Re: The Dual Duel Deal
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:32:00 -0500, Déjà Flu <cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA
> Fast talking dude. Too fast. But I'm slow.
Qualia Soup makes excellent videos. I've posted several of them on
Facebook. This one's interesting, because it is all about debunking
Keynes' view: that of Substance Dualism.
> Dualism must be destroyed (by any means necessary,
> and smugly, oh so superciliously smugly.) I think
> the problem has been misstated and misunderstood.
> And the circular and triumphalist methods employed
> are dishonest and repellant. But amusing.
No, there is no claim of Substance Dualism that should be 'destroyed'
as much as 'seen through', Keynes. Your view is an old one that made
sense in the Middle Ages, but is rather incoherent these days, even
though religious folks of all sorts of religions, East and West, cling
to it.
And nothing circular or triumphalist or dishonest at all in the
methods. Rather, clear reasoning and evidence which undermines your
metaphysical view. Instead of lying, Keynes, why not for once own up
and just admit: "I feel threatened because that video cuts my beliefs
and metaphysical views to shreds and I have no leg to stand on."
> "Non-physical substance" is an oxymoron.
> Why use that term for mind?
Because it's the clearest way to express your view directly, Keynes. I
prefer just to say, "Keynes believes in a soul, which he calls
'Mind'."
> It seems to be an attempt to reduce mind to matter-like
> substance, and then to state the obvious fact that
> there is no such thing.
Bzzzt. Wrong again. It instead is an attempt to express the view that
mind is some utterly non-physical addition, usually in the form of a
soul ("it's simple") and not a composition.
> But try as a physicalist might, he can't get rid of mind as easily as that.
The physical monist, or physicalist, doesn't "get rid" of mind.
Rather, mind is an emerging property of the physical. To claim that
mind is anything else, that it is added from an outside 'realm', is
the very definition of Substance Dualism.
> And "physical thought" is another oxymoron.
> Physically, there is no such thing as thought.
Only if you're a dualist and believe in souls. If you're a physical
monist, then thought is indeed physical, and completely physical, as
thought is the particular pattern of physical neural firings. The
experience of thinking is simply a subjective property of the physical
neural activity. Rather than being an oxymoron, you're simply saying
"I believe in souls, and I'm a Substance Dualists, so for me, thinking
is a soul activity".
> But onward anyway. Doesn't it seem weird to
> hear a mind arguing (unconsciously of course) that there is no
> such thing as mind? Good for a laugh anyway.
Not any more than saying that there is no such thing as software.
Rather, software is the state or pattern that the hardware is in. To
talk about "Windows 7" or "my mind" as if it they were made of
something non-physical is silly. Windows 7 is just a description of
various states your physical computer is in (if you are unlucky enough
not to have a Mac) and mind is just a description of various states
your brain is in. Your dualistic soul claims are what's good for a
laugh, Keynes.
> IMO mind isn't so much a thing but a realm of it's own
> tangential to the physical.
That's the very definition of Substance Dualism, except you go for the
'soul' version, a soul being something which is 'simple' and in
'another realm' added to the physical. Ironic that you, the poster-boy
for Substance Dualism from the Dark Ages, actually call yourself a
"Non-Dualist" by giving the word a different definition, while you
insult and spit on all the non-dualists (physicalists aka physical
monists) who threaten you.
> (If there is such a thing as the physical apart
> from mind to perceive it.
Silly attempt to flip-flop. Keynes says "as if there is such a thing
as 'a computer' apart from the operating system to run it!" Keynes
wants to do a nutter flip-tee-doo, and say that obviously software is
concrete and real, and talk of "hardware" is simply a belief that may
or may not be true, as "computer hardware" may just be an illusion
created by Windows 7. That's pretty much Keynes' metaphysics, of which
he is so proud, and he thinks that flip-tee-doo is Zen, to say that
Windows 7 is all that is real and that talk of 'computer hardware' or
'motherboards' is just a deluded belief and illusion.
> And even if there were, who could care?
> Without mind, nothing matters.)
That's what Bill Gates says: Without Windows, nothing matters!
Like other eel-wriggling Nutters, Keynes says "ok you've nailed me on
my claim that only Windows exists, and computers don't, so let's
change the subject and say that only Windows matters, because without
it you can't see the mouse on the screen and write emails, so that's
really the same thing as saying that Windows is all that's real and
computers don't really exist, ok?"
