Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 4, 2011 at 10:20pm

Once again who did it get there and why?

Permalink Reply by Frank Hamilton on August 7, 2011 at 12:19pm

Micheal, you sound like Bill O'Reilly, "Tide comes in, tide goes out". There is no "who".

Permalink Reply by Frank Hamilton on August 7, 2011 at 12:24pm

Agreed. The dogma that occludes thought processes may cause a change in the brain and this turns into a robotic defense of a position without questioning its validity. As a FreeThinker, I believe the brain to be fluid, examining new ideas constantly,
always testing and experimenting and when the brain reaches a crystallized status where no new information is even acknowledged, then there may be a physiological impairment that needs to be addressed.

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on August 3, 2011 at 9:23pm

Maybe it is the other way around Michael? Maybe your god is an emulation of human conscience and the law of the land. Have you even considered that?

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 3, 2011 at 10:59pm

The operative here is still a conscience of which I contend is created by God. Animals do not evolve a conscience in a survival of the fittest scheme. This is a perplexing enigma among many social scientist. 

 

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on August 3, 2011 at 11:18pm

Michael, how long did you "consider" matt.clerke's statement before you typed that?

Permalink Reply by Denis Robert on August 5, 2011 at 9:11am

You can repeat the same thing over and over again as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. 

 

There is no enigma in the existence of "conscience" in humans, since no one has yet been able to define the word in such a way that would allow us to determine whether or not it exists in animals. If you define (i.e. posit by definition) "conscience" as necessarily human, you should not be surprised then that it is necessarily human. In order to claim that "conscience" does not exist in animals, you have to devise a test for that claim; and you can't test for something you can't define.

 

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 5, 2011 at 7:11pm

I have attached an article that has a premise, that dogs have a form of  conscientiousness as I have stated in another reply. However it is more of a spontaneous reaction as oppose to an abstract presence in the frontal lobes of man that continually smolders.

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on August 7, 2011 at 12:53pm

Pure gobbldygook.  Where on earth do you find this un-scientific rubbish?

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on August 7, 2011 at 1:06pm

Wow someone managed to isolate conscience from every other thought that fires neurons in the frontal lobe?

You should make sure the rest of the world knows this thats Nobel Prize material.

Permalink Reply by Frank Hamilton on August 7, 2011 at 12:25pm

This is a robotic response that has no fact to back it up.

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on August 7, 2011 at 12:58pm

As a social scientist I have no knowledge of the "perplexing enigma" that is supposed to stump me. I don't even understand what you mean.  What do you think "survival of the fittest" means?  And how on earth does it relate to the development of the "conscience" (whatever you mean by that) or of other factors that assist group cohesion? 

 

Please define your terms clearly and provide reference to back up your assertions and your claims.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• …
• 80
• Next ›
• Page