Ah, I think you've mixed up the users. The person to which you replied was a different user that, aside from his admitted dualism, seems to be in complete agreement with you.
Explain how "Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals" is "woo-woo" or "magical thinking".
It's a belief held without evidence. You might as well posit fairies and elves. There's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the parents claim.
Everything else evolved from simpler animals, why not consciousness?
I never made any such claim. I didn't say that he was right or wrong, only that there was no evidence to support his wild speculation. You woo woo's don't seem to care about evidence, you just believe whatever makes you feel good. It's sad, really, seeing you live in a fantasy world.
Believing otherwise is as "woo woo" as it gets.
I see. You think that your evidence-free beliefs are unquestionably true and above scrutiny. Do you think Jesus told you or something? You woo woo's are lost cause!
2000 years ago dualists would have put disease, lightning and thunder under the 'not explained by physical reality and constructive math' category
2000 years ago, everyone else would have as well. What nonsense "point" are you failing to regurgitate?
The null hypothesis is not 'god did it'.
Where did this come from? It looks like a desperate attempt to drag god in to the conversation, or you're terribly confused about what "dualism" means and entails. Perhaps both?
Oh, I should probably point out that the parent was agreeing with you. In your rush to fight the enemies of reason (which you are, ironically) you've managed to attack an ally.
When the complexity of the mechanism falls below a certain threshold, it makes sense that consciousness is not generated/emerged/attached/whatever anymore.
Sounds like magical thinking to me.
But you know this already:
current state of research: nobody has a clue
Fascinating research, and may be a first step into finding out what consciousness actually is
It's not a first step towards that at all. Not even a little bit.
Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals (which to be sure have most specialized areas) but massive brain is not required.
Ugh. Why do you woo woo believers always jump to the first "conclusion" that makes you feel good? Why don't you base your beliefs on evidence instead? You'll find reality is more interesting that whatever magical nonsense you're going to promulgate next.
You're the most dangerous type of magical thinker -- you actually believe that there's science behind your wildly speculative beliefs.
There isn't anything to argue about here. He's the one who introduced God into the conversation. You can verify that by reading his irrational rants above.
Consciousness is the emerging process of all brain process.
Assuming you're a physicalist: If that were true, how is it that we're able to accurately report on the content of our subjective experience?
That is, if consciousness is merely epiphenomenal, and thus supervenes on the brain, the content of such experiences would necessarily be inaccessible to the brain. That you can report on the content of your subjective experience suggests that it is accessible to the brain and, consequently, that your emergent hypothesis is untenable.
(It's a simple argument, but should be enough to keep you too busy to go around making further bold pronouncements unsupported by any actual science for a while.)
Of course there is! Here's an easy example: My wife says she saw a mouse in the laundry room.
No mouse droppings, no gathered bits of fluff, no teeth marks on wires, boxes, etc, no smiling cats -- no evidence of mice or mouse-like activity could be found. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a mouse in the laundry room, only that her story could not be verified.
I know, it's probably not what you intended to say. It bugged me for some reason.
The rest of your post is spot on. I couldn't agree more.
. crazy brain activity, which may or may not equate to something experiential... or magic
And you came to this conclusion... how? I'm guessing "these are the only two possibilities I can think of, therefore it must be one of these!"
You, apparently, have already made lots of assumptions about me.
Actually, I asked if I could make those assumptions. Those assumptions were made on previous experiences I've had with non-religious people who seem to desperately need to insert God in to the conversation at every opportunity.
It's interesting that you're offended by a large number of completely unfounded assumptions you've made about my opinions and beliefs based on a single sentence which carries no such implications.
Irrational nonsense like this is exactly what I expect from the self-described "rationalists", who assert reverence for logic, reason, and science yet understand nothing about the subjects nor how to apply them.
Spam? Maybe, but OneNote is, well, exactly what our hapless med student seems to want.
Is there an alternative that's as good? Evernote, Remember, and Google Keep are great, sure, but they hardly compare. Hate Microsoft all you want, but OneNote is undoubtedly best-in-class.
BlackBerries not on BES conversely needed BIZ. The outage was devastating.
As I pointed out, the majority of their users were completely unaffected. Of those who were, most were out for less than a day. I should also point out, that many of those affected only experienced slowdowns.
iPhone works fine without Apple servers
The same was true for the Great BlackBerry Outage. The phone still functioned as a phone, as did apps. Messaging (Email and BBM) were really the only services significantly impacted, though every message was ultimately delivered. (The same can not be said for their competition.)
The infamous BlackBerry outage as really very similar to Apples MobileMe outage -- except it was significantly shorter and impacted a significantly smaller portion of their users. Well, and RIM didn't drop a single message -- I can't stress how important that fact is in terms of reliability.
