We pay while Indians live in luxury

Wild Bill · May 24, 2008

You have a valid point. its calleed the "new" reality, based upon revisionism and fantasy. Totally devoid of fact and proven knowledge.

I guess the natives never had their Aristotle...

I suggest we pay the Indian Affairs Budget with an imaginary cheque.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 24, 2008

I suggest that we simply stop funding the department. However that may cause other problems.

charter.rights · May 24, 2008

I suggest that we simply stop funding the department. However that may cause other problems.

Ya lots of problems. It would put about 30,000 Canadians out of work. Although it would free up another $5 billion that could be put towards real Native issues. But then again the way the government operates they would need a brand new department to manage it.

WIP · May 24, 2008

Actually that is wrong. Religion is peer reviewed, probably much more than scientific information. The Bible is studied extensively by scholars, discussed among ministers and lay people. Storytelling is peer reviewed also. That's how we have developed history and eye-witness accounts in court. IN the latter case the testimony is scrutinized by a judge or jury and weight of its reliability is determined.

Angus already pointed out how ridiculous it is to assert that religion has an equal peer review process with science, so there's not much I can add except for a wise quote I heard some years ago that goes something like: you are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own truth! If everyone ran around with these idiotic relativistic attitudes, nobody would be able to agree on anything!

The "peer review" process of religion that you're talking about is not scientific peer review process.

If the "peers" are a panel of creationists writing for the Discovery Institute, their conclusions are biased from the outset, because the purpose of their organization is to find anything and everything to that can be used to bolster a claim that there is evidence of supernatural intervention in the process of evolution.

If the peers are fellows of some southern bible institute that insists that all members agree that the bible is the inerrant word of God, their arguments are equally biased.

The only religious peer review process that comes close to being scientific, are the gatherings of accredited Biblical and textual scholars who are not obligated by any pre-conditions. The most prominent one was the Jesus Seminars, and even they could not reach a consensus on some disputed verses in the Bible, or what verses were likely to have actually been spoken by Jesus. There were also disputes over the voting process. And that's about as good as it gets in the world of theology! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

They're supposed to organizing a new series of meetings with a new voting system and with additional manuscripts that were discovered after the last one. So maybe the next one will be able to reach a better consensus of opinion.

So science is necessarily real and true just because others say it is so. That is no more than religion acting as science. The minute that you take a scientific premise and treat it as an absolute, you have created a religion. When one stops asking questions it is no longer scientific. To prove the point answer the question I presented earlier.

B.s.! The only avenue for fundamentalists, fake healers and promoters of pseudoscience to make their case is to attack scientific evidence where it contradicts with the magic mumbo jumbo they want to believe in and teach to others!

The biggest difference in the way science works from the way religion reaches conclusions is that religion claims to know all of the relevant answers in advance by special revelation from a creator. The revelation can be a book written by God, or inspired by God, or it can be some shaman in a trance or high on peyote claiming to have mystical visions of the truth.

Science starts from the ground floor, without making any knowledge claims, but instead builds its knowledge base by conducting experiments and applying empirical analysis of the results that are published and can be verified or shot down by their scientific "peers." From the basis of the handful of scientists that I've talked to, the peer review process is brutal, especially for a young researcher who doesn't have a long track record of published research behind him/ or her.

What makes one dead?

I may need that question clarified, but let's just say that once the conscious portion of your brain (the cerebral cortex) is damaged to the extent that there is no brainwave activity, then you're dead! Look up the Terry Schiavo case for an example of why neuroscientists don't consider primitive brain stem and nervous system activity to be adequate to qualify the person as alive.

The reason why there was controversy is because people who believe in the supernatural, believe that we have immaterial souls that animate the body. Even though this belief is widely held, there is no factual basis to prove it and it is being knocked down with each new discovery in neuroscience with new, advanced machines that can show the correlates between brain activity and consciousness.

charter.rights · May 25, 2008

I may need that question clarified, but let's just say that once the conscious portion of your brain (the cerebral cortex) is damaged to the extent that there is no brainwave activity, then you're dead! Look up the Terry Schiavo case for an example of why neuroscientists don't consider primitive brain stem and nervous system activity to be adequate to qualify the person as alive.
The reason why there was controversy is because people who believe in the supernatural, believe that we have immaterial souls that animate the body. Even though this belief is widely held, there is no factual basis to prove it and it is being knocked down with each new discovery in neuroscience with new, advanced machines that can show the correlates between brain activity and consciousness.

Religion is studied and peer reviewed scientifically by scholars. 'nough said.

