You seem upset. Are you OK?You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.
Also yoyll have to show me where I said you can't think for yourself.
Your main problem is you go unchallenged mostly on here and you don't like it.
You prayers mumblers usually get frustrated when you can't cut through with your feeble beliefs. Now you are disecting my intelligence and basically suggesting I am mentally unstable.
As the debate continues heres what usually happens. You made profession already.
You will usually divert into another area where you feel a victory is imminent. That doesn't work so you crank up the language. Next comes the condescending dribble about how you will pray for me.
Another one is "Why are you even on this forum" as if it is exclusive for godbotherers. And just prior to blocking me out comes the big guns. God will strike me dead and hell awaits me.
So continue with your diagnosis of attempting to belittle me. It won't work.
Concentrate on how you would prove that you know what God is thinking when you say he will abandon the country.
I say you know nothing of the sort but are having a sarcastic dig at atheism and Biden. That is common ground for you desperate hypocrits.
When a country abandons God. God then abandons the country.
- Thread starter thunderchiefj
- Start date
Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others. George Wald, Nobel Laureate
The study of cell communication focuses on how a cell gives and receives messages with its environment and with itself. Indeed, cells do not live in isolation. Their survival depends on receiving and processing information from the outside environment, whether that information pertains to the availability of nutrients, changes in temperature, or variations in light levels. Cells can also communicate directly with one another — and change their own internal workings in response — by way of a variety of chemical and mechanical signals. In multicellular organisms, cell signaling allows for specialization of groups of cells. Multiple cell types can then join together to form tissues such as muscle, blood, and brain tissue. In single-celled organisms, signaling allows populations of cells to coordinate with one another and work like a team to accomplish tasks no single cell could carry out on its own.
Cell Communication
The articles in this Subject space focus on how a cell gives and receives messages with its environment and with itself. Cell survival depends on the ability to receive and process information from the outside environment. Cells can communicate directly with one another via a variety of chemical...
www.nature.com
exactly. Ding has no introspective self awareness. No soul. If he did he wouldn't be seeking eternal life from a lifeless matzo made by human hands.
He is going through life in a self made prison of pretense and lies, a completely false person, a three dollar bill, an actor and lying fraud, a perversion of a living being, a golem made entirely of papal bullshit.
Last edited:
The Bible addresses the spiritual. China’s rise is of the temporal. God isn’t I Dream of Jeannie.
I don't think toe nail trimmings are conscious. Oh well.
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,109
- 928
- Banned
- #229
You seem upset. Are you OK?You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.
Also yoyll have to show me where I said you can't think for yourself.
Your main problem is you go unchallenged mostly on here and you don't like it.
You prayers mumblers usually get frustrated when you can't cut through with your feeble beliefs. Now you are disecting my intelligence and basically suggesting I am mentally unstable.
As the debate continues heres what usually happens. You made profession already.
You will usually divert into another area where you feel a victory is imminent. That doesn't work so you crank up the language. Next comes the condescending dribble about how you will pray for me.
Another one is "Why are you even on this forum" as if it is exclusive for godbotherers. And just prior to blocking me out comes the big guns. God will strike me dead and hell awaits me.
So continue with your diagnosis of attempting to belittle me. It won't work.
Concentrate on how you would prove that you know what God is thinking when you say he will abandon the country.
I say you know nothing of the sort but are having a sarcastic dig at atheism and Biden. That is common ground for you desperate hypocrits.
I can assure you I am at my peak of relaxation when I'm tearing godbotherers to bits.
If you reread my chronology of events, you will notice I predicted you would
Discuss my possible mental state.
You are as a I predicted.
You're not so smart boy. I've done this a hundred times and every debater had left before me.
So cut your childish rot thinking I'm intimidated by it. Concentrate on the outrageous statement how you know how God thinks. Because I say you are just another delusional lying Jesus junkie.
Cool story, bro.You seem upset. Are you OK?You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.
