The making of western morality

[Cypress]

I am fascinated by your version of science. I am not a neurobiologist nor did I ever claim science knew 100% perfectly how consciousness arises. That's YOUR strawman. And given your penchant for loose reasoning and specious conclusions, I can understand why you go for that.

But science sees a LOT more into consciousness than ANYTHING you've posted. You've posted literally nothing of explanatory value. That's because you want the "mystery" the "sexiness of the unknown".

You are like a creationist who loves the mystery of being a special creation of God. And you can't stand it when someone notes you are just another primate.

The human brain is being measured. Do I know exaclty how a thought is formed? No. But science has a LOT more to say about it than anything you've posted.

Why do you prefer to live in the dark cave of ignorance?




If you don't understand science I can help you.



Like you do with the various OP's you start?





If you will as well.



You don't understand my links in the first place. So that's not much of a problem for me.

You posted a paper which openly stated in its conclusions that we don't understand the emergence of consciousness and that it remains a "challenging topic" which still needs to be clarified.

You massively wasted my time by Googling these papers and presenting them to me with a flourish, without even reading the paper yourself.

 

[Daylight63]

You posted a paper which openly stated in its conclusions that we don't understand the emergence of consciousness and that it remains a "challenging topic" which still needs to be clarified.

You massively wasted my time by Googling these papers and presenting them to me with a flourish, without even reading the paper yourself.

I'm genuinely curious why you need to 'win" so badly. All I ever said was that THERE ARE LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO SEE CONSCIOUSNESS AS A POSSIBLY EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN.

I never claimed to have the full mechanism (again, that was YOUR strawman). I never claimed it was right. I just said it was an explanation.

YOU don't have an explanation. None. nada. ZIP, ZILCH. NOTHING. Nothing. Nothing.

Ironically you then dismiss out of hand that which is technically superior to your own position simply because you don't like science and you don't like to read.

Too long to read

Way too long too read.

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

Talk about wasting my time!!!!

 

[Daylight63]

Curious: a man who has NO explanation prefers ignorance to possible insight.

Just because reading is too hard.

 

[Daylight63]

How to Understand Science (A Short One Act Play in 4 posts)

Too long to read

Way too long too read.

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

I'm not going to trust your links anymore.

 

[Cypress]

I'm genuinely curious why you need to 'win" so badly. All I ever said was that THERE ARE LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO SEE CONSCIOUSNESS AS A POSSIBLY EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN.

I never claimed to have the full mechanism (again, that was YOUR strawman). I never claimed it was right. I just said it was an explanation.

YOU don't have an explanation. None. nada. ZIP, ZILCH. NOTHING. Nothing. Nothing.

Ironically you then dismiss out of hand that which is technically superior to your own position simply because you don't like science and you don't like to read.







Talk about wasting my time!!!!

I'm genuinely curious why you need to 'win" so badly. All I ever said was that THERE ARE LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO SEE CONSCIOUSNESS AS A POSSIBLY EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN.

I never claimed to have the full mechanism (again, that was YOUR strawman). I never claimed it was right. I just said it was an explanation.

YOU don't have an explanation. None. nada. ZIP, ZILCH. NOTHING. Nothing. Nothing.

Ironically you then dismiss out of hand that which is technically superior to your own position simply because you don't like science and you don't like to read.



Talk about wasting my time!!!!

In the future, please don't post scientific papers you haven't actually read, that don't conclude what you wish it concluded, and try to trick me into thinking the paper supports your premises. I get enough of that with global warming deniers.

 

[Daylight63]

In the future, please don't post scientific papers you haven't actually read

At least I read.

Too long to read

Way too long too read.

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

, that don't conclude what you wish it concluded, and try to trick me into thinking the paper supports your premises. I get enough of that with global warming deniers.

You are wrong. What I posted was in support of my points. I never claimed what YOU wanted me to claim. That's YOUR error. Not mine.

In future I would appreciate it if you would READ my posts before responding. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

Too long to read

Way too long too read.

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

 

[serenity]

Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind is a 2019 non-fiction history book by British historian Tom Holland. The book is a broad history of the influence of Christianity on the world, focusing on its impact on morality – from its beginnings to the modern day.

Holland contends that Western morality, values and social norms ultimately are products of Christianity, stating "in a West that is often doubtful of religion's claims, so many of its instincts remain — for good and ill — thoroughly Christian". Holland further argues that concepts now usually considered non-religious or universal, such as secularism, liberalism, science, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism, and even homosexuality, "are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed", and that the influence of Christianity on Western civilization has been so complete "that it has come to be hidden from view". (Wikipedia)

why does understanding why life is what it becomes in plain sight need a faith life sin't what 9t became in plain sight? Ever dusk is as new as each dawn. Every noon is as new as every midnight, every other solstice is the same season beginning of a year and end of the same year.

Every great great grandchild is as new as every 1 of 16 great great grandparents since inception of ancestral lineages occupying time this rotation.

These conditions happen in every species native to this atmosphere extinct or still reproducing.

