ideas. Frankly, ahahah AHAHAHA ahahahah fails to
persuade.
Grow the fuck up.
Cheers,
Delaware Dave
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
so unlike your Christ.
~ Mahatma Gandhi
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 20, 7:13 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:57:24 -0800 (PST), skyeyes
>
> > <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 20, 4:41 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:11:53 -0800, <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >A rude Christian, I must say.
>
> > >> Yeah, fuck you. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> > >Matthew 7:20
>
> > >Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
>
> > >Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> > >skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
>
> > ahahaha... You're quoting Bible verses to me, Brenda? ahahaha...
> > AHAHAHA... ahahahah... Bend over, I'll show you a fucking Bible.
> > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> I checked out your profile, chucklehead. You spend lots and lots of
> time keying ahahahahahahah shit fuck asshole ahahaha but not much
> actually debating ideas.
I'm glad you liked it. ahahaha...
> Frankly, ahahah AHAHAHA ahahahah fails to
> persuade.
Persuade who? Who said anything about persuading anybody? I'm just
having a hell of a lot of fun insulting shit-for-brains atheists. Fuck
you too, Dave. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
PS. I switch to Google Groups because some shit-for-brains atheist at
my usual news server decided to cut me off. ahahaha... This is even
more fun than usual.
Jack Mollier
> PS. I switch to Google Groups because some shit-for-brains atheist at
> my usual news server decided to cut me off. ahahaha... This is even
> more fun than usual.
Excellent work by the aioe.org admins. If only Google were such a
good Usenet citizen.
One advantage is that now we know you're posting from Houston, Texas
via AT&T. Not only do we have someone to complain to, we know where
to go if we we're ever in the mood to kick the ass of a foul-mouthed,
overcompensating teenager with repressed coprophilial phantasies about
Jesus.
Jack
Tom McDonald
And a nym-shifter to boot.
Tiktaalik
ahahahassholehanson<trave...@noasskissers.net> babbled:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:39:19 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
>
>
> [crap]
>
> Yo, BedWetter. Does your wife know you're talking to Brenda the ass
> kisser on usenet? Brenda's into birds, did you know? Kinky shit, man.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why don't you fuck off back where you came from arsehole hanson.
You're not fooling anyone.
NYAH, NYAH, NYAHNYAHNYAH.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 20, 8:39 pm, eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > PS. I switch to Google Groups because some shit-for-brains atheist at
> > my usual news server decided to cut me off. ahahaha... This is even
> > more fun than usual.
>
> Excellent work by the aioe.org admins. If only Google were such a
> good Usenet citizen.
ahahaha... I pissed you off, didn't I Jacquie? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
> One advantage is that now we know you're posting from Houston, Texas
> via AT&T. Not only do we have someone to complain to, we know where
> to go if we we're ever in the mood to kick the ass of a foul-mouthed,
> overcompensating teenager with repressed coprophilial phantasies about
> Jesus.
A pompous asshole, to boot. But then again, shit-for-brains atheists
usually are. Yeah, come on down to Houston so we can barbecue your ass
with chipotle. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:29:48 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
> ><wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > [crap]
>
> > Did I already tell you to go fuck yourself, BedWetter?
>
> You're asking? I thought short term memory was supposed to be perfect?
You see what I'm saying, BedWetter? You atheists are invariably
stupid. FYI, STM lasts only about 12 seconds or so. Do your bosses at
Pixar know you're writing stupid shit like this on the newsgroups?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Ken Shackleton
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:22:53 -0500, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >"Traveler" <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in messagenews:r7i6k31irjkfhf4s2...@4ax.com...
> >> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
> >what explains the parrot brain. Maybe parrots don't use spirit or
> >huge pre-wired networks. Maybe they use Memorex.
>
> ahaha... This is getting funny. Obviously parrots have a huge
> pre-wired network dedicated to sounds. But it's severely limited. They
> can't go much beyond repetitions and have a coherent conversation.
> That requires an unlimited ability to record all sorts of random
> sequences, not just sounds. That's the point of the article.
>
> Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Troll.
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 21, 12:48 am, Traveler aka
> ahahahassholehanson<trave...@noasskissers.net> babbled:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:39:19 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
>
> > <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > [crap]
>
> > Yo, BedWetter. Does your wife know you're talking to Brenda the ass
> > kisser on usenet? Brenda's into birds, did you know? Kinky shit, man.
> > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Why don't you fuck off back where you came from arsehole hanson.
> You're not fooling anyone.
>
> NYAH, NYAH, NYAHNYAHNYAH.
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... Hanson is an atheist like you. But,
unlike you, he's funny. I borrowed his patented "ahahaha..." because I
noticed it was rather effective in pissing people off. ahahaha...
> "I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
> way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
Oh yeah? I, OTOH, eat animals. All sorts of animals. Whale meat sounds
real good right now. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Al
> Persuade who? Who said anything about persuading anybody? I'm just
> having a hell of a lot of fun insulting shit-for-brains atheists. Fuck
> you too, Dave. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
> PS. I switch to Google Groups because some shit-for-brains atheist at
> my usual news server decided to cut me off. ahahaha... This is even
> more fun than usual.
>
> Louis Savain
Which pretty much clarifies the usual X-tian argument and science
methods right there. Drivel shit and then start name calling. At the
beginnings of the thread I thought "oh here we go again with the
lunacy" but it rapidly turned into "OMFG they've put Internet
connections into the mental homes".
I do very much like that Ghandi quote a few posts back, tis so very
true of most of them, esp this christian.
And did it ever occur to you that you might have been blocked from
posting to newsgroups because of the profanity? I seriously doubt
there's someone at your ISP reading all your posts and deciding to
block you because of your views. And that the people who created the
demand for profanity filters on Internet systems are mostly
Christian. It has a magical justice thing going for it.
And, Ahahahahaha...
Fruit cake.
Al
Cory Albrecht
> PS. I switch to Google Groups because some shit-for-brains atheist at
> my usual news server decided to cut me off. ahahaha... This is even
> more fun than usual.
Matthew 22:34-40 ?
Mark Evans
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:38:09 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >but the human unembodied spirit is dedicated to more things?
>
> Show how you derive this assumption. It's neither in the article nor
> my reply. What is it with you, man? Do you have shit between your ears
> or something?
>
> > maybe you
> >should take some time to discover how memory in brains actually works
> >before spouting this nonsense.
>
> Maybe you should blow some of the shit out your skull. ahahaha...
>
> >> Having said that, I have to ask, are all atheists this dumb?
> >> ahahaha...
>
> >understand this, so clearly the only possible explanation is a 2000
> >year old mythology that i was taught by my parents."
>
> Yep, I'm right. A shit-for-brains autistic atheist. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha... See ya around. ahahaha...
Do you have any idea what autism is? Humanity undoubtedly owes a lot
to moderate autistic ancestors who noted patterns others didn't and
developed basic technologies. Ever spent time around techies? Or
MIT folks? And BTW, I test as mildly autistic my self so you need not
bother tryint to taunt me with rude queries, Sheesh, the sheer
ignorance and rudeness of the "normal" members of the population never
fails to amaze.
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> eightwings2...@yahoo.com wrote, On 20/11/07 08:39 PM:
ahahaha... I just love Bible quoters. They're so self-righteous and
sanctimonious, both the so-called Christians and the shit-for-brain
atheists.
Yeah, sure. King David, a man after God's own heart, loved his
neighbor Goliath so much, he cut his fucking head off and circumcised
the asshole. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
And was not Jesus quoted as having said something to the effect that
"there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"? ahahaha...
And did not God command Moses to commit genocide on the assholes who
were living in Palestine at the time of the Exodus? ahahaha...
Yeah. Sure, Jesus loved his enemies but not all of them. A lot of them
will be carefully cloned and resurrected so they can weep and gnash
their teeth on judgement day. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Lucifer
> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
This here cartoon is strangely appropriate for summing up debating
with total fucktards like you...
Tiktaalik
gibbered:
You're still not fooling anyone wanker-in-chief. Fuck you and fuck
every one of your pathetic multiple identities.
NYAH, NYAH, NYAHNYAHNYAH.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
>
eightwi...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
ahahaha... No need to get offended, Evans. I, too, am mildly autistic
but so was Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, I hear. ahahaha... Being
autistic does not give you a monopoly on being right, man. A lot of
them are dead wrong, spectacularly wrong. And I do agree with you that
autistic people tend to think outside the envelope, which can be good
or bad. At times, they ignore the envelope altogether, I'd say.
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
eightwi...@yahoo.com
ahahaha... Isn't it like Lucifer to post a link to racist cartoon?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Vend
Mildly?
> but so was Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, I hear.
They weren't.
