Death

[Stranger]

Actually, genetics (and Dawkins) is not saying anything that was not known earlier.  It only outlines the biological mechanism. 

In The Selfish Gene he makes the case for the gene being the unit of selection (rather than the organism or group). You really do need to read something on evolution because you clearly don't understand it.

Oh, and if you read The Selfish Gene you can correct the nonsense on your site about memes too.

But what death is and why we are here and why we have developed into complex beings is not answered by genetics or evolution.

Death is when organisms stop functioning. and evolution does answer the question of why we've developed into complex beings.

And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.

 

[Sriram]

And why are you prowling around my site?!! 

Either you are a secret admirer or you are taking points....Tut..Tut!!!!   

[Stranger]

And why are you prowling around my site?!! 

Either you are a secret admirer or you are taking points....Tut..Tut!!!!   

You know I looked at your site, you invited people to and we briefly discussed your pages on evolution.

This time I was actually reading it to respond to your thread about Evil but by the time I got to the section on memes I was bored so thought I'd see what you had to say about them. If you don't want people to look at it, stop posting links to it!   

You really need to do some corrections on memes and you really need to get an understanding of natural selection.

[Sriram]

You know I looked at your site, you invited people to and we briefly discussed your pages on evolution.

This time I was actually reading it to respond to your thread about Evil but by the time I got to the section on memes I was bored so thought I'd see what you had to say about them. If you don't want people to look at it, stop posting links to it!   

You really need to do some corrections on memes and you really need to get an understanding of natural selection.

I was only joking..Stranger!  Please do feel free to visit the site and also comment on it...either here or on the site. 

And I think many of you need to get a proper understanding of God and spirituality....!

[Shaker]

These things are no more than matters of opinion though, so what's a "proper understanding" and who gets to decide this?

[ippy]

ippy,

That we all are children of the same heavenly Father also has a nice ring to it!! 

Actually, genetics (and Dawkins) is not saying anything that was not known earlier.  It only outlines the biological mechanism. 

But what death is and why we are here and why we have developed into complex beings is not answered by genetics or evolution. These are still open to question.

And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.

Why do you think there's anything to all of the nonsense in this post of yours? Going back to your flying rats etc, come on Sriram it's time to move on.


NDE's don't amount to an actual death, Imaginary or not, so what Cousin?

Regards ippy.

[Dicky Underpants]

And NDE's are real experiences....not imaginary.

They are experiences, I'll grant you that.

[Sriram]

They are experiences, I'll grant you that.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm

**********
Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by Steven Laureys) and the University of Liège's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart and Hedwige Dehon), have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events.

They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.

Numerous studies have looked into the physiological mechanisms of NDE, the production of these phenomena by the brain, but, taken separately, these two theories are incapable of explaining these experiences in their entirety.

***********

[ippy]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm

**********
Working together, researchers at the Coma Science Group (Directed by Steven Laureys) and the University of Liège's Cognitive Psychology Research (Professor Serge Brédart and Hedwige Dehon), have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events.

They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.

Numerous studies have looked into the physiological mechanisms of NDE, the production of these phenomena by the brain, but, taken separately, these two theories are incapable of explaining these experiences in their entirety.

***********

No stats Sriram how many people involved etc, those brains of ours are mean machines the hoops they're capable of going through when they try to make sense of the world around us, I keep reminding you to go for a look at the works of your fellow country man V C Ramachandaran, I'm a great fan of his and going by some of his works I've read about I dare say as a guess we're into about the first one hundredth part of one percent of how our brains perform.

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

Some of you just keep whipping up this...'the brain is a remarkable thing'...idea to explain every thing.   Not very convincing is it?! The Brain God!  Explains everything!

The brain is just a piece of flesh which rots when a person dies. It is not some super intelligent, self willed entity as it s being made out by many of you. The brain is a product of our stem cells and DNA and whatever forces drives those are also responsible for the brain and its functions.

Secondly, whether the brain and the mind  are one and the same is questionable. The mind and Consciousness are very complex and there is no proof that they can be equated with the brain.  More likely that the brain functions as a supporting hardware to the mind and consciousness.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/
 

[torridon]

Some of you just keep whipping up this...'the brain is a remarkable thing'...idea to explain every thing.   Not very convincing is it?! The Brain God!  Explains everything!

The brain is just a piece of flesh which rots when a person dies. It is not some super intelligent, self willed entity as it s being made out by many of you. The brain is a product of our stem cells and DNA and whatever forces drives those are also responsible for the brain and its functions.