> To define the mind in physical terms (even if it were possible,
> which it is not)
Not only is it possible, but nobody except you obsolete soulists try
to define it any other way. Mind is what physical brains DO. It's a
description of the function of brains, that's all. Rather, it's
impossible to talk about 'mind' without referencing hardware. Again,
another Keynes flip-tee-doo.
> seems to be a great category error, a glossing over
> the chasms of intellect and definition to arrive at an antiseptic
> ideal. That's right, physicalism is the greatest of idealisms.
> And the most shaky and indefensible.
No, this is the greatest of Keynes' flip-tee-doodles. Keynes says,
"Ok, this video is just like one of DharmaTroll's dastardly posts, as
it crushes my beliefs and exposes my soul view as unsupportable,
lacking any evidence, based solely on emotion -- so, I'll just say the
opposite, and say that the view that all the evidence supports, the
most solid, real, and pragmatic story -- I'll say that it's the
greatest of idealisms and that it's 'antiseptic' if it's lacking my
dualistic soul! And I'll just keep repeating that, and I'll insult
DharmaTroll, and Fu, and that damned QualiaSoup video that cuts my
beliefs to shreds, and I'll just keep insulting them and repeating the
opposite, that my soul view is self-evident and that physical monism
is really the greatest of idealisms! And if I repeat that over and
over, it will be true! Yay!"
> The realm of mind (consciousness-sensation-thought) is
> what we live in regardless of the physical.
Wrong again. We live in the physical world. All our mental
'experiences' are physical: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
touching -- as physical as it gets. Sense experience, which is the
corenerstone of the mental, is physical not only with the sense-organ
interface, but it's a physical process of neural firings that's that
sensation itself. No evidence for any soul or soul realm added.
> The concerns of the mind are non-physical.
> Such things as plans, success, failure,
> longing, fear, hope, love, hatred, cruelty, justice, life and death,
> and so on are not physical things or any sort of physical property.
They are all 100% physical. What Keynes is saying is "chemistry has
nothing to do with the physical, because such things as chemicals and
chemical reactions aren't quantum physics and can be explained by
chemistry without talk of quantum physics." So what? Same with
longing, fear, hope, which are properties of physical human animals
with functioning brains that feel and love and hope. Keynes says,
"aha, the 'files' stored on your computer are actually stored in a
soul realm, because your physical hard drive only has a bunch of dark
and shiny spots, and there are no colors there or sound, so in order
to play a movie on your computer, the computer has to interact with a
soul realm, because there are only ons and offs, shiny and dark spots,
on the disk, and no colors or sounds." That's Keynes' argument. Utter
nonsense.
> This is the stuff of our lives of mind, that which
> we actually are made of.
"This is the stuff of computers, songs and beautiful pictures, and
there is nothing like a song or a picture on a 'hard drive', just a
bunch of antiseptic ons and offs, so that proves that computers access
a non-physical soul-realm to play songs and movies and programs on
them, you see."
> Physicalists will say that any of these can be produced
> in a brain by chemicals or surgery.
WTF? No physicalist has ever, ever said anything of the sort. Rather,
every educated physicalist philosopher will tell you that to get love
and hope and passion, a brain has to be 'grown' organically. Even if
an android like Commander Data was created, he would have to start
like a baby, and his positronic synapses would grow and learn and new
pathways develop as interactions were made via sense organs, just as
with humans. Keynes makes up this 'chemicals or surgery' as if people
could be built like crystal radios. Rather, the soul view is like
this: add a soul and 'poof' there is consciousness: 'it's simple' say
the soulists when they simply add their magical fairy dust, and no
further explanation is necessary, they tell us.
> Perhaps. But what
> would be the point? Already we know enough to drug
> or drink our way to happiness. Temporarily. And at a
> high cost. Lobotomies can solve all our problems. It's
> possible to insert a small wire into the brain and have
> perpetual electrical happiness. But somehow these
> physical solutions to mind problems do not appeal.
Actually, it's not possible to have 'perpetual happiness' by inserting
a small wire into the brain, or every frakking teenager would have one
instead of piercings and tattoos. Again, you're just bonkers, Keynes.
Bonkers. Surgery? Wires into the brain? What a lunatic you are to
believe such things.
> There is a danger in reducing all things to the mechanical-
> physical, in that it completely overlooks our natural concerns.
NO! Nature is the physical and to posit souls is to overlook our
natural concerns. "We have to believe in the supernatural, in souls
and soul realms, in order to concern ourselves with nature." No way.