The points? The "BlackBerry is unreliable" bit is absurd as they're dramatically more reliable than the competition. Your carrier is much more likely to be down than BlackBerry. Other companies regularly experience outages far worse and far more frequently than BlackBerry, yet still maintain a reputation for reliability.
There isn't much to argue about here. I contend that the outage hurt RIM far more than similar outages hurt other companies simply because of their absurd reliability. When they have an outage, it's big news. When Apple, Google, etc. have an outage, it's not surprising in the least and thus gets far less press coverage, if it's reported in the media at all.
You could have said the same thing about RIM in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...
Apple is actually doing significantly less than RIM did when they were on top. If the beliefs about RIM have any truth to them, we should see Apple fall hard over the next few years.
Blackberry can't run around claiming to be the best in IT while having an incident like this.
Which is very odd. They're more reliable than, well, everyone else. Hell, they're more reliable than our electrical service!
The only reason that Great Outage (which didn't even impact most customers, and most of those were affected for less than a day) was even newsworthy was because BlackBerry's services are so incredibly reliable!
Compare that to Apple's month-long MobileMe outage, the uncountable outages afterward, the regular iCloud outages, and even their recent month-long developer center outage. Those aren't even news. It's just par for the course. Yet Apple inexplicably maintains a reputation for reliability.
Even Google, with it's incredible reputation for reliability, has regular outages. Gmail seems to have a major outage every year. Still, their reputation is not impacted at all.
BlackBerry has a minor (what their competitors would consider minor anyway) outage and their reputation for reliability is shot. (Even though they didn't loose a single message! Everything got delivered eventually. That's amazing!)
Customers do not respond well to an extended outage.
Customers don't respond well, but they quickly forget. Except when it comes to BlackBerry. Then they remember. Probably because they're constantly reminded by people who seem to have some pathological hatred for cell-phone manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I think you've mixed up the users. The person to which you replied was a different user that, aside from his admitted dualism, seems to be in complete agreement with you.
Explain how "Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals" is "woo-woo" or "magical thinking".
It's a belief held without evidence. You might as well posit fairies and elves. There's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the parents claim.
Everything else evolved from simpler animals, why not consciousness?
I never made any such claim. I didn't say that he was right or wrong, only that there was no evidence to support his wild speculation. You woo woo's don't seem to care about evidence, you just believe whatever makes you feel good. It's sad, really, seeing you live in a fantasy world.
Believing otherwise is as "woo woo" as it gets.
I see. You think that your evidence-free beliefs are unquestionably true and above scrutiny. Do you think Jesus told you or something? You woo woo's are lost cause!
2000 years ago dualists would have put disease, lightning and thunder under the 'not explained by physical reality and constructive math' category
2000 years ago, everyone else would have as well. What nonsense "point" are you failing to regurgitate?
The null hypothesis is not 'god did it'.
Where did this come from? It looks like a desperate attempt to drag god in to the conversation, or you're terribly confused about what "dualism" means and entails. Perhaps both?
Oh, I should probably point out that the parent was agreeing with you. In your rush to fight the enemies of reason (which you are, ironically) you've managed to attack an ally.
When the complexity of the mechanism falls below a certain threshold, it makes sense that consciousness is not generated/emerged/attached/whatever anymore.
Sounds like magical thinking to me.
But you know this already:
current state of research: nobody has a clue
Fascinating research, and may be a first step into finding out what consciousness actually is
It's not a first step towards that at all. Not even a little bit.
Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals (which to be sure have most specialized areas) but massive brain is not required.
Ugh. Why do you woo woo believers always jump to the first "conclusion" that makes you feel good? Why don't you base your beliefs on evidence instead? You'll find reality is more interesting that whatever magical nonsense you're going to promulgate next.
You're the most dangerous type of magical thinker -- you actually believe that there's science behind your wildly speculative beliefs.
Which gstoddart most certainly didn't.
There isn't anything to argue about here. He's the one who introduced God into the conversation. You can verify that by reading his irrational rants above.
Consciousness is the emerging process of all brain process.
Assuming you're a physicalist: If that were true, how is it that we're able to accurately report on the content of our subjective experience?
That is, if consciousness is merely epiphenomenal, and thus supervenes on the brain, the content of such experiences would necessarily be inaccessible to the brain. That you can report on the content of your subjective experience suggests that it is accessible to the brain and, consequently, that your emergent hypothesis is untenable.
(It's a simple argument, but should be enough to keep you too busy to go around making further bold pronouncements unsupported by any actual science for a while.)
There is no such thing as a non-verifiable event.
Of course there is! Here's an easy example: My wife says she saw a mouse in the laundry room.
No mouse droppings, no gathered bits of fluff, no teeth marks on wires, boxes, etc, no smiling cats -- no evidence of mice or mouse-like activity could be found. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a mouse in the laundry room, only that her story could not be verified.
I know, it's probably not what you intended to say. It bugged me for some reason.
The rest of your post is spot on. I couldn't agree more.
