HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gbrown@Rosie.UH.EDU (G. Brown)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person         (was: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!))
Reply-To: gbrown@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:48:30 GMT

In article <RICHARD.92Nov9172845@cantor.harlqn.co.uk>, richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:
>In alt.atheism jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) wrote:
>
>> 2) Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy
>> all of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the
>> same person?  I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It
>> just wouldn't be me," w/o any justification.
>
>I have a friend who is doing neuroscientific research.  He once told
>me about chaotic behaviour observed in the olfactory lobe.  His claim
>was that the brain was using a strange attractor to somehow control
>perception.  I didn't take in much of what he said -- it was just a
>brief conversation about what he was working on.
>
>Anyway, if the brain were to make use of chaotic behaviour, or at
>least be influenced by chaotic functions, then it is unlikely that
>duplicating a person completely (setting aside quantum physics for the
>moment, *ahem*) would duplicate their behaviour.  Their chaotic nature
>would cause them to diverge unpredictably.
>
>I would be interested in any references to documents describing
>chaotic brain behaviour.  It would be even better if someone could
>explain and/or challenge this work in terms which I am likely to
>understand.

Check out the article by Walter J. Freeman, "The physiology of perception,"
in the February, 1991 issue of_Scientific American_.

>
>[Note the followup line -- edit it if you want to take this discussion
> elsewhere.]
>---
>richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
>RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
>Zen Buddhist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gregory Brown          |   "God is, as it were, the sewer into which       |
| Dept. of Philosophy    |           all contradictions flow"                |
| University of Houston  |                                                   |
| Houston, TX 77204-3785 |               --G. W. F. Hegel                    |
| GBROWN@JETSON.UH.EDU   |        Lectures on the History of Philosophy      |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Immortality
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 10:34:13 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Just so everyone knows, I sent a message to John McVey (The Eidolon)
 about his giant post problem and he told me...

>      ...I've already had *another* chat to my newsmanager
>(this has happened before) and he says he is looking into it.
[deletions]
>If it's not too much trouble, could you post saying that I am
>staying off the net again till I get this thing fixed?

>Sorry for the trouble *again*.

>See ya.

>John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
>Post any email unless I say no, in which case, no means NO!

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Asserting No Gods
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 03 Nov 92  12:47:48

Tag: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
ID: Mew_tsK00iUyQ8DAU=@andrew.cmu.edu
 
JMW> "I was just wondering how many people here assert that
JMW> there is no God. "
 
I hereby assert that there is no God. I also assert there is
no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, no pink,
invisible in-the-walls-prancing Unicorns, no Mutant Star
Goat (aka FidoNet's HOLYSMOKE echo), no Pregnant Virgins,
no Greys from space abducting humans, no Sons of Gods, no
Great Pumpkins, no Great Green Arkleseizure, no Psychics.
 
JMW> "I personally have said 'There is no God," (without proof)
JMW> while denouncing Christians for saying there was one (without
JMW> proof). Does this make me a hypocrite?"
 
No, just smarter than theists. Theists who posit the existance
of God bear the burden of proof. Others who posit the nonexistance
of God cannot prove God's non-existance (prove to me *I'm* -NOT-
God, for instance; or prove to me Greys -DON'T- abduct humans to
have clinical sex with).
 
"Then how can you say there is no God?!" the theist retorts. My
replay is, "How the bloody hell can you say there is, since you
have NO evidence for a God's existance?"
 
To answer my own question, I don't care if people think my
assertion of no God is "hypocritical." Does my assertion that
there is no Santa Claus make me thus? Easter Bunny? That's for
the theist to deal with.
 
To me, lack of evidence of any kind that shows God's existance
is in itself evidence AGAINST God's existance. Surely in 10,000
years there would be at least ONE proof of God, right? There
isn't even ONE.
 
JMW> If pressed on the issue, I do admit that I don't have all of
JMW> the answers, but that mine seem much more logical and reasonable
JMW> than the answers of the theists."
 
And you already know theists' reply to that. They claim THEY are
the logical, reasoning ones.
 
JMW> "I'd like to know what happened to the bologna guy who used to
JMW> post here. He sent me a note and said 'read my next post' which
JMW> never showed up. Did something happen to him? I mean, some
JMW> people here were pretty fed up with him!"
 
