a challenge to evolution punks

a challenge to evolution punks

the modern definition of life is emergent behavior

even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
because they have emergent behavior

emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
called the subconscious

we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious

I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
a mysterious subconscious

more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
intermediary of God, not the subconscious

provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks


--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org

strawman.

Re: a challenge to evolution punks


"snex" <xens@comcast,net > skrev i melding
news:1177381901.471247.71340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior

[snip]

> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

If the jerk had any valid arguments, he would not resort to such puerile
language, calling serious scientists 'punks'. It just reveals the vacuity of
his position and how shallow his mind is.


> >
> > --
> > Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
> strawman.
>

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On 23 Apr 2007 19:31:41 -0700, snex <xens@comcast,net > wrote:

I think the subject title says it all. This fool has blown up.
Somebody sweep up the pieces.

CT

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Apr 23, 7:31 pm, snex <x...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> > --
> > Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
>
> strawman.-

I think that he is shifting the burden of proof onto us here. He
proposes something and he expects us to unfairly prove it wrong. But
his daddy should have taught him that "the one who proposes must
defend."

http :// youtube,com /watch?v=bt0KLj3XgTo
http :// youtube,com /watch?v=b aC5NLcoI

Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
ridiculous!

Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
to accept it as true.

The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an
argument? In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we
discuss the concept of a burden of proof, which is defined there as
"how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win
someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the
heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as
Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens,
he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally
consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up
to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he
shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that,
if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's alien-abduction story must be
true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it
is up to him to support it.

In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally
assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably
not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone
shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a
claim which would be very difficult to support.

http :// www 2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html

In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove
allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially,
burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to
defend a position against a prima facie other position...

...The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal
action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The
degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the
proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the
balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence
in the US, and beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD). In addition to these,
the US introduced a third standard called clear and convincing
evidence...

http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden of proof

(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the
skeptic, and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying
assumption that as between theism and atheism, it is the former that
is obviously true and the latter that is obviously false?

(2) This not being possible in any way that is of immediate interest
to religious belief, how does the believer regard his inability to
prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?

http :// www .leaderu,com /truth/1truth11.html

The concept of a "burden of proof" is important in debates - whoever
has a burden of proof is obligated to "prove" their claims in some
fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is
much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or
point out where they are inadequately supported.

It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between
atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the
burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of
agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the
debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try
to define in advance who has the burden of proof.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase "burden of proof"
is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that
phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a
doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case.
A more accurate label would be a "burden of support" - the key is that
a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical
evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature
of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to
support than others - but regardless, a claim without any support is
not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim
which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept
must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of
proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the
person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.
In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies
with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist
probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who
asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of
rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The
methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is
what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons
that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or
engage in a sensible discussion.

The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is
often violated, however, and it isn't unusual to find someone saying,
"Well, if you don't believe me then prove me wrong," as if the lack of
such proof automatically confers credibility on the original
assertion. Yet that simply isn't true - indeed, it's a fallacy
commonly known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof." If a person claims
something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to
prove them wrong.

If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position
of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the
United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent
until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the
prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.

Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn't have to do
anything - and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially
bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without
calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for
the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-
argument simply isn't deemed important.

In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those
required to support their claims do offer something - and then what?
At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do
not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause
why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may
involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said
(something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to
construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than
the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and
actual case).

Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is
important to remember here is that some response is expected. The
"burden of proof" is not something static which one party must always
carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the
course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You
are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as
true, but if you insist that a claim isn't reasonable or credible, you
should be willing to explain how and why.

http :// atheism.about,com /od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

Immortalist wrote:

> http :// youtube,com /watch?v=bt0KLj3XgTo
> http :// youtube,com /watch?v=b__aC5NLcoI
>
> Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
> ridiculous!
>
> Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
> to accept it as true.

This discussion of burden of proof is fine, logically, but whoever wrote
it obviously never watched The X-Files all that closely.

Scully and Mulder never said any such things. In the pilot episode,
Mulder first tells Scully about his sister. He does not speak of 'proof'
or of her 'acceptance' at all -- he basically says that *he* knows it is
true because he was *there* when it happened, and whatever Scully
believes is her problem. And Scully never called it 'ridiculous' -- she
merely refused to accept that there wasn't another explanation until
there was a compelling scientific reason to believe otherwise.

Scully always respected Mulder's beliefs. She disagreed with them most
of the time, but she never dismissed them as 'ridiculous' -- she merely
explained to him why scientifically they were unlikely to be accurate
and consisted of jumping to conclusions before they were justified, and
proffered her more likely, reasonable explanations based on the evidence
at hand. This was the fascinating give-and-take of their relationship.

Mulder (usually, though with exceptions from time to time) didn't say
'This is the truth, I don't care what science says, and you're an idiot
for not accepting it.' He said, 'I realise that scientifically this
sounds ridiculous, but what if it really is true? Shouldn't we keep our
possibilities open, and gather the evidence with multiple
interpretations in mind, instead of restricting our worldview to only
those phenomena that are already understood? Shouldn't we accept that
science, as wonderful a tool as it is, doesn't have *everything* figured
out yet, and there are things in the Cosmos scientists just don't yet
understand? It's one thing to dismiss "extreme possibilities" when the
evidence clearly points to something much simpler and less exotic, but
when you're investigating bizarre cases where the evidence is unclear
and all the "reasonable" explanations have already been tried and failed
to explain what's going on, it's not only foolish but contrary to the
spirit of science itself to continue to dismiss other ways of explaining
things based not on evidence but on a preconceived worldview.'

