HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Organization: just me
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 19:31:57 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic 

In article <1992Sep7.220009.16992@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
<stuff left out>
>That the brain has some function in transmitting information
>to the self is clear. That the answer, if it is found, to the mind-body
>problem is somehow centered on the brain is clear. That information processing
>can take place in purely physical systems is clear. That sentience can
>be reduced to information processing is an assumption. It is a widely held
>assumption, but an assumption just the same. Nevertheless, the scientific
>community accepts it with the same blind faith that has ever been attached
>to the most medieval dogmas.

No, sorry, it is actually argued quite often in the area of cognitive science
and associated philosophies.
>
>I am certainly aware that neurophysiological damage affects consciousness
>in fascinating ways. I do not see how this proves that consciousness is
>an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. I suppose you are aware
>of the "Chinese room" paradox. I find that argument compelling, and take it
>a bit further. I do not claim that chemistry or quantum mechanics is 
>somehow capable of a different type of information processing than silicon.
>I claim that sentience is something entirely distinct from information
>processing. I claim that it cannot be defined in a scientifically rigorous
>way, and hence its origin "in" the brain cannot be said to be demonstrated.

So why, then, would physical damage to the brain affect consciousness?  You
just stated a set of beliefs which should allow consciousness to arise without
a brain, just not dependent on complexity - ie, it could be anywhere.  But
we do not see consciousness in trees or rocks, and we do not see damage to
consciousness from a broken leg.  Only brain injuries do it.  The evidence is
against you.

You cannot assert that the answer to the mind-body problem lies in the brain,
and then deny any connection between the brain and the mind.  Unless you mean
to argue that there is no mind, because it is not in the brain?
>
>My suspicion that the phenomenon really has a determinant independent of
>physical reality goes against the grain of well-informed contemporary
>thinking, I know. My playing "deity's advocate" on the dualism question
>is a tentative opinion, but I find the assumption to the contrary quite
>disturbing, as the assumption is rarely even mentioned. Dennett, in 
>"Brainstorms" at least mentions the dualist hypothesis briefly, but in contrast 
>to his usual closely reasoned analysis, dismisses it by saying "I am not
>sympathetic to such an approach"! 

Because it would allow consciousness to arise anywhere, in anything, with
absolutely no susceptibility to test or inquiry, thus rendering his work
futile and useless.  No wonder he is "not sympathetic".

>mt

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "gary walsh" <gary.walsh@canrem.com>
Subject: maps of the chariotee
Reply-To: "gary walsh" <gary.walsh@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:56:31 EST

Subject: Maps of the Charioteers of the Gods

in message: <92Sep08.155232.32789#acs.ucalgary.ca>
edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca (John Edstrom) writes:

JE>Somebody was telling me recently that they saw a scientist on TV who
JE>claims that medieval cartographers had a map of Antarctica which
JE>showed the mountains and valleys under the ice which only deep-sensing
JE>radar has recently revealed.  The scientist, my source claims, was a
JE>geographer who had worked on the survey of Antarctica.

JE>This one is news to me.  It sounds odd to me that they could have a
JE>map of the south pole when they didn't know about north&south America,
JE>Australia, southern Africa and most of Asia and the Pacific ocean.


JE>Anybody know anything about it?

The "Oronteus Finaeus" World Map, drawn in 1531 and published in
Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Charles H. Hapgood, Turnstone Books
1977.  Also in The Other Atlantis by Robert Scrutton, Sphere Books,
from which I got this reference.  It shows South America and Africa, 
as well as Antarctica with mountains and the shape of the coastline
though it was under ice at the time. The maps of Mercator and
Pir Re'is also show it.  These maps were apparently copied from
earlier maps.

          gary.walsh@canrem.com  |  Written in East York, Ontario.
          GEnie:G.WALSH7         |  Posted on Canada Remote Systems BBS.

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #5606 + I am parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Megabrain (Was: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:07:46 GMT

In article <8310.17274@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
|> The following is a file describing the megabrain company which
|> manufactures and distributes various light and sound machines
|> for entertainment (TM) and relaxation....I make no claims except
|> that it works for me andregardless of your opinions or comments,
|> it still works and is not an imagined effect. YOU DECIDE! ;^)

Far be it from me to say that this stuff doesn't "work" for you.
It is clear that you have no idea exactly what or how this stuff is
doing to you, but it makes you happy, so everything's fine.  And
it even appears to come with a conspiracy theory, at no extra
charge.  Cool!

|> Sound far-fetched? Well, both the brain machines and the
Yes.
|> cognitive enhancement compounds already exist. Megabrain
|> described a variety of devices that show evidence of enhancing
|> cognition (for a summary of several recent studies suggesting that
|> CES devices can have clear cognition-boosting effects see the
|> "Research Update" elsewhere in this issue); 
Ahem.  You seem to have left out the "Research Update", which is
the only part I'm really very interested in.  The rest is just
hype.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:04:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <14865@mindlink.bc.ca>, Greg_Goss@mindlink.bc.ca (Greg Goss) writes...
> 
>In a mechanized society, left-handed people tend to die earlier.  Equipment is
>generally not designed for them, and as designs get more intricate, things get
>more awkward.
>..../greg

This statement is entirely unsupported by any scientific evidence.  There
was a single poorly done study of a limited set of data from one city which
hit the popular press about a year ago (and which has been discussed here
recently), which has basically been dismissed by the experts.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,comp.ai.philosophy
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:11:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>That reminds me of once noticing that the English lexicon of verbs is
>asymmetrical with respect to winning contests of bloody force.  You
>can say in only three words that "Boston clobbered Philadelphia" or
>"Martina defeated Chris".  But you cannot say "Chris (lost to)
>Martina" in three words with Chris occupying the subject-case-slot.
>This seems to show that there is a sinister psychological bias
>concealed in the very lexicon (not grammar) of the language!  Winning
>a contest is an "action" (that is, has an actual verb) on the part of
>the subject of the sentence, whereas losing a contest cannot be
>expressed as an action.  As though to win is to one's credit, whereas
>when you lose, it is the act of someone else and not your own.

We have the single word "lightbulb", but a fluorescent light has to be
referred to with two words: "fluorescent light".  I think this obviously
means that there is a clear bias against using fluorescent lights in the
very language, since we must use two words to describe them.  Not.

I'm not a linguist, and don't know what the proper term to use is, but I would
claim that "lost to" is mostly treated in the human mind as a single unit,
just like "defeat", even though when written on paper it happens to have a
space in the middle.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:48:13 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep8.210930.25337@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
|  All the former implies is that someone, for
|some reason, may have taken the time and effort to imbed these seven-fold
|things into the text.  Considering that numerology has been around for quite
|some time and that the number 7 is important to Judaism, it's not very
|surprising to find something like this.

In fact, if the text used was indeed the Masoretic text, as suggested in one
posting, this becomes much more likely.  That form of the text did not
exist until after the beginning of the Christian Era, and the numerological
importance of 7 at that time is well established in extant literature
(such as what is usually called Revelation).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: michel@netcom.com (Steve Michel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witlesses (Re: Logic and God )
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:15:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) writes:


>I'm not jewish, but I always tell Jehova's Witnesses that I am.
>It works like a charm.  You see, they believe that all jews are 
>damned to hell, and cannot possibly be saved.  So, they don't
>waste their time trying to save you  ;-)

I always tell 'em I'm Catholic. That stops them too.

Steve
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:18:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:42:56 EDT, Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier) said:
: 
: Marc>     Today's religious and philosophically enclined theologians
: Marc> will probably push the soul into the realms of the unattainable
: Marc> world. A obvious and logical choice. The last resort. Just as
: Marc> God has been pushed from beyond the far hills, to the depths of
: Marc> oceans to the end of the universe, so has the soul gone from the
: Marc> heart to the blood, to the brain, and the pineal gland.  Now it
: Marc> has nowhere to go. It does not exist. Another addition to the
: Marc> list of unproven objects that have to be "believed" in.
: 
: If the soul is a material entity, this is true.  If the soul is
: non-material, it is false.  Furthermore, the idea that the soul
: started out in a physical realm is a faulty premise; Genesis 2:7 is
: quite clear on that point.
: 
: Marc>     Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including...
: Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond.
: 
: If we have no souls, we don't need God.  Since we do have souls, the
: argument is moot.  1 Corinthians 15:35-50 discusses this at length.

Complex systems exhibit emergent properties which are consistent with the
principles governing the behavior of their subsystems but are not themselves
properties of those subsystems. Examples are the second law of thermodynamics,
evolution, the gas laws, and, I believe, life, awareness, self-awareness,
consciousness.

Soul is a good term for those properties that humans share with other known
organisms to a very small extent, if any. The soul doesn't exist in the
absence of the physical organism but it does exist as an emergent property
of the healthy human organism.

Some people meet some of their existential needs through a belief in God.
Others do not. These practices do not prove or disprove the existence of God.
-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:44:18 GMT

In article <716410227.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
}Monday September 07 1992, Bruce Watson writes to All:
}
}BW> My father believed that it was possible for a civilization to have
}BW> formed prospered and died out before ours, say between 2 billion and 3
}BW> billion years ago. With continental drift all evidence could have been
}BW> ground out to a smear. Why is South Africa so rich in gold? Could it
}BW> have been a 2 billion year old Fort Knox?
}
}I don't think the fossil record has any creatures that could have had a
}civilisation dating from that time.

In a heeChee (sp) series there was a REAL old interstellar traveller
who remembered this planet and the slow, philosophical civilization that
was wiped out by the atmospheric pollution from pond scum.

Yeah, they were anaerobic...

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:27:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep6.192049.22969@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes...
> 
>>Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?
> 
>Yes.  Penecillin does NOT cure polio, and can in fact cause harm if one were to
>try to use it to cure polio.  Polio is caused by a virus.  Antibiotics do NOT
>cure viral infections.

OOPS.  Make that Penecillin cures syphillis, right?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
From: flar@iastate.edu (Bradley M Armitage)
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:24:38 GMT

In <mjenkins.715976558@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>In <1XX666XX@defect.kgb.su> lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:

>>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

>Lee! Good to hear from you again!

>So...how's Elvis?

Oh, pllllEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! :)
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:58:08 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 2 Sep 92 00:34:59 GMT, jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu (James H. Kiley) said:

> Ohhhh, posts like this drive me nuts.
> The bible wasn't written in English originally, you fool.  Vowel/consonant
> ratios will *not* be the same in, say, Hebrew.

Ah, but God intended it to be translated into English.

Of course, it would help if there were only one translation...

--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:14:31 EDT
From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV Zaps Dan Quayle on Brinkley Sunday

In article <1992Sep15.132107.18328@dorsai.com>, idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff
Harrington) says:
>
>

Oh well, it looks like nEW WORlD OrDER Psychic Usenet has zapped IdEAL
ORDER Psychic TV once again...
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Moral Victory?
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:35:40 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


I was in a bookstore today and found on the discount table a Whitley
Streiber book for 99 cents, and also a couple of Seth books.
Moral defeat: there was also a book by a reputable scientist
at 99 cents.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16236 talk.origins:11151
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)REGISTER
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:59:53 +0200
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
>> 
>>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>>David Utidjian
> 
> That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
> 
> (1) The Earth is round.
> (2) Atoms have nuclei.
> (3) Prolonged exposure to intense nuclear radiation is harmful to your health.
> (4) Blood circulates through the body, passing from arteries to viens through
> small passages too small to see with the naked eye.
> (5) The brain is the seat of thought.
> (6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.
> 
> Which of these theories would you say are not yet proven beyond any 
> possible infinitesmal shread of a doubt?
> 
> -Scott

Well, lets start with (1). The Earth is NOT round, its more oval. Due to its
rotation the circumference around the equator is greater than that around the
poles. :-)
           
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Day After July 3, 1992
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:36:59 GMT

In article <zzsncfm@lynx.unm.edu>, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.152124.5636@ncsu.edu> John_-_Marlboro@vax.ncsu.edu writes:
>>
>>The National Examiner ranks among the least credible of the tabloids,
>>which are in themselves the least credible sources.
>>
>
>You mean that we can't believe everything in the _National_ _Examiner_?  
>I thought that everything that was printed was true.  Afterall, why 
>waste ink and paper on lies?
>
>
>NOTE:  Read this several times before you trigger the flame thrower.  I
>am not for real.  I'm an illusion.

Now, wait a minute.  Not *ALL* tabloids have near-zero credibility.  The
factoids found in _The_California_Tech_ and, I imagine, a great many other
college newspapers published in tabloid format usually bear at least a passing
resemblence to the actual facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls 
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:10:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.201326.12560@srg.srg.af.mil> akerson@deimos.srg.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) writes:
>
>
>
>mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>
>>> Prejudice against evangelicals is, after all, prejudice.
>
>Ahh, remember the roots (latin) of pre-judice; it means judging ahead of time.
>if I told you that someone was a child-molester or a National Socialist,
>would you feel justified in assuming them to be reasonable people, 
>at least before you met them ?
>
>Seems to me that evangelicals and National Socialists both think they
>have the right to tell me what to think.

Ahh, but you think that no one should tell someone what to think, and they
think that they have a duty to tell you what to think.  Therefore, you
believe that all people should think as you, right? :)

Seriously though, we all hold some beliefs that we believe should be shared
by everyone.  Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick in judging someone because
the beliefs they wish to share are different or alien to us.  This does not
mean that we accept them though.  After all, that is our choice.

>--
>Usually Reply-to: akerson%srg@uunet.uucp


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
From: kroth@david.wheaton.edu (Ken Roth)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:07:39 GMT

In article <ARA.92Sep9025434@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>You can always look at Biblical Archaeological Review. It is not highly
>regarded among archaeologists, I'm told, having roughly the status of
>the National Enquirer, but it does keep up on stuff like the dead sea
>scrolls, the Ebla tablets, etc.

Yes, you can always look in BAR.

But, about your second statement, I am somewhat confused.  Every once in
awhile they do have joke articles (like the one about Hell being located below
Siberia) but on the whole they give very good scholarship.  Perhaps you are
thinking of Biblical Archaeologist?  I know that MOST archaeologists I know
(and they are many) read it.  Of course, if you talk to one who dislikes 
Evangelicals, you will get the same view.  Of course, this is not to say that
BAR is the BEST magazine out there (it ain't), but it is a valid resource.

>Allan Adler
>ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu


Ken Roth
(Not meaning to be belligerant, just giving a viewpoint...)
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
kroth@wheaton.uucp | uunet!tellab5!wheaton!kroth || They call me Gryfalia   
"We believe, we believe, 'cause we felt it burning in our hearts"--77's
"He is no fool who loses what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."