But you wont find intellect in the brain

[Moonstruck888]

You don’t need to be sorry. I think you need to take the time to slowly read, examine, and learn from the previous posting of mine. Explore the website I provided. I don’t need to be any more specific than that.

And I think that unless you can make specific points instead of condescending platitudinous non entities and cut and paste jobs from websites, we have absolutely nothing to discuss with each other.

Good day to you.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

You’ve completely missed my point. I’m saying that either that is not what a materialist is, or there is no such thing as a materialist. It sounds to me like you are trying to set up a straw man so you can give him a good thrashing.

forget it. If you think I’m trying to set up a strawman there’s no point talking further. Maybe someone else who understands the subject would like to discuss Neoplatonism and whether abstract numbers have a real existence outside of minds.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

And I think that unless you can make specific points instead of condescending platitudinous non entities and cut and paste jobs from websites, we have absolutely nothing to discuss with each other.

Good day to you.

I made no ‘condescending platitudinous non entities’. I did not ‘cut and paste jobs from websites’. I provided you an opportunity to view from “a” highly reputable website, The Human Genome Project and what it had to offer. Any person can talk a mile long about whatever but without the proper latest scientific information via a reputable science website as I provided, nonsense seems to pervade many internet dialogues. Your rudeness is the result of not being able to appreciate the value of that website as far as I am concerned. Obviously, your background in science is limited. It appears to me after looking at your postings on this topic, and another one I have been on, your attitude of righteousness is over condescending and rude. Your inability to be polite, courteous, and kind is overridden with hostility. How can anyone have a decent conversation with you is beyond me.

You did say, " Intelligence isn’t a miracle. It’s a survival trait that has been selected from a myriad of possibilities and enhanced as millions of years have passed, simply because it is so advantageous."

The Human Genome Project stated, “In reality, there is no universal agreement on the definition of intelligence, even among those who study it for a living.”

Moonstruck, you obviously don’t ‘study it for a living’ otherwise you would know that ‘there is no universal agreement on the definition of intelligence’. I hope now you can see the error of your statement. You are attempting to define intelligence by your statement. I repeat again to you, “You don’t need to be sorry. I think you need to take the time to slowly read, examine, and learn from the previous posting of mine. Explore the website I provided. I don’t need to be any more specific than that.”

 

[Moonstruck888]

Obviously, your background in science is limited.

Actually, I studied microbiology at University.

You did say, " Intelligence isn’t a miracle. It’s a survival trait that has been selected from a myriad of possibilities and enhanced as millions of years have passed, simply because it is so advantageous."

The Human Genome Project stated, “In reality, there is no universal agreement on the definition of intelligence, even among those who study it for a living.”

Moonstruck, you obviously don’t ‘study it for a living’ otherwise you would know that ‘there is no universal agreement on the definition of intelligence’. I hope now you can see the error of your statement. You are attempting to define intelligence by your statement. I repeat again to you, “You don’t need to be sorry. I think you need to take the time to slowly read, examine, and learn from the previous posting of mine. Explore the website I provided. I don’t need to be any more specific than that.”

Do you agree that human beings are intelligent, yes or no?

 

[JohnDamian]

Do you agree that human beings are intelligent, yes or no?

No.

Intelligence is an accidental property in a human being. A human being is so because of having a soul; which is the individating principle within the human being. There are human beings who, for whatsoever reason lack totally or partially the functions of the intellect; but they are no less human for that. Intelligence = accidental, soul = essential.

 

[Moonstruck888]

No.

Intelligence is an accidental property in a human being. A human being is so because of having a soul; which is the individating principle within the human being. There are human beings who, for whatsoever reason lack totally or partially the functions of the intellect; but they are no less human for that. Intelligence = accidental, soul = essential.

I’ll take this under advisement…

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

IYour inability to be polite, courteous, and kind is overridden with hostility. How can anyone have a decent conversation with you is beyond me.

If you read through the thread two pages back you’ll see I’ve already thrown in the towel on trying to talk with that one. Very trollish behavior, unfortunately some atheists only come to religion forums to flame people.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If you read through the thread two pages back you’ll see I’ve already thrown in the towel on trying to talk with that one. Very trollish behavior, unfortunately some atheists only come to religion forums to flame people.

Hi Kettle,

You have no right to attack anyone on the grounds of their politesse.

Regards,

Pot.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Hi Kettle,

You have no right to attack anyone on the grounds of their politesse.

Regards,

Pot.

In the idiom of the Pot calling the Kettle black, isn’t it the Pot who’s the hypocrite?

oh well, what do I know.

some highlights of Pot’s last couple of pages of trollish insults;

And I think that unless you can make specific points instead of condescending platitudinous non entities and cut and paste jobs from websites, we have absolutely nothing to discuss with each other.

Good day to you.

You’re a bombastic idiot and this is a weak witted and pathetic attempt to adopt an attitude of superiority.

I’m not interested in that kind of metaphysically challenged pueudo scientific bunkum and I’m not interested in the inferiority complexes that cause the main moods of ronnie bonigli.