The tunnel effect I think was explained by neuro-scientists as the firing of the cells in the visual cortex.
As it turns out, that was just a bit of wild speculation offered by Susan Blackmore during an interview.
It's amazing how common that explanation is, and how firmly people believe it, even though there's absolutely no science behind it.
. crazy brain activity, which may or may not equate to something experiential ... or magic
And you came to this conclusion ... how? I'm guessing "these are the only two possibilities I can think of, therefore it must be one of these!"
You, apparently, have already made lots of assumptions about me.
Actually, I asked if I could make those assumptions. Those assumptions were made on previous experiences I've had with non-religious people who seem to desperately need to insert God in to the conversation at every opportunity.
Well, this is Slashdot, so ...
Are there any, documented beyond any doubt?
A quick search turns up a few documented cases. You can form your own opinion about them.
There's nothing "documented beyond any doubt" -- that's just anti-scientific thinking.
Can "out of body BS" be studied scientifically?
This isn't complicated.
"Hallucination covers it. No reason to suspect otherwise." is, well, as anti-science a statement as you could make.
Yeah! Who needs science when you can just make assumptions?
It's interesting that you're offended by a large number of completely unfounded assumptions you've made about my opinions and beliefs based on a single sentence which carries no such implications.
Irrational nonsense like this is exactly what I expect from the self-described "rationalists", who assert reverence for logic, reason, and science yet understand nothing about the subjects nor how to apply them.
Can I make such an assumption about you?
I think the parent is referring to veridical experiences.
It's interesting that you're willing to draw a significantly stronger conclusion that the authors of the study.
Spam? Maybe, but OneNote is, well, exactly what our hapless med student seems to want.
Is there an alternative that's as good? Evernote, Remember, and Google Keep are great, sure, but they hardly compare. Hate Microsoft all you want, but OneNote is undoubtedly best-in-class.
Turning into?
If you don't want pay union dues, which are essential for a union to function effectively, then don't join a union.
My father was a union man. His dues more than paid for themselves.
BlackBerries not on BES conversely needed BIZ. The outage was devastating.
As I pointed out, the majority of their users were completely unaffected. Of those who were, most were out for less than a day. I should also point out, that many of those affected only experienced slowdowns.
iPhone works fine without Apple servers
The same was true for the Great BlackBerry Outage. The phone still functioned as a phone, as did apps. Messaging (Email and BBM) were really the only services significantly impacted, though every message was ultimately delivered. (The same can not be said for their competition.)
The infamous BlackBerry outage as really very similar to Apples MobileMe outage -- except it was significantly shorter and impacted a significantly smaller portion of their users. Well, and RIM didn't drop a single message -- I can't stress how important that fact is in terms of reliability.
The points? The "BlackBerry is unreliable" bit is absurd as they're dramatically more reliable than the competition. Your carrier is much more likely to be down than BlackBerry. Other companies regularly experience outages far worse and far more frequently than BlackBerry, yet still maintain a reputation for reliability.
There isn't much to argue about here. I contend that the outage hurt RIM far more than similar outages hurt other companies simply because of their absurd reliability. When they have an outage, it's big news. When Apple, Google, etc. have an outage, it's not surprising in the least and thus gets far less press coverage, if it's reported in the media at all.
You could have said the same thing about RIM in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...
Apple is actually doing significantly less than RIM did when they were on top. If the beliefs about RIM have any truth to them, we should see Apple fall hard over the next few years.
Sorry, they sat on their hands thinking they were untouchable for far too long
Now ask yourself: What has Apple been doing for the past few years? What are they doing right now?
Blackberry can't run around claiming to be the best in IT while having an incident like this.
Which is very odd. They're more reliable than, well, everyone else. Hell, they're more reliable than our electrical service!
The only reason that Great Outage (which didn't even impact most customers, and most of those were affected for less than a day) was even newsworthy was because BlackBerry's services are so incredibly reliable!
Compare that to Apple's month-long MobileMe outage, the uncountable outages afterward, the regular iCloud outages, and even their recent month-long developer center outage. Those aren't even news. It's just par for the course. Yet Apple inexplicably maintains a reputation for reliability.
Even Google, with it's incredible reputation for reliability, has regular outages. Gmail seems to have a major outage every year. Still, their reputation is not impacted at all.
BlackBerry has a minor (what their competitors would consider minor anyway) outage and their reputation for reliability is shot. (Even though they didn't loose a single message! Everything got delivered eventually. That's amazing!)
Customers do not respond well to an extended outage.
Customers don't respond well, but they quickly forget. Except when it comes to BlackBerry. Then they remember. Probably because they're constantly reminded by people who seem to have some pathological hatred for cell-phone manufacturer.
The problem is that the majority think that they're included in your 10%.
Driving is dangerous. Safety should ALWAYS come first. It sure as hell should come before your ego.