andrewcellini

A clitoris is almost the exact same thing as a penis.

Butchering a clitoral hood is almost exactly the same as circumcision.

Sure, but the most common forms of female genital mutilation involve either the partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans along with the clitoral hood, and some practices involve sewing the labia majora together on top of what is essentially the complete destruction of the external genitalia. Thus it may not be fair or accurate to say

I cannot believe that you think circumcision is acceptable, but say female genital mutilation, which is almost the exact same thing, is barbaric.

His argument was that I was wrong, because what I said contradicted modern psychology.

His argument relies on a priori truth, that the resident authority, modern psychology, is the truth, and thus anyone who contradicts it, is therefore not the truth.

That's not an argument from authority at all actually. Raider did not allude to any specific expert in psychology in his claim that you are wrong - if he did then he'd have been in argument from authority territory - but rather (what I presume he meant is) the set of knowledge that has been accrued by psychology. Though he didn't substantiate his claim with anything specific, neither did you. You told a nice story though.

Put into the form of a rhetorical question: when did psychology become a person?

I am sick of humans

Are you then sick of yourself?

You are (I think) human. Do you think you're violent, sadistic, and a bully as well? Or are you above all that?

I will point out one of Daniel Dennett's quotes:

 

"We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious."

That's not the full quote:

"We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious - not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism."

which is pretty important unless you want to misrepresent his view as a denial of consciousness, which it's not unless you accept qualia in general or in the epiphenomenal "side effect" sense. To provide a bit of background, if you were to study consciousness with the heterophenomenological approach (the one Dennett promotes in Consciousness Explained), there's nothing which tells you the "lights are on and someone is home" other than their reports, correlated physiological changes etc. If qualia (from the epiphenomenal account) are to have no function, arise from changes in our brains without themselves having a sort of measurable effect on other brain states (causally inert), then we cannot falsify them and so "we're all [empirically] zombies."

So, our concepts of bring imbued with Free Will is a myth.

Dennett is a compatibilist. What did you mean by this, the typical libertarian free will?

Imho Dennett misspeaks when he equates bring controlled by ingrained neural pathways with no bring conscious

He doesn't, his theory just attempts to avoid the "hard problems of consciousness" by explaining away the hard part. Consciousness is still a thing to be studied, otherwise his whole "heterophenomenology" would be pointless, no?

Blurred auditory effects and high creativity/imagination are not compatible.

a single artist with auditory hallucinations disproves this.

here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis

Edit: I am in no way implying that Schizophrenia, or any mental illness for that matter, is necessary for creativity or that creativity is somehow a symptom of Schizophrenia (it's not).

 

What do you mean by wavenumber?

wavenumber in this context is given by 1/λ assuming the op means v is frequency rather than velocity

otherwise he just "redefined" velocity by accident.

So exactly what "lasting contributions of a technical nature to the computing" do you claim?

we can use computers to grow parsley.

I think the mafia voice in my head is from Chicago circa 1930.

needs more myeeeah see

Yes. The Platypus is a mammal.

I'm gonna be the wild card and say no, it's a reptile.

 

Nope. I search for the phrase "classical objects do not exist according to QM" and it doesn't appear on the page.

"I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist." - hoffman

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

edit: woops too late , you mean to tell me there's a page 2!

 

"deterministic and unpredictable"

Excuse me if I say something wrong.

AFAIK, they are predictable insofar as you can take some initial conditions and forecast the systems behavior at an arbitrary future time, but in practice because the initial conditions used in the prediction only approximate their actual values the predicted trajectories can be very different from reality. The rate at which the two trajectories diverge is governed by a lyapunov exponent. That's about where my understanding of sensitivity of initial conditions in chaotic systems ends lol.

I thought determinism requires prediction, given the answer to any question you might like to ask (ie sufficient prior information)

Chaotic systems are deterministic and unpredictable, at least after some time has elapsed as the uncertainty in the prediction grows exponentially.

I'm really looking for just a fundamentals, or introductory book to get the basics down. But thanks for the suggestions. I'll give them a look.

For Introduction to Biopsych and Behavioral Neuroscience we used the book Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat which is not technical at all, it's fairly light on the history in each section, and describes little "experiments" you can do to demonstrate certain phenomena. It also introduces the effects of genetics and epigenetics on behavior, as well as giving evolutionary perspectives.

