>> ^Trancecoach:

So you take the position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that consciousness does not exist outside of the mechanisms of the central nervous system? If so, then how do you reconcile the "Hard Problem" of consciousness? I suppose the accounts of individuals who recall events that occurred during periods of documented "brain death" are uses mere telepathy to find out what happened while their brain and body has been cooled to temperatures below 24 degrees celsius.
>> ^bamdrew:
Old idea that the mind and the brain are one??? What the...?! The OLD idea is the shit that they're talking about, where the brain and mind/consciousness are separate! The NEW idea is still that an organ can create consciousness, and with damage/injury/drugs that consciousness and even ones personality is altered.

... this was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard in a long time. Maybe I'm biased (as my user icon demonstrates, I'm a brain nerd).



you and these people with documented periods of "events" during braindeath are making an assumption... that the brain functions normally all the way from regular activity to braindeath in the same way... ie the processes don't require a set amount of electrical activity to continue normal operation

you are saying a person whose brain is operating normally records memories, recalls memories, accesses critical/creative thought in the exact same manner and efficiency as a person who's brain isn't operating normally

to use computer lingo, you are saying that power fluctuations in no way affect the integrity of data stored in physical memory... that memory buffers couldn't get backed up, or random memory access/deletion/corruption wouldn't occur

you resort to telepathy as an answer before you would look at random synapses firing, and low level electricity distorting one's sense of time (its pretty subjective even in a person operating at 100%)

now obviously the brain is more complex than just electicity, there's chemical processes going on as well... an again you want to resort to mystic mumbo jumbo rather than provable, repeatable science?

"it's been proven that consciousness exists outside of the framework of time and space" (not a perfect quote, but it'll point you to the one i'm refering to) immediately convinced me that he's making those leaps too... its mumbo jumbo meant to sound scientific (as someone pointed out earlier)

Cooling down an organ or organ system doesn't mean its dead. We ship cooled donor organs all the time. Cooling something down just means things happen slower, and at a certain point too slow for cells to operate normally.

Also, the CNS is a particularly protected system, a system that can't really be shut down and started up again, so its the last thing to loose blood flow. In other words I am in no way awed by someone being very cold, surviving the ordeal to the degree that they are communicative, and remembering the things that happened.

>> ^Trancecoach:

So you take the position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that consciousness does not exist outside of the mechanisms of the central nervous system? If so, then how do you reconcile the "Hard Problem" of consciousness? I suppose the accounts of individuals who recall events that occurred during periods of documented "brain death" are uses mere telepathy to find out what happened while their brain and body has been cooled to temperatures below 24 degrees celsius.

So you take the position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that consciousness does not exist outside of the mechanisms of the central nervous system? If so, then how do you reconcile the "Hard Problem" of consciousness? I suppose the accounts of individuals who recall events that occurred during periods of documented "brain death" are using mere telepathy to find out what happened while their brain and body has been cooled to temperatures below 24 degrees celsius.

>> ^bamdrew:

Old idea that the mind and the brain are one??? What the...?! The OLD idea is the shit that they're talking about, where the brain and mind/consciousness are separate! The NEW idea is still that an organ can create consciousness, and with damage/injury/drugs that consciousness and even ones personality is altered.

... this was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard in a long time. Maybe I'm biased (as my user icon demonstrates, I'm a brain nerd).

I'm commenting as I watch here, he's already screwed on the "problem" of evil. He's got the whole thing ass backwards. The only way to really solve the problem of evil from a theistic point of view is as he rightly points out the "lack of perspective argument" ie "Maybe there is a larger plan"/maybe it isnt evil after all/maybe its all part of gods plan or similar nonsense.

The point about bringing up this from an atheistic point of view is that there is of course a much more elegant, more logical, more reasonable and more probable solution to the "problem" of evil: There is no god.

It seems like Keller hasnt even considered this as a real possibility, because if he did, he would realize that the problem dissappears entirely. And its not just for human acts of evil, of course. Think of the recent Japan Tsunami..Thousands pointlessly killed by the physics of tectonic plate movement. In a godless universe there is no "why?!!" here, we live on a thin crust wrapping around a lava ball, partially covered by water. A tsunami now and again is inevitable.

If you believe in god, you'll have to make up lots of shitty excuses for these kind of events

None of this proves that there is no god, its just one of those many things that makes it unlikely.

Oh and now his dragging Stalins corpse out again to bash atheism. Nothing to do with atheism. Stalinism was a sick personality cult catering to creduilty and superstition in order to promote a form of marxism. The reason they went after Christianity was because they were competing to convert the gullible to a new mindless cult.

Its not just that its pointless "keeping scores" as it were, I would like to see him tackle Hitchens 2-part Challenge:
Part 1: Name for me one good thing done, or one nice thing said, in the name of religion, that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do.

I've never hard a satisfying answer to part 1.

Part 2: Name for me one bad thing done, Or one bad thing said, in the name of religion,that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do

I bet you thought of something after reading the fifth word in that sentence.

Its not a tie.

Kelller parroting atheist argument:"Until you prove there is a god, I dont have to believe in god!"

What a dishonest douche.

I've never actually heard any atheist make that argument. Heres how the argument really is: I've never seen a shred of evidence, ever, anywhere, in the history of everything that would even suggest, in the slightest,remotest possible way that there might be a god. None. Zip, Zero. I'm not demanding that you come up with a mathematical proof or anything, far from it, but until there is some evidence, ANY kind of evidence, I dont see any reason to believe in god, any more than santa.