What is time relative to series parllel positions universally here in ever changing total sum of life left next rotation? Eternity

What is occupying same time separately one of a kind alive now? Eternally separated since conception alive until the new heart doesn't beat anymore in series parallel positions of ancestry here now.

Perpetual universal motion is the result of limited matter in perpetually balancing outcomes of eternally separated results never same details twice occupying time so far.

Human intellect invented 7day week, 52 weeks a year, 12 months a year, 365,365,365,366 days every 4 year cycle and life never stays the same total sum between existing heartbeats living here each rotation of the planet.

Not a society in history honors the natural evolving process and instead uses it against each added great great grandchild replacing their own 30 ancestors linked to sequence of events sustaining the populaiton currently alive for last century's 4 of 5 generation gaps and 5th being born one at a time daily.

Common thread to string theories and spiritual theologies, now isn't eternity and always has been naturally. Mankind created an actual physical Eternal Hell by rule of law trying to make life larger than it exists in plain sight by power of suggestion and persuasion of power by demanding last generation born comply to previous 4's beliefs as geographically particed in every village and every ancestral lineage serving humanity's highway to hell paved with greater good intentions than accepting one's body is naturally eternally separated by pulsating heartbeat now.

 

[Cypress]

At least I read.









You are wrong. What I posted was in support of my points. I never claimed what YOU wanted me to claim. That's YOUR error. Not mine.

In future I would appreciate it if you would READ my posts before responding. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

So, according to your own article, the emergence of human consciousness is a "challenging topic" we still don't understand, and we need more "clarification" on it.

That's been precisely my position for years.

 

[Daylight63]

So, according to your own article, the emergence of human consciousness is a "challenging topic" we still don't understand, and we need more "clarification" on it.

That's been precisely my position for years.

Whenever I debate Creationists over Young earth stuff they always love to focus on the parts of the science that show "doubt" or "uncertainty" as if that is somehow a "gotcha" against the science.

You seem to be taking a kind of similar approach. In fact all throughout this discussion your position has been a steady drumbeat of how science can't answer the questions. But I've shown you data where they are doing just that.

Something you clearly don't know about science is that it doesn't ever claim to have 100% perfect understanding. You and the Creationists seem to have a cartoon view of science as if scientists write articles that say "WE HAVE DISCOVERED HOW CONSCIOUSNESS WORKS PERFECTLY!" That doesn't happen.

YOUR position is that science doesn't "know". But science knows more than you wish to allow.

Your debate points are EXACTLY like Creationist debate points. You run through any given article until you find a word that indicates "doubt" and you jump on that to say all of science is without knowledge.

So that you can support your ACTUAL point which is "nothing is known".

You prefer the IGNORANCE over the DATA because ignorance allows you to have the beliefs you want unencumbered by data or facts.

Maybe if you weren't so "anti-reading" you could get a more nuanced understanding of topics like this.

 

[Cypress]

Whenever I debate Creationists over Young earth stuff they always love to focus on the parts of the science that show "doubt" or "uncertainty" as if that is somehow a "gotcha" against the science.

You seem to be taking a kind of similar approach. In fact all throughout this discussion your position has been a steady drumbeat of how science can't answer the questions. But I've shown you data where they are doing just that.

Something you clearly don't know about science is that it doesn't ever claim to have 100% perfect understanding. You and the Creationists seem to have a cartoon view of science as if scientists write articles that say "WE HAVE DISCOVERED HOW CONSCIOUSNESS WORKS PERFECTLY!" That doesn't happen.

YOUR position is that science doesn't "know". But science knows more than you wish to allow.

Your debate points are EXACTLY like Creationist debate points. You run through any given article until you find a word that indicates "doubt" and you jump on that to say all of science is without knowledge.

So that you can support your ACTUAL point which is "nothing is known".

You prefer the IGNORANCE over the DATA because ignorance allows you to have the beliefs you want unencumbered by data or facts.

Maybe if you weren't so "anti-reading" you could get a more nuanced understanding of topics like this.

Thanks for tacitly admitting that your article didn't actually support your claim that science has pretty much closed in on an explanation for the emergence of consciousness.

Just keep this thread in mind when in the future I don't want to spend time reading papers you post, and don't accept that they actually support what you claim.

 

[Daylight63]

Thanks for tacitly admitting

Stop this approach. It only serves to insult.

that your article didn't actually support your claim that science has pretty much closed

I never said that. You seem to have a bit of difficulty with being honest about someone else's point.

I never once said what you constantly claim I'm saying. Why can't you debate the points on their merits? Why must you lie about the other person's position constantly?

in on an explanation for the emergence of consciousness.

Just keep this thread in mind when in the future I don't want to spend time reading papers you post, and don't accept that they actually support what you claim.

You seem to think a lot of yourself. It is not necessarily warranted.

I understand your position. It is exactly what Creationists do. You love "doubt" in science because you think it allows you to have whatever fanciful flight you want.

Why can't you debate my honestly about my points?

 

[Daylight63]

It's sad that some people hate science so much just because it puts limits on their fantasies.

That's not a sound reason to dislike science.