Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-06-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scombrid
To a dog you're just another member of the pack, a dominant member but a member none the less. I've seen aggressive dogs treat children and women as subordinates.

How so?

Quote:

Funny you should pick dogs because they are strongly social and express both guilt and deception. It's funny when you come home and the dog that normally bounces to greet you at the door is nowhere to be found. You immediately know they've torn something up or had an accident on the rug. What drives them to hide? complex reasoning? or a gut feeling (you know that sinking feeling followed by the flushing face when you've knowingly violated some rule and get busted)? Does that "gut feeling" expressed in my pooch mean he has a soul or do we have certain brain processes in common as social animals?

Again, you confuse guilt with shame. Obviously humans can be conditioned to respond to stimuli in Pavlovian fashion; and such humans are the stuff totalitarian dictatorships are made of.

Quote:

Polar bear can be taught not to kill humans willy nilly. If they're murderous because they lack a soul,

It is precisely BECAUSE they lack a soul that they are NOT murderous. They're just bears.

Quote:

how are captive bears trained not to kill? simply fear? If that's the case why doesn't fear of reprisal stop sociopaths if fear works on a soulless animal?

Because the sociopath can evade reprisal, if he's clever enough. If he's able to evade it once, he is emboldened to do something even more outrageous.

yguy · 06-06-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but we know that electrical activity in the brain is correlated with, necessary for AND SUFFICIENT TO EVOKE a particular choice in visual discrimination tasks. If you're interested, look up Bill Newsome's work on area MT.

I don't buy that neuron firing can control choice. It may alter perception so as to lead to a choice, if the subject believes the perception, but no way can it control the decision to believe the perception.

SimplyAtheistic · 06-06-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I don't buy that neuron firing can control choice. It may alter perception so as to lead to a choice, if the subject believes the perception, but no way can it control the decision to believe the perception.

Still not responding to my posts eh? Anyways, if neuron firings alter perceptions, then other neurons are stimulated that make a choice! You cannot have neurons hold your perceptions and have some outside force act upon them, it is all linked together. The sooner you realize that the better.
Jake

tribalbeeyatch · 06-06-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I don't buy that neuron firing can control choice. It may alter perception so as to lead to a choice, if the subject believes the perception, but no way can it control the decision to believe the perception.

"the decision to believe the perception"?!? I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by 'perception', and are you distinguishing it from sensation?

yguy · 06-06-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
"the decision to believe the perception"?!? I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean by 'perception', and are you distinguishing it from sensation?

No. As for what I mean by perception, I mean whatever input impinges on the consciousness.

Normal · 06-07-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Why believe in such a faulty hypothesis then? The brain is capable of making decisions, it is simply a complex neurological response. Maybe you and yguy should study up on neurological programming, as it can explain these things in more depth.
Jake

This is more a debate on free will then anything, and no amount of studying on "neurological programming" can answer that question.

Normal · 06-07-2003, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but we know that electrical activity in the brain is correlated with, necessary for AND SUFFICIENT TO EVOKE a particular choice in visual discrimination tasks. If you're interested, look up Bill Newsome's work on area MT. I hear that Bill wants to have his own area MT stimulated so that he can experience for himself what it is like to see and perceive 100% coherent leftward motion but still decide to report it as rightward motion.

SUFFICENT TO EVOKE SUCH A CHOICE is different then THE EVOKER OF THE CHOICE. Even if you stimulate the response action, you will be evoking a certain choice, but that does not disprove my hypothesis THAT THE SOUL WOULD DO SO OTHERWISE. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Cojana · 06-07-2003, 08:50 AM

Membership, A soul are nothing more then a second entity of yourself, there are no difference between yourselves, a seperation are inevitable upon death,what happens to you, are anybody's guess, maybe for the both of you are Kaput!! one for sure,...imo,without the science fiction,...

scombrid · 06-07-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
[B]You are confusing embarassment with shame. A person can be embarassed without anyone else on the planet knowing that they are, or what they did to get that way.

So was the dog in my example. Nobody was around to witness the transgression or scold the animal yet the dog still responded to it's own actions (not an external stimuli) with a guilt response.

Last night I was playing tug of war with my buddy's dog. Very persistant animal. I always end up relenting to her in games of tug of war. Well last night she was pulling with all she had and suddenly stopped and went to the back door. Oh well, she had to go pee. Then when she came back in she went to the other room and layed down and didn't engage anybody else to play. My friend thought she might be injured but then we noticed the wet spot. She had pulled so hard that she leaked. Nobody scolded her, nobody even knew that she had an accident, yet she still had the posture of having been berated, low head, dropped tail, dull eyes. Hardly a pavlovian conditioned response.

That dog has no more soul than I do. What is driving her decision making process?

scombrid · 06-07-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I don't buy that neuron firing can control choice. It may alter perception so as to lead to a choice, if the subject believes the perception, but no way can it control the decision to believe the perception.

Animals have no soul and still successfully make choices. Why do their brains function as freestanding units while ours require a puppet master?

06-07-2003, 08:50 AM	#218
Cojana Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Reseda, California Posts: 651	I know for sure,I saw mine,.. Membership, A soul are nothing more then a second entity of yourself, there are no difference between yourselves, a seperation are inevitable upon death,what happens to you, are anybody's guess, maybe for the both of you are Kaput!! one for sure,...imo,without the science fiction,...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.