> ahahaha... Being
> autistic does not give you a monopoly on being right, man. A lot of
> them are dead wrong, spectacularly wrong. And I do agree with you that
> autistic people tend to think outside the envelope, which can be good
> or bad. At times, they ignore the envelope altogether, I'd say.
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
It must be very frustrating to see all those shit-for-brain autistic
atheist <insert random insult> geeks that can actually program a
computer while you try very hard and you can't, isn't it?
<insert insane laughter>
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 20, 6:05 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:33:14 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
[cut]
ahahahaha... I almost missed this gem from resident shit-for-brains
atheist, Greg G.
> If a bee can learn and communicate with a million neurons, why would
> it be surprising that a human can learn more and communicate more with
> a trillion neurons?
ahahahaha... What a stupid moron you are, Greg. But then again, I've
come to expect stupidity from the atheist crowd. ahahaha... The bee
does not learn shit. It is born pre-wired to do what it has to do. The
point I was making is that your stupid point that chimpanzees can't
learn how to play chess because they have a smaller brain is, well,
stupid. They have more than enough neurons to play chess and do a lot
more intelligent things if only they could make the temporal
associations. They can't. And BTW, the human brain can't do it either.
It needs a helper. Meathead. ahahaha...
> Dendritic connections are associated with long term memory and since
> it takes some time to establish them, they are less useful for short
> term memory. AIUI, short term memory uses feedback stimuli and takes
> advantage of neural effects similar to the after-image in vision.
That's exactly the point, moron. Unless the connections are already
established, there can be no recording, short term or otherwise. And
yet, the human brain can instantly record and play back an unlimited
number of short-term sequences.
> Now, explain how a spirit-based memory system is disrupted by
> chemicals.
Bend over, I'm sure a fellow atheist in this group can show you some
spirited chemicals. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
> >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
> >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
> >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
> >a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Chimpanzees are more intelligent that humans in some measures of
intelligence.
They can beat humans at games involving short-term memory. In a TV
programme shown a while back, a chimp was shown consistently beating
Susan Blackmore, (who holds a PhD from Cambridge so she's no idiot) in
such a game. This is not just sensationalist TV or journalism, but a
finding supported by hard evidence.
Here's an article for you to ignore because it demonstrates that your
assumptions are wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html?ref=science
When you've finished ignoring it, why not try to find out more about
chimp intelligence to ignore? Who knows, if you ignore enough evidence
you might be able to hang onto to your misconceptions and blind
predjuduces?
RF
Tiny Bulcher
> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
> http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-humans-are-smarter-than-...
>
> The Magical Human Brain
Louis, you are truly the greatest genius the world has ever seen. You
have convinced us all. There is no need to expound further.
Max
> On 20 Nov 2007 22:29:27 GMT, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
> >Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
> >> The point is that human
> >> short-term memory has the ability to instantly record, not only random
> >> melodies, but *any* type of random sequences of stimuli as well.
>
> >You know this because you can recall everything?
>
> Our short-term memory is pretty much perfect. I'm not talking about
> LTM but STM. We can instnatly record and recall an unlimited number of
> nonsensical syllables within the normal duration of our STM. This is
> an empirical fact. But then again, some human beings (savants) can
> recall everything that happened to them, down to the last detail. This
> is even more biologically implausible. In fact, it is biologically
> impossible.
>
Baloney. Where do you get this garbage? The opposite is true. Short
term memory is not perfect. There have been many tests that have shown
we canNOT remember an unlimited number of nonsensical syllable. Our
short term memory is severely limited. Even those w. idetic memory
have limitations. They also suffer in later years as their ability to
access the huge quantity of junk they have accumulated deteriorates.
> [cut]
>
> The rest of your post makes no sense to me.
Kermit
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:52:37 -0800 (PST), skyeyes
>
>
>
> <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 20, 2:50 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:38:01 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>
> >> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 20, 12:58 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Atheists and believers, take notice. This author argues that human
> >> >> memory is biologically implausible. From the article:
>
> >> >>http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-humans-are-smarter-than-...
>
> >> >> The Magical Human Brain
>
> >> >sequence, it is using its spirit? When my cat learned to rattle the
> >> >screen door to get in, was she sorting thru a vast array of
> >> >possibilities that included screen doors, or was she using her spirit?
>
> >> Another shit-for-brains atheist. Is there a factory around somewhere?
> >> ahahaha...