The guy who said "Why are you atheists? Did God -WRONG- you all in
some way!?" I believe you are refering to. Some people think that
atheists are "anti-God" and not people without a God.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person(was: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!))
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:44:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Nov9.222823.2219@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> I don't know how much info is really stored in DNA. I think the brain network
> (the actual neural data/combinations) would not be stored in DNA but in cells
> themseves. Otherwise the body could, concievably, repair some brain damage.
> It seems improbable to me, anyway, that the body would duplicate the brain's
> exact status in DNA.

Right. The genome does not contain enough information to specify the
architecture and connectivity of even just the visual system, let alone
the entire brain.

Such systems develop by self-organising in response to input and to internal
system noise, seemingly under the influence of learning rules (equations, if
you like) which are orders of magnitude simpler to specify -- presumably
genetically -- than are the structures (i.e. solutions to those equations)
which emerge.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:57:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.172654.7113@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> 
>  
>             TOP TEN REASONS TO KEEP BASHING ATHEISTS
>  
>  10.  The same techniques are also good for getting rid of bigots of
> 	any ilk.
>  
>   9.  Their religion tells them they should hate those outside their
> 	faith.
> 
>   8.  It's so amusing to watch their eyes pop out when they find out
>         you know more Scripture than they do.
>  
>   7.  Always a great line: I'd rather serve God.
>  
>   6.  Karl Marx is still dead, and Leningrad is back to St. Petersburg
> 
>  
>   5.  Good opportunity to practice finding logical fallacies.
>  
>   4.  Their tax-exempt organizations aren't helping our deficit problems.
> 
>   3.  You can learn what a "scoffer" is by asking them what they know
> 	about the Rapture.
> 
>   2.  If we keep making fun of them, maybe they'll just go away.
>  
>   1.  If you invite them into your home, you can make them wet their
>         pants by failing to line up with their deranged, bigoted
> 	stereotypes.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
>> Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.
>   ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
>> Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
> 
> 
> Steve Matheson      Program in Neuroscience      University of Arizona
> sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
I'm confused a bit by these "Top 10 Reasons"; The postulates seem o "fit"
theists, fundamentalists and others of the religious bent better then the
atheist aspects I've encountered here so far. I mean the "bigotry, intolerance"
etc seems to be marshalled on the Theist prospective?






Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Fundie Humor! (was Re: Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:52:33 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <1992Nov4.212732.4836@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi
Hausmann) wrote:
> *************************  JESUS IS LORD!  *************************
> 
> Q: Why did the atheist cross the road?
> A: So he could get to Hell faster!
> 
> Q: Why do Hillary and Bill Clinton only have one child?
> A: They sacrificed the others to Satan so he could get elected!
> 
> Q: How many communists does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: None!  They're all in jail!  <wait for laughter to subside> And
>      then, they're going to Hell!
> 
> A travelling secular humanist salesman has a flat tire and asks a
> Christian farmer if he can stay the night until he can call for help.
> The Christian tells him not to bother, because God won't help him!

Maddi, I appreciate your efforts, and once again I apologize for
my screw-up. However, creating satire is hard, and I must confess
that there's seldom I've encountered such stuff if the highest
quality. For instance Ben Elton (the writer behind BlackAdder)
is one of the few that have fine tuned this art.

Looking at the jokes above they look OK, however I would not state
that they are to the point. I wonder if one has to be a mad dog
in order to write satire, or appreciate burned bread and 
heart-attack grease for breakfast?

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 19:57:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.180308.4974@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.103120.20881@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Secondly, since we're talking mythology here, we have free reign to choose
>>whatever we want to worship.  It seems highly pathological to me to
>>give death such a prominent position in our mythology.  Why not celebrate
>>life rather than death?  But that's a bit off the topic as well.
>
>I think I'll respond anyway.
>
>Christians don't believe Christianity is mythology in the sense you mean--
>they don't believe it's a set of nice stories whose factual nature is
>irrelevant.

Oh.  Really?   :-)

>Christians give death prominence because Christianity claims
>that certain events involving a death are factual.  The prominence of death
>immediately follows from belief in this factual claim.

