• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science cannot solve the final mystery

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Did you even read the link you supplied for me that you purported proved your opinion?

My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.

But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
Did you miss this; " describe in detail how the gross anatomy of Broca's area varies between people,"?
Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?

I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:

Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.​

Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.

Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.

DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?

Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
Since the broccas Area

Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.

varies between individuals it is logical to assume we are born without it.

LOL!

OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.
I am saying flat out I have discovered the fundamental difference is all other life speaks a metaphysical (or for gnostic, "empiricism and methodological naturalism") language just as humans did until 4000 years ago.

You've discovered nothing.

If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.

In all seriousness, get the help you need.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I'm not smarter or less stupid than everyone else... I'm a very simple person with a very simple science but I'm still the first with two sciences.

And the first to know "all" religion is based in science; in reality.
You should have stopped on the first sentence.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
do you understand the mechanism that I claim is the cause of change in species and why this change is sudden?
You claim a lot of things that have no corroboration and no evidence in their support.

You have had explanations re: types of speciation presented to you before, I think by Tag. You ignored it all in favor of your fantasy-based assertions.

Your "mechanism" is not a mechanism, it is, at best, a proposal, an hypothesis. And it is pretty similar to the concept known as the founder effect (so you are not even original). There IS evidence for the founder effect. But that is not instant or sudden. And the behavior of individuals typically has very little to do with it.

Are you familiar with population genetics? No, of course you are not. You still think 'survival of the fittest' drove Christian creationist anti-Darwninst Hitler...
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
wrong...…

I typically post

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment
Yes, we all know this.Your posts are generally intellectually empty.
science can lead you to the point of decision

but it cannot solve the mystery

all you CAN do

is THINK about it

When do you plan to start?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas. Different parts of the brain are more adept at some functions than others. Blind people usually use their visual cortex to read braille. The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans. There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision. Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.

We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain. So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus? What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?

If it were shown tall people can do boolean geometry with their little toes would this seem only natural to you?

Do you dispute that we can only see what we believe?

Since you refuse to address my actual arguments or demonstrate you understand them it is impossible for me to even debate you. I'll avoid trying going forward.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The last frontier of science is human consciousness. Science can explain the tiny details of matter, as well as the origins of the largest galaxies. However, there is no consensus definition for consciousness, even though consciousness is the tool which does all the observing and theorizing.

How can a consciousness, that cannot agree on what consciousness is, use consciousness to explain things? Ultimately, all that we observe, theorize and know filters through that which is not fully understood. Conceptually, we cannot properly calibrate consciousness, to make sure that the science theory, which is used to define reality, does not have a biased system wide error.

As an analogous example, say we went to an analytical lab and told everyone, "do not calibrate any instrument, for one year, just run your tests as normal". Would this lab be considered reliable, if everything, but calibration, is done by the book? The graphs may look the same but will be staggered.

The ancients had a better handle on how consciousness worked, since the required introspection needed for meditation, contemplation, and prayer, was a way to self observe, and learn about the various input and output characteristics of their own consciousness. This introspection procedure is not considered valid science, since each set of individual results cannot be verified, externally, by the sensory systems of others, since it is all done internally. The scientific method had not been able to define consciousness using this extroverted method. Religion, on the other hand, is built on key people who were able to calibrate. Calibration is a different type of procedural science.

Let me give a practical example of the nature of the calibration problem. When the brain creates memory, emotional tags are added to the sensory content when it is written to the cerebral matter. Our memory is composed of both content and emotional valence. Our strongest memories, have the strongest feeling tones; marriage, children, glory days, graduation, first kiss, trauma, etc.

This schema is useful to the animal brain, since if the animal encounters a similar situation, already in memory, the feeling tag is triggered and they will react to the feeling, without having to think. If they see a food item that was once good, they feel good, again, about the new item, and will quickly eat.

