Jump to content

JillSwift

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

312 Beacon of Hope

About JillSwift

  • Rank
    Atom
  • Birthday August 5

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bizarro-Earth
  • Interests
    Linux, networking, digital video, cats, cats, cats
  • College Major/Degree
    Uneducated idjit.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology
  • Biography
    Aspie, Skeptic, Rational, Atheist, silly.
  • Occupation
    Disabled
  1. One only has to believe to deny, no need to actually know. Frankly, the behavior can be triggered without even belief, just a fear that it might be true. You mean the repeatable experiments of modifying the brain (structurally or chemically) that then modifies the personality, observable via behavior? Evidence as basis for a conclusion?
  2. I think this will satisfy: Enchanted Learning: Brain Cells
  3. Good thing I never claimed that.Thought it's not an aesthetic - it's a useful tool. Keeps one from chasing shadows. What?I'm talking about the observed and demonstrable behavior of the majority of human beings - where the nexus of the instinct to preserve one's self with the ability to predict the inevitability of death induces a state of denial. Not versus, the personality is the meat. Or, more accurately, the personality is an emergent property of the meat.
  4. Here: Wikipedia article on the Axon Eh. Report it and a mod will likely move it. They're pretty good about dat.
  5. Fortunately, I'm immune to that effect. Until someone manages to get Minecraft* running on a kindle. Then I'm doomed. Doooooooooomed! *Or Diamond Mines, really. Or Angry Birds. Or... oh crap.
  6. This is the thing about trying to understand reality. We have imaginations, very powerful imaginations. We can posit an impressive array of explanations for any given phenomenon. How we can start to tell which explanations might be true requires parsimony, aka "Occam's Razor". If we don't need an entity to explain a phenomenon, we should leave it out. This doesn't mean that such entities have been debunked or dis-proven, simply set aside as unnecessary. This should leave us with only that which we have some evidence for, albeit sometimes with with un-evidenced entities that can be falsified. As for the subject itself, I am leery of accepting anecdotes as even suggestions of evidence because of the subject matter - that of the instinct driven avoidance of death, in this case by positing one can transcend it and live again. There is simply far too much room for denial, projection and disassociation (as well as straight up lies and deception) for anecdotes to be considered. All we have left, then, is the evidence we can re-observe and the experiments reproducible. Change the meat, change the personality. Watch the personality act, see the meat act. Affect the meat, affect the personality. The self seems to be the meat. Thus, no evidence for reincarnation.
  7. JillSwift

    Yay Paganism!

    What's being insinuated? I'm not seeing it.
  8. JillSwift

    Yay Paganism!

    Bunnies, chicks, eggs... what is this, some kinda fertility holiday? == I celebrate "Chocolate and peeps are half-off day" tomorrow.
  9. Nope. Since one of the many things atheists self-identify as is "freethinker" (including moi), a "bible" seems a bad idea. I assume he's being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the title, though, but it still rubs me the wrong way. I do intend to buy and read it, however. I'm madly curious as to what A. C. Grayling thinks counts as important "good stuff", plus he rather makes good reads IMO anyway. ==
  10. JillSwift

    Political Humor

    Oh my gaWD I love The Onion.
  11. This rings a bell. I think it's been tried before... As I recall, a "vacuum balloon" would be significantly more efficient (in the 7-10% range or so) than a helium or hydrogen balloon, except for the weight penalty incurred by the need for a rigid envelope. Oh, right here on these forums: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/30004-vacuum-balloon/
  12. This isn't a cite either.
  13. Discussing mechanism before establishing the phenomena you want to explain is a root cause of accidental pseudoscience. Freinds don't let freinds speculate wildly. :P

  14. That's not a citation. I did a search on Google and didn't find anything evidential about an electron "being everywhere".
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.