What a silly and pedantic person you are ronnie.

Of course, I’ll yield to your expertise when it comes to pathetic little men playing the big shot on message boards.

It’s a stupid statement. It’s like a hawk claiming to be supernatural and at the pinnacle because of it’s eye sight, or a cheetah claiming to be at the pinnacle because it can run at seventy miles an hour.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

If you read through the thread two pages back you’ll see I’ve already thrown in the towel on trying to talk with that one. Very trollish behavior, unfortunately some atheists only come to religion forums to flame people.

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I see more emotion coming out of atheists (non-religious) posting on the internet then religious folks. I pretty much apply those atheists to what Professor Gerry Matthews said, “Emotional tendencies may be no more than a consequence of biases in brain functioning or information-processing routines operating without insight or 'intelligence’.”

All I can do is hope this will change in the future. I do have quite a few friends that are religious and non-religious that I dearly love. They are kind and thoughtful. I hope to see more of that around here. Patience is a virtue. I’m a strong believer in happy endings.

Ronnie, it’s been a pleasure meeting you. Thank you for your insightful remark. Have a beautiful day. It’s a sunny day with birds chirping outside. I’ll take my leave now and enjoy the comfort of my backyard. I’m going to gather a bouquet of flowers for the house and watch the doves, finches, and hummingbirds at the birdfeeder and fountain. They love to splash in the fountain.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Speaking of trolling, what you pair are engaging in right now is trolling at it’s most flagrant.

Now, LogisticsBranch, do you agree that healthy able bodied human beings are intelligent, yes or no?

 

[Moonstruck888]

How can anyone have a decent conversation with you is beyond me.

All they have to do is engage me with some kind of sincerity. The thing about philosophers that I dislike the most is that they always keep a cop out clause of acting the semantics of an argument if they can’t deal with the particulars of it, even when it is perfectly obvious what their interlocutor means.

That is the very opening gambit that you engaged me with the first time you ever spoke to me. I’m rather afraid that approach will only serve to put me on my most flippant and sacrastic footing.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Ronnie, it’s been a pleasure meeting you. Thank you for your insightful remark. Have a beautiful day. It’s a sunny day with birds chirping outside. . .

and thank you for the kind words LogisticsBranch, nice talking with you too

 

[inocente]

#118ish to #130 - very entertaining.

It can be useful to think of ideas in terms of their correlates in brain activity, and it can be useful to think of ideas using Dawkin’s notion of “meme,” and it can be useful to think of ideas as mental constructs, and in lots and lots of other ways.

I’m going to gather a bouquet of flowers for the house and watch the doves, finches, and hummingbirds at the birdfeeder and fountain.

First time we went to Arizona, we arrived in the middle of the night and instead of trying to sleep went for a walk in a park at day-break. We kept getting buzzed by HUGE insects, and only at sun rise did we realize they were hummingbirds. We made an error but the world didn’t notice. The hummingbird (colibrí in Spanish, beija-flores in Portuguese, etc.) doesn’t know it’s supposed to be a hummingbird, it just is.

We could try to describe a hummingbird using only physics, but it would be very tedious. We need to go up a level to chemistry, and then up again to biology. In our minds each level exists independently as a way of describing the world, unless we tinker at the boundaries where we find relationships.

In the same way, we are unlikely to be able to describe anything as complicated as the human mind in terms of individual neurons but must find a meta-description, and another on top of that, and possibly a few more levels still.

So yes, a hummingbird is a product of molecules, but no it is a whole load more than that.

And for me, in exactly the same sense, without appealing to the supernatural, yes abstract concepts are the products of neurons, but no they are a whole load more than that.

 

[inocente]

Spain won the World Cup yesterday :extrahappy: so if my last post didn’t make any sense at all, I’m blaming it on the aftermath of the fiesta.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

And for me, in exactly the same sense, without appealing to the supernatural, yes abstract concepts are the products of neurons, but no they are a whole load more than that.

From Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
“We are left with a problem. If numbers and other mathematical concepts (unlike trees) are neither material things nor even aspects or properties of material things, what are they? The most reasonable answer seems to be that they are mental things, things that exist in minds. Mathematics is a mental activity. Most schools of thought in the field called “the philosophy of mathematics” adopt some version of this view. But this raises the question of what a “mind” is and what “mental things” are. To the non-materialist, minds and the ideas they contain can be real without being entirely reducible to matter or to the behavior of matter. To the materialist, however, there can be nothing to our minds besides the operations of our central nervous systems. In the memorable words of Sir Francis Crick, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.” . . . Now, if we say that abstract concepts, such as the number π, exist only in minds, and if we also say, with the materialist, that minds are only the functioning of neurons, then we are left in the strange position of saying that abstract concepts are nothing but patterns of neurons firing in brains. Not, mind you, merely that our neurons fire when we think about or understand these concepts, or that the firing of neurons plays an essential role in our thought processes, but that the abstract concepts about which we are thinking are ***in themselves ***certain patterns of neurons firing in the brain, and nothing but that.”

