Re: The Road with no Branches argument

From: Albert (alwagner_at_tcac.net)
Date: 11/11/04 

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:59:11 -0600

Milan wrote:
<snip>
> You have a bothersome tendency to wriggle unashamedly, move the goalposts
> constantly, and avoid the questions that you cannot answer (which are about
> 90% of the total). With this approach any sort of discussion becomes rather
> frustrating.

Pot calling the kettle black.

>
> Along and across your evasive posts you've made the point that quantum
> indeterminacy is to be observed widely. You made the unsupported assertion
> that the brain is a quantum amplifier -why? because according to you, well,
> er, it must be, mustn it? I asked why not the liver. You said that no,
> well, not the liver, because, well, it is not, and that's it, because I say
> so. I am interested in this peculiar property of the brain which, according
> to your august opinion other organs seem not to display .

All other organs in the body consist of tissue wherein all cells
essentially perform the same function. Huge chunks of liver and
gut can be removed with no effect on the body; But no so with
the brain. Within the brain, each cell has profound effects on
the functioning of the whole. Livers don't think. Guts don't think.

> I then presented you with another system: the GI tract. You seem to
> consider the GI tract not worthy of your attention, and to think that any
> reference to this tissue reflects an infantile obsession with feces. I
> guess that gastroenterologists, according to you, must be infantile
> individuals obsessed with feces.

Gastroenterologists don't try to use the gut to refute a
statement about the brain. Whereas you see production of feces
as somehow directly relevant to brain function. I see you are
*still* preoccupied that lame argument. Perhaps in your case it
is true. Perhaps that is why you might be properly called
***-for-brains.

> I am not going to say that your statement
> indicates that you are obviously a prudish imbecile. I am not going to say
> it because I dont tend to use this language and it wouldnt be proper.
> However, as the thread has taken to discuss quantum indeterminacy, and you
> have repeatedly said that this is displayed by all kinds of things, noble
> and ignoble, philosophically interesting and philosophically irrelevant, I
> would like to repeat my question. Do you think that the GI tract displays
> quantum indeterminacy in its behaviour?

No. That was *your* red herring. 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the 
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally 
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
     -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Quantcast