Not really.  After all, the big deal is suppose to be the part where
the fellow was resurrected and ascended into heaven.  It would be possible
to put more emphasis on that part of the tale, and gloss over the
nasty crucifixion part.
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:03:24 GMT

jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>
>>2. Assuming that the God is as represented in the Christian image and
>>such, then all the atheists lose.   Big time.
>
>... and go to Hell.  Bad time.

Assuming that there exists a God and that this God does not think
kindly of humans who have made up this outrageous religion called
"Christianity" around something which doesn't even make sense, then
all the Christians lose.  Big time.  Repent while you still can!

I'd think that if there were a god, and this god was responsible for
having given us the abilities of logic and reason, it only makes sense
that he would expect us to use them.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:57:10 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1d3nt2INN7m6@shrike.und.ac.za>, dace@shrike.und.ac.za
(Roy Dace) writes:

> : Capital punishment should be administered only if there is no doubt.
> IMHO, there is NEVER `no doubt'.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here. No
doubt the world has heard of the latest massacre here?

(it seems to me that gun murders here are like plane crashes,
you get hardly any, then all of a sudden, crazed gunmen are
knocking people in half dozen lots at a time...)

In this and a few other massacre cases here there was NO doubt
they did it, the police saw them do it, others saw them do it,
they confessed to doing it and one even came up and told them of
bodies the police didn't find! Now how can you say that there is
doubt in these cases?

However, I am still against the death penalty since the times
when there is no doubt are few and far between, innocents have
been killed for less. Even if the death penalty was introduced
they'd be so rare that they would have little to no effect in
reducing capital crimes. They would instead get life sentences,
where 'life' actually means they are in jail till proven innocent
or death of natural causes. I think it's the reduced time spent
in prison that's helping the crime rate go up, not the lack
of eye-for-an-eye justice.

For Mr Clark:
I think the group exists to protect the rights of the individuals
who make it up, so if an individual's rights are trampled on to
protect the majority, expect to see a large number of people trying
to leave the country. Witness the Soviet Union! An individual had
nearly no rights, all that mattered to them was the society as a
whole! As for the Spock scenario, Spock CHOSE to go in their; what
kind of reaction would you give if someone said
"HEY YOU, GET IN THERE SAVE US!" ?

  "The day we decide that the government is our brother's
   keeper, that day the spirit of compassion will be lost.
   If we abandon private charity, we will have lost something
   of [America's] material, moral, and spiritual wealth."
                          Herbert Hoover
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fool! There is no God!
Date: 5 Nov 1992 02:37:41 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <rex.720833929@cyclops>, rex@cyclops.itc.gu.edu.au writes:
> 
> (source of quotes - "Evidence that demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell.)
> 
> Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering
> in the University of London,....one of England's outsanding scientists...
> says of the New Testament documents:
> 
> "We must take this evidence of experts as to the age and
> authenticity of this writing, just as we take the facts of
> astronomy on the evidence of astronomers who do not
> contradict each other. This being so, we can ask ourselves
> whether it is probable that such book, describing events
> that occurred about thirty or forty years previously, could
> have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal
> events in it were false or mythical. It is impossible,
> because the memory of all elderly persons regarding events
> of thirty or forty years before is perfectly clear.  No one
> could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died
> thiry-one years ago, full of anecdotes which were quite
> untrue. They would be contradicted at once. They would
> certainly not be generally accepted and passed on as true.
> Hence there is a great improbability that the account of
> the resurrection given by Mark, is a pure invention.  This
> mythical theory has had to be abandoned becauseit will not
> bear close scrutiny ..."

As a matter of fact, people published books during Queen
Victoria's lifetime that contained very strange alleged
anecdotes.    One in particular had her carrying on an
affair with a gamekeeper, one John Brown.

And the fact of the matter is:  except for the Queen and
the gamekeeper, few people have the slightest idea whether
these anecdotes were true or not.   Not at the time, and
not now.

All we know is that these stories got written down, and
some people claim they are true, and some people claimed
they were not.


> 
> (There are many such quotes, but you'll have to read the
> book if you are interested :-)...) 

I have read the book, and I found that most of it contained
obvious fallacies such as the above.