Just the opposite. Yet another flip-tee-doo from Keynes.
> Physically speaking, all human concerns that fill the mind
> making up human life are completely pointless and irrelevant.
No! Physically speaking all love and passion and awe are the most
relevant! Pretending that love is not physical, is not natural, but is
from Plato's Heaven, as you do, degrades nature. That's why you and
other Platonists hate the body, Keynes, and think it is stupid and
disgusting, rather than seeing that it is these very animal, physical
brain/bodies that love and feel and look back at the rest of the
natural physical universe with awe and reverence. And you want to
cheapen all that and put it down, and say that your alien soul or mind
or ego is really all there is and is what is responsible for all the
feelings. Nonsense.
> We are deterministic meat machines, remember?
Now being physical, being human, is equated by Keynes as being a
machine. The DesCartes move, that animals are mere mechanistic meat
machines, but we are not because we have ineffable souls from the
Platonic Realm. Keynes goes all-out Plato here.
> Why should we have thoughts and cares? They're pointless.
> Just blips in the physical realm. Come to that, why live?
Spoken like a true fundamentalist preacher. Or like that guy that
reviewed Avatar. Without the immortal soul we are just 'blips' and
everything is pointless and we might as well kill ourselves. Keynes is
simply a fundamentalist preacher who substitutes "Mind" for "Christ"
here, and he attacks nature. For Keynes, everything is stupid and
"just blips" except for his Platonic non-physical soul.
Rather, for the physical monist, life is rich and worth living because
everything, like love and values, and connecting, is all physical, is
all nature: nothing alien, no alien realms need to be added, because
Nature is complete.
> Meat on the hoof or meat rotting on the plain is just meat all the same.
> Why should anybody or anything be concerned about that,
If it's intelligent and loving and living meat, we should care a lot.
The best example is a live naked woman lying next to you. For Keynes,
this is no difference than road kill, except he has to add an
imaginary soul to the mix. For the naturalist, the physicalist, this
is a living, loving physical being whom you can deeply love and
connect with, not a mere piece of meat as Keynes and numerous frat
boys treat her.
> Physically, it makes no difference.
As everything is physical, physically it makes all the difference in
the world!
> Physically speaking, there is no such thing as significance.
> Ipso facto the mind and all that's in it is disposed of.
No, the mind is what the brain does, and significance and values are
what the brain does, and so is physical. When you love, that is a
brain state, as when you care or signify. Keynes thinks that emotions
take place without brains, that magical souls do the loving. What a
horrible, alienated creature, this Plato-worshipping Keynes is,
thinking that magical fairy dust has to be added for him to love,
while he hates his body and thinks it is just road kill.
> What a cheap trick.
The trick you are playing on yourself
> Physically we can build a complicated technological miracle like
> radio, but why would meat want to do that, and why would meat
> want to listen?
If it's living, intelligent meat, it wants to listen because it loves
music. Nothing else besides meat can enjoy music, not that we know of.
How can Keynes' dualistic 'other-realm' soul even hear the music? It's
heard by ears, processed by neurons. There is nothing non-physical
involved. But Keynes insists on magical fairy dust, that it's his
spookie soul that hears and enjoys the music. Better call ghost-
busters!
> IMO pure physicalism leaves out just a tiny detail,
> namely the entirety of our humanity.
Our entire humanity is meat, conscious meat, silly!
> Which is mind, not meat.
Mind is what meat does, so mind is meat, it's what meat does. And when
you have a lot of meat together, you get the meeting of minds!
Again, thanks for the QualiaSoup video, Fu.
You got Keynes gobbling like a turkey!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 10:58 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>
>> The concerns of the mind are non-physical.
>> Such things as plans, success, failure,
>> longing, fear, hope, love, hatred, cruelty, justice, life and death,
>> and so on are not physical things or any sort of physical property.
>
>They are all 100% physical. What Keynes is saying is "chemistry has
>nothing to do with the physical, because such things as chemicals and
>chemical reactions aren't quantum physics and can be explained by
>chemistry without talk of quantum physics." So what? Same with
>longing, fear, hope, which are properties of physical human animals
>with functioning brains that feel and love and hope. Keynes says,
>"aha, the 'files' stored on your computer are actually stored in a
>soul realm, because your physical hard drive only has a bunch of dark
>and shiny spots, and there are no colors there or sound, so in order
>to play a movie on your computer, the computer has to interact with a
>soul realm, because there are only ons and offs, shiny and dark spots,
>on the disk, and no colors or sounds." That's Keynes' argument. Utter
>nonsense.
