Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But pathogens are comparitively simple micro organisms which can be subjected to the fine tuning processes found in evolution theory.  To extrapolate such processes to posit that they can be responsible for the development of a human brain is still conjecture.

What "fine tuning processes found in evolution theory"? "Fine tuning" is just something made up, generally by creationists as a (bad) argument for the appearance of the world needing to be just-so to be survivable by human beings (just as Douglas Adams's puddle marvelled at finding itself in a hole that fitted it just-so). Evolutionary theory though does not entail fine tuning at all.

The point though was that, when environmental conditions change life will find a way to adapt to the changed circumstances. Gradually, bit-it-by bit what you can end up with is life that's genetically a long way from its great great great etc grandparent (though it still contains the genes of its ancestor) and that can often be hugely more complex than its ancestor too.

No-one is suggesting that a pair of non-conscious beings one day just produced a conscious offspring - all that would have been necessary for consciousness was plenty of time and a many relatively small, incremental steps to get to where we are now. 

Essentially all you have is "that looks hard, therefore a divine causal agency" (ie, the Paley's watch mistake) whereas in fact conceptually there's no reason to think that consciousness didn't arrive just like any other "unguided" property of life, and sadly "it stretches my credulity" is still a broken argument however many times you use it.     

[ippy]

AB Your whole approach is starting to sound like HAL the computer.

I really like this one of yours Savill, talk about 'nail on the head'.

ippy

[Brownie]

It used to be held to be - it may be an urban myth but I remember reading that Queen Victoria did a lot to change matters by having ether for the birth of one of her small village's worth of children.

You are right there, Queen Vic did change things for women in childbirth.  Her husband, Prince Albert, supported her in that, he couldn't bear his wife in so much pain.  You're also correct that the Church interpreted the Bible as meaning labour was one of the consequences of the fall.  Not only that but for a long time pain relief for anything was not always given.  Indeed there are still some Christians who believe that putting up with intense pain is penance and somehow sanctifying.  Thank goodness we live in more enlightened times.

However childbirth isn't dreadful for every woman.  A lot get on with it fine without any drugs, a few grunts and groans and a bit of hard work and they are fine.  We can't generalise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I think I told one of the midwives that I loved her.

So did I - but that's another story...

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

What is all this what do all these drugs do to the child, I have thoughts of newborns shouting peace man and asking why the room is full of pink elephants.

Seriously, I have heard that some women go for a drug free birth, are there any studies which look at the difference it makes to the child.

Gonnagle.

Entonox and epidurals, no. Pethidine can make a baby drowsy after birth if given too late in labour.

My eldest was 42 wks and the midwives persuaded me to go for induction with drugs rather than a section on the grounds that the former was more 'natural'. 48 hrs later I'd had half the hospital's pharmaceuticals and still no full labour. Another 24 hrs later the labour had started but the placenta was failing and the waiting and stress of induction nearly cost my daughter her life. Give me safe over natural any day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

A lot get on with it fine without any drugs, a few grunts and groans and a bit of hard work and they are fine.

Just like the conception then?

[ippy]

Or Alan experiences things in a different way.

Or he can see something you appear blind too.

Rather than cracks in the pavement, It's more like Alan is trying to explain what red  is like, to a colour blind man. ( I have experience of that)

He can only tell you what he sees, you can get as angry as you like, and deny his experiences or that red even exists ............. Or that he can see it.



But he can still see it.

My father is colour blind ( one bright red sock, one obviously green he thinks they are a pair) he used to deny it and hated to admit he couldn't see the difference ( but he still had to ask if he wanted to know if the socks matched)

Would never admit it though, used to get angry.

Couldn't see the red berries on a holly tree, completely crap at decorating. Childhood memory ... He  once painted the flagstone ( brick)  floor blood red ( instead of brick red) looked like a massacre. Mother hysterical, he insisted it was brick red. Total bloodbath.
 




Alan in effect is describing a red sock to a colour blind man.

Nonsense Rose even those with cones that are faulty in some way still see the shadings of the various hues that they can see, plus it's rare to have complete colour blindness across the whole of the spectrum.

None of us can see ultraviolet, infra read and understand how radio telescopes work but I would think most of us are able understand how they work and what they are.

Another thing is explaining colour blindness can be demonstrated to most people with at least a half of a brain, would be able to understand,with diagrams etc, where as mythical, magical and superstitious nonsense is not and cannot be supported anywhere with diagrams or anything else, nor is it rational.

