WillPayton's forum posts

#1 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: In character but bloodlusted? How does that work? Your wither in character, or your bloodlusted. Do you mean not holding back?

In/out of character is different from bloodlusted or not. Characters sometimes become bloodlusted and it means they're willing to do things outside their normal morals, like killing, but they're still in-character. An example would be if Superman was bloodlusted, he might be willing to kill but he'd still act according to his personality. That means he'd still prefer to engage in slugfests before using heat vision and tank hits, etc.

Out of character would be if Superman was being mind-controlled by someone else. In that case Superman would act in ways that he never does, because he's not in control. That person controlling him might have him fight by avoiding contact and just spamming heat vision, for example. Normal Superman would not do that either with or without bloodlust. Or, that person might have Superman just fly around and avoid a fight altogether and not even try to hurt anyone. Out-of-character does not equal bloodlusted.

So, they are two different things. People can be either:

-in character, not bloodlusted

-in character, bloodlusted

-out of character, not bloodlusted

-out of character, bloodlusted

#2 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

Classic strange solo... If not he's MVP

How so? SBP is immune to magic and reality warping.

#3 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that exists and Italian food. Lucifer is not that impressive.

FSM wins decisively.

#4 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

Team Supermen: Cyborg Superman, Superboy Prime (w/ armor), SA Superman

vs

Team Marvel: Classic Dr Strange, Gladiator, Quasar, Sentry, Silver Surfer, Thor

Everyone in-character, but bloodlusted. No prep, no knowledge, no PIS.

Also, since SA Superman is here, no plot powers. Only on-panel feats allowed. Nothing like "Superman pulls X power out of his ass to defeat Y person". If he didnt do it in a comic, he cant do it here.

Gladiator starts at full confidence.

Sentry is stable version.

Who wins?

#5 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:


Over the past several days, I've been studying the history of the Earth through the eyes of biologists and I found a basic flaw in the concept of evolution. Is one definition of evolution the concept that organisms come from a single common ancestor over the course of billions of years? You can say the process is aided by natural selection.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. What do you mean by "organism"?

The current best thinking on this, which is abiogenesis and not evolution, is that at some point self-replicating molecules arose from the chemical "soup" on the early Earth. What made this possible was the mix of chemicals in the early watery areas of Earth combined with a source of energy... whether it's solar energy of heat from vents, or whatever. Of course we dont really understand how this really happened yet, but this is a very plausible explanation once you consider the amount of space and time that was available for this random process to take place.

So it's possible that it all started with a single self-replicating molecule, or that multiple arose at around the same time. The point is that over time there were many such molecules around each going through the processes of mutation and recombination, which results in Evolution by natural selection.

I dont see any problem there. While Abiogenesis is still being studied, Evolution has now been around for 150 years and has been tested thoroughly.

#6 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

Any more opinions?

#7 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

1) I don't even believe in theory that science could read minds because if our mental states were reducible to just biochemistry in the brain then we wouldn't find subjectivity in our experiences which makes the claim that mental states are brain states false. How exactly is this biochemistry suppose to bridge the gap between molecules to mental states like "I think Jane is pretty because she has long hair"? The areas in my brain after being scanned may convey the fact that someone may be attracted to Jane but that doesn't really translate well to the statement that "I think Jane is pretty because she has long hair" because pretty has a subjective connotation.

Again, you are not answering the question. If mental states can influence brain states and brain states can influence mental states how did you come to the conclusion that the brain states came first when it could have easily been that mental states came first in the chronology. If everything is just reducible to a brain state then how exactly do you determine conscious thought from unconscious thought without the positing of mental states?

That didn't answer my question either, and I don't see how you thought it did?