There are two books I've read by Oliver Sacks geared towards the general public about the neurological basis of several disorders along with case studies, the first is The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and the second Hallucinations. I would say if you're looking for infotaining reads they satisfy that criteria.

one of my favorite albums

The only confirmation bias you seem to hold is a reluctance to link doctrine to action.

It's not clear how

a) that is confirmation bias

b) you think I don't notice the link between doctrine and action.

I even talked earlier in this thread about the actions of pope's such as the one in the OP and how those actions have biblical justification.

I don't have the statistics

Then how can you make generalizations about what Muslim nations do?

A handful of reports going one way can be easily met with a handful going the other. These reports on their own, or even having a few are about as useful to this discussion as anecdotes. I am not saying I disagree with the point you trying to get across, I am simply critiquing the way that you are trying to do it.

I couldn't agree more. You probably thought I would deny that.

Nope, I +1ed several of your posts in this thread which had content I thought was reasonable and happened to be in line with my view. I only have contention with vague notions such as "Muslim countries do ___" because it offers no perspective on how many, which etc., and one can easily find a handful to the contrary and make the naive conclusion that "hey they can't all be bad". It would just be nice if you dealt out some stats along with what you write as your summary. My response was more to cajole you to do so than me exhibiting confirmation bias.

Then what argument are you making?

It would probably be appropriate to read this quote in its proper context as a response to Mig.

Which ones? What you presented does not characterize my view of Islam at all. There are passages in both the Bible and Quran which moderate Christians and Muslims do not adhere to, and their lack of adherence may have no biblical or quranic justification such as their treatment of apostates. That is to say there isn't a contradictory passage which corresponds to their actions. I would never say that Islam is a religion of peace or inherently evil, and I would likewise not characterize Christianity in such a way; they contain all sorts of beliefs consistent or otherwise with their respective sacred texts which may or may not be "peaceful."

"You do realize there is more than one muslim country don't you? You do realize that they all enforce Islamic law to varying degrees don't you?"

That was my point in bringing up Saudi Arabia. Relax.

"I never made the argument that all muslims commit these atrocities. Rather, I'm saying that the worst atrocities coming from the Islamic world right now have clear ties to the doctrine"

As do the worst atrocities coming from Christianity, right now.

Jimmy, I want you to read this aloud to yourself. You are a stupid person. Get that? A STUPID PERSON.

Attacking ideas is one thing, but Jimmy has yet to insult any of us and to insult him back if he had wouldn't be productive. You could just as easily have pointed out any inconsistencies in his argument without resorting to insults. We'll probably get somewhere if we all play nice, even if that somewhere happens to be boring like "agree to disagree."

Why do little girls get hunted down and slaughtered for wanting to get educated in muslim countries?

In which countries? In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim theocratic state, women make up the majority of the college students.

However, if those beliefs help him cope with tragedy, whether they have basis in fact or not, why would we feel the need to challenge them.

As it is probably an extremely touchy subject, they they may cling to ideas about an afterlife or a just god and I doubt I would challenge them on that with such poor timing.

If, however, to cope with tragedy they wish to go on some murderous campaign against those they perceive to be the ones behind the tragedy and do so because they believe it is what god has told them I will not only challenge such a belief with reasoning but probably try to get law enforcement involved.

It depends, at least in part, on the beliefs used by the individual to cope.

evil people

They aren't evil with respect to their beliefs. They may even argue and have biblical (or whatever text) justification for their actions, and others belonging to their religious group might agree that their actions are good or just.

Well Andrew, there's an example in the above post by Tampitump.

"thousands of years of...committed by RELIGION"

Are you denying that these individuals had religious beliefs which led and were used to justify their actions? That's evidently false.

Most of these guys trying to 'sway' you will argue that its not Islam's fault that a few idiots are misinterpreting a religion of peace to spread terror through the Middle East and the world ( and they'd be right ), but in the same breath, will tell you that the fault of Christianity lies in the religion, not the unscrupulous people who use it to their own ends.

Which ones? What you presented does not characterize my view of Islam at all. There are passages in both the Bible and Quran which moderate Christians and Muslims do not adhere to, and their lack of adherence may have no biblical or quranic justification such as their treatment of apostates. That is to say there isn't a contradictory passage which corresponds to their actions. I would never say that Islam is a religion of peace or inherently evil, and I would likewise not characterize Christianity in such a way; they contain all sorts of beliefs consistent or otherwise with their respective sacred texts which may or may not be "peaceful."