 

[Leela]

We could try to describe a hummingbird using only physics, but it would be very tedious. We need to go up a level to chemistry, and then up again to biology. In our minds each level exists independently as a way of describing the world, unless we tinker at the boundaries where we find relationships.

In the same way, we are unlikely to be able to describe anything as complicated as the human mind in terms of individual neurons but must find a meta-description, and another on top of that, and possibly a few more levels still.

So yes, a hummingbird is a product of molecules, but no it is a whole load more than that.

And for me, in exactly the same sense, without appealing to the supernatural, yes abstract concepts are the products of neurons, but no they are a whole load more than that.

Very nice inocente.

It is also interesting to note that while we know that chemicals can induce thoughts as in psychoactive drugs and anti-depression and anxiety medications, it is also true that thoughts can induce chemical reactions as in the placebo effect. So I don’t think I would say “abstract concepts are the products of neurons.” I would say that abstract concepts are the firing of neurons (or whatever) and leave the chicken and egg question aside. But I would be quick to add that abstract concepts aren’t just the firing of neurons–as if one level of description is what things REALLY are and all other levels of description are mere appearances. Abstract concepts can be described in lots and lots of other ways which are no less true for whatever we learn about the brain.

 

[inocente]

I would say that abstract concepts are the firing of neurons (or whatever) and leave the chicken and egg question aside. But I would be quick to add that abstract concepts aren’t just the firing of neurons–as if one level of description is what things REALLY are and all other levels of description are mere appearances. Abstract concepts can be described in lots and lots of other ways which are no less true for whatever we learn about the brain.

Agreed, while retaining my inalienable right to blame last night’s fiesta.

 

[inocente]

From Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

“We are left with a problem.”

Why?

We can’t draw a perfect circle because those pesky molecules make the outline bumpy, but we can imagine one using the equation of the circle. We went up a few levels, to where the perfect circle exists as a naturally occurring idea, while we never see it in the material world.

Sure, we could attempt to describe the idea of the equation-of-the-circle using a detailed map of firing neurons, but while no doubt it would look very pretty it wouldn’t be of much use.

As well as not being a scientist, I’m not a philosopher and don’t know how to categorize my position. It’s not materialist, immaterialist, dualist or nihilist. Perhaps neopragmatist if that allows me to believe in God.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m going to gather a bouquet of flowers for the house and watch the doves, finches, and hummingbirds at the birdfeeder and fountain.

Sorry for the delay in responding to you. It’s a pleasure to meet up with you. My hummingbirds, doves, and finches are doing fine. Some of these birds have been returning year after year and bring their offspring and some nest in my front and back yard. I’m also glad I enabled you to recall a previous experience with hummingbirds. A cat of mine used to catch and bring them unhurt into the house and let them go. I had to get a ladder to retrieve the hummeringbird(s). They would perch on a high beam in my living room. Amazingly, I’d use my finger and they would perch on it then I would slowly step down the ladder and walk out my front door. As it flew off, there was always two or three hummers there in the air to immediately greet the hummer. Fortunately, the cat is too old to catch them now. Thank goodness! Climbing a tall ladder is not my cup of tea. lol!

There was a recent publication that I thought you might enjoy reading. After watching hummingbirds in my yard for over 10 years, I concur with Hurly, Franz and Healy.

**Do rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) use visual beacons? **
Journal Animal Cognition
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
Issue Volume 13, Number 2 / March, 2010

T. Andrew Hurly1 , Simone Franz1 and Susan D. Healy2

(1) Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada
(2) Schools of Biology and Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

Abstract

Animals are often assumed to use highly conspicuous features of a goal to head directly to that goal (‘beaconing’). In the field it is generally assumed that flowers serve as beacons to guide pollinators. Artificial hummingbird feeders are coloured red to serve a similar function. However, anecdotal reports suggest that hummingbirds return to feeder locations in the absence of the feeder (and thus the beacon). Here we test these reports for the first time in the field, using the natural territories of hummingbirds and manipulating flowers on a scale that is ecologically relevant to the birds. We compared the predictions from two distinct hypotheses as to how hummingbirds might use the visual features of rewards: the distant beacon hypothesis and the local cue hypothesis. In two field experiments, we found no evidence that rufous hummingbirds used a distant visual beacon to guide them to a rewarded location. In no case did birds abandon their approach to the goal location from a distance; rather they demonstrated remarkable accuracy of navigation by approaching to within about 70 cm of a rewarded flower’s original location. Proximity varied depending on the size of the training flower: birds flew closer to a previously rewarded location if it had been previously signalled with a small beacon. Additionally, when provided with a beacon at a new location, birds did not fly directly to the new beacon. Taken together, we believe these data demonstrate that these hummingbirds depend little on visual characteristics to beacon to rewarded locations, but rather that they encode surrounding landmarks in order to reach the goal and then use the visual features of the goal as confirmation that they have arrived at the correct location.
springerlink.com/content/j801594483685r3v/