>
Sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:03 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
I'm happy to just eat it. They go stale pretty fast.
You're welcome to have all the soul cakes in Plato's Heaven.
I'll eat the real (physical) ones, Nutter-Dude.
Just as I have all the physical animal emotions (love, awe, etc.) felt
by brains/bodies, while you can worship the essence of Justice in
Plato's Heaven.
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
news:c9f22e0b-c420-429b...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm happy to just eat it. They go stale pretty fast.
> You're welcome to have all the soul cakes in Plato's Heaven.
> I'll eat the real (physical) ones, Nutter-Dude.
> Just as I have all the physical animal emotions (love, awe, etc.) felt
> by brains/bodies, while you can worship the essence of Justice in
> Plato's Heaven.
While I give myself a pat on the back for independently discovering Plato's
views as he expressed in his so-called unwritten doctrine, the number of
people who keep obsessing about and promoting his earlier works and claiming
they're Plato's definitive view are mistaken. Given that, there's a good
chance you've just unwittingly argued yourself up your own asshole.
*ahem*
EPIC FAIL.
FU trimmed to you know where. (Just adding some variety and mystery.)
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 8:13 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:03 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 23, 10:58 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> The concerns of the mind are non-physical.
>> >> Such things as plans, success, failure,
>> >> longing, fear, hope, love, hatred, cruelty, justice, life and death,
>> >> and so on are not physical things or any sort of physical property.
>>
>> >They are all 100% physical. What Keynes is saying is "chemistry has
>> >nothing to do with the physical, because such things as chemicals and
>> >chemical reactions aren't quantum physics and can be explained by
>> >chemistry without talk of quantum physics." So what? Same with
>> >longing, fear, hope, which are properties of physical human animals
>> >with functioning brains that feel and love and hope. Keynes says,
>> >"aha, the 'files' stored on your computer are actually stored in a
>> >soul realm, because your physical hard drive only has a bunch of dark
>> >and shiny spots, and there are no colors there or sound, so in order
>> >to play a movie on your computer, the computer has to interact with a
>> >soul realm, because there are only ons and offs, shiny and dark spots,
>> >on the disk, and no colors or sounds." That's Keynes' argument. Utter
>> >nonsense.
You fail to even approach an understanding of plain words.
>> Sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
>I'm happy to just eat it. They go stale pretty fast.
Then why all your preaching of that which you don't know?
>You're welcome to have all the soul cakes in Plato's Heaven.
"Soul" is your hangup. You made it up and throw it at me.
That's how you're such a lame thinker. You can't hold to
one point or the other but come in on both sides unreasonably.
Mind is not of a physical nature. Period. But you insist on
analyzing it in physical terms (as you misunderstand the physical.)
I've never said that mind exists in the 'physical' way - that it existed
before birth, or after death, or that it even 'exists' in your understanding
of what 'exists' means. Yet you go out of your way to bark out your
misunderstanding, and in a slanderous personal way.
>I'll eat the real (physical) ones, Nutter-Dude.
>Just as I have all the physical animal emotions (love, awe, etc.) felt
>by brains/bodies, while you can worship the essence of Justice in
>Plato's Heaven.
Eat at the hog trough then, then shut your slobbering mouth, you animal.
Your attempts at conversational grunts are ridiculous.
"I am a soulful, loving piece of deterministic meat. And adorable too."
-- DramaTroll TwoMinds, master of oxymoronic opinions boldly espoused.
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:49:57 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
I only preach against what you don't know, about your having to add
souls to the mix and deny that physical animals can't be conscious.
> >You're welcome to have all the soul cakes in Plato's Heaven.
>
> "Soul" is your hangup. You made it up and throw it at me.
It's just the generic term for anything non-physical. I could use
"magic fairy dust", but any view that wants to add a spook or other
realm or something and claims that people aren't conscious but need
some magic or woo-woo added I call 'soul'. Or I say 'beastie' if you
add devas, angels, saints, ghosts, and other imaginary critters other
than a woo-woo 'Mind'.
I get that from talk in philosophy classes.
> That's how you're such a lame thinker.
Yeah, right. I'm not that one saying "brains aren't conscious -- it's
actually causes by woo-woo spooks from another realm", Nutter-Dude.