More rubbish: Why do I assume god is "inside" the universe? I dont, douchebag, I'm not assuming anything, its your invisible friend, moron, you can fantasize. Oh great, there you go now... "He might be outside of everything", please do go on wasting brainpower trying to make that work..

"You cant prove anything" "So why do you say to God.."---BEEP-- I dont say anything, Keller, I dont talk to invisible things that arent there.

"You cant prove there is no god, so not believing is an act of faith" Yup, I take the same risk you do, Keller, But I'd wager disbelieving in Cthulhu will land you in much more trouble than the mere wuzzy little lake of fire I'll be surfing on (while listening rock music).

Oh fuck. "Fine-tuning" now.. Yep, this universe, that has almost NOTHING but vaccum at minus 270 celsius instantly deadly to any living thing, where the extremely tiny exceptions are 99.999% nuclear fireballs that will burn anything to death once its close enough not to freeze to death. So among a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars, we know of exactly one that has a planet at just the right distance. What are the chances, eh? Ten thousand billion stars and one of them has life around it (and in few million years its gonna toast that motherfucker too). Ergo: stars are perfect places to have life around. Yup Finetuning. Four aces? more like one ace and ten thousand billion worthless cards, but whatever.

Of course, if I was god, I might make just , I dont know, lets say ten stars, with lots of fine planets around them with lush green envirionments and no nasty earthquakes, asteroids, hurricanes and so on, perhaps I'd even make sure that the sun doesnt blow up and kill everybody in the end. But then again, what the hell do I know..


Ok, that was half an hour. maybe I'll do the rest tomorrow.

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

What is concerning is that thermite was rule out because of the noise, and that 1000 lbs would be needed.

Also, no one has explained the UL testing on the steel for 6 hrs at 1000C?

Finally, what is troubling is that softening girders causeing collapse, fine, steel is weakened at 1400degF, but the core wouldn't fall. Certainly wouldn't break apart.

>> ^quantumushroom:

11 degrees Celsius? Why not just say 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit?


because no one else in the world cares about our out-dated, inconvenient measuring system.

>> ^quantumushroom:

11 degrees Celsius? Why not just say 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit?


because the metric system rules!

11 degrees Celsius? Why not just say 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Saw the number "420 Celsius". That's 788 degrees Fahrenheit. Machine is using serious power. I'd lump this in with desalination plants; conversion can be done but at enormous costs.


Actually, that's the melting point of your typical water bong.

Saw the number "420 Celsius". That's 788 degrees Fahrenheit. Machine is using serious power. I'd lump this in with desalination plants; conversion can be done but at enormous costs.

Thats actually why if you live in the frigid northern cold parts or the extremely south southern cold parts you heat you cabin space up and keep your subs at a low volume until they get warmed up a bit. When the inside of you vehicle is -20 Celsius or whatnot and you go and blast your stereo and its butyl rubber or the foam surrounds you can really damage or lower the life expectancy because of the amount of bending they do.

Just a FYI to any of those know it all teens who dont know about this fact.

So I would assume the driver did not read the MSDS or one of the cans which say not to leave in vehicle or get above 50 degrees Celsius. Well done sir, well done.

>> ^visionep:
Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments or calculations that give rise to any of these theories.
It would be very interesting to me to see a footnote section to each of these stated theories which there are about a thousand. Anyone want to try? Go ahead and start with the first 10 to the -43rd second and explain why someone thinks the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).


It's either celsius or farenheit, because kelvin isn't measured in degrees. If anyone says "degrees kelvin", tell them they're wrong.

As for the video itself, i don't really like it. It sounds more or less correct for the standard model, but the explanations are really poor, he just throws stuff in.

Many tests are normalized, including the college admissions test here in the US (the SATs). The scores only have meaning relative to each other.

Sometimes the tests have to be re-normalized because the population scores differently. The SATs, for example, had to be re-normed in the 80s or 90s to keep the average at 1000, because the population was scoring lower than previous generations.
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.
1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).
(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)

Are IQ tests standardised to FORCE the average to 100? That seems really unlikely to me. Because if we were getting thicker, we'd have an average of 90 IQ, then we'd go "Hang on a minute, add 10 to that to put the average to 100 again." Then we'd have an average of 100, and be less intelligent than a guy 10 years ago with 100IQ.
Of course IQ is an arbitrary scale invented by humans, but that scale can't MOVE surely, otherwise it puts all figures into dissaray, they mean nothing. It's like saying "Ok, earth temperatures have gone up by 2 degrees celsius. So we're adjusting the scale downwards by 2 degrees. Temperature restored guys!"

I'll reply to myself. Apparently they are regularly normalised to 100. What a rediculous system. The numbers mean absolutely nothing, then?

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.
1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).
(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)

Are IQ tests standardised to FORCE the average to 100? That seems really unlikely to me. Because if we were getting thicker, we'd have an average of 90 IQ, then we'd go "Hang on a minute, add 10 to that to put the average to 100 again." Then we'd have an average of 100, and be less intelligent than a guy 10 years ago with 100IQ.
Of course IQ is an arbitrary scale invented by humans, but that scale can't MOVE surely, otherwise it puts all figures into dissaray, they mean nothing. It's like saying "Ok, earth temperatures have gone up by 2 degrees celsius. So we're adjusting the scale downwards by 2 degrees. Temperature restored guys!"


I'll reply to myself. Apparently they are regularly normalised to 100. What a rediculous system. The numbers mean absolutely nothing, then?