I had a jacket that was fawn to my eye apparently everybody else described it as green, so obviously they were all wrong.

Please note I particularly referred to the mythical, magical and superstional parts of various beliefs, because this is so often overlooked.   

ippy   

[Shaker]

Brownie,

Just like the conception then?

Buy that man a small sherry for that, somebody.

[ippy]

Oh yes, morphine... I had a drip with a clicker thing which I think I, um, overused.

Pethidine was nice. Bit like too many brandies all at once. I think I told one of the midwives that I loved her.

I had some of that last year when in hospital and I did use it for some of the time but I knew it was an opiate and felt quite smug about not over using it and had no trouble parting with it.

Does that sound like holier than though, well____

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Nonsense Rose even those with cones that are faulty in some way still see the shadings of the various hues that they can see, plus it's rare to have complete colour blindness across the whole of the spectrum.

If the Tic are playing the Jam tarts and the Tic are not in hoops I am totally Fu lost.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

If the Tic are playing the Jam tarts and the Tic are not in hoops I am totally Fu lost.

Gonnagle.

A little bit at the back of the eye, the bit that picks up the things the lens focuses on, is called the retina and it's made up of light sensitive thingies called rods and cones the rods see in black and white and the cones see colour, they then turn the light into electric impulses sent straight to your brain for it to translate these electrical impulses into pictures of whatever we happen to be looking at.

I'm sure the whole procedure is far more complicated than I have described but that description is the basics of how we see things.

No, I'm not going to translate my secret technical term 'thingies', you probably wouldn't understand anyway.

Have a good day Gonners

ippy   

P S Gonners I didn't understand your post in it's entirety, 'Tic', is that some sort of Scotch ceremonial rite?

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Hey! I know all about thingies and watchamacallits, not to mention dooflickers, also wotsisnames.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yo Gonners,

Confirmation bias, something we ALL suffer from.

To varying degrees, yes - that's why some of use lean on evidence and reason precisely to help reduce its effect. When you abandon those things though as Alan has done what is there left except for confirmation bias?

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Hey! I know all about thingies and watchamacallits, not to mention dooflickers, also wotsisnames.

Gonnagle.

Tics?

ippy

[Leonard James]

I will bow out now and allow someone else to take this thread up to a magnificent 10000 posts.

When I read your post (a long way back) that "God" had told you he wanted you to come back to this forum to put us right ... I knew you were going to regret it! 

[Bubbles]

Nonsense Rose even those with cones that are faulty in some way still see the shadings of the various hues that they can see, plus it's rare to have complete colour blindness across the whole of the spectrum.

None of us can see ultraviolet, infra read and understand how radio telescopes work but I would think most of us are able understand how they work and what they are.

Another thing is explaining colour blindness can be demonstrated to most people with at least a half of a brain, would be able to understand,with diagrams etc, where as mythical, magical and superstitious nonsense is not and cannot be supported anywhere with diagrams or anything else, nor is it rational.

I had a jacket that was fawn to my eye apparently everybody else described it as green, so obviously they were all wrong.

Please note I particularly referred to the mythical, magical and superstional parts of various beliefs, because this is so often overlooked.   

ippy

No ippy, you are wrong.

He cannot tell the difference between a pillar box red sock and a obvious laurel green one.

It's not a matter of degrees.

It's not rubbish, he is just an extreme example and according to an optician quite possible.

I've had chance to discuss it, as my son has inherited a more normal and not so extreme version.

My father can see blues.

But he cannot distinguish between red and green at all. ( just varying shades of grey)

My son is more subtle and fails the colour blindness tests.

My father is extreme and unusual. He has often worn one red sock and one green sock and that's why he would ask ( while saying of course he knew, stubborn he is)

The trouble with you ippy, is you are inclined to dismiss everything you have no experience of. Which doesn't make me value your judgements on religion.

No optician ever told me I was talking rubbish when I took my son for eye tests and they asked if colour blindness ran in the family.

I guess, unlike you, they knew what they were talking about.

My father is actually that extremely colour blind. It's rare, but not unheard of.



Me and my mother have lived with it for years.

[Bubbles]

You can be totally colour blind but that's very rare. My father is blind to red and green but can see blues.

Most of us share a common color vision sensory experience. Some people, however, have a color vision deficiency, which means their perception of colors is different from what most of us see. The most severe forms of these deficiencies are referred to as color blindness. People with color blindness aren’t aware of differences among colors that are obvious to the rest of us. People who don’t have the more severe types of color blindness may not even be aware of their condition unless they’re tested in a clinic or laboratory.