> Mind is not of a physical nature. Period.
Again, repeating "minds are souls, period" doesn't cut it. I can also
say, minds are what brains do, without any added woo-woo, and are thus
100% physical. Period."
I can't prove it. But you add woo-woo without any reason, except for
worship of your Cartesian Dualism. Whereas, all the evidence supports
my claim that no spooks or magic fairy dust is needed, and that brains
are conscious simply because they are functioning brains. So as my
view explains everything just as well as yours but doesn't add magical
woo-woo from other realms, I prefer the simpler non-woo-woo view. You
don't have to agree or be convinced, but I would hope you wouldn't be
so deluded as to not understand that your view is the far-fetched one,
even though your intuitions go that way.
I admit it's possible that minds aren't 100% physical, as DesCartes
pointed out, but only in bizarre hypothetical scenarios, like the
Matrix. But I see no evidence that anything mental isn't a real, 100%
physical brain activity, and you've never made a case for it. You
simply repeat your mind/body dualism dogma over and over. Of course,
your being a crazy nutter is what I like about you, as it just shows
how ridiculous the idea is and how folks cling to ideas of an ego or
soul or mind separate from the body, no matter how irrational that
dogma is shown to be.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 9:19 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Then stop saying so. Period.
(What a complete slanderous dogmatist you are!)
>I can also say, minds are what brains do, without any added
>woo-woo, and are thus 100% physical. Period."
Matter and action are the same thing?
Mind and matter are the same thing?
How far are you willing to reduce and compress
everything to satisfy your religious monism?
>I can't prove it. But you add woo-woo without any reason,
You're the one adding woo-woo, not I.
>except for worship of your Cartesian Dualism.
Cartesian dualism is your problem, not mine.
As an adamant realist and self proclaimed rational critical
thinker, dualism is what you like. You insist on it.
Unfortunately you suck at it.
>Whereas, all the evidence supports my claim that no spooks
>or magic fairy dust is needed, and that brains are conscious
>simply because they are functioning brains.
Will you stop begging the question? Ever?
Naturally you have considered the implications of
physicalist determinism. Oh, wait. Of course you haven't.
It shows as you wax romantic about drugs, roller coasters,
and sex (if you can get it). If you -were- a critical thinker
you would realize that you can't have it both ways.
Your naive realism is just skin deep. An intellectual pose.
Even if you pretend to be reasonable on TV, you're just
a softy wallowing in deep woo-woo's yourself.
>So as my
>view explains everything just as well as yours but doesn't add magical
>woo-woo from other realms, I prefer the simpler non-woo-woo view.
You are the one adding entities by the barrel
and then blaming it on me. Get a grip.
>You don't have to agree or be convinced, but I would hope you
>wouldn't be so deluded as to not understand that your view is the
>far-fetched one, even though your intuitions go that way.
>
>I admit it's possible that minds aren't 100% physical, as DesCartes
>pointed out, but only in bizarre hypothetical scenarios, like the
>Matrix. But I see no evidence that anything mental isn't a real, 100%
>physical brain activity, and you've never made a case for it.
Don't have to. But it might do you good to distinguish
your mind from your rectum. They are not identical or
even the same. (Unless you insist on it.) What's important
to you and to me and to everyone else is what's in the mind,
and not in the foot or the elbow, or the cat or the tree.
YMMV
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:56:19 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
But you said that Mind, which is the soul, is not physical.
> (What a complete slanderous dogmatist you are!)
Not at all. Again, who capitalizes the word 'Mind' and means something
non-physical from some woo-woo realm? Again, you can say that Software
is not in the computer, as there are only ons and offs and circuits,
but that Software is from another 'realm', otherwise there would be no
colors on the screen or music from the speakers.
> >I can also say, minds are what brains do, without any added
> >woo-woo, and are thus 100% physical. Period."
>
> Matter and action are the same thing?
Don't be silly. All matter is in motion and can be expressed as
energy..
> Mind and matter are the same thing?
Software and computers are the same thing, you ask? What, are you
stupid?
> How far are you willing to reduce and compress
> everything to satisfy your religious monism?
No religious monism. Nothing religious about it. Just no evidence for
your dualism. But finally you admit that I'm the non-dualist and you
are a raging Cartesian Dualist, and from your point of view, non-
dualism, or physical monism is "religious".
> You're the one adding woo-woo, not I.
No, I don't. Not adding woo-woo is to just admit that we're conscious
animals. Woo-woo is to say that 'mind' comes from 'another realm'.