Also yoyll have to show me where I said you can't think for yourself.
Your main problem is you go unchallenged mostly on here and you don't like it.
You prayers mumblers usually get frustrated when you can't cut through with your feeble beliefs. Now you are disecting my intelligence and basically suggesting I am mentally unstable.
As the debate continues heres what usually happens. You made profession already.
You will usually divert into another area where you feel a victory is imminent. That doesn't work so you crank up the language. Next comes the condescending dribble about how you will pray for me.
Another one is "Why are you even on this forum" as if it is exclusive for godbotherers. And just prior to blocking me out comes the big guns. God will strike me dead and hell awaits me.
So continue with your diagnosis of attempting to belittle me. It won't work.
Concentrate on how you would prove that you know what God is thinking when you say he will abandon the country.
I say you know nothing of the sort but are having a sarcastic dig at atheism and Biden. That is common ground for you desperate hypocrits.
I can assure you I am at my peak of relaxation when I'm tearing godbotherers to bits.
If you reread my chronology of events, you will notice I predicted you would
Discuss my possible mental state.
You are as a I predicted.
You're not so smart boy. I've done this a hundred times and every debater had left before me.
So cut your childish rot thinking I'm intimidated by it. Concentrate on the outrageous statement how you know how God thinks. Because I say you are just another delusional lying Jesus junkie.
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,109
- 928
- Banned
- #231
Cool story, bro.You seem upset. Are you OK?You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.
Also yoyll have to show me where I said you can't think for yourself.
Your main problem is you go unchallenged mostly on here and you don't like it.
You prayers mumblers usually get frustrated when you can't cut through with your feeble beliefs. Now you are disecting my intelligence and basically suggesting I am mentally unstable.
As the debate continues heres what usually happens. You made profession already.
You will usually divert into another area where you feel a victory is imminent. That doesn't work so you crank up the language. Next comes the condescending dribble about how you will pray for me.
Another one is "Why are you even on this forum" as if it is exclusive for godbotherers. And just prior to blocking me out comes the big guns. God will strike me dead and hell awaits me.
So continue with your diagnosis of attempting to belittle me. It won't work.
Concentrate on how you would prove that you know what God is thinking when you say he will abandon the country.
I say you know nothing of the sort but are having a sarcastic dig at atheism and Biden. That is common ground for you desperate hypocrits.
I can assure you I am at my peak of relaxation when I'm tearing godbotherers to bits.
If you reread my chronology of events, you will notice I predicted you would
Discuss my possible mental state.
You are as a I predicted.
You're not so smart boy. I've done this a hundred times and every debater had left before me.
So cut your childish rot thinking I'm intimidated by it. Concentrate on the outrageous statement how you know how God thinks. Because I say you are just another delusional lying Jesus junkie.
You're feeling a little embarrassed now. You fell into the trap. Now you dismiss it as if it didn't happen.
Do you really want to continue until my predicted end?
Not at all. I couldn't be happier.Cool story, bro.You seem upset. Are you OK?You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.You will have to show me the post where I said God abandons the earth so that you can discover I didn't write that post.Because truth is discovered.Why don't you let it drop ?Great then all he has to do is prove where it is and prove how the brain controls cellular activity. As consciousness is being aware of surroundings and responding to surroundings.A Nobel laureate's explanation for why consciousness does not reside in one place, consciousness at the cellular level.... that's not great lengths. That's the evidence you askeYou went to great lengths toThe evidence is that there is no one part of the brain that where consciousness resides. The evidence is that every part of your body senses reality.Actually consciousness is the sum of one's being. It involves all of the senses. It doesn't reside in one place.Absolute rubbish. The only soul you have is your -as hole and it's not pure.I prayed for your soul, brother.lol...Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin...I'd rather be drawn and quartered.It was a sincere prayer. Help me help you.It would do you some good to speak your sins out loud to someone. It doesn't even have to be a priest. Just the act of speaking them out load will release the power it holds over you. I'm going to pray for you now.Did you know that confessing one's sins has a practical benefit? One might even say it's a functional advantage.I'm bookmarking this post.