Death is an illusion. 200 years ago if you weren't breathing you would be dead. 100 years ago if your heart stopped you would be dead. Just because your brain activity stops doesn't mean you are dead either. Cells continue to live long after the brain activity stops. The atoms and molecules that make up the cells never die. They merely convert to something different. So tell me, has the concept of death in its modern definition been peer reviewed and scrutinized? Of is death still one of those mysteries that scientists still don't fully understand? And what happens to one' personality after they die this simplistic death? Can a "personality" die?

WIP · May 25, 2008

Religion is studied and peer reviewed scientifically by scholars. 'nough said.

And you'll take the word of anyone who calls himself a scholar! nough said.

Death is an illusion.

You're not going to find anyone who's ever been in a life-threatening situation who agrees with you. It's okay if I fall the rest of the way down this cliff, it's just an illusion!

200 years ago if you weren't breathing you would be dead. 100 years ago if your heart stopped you would be dead.

And you still will be dead if no one can get your heart started again immediately. The length of time a person can survive after their heart stops beating varies! If someone falls through the ice on a frozen lake, they are going to survive longer than someone who's heart stopped while they were at room temperature because the freezing will slow down the body's metabolic functions. Either way, once the brain becomes starved for oxygen, neurons start to die, and if there is extensive damage, you're brain dead even if they get your heart re-started.

Just because your brain activity stops doesn't mean you are dead either. Cells continue to live long after the brain activity stops.

That's just being idiotic! You have a pretty low threshold for considering someone to be alive if you consider someone alive who's in a persistent vegetative state, as long as the life support machinery can keep the cells in their body alive!

The atoms and molecules that make up the cells never die. They merely convert to something different.

Are you actually trying to make a point here or just raise idiotic objection?

Oh sure, the atoms can always convert to something else, but what has that got to do with being alive? At least in the sense of cognitive awareness. Every particle will eventually disintegrate and convert into energy.

0 So tell me, has the concept of death in its modern definition been peer reviewed and scrutinized?

Is that a serious question? It's continually scrutinized and re-evaluated. Take a look at all of the bioethic and neuroethic panels that gather to try to provide doctors with definitive guidelines for pulling someone off life support or giving the go-ahead for harvesting organs for organ donation. A doctor doesn't want to declare a patient brain dead if there is still any chance of coming out of a persistent vegetative state. That's why present guidelines regard brain death include the cerebellum and the brain-stem. But, if the heart stops beating or if respiration cannot be maintained, many organs like the heart and the liver will be damaged by lack of oxygen and of no use for organ transplant. So they can't wait too long.

http://www.braindeath.org/confirm.htm

http://www.theresurrector.com/index.phtml

http://www.deathreference.com/Bl-Ce/Brain-Death.html

So, you can have someone who is clinically alive, but in a persistent vegetative state and therefore unconscious. But determining the extent of damage is difficult until after the autopsy is performed. There may be no brainwave activity picked up by EEG machines, but there may still be a low level of activity these machines have not been able to pick up. There have been a number of patients who were thought to have been in irreversible comas, that were able to come out of it. In the Terry Schiavo case, there was alot of evidence that the cortex was destroyed, which was later confirmed by the autopsy. She was alive in the sense of having a functioning brainstem and cerebellum to maintain metabolic functions and some muscle activity, but has the "seat of consciousness" - the cerebral cortex completely destroyed, and therefore incapable of attention, thought, memory and awareness of sensory information -- all the things that make us human.

Of is death still one of those mysteries that scientists still don't fully understand?

There are a lot of mysteries that scientists don't fully understand, but you don't provide a valid explanation for that mystery by just making up an answer and declaring it the truth. Just leave it in the mystery file until future knowledge and understanding provides a real explanation.

And what happens to one' personality after they die this simplistic death? Can a "personality" die?

Your personality is a collection of mental states connected together with memory. All of the aspects of your personality can be correlated with brain activity. Neurochemicals are released which cause both positive and negative emotional reactions. And drugs containing these and similar chemicals can trigger the same reactions. If your personality was contained in an immaterial soul, why would it react to physical stimuli like drugs, alcohol etc.? Or why would your personality change as a result of a brain injury? Long before the age of neuroscience, observant examiners questioned how a soul could answer this mind/body problem. Thousands of years ago, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, was aware of this problem, and dismissed the supernatural concept of a soul or spirit for that reason. He allegedly asked a dualist philosopher if his sould also got drunk on wine, when he had too much to drink? It's still a valid question today!