Secondly, whether the brain and the mind  are one and the same is questionable. The mind and Consciousness are very complex and there is no proof that they can be equated with the brain.  More likely that the brain functions as a supporting hardware to the mind and consciousness.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

That mind and brain are two aspects of the same thing is what the evidence suggests.  Not proof, granted, but science never deals in proofs, it is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests.  Brain functions correlate with mind functioning.  No brain = no mind, brain damage results in mind damage, brain complexity correlates with sophistication of mind.  There would be no point in having brains if minds could think or experience independently.  What do you think minds were doing before brains evolved, sitting around waiting for a suitable home to come along ?

[Sriram]

That mind and brain are two aspects of the same thing is what the evidence suggests.  Not proof, granted, but science never deals in proofs, it is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests.  Brain functions correlate with mind functioning.  No brain = no mind, brain damage results in mind damage, brain complexity correlates with sophistication of mind.  There would be no point in having brains if minds could think or experience independently.  What do you think minds were doing before brains evolved, sitting around waiting for a suitable home to come along ?

Was software waiting around for hardware to develop? Maybe it does wait in some cases....but generally they develop side by side. They are interdependent but not the same.   The hardware does not produce the software.  They both are produced by an independent intelligence.

There is some evidence to suggest that the mind is also not entirely dependent on the brain only.  Read my link.

[torridon]

Was software waiting around for hardware to develop? Maybe it does wait in some cases....but generally they develop side by side. They are interdependent but not the same.   The hardware does not produce the software.  They both are produced by an independent intelligence.

There is some evidence to suggest that the mind is also not entirely dependent on the brain only.  Read my link.

The hardware/software analogy is appealing in a simplistic way, but it is ultimately misleading; mind/brain deserves better than simplistic metaphors.  There is no evidence of an 'independent intelligence' being responsible for designing a dualistic system, rather the evidence suggests that minds/brains evolved through the same haphazard twists and turns of evolutionary history that characterise everything else in nature; brains exhibit the same character of developmental progression over time with new cortical structures evolving and adding to total brain mass consequential to selection pressures. Primary visual cortex evolved at the same time as visual sense organs.  If this were all the end product of some intelligent design then why do brains not appear 'designed'.  Mind and brain are the same thing, only experienced from different aspects; this insight more faithfully reflects the evidence than any simplistic hardware/software analogy,

[Sriram]

The hardware/software analogy is appealing in a simplistic way, but it is ultimately misleading; mind/brain deserves better than simplistic metaphors.  There is no evidence of an 'independent intelligence' being responsible for designing a dualistic system, rather the evidence suggests that minds/brains evolved through the same haphazard twists and turns of evolutionary history that characterise everything else in nature; brains exhibit the same character of developmental progression over time with new cortical structures evolving and adding to total brain mass consequential to selection pressures. Primary visual cortex evolved at the same time as visual sense organs.  If this were all the end product of some intelligent design then why do brains not appear 'designed'.  Mind and brain are the same thing, only experienced from different aspects; this insight more faithfully reflects the evidence than any simplistic hardware/software analogy,

The reason why the brain evolved and did not appear designed is for the same reason that computer hardware did not appear fully designed abinitio.

We have already discussed many times that evolution does not automatically rule out intelligent intervention. They can go together.

[torridon]

The reason why the brain evolved and did not appear designed is for the same reason that computer hardware did not appear fully designed abinitio.

We have already discussed many times that evolution does not automatically rule out intelligent intervention. They can go together.

We have found no evidence that is suggestive of intelligent intervention though.  All the evidence points to naturalistic evolution so if we overlay some imagined intelligent intervenor over natural processes all we are doing is obscuring our understanding with a layer of fantasy. Follow the evidence and try to understand what it is telling us.

[Sriram]

We have found no evidence that is suggestive of intelligent intervention though.  All the evidence points to naturalistic evolution so if we overlay some imagined intelligent intervenor over natural processes all we are doing is obscuring our understanding with a layer of fantasy. Follow the evidence and try to understand what it is telling us.

What do you mean no evidence?!!

All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.

The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex.  A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.

We may not know where and how this intelligence works.  That is another matter.  Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.

[Stranger]

What do you mean no evidence?!!

There is no evidence.

All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.

There is no clear direction to evolution. Complexity is explained by evolution.

The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex.  A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.

Evolution explains this - it's just that you don't understand it and don't (on past experience) seem willing to learn.