Screw that.
Just go to confession and tell the priest to tell God for you just how sorry you are for your sins and then to prove your sincerity violate the law of God, sin some more, and get down on your knees and worship the lifeless work of human hands and then eat it for spiritual life.
Go ahead, Eat it. I'm sure that God will be very impressed
I am
lol... Confess sins that are not sinful and do that which is sinful?
Sure its a functional advantage to the church and state, getting people to confess their so called sins was an old fashioned way of gathering and weaponizing information before wiretaps.....
smarten up.
Dear Lord, please help hobelim reach rock bottom as fast and as humanely as possible so that he may see the depths which he has fallen and repent like the prodigal son.
lol.... I do not sin. I always do exactly as God commands and so I dwell within the sanctuary of God. I never worship false gods, I never eat the vile and degrading flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. I never worship the work of human hands, I never murder which is misleading others to defy the divine commands, I never pay homage to the devil; any species of serpent, never have eaten the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, never eaten the flesh of teeming vermin who go down on all fours, I have never perjured myself in the name of God, never have spoken falsely about anybody, I eat the flesh and blood of Jesus daily, (the fruit of the tree of life), and so I have already risen from among the dead and have hold of eternal life. I have my reward already.
And there are a million ways to say FU. "I'll pray for you" is one of them. You want be to hit rock bottom? lol..What a guy! is that where you found your edible triune mangod? Fuck you back.
So take your phoney prayers and ram them up your snout. Your sins are as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field, your prayers are meaningless. Your poison has no effect.
You will never understand me, never understand a word of what Jesus taught, and you will never see or hear from the living God for the rest of your miserable life in hell unless you learn to say;
Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai.
You prayed for me to hit rock bottom so that becoming an idolator would seem like a step in the right direction. lol.
What a guy!
Is that what happened to you? You fucked up numbskull. In the hierarchy of hell the higher you climb the lower you get. There is no bottom to the abyss.
lol... my soul is just fine, just as pure as the day I was born.
Pray for yourself.
You are the one without a soul, bro.
You know there's no such thing. Why make a fool of yourself by suggesting you have knowledge of who has these magical gifts from god.
You've been praying to your ghost all your life and not one thing have you ever received in return. Nothing.
You've been conned son. Admit it.
Soul or spirit were the ancient words for consciousness. No such thing? Moron. Maybe yours is s source of shit but thats just you.
The ancients thought that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. we now know that consciousness is seated in the brain. Anytime scripture speaks of what is going on in the heart they are speaking about what is going on in the mind. My ancestors were far more intelligent than you can imagine. They just had different words and expression and a knowledge of the human mind that by far surpasses the psychiatric chemical imbalance bullshit you were force fed in school. You were conned.
A person possessed by a demon was a person brainwashed and controlled by one or many despicable human beings. No such thing?
A person with an unclean spirit was a person with a filthy mind. No such thing?
And , btw, I never pray, and cannot be conned by anyone. Even you.
You are an asshole.
Where's you evidence from science to prove that? You don't have any but your silly God had conned you again.