I already answered the question but you keep insisting on using terms that are basically meaningless like "mind" and "subjectivity". That's the problem here. For examples, you ask how biochemistry can bridge the gap between molecules (a well defined physical term of something that we know exits and we can test, observe, and locate) and "mental states" which is an ill-defined term and just an abstract idea. There is no "mind" anywhere in the brain, or anywhere else in the universe. There are brains with physical processes and we call some of those processes and states things like "mind", "soul", "ego", "essence", "emotion", or "thought", but those terms are not separate things that exist in the universe, they are just human ideas for a concept that refers to other things that do exist. Trying to ask that actual physical things need to conform with abstract ideas is a fallacious argument.

Things like "subjectivity" only mean "things that are a result of complex states of the brain, and as such vary from person to person". You keep using the word as meaning "something that cant be explained". Again, your whole argument here amounts to you not understanding how the brain works or how brain states account for experience and thoughts, and you wanting to use works that dont actually describe any actual physical things... and then claiming that your confusion means that the answer is not rational. It is a rational answer and the proof is the evidence I have given plus mountains more. Maybe I'm doing a poor job of explaining it, which is very possible.

But, if you actually insist that because of things like "mind" and "subjectivity" then the brain isnt responsible for "mental" states, then feel free to prove it by properly defining what these words mean, where they can be found, how they work, and how they account for known facts. Lets see some evidence that these things actually exist and are not just abstract idea. I can already tell you that you cant do it because there is no actual think like a "mind" in the universe, just like there's no such things as a "soul" or "spirit" or any of that. If you base your whole argument on that and you cant show that those things exist, then you might as well just skip the whole argument part and just claim that whatever you want to believe is real... which is just a religion.

2) But you believe that science is the only source of reliable knowledge so it shouldn't matter much if the argument isn't scientific because if it isn't scientific then it is worthless.....right?

Science is the only reliable source of knowledge about things that actually exist in the universe. The problem is that these non-scientific arguments are not about actual knowledge, they are about abstract ideas that cant be tested against reality... they are basically fantasy. Science doesnt deal in fantasies because fantasies dont exist. But, science can indeed explain how ideas form and change in a brain, even if we cant fully do it today because of technical limitations.

So, for example, science cant tell you how Santa Claus could fly around the world in one night or how he makes his toys or where he lives or any of that. You're basically trying to claim that because science cant answer these question then there's a realm of knowledge that science cant explain. Wrong. Science can tell you about why children believe in things like Santa Claus, or how brain develop such myths and stories in the first place, or why people like to tell stories, and all that. But, since Santa Claus is just an idea like a "mind" or a "soul", then I cant just start my argument by assuming that Santa Claus exists and then mandating science to explain it.

3) No.....those were philosophical arguments making use of scientific evidence.

If they make use of evidence and science then they are at least partly scientific arguments. I dont see the issue here. Even if the videos I posted were FULLY philosophical, how is that invalid? I was addressing philosophical claims, so a reply in philosophical terms is justified. And like I already said, I dont have an issue with you posting a video. I already explained it so there's no point in going over this again.

#8 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio
#9 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@black_wreath said:

If the continued destruction of the beauty of the pagan deities has taught me anything it's that if Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/God exists then he condones genocide and enjoys reminding me of why I won't worship him. Repugnant.

Condones?? How about performs genocide!

Lets not forget the God of the Bible murdered every living creature, whether animal or human, on the surface of the Earth by means of flood. This alone would make the combined efforts of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Ze-Dong pale in comparison. Then lets not forget other greatest hits like all the first-born of Egypt, everyone in Sodom and gomorrah, and many many others.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

It would be truly repugnant and heinous if any of it were actually true of course. Luckily it's nothing but myths and assorted stories from other previous religions. There are dozens/hundreds of flood stories in world mythology alone. But, geological and biological evidence shows that this Biblical flood never happened.

Well I was trying to be slightly diplomatic but yes you're right, God is not a good role model.