In the bible, the symbolism of Eve and Adam, eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in them being removed from paradise. This symbolism implies they were initially in calibration; natural instinct, but somehow their action caused their consciousness to come out of calibration. Death appears because lack of calibration makes even logical judgments end up with errors.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. Law teaches us right from wrong or good from evil. It does this by setting up a polarization of emotions connected to the two side of the law. If we follow the good side of the law there is a good feeling tag, and if we disobey there is a negative feeling tag; fear. Since a law is one thing, that has two conflicting feelings, the result is not natural for the animal brain, since it creates conflicting emotions. If a law was created that said no black shoes on Wednesdays, since this is evil, some people would become conflicted since this makes no sense.

If the animal saw a food item, and felt it was good, but also very scaring in terms of consequences, they would not know what to do. This is very inefficient, in terms of neural energy, and will cause a damming of brain energy. This began subjectivity; calibration was lost. People are stuck trying to rationalize the proper action while under the spell of conflicting emotions.

The way the brain removed this damming of instinctive energy, due to the mixed emotions and indecision of consciousness, was to repress the half of the binary of law and make only the other half consciousness. We may blindly not wear black shoes on Wednesdays just to stop the conflict. One emotional valiance is more natural. However, the repressed half, needed to know the law, becomes part of an unconscious subroutine, that creates a counter position in the psyche; symbolic of Satan.

As an example of this affect in science, Genesis, conceptually assumes a deterministic path for the universe, based on logical sequence and progression. This is based on an all knowing God. I am not saying the details of Genesis is the final science. However, modern science assumes the opposite, conceptual path, which is based on random.

One may asked is the random path real, or is this choice part of a calibration problem due to law? Atheism claims to be connected to science. While atheist law says religion is evil and science is good. Therefore, they cannot use determinism, since that is used by religion, which evil. What is evil needs to be repressed. The result is a lack of calibration. Now there are more one theory for everything, some of which are mutually exclusive, which makes no sense. The Satan subroutine will make this appear consistent, since it helps to unify the binary of law in terms of brain energy in light of the lack of calibration.

What a load of... *beep* :eek:

Oops! Did I say that out loud? :oops:
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Again, what was totally ignored/omitted will be in RED.
OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.
I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas.
It depends. Relevance?
The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans.
Only partly true. The brain loses plasticity (not elasticity - that means to stretch) with age. This is why younger people with brain trauma can adapt more readily than older folks.
There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision.
Please tell me what part you think this structure is and I can tell you whether or not you've made another blunder. The superior colliculi of the midbrain tectum do play a role in visual reflexes, but that is not really "seeing".
Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.

We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain
.
No, we don't. Let me remind you - I have taken graduate level neuroscience and have taught neuroanatomy, so your mere say so on these matters will not work on me. The term midbrain has a very specific meaning in neuroanatomy, I suspect that you do not know this. Like you did not know where Broca's area is, or how to spell it.
So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus?
Why do you think your uninformed assertions, dreamed up out of nowhere, have merit?
The area is called Broca's area because, as you should know, Broca found multiple cases in which people with trauma to the inferior frontal gyrus lost their ability to speak. That was indicated in the link I provided for you which you did not read yet pretended to have.
What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?
My evidence that you are wrong is:

1. You have presented no evidence you are right. Merely asserting these counterfactual notions about floating secondary speech centers does not indicate they are real, much less demonstrate this.
2, You seem to have rather naive understanding of brain anatomy. I recognize nothing you have claimed so far as having merit, and in double-checking your claims I found that I was correct - there is nothing in the midbrain that allows one to "see", and there is no unfixed second speech center. Like most of your unsupported assertions, you appear to have just made this up because it fits your fantasy life.

The logic is that merely making a counterfactual claim does not mean it is correct. Quite the opposite, especially when you never present any supporting documentation.

Here is a diagram of a section through the human midbrain:
f6f7905101f3e2946d97f0e02e6c3c_jumbo.jpeg


None of the indicated structures have anything to do with speech.

Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.

If it were shown tall people can do boolean geometry with their little toes would this seem only natural to you?
Irrelevant.

Show me a second motor speech area, and show me the evidence that Broca's area (and please spell it correctly for once) can be scattered all over the place, and not just somewhere on the inferior frontal gyrus.
Do you dispute that we can only see what we believe?
Yes. Well, in terms of sensible people. I do know that people like you only see what you believe.

Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.