Considering how totally dependent consciousness is on brain activity, there are only two paths to explain cognitive awareness in any meaningful sense: one is the materialist explanation, and the one I am most familiar with considers consciousness as an emergent phenomena generated by the 50 billion or so, neurons in the cerebral cortex which can each have up to 10,000 dendritic connections with other neurons nearby. This level of complexity is beyond anything that can be achieved with the most advanced computers.

And since you're looking for something magical in those atoms and molecules, there are some philosophers such as David Chalmers, who can't accept the concept of reducing mental states to physical states -- that our felt sense of being alive can be generated by inert material processes, regardless of how complex they are. But Chalmers is not a dualist in the sense of believing in a soul or spirit to animate the body! Instead he is exploring the possibility that those particles not only have physical properties, but also have mental or conscious properties as well.

A property dualist, or panpsychist interpretation of consciousness doesn't make any testable claims that materialist theories would not also make. In both cases, our unique human consciousness is still dependent on the hardware we have inside our heads. Even if the atoms that make up the neurons of our brains have properties of mind, they are not going to keep our memories stored after the brain has been destroyed. This would be consciousness at a simple, rudimentary level that we can't relate to since it would keep nothing of our unique personal traits.

http://hedweb.com/lockwood.htm#naturalistic

charter.rights · May 25, 2008

Loss of brain activity is only the most recent definition of death. Since scientists are learning that cells often act on their won apart from the brain, they are beginning to realize that the brain does not control everything. The philosophy of death is being discussed but the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of death are not being peer reviewed nor studied with any kind of scrutiny. Sure they are some looking in the lab at the models of death, but not one takes it further because the current definition limits their thinking. Loss of consciousness isn't a good measure for death. In the scheme of things your personality still exists, as does the spirit of life that once occupied the body.

Death is an illusion because it is what we believe we see. It isn't necessarily what is happening physiologically, nor can we as observers see what is happening beyond some physical changes in the body we observe. Saying that death is scientifically proven is misleading because it is only something that is formed from a belief - very much religiously believed - and not from an experience. True science then determines things through experience and then determines to repeat the experience over and over again. However, it is never absolute because the factors of the experience can change and alter the result. Science then, must always be presented with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 25, 2008

Death is the absence of living. There real question should be ; what does it mean to be alive? I can't stress enough how foolish a statement is that states; that death is an illusion. There is a reality that must be experienced in order to be considered alive by even the most simplistic definition of life in the human sense. Of course it is not merely humans that are alive, even so what kind of life does a single celled organism have? When you add the human factor all considerations change don't they?

To return to the point CR, you state that there is 5 billion dollars being spent on only a small segment of society. On that we agree, however I sincerely doubt that the money is well spent. It is spent to benefit a specific race. That is in itself by definition a racist program that ought to be illegal under the law. Government spending should benefit all citizens, period.

Forget the grievances and allegations of wrong doing and tell me what you would think of a federal program that took funding from your little native group and gave it to say.... a group of Chinese railroad workers and their families children. That is what the Indian and Northern Affairs department does to the rest of the nation. Lets turn the tables and provide only funding for non-native women of Asian ancestry. How would you feel about that if it reduced the money being spent on the rest of the natives?

DogOnPorch · May 25, 2008

Religion is studied and peer reviewed scientifically by scholars. 'nough said.

Science isn't a religion though often people...especially non-scientists...view it as one.

As mentioned, science is the scientific method. Hypothesis--->Test/Control--->Theory

There are NO expert opinions in science..no scientific "scholars". If an experiment can't be reproduced using the above method then there's a problem. Which is why Christian Science isn't science. CS will do all that backwards. For example the need to 'prove' fossils are are only a few thousand years old rather than millions. Right away you'll be discounting evidence that points away from the answer you want. Or say, finding scientific 'proof' that North American Indians evolved simultaniously and independently from the rest of humankind...heard that here on some thread...lol. First...real science must be thrown out the window.

It also means that when Einstein writes a letter re: politics...it's politics...not science (another thread).

Religion...by its very nature, is incapable of viewing the world 'scientifically'. If it did they'd quickly come to the conclusion that "God is dead"...as a certain German philosopher did. Bad for business....which is what religion is.

----------------------------------------------------------

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.

---Dr Wernher Von Braun

WIP · May 26, 2008

Loss of brain activity is only the most recent definition of death. Since scientists are learning that cells often act on their won apart from the brain, they are beginning to realize that the brain does not control everything. The philosophy of death is being discussed but the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of death are not being peer reviewed nor studied with any kind of scrutiny. Sure they are some looking in the lab at the models of death, but not one takes it further because the current definition limits their thinking. Loss of consciousness isn't a good measure for death. In the scheme of things your personality still exists, as does the spirit of life that once occupied the body.