You're just live in your butt with all the dumb as statements you make.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate explains:
The problem of consciousness was hardly avoidable for someone like me, who has spent most of his scientific life working on mechanisms of vision. That is by now a very active field, with thousands of workers. We have learned a lot, and expect to learn much more; yet none of it touches or even points however tentatively in the direction of telling us what it means to see.I learned my business on the eyes of frogs. The retina of a frog is very much like a human retina. Both contain two kinds of light receptors, rods for vision in dim light and cones for bright light; the visual pigments are closely similar in chemistry and behavior; both have the same three fundamental nerve layers, and the nervous connections to the brain are much alike. But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light -- so does a photocell‑activated garage door. But does it know it is responding, is it aware of visual images?There is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that question. That is the problem of consciousness: it is altogether impervious to scientific approach. As I worked on visual systems -- it would have been the same for any other sensory mode, let alone more subtle or complex manifestations of mental activity -- this realization lay always in the background. Now for me it is in the foreground. I think that it involves a permanent condition: that it never will become possible to identify physically the presence or absence of consciousness, much less its content.I of course have some preconceptions, but the only unequivocally sure thing is what goes on in my own consciousness. Everything else that I think I know involves some degree of inference. I have all kinds of evidence that other persons are conscious. It helps that they tell me so, and display other evidences of consciousness in speech and writing, art and technology. I believe that other mammals are conscious; and birds -- that business of singing at dawn and sunset makes me think that they are essentially poetic creatures. But when I get to frogs I worry, and fishes even more so. Those animals at least respond reasonably to light and some visual images. But I have worked also on the numerous and anatomically magnificent eyes of scallops, without finding any indication that these animals see, beyond reacting to a passing shadow. The last animals whose vision I worked on with my own hands were worms with great big bulging eyes, with everything you could ask for in an eye. The eyes yielded fine electrical responses to light, but I never could get the worms themselves to give any indication whatever that they responded to light. Maybe they didn’t like being with me.Any assumption regarding the presence or absence of awareness in any nonhuman animal remains just that: an unsupported assumption. Matters are no different with inorganic devices. Does the photoelectrically activated garage door resent having to open when a car’s headlights shine on it? I think not. Does a computer that has just beaten a human opponent at chess feel elated? I believe not. But there is nothing I can do to shore up those assumptions either.Consciousness is not part of that universe of space and time, of observable and measurable quantities, that is amenable to scientific investigation. For a scientist, it would be a relief to dismiss it as unreal or irrelevant. I have heard distinguished scientists do both. In a discussion with the physicist P. W. Bridgman some years ago, he spoke of consciousness as “just a way of talking.” His thesis was that only terms that can be defined operationally have meaning; and there are no operations that define consciousness. In the same discussion, the psychologist B. F. Skinner dismissed consciousness as irrelevant to science, since confined to a private world, not accessible to others.Unfortunately for such attitudes, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon, a strange concomitant of our neural activity that we project onto physical reality. On the contrary, all that we know, including all our science, is in our consciousness. It is part, not of the superstructure, but of the foundations. No consciousness, no science. Perhaps, indeed, no consciousness, no reality -- of which more later.Though consciousness is the essential condition for all science, science cannot deal with it. That is not because it is an unassimilable element within science, but just the opposite: science is a highly digestible element within consciousness, which includes science as a limited territory within the much wider reality of whose existence we are conscious. Consciousness itself lies outside the parameters of space and time that would make it accessible to science, and that realization carries an enormous consequence: consciousness cannot be located. But more: it has no location.Some years ago I talked about this with Wilder Penfield, the great Canadian neurosurgeon. In the course of his therapeutic activities he had unprecedented opportunities to explore the exposed brains of conscious patients, and hoped in this way to discover the seat of human consciousness. I asked him, “Why do you think consciousness is in the brain? Maybe it’s all over the body.”He chuckled, and said, “Well, I’ll keep on trying.”About two years later, I met him again and he said to me, “I’ll tell you one thing: it’s not in the cerebral cortex!”Shortly afterward came the exciting announcement that the so‑called reticular formation in the brain stem of mammals contains an arousal center, a center