ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
Read this and then stop to ponder that the man who wrote it is a neurosurgeon. Seriously. He operates on peoples' brains.

I'm not making this up.

Does altruism have location? The brain does; it can move in space by moving in any of six degrees of freedom: in a Cartesian system, it can move in the x, y, or z direction, or it can pitch, yaw, or roll. These are the movements possible for a material body.

Now moving your brain through 'x,y,z' or 'pitch, yaw, or roll' does change its material properties, which are located in the brain. The pulse pressure in your brain tissue is greater when you're recumbent than when you're standing (pitch). The venous pressure is lower when you're standing than when you're recumbent. Tilting your head to the left (roll) tilts the vector of carotid arterial blood flow to the left. Even material things that are less tangible, like neuronal action potentials, change with brain movement. Action potentials have direction, and can be described using spatial vectors. When you tilt your head, you tilt the vectors along which your axons transmit action potentials. When you turn your head 30 degrees to the left (yaw), you turn the direction of propagation of action potentials 30 degrees to the left too. In this sense, material changes in the brain can map to changes in location of the brain.

But how does moving your brain change your altruism? Do properties of altruism, like benevolence, have pitch, yaw or roll? Is generosity measurably and reproducibly different when you (and your brain) are on the north, rather than the south, side of the room? Are you measurably more or less charitable if you tilt your head 30 degrees to the left? If you walk around the room does your altruism change in a reproducible way? If you stand up, is your altruism different that when you're sitting?

For altruism to be located in the brain, changes in altruism must map, in some reproducible way, to changes in brain location. But it's obvious that no property of altruism maps to brain location. If no property of altruism maps to brain location, then altruism is independent of brain location, and it's nonsense to say that altruism is located in the brain. Altruism is completely independent of location, so it can't be located in the brain, or anywhere. It can't be 'located' at all.


To which Pharyngula can only reply:

I read the first paragraph and thought he must be building to something clever and subtle; no one could possibly be making an argument that stupid. I read on, and I realized I was being far too charitable, and yes, he really is making an argument that stupid. Because my altruistic feelings are not left behind in my chair when I get up and walk across the room, they must not be located in my brain. In Egnor's mind (which is safely situated in a remote location, far, far away from the entity doing the typing), if properties of the mind do not have an absolute location in coordinates of latitude, longitude, and altitude, they cannot possibly exist in your brain.

I'm typing this on my laptop, on my text editor. I'd better not pick up my laptop, swivel around on my office chair, and move it to the other desk behind me, because I might leave the text editor floating in space above my computer desk. Or worse, maybe the text editor will change properties and become a spreadsheet, or one of those programs that control a nuclear missile, or the software interface to a microwave oven. Alternatively, the fact that the text editor still works when I move my laptop must mean that the program actually doesn't reside in my computer — it's being beamed in from the Software Soul Sanctuary located somewhere in another supernatural universe.


Go check out the image Egnor included to make his Creationist "point". And one more time, just to remind you, this man is a neurosurgeon.

Think on that and be dismayed.
ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
Ars takes a field trip: the Creation Museum

By Jonathan M. Gitlin


Some highlights:

To begin with, the museum presents real science alongside its version; an aviary containing finches is the first thing to greet you as you began your tour. The finches were a profound influence on Darwin and his theory of natural selection and are still studied by evolutionary biologists today. Another display contained poison frogs. This was of particular interest to me, since they claim the reason poison frogs aren't poisonous in captivity is due to the Almighty. I'm fairly sure it's due to the lack of poisonous mites in their diet, but there you go.
[...]
As you walk through the museum, the contorted reasoning to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon in hours or the rapid creation of thousands of breeds of dogs in a matter of weeks is augmented by what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil's music. A wall is covered in articles from newspapers and magazines showing what happens when society lives without the museum's brand of fundamentalist Christianity as its guiding light. Stem cell research, abortion, and homosexuality are center stage. Their representation of the modern world consists of a a seedy-looking alley, replete with rats, trash, and a church being demolished. It might have worked better if they'd set it to Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones, but I'm not sure Mick and boys would have gone for that.


Do read the rest, and check out the photo gallery, I particularly like the shot of the vegetarian Velociraptor and Eve...I shit you not.
ebonlock: (Jesus Pony)
My favorite comment on Creationism to date by Vic:

I’ll believe in Creationism the day its adherents start an “Appendix and Tonsil Donor List”. Because, in their world, God’s plan for those body parts is going to kick in any day now.
ebonlock: (Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum

HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

[...]

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.


[...]

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

[...]

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election.

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

[...]

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

The war's far from over, but gosh it feels nice to win a battle here and there, doesn't it?
ebonlock: (Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Happy as I am about many of the results from yesterday's elections, particularly here in California, this just about breaks my heart:

Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

"What this does is open the door for teachers to bring creationist arguments into the classroom and point to the standards and say it's OK," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa High School math teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the changes.


Gosh, imagine the power each and every one of us could control if we could just redefine whatever the hell we wanted to. It's almost enough to make one giddy, isn't it? If you could re-write the definition of any term to suit your particular ideology or needs, what would it be?

Profile

ebonlock: (Default)
ebonlock

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728 293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 9th, 2026 11:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios