SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You think visions split into hearing and taste or something like gluconazing split into vision and hearing and taste? What do you get when you combine hearing and taste? Then add in some vision?

If the different senses are like branches on a tree with one undifferentiated/more abstract trunk, then they do not mix/split at the level of the branches.

For example, the more abstract level may be math or language, and the different senses represent this differently. Abstract concepts like 1/0 may be black/white, noise/silence, etc. Look up ideasthesia.

Why do you think they are branches on a tree?

Thats how nature works, as indicated by the tree analogy. There is also the tree of life in biology. Also, what is more plausible, that consciousness evolved seperately for each type of experiece? Suppose we have 21 different senses, did C evolve 21 times? Also, what counts as a different "type"? The same claim that "hearing is different from vision!", can just aswell be said about "red is different from blue!", or "the sound of rain is different from that of thunder!". We like to classify things into many different types and then believe they are totally unrelated, but physical reality doesnt work like that, and consciousness neither. I think the different senses are related in the same manner as the seeing of different colors, only on a higher level of abstraction, closer to the treetrunk. It is the way how other phenomena in nature work, it means consciousness didnt evolve seperately for each type of experience, it means it was integrated from the start and there was no magic backwards integration and all the problems that would give.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

kennyc wrote:

felltoearth wrote:How integrated are your fingers and toes? Did they develop separately or as one. Are babies born with fingers and toes as one or are they separate? Enquiring minds want to know.

They start as a single cell......

Exactly. The idea of a unified whole is a red herring sold by woo mongers.

Well... There is a whole huge part of our brain devoted to tying them together. But then if they were unified in the first place that wouldn't be needed. Like I said, they each have their own well marked out countries in the thalamus.

A human has two arms and two legs. According to you one arm evolved first, then another arm, then one leg, then another leg, and then evolution later integrated them with a torso. Oh and a head evolved later, and was then also integrated

Pl0bs is a guy that walks around with no input and then gets an Idea. He then mistakes it for a golden nugget and runs over here and starts a thread. The Idea can only remain if he shuts off any external input. It's more a wisp of fog than a nugget.

You chaps disagree with me just for the sake of it. If i said earth is round, you guys would say its flat. Thats basically why you get debunked again, and again, and again (and again just now). Am i a genius? Maybe, maybe not . But its all just so simple if you look at things rationally.

An amusing child-style wrestling match/mud pie contest going on here. Seems to be about whether the Greeks were right when they imagined that evolution consisted of various appendages springing into being spontaneously, and then gradually coming together until the creatures we recognize today were born. Guess not, huh.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You think visions split into hearing and taste or something like gluconazing split into vision and hearing and taste? What do you get when you combine hearing and taste? Then add in some vision?

If the different senses are like branches on a tree with one undifferentiated/more abstract trunk, then they do not mix/split at the level of the branches.

For example, the more abstract level may be math or language, and the different senses represent this differently. Abstract concepts like 1/0 may be black/white, noise/silence, etc. Look up ideasthesia.

Why do you think they are branches on a tree?

Thats how nature works, as indicated by the tree analogy. There is also the tree of life in biology. Also, what is more plausible, that consciousness evolved seperately for each type of experiece? Suppose we have 21 different senses, did C evolve 21 times? Also, what counts as a different "type"? The same claim that "hearing is different from vision!", can just aswell be said about "red is different from blue!", or "the sound of rain is different from that of thunder!". We like to classify things into many different types and then believe they are totally unrelated, but physical reality doesnt work like that, and consciousness neither. I think the different senses are related in the same manner as the seeing of different colors, only on a higher level of abstraction, closer to the treetrunk. It is the way how other phenomena in nature work, it means consciousness didnt evolve seperately for each type of experience, it means it was integrated from the start and there was no magic backwards integration and all the problems that would give.

Read the book I told you to. Recognise your mistake. Then turn around and fuck yourself in the face.

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:If the different senses are like branches on a tree with one undifferentiated/more abstract trunk, then they do not mix/split at the level of the branches.

For example, the more abstract level may be math or language, and the different senses represent this differently. Abstract concepts like 1/0 may be black/white, noise/silence, etc. Look up ideasthesia.

Why do you think they are branches on a tree?

Thats how nature works, as indicated by the tree analogy. There is also the tree of life in biology. Also, what is more plausible, that consciousness evolved seperately for each type of experiece? Suppose we have 21 different senses, did C evolve 21 times? Also, what counts as a different "type"? The same claim that "hearing is different from vision!", can just aswell be said about "red is different from blue!", or "the sound of rain is different from that of thunder!". We like to classify things into many different types and then believe they are totally unrelated, but physical reality doesnt work like that, and consciousness neither. I think the different senses are related in the same manner as the seeing of different colors, only on a higher level of abstraction, closer to the treetrunk. It is the way how other phenomena in nature work, it means consciousness didnt evolve seperately for each type of experience, it means it was integrated from the start and there was no magic backwards integration and all the problems that would give.

Read the book I told you to. Recognise your mistake. Then turn around and fuck yourself in the face.

