Why do we like starchy foods?
When being asked what separates humans from other primates, people are quick to say it is their brain. In fact, the differences can be superficial and even unimportant. Using a palm calculator, I can calculate everything a supercomputer can calculate; it would take longer time. However, an ape does not seem to be able to compose a sonnet given all
( Read more... )
The proof is in the pudding. Show us exactly how human brain operates and prove it (instead of talking the talks) and then we'll have something to discuss. Do not treat me to fashionable speculations of the day. All this chest beating and silliness are not going to sway any minds; this is only good for rhetorics. I could've easily put my "Newton argument" take on such activity into the cave age; this line of argumentation indeed belongs to it. Funny that you remembered 42 - as I was reading your comment I was thinking about the same book: how bipedal inhabitants of earth thought about themselves as incredibly smart, because they've just learned how to make digital watches. A heck of a thing to be proud about. You do not even have digital watches, you say that you believe that there are plenty of digital watches out there, and point to other people believing the same. Not one of them has in their hands digital watches or anything remotely resembling digital watches. I can only reiterate that I am not interested in pseudoscience.
Reply
That must be mean that somewhere out there is somebody who know something precise about religion. :)
Who might it be? God? Of what religion? ;)
\\The proof is in the pudding. Show us exactly how human brain operates and prove it (instead of talking the talks) and then we'll have something to discuss.
Ha.
Anybody would be convinced by demonstration.
Especially if showed thing is material and weighty as hammer. Not like electron.
Sorry in advance if you find this insulting -- its just a rhetoric not a flame,
but its a stubborn dumbass argumentation.
Not quite all things can be demonstrated. And even smaller number of things can be demonstrated decisively.
\\Do not treat me to fashionable speculations of the day. All this chest beating and silliness are not going to sway any minds; this is only good for rhetorics.
\\I could've easily put my "Newton argument" take on such activity into the cave age; this line of argumentation indeed belongs to it.
Be my guest... and place your "Newton argument" at any time you want... into Jurassic era, into Precambrian... or even before Big Bang if you see it funny. :)
If you do not know what "reductio ad absurdum" mean.
If you do not want to see what is wrong with such an argument.
\\Funny that you remembered 42 - as I was reading your comment I was thinking about the same book: how bipedal inhabitants of earth thought about themselves as incredibly smart, because they've just learned how to make digital watches.
\\A heck of a thing to be proud about.
Yes. Exactly.
That is the thing which separate us from understanding of our own mind.
We still think too much idealistic and romantic about ourself
and that prevent us from recognition its brutal material essence.
That is my intuition for today.
\\You do not even have digital watches, you say that you believe that there are plenty of digital watches out there, and point to other people believing the same.
\\Not one of them has in their hands digital watches or anything remotely resembling digital watches.
Yeah.
To wander some ways, you must believe that there is something interesting in that direction. At least.
But there can be nothing.
But on the contrary, if you are not interesting you will not see (with warranty) the real thing even if it lying like pebble stone under your feet. ;)
\\I can only reiterate that I am not interested in pseudoscience.
It must be mean that you know clear and precise answer on what the science is.
Then please, share your knowledge. ;)
PS I feel I maybe placed to much acid in my comments here.
So... sorry about that. And if you not tolerate such tone, let's end with it.
Reply
Leave a comment