>
> >Out of ammunition, are you? Can't come up with a coherent argument to
> >anwer Kermit? Man, you didn't last long.
>
> >Oh, I almost forgot the most important part: hahahahahahha...
>
> ><Eyeroll>
>
> >Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> >skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
>
> would not have asked such a stupid question. That you come out to kiss
> his ass in spite of the stupidity, shows me that you're just an ass
> kisser. Kissee, kissee. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... See ya.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Hi, Louis.
I see you don't have an answer. Or is it you didn't understand my
point? Biblical literalists *do tend to be easily confused.
You said: "in order for the human brain to be able to instantly record
and play back short random melodies, it would need a pre-wired network
of all such possible sequences to serve as a universal medium."
Do you have evidence for this? If it were true, then why doesn't it
apply to cats and screen doors? If the only alternative explanation
you will accept is a spirit (which I suspect you would also call
"soul"), then why doesn't my cat have one?
Although I *do find your civil tone and grasp of current brains
science to be very persuasive points...
Kermit,
almost convinced
Nick Keighley
> Did somebody just open the stupid gate or something? ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
--
Nick Keighley
Kermit
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:09:36 -0800 (PST), Homer Sapiens
>
> <ej.spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >Louis, neurons, neourotransmitters, along with an understanding brain
> >structure and function do explain the dynamics of human memory.
>
> No they don't.
>
> > Short-
> >term memory is specifically linked most notably to the temporal lobe
> >and the hypothalamus.
>
> So what?
>
> > Individuals that have some defect in the brain,
> >either structural (such as atrophy of the hypothalamus) or chemical
> >(such as an imbalance of neurotransmitters) will suffer memory
> >problems.
>
> So what?
>
> > Are you thus trying to imply that the "spirit" rests in the
> >hypothalamus or that it is carried along on the back of dopamine or
> >serotonin.
>
> Did I say one word about the hypothalamus, dopamine or serotonin?
No. You mentioned nothing real that I can see.
>
> > Although the mechanisms are not completely understood,
> >enough is known about memory processes to state there are anatomical
> >and physiological explanations for how it works.
>
> I don't think so. If one understands how neurons transmit signals and
> how they form new connections (it's not rocket science), it is easy to
> see that there is no possible way for human STM to have unlimited
> instantaneous random access capability.
This is correct. We do not.
> That would require the use of
> a memory controller and RAM. The brain does not work like a computer.
Also correct. The brain is an electrochemical parallel processor.
Our memories are slow, incomplete, and largely constructions rather
than recordings.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Kermit
Kermit
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:55:29 -0800 (PST), skyeyes> Yo Brenda. Did I already tell you that you're an ass kisser? Oh yeah.
> Never mind. And stupid, too. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Louis: potty mouth for Jesus.
Tsk.
Kermit
Nick Keighley
<snip drivel about animal/human intelligence>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
...and you don't know anything about software development or
computer science either
--
Nick Keighely
Kermit
> On Nov 20, 6:51 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > On 2007-11-21, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:29:48 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
> > ><wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > > [crap]
>
> > > Did I already tell you to go fuck yourself, BedWetter?
>
> > You're asking? I thought short term memory was supposed to be perfect?
>
> You see what I'm saying, BedWetter? You atheists are invariably
> stupid. FYI, STM lasts only about 12 seconds or so. Do your bosses at
> Pixar know you're writing stupid shit like this on the newsgroups?
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
So you *can stop ...laughing ...long enough to be wrong.
Do you ever wonder what it would be like to have friends? A
girlfriend? A job?
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Kermit
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 20, 9:42 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:35:16 -0800 (PST), snex <s...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >why are you lying to me? do you think i am stupid? this idiocy is
> > >clearly written to reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree
> > >with you and wont ask tough questions.
>
> > By the looks of it, no tough question will come from you. ahahaha...
>
> > >the short term memory of chimpanzees is not "genetically pre-wired for
> > >a narrow cognitive domain."
>
> > ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
> > by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>
> > Louis Savain
>
> > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
> Chimpanzees are more intelligent that humans in some measures of
> intelligence.
>
> They can beat humans at games involving short-term memory. In a TV
> programme shown a while back, a chimp was shown consistently beating
> Susan Blackmore, (who holds a PhD from Cambridge so she's no idiot) in
> such a game. This is not just sensationalist TV or journalism, but a
> finding supported by hard evidence.