I just read it. Turns out im right and youre wrong. Pwned.

pl0bs wrote:A human has two arms and two legs. According to you one arm evolved first, then another arm, then one leg, then another leg, and then evolution later integrated them with a torso. Oh and a head evolved later, and was then also integrated

This reminds me of Potholer's video on explaining to Creationists why their jokes aren't funny.

pl0bs wrote:You chaps disagree with me just for the sake of it. If i said earth is round, you guys would say its flat. Thats basically why you get debunked again, and again, and again (and again just now). Am i a genius? Maybe, maybe not . But its all just so simple if you look at things rationally.

The Earth isn't round.

When you think you debunk someone, it's because you quite seriously have no working comprehension of the topics you're talking about. Even when people try to talk down to your level of understanding - which is an onerous task - you're so disinterested in understanding facts, and so interested in these ridiculous streams of inanity, that you can't even monetarily perceive why you're so badly not even wrong.

But yeah, you're a genius! A+! Gold Star! Last Place Winner! 28th number one!

Spearthrower wrote:

pl0bs wrote:A human has two arms and two legs. According to you one arm evolved first, then another arm, then one leg, then another leg, and then evolution later integrated them with a torso. Oh and a head evolved later, and was then also integrated

This reminds me of Potholer's video on explaining to Creationists why their jokes aren't funny.

[youtube]rubbish[/youtube]

pl0bs wrote:You chaps disagree with me just for the sake of it. If i said earth is round, you guys would say its flat. Thats basically why you get debunked again, and again, and again (and again just now). Am i a genius? Maybe, maybe not . But its all just so simple if you look at things rationally.

The Earth isn't round.

When you think you debunk someone, it's because you quite seriously have no working comprehension of the topics you're talking about. Even when people try to talk down to your level of understanding - which is an onerous task - you're so disinterested in understanding facts, and so interested in these ridiculous streams of inanity, that you can't even monetarily perceive why you're so badly not even wrong.

But yeah, you're a genius! A+! Gold Star! Last Place Winner! 28th number one!

As i predicted, you disagreed with me just for the sake of it, even denying the earth is round.

pl0bs wrote:As i predicted, you disagreed with me just for the sake of it, even denying the earth is round.

Actually, pl0bs, as you and I have never had a conversation on this board - ever.... your 'prediction' that 'you chaps' disagree because of fantastical nonsense cannot possibly be said to have included me.

Unless, by 'you chaps' you mean the rest of the human race. In which case, you might be onto something.

The Earth is not round. Go read a remedial science book immediately. Isaac Newton figured this out hundreds of years ago.

Don't worry - even not having the first clue about anything you turn your fingers to, you're still 45th Number One!! Go you!

Careful, he might wield an antiquated internet term at you.

Spearthrower wrote:

pl0bs wrote:As i predicted, you disagreed with me just for the sake of it, even denying the earth is round.

Actually, pl0bs, as you and I have never had a conversation on this board - ever.... your 'prediction' that 'you chaps' disagree because of fantastical nonsense cannot possibly be said to have included me.

Unless, by 'you chaps' you mean the rest of the human race. In which case, you might be onto something.

The Earth is not round. Go read a remedial science book immediately. Isaac Newton figured this out hundreds of years ago.

Don't worry - even not having the first clue about anything you turn your fingers to, you're still 45th Number One!! Go you!

You probably misread me and thought i said the earth is "perfectly round", pwned.

I dont remember who i had conversations with here, this place is just one giant barrage of irrationality. Some materialists think they got it figured out, then i demonstrate they are religion 2.0. And then the next few come along, etc. Btw i just checked and we have had conversations, pwned once again.

pl0bs wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pl0bs wrote:As i predicted, you disagreed with me just for the sake of it, even denying the earth is round.

Actually, pl0bs, as you and I have never had a conversation on this board - ever.... your 'prediction' that 'you chaps' disagree because of fantastical nonsense cannot possibly be said to have included me.

Unless, by 'you chaps' you mean the rest of the human race. In which case, you might be onto something.

The Earth is not round. Go read a remedial science book immediately. Isaac Newton figured this out hundreds of years ago.

Don't worry - even not having the first clue about anything you turn your fingers to, you're still 45th Number One!! Go you!

You probably misread me and thought i said the earth is "perfectly round", pwned.

No, you said it was round, which it isn't.

Ahh there's the outdated internet reference SafeAsMilk predicted! I thought it was only common amongst teenagers anyway?

I also fear you may be wielding it inappropriately. But nevermind, still last place winner, pl0bs. You're unstoppable!

pl0bs wrote:I dont remember who i had conversations with here, this place is just one giant barrage of irrationality.

Says the chap who knows bugger all about anything and tries to get people to engage with absolute nonsense while refusing to listen to knowledgeable critiques about his 'thinking'. You need to yank harder, pl0bs.

pl0bs wrote:Some materialists think they got it figured out, then i demonstrate they are religion 2.0. And then the next few come along, etc.

What a sad story you paint.

pl0bs wrote:Btw i just checked and we have had conversations, pwned once again.

I certainly don't recall them - I've seen plenty of your threads, but it's the usual formula of making up nonsense, then rebutting sober replies with even more extravagant nonsense. But if we have 'had a conversation' then I'm afraid I've forgotten it. Regardless, you still couldn't have been talking about me with your 'you chaps' unless you were literally pointing it at the entire forum. If you consider yourself superior to everyone in this forum, then it does explain why you're so happy being last place winner. I believe an appropriate term you might understand is gg no re

Spearthrower wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pl0bs wrote:As i predicted, you disagreed with me just for the sake of it, even denying the earth is round.

Actually, pl0bs, as you and I have never had a conversation on this board - ever.... your 'prediction' that 'you chaps' disagree because of fantastical nonsense cannot possibly be said to have included me.

Unless, by 'you chaps' you mean the rest of the human race. In which case, you might be onto something.

The Earth is not round. Go read a remedial science book immediately. Isaac Newton figured this out hundreds of years ago.

Don't worry - even not having the first clue about anything you turn your fingers to, you're still 45th Number One!! Go you!

You probably misread me and thought i said the earth is "perfectly round", pwned.

No, you said it was round, which it isn't.

Ahh there's the outdated internet reference SafeAsMilk predicted! I thought it was only common amongst teenagers anyway?

I also fear you may be wielding it inappropriately. But nevermind, still last place winner, pl0bs. You're unstoppable!

pl0bs wrote:I dont remember who i had conversations with here, this place is just one giant barrage of irrationality.

Says the chap who knows bugger all about anything and tries to get people to engage with absolute nonsense while refusing to listen to knowledgeable critiques about his 'thinking'. You need to yank harder, pl0bs.

pl0bs wrote:Some materialists think they got it figured out, then i demonstrate they are religion 2.0. And then the next few come along, etc.

What a sad story you paint.

pl0bs wrote:Btw i just checked and we have had conversations, pwned once again.

I certainly don't recall them - I've seen plenty of your threads, but it's the usual formula of making up nonsense, then rebutting sober replies with even more extravagant nonsense. But if we have 'had a conversation' then I'm afraid I've forgotten it. Regardless, you still couldn't have been talking about me with your 'you chaps' unless you were literally pointing it at the entire forum. If you consider yourself superior to everyone in this forum, then it does explain why you're so happy being last place winner. I believe an appropriate term you might understand is gg no re

Wow you really took your time to reply to me. This just further proves how much i debunked you (because you are trying to save face).

And: earth is round. Pwned.

FFS, eyes are made of eye particles, and vision is due to sight waves interacting with the eye particles. It's all just variations in fundamental forces, particles & spacetime

Ah, and the earth is sort of ovoid, a largely spherical object on the macro scale. Round is not the same as spherical

pl0bs wrote:Wow you really took your time to reply to me. This just further proves how much i debunked you (because you are trying to save face).

You haven't debunked anything, pl0bs - even if your own fictional narrative, you've not countered anything I've said.

pl0bs wrote:And: earth is round. Pwned.

It's like an intellectual version of the Special Olympics!

Spheres and roundness:

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

pl0bs wrote:Spheres and roundness:

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

We know what a sphere is, and we know what round means.

Dictionaries won't help you - go look up the shape of the Earth.

Spearthrower wrote:We know what a sphere is, and we know what round mea<snap>

Clearly you dont. I dont blame you, its an understandable mistake. Somewhere in first grade you probably dozed off and missed the parts where basic shapes and language are taught. It all went downhill from there, and now you are here, the earth is flat and evolution is wrong.

For note (And I fear I may get involved in another pl0bs thread {shivers})Basic senses are nothing but a collection of neurons. Imagine 2 loops one on the left and right of an organism. Each has a neuron activating itself. At rest there is no difference. Now imagine for example they control the muscles on either side of the body. Every pulse causes a contraction. The animal now moves roughly strait forward always. Now add a new neuron on either side that is sensitive to touch. When it senses pressure it starts pulsing causing the loop on that side to pulse more. that side of the animal turns to the stimulus. Now imagine one more on on each side that pulses just like the last one but has a higher threshold before it does and it hooked up to the other side of the animal. When activated the animal will move away from the stimulus.

That the sense of touch and the pain/food response. From there replace touch with other neurons sensitive to chemicals and light and you have basic sight and smell/taste. Hearing is really just a specialized sense of touch.

So there's your answer pl0bs. Our sense didn't spring out of one or start separate. They probably are evolutionarily descended from one and other with touch as a likely first sense.

lucek wrote:Our sense didn't spring out of one or start separate. They probably are evolutionarily descended from one and other with touch as a likely first sense.

Sounds like option B.

pl0bs wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:We know what a sphere is, and we know what round mea<snap>

Clearly you dont. I dont blame you, its an understandable mistake. Somewhere in first grade you probably dozed off and missed the parts where basic shapes and language are taught. It all went downhill from there, and now you are here, the earth is flat and evolution is wrong.

Clearly I do, because the Earth isn't round as you undoubtedly already know by now having scampered off to ask Google.

As for snoozing through classes, pl0bs - the lady doth project too much, methinks.

You're clearly one of the most challenged people ever to grace this board with respect to having a decent general education. This is why you keep making such elementary mistakes and having to be corrected by people much more knowledgeable than you. The resistance is illusory superiority.