good luck quoting certain lines, describing them in the most simplistic way possible and then claiming you understand the whole theory
also, having "theory" is not a bad thing if it is backed up by empirical science.
why would i need stats ont he amount of ppl that believe in souls?
on a cellular level, humans are something like 99% alike. i dont wanna dig out the argument.
also, you didnt answer my question asking where the hell you got the theory of "short term potentiation" from.
way to sidestep it.
saying we dont know how LTP works because we do not understand the totality of it is ridiculous
this is like claiming that we do not know how evolution works because we do not have every single piece of the puzzle.
also, i gave you the wikipedia article because iw anted to give you the general overview of the theory
obviously wikipedia is not a very credible source.
like i said before, you judge the theory without even doing your own research on it.
what i meant when i said you wouldnt understand the research is this: do you know how strong a correlation of .35 is? do you know what an alpha value is? how about a T-test or anova. until you understand the data that underlies the article, you can only undertsand the translation of the information that the author gives.
I feel like I am talking to a wall.
a piece of advice
being a teenager and arrogance do not mix while debating online
also, another question:
can you describe in your own words what long term potentiation is?
I don't claim to understand any of the information you've given me. I believe that theories are great, and I'm not saying that the ones you've presented are false, nor mine true. I wasn't being sarcastic when I commented on me not understanding the article, I was using it to show you that, like I said, it doesn't take a genius to see that it's a theory (not that there's anything wrong with that!) I was simply showing you "where the hell" I had gotten "the idea that it's a theory." Read my posts rather then skim them and find things to attack me on, and you'll see the thing I "Sidestepped."
'Unit 4 section 0: Mechanisms
"Long-term potentiation occurs through a variety of mechanisms throughout the nervous system; no single mechanism unites all of LTP's many types. However, for the purposes of study, LTP is commonly divided into three phases that occur sequentially: short-term potentiation, early LTP, and late LTP." We don't even know what happens for the first part (except in rabbits, maybe [Don't worry, we drugged them first.]) so we're not even going to try and explain. '
(phase 1 = STP, as the article states.)
Your evolution analogy isn't very good either. It's more like like saying "I don't know how the cookie was saved on my hard disk, because I don't know how the website put it there."
Again, I wasn't being sarcastic.
I feel like, normally, a wall wouldn't respond back
So being an adult and arrogant on line does work? Not in every case, I suspect. We'll see in five years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gathered that the synapses between nerve cells are, apparently, not strong enough to retain a memory. LTP is just the strengthening of the synaptic response. Any further then that, I don't know.
So let's make something clear, so I can quit responding to your attacks and you can go impose on someone else. I don't know if souls exist. I don't know how memories work. Maybe, if souls exist, they control some aspect of it, or at least contribute. My theory is just that: a theory. Your beliefs? Theories as well, no matter how more logical then mine. the only thing I wanted to get through to you by responding like this can be summed up very tightly in what I said in one of my responses to Ivy Bridge.
""When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding; even one word is too much."
The point of this thread isn't to find a specific answer so all of Sythe can be united under one theory as to whether or not a soul exists; it's to observe and kindly evaluate others' beliefs in a manner that points them towards another direction, to stretch them as an individual in their way of thinking. That's not to say we can just throw facts out there to discredit everyone else's beliefs and make you and your beliefs superior. You're very logical and all, but your mind is so shut off to a more spiritual view of things. Isn't it so frustrating when a Christian denies things and refuses to act logically and admit that maybe something isn't how they thought? Well you're frustrating to me, refusing to even say that "Maybe a soul exists. It's highly unlikely, but you never know." I mean really, I admit that maybe there's such thing as soul, maybe there isn't. Who freaking knows for sure? Can we agree on that, please, and leave it be?
P.s -Dingos and Dogs are very similar on a cellular level too, but one is much less likely to take your baby. Dogs obviously have souls. Just kidding, don't get upset now.
ig·no·rantAdjective/ˈignərənt/
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Given that I am basing a conclusion on evidence and logic, I fail to see how I am ignorant. I am more than willing to entertain an idea other than my own as long as it has some sort of ground to stand on. None, and I repeat - none, of your claims have been founded at all. You're essentially making a baseless claim and then backing it up with "Well there is no way to prove it, but this is how I feel" (i.e. when you went on your little rant about psychopaths not having souls). That is not a debate, at least not an intelligent one. Forgive the "contempt hidden under my my words", I don't appreciate ignorance, which is what believing in something that has no supporting evidence and quite a bit of counter-evidence would qualify as.
By the way, after reading through some of your posts above I noticed you seemed to think that something being a theory makes it irrelevant. Did you know the earth revolving around the sun is a theory? Did you know gravity is a theory? The concept of a theory does not in any way discredit the idea that it is based on. I would think you of all people could understand this seeing as earlier you went on a rant about "baseless claims not always being false". So you're able to accept that any crackpot can make a claim, without any supporting evidence, but yet when a theory that has observable or testable evidence - it's only a theory and shouldn't be treated as valid? So you pick and choose which things must be right based on some sort of fucked up logic system? Honestly, saying something like a soul exists while saying a scientific theory with supporting evidence is "teetery" makes you come off as an ignorant moron.
You make a fantastic debate here, and I see your reasoning. I believe you came off as ignorant because of the lack of your willingness to entertain a thought, no matter how unlikely. Having humility and taking the time to instead say "Well, that's pretty unlikely for this and this reason. I find that this solution would be much more likely because of this and this. That's not to say your thinking is wrong, just different then mine," indicates someone who is refined on more levels then just "Science says this, so until science says something else, this is what I believe." Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you have to be a prick to the person who believes it.. I was saying that it would be logical to deduce that psychopaths don't have souls, assuming that you believed that a soul is responsible for the traits that psychopaths lack. I for one don't know if the soul is responsible for those thing or not, so I can't say I believe psychopaths don't have souls, but it's definitely somewhat reasonable. A lot of things are reasonable though, so why do we seek an answer when it's yet to be found?
Theories being theories doesn't mean that the ideas they're based on aren't true. No one said that, if I implied it then I'm pretty hypocritical. If a crackpot wants to come and tell us what he thinks, then we can be nice to him and say "Hey, that's good thinking, but it seems that it just isn't very valid of an idea. For instance, blah blah blah." Rather then "Science said this, so you're wrong! Your thing you said, it's stupid!"
I have a serious question for you. How are we to treat Blazingfasstt's theory? I believe it to be very logical, sure. What difference does it make? How am I not "treating" the theory he provided as "valid?" I'm upset that y'all are so caught up in science. Just take a break, feel instead of think, then you can think about what you felt all you want.
Blazingfasstt's theory, by the way, was great. The only thing I would disagree with was his reasoning that humans are so similar that they want to feel unique. He took that and said that they're similar on a cellular level, when his theory was pertaining to something spiritual; a soul's existence. If people have souls then it's not going to change them on a cellular level.
I'm really sick of typing so much, can we be done? You can go ahead and continue in your ways if you want, because honestly it isn't a bad choice. A few problems you might encounter, though, are talking to people on a spiritual level. Try writing a paper on evidence you've found that discredits souls completely, and it's great for you. The problem is, it won't reach out to the ones who actually believe in souls. People are stubborn, and if you aren't willing to talk to them on their level then they won't talk on yours, either. Let's please not take this much further, this wasn't about debating, this was about letting people share their opinions.
