×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

Eh forget it. With the complete failure of Slashdot metamoderation and the increasing blatant intellectual dishonesty of the mods here, Slashdot has become worthless for useful discussion.

Merry Christmas, all.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

Do I explain "citing primary sources" or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" first?

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

You toss a powerful magnet at a brain and you can shut off emotions, shut off senses, distort them and induce them... what makes you think the brain dying is any less traumatic than changing the flow of electricity in one portion?

I made no claim it is less traumatic. What is relevant is the high specificity of the results of the trauma, as quantified by the study. If the perceptions were random, say in the case of LSD, hitting someone in the head repeatedly with a rock, or random magnetic stimulation, I would agree the evidence would be very weak. They are not random. They correlate strongly with exactly what the religion predicts.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

You are incompetent in literally every field you address. Why are you posting to Slashdot?

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

1. Your definition of "psychosis" is wrong. Check the DSM, or any actual professional in the field, that is, what science says.

2. There is nothing "obvious" about the notion there is not a God, feel free to share the special insight you have superseding thousands of years of theology, philosophy, and science demonstrating clearly it is not "obvious".

3. Even if it were "obvious", the notion it is therefore "psychosis" is nonsense. Once can name innumerable instances of something being claimed to be "obvious" for which disregarding it is not "psychosis"--say, choosing to drink and drive despite the consequences. Say, buying overpriced products. Say, being Republican or Democrat, viewed from the other side.

In short, you are being irrational. In short, something is indeed wrong here with mental functioning. The person exhibiting this would be you.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.

Back your absolutely nonsensical arbitrary claim here.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.

Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.

Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.

Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM

No, it doesn't. You are simply making that claim up. At worst, the religion could be incorrect. It could not be a "psychosis". Silly anti-science rhetorical amplification doesn't really add anything to your argument here.

As for your "enabling" claim, to what to you attribute the historical bloodbath existing previous to the presence of any religion, which undeniably according to your model, is the one-and-only reason you exist in the evolved form you do? What do you blame for these moral objections then? And while you're add it, on what basis are you implying such an objection, from -your- model?

Incidentally, maybe you can help me with a discussion with an acquaintance of mine. He has a philosophy he calls "fooism", and though it is suitably undefined and lacking in any actual demographic to compare with, and thus he can point out way more negative things done in the name of theism, he can also point out way more negative things done by atheism than fooism. Seems that when you have no admitted responsible adherents to your philosophy, other ones can be blamed for way more things, relatively. As an atheist, do you have some defense for how many more abhorrent things were done in the name of atheism than fooism? He's waiting.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

Again, whether it constitutes "proof" is irrelevant. However, one does have reason to consider as evidence the decidedly non-random nature of the "hallucinations" supposedly caused by brain failure (try to short out your computer and see if you suddenly get presented with a new 3D MMO, for example), which correlate very highly with the religious model's predictions.

Formally, though I understand your statement is a Bare Assertion Fallacy troll, it is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim it is a "psychosis". Formally, per the actual field you clearly have no knowledge of, a position that the majority of a culture subscribes to cannot be a "psychosis", per the DSM. Your use (and Dawkins', who you parrot) is simply scientifically and factually false.

I could go on, but rather I'll leave you with a challenge. Predict the upper-bound of the lifespan of a man for the -next- 2500 years. Let's see how you rate compare to the goat herders.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion.

Sure it would. Why would the definition of "religion" change? I mean, the real one, not the Dawkins made-up one.

But, "proof" (clever of you to goalpost-shift this up front to a criteria virtually nothing, including science, can meet, by the way) would be tantamount to worldwide forced conversion. You'd either have to accept it, or go to an asylum for denying basic proven facts. Might you see a reason a God would not want that, particularly in this era of global communication?

That said, to use reasonable epistemological criteria, here's peer-reviewed evidence. As with most domains, -evidence-, not -proof-, is the intellectually-honest expectation.

about a month ago
top

Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Empiric Re:The human eye is proof God exists (187 comments)

So, you're refuting religion in general with a principle of a religion Lucas made up, stating as an absolute that only religion deals in absolutes?

Just checking here.

about a month ago
top

The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

Empiric Re:This is worse than mythology. (391 comments)

Yes, I see how it works. Sorry that you still don't.

But, that will inevitably be corrected. Just look at your watch, see if you see a trend there.

Just a little something I Know.

about a month ago
top

The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

Empiric Re:This is worse than mythology. (391 comments)

Meanwhile, evolution kills 100% of naturalists, and the only thing that actually survives is information.

So, you may at least want to leave a light on for, say, Platonic ideal Forms. Or the robots' software.

about a month ago
top

Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

Empiric Re:Copenhagen interpretation != less complicated (197 comments)

In its current, immature state, the pilot-wave formulation of quantum mechanics only describes simple interactions between matter and electromagnetic fields, according to David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford in England, and cannot even capture the physics of an ordinary light bulb. "It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics," Wallace said. "In my own view, this is the most severe problem for the theory, though, to be fair, it remains an active research area."

A little early to "drop it", it seems.

about a month ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Empiric Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1051 comments)

Your statement regarding Protestant Sola Scriptura versus Catholic "scripture and Holy Tradition" is not relevant to this issue. The distinction between these two is always a matter of nuanced interpretation of the precise intent of the prophets and apostles, and this -always- ends up with argument centered around scriptural support. Though you may wish to create a false dichotomy here, it is -never- the case that one can blatantly formulate a position in clear contradiction to, or utterly unsupported by, scripture. Catholicism knows Galatians 1:8 as well as Protestantism does, and I'll happily challenge to provide an example of an introduced doctrine of Catholicism -ever- for which there is -no- corresponding scriptural support. It does not happen, and cannot happen there any more than in Protestantism. A denomination or sect that attempted to make up new doctrine whole-cloth or forward a stance in contradiction to scripture would be simply found invalid, as conceptual coherence demands. You are conflating nuanced distinction in interpretation, i.e. disagreement on application, with outright invention lacking any documentary basis.

That is the situation with vaccines. There is -no- scriptural support, direct, or indirect in a manner that could be seen as applicable, which speaks against vaccines.

You are by verbal shell-game saying Protestants say "scripture" and Catholics say "scripture and Tradition" and then implicitly saying "but it's really just Tradition, and Tradition is free to contradict established scripture". No, no denomination has ever gotten away with that, and Catholicism has never tried. This scenario does not exist as a matter of actuality, and so is irrelevant to the case at hand.

about a month and a half ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Empiric Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1051 comments)

Well you know what they say. He who laughs last.

about a month and a half ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Empiric Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1051 comments)

Most faiths don't do that.

Wrong.

about a month and a half ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Empiric Re:freedom 2 b a moron (1051 comments)

Feel free to discuss with yourself. I already know.

You could go for Round 2 of your stupid escalation though, and similarly assert because you don't know, that means I don't know. I'd suggest trying to learn to distinguish better between yourself and others, as it's disturbingly indicative of mental illness.

about a month and a half ago

Submissions

Empiric hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Empiric has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?