that seems to wake creatures up and produce awareness. The problem with all such observations is that one cannot know whether one is dealing with a source or with part of the machinery of reception and transmission. It is as though, finding that the removal of a transistor from a television set stopped the transmission, one concluded it to be the source of the program.How could one possibly locate a phenomenon that one has no means of identifying -- neither its presence nor absence -- nor any known parameters of space, time, energy exchange, by which to characterize merely its occurrence, let alone its content? The very idea of a location of consciousness is absurd. Just as with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have more to deal with here than technical inadequacy, with a perhaps temporary lack of means of observation and measurement. What we confront is an intrinsic condition of reality. It is not only that we are unable to locate consciousness: it has no location.Consider pain, the most primitive of sensory responses, and most closely connected with survival. I have had to kill many animals in the course of my work, and have tried always to inflict a minimum of pain. But do other animals than man feel pain? Many physiologists assert that only warm‑blooded animals feel pain, and some of their publications have stated this as an official view. The National Eye Institute announced only in 1979 a first break with this position, asking workers with cold‑blooded animals to try to avoid giving them “unnecessary pain.” When I lop off the head of a frog, I assume that the headless body is beyond pain; but is the head? So I hastily destroy the brain, and hope that ends the problem. Yet I have heard Wilder Penfield say that once a human brain has been exposed, one could operate on it with a spoon without causing an unanesthetized patient any great discomfort. And what of a worm, any small piece of which writhes on being pinched?Recently there has been a controversy in the American press involving some physicians having asserted that a human fetus feels pain in an abortion. The very idea should raise deep concern about the very widespread Arnerican practice of circumcising male newborns, performed routinely without anesthesia, the physicians having assured the rnothers that the nervous systems of their infants have not yet developed sufficiently for them to feel pain. All such assertions are equally groundless. Even as regards so primitive a concept as pain, we are altogether baffled in trying to substantiate its occurrence or absence.I used to show students a film made by the French zoologist Faure‑Fremiet on the feeding behavior of protozoa. Many of our sturdiest concepts of the apparatus required for animal behavior are mocked by these animalcules, particularly by the ciliates; for in one cell they do everything: move about, react to stimuli, feed, digest, excrete, on occasion copulate and reproduce. In this film one saw them encountering problems and solving them, much as would a mammal. I remember best a carnivorous protozoon tackling a microscopic bit of muscle. It took hold of the end of a fibril, and backed off at an angle, as though to tear it loose. When the fibril would not give, the protozoon came in again, then backed away at a new angle, worrying the fibril loose, much as a dog might have done, worrying loose a chunk of meat. It was hard, watching that single cell at work, not to anthropomorphize. Did it know what it was doing?But then, ciliate protozoa are the most complex cells we know. How about a cell highly specialized to perform a single function in a higher organism, a nerve cell for example, that can only transmit an impulse? Once, years ago, I was visiting the invertebrate physiologist, Ladd Prosser, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He took me into his laboratory, where he was recording the electrical responses from a single nerve cell in the ventral nerve cord (which takes the place of our spinal cord) of a cockroach. It was set up to display the electrical potentials on an oscilloscope screen, and simultaneously to let them sound through a loudspeaker. I was hearing a slow, rhythmic reverberation, coming to a peak, then falling off to silence, then starting again, each cycle a few seconds, like a breathing rhythm. Prosser remarked, “That kind of response is typical of a dying nerve cell.”“My God!” I said, “It’s groaning! You’ve given it a voice, and it’s groaning!”Was that nerve cell expressing a conscious distress? Is something like that the source of a person’s groaning? There is no way whatever of knowing.So that is the problem of mind -- consciousness -- a vast, unchartable domain that includes all science, yet that science cannot deal with, has no way of approaching; not even to identify its presence or absence; that offers nothing to measure, and nothing to locate, since it has no location.
prove nothing.
Here's a bit from wiki that quotes a lot more researchers at than the one you cherry picked.
Consciousness - Wikipedia
I'm don't with you. I've never gained a stimulated neuron from a godbotherer. You have not changed that.
And Nobel Laureate Edelman says consciousness resides in the brian. So let's put aside these silly attempts to beguile and dismiss people using specious arguments to authority. Thanks.
You're argument doesn't stack up, your reference is highly dubious and your not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm watching death by a thousand cuts.
George Wald's comprehensive analysis explaining why there is no single location for consciousness has not been refuted. You didn't even read it.