Inherited color blindness is caused by abnormal photopigments. These color-detecting molecules are located in cone-shaped cells within the retina, called cone cells. In humans, several genes are needed for the body to make photopigments, and defects in these genes can lead to color blindness.

There are three main kinds of color blindness, based on photopigment defects in the three different kinds of cones that respond to blue, green, and red light. Red-green color blindness is the most common, followed by blue-green color blindness. A complete absence of color vision —total color blindness – is rare.


https://nei.nih.gov/health/color_blindness/facts_about

Mine is normal

http://cataract-surgery.info/colour_blindness_test.html

[Bubbles]

It also confirms what I said about me being a carrier and one of my sons inheriting it.

In X-linked inheritance, the mother carries the mutated gene on one of her X chromosomes and will pass on the mutated gene to 50 percent of her children. Because females have two X chromosomes, the effect of a mutation on one X chromosome is offset by the normal gene on the other X chromosome. In this case the mother will not have the disease, but she can pass on the mutated gene and so is called a carrier. If a mother is a carrier of an X-linked disease (and the father is not affected), there is a:

My oldest son has inherited it, but fortunately you wouldn't notice it unless you gave him one of the tests.

My other son hasn't

Hence the opticians questions regarding my dad and resultant opportunity to discuss it.

My dad is extreme and doesn't need a test for you to notice as it becomes apparent over time, depending on circumstances.

[Bubbles]

I would liken it to religious experience because religious people claim experiences that others don't have.

It's like claiming to see a colour no one else does.

Seeing colours is something you experience, just like religion, and both originate in the brain.

[Leonard James]

I would liken it to religious experience because religious people claim experiences that others don't have.

It's like claiming to see a colour no one else does.

Seeing colours is something you experience, just like religion, and both originate in the brain.

There is a big difference, Rose. Seeing or not seeing colours is due to a genetic difference, and cannot be induced by reading about it.

Religion is quite the opposite.

[Bubbles]

There is a big difference, Rose. Seeing or not seeing colours is due to a genetic difference, and cannot be induced by reading about it.

Religion is quite the opposite.

The brain is very adaptive  .

No, but religious people may experience something that leads them to be religious in the first place.

People don't become religious by reading about it, but by experiencing it.

Did you experience religion once? ( as in a feeling/experience not intellectually)

How do you see that experience now? Do you still have that experience? Did you rechannel it?

I'm interested 

[Leonard James]

The brain is very adaptive  .

No, but religious people may experience something that leads them to be religious in the first place.

People don't become religious by reading about it, but by experiencing it.

I think it is more correct to say that the people who invented gods and spirits were simply responding to the need for finding answers.

Did you experience religion once? ( as in a feeling/experience not intellectually)

I don't understand what you mean, but I certainly felt a divine presence when I believed in God. Was that feeling or intellect?

How do you see that experience now? Do you still have that experience? Did you rechannel it?

I see it as a normal mental experience which I misinterpreted as being "God". I say 'normal' because i think most people experience a sudden surge of emotion if the circumstances are right.

[floo]

When I read your post (a long way back) that "God" had told you he wanted you to come back to this forum to put us right ... I knew you were going to regret it! 

Maybe Alan misunderstood what God was asking him to do! Could it be that it was asking him to return to the forum so us non believers could put him straight?

[Leonard James]

Maybe Alan misunderstood what God was asking him to do! Could it be that it was asking him to return to the forum so us non believers could put him straight?

That's an oxymoron! 

I think it more likely that it was a message from his poor, suppressed ability to think logically.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

I would liken it to religious experience because religious people claim experiences that others don't have.

It's like claiming to see a colour no one else does.

Seeing colours is something you experience, just like religion, and both originate in the brain.

That's a poor analogy I think. Some colourblind people don't experience "red" but they can be reasonably sure it exists - they can be told about the light wavelengths they can't see, they can check with instruments, for all I know it can be induced artificially so that they do experience it, albeit not with their eyes.

Alan's claim is more akin to asserting the colour "hy8p9uh7o7" - there's no definition, no validating test, no anything - we're just expected to believe that it exists on his say-so. Worse yet, even if genuinely thinks he has experienced "God"/"hy8p9uh7o7" that says nothing to whether he might not be entirely mistaken about the cause he attributes to that experience.