If you actually read my post, I left a few questions to answer (I can add a lot more if needed) regarding the mind/body problem before your faith-based belief in a spirit that animates the body can be taken seriously. The simple fact is there are no aspects of mind or consciousness that aren't correlated with brain activity.

I briefly mentioned a compromise solution to explain consciousness that lies between materialism and supernaturalism -- property dualism -- and left a link for further information, but it looks like it was all for nothing!

Death is an illusion because it is what we believe we see. It isn't necessarily what is happening physiologically, nor can we as observers see what is happening beyond some physical changes in the body we observe. Saying that death is scientifically proven is misleading because it is only something that is formed from a belief - very much religiously believed - and not from an experience. True science then determines things through experience and then determines to repeat the experience over and over again. However, it is never absolute because the factors of the experience can change and alter the result. Science then, must always be presented with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Here we go with "death is an illusion" again! Well, try this one on for size: the idea that our personal identity comes from an enduring self, may be the illusion!

There is growing evidence from cognitive neuroscience to support an idea proposed by philosopher David Hume, called bundle theory, that a person is simply a collection of mental states at a particular time, which are connected together through short-term memory to create the illusion that our identity is continuous. It may be just a coincidence, but in Buddhist philosophy, the self - referred to as "Anatta" is constantly changing, and the belief that it is continuous, is an illusion. http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

charter.rights · May 26, 2008

If you actually read my post, I left a few questions to answer (I can add a lot more if needed) regarding the mind/body problem before your faith-based belief in a spirit that animates the body can be taken seriously. The simple fact is there are no aspects of mind or consciousness that aren't correlated with brain activity.
I briefly mentioned a compromise solution to explain consciousness that lies between materialism and supernaturalism -- property dualism -- and left a link for further information, but it looks like it was all for nothing!

Here we go with "death is an illusion" again! Well, try this one on for size: the idea that our personal identity comes from an enduring self, may be the illusion!

There is growing evidence from cognitive neuroscience to support an idea proposed by philosopher David Hume, called bundle theory, that a person is simply a collection of mental states at a particular time, which are connected together through short-term memory to create the illusion that our identity is continuous. It may be just a coincidence, but in Buddhist philosophy, the self - referred to as "Anatta" is constantly changing, and the belief that it is continuous, is an illusion. http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

The concept of ourselves is an illusion. Our physical bodies are an illusion. Therefore the death of a mental state and physical body is also an illusion. The law of physics is that one cannot create ~something~ from ~nothing~. The only way that death can become reality is if everyone is equally deluded into believing the fantasy of death.

AngusThermopyle · May 26, 2008

Well I was right, science just isn't your thing.

The law of physics is that one cannot create ~something~ from ~nothing~.

I think you mean the law of conservation of energy. I've never heard tell of this wonderfull "law of physics". like I said earlier, just try to stay away from anything science related, its safer that way.

charter.rights · May 26, 2008

Well I was right, science just isn't your thing.
I think you mean the law of conservation of energy. I've never heard tell of this wonderfull "law of physics". like I said earlier, just try to stay away from anything science related, its safer that way.

You got it wrong. The law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The law of "quantum" physics (it is the basis for all science) states that something cannot be created from nothing.

Edited May 26, 2008 by charter.rights

White Doors · May 26, 2008

Well I was right, science just isn't your thing.
I think you mean the law of conservation of energy. I've never heard tell of this wonderfull "law of physics". like I said earlier, just try to stay away from anything science related, its safer that way.

The guy would argue with his grandmother over who was older for chris sakes..

DogOnPorch · May 26, 2008

Law of Quantum Physics?

:huh:

---------------------

Who's on first?

---Abbott & Costello

AngusThermopyle · May 26, 2008

Law of Quantum Physics?
huh.gif

Must be an Aboriginal thing. Unless they are trying to talk about a Grand Unified Theory. Thats about the only thing that might fit a description of "the law of Quantum Physics"

As I said before, stay away from science and math CR, they are obviously not your "thing".

Oh, by the way, creation of or inability to create matter are covered by the law of conservation of energy as matter is merely a form of energy in a different state.

