22 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI know more about metacognition than you ever will.
Google "How do deaf people think?/Medical Source/". Doing so will provide the answer and keep you off the streets. lol
But that is beside the point.
I am trying to understand why you make unfounded statements and
then when your foolishness is pointed out to you blithely gloss over it.
You are either an outright liar, really stupid or truly ignorant.
Perhaps all three. (The Trinity)
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Imagine A Flying Pig: How Words Take Shape In The Brain by Jon Hamilton May 02, 2013
I know more about metacognition than you ever will.
But that is beside the point.
I am trying to understand why you make unfounded statements and
then when your foolishness is pointed out to you blithely gloss over it.
You are either an outright liar, really stupid or truly ignorant.
Perhaps all three. (The Trinity)
"Listen to the Story: Although a flying pig doesn't exist in the real world, our brains use what we know about pigs and birds — and superheroes — to create one in our mind's eye when we hear or read those words. This is a story about a duck. More precisely, it's a story about what your brain just did when you read the word "duck."
Chances are, your brain created an image of a web-footed waterfowl. It also may have recalled the sound of quacking or the feel of feathers. And new research suggests that these mental simulations are essential to understanding language.
Just a few decades ago, many linguists thought the human brain had evolved a special module for language. It seemed plausible that our brains have some unique structure or system. After all, no animal can use language the way people can.
But in the 1990s, scientists began testing the language-module theory using "functional" MRI technology that let them watch the brain respond to words. And what they saw didn't look like a module, says Benjamin Bergen, a researcher at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the book Louder Than Words.
"They found something totally surprising," Bergen says. "It's not just certain specific little regions in the brain, regions dedicated to language, that were lighting up. It was kind of a whole-brain type of process."
If someone read a sentence like, "the shortstop threw the ball to first base," parts of the brain dedicated to vision and movement would light up, Bergen says. "The question was, why?" he says. "They're just listening to language. Why would they be preparing to act? Why would they be thinking that they were seeing something?"
The answer that emerged from this research is that when you encounter words describing a particular action, your brain simulates the experience, Bergen says. "The way that you understand an action is by recreating in your vision system what it would look like to perceive that event and recreating in your motor system what it would be like to be that shortstop, to have the ball in your hand and release it," Bergen says.
The brain appears to be taking words, which are just arbitrary symbols, and translating them into things we can see or hear or do, Bergen says. That's not much of a stretch when it comes to words for things like throwing a baseball or seeing a duck. But what about words for things we've probably never seen? Like a flying pig.
"A flying pig isn't something that actually exists in the real world," Bergen says. Yet when we read those words we see one in our mind's eye. Most people see a pig with wings above its shoulders, Bergen says. But some people imagine a pig with a cape, flying like Superman. “What evolution has done is to build a new machine, a capacity for language, something that nothing else in the known universe can do." - Krish Sathian, neurologist, Emory University
A flying pig has meaning to us because our brain is using things we have seen — pigs and birds — to create something we've never seen. And Bergen says we also draw on personal experience when we use language to convey abstract ideas — like truth, or justice, or even the word "meaning."
"What we actually say when we talk about meaning is, do you see what I mean? Is my point crystal clear? Maybe, let's shed a little light on the subject," Bergen says. What we're doing, he says, is extending our physical experiences — in this case things we've seen — by turning them into metaphors. We use this sort of metaphor all the time in conversation, Bergen says. We "grasp" the truth. We "dodge" questions. We "fall" in love.
Philosophers have been debating the importance of metaphors like these since the time of Aristotle. But now, brain researchers like Krish Sathian at Emory University are getting involved.
Sathian has been studying an area of the brain that responds to the texture of an object — whether it feels smooth or rough. And he wondered whether the same area would respond when we use textures like smooth or rough as metaphors.
So he had people lie in an fMRI scanner while they listened to metaphors like, "he had a rough day," as well as similar sentences with no metaphor like, "he had a bad day."
The results suggest that, at least to the brain, a rough day has something in common with a sheet of sandpaper, Sathian says. "When listening to these sentences containing textural metaphors, we found activity in the part of the brain that's involved when we feel surfaces," he says
Research like this adds to the evidence that the human brain is not processing language in some special module, Sathian says. "The brain is really working as a very highly distributed system." What's amazing is that people have been able to do so much with language using the same basic brain structures found in monkeys and apes, Bergen says.
"What evolution has done is to build a new machine, a capacity for language, something that nothing else in the known universe can do," he says. "And it's done so using the spare parts that it had lying around in the old primate brain."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/05/02/180036711/imagine-a-flying-pig-how-words-take-shape-in-the-brain
30 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou have only had discussions with persons defending and supporting false religion and this is why you have never had your atheistic dogma challenged.
[b]"10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Atheism March 18, 2014 "Set your stereotypes aside and get to know atheists all over again. by Herb Silverman" [Almost titled this thread: “Joey, this is very important..." -gb]
"I’m a “big-tent” atheist, which includes whatever non-theistic labels people prefer: agnostic, humanist, secular humanist, free ...[text shortened]... a thread I'd post if an atheist; so here it is for my atheist friends and almost friends. Enjoy.[/b]
Of course false religion is absurd and you are to be congratulated in your rejection of that religion.
However you cannot reject true religion.
Having a sincere discussion with someone who teaches true religion is the only way to show you the truth.
However you must become sincere and seek out a person/persons who will present true religion to you.
This you will never do....... and with that........ you shall remain in your ignorance until death when you shall finally find out that life continues.
