John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  4

  a jw hell

  by carla in

  1. social
  2. humour

  a jw hell-.

  https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/smurfs-obsessed-woman-7000-smurf-items-worlds-largest-collection-190854430.html.

  i would like to see a video of jw attempting a bible study in her place!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The Smurf paranoia in the 80's was very real here in Brazil.
• 
  58

  Just a quick Poll...Do you think the GB is sincere?

  by NikL in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been thinking about this the past few days and curious what the honest consensus is here just for fun.. show of hands,.

  is the governing body.... a: completely sincere.

  they really do believe what they teach.. b: somewhat sincere.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  D.

  This is a very difficult question. I think they know everything about TTATT but are true believers anyway.

  But the most difficult question is if there's somebody behind and above them regarding the money.

  If you think about it there's something very strange with this organization.

  Even former members can't grasp exactly the full mechanisms of the Watchtower.

  Carl Sagan said he could not understand how and why Watchtower existed after 1914.

  The very existence of the Watchtower can't be easily explained by former members and outsiders.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  ask them to draw a line in biology that makes us "us" (without relying on metaphysical mumbo jumbo)

  Law.

  This line can't be defined by biology. Because consciousness can't be detected through biology.

  There's no animal that I could kill and eat it and go to jail because such animal had consciousness just like any other human.

  Are you a vegan? If not then you're an hypocrite if you are eating beings that you don't see any distinction from humans.

  One of the several axioms in the very scientific method is the human mind can understand the universe. There's no axiom about other species being able to do that.

  The recognition of consciousness in non humans is made by a metaphysical experiment called Turing test. AFAIK this is the only test proposed to recognize consciousness in non humans.
  
  
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Or are you arguing that self-recognition is separate and distinct from social cognition?

  That's exactly what Gallup said!

  He made a distinction between self-awareness/recognition and consciousness.

  That's why you will never find a scientific paper talking about consciousness in this experiment.

  And the article from NCBI says the primates only use the mirror instrumentally and not in an ontological way of the kind "I can see myself through the mirror therefore I'm".
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  I'm not entirely sure he understands anything other than how to copy and paste!
  John, you might want to go back and reread what I wrote, the basic premise that the experiment is meant to show is not in itself controversial.

  I don't speak English very well but I can swear you mentioned the lack of ANY PARTICULAR controversy about these scientific experiments.

  And the basic premise of the experiment is highly controversial. If you want I can show you more scientific information about that.

  Gallup himself made a distinction between self-awareness and consciousness. His experiment is not even about consciousness by his own definition. That's why no scientific paper talks about consciousness.

  The methodology used by some researchers was challenged and when the experiment was repeated with more rigorous methodology the results were the same.

  They changed the mark test by using chocolate cream as substance and this variation of the mark/spot test made many primates fail this very new variation.

  Failure it's not equal to "the same" (in other languages at least).

  Psychological tests have to be very carefully set up and interpreted to ensure that the results do not suffer from confirmation bias.

  Yes, especially when someone is highly biased toward scientism.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  C'mon John! if you want to challenge your "knowledge " on science simply visit the appropriate " science" sites. I am sure your comments would be highly respected.

  What? Are you serious or am I in some kind of twilight zone?

  I posted from NCBI and from Gallup itself.

  And previously I answered cofty with a link from Nature.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Care to show where my posts indicate a lack of knowledge about science?

  C'mon man! You said the Gallup's test was not controversial in science when it's highly controversial.

  It's not an evil thing to be ignorant but to be dishonest is.

  
  
  
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  read up about what you are talking about John-Mann - sorry to dismiss it so easily. but there is one thing I do take exception to and that is the early date 4,000 years ago. I think that if anything like what you say happened it happened a lot lot earlier - - however I agree that hallucinogenic things had something to do with this sort of expansion of consciousness - indeed there is evidence that humans learned about the hallucinogen properties of plants from animals - or that chimps achieved a cross over to humanoid species by means of such plants - I mean what other explanation could there be for our need for spirits (literal spirits that is)

  I don't know why you keep saying I'm talking about 4,000 ago when I say 4,000 BC.

  And yes I know this drug hypothesis. The first man was an ape that ate a mushroom. :)
  
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  They might be controversial to you but I am not aware of any particular controversy in scientific circles.

  As usual you seem to be very ignorant about science.

  Every scientific paper always mentions the controversy and they avoid the term consciousness but uses the technical term "visual self-recognition".

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16432640

  
  " For 30 years Gallup's (Science 167:86-87, 1970) mark test, which consists of confronting a mirror-experienced test animal with its own previously altered mirror image, usually a color mark on forehead, eyebrow or ear, has delivered valuable results about the distribution of visual self-recognition in non-human primates. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and, less frequently, gorillas can learn to correctly understand the reflection of their body in a mirror. However, the standard version of the mark test is good only for positively proving the existence of self-recognition. Conclusive statements about the lack of self-recognition are more difficult because of the methodological constraints of the test. This situation has led to a persistent controversy about the power of Gallup's original technique. We devised a new variant of the test which permits more unequivocal decisions about both the presence and absence of self-recognition. This new procedure was tested with marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus), following extensive training with mirror-related tasks to facilitate performance in the standard mark test. The results show that a slightly altered mark test with a new marking substance (chocolate cream) can help to reliably discriminate between true negative results, indicating a real lack of ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, from false negative results that are due to methodological particularities of the standard test. Finally, an evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as to why many primates can use a mirror instrumentally - i.e. know how to use it for grasping at hidden objects - while failing in the decisive mark test."

  What the guy who invented the test said:

  “Self-awareness is defined as the ability to become the object of your own attention, consciousness as being aware of your own existence, and mind as the capacity to be aware of your own mental states… either you are aware of being aware or you are unaware of being aware, and the latter is tantamount to being unconscious.” (Gallup G “Do minds exist in species other than our own?” Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews 9(1985):631-41).

  He clearly made a distinction between self-awareness, consciousness and mind.

  Now show me a scientific paper where it's said animals possess consciousness without any shadow of controversy.
• 
  30

  The Pagan Origins of the Memorial Observed by Jehovah’s Witnesses

  by David_Jay in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  “we don’t celebrate holidays because god doesn’t approve of any celebration that is rooted in pagan customs and manmade traditions.” (see here for a similar jw response.).

  if you were once an ex-jw like me, you have probably said something like this out in field service to someone who asked the question: why don’t you people celebrate holidays?

  as the witnesses' official website states in an faq about not celebrating easter:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  This pagan paranoia is a Protestant thing.

  Protestants seem to forget Abraham was not a Jew but a Sumerian.

  Certainly he kept the Sumerian rituals and philosophy that were compatible with his unique monotheistic view.