>
> Here's an article for you to ignore because it demonstrates that your
>
> When you've finished ignoring it, why not try to find out more about
> chimp intelligence to ignore? Who knows, if you ignore enough evidence
> you might be able to hang onto to your misconceptions and blind
> predjuduces?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
ahahaha... So fucking what? I would be the first to tell you that
human brains are actually inferior to many animal brains. If the human
brain did not have a spirit to help it learn, it would be more or less
a vegetable, unable to survive. What makes the human *mind* superior
overall is its ability to make and learn an unlimited number of
temporal associations. Pretty much all animals are superior to humans
in certain specific tasks. So what? What would be remarkable is for a
chimp or some other ape to play even a passable game of chess. Hell,
understanding the simple rules of tic-tac-toe is beyond their
abilities, let alone chess. And it is not because they don't have the
necessary neural processing power, as another atheist ass kisser has
already suggested in this thread. ahahaha...
Talking about misconceptions and prejudices, you're the one who should
stop misconceiving and prejudging my views. I have never seen a
funnier and more pitiful bunch of bigots than the atheist crowd. You
defend your stupid position with the religious fervor of jihadists and
the intelligence of monkeys. ahahaha... But then again, humans *are*
religious animals and the more they claim to be non-religious, the
more religious they really are. What makes atheists even more pitiful
than other religious bigots, however, is their inordinate propensity
for mutual ass kissing. When it comes to kissing each other's asses,
the assholes throw all decency to the curb and engage in a public
orgy. It's funny to watch. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Ouroboros_Rex
<eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:536f276f-3482-4e5e...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 5:32 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 6:05 pm, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:33:14 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> ahahahaha... I almost missed this gem from resident shit-for-brains
> atheist, Greg G.
>
>> If a bee can learn and communicate with a million neurons, why would
>> it be surprising that a human can learn more and communicate more with
>> a trillion neurons?
>
> ahahahaha... What a stupid moron you are, Greg. But then again, I've
> come to expect stupidity from the atheist crowd. ahahaha... The bee
> does not learn shit.
Except, of course, the path to the food, etc., etc.
What were you saying about morons?
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> Greg G. wrote:
> > If a bee can learn and communicate with a million neurons, why would it
> > be surprising that a human can learn more and communicate more with a
> > trillion neurons?
>
> are smarter than Mr. Traveler. That is, they would generally use the
> small amount of intelligence they have to full effect and for useful (to
> them) purposes. Mr. Traveler uses his brain only to waste fuel and oxygen.
ahahaha... You would be funnier if you didn't have shit all over your
face from kissing Greg's ass. ahahaha... Most atheists are ass
kissers. Dingleberries. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Ouroboros_Rex
<eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:933b824e-9927-44f6...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 7:05 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Greg G. wrote:
>> > If a bee can learn and communicate with a million neurons, why would it
>> > be surprising that a human can learn more and communicate more with a
>> > trillion neurons?
>>
>> I adore bees, they are absolutely my favourite insects. I also think bees
>> are smarter than Mr. Traveler. That is, they would generally use the
>> small amount of intelligence they have to full effect and for useful (to
>> them) purposes. Mr. Traveler uses his brain only to waste fuel and
>> oxygen.
>
> ahahaha... You would be funnier if you didn't have shit all over your
> face from kissing Greg's ass. ahahaha... Most atheists are ass
> kissers. Dingleberries. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
translation: drooool
Ouroboros_Rex
<eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de85f0df-786b-4381...@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 9:42 pm, Lucifer <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > ahahaha... You sound like you're getting offended. Are you autistic,
>> > by any chance? Try teaching chess to a chimpanzee and get back to me.
>>
>> This here cartoon is strangely appropriate for summing up debating
>> with total fucktards like you...
>>
>> http://cectic.com/069.html
>
> ahahaha... Isn't it like Lucifer to post a link to racist cartoon?
Another ridiculous lie. lol
eightwi...@yahoo.com
> <eightwings2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
ahahaha... Another autistic anal retentive atheist heard from. What I
meant is that the neural wiring of the bee's brain does not change. Of
course, when you record things in memory, that is a form of learning.
If you had anything interesting to contribute, you would have
commented on my refutation of Greg's assertion that chimps can't play
chess because they have smaller brains. One of the things I've notice
something about atheists in general, is that they are born pre-wired
to kiss each other's asses, not to mention Darwin's dead ass.
ahahaha... What a bunch of dingleberries you morons are. ahahaha...