Edited May 26, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

Wild Bill · May 26, 2008

Must be an Aboriginal thing. Unless they are trying to talk about a Grand Unified Theory. Thats about the only thing that might fit a description of "the law of Quantum Physics"
As I said before, stay away from science and math CR, they are obviously not your "thing".

Oh, by the way, creation of or inability to create matter are covered by the law of conservation of energy as matter is merely a form of energy in a different state.

"In the Beginning, there were hot lumps! Whirling noiselessly through the vast reaches of...SPACE!" - Firesign Theater

WIP · May 26, 2008

The concept of ourselves is an illusion. Our physical bodies are an illusion. Therefore the death of a mental state and physical body is also an illusion. The law of physics is that one cannot create ~something~ from ~nothing~. The only way that death can become reality is if everyone is equally deluded into believing the fantasy of death.

Wow, that's going even further than the Idealists who consider everything outside of their ego to be illusion or unknowable. The way the picture looks to me now, is that the hardware inside our heads does not have perfect knowledge of our interior selves or the external world. The brain has to generate a conscious self for us to interpret all of the sensory data coming in from the outside world and make unified decisions. Recent research by John Dylan Haynes has confirmed studies done 20 years ago, that a flurry of brain activity begins up to 7 seconds before a person makes a "free will" decision. http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDoc...0414/index.html

As far as the outside world goes....sure, we don't see the natural world as it really exists -- a bunch of tiny particles whirling around in empty space, but the "maps" our visual cortex puts together enable us to function in this world. The map may not be the territory, but it's still a good way of finding your way around. Comparing your map of the world with past experience should give an adequate approximation of the real world to make predictions: like if I knock my coffee cup off the desk, it will smash on the floor, and guess what! It does! And if what we see, matches the pictures that others have, then we have a reasonable basis to verify that what we see is real! It may not be absolute, but it's good enough for me!

But, if the self is an illusion, there is certainly no reason to believe it is going to carry on after the physical hardware that generates it has died and disintegrated. So in that sense, death certainly would be real!

charter.rights · May 26, 2008

Must be an Aboriginal thing. Unless they are trying to talk about a Grand Unified Theory. Thats about the only thing that might fit a description of "the law of Quantum Physics"
As I said before, stay away from science and math CR, they are obviously not your "thing".

Oh, by the way, creation of or inability to create matter are covered by the law of conservation of energy as matter is merely a form of energy in a different state.

Still trying to get all your knowledge from the internet I see...... must be what stupid people do......

Edited May 26, 2008 by charter.rights

AngusThermopyle · May 26, 2008

Still trying to get all your knowledge from the internet I see...... must be what stupid people do......

Huge Irony alert!

This coming from the person who doesn't know that 50% and half are one and the same. The person who's woefull ignorance shines through like a beacon any time subjects are mentioned that require more than opinion. The person who struggles with sand box math.

My knowledge comes from real courses in Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics, required if one is to be an engineer you know. Far from genius level but I'll wager a hell of a lot more than you can sport.

Go back to sleep, facts are not subject to your opinion or fantasies.

charter.rights · May 27, 2008

Huge Irony alert!
This coming from the person who doesn't know that 50% and half are one and the same. The person who's woefull ignorance shines through like a beacon any time subjects are mentioned that require more than opinion. The person who struggles with sand box math.

My knowledge comes from real courses in Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics, required if one is to be an engineer you know. Far from genius level but I'll wager a hell of a lot more than you can sport.

Go back to sleep, facts are not subject to your opinion or fantasies.

Engineer? Too bad an education can't make you intelligent. No wonder they hand out iron rings. There are plenty of structures that have collapsed over the years to make rings and bracelets, necklaces and cars from all the scrap iron you guys are responsible for.

Who's Doing What? · May 27, 2008

Ya lots of problems. It would put about 30,000 Canadians out of work. Although it would free up another $5 billion that could be put towards real Native issues. But then again the way the government operates they would need a brand new department to manage it.

More like $9+ Billion. But when have facts ever got in the way of one of your posts.

Who's Doing What? · May 27, 2008

Law of Quantum Physics?

---------------------

Who's on first?

---Abbott & Costello

Hmmm..... since at the quantum level things behave erratically to say the least an absolute law of quantum physics, would be a true breakthrough. Start making plans for Sweden charter, cause I smell a Nobel in your future.

AngusThermopyle · May 27, 2008

Engineer? Too bad an education can't make you intelligent. No wonder they hand out iron rings. There are plenty of structures that have collapsed over the years to make rings and bracelets, necklaces and cars from all the scrap iron you guys are responsible for.

Thats all you've got?

Run along then, let the big people talk.