And Scully would then say, 'Okay, we'll imagine for a moment that your
theories are correct. What would that mean? How would it change the
evidence? How could we scientifically prove that the explanation is what
you think, and not these other less speculative ideas grounded in the
traditional scientific view of the world, which, after all, has had
tremendous success throughout history in explaining a massive amount of
previously mysterious phenomena? Don't just leap from the fact that the
first traditional explanation we try doesn't work to the assumption that
something paranormal is going on. Your hypotheses have to EARN the right
to be seriously considered. Make sure they fit the evidence we DO have.
Make testable predictions from them as to what other evidence we might
find when we investigate further. Follow out the implications and make
suggestions for concrete scientific ways we can support your ideas.
Explain why my alternative, more earthbound theories don't explain the
evidence as well as yours. It's one thing to believe there are phenomena
out there that science hasn't yet explained or even admitted the
existence of. It's quite another to therefore throw out the whole
scientific method when investigating a real occurrence, and assume the
most paranormal explanation is true without first ruling out everything
else. If these things really DO exist, the only way we're ever going to
discover and understand them is through science.'

And they both had damn good points.

--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'What else turns you on? Drugs? Casual sex? Rough sex? ... Casual rough
sex? I'm a doctor, I need to know.' --Dr Gregory House

Re: a challenge to evolution punks


"snex" <xens@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:1177381901.471247.71340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:

>> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>> a mysterious subconscious

Your suggestion that proof exists is not proof.

For example, if I suggest that there is more proof that infinity equals zero
than there is to support your theory, would you start believing that
infinity equals zero?

No one gives a rat's ass about what you "suggest" there is proof for. Show
us the proof, or kindly shut up.

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

Dale Kelly wrote:

> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

Who is he _talking_ to? And how does he make his voice _do_ that?
--
Yours, Bill Morse

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

Dale Kelly wrote:

> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.

None of your premises are true. The modern definition of life refers to
reproduction and metabolism, not to emergent behavior, which is good
considering the difficulty we have in defining "emergent". Plants are
alive because they reproduce and metabolize. The subconscious is a term
used in Freudian psychiatry, not in biology. If there is "proof" of god,
please trot it out. Your bizarre form of dualism is worse than the more
usual form.

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell,net > wrote in message
news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.

> The subconscious is a term
> used in Freudian psychiatry

It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.

[Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]

P.

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

Pete G. wrote:

> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell,net > wrote in message
> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>
>
>>The subconscious is a term
>>used in Freudian psychiatry
>
>
> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>
> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]

OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:36:05 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell,net > wrote:

>Pete G. wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell,net > wrote in message
>> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>>
>>
>>>The subconscious is a term
>>>used in Freudian psychiatry
>>
>>
>> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
>> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
>> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
>> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>>
>> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
>
>OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?

From < http :// www .answers,com /subconscious&rg>:
"The subconscious was most clearly delineated in the work of Pierre
Janet. In Automatisme psychologique (1889), he posited two contrasting
forms of mental activity, automatism and synthesis. The former
corresponded to the primal and archaic; the latter, to creativity and
higher levels of consciousness. On the basis of experimental work with
hysterics, Janet demonstrated that in morbid states, due to a
diminished field of consciousness, automatism took precedence over the
activity of synthesis.

Janet essentially identified the subconscious with psychic automatism
and, in hysteria, he hypothesized profound dissociation and splitting
of the personality. He was influenced by the work of Frederick Myers,
the British psychical researcher, and the work of American physician
Morton Prince on dual and multiple personalities; he also took into
account earlier investigations by Jean-Jacques Moreau de Tours on
hashish intoxication."

Mmmmmm... hashish...

>
--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
< http :// home,com cast,net /~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:36:05 +0000, John Harshman wrote:

> Pete G. wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell,net > wrote in message
>> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>>
>>
>>>The subconscious is a term
>>>used in Freudian psychiatry
>>
>>
>> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
>> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
>> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
>> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>>
>> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
>
> OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?

Project managers; it's the only explanation for the lack of conscious
thought that goes into most projects. :)

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Apr 23, 11:14 pm, "Pete G." <P...@com,net > wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell,net > wrote in message
>
> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>
> > The subconscious is a term
> > used in Freudian psychiatry
>
> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>
> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
>
> P.
http :// www .google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&qÞfine:SUBCONSCIOUS&sa=X&oi=glossary definition&ct=title

When you need to know the truth or the closest thing man know of it...
just ask Google!

Re: a challenge to evolution punks

On Apr 23, 9:48 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell,net >
wrote:
> Dale Kelly wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
> alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
>
> None of your premises are true. The modern definition of life refers to
> reproduction and metabolism, not to emergent behavior, which is good
> considering the difficulty we have in defining "emergent". Plants are
> alive because they reproduce and metabolize. The subconscious is a term
> used in Freudian psychiatry, not in biology. If there is "proof" of god,
> please trot it out. Your bizarre form of dualism is worse than the more
> usual form.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Kelly would be a poster child for the ads about "this is your brain on
drugs."

Ron Okimoto