You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.
Since you refuse to address my actual arguments or demonstrate you understand them it is impossible for me to even debate you. I'll avoid trying going forward.
Cool cop out - it is not that I do not understand your arguments - I DO understand them, I just know that they are wrong. You refuse to consider that , for some odd reason.

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.


Did you even read the link you supplied for me that you purported proved your opinion?

My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.

But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
Did you miss this; " describe in detail how the gross anatomy of Broca's area varies between people,"?
Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?

I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:

Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.
Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.

Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.

DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?

Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
Since the broccas Area

Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.

varies between individuals it is logical to assume we are born without it.

LOL!

OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.
I am saying flat out I have discovered the fundamental difference is all other life speaks a metaphysical (or for gnostic, "empiricism and methodological naturalism") language just as humans did until 4000 years ago.

You've discovered nothing.

If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.

In all seriousness, get the help you need.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.

But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?

I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:

Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.​

Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.

Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.

DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?

Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.

Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.



LOL!

OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.


You've discovered nothing.

If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.

In all seriousness, get the help you need.

We need Rod Serling, or Art Bell here. Where are they
when we need them the most???
 

gnostic

The Lost One
ALL THE WORDS OF SCIENCE EXISTED. "Heca" meant "metaphysics". "Thot" meant "science". "Neters" meant "theories".
No. The transliteration ”heca” or “heka”, means “magic”, not “metaphysics”.

This word heka was later transformed into personification of magic - Heka, the god of magic.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Yes, we understand what you said. We also understand that it doesn't correspond to reality.

So why hasn't anyone ever shown an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to my theory? I'm sure there are some out there but all anyone links can be taken either way.

There are many experiments that preferentially support my theory but people just blow them off. My theory shows how ancient man invented pets and agriculture. One of these "pets" has been guarding property acquired through ancient science for millennia.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
So why hasn't anyone ever shown an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to my theory?

Perhaps that is because no one has ever created "an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to [your] theory". On the flip side, have you created "an experiment which preferentially supports" your theory to Darwin's?

Why not?

There are many experiments that preferentially support my theory but people just blow them off.

Goodness. Why do you just lay back and accept that?
The folks who proposed Plate Tectonics didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed an expanding universe didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed Heliocentricity didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.

Why do you?


Do you honestly believe taking the time to post on a rather obscure forum is the best way to achieve your objectives?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.

I never doubted for a moment that you know more anatomy and far more brain anatomy than I.

But this doesn't change the fact that near the CENTER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is a location through which passes the optic nerves. Indeed, I recently learned that there is a huge decrease in the number of nerves that reaches the visual cortex and, logically, it occurs here

Show me a second motor speech area, and show me the evidence that Broca's area (and please spell it correctly for once) can be scattered all over the place, and not just somewhere on the inferior frontal gyrus.

This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;

Wernicke's area - Wikipedia

Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.

:)

This is why you can see so few anomalies. You already understand everything you see. Everything is explicable in terms of anatomy and this is how you know I have a screw loose. A mathematician knows nothing I say adds up and a philosopher sees mere chaos but everyone sees everything in terms of their beliefs.

You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.

I share the same affliction as everyone else but I think differently such that I can see anomalies.

Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.


I know nothing. I share all of the premises of ancient science plus one: I believe all people always makes sense in terms of their premises.

You've discovered nothing.

Then why am I the one who discovered there were no words for "belief" or "thought" in Ancient Language?

 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Perhaps that is because no one has ever created "an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to [your] theory". On the flip side, have you created "an experiment which preferentially supports" your theory to Darwin's?

Yes. As a matter of fact I have.

I have created a species of house fly that lands on the bottom of furniture through bottlenecks imposed with a flyswatter.

I have created this species a few times so now the genetic diversity that I CREATED will allow the housefly to survive an event that eradicates all flies not on the undersides of things. I might be the father of a new species someday and all I got for it were a few fly-free summers.

Do you honestly believe taking the time to post on a rather obscure forum is the best way to achieve your objectives?

My theory and everything I believe is composed of insights I steal from others. I never know when or where I will find something usable. A forum that does such a good job of discussing religion and science as this one of course gives rise to insights.
 
Top