LOL... I've never been accused of being diplomatic. =)

#10 Posted by WillPayton (10385 posts) - - Show Bio

You aren't reading their minds though! The looking of the eyes is a physiological response that is triggered by brain states that are influenced by mental states, so the only thing you are doing is tracing the physiological trait back to the brain state without going all the back to mental state that triggered the brain. You never actually gave an answer to my question because if brain states and mental states can influence each other then which came first in the chronology: the brain states or the mental states? This is important because if the mental states came first when can then say that all brain states are derived from mental states. Even, if we were to show that brain states came first that doesn't mean mental states couldn't exist because we can easily make the claim that mental states are emergent features akin to laws of nature that govern matter and energy. If you reduce mental states to mere mechanistic components how does that deal with the fact that we are able to have subjective experiences of things in the case of determining the blueness or redness of an object. What about forming beliefs? If mental states don't actually exist then beliefs don't exist, so I don't understand how the belief that "My dog is hungry" can be translated into biochemistry. This isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about which is why I defer to people who know what they are talking about on the mind and body problem. I can only offer so much in this conversation.

The scientists may not be "reading their minds" in the sense of knowing what a person is thinking, but that's understandable since we're at an early stage of this science/technology. Again, just because we cant do it now doesnt mean it's impossible. We also cant travel to another star system now, but that doesnt mean it cant be done or that other star systems are not in our physical universe.

i'm not sure why you want me to say whether "mind states" or "brain states" come first, since mental states are just brain states. It's exactly the same thing. The "mind" is just a fuzzily defined word we use to talk about our consciousness, which is a function of the brain. If i could somehow know the exact state of every particle in the brain, then I'd have a picture of all the feelings and thoughts currently being experienced by that brain. This is supported by the evidence, lots of evidence, and so far I've seen not a single argument that puts that into question.

And, I did answer the question when I said that a neural network works by each part being in some way connected to other parts, which is how the brain works. Like I said already, it all feeds back on itself. There's no contradiction here, no physical impossibility, or even any logical or philosophical problems. If you dont understand it then study neurosciences, or even just do more research on Google on the subject. There's plenty of resources if you're just willing to find it. And, BTW, I mean actual scientific resources. But, just because you dont know how a physical system works is no justification for claiming that it cant possibly work. This is a classic argument from ignorance.

I find it ironic how you characterize philosophical arguments, but when the philosophical arguments agree with the beliefs that you already hold to such as theism being logically unsophisticated you post plenty of video of people using philosophy to counter religious claims.

When dealing with philosophical arguments I'm forced to often post other arguments of such type because:

  1. I'm trying to show how the arguments are logically invalid
  2. The people making the arguments dont care about evidence, only other philosophy
  3. These arguments are often not scientific in nature, so science cant adequately address them

Why aren't you posting videos of scientist debunking these arguments instead?

Actually I do, often. Even the videos that you just pointed out each have scientific responses to the philosophical argument they're addressing.

I also find it ironic that you are scolding me for using a video to provide an objection to a claim when you used videos to provide objections to apologists in the other religious thread.

I didnt scold you for posting a video, I simply pointed out that it's a long video and I dont have the time to watch all these overly long videos. Also, I pointed out that you didnt actually make any arguments, you just posted the video. It would be an extremely intellectually dishonest way to argue to just keep posting long videos and then expect me to spend all my time a) watching them and b) posting equally long replies refuting every single thing in the video. Is that your intent? Because, I dont have either the time or inclination to waste time like that. If you have an argument, then make it concisely and in return I will reply concisely. This... is what I have been doing, but in return you posted multiple videos each at least 45 minutes long, not as evidence to support your argument, but in lieu of an argument.

So all I cant say is what I already said. I already showed how the argument in this thread about the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is invalid. Then you tried to claim that perception isnt reliable because there are "many non-physical factors that can influence how people experience certain things" to which I asked for any examples. The examples you gave are all physical examples based on the operation and structure of the brain. You claimed not to believe this and I gave you evidence... and after that the only thing you have as rebuttal is your claim to not understand how the brain could work... but that's not an issue because your lack of understanding is not an argument. I dont mean that as an insult or anything, but rather an observation. I also dont understand many things, like for example I dont understand the physics inside Black Holes or even how cheese is made. But, I dont claim that because I dont understand these things that there must be some non-physical factors going on. That's nonsense.