You made the original post stating God abandons the earth nor some rubbish.
That's what dragged me into the debate.
In fact, God never said that. You did.
You don't know how a ghost thinks and it's vain and presumptuous to think you do.
Its not good enough to be a believer so now you crank it up in front of your peers to suggest you have unique access as to how he thinks. You don't and you are a liar.
As for your hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, it's easy to see how you place everything in the hands of the bible for explanation.
You can't think for yourself. Your brainwashed. Reading a bible turned me into atheist. You read it and now yoyr hallucinate worshipping ghost and hallucinating by receiving direct messages how God thinks.
Don't make me laugh you fool.
So I didn't drag you into anything but that statement shows that you have an external locus of control nonetheless. And that's not a good look.
You mean George Wald's hideously embarrassing explanation about consciousness, right? One that went into a great explanation for why consciousness is not located in one location. Your hideously embarrassing explanation didn't even touch on the subject but you would have never known because you have an external locus of control and are incapable of producing results.
Your statement that I can't think for myself is a textbook dunning-Kruger effect which is a sign of less than average intelligence.
Your desire to lash out at others is a sign of pent up frustration and hostility at your lot in life. Suggesting that the combination of your external locus of control and Dunning-Kruger behavior has led to a life of sub-optimal performance in the real world. So it's not surprising that you can't even keep track of who wrote what.
Also yoyll have to show me where I said you can't think for yourself.
Your main problem is you go unchallenged mostly on here and you don't like it.
You prayers mumblers usually get frustrated when you can't cut through with your feeble beliefs. Now you are disecting my intelligence and basically suggesting I am mentally unstable.
As the debate continues heres what usually happens. You made profession already.
You will usually divert into another area where you feel a victory is imminent. That doesn't work so you crank up the language. Next comes the condescending dribble about how you will pray for me.
Another one is "Why are you even on this forum" as if it is exclusive for godbotherers. And just prior to blocking me out comes the big guns. God will strike me dead and hell awaits me.
So continue with your diagnosis of attempting to belittle me. It won't work.
Concentrate on how you would prove that you know what God is thinking when you say he will abandon the country.
I say you know nothing of the sort but are having a sarcastic dig at atheism and Biden. That is common ground for you desperate hypocrits.
I can assure you I am at my peak of relaxation when I'm tearing godbotherers to bits.
If you reread my chronology of events, you will notice I predicted you would
Discuss my possible mental state.
You are as a I predicted.
You're not so smart boy. I've done this a hundred times and every debater had left before me.
So cut your childish rot thinking I'm intimidated by it. Concentrate on the outrageous statement how you know how God thinks. Because I say you are just another delusional lying Jesus junkie.
You're feeling a little embarrassed now. You fell into the trap. Now you dismiss it as if it didn't happen.
Do you really want to continue until my predicted end?
Which predicted end would that be?
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,109
- 928
- Banned
- #234
As predicted. Have you the evidence that you have unique access to what God thinks? That would be the end for me. I'll wait here.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you could link to the post you think I made.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,467
- 58,088
- 2,645
And how would a person do that, in your estimation? Be specific.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,467
- 58,088
- 2,645
So like your bullshit, but slightly different.
That's my point. They can't because it isn't located in one place. Every part of a living organism is conscious to some degree as it senses and reacts to it's surrounding.
- Oct 26, 2011
- 16,674
- 1,328
- 85
.
.
no kidding ...
.
.
flora has a mind of its own spiritual content. not really very dissimilar than fauna.
- Mar 7, 2014
- 45,071
- 9,118
- 2,030
That still doesn't answer any question I've asked or explain anything you've said.
Supposedly a country that is spiritual will have God's benefits, and countries without God gets his disdain. That is the topic of this thread, isn't it?
But then China is the country rising. Why?
Or perhaps there is God at all, and China is rising because it's rising and the US is falling because it's falling.
Similar threads
