How times change

Chris said:
The thing about Moby Dick is that some people think it's just an adventure story about whaling, and some people think it's some kind of metaphysical tract, but in fact a lot of it is just thinly veiled pornography, as that illustration suggests. "Would that I could keep squeezing that sperm forever." I ask you!
Click to expand...
Do you get a kick out or torturing sperm?

David
 
Erm ... that's what I'm trying to find out? Yes, that's it! That's why so much squeezing is required.

Moby Dick came in because a horse in a stripy disguise expressed an interest in literature.
 
Arouet said:
[quote="Craig Weiler, post: 55556, member: 13"
The longtime skeptics on this forum have never had any respect for us and the longtime proponents generally return the favor. So there is an ongoing animosity here. With people like Arouet, Paul, Linda, Malf, et. al., who have been skeptics for years and just argue ad infinitum, expressing doubt over and over again over the course of years, there is no reason for people like me to expend the energy for a lengthy answer to anything.

This is absolutely untrue - and I apologise if I have given that impression. I react snippely at times in reaction to snark, but I rarely mock (maybe lightly tease at time). I have tried to express that I consider the psi hypothesis, and parapsychology to be valid. I don't think most psi proponents are "nuts" and I think they have reasons for their beliefs. I don't use terms like woo, and I don't think every proponent is a gullible fools.


That, to me, is showing respect. Frankly, I only go through the effort of explaining myself in detail when I have respect for someone. It drives me nuts when I can tell someone disagrees with me but doesn't say so. To me, that is not respect. Neither is it respectful to criticise someone without providing reasons. Nor to respond to someone as if they have made comments that they never made.

I've been on a multi-year campaign to encourage all members of the forum to treat each other with respect. I know you know this.



It doesn't have to be this way. And as someone earlier pointed out, if that's all you want to do, then why participate in a discussion forum at all?



I don't think there's really no such thing as "having one's mind made up." We have biases. Those biases are inbuilt and VERY difficult to change. We all have these biases. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. And yet minds change all the time. On big things and subtle things. We can guess what will think will likely change our minds but the actual changing of opinion is an involuntary process.

Here's the thing: if you're not interested in having real discussion, then why comment at all? Just stay out of it.
Click to expand...

As far as being snippy, teasing, snark or mocking go, that stuff doesn't really bother me unless it gets out of hand, which never happens with you. I know that you are not mean spirited.

I have tried to express that I consider the psi hypothesis, and parapsychology to be valid. I don't think most psi proponents are "nuts" and I think they have reasons for their beliefs. I don't use terms like woo, and I don't think every proponent is a gullible fools.
Click to expand...

I agree that you behave in this manner. You are quite polite.

You have criticised me many times for this, but in responding line by line to what proponents write, I believe I am showing them the respect of treating what they write seriously, and attempting to provide serious responses. In providing my analysis of various papers or posts and looking for dialogue I am showing the seriousness that I treat the subject. In trying to figure out how to view the current state of the research and what should be done to make it stronger I am showing support for the field.
Click to expand...

It had honestly not occurred to me that you might see the kind of analysis that you do as a sign of respect, but now that you point it out, I can see how it might look like that to you. I will think about this and try to see your posts in this light.

I do think you have a very unproductive approach because it has not led you anywhere. It just makes you one more critical, sorry,-not-good-enough skeptic who is never satisfied with the evidence presented to him. However noble your intentions may be, that has been the result. It's also rather obvious in your posts that you don't doubt criticism of psi. The minute someone doubts psi, you're on it. "Hey guys, I think we need to take Malf's/Paul's/Linda's last comment seriously." It only goes one way with you and frankly, that gets rather old in a hurry.

In general, given the high quality and abundance of scientific evidence for psi that is already available, and given the rather pathetic level of professional criticism and obvious bias directed against it, doubt by skeptics just looks like cowardice to me. Doubt combined with criticism is just a cheap way to look superior to other people and stroke one's own ego without having to actually do anything, which is why it is so common.
 
Chris said:
The thing about Moby Dick is that some people think it's just an adventure story about whaling, and some people think it's some kind of metaphysical tract, but in fact a lot of it is just thinly veiled pornography, as that illustration suggests. "Would that I could keep squeezing that sperm forever." I ask you!
Click to expand...

I'm only familiar with the Led Zepplin instrumental.
 
Chris said:
Well, seriously, it's well worth reading. There is quite a lot of metaphysics in it, and it's beautifully written, and there's always the hope of more thinly veiled pornography to keep your interest up through the tedious bits. Read the bit about pasteboard masks if nothing else.
Click to expand...

I'm almost 100 percent certain I'll die never having read it.
 
Chris said:
Bertha

Not everyone who disagrees with you about something or questions one of your statements is a sceptic. But as that's a distinction you seem unable or unwilling to make, please don't feel obliged to respond to anything I post here in future.
Click to expand...
Yeah you're a saint Chris. You've never looked down on anyone on these forums. You and Arouet. What was I thinking?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Max_B said:
The rodent offspring change their behaviour when exposed to the smell of peppermint, in comparison to controls.

Yet they have never smelt peppermint before. They have learnt to identify a very specific smell and associate it with fear, without any prior exposure.

They have formed a memory, without any exposure, and that memory is not their own. Your ideas about memory, associations and learning don't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
The research you are talking about is interesting, but has very little to do with what I was talking about, unless you want to say that every memory is formed that way.
Nobody will deny that we are born with a set of innate abilities, e.g. recognizing faces. But in comparison with other species we have a very long childhood and need to learn an awful lot.
 
malf said:
The field of epigenetics will continue to surprise us I'm sure, but in terms of memory development I suspect that infant development provides a stronger input.
Click to expand...

Memory development, infant development, stronger input? I'm not sure what you mean by these terms?
 
Max_B said:
Memory development, infant development, stronger input? I'm not sure what you mean by these terms?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Try a little experiment sometime. Look at the innate behaviour of a human neonate. Now look at a 7 year old child. See if you notice any differences.
 
malf said:
Fair enough. Try a little experiment sometime. Look at the innate behaviour of a human neonate. Now look at a 7 year old child. See if you notice any differences.
Click to expand...

Considering these behavioural epigenetic inheritance studies... why not just look at the behavioural differences of a 5 day old rodent, and a 3 month old rodent. Can you see any differences there?
 
Max_B said:
Considering these behavioural epigenetic inheritance studies... why not just look at the behavioural differences of a 5 day old rodent, and a 3 month old rodent. Can you see any differences there?
Click to expand...
I feel less qualified to comment. I would expect a 5 day old rat already has memories based on experience. I would expect a rat at 3 months to have many more memories based on experience. I would hypothesise that a fear based on experience would be stronger than an epigenetically inherited fear.

Rats have fears... Definitely exhibiting consciousness then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top