Your greatest hurdle in your life is that you MUST become sincere in your quest for truth because you are not sincere at present and this is preventing you from going forward.
You have been in this forum for years and you are only going around in circles because it amuses you.
Why have you not read the 18 volume Srimad Bhagavatam or the Bhagavad Gita?
These literature's shall open you eyes.............but only if you become sincere, because you are like the man who has his hands over his eyes and shouts out that he cannot see.
Any person who rejects intelligent design is foolishly dishonest............because it is impossible to look in any place without seeing intelligent design.
And therefore.............this will be your fist hurdle to overcome.
Originally posted by DasaThanks for your concern, Dasa. Four questions: Who wrote the "18 volume Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita"? Where would I buy them? How much would they cost? Finally, have you ever read the sixty six books of God's Word? -Bob
You have only had discussions with persons defending and supporting false religion and this is why you have never had your atheistic dogma challenged.
Of course false religion is absurd and you are to be congratulated in your rejection of that religion.
However you cannot reject true religion.
Having a sincere discussion with someone who teaches true ...[text shortened]... eing intelligent design.
And therefore.............this will be your fist hurdle to overcome.
30 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI beg your pardon Bob.............
Thanks for your concern, Dasa. Four questions: Who wrote the "18 volume Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita"? Where would I buy them? How much would they cost? Finally, have you ever read the sixty six books of God's Word? -Bob
I only read the introduction to the thread which said [I am a big tent atheist] and that was enough for me to respond.
My post is meant for any Big tent atheists out there.
The Srimad Bhagavatam is written in Sanskrit[ 18000 verses of prose ]and you must ask yourself how the worlds most perfect and oldest language is existing way before the pyramids and the Roman Empire.
It exists because it is a spiritual language giving rise to the Vedas.
The Vedas are the literal explanation of mans existence and relationship with God.
Any man made religion coming to us in recent times is suspect.
The animal killing religions of Christianity Islam and Judaism are at top of that list.
30 May 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderHere is what Dasa posted on this forum on 19th December 2011:
Better than a Muslim killing religion like yours.
"There can be no peace in this world until false religion is eradicated and true religion established. The most vile excuse for a religion is Islam and it must be banned. [...] The Governments of the world should be pre-emptive and abolish Islam from the face of the earth. To do this ..........force must be used and termination of all Muslims would be the rule. Muslims converting to other religions at the eleventh hour would not be accepted. Muslim children however would be sparred because you can teach them truth and how to be civilized. [...] [Women] would be allowed to prove themselves. [...] Genocide is only applicable when the persons are innocent. Islam is not innocent and is not worthy to exist among civilized people. When their behaviour is lower than the animals they must be dealt with."
A little zip file with the saved thread can be downloaded here:
http://www61.zippyshare.com/v/90146422/file.html
31 May 14
Originally posted by FMFFMF for the last time.
Here is what Dasa posted on this forum on 19th December 2011:
"There can be no peace in this world until false religion is eradicated and true religion established. The most vile excuse for a religion is Islam and it must be banned. [...] The Governments of the world should be pre-emptive and abolish Islam from the face of the earth. To do this ..........for ...[text shortened]... th the saved thread can be downloaded here:
http://www61.zippyshare.com/v/90146422/file.html
Islam is supporting and perpetrating murder and torture and rape and slavery and kidnapping etc.............on a global scale.
Can you deny this?????
There is nothing here about calling for genocide........but instead I am qualifying what genocide would look like.
And it would look like genocide if the people are innocent.
Are the murderers and rapists and torturers innocent?
NO......No.........No.....No
So FMF you must let this go because you are embarrassing yourself.
Eradicating murderers and rapists is not genocide.
Also eradicating persons who defend and support murderers and rapists is not genocide.
Its called justice.
Originally posted by DasaExtremists of all kinds exist around the world. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who would never kill as there are plenty who would.
FMF for the last time.
Islam is supporting and perpetrating murder and torture and rape and slavery and kidnapping etc.............on a global scale.
Can you deny this?????
There is nothing here about calling for genocide........but instead I am qualifying what genocide would look like.
And it would look like genocide if the people are innocent.
...[text shortened]... ing persons who defend and support murderers and rapists is not genocide.
Its called justice.
That said, your religion is just as false as all the others on Earth, having also been just made up by men with no input needed from ANY god.
ALL religions are false, including your own.
31 May 14
Originally posted by DasaWithout equivocation, I support the maximum efforts of crime fighters and the full force of the law being brought down upon murderers, rapists and torturers.
Are the murderers and rapists and torturers innocent?
Also eradicating persons who defend and support murderers and rapists is not genocide.
If, with the words "eradicating persons", you advocate capital punishment, then I do not agree.
31 May 14
Originally posted by DasaWhat about this bit from what you wrote on 19th December 2012...
There is nothing here about calling for genocide...
Force must be used and termination of all Muslims would be the rule. Muslims converting to other religions at the eleventh hour would not be accepted. Muslim children however would be spared because you can teach them truth and how to be civilized. Women would be allowed to prove themselves.
That's a call for genocide, Dasa.
31 May 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59"Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. The first part of Christian Bibles is the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible divided into thirty-nine books and ordered differently from the Hebrew Bible. The Catholic Church and Eastern Christian churches also hold certain deuterocanonical books and passages to be part of the Old Testament canon." [...] "The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, with the Protestant movement accepting only those books contained in the Hebrew Bible, while Catholics and Orthodox have wider canons." [wiki]
66 books?
where do you get that from?