> Cartesian dualism is your problem, not mine.
Well, now that you've admitted you're a Cartesian dualist, it's your
problem. It's only a problem for me if I want to deal with the lot of
you who babble about 'Mind' and think their egos create the world.
> >Whereas, all the evidence supports my claim that no spooks
> >or magic fairy dust is needed, and that brains are conscious
> >simply because they are functioning brains.
>
> Will you stop begging the question? Ever?
I'm not begging the question, here. There is no evidence that woo-woo
realms or souls are conscious. But there is evidence that brains are
conscious. Tons of it.
> Naturally you have considered the implications of
> physicalist determinism. Oh, wait. Of course you haven't.
> It shows as you wax romantic about drugs, roller coasters,
> and sex (if you can get it). If you -were- a critical thinker
> you would realize that you can't have it both ways.
Yes, the implications are that free will is compatible with
determinism, or at the very least, it makes sense to talk about free
will on the intentional level. Your claim that a separate self-
existing agent, what you call Mind and I call ego or soul, must exist
to have free will is flawed, and doesn't actually work
philosophically. Oh, and the Buddha didn't like that idea either, btw.
> Your naive realism is just skin deep.
No, my robust realism extends past the skin and includes trees, cats,
stones, and stars. But this has nothing to do with realism. Physical
monism versus substance dualism is a totally independent issue. And
you still haven't made any case for your dualism.
> Even if you pretend to be reasonable on TV, you're just
> a softy wallowing in deep woo-woo's yourself.
You see me on TV? Boy you really do create your own reality, eh?
> >So as my
> >view explains everything just as well as yours but doesn't add magical
> >woo-woo from other realms, I prefer the simpler non-woo-woo view.
>
> You are the one adding entities by the barrel
> and then blaming it on me. Get a grip.
Nope. Nothing non-physical to add. No unicorns, gods, or Minds with
capital 'Ms' from other woo-woo realms. Just pure animal through and
through.
> >You don't have to agree or be convinced, but I would hope you
> >wouldn't be so deluded as to not understand that your view is the
> >far-fetched one, even though your intuitions go that way.
>
> >I admit it's possible that minds aren't 100% physical, as DesCartes
> >pointed out, but only in bizarre hypothetical scenarios, like the
> >Matrix. But I see no evidence that anything mental isn't a real, 100%
> >physical brain activity, and you've never made a case for it.
>
> Don't have to. But it might do you good to distinguish
> your mind from your rectum.
And you're saying this because you have your head up your ass? But
even then you still are admitting that your mind is the function of
the brain in your head, you see.
> What's important
> to you and to me and to everyone else is what's in the mind,
> and not in the foot or the elbow, or the cat or the tree.
> YMMV
Well, if you say "brain" then yes, we're interested in what's in the
brain, not the foot, elbow, cat, or tree, because that's where the
mind is. But I'm also interested in the cats and trees. If they really
exist, rather than are in the mind, then we need to be careful to take
care of them, you see.
--DharmaTroll
Déjà Flu
In the meantime,
be
well
Eu d'fu
DharmaTroll
(from the Christmas ep of The Big Bang Theory):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqiiCOFR0Y8
Sheldon (holding an Isaac Newton bust Christmas tree ornament):
"December 25, 1642, Julian calendar, Sir Isaac Newton is born. Jesus,
on the other hand, was actually born in the summer. His birthday was
moved to coincide with a traditional pagan holiday that celebrated the
winter solstice with lit fires and slaughtered goats. Which, frankly,
sounds like more fun than 12 hours of church with my mother followed
by a fruitcake."
Merry Newtonmas, Everybody!
--DharmaTroll
liaM
Watch your testicules, cousin.
liaM
Thanks for his aside.
Newton was a holy roller too :)
Lee Rudolph
>Merry Newtonmas, Everybody!
No, no, no! Newtonforce; kilogrammas.
Lee Rudolph
liaM
Thanks for this aside.
liaM
a literofwatermas to you too !
zenworm
drinking gratitude
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
possum
merry xmas everybody.
possum
Appledog
Happy chanukah. Wait.. I'm jewish too? Huh? When did that happen? :)
> possum
Actually, isn't there even a new festival someone made up 50 years
ago? what's that called? Merry whatever that is too. In fact, merry
all holidays. Merry holidays that we don't know.
I dedicate this merry to the unknown holiday.
-