That left me wordering if a tentative definition of a Biblical
literalist might be something like "Someone easily persuaded
by fallacious arguments".

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:15:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.204911.20068@news.acns.nwu.edu> ikonen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu  
(Ian Konen) writes:
> I was thinking about this last night, and since I don't think it's been
> discussed here, I figured I'd start a new thread.
> 
>     How reasonable is it to expect a person with almost no scientific  
knowledge
> to spontaneosly come up with the concept of god(s)?  Specifically the person  
in
> mind is the original person or people who first came up with religion.  Most
> of us atheists will assert that a child brought up without religious  
influence
> will naturally tend towards atheism, but in this case, the child would have  
at
> least a basic understanding of science.  For example, even if he couldn't 
> explain why lightening occurs, he would know it was electricity.  To a
> caveman, a god would be a very likely explanation for lightening.  But if the
> caveman had never even heard of the concept of god(s), how likely would it be
> for him to come up with it himself?  Obviously (to an atheist at least) it
> happened at least once, but how (un)lucky was it that it happened.  Did all
> religions then come from this one original (un)lucky guess, or is it actually
> a probable enough circumstance, that there are multiple original religions? 
> If we ever encounter another sentient race, is it probable that they will
> have a religion whether in history only, or still alive, or will the concept
> of religion be completely new to them?
> 
> 							Ian Konen

	Early in this century, the theory was that dreams gave rise to the idea  
of the human "soul".  Then man began saying that trees and animals and  
everything else had souls, too (Animism?).  Then, as power structures arose in  
human society, power structures arose in supernatural myths as well, giving  
rise to such things as a "king" of the gods.  Eventually, this "supergod"  
gradually replaced the others and became the focus of monotheistic religions.   
And then science arose as people realized that this god simply wasn't around.
	It was a beautiful little theory until the evidence was examined.  One  
thing this theory predicted was that the more primitive the societal structure  
(primitive not used in a negative sense, simply as a way of referring to where  
they are in this scheme of societal evolution.) the more "primitive" the  
religion would be.  Unfortunately, too many monotheistic primitive societies  
were found (such as the Karen of Burma and the Gedeo of Ethiopia (or is it  
Kenya?)) for the theory to stand.  The only place it is taught openly is the  
former Soviet Union, as the iron curtain went up before the theory went down.

					Erik Powers 
>
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Your Proof Of Satanic Crime
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 03 Nov 92  12:46:46

Tag: James Marcus (jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus))
ID: 1992Oct28.132254.164915@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
 
>>Many theists assume that a person who is an atheist know
>>nothing about their religion. This is very incorrect.
 
JM> "I agree that atheists can have a knowledge about
JM> Christianity, just the same way as Christians can
JM> have a knowledge about Islam, Hunduism, Buddhism,
JM> Satanism, New Age movement etc."
 
I have met exactly -ONE- Christian, out of thousands (met
face to face, or by reading their books, or by listening
to their radio shows, or watching them on the television)
who understood Satanism. All other Christians have no idea
what Satanism is, or what Satanists believe. It is my
opinion that Christians do not WANT to know, but would
rather be judgemental and castigate out of ignorance.
 
James, I am STILL waiting for the promissed proof that you
were going to send to me concerning "Satanic Crime" being
a reality. I am ALSO still waiting for your proof that
demons exist, and that they can possess other creatures
such as humans.
 
It's been over a month now. . . . Please PROVIDE said
evidence, or retract your assertion. You may reassert
once you produce the evidence that Satanists kill people,
but you are guilty of blood libel, and your behavior is
contrary to the scriptures you profess. To wit:
 
"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not
do anything which endangers your neighbor's life." (Lev.
19:15-16 NIV) And another: "Do not follow the crowd in doing
wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert
justice by siding with the crowd.... Have nothing to do with
a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to
death, for I will not acquit the guilty.... Do not oppress
an alien (someone not of your people); you yourselves know
how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt."
(Ex. 23:2-9 NIV) And if that's too hard, let's try one of the
Ten Commandments: "You shall not give false testimony against
your neighbor." (Ex. 20:16 NIV)
 
JM> "Yours in Christ"
 
Sodomy? No, thank you!

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism