slimboyfat

Joined

• started 535 topics
• posted 17,495 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I didn't say your thoughts are coterminous with Sam Harris. You said that the idea "that rocks are aware will always be ridiculous to all but the most gullible". Sam Harris nowhere describes pansychism or general awareness of matter as ridiculous in this discussion. Instead he explores the issues and the implications in some detail. By your standard does that make him gullible? Seems like a reasonable and specific question. Protestations about non-coterminous thinking are a red herring.
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I don't know if it's "true" or not, but many have held to pansychism over many centuries. At times it was orthodoxy. At present a number of serious philosophers and scientists hold to forms of pansychism, and it is enjoying something of a revival.

  You have previously described Sam Harris as a great thinker. He entertains the idea of pansychism at length in this discussion. Is Sam Harris a great thinker or most gullible?

  https://youtu.be/1bmHL1sbntw
  
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Well I can remember people made fun of the idea that plants and trees are aware. Not so much these days. Many ideas that were once utterly ridiculous are now "facts".

  The discussion was about evolution and had come to focus on consciousness, and my comment was relevant. I'm tired of you claiming I have to justify any comment I make. All you ever say is either "ridiculous" or "irrelevant", never actually contributing anything.
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I said a lot about awareness and gave links to lengthy discussions of the topic, including one between Sam Harris and David Chalmers.

  Most people can recognise that there are degrees of awareness. For example dogs are conscious and many people would say have personalities. Fewer people would say that flies or spiders are conscious and have personalities. But it is probably appropriate to attribute some sort of "awareness" below the threshold of what we describe as "consciousness" to such creatures. These are complicated issues and people draw the lines of consciousness, awareness, personality, and so on in different places.
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I have never said rocks have personalities. And I'm not aware of pansychists who have said rocks have personalities. So one easy way to avoid misrepresentation would be not claiming that rocks have personalities.
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  And misrepresentation.
• 
  340

  Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution

  by dubstepped in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.

  i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.

  i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Theism, deism, pantheism, panpsychism, seem like reasonable explanations for consciousness. (Although they have their own problems) Materialism and atheism struggle to explain consciousness. Most often on this forum what we get is avoidance of such issues: acting as if there is nothing to explain, or it's a stupid question. Basically a lot of bluster and no substance.

  Daniel Dennett argued that in some sense consciousness does not exist, but he struggles to explain what he means by that. It's at least an attempt to neutralise the problem of consciousness from a materialist perspective, but it's not satisfactory for many people. Because we do seem to exist.
• 
  30

  I want to understand British references to your countries.

  by compound complex in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  greetings, friends across the two ponds:.

  of course, as per other posters' recommendations, i could google this; i have and remain, not totally confused, but wanting the straight dope as well as nuanced meaning.

  i'm both curious and needing to know for purposes of editing works of american and british writers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  People often say Britain or Great Britain when they mean the United Kingdom. Whether this is just common useage or plain wrong I guess depends on your perspective. Even the Olympic team from the United Kingdom is called "Great Britain", which some people think is fine, and other people think is wrong or stupid or both. Because strictly speaking "Great Britain" notionally excludes people from Norther Ireland, and other islands, that compete as part of the "Great Britain" team.

  Incidentally the term "Great Britain" was originally intended to distinguish the island of Britain from the smaller region of France called Brittany. It was not intended to imply "greatness" as such, imperial or otherwise, as some have taken it mean; most commonly as in the embarrassing phrase: "Britain didn't become 'great' by... accepting orders from Brussels", or whatever else the person has a bee in their bonnet over.
• 
  30

  I want to understand British references to your countries.

  by compound complex in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  greetings, friends across the two ponds:.

  of course, as per other posters' recommendations, i could google this; i have and remain, not totally confused, but wanting the straight dope as well as nuanced meaning.

  i'm both curious and needing to know for purposes of editing works of american and british writers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  So, there're the British Isles, The United Kingdom, and a separation, I gather, of Ireland from Wales, England, Scotland

  It's even slightly more complicated than that, because the "United Kingdom" consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the Republic of Ireland (South) that is excluded from the "United Kingdom".

  I am not even sure about the status of the smaller islands such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in relation to the United Kingdom, let alone foreign possessions (or whatever you call them) such as Gibraltar and the Falklands.

  A more useful distinction that people often get wrong is between Britain the island and the British Isles.

  Britain - is the geographic island that consists of Scotland, England and Wales.

  British Isles - is the archipelago that includes Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetlands, Isle of Wight, and other small islands between the Atlantic and the North Sea.

  So Dublin, Belfast, Lerwick and Douglas are in the British Isles, but they are not on Britain, whereas London, Edinburgh and Cardiff are on both.

  Apparently there are 194 inhabitied islands in the British Isles. Britain is the largest but there are many more. Here is a list:

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_the_British_Isles
  
• 
  63

  Sister may have had a slight heart attack, do I text her?

  by Xanthippe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so my cousin phoned and told me my jw sister was taken to hospital with chest pains and it may have been a slight heart attack or possibly she's starting with angina.

  now as some of you know my sisters and brother have had little to do with me for 29 years.

  we've met at funerals, or arranged them, but i just thought today what if she did die?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Forget them Xan, you are good. Unless you want to message her for own well-being. Do whatever you want to do. But they’ve forfeited too much consideration in my opinion.