[SteveH]

What do you mean no evidence?!!

All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.

The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex.  A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.

We may not know where and how this intelligence works.  That is another matter.  Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.

God of the gaps, a special case of the argument from ignorance. It's bad theology, as well as bad science.

[torridon]

What do you mean no evidence?!!

All the emergent properties, all the complexity and the clear direction to evolution.

The very fact that the DNA is programmed to replicate (survive) and generate complex biological structures and processes is evidence of intelligence. The DNA is like a computer chip only much more complex.  A computer chip does not develop by itself......it evolves through intelligent intervention.

We may not know where and how this intelligence works.  That is another matter.  Maybe from a parallel world. Ask Michio Kaku.

 

If you see those things as evidence of intelligent intervention, I think that is just in your mind, it is in your bias.  There are trends in the data, we could say there is a trend from simplicity to complexity over time, but there is nothing to suggest that is anything other than completely natural patterns deriving from inherent variation and selection. If you have two things vieing to survive, one is smart at surviving, the other dim, chances are, the smarter one will survive at the expense of the dim one.  And so it goes, simple, inevitable principles of competition like this give rise to diversity, complexity and intelligence on their own; we don't need to imagine some external really clever thing fixing it up artificially.

[Sriram]

 

If you see those things as evidence of intelligent intervention, I think that is just in your mind, it is in your bias.  There are trends in the data, we could say there is a trend from simplicity to complexity over time, but there is nothing to suggest that is anything other than completely natural patterns deriving from inherent variation and selection. If you have two things vieing to survive, one is smart at surviving, the other dim, chances are, the smarter one will survive at the expense of the dim one.  And so it goes, simple, inevitable principles of competition like this give rise to diversity, complexity and intelligence on their own; we don't need to imagine some external really clever thing fixing it up artificially.

All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.

We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans.  Even they are selected for specific environments.  Certain models get rejected fast. 

But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless.  It doesn't happen by itself.

[Stranger]

All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.

NPF out for an afternoon spin.

We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans.  Even they are selected for specific environments.  Certain models get rejected fast. 

But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless.  It doesn't happen by itself.

Natural selection means that it can happen by itself. The clue's in the name.

[Shaker]

All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.

It doesn't eliminate Colin the Magic Pixie either. It doesn't eliminate any pseudo-explanation you may care to invent - and you can invent an almost infinite number. We need evidence to rule something in (or at the very least, to take it seriously), not the mere absence of evidence against. That's a fallacy; I would hope that you'd know its name by now.

We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans.  Even they are selected for specific environments.  Certain models get rejected fast.

That's artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection operates on the basis of the conscious desires of humans trying to achieve a certain goal; natural selection doesn't.

But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless.  It doesn't happen by itself.

Except that all the evidence points to it doing just that.

[ippy]

All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention.

We find certain models of products surviving better than the others. Competition exists even in products made by humans.  Even they are selected for specific environments.  Certain models get rejected fast. 

But they all have intelligent intervention nevertheless.  It doesn't happen by itself.

If there were such a thing as I D unfortunately for you there's no evidence that points in that direction Sriram, if there is some/any evidence pointing in the direction of I D the whole world's waiting for this revelation of yours (assuming you have anything worth revealing), in the meantime the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

ID's for those men with long floor scraping cloaks and  one of those 3 feet tall ice cream cone shaped conical hats decorated with all sorts of magical and formulaic signs written all over it, oh yes don't forget the small black stick with a bit of white paint dabbed at each end as well.

I thought India was fast becoming a 21st century forward thinking country full of people intent on propelling themselves right forward into this modern 21st century enlightened world, what happened in your case Sriram?

I D's the equivalent of eyes closed fingers in the ears la la la la la la la la la, you're a lot better than that Sriram, you're not a primitive ignorant man. 

Regards ippy

P S I nearly forgot even the blasted pope accepts evolution and the Church of England.

[Sriram]

ippy,

I am already in the 22nd century!! 

You still think I don't accept evolution do you?!   Clearly you don't understand my posts at all....after all these years too!! 

Oh..well...never mind.....

[torridon]

All that does not eliminate Intelligent intervention....

It renders it spurious though, unnecessary.  If all natural phenomena can be explained through natural processes what is the point in adding in 'intelligent intervention' as well, it solves a problem that isn't there and tasks us with the additional burden of figuring out the nature of this intelligent intervenor.

You could argue that nature itself is intelligent which would be a philosophical point to argue which would revolve around the definition of intelligence.