Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 09:04 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(19-10-2012 09:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it isn't. How a brain "handles" anything, is dependent on :
1. the physical limits of physical reality, (atoms and molecules and the working of brain structures, (cells)).
2. genetics, (as we know it determines part of memory,
3. memory, and how it's stored by molecules,
4. What is has "individually" learned *ABOUT* society and culture. There is no magical woo woo of "society and culture" inside a brain, until it's learned, and saved by memory, (which is 100 % dependant on Chemistry.) It would be really nice if you would get an education, on Neuro biology before you make a fool of yourself any further. "Society and culture" are "constructs". There is no *actual* society and culture. They are tiny individual data points.

That's pretty good.

I would suggest that the individual has the propensity to understand the difference between society and culture if it is properly taught, which has not been so over the course of recent events, based on my theory that there are some semantic problems concerning the definitions of words like: politics, religion, atheism, secularism, science, technology, nature, law, social contract.

But, I am working on correcting those problems - the "shit," (I and I) was talking about somewhere around here.Big Grin

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:02 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(19-10-2012 09:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 09:18 PM)I and I Wrote:  How ones brain handles information from the physical world is determined by ones society/culture, what determines a society or culture is dependent on the mode of production of material goods (this part is not your concern and has nothing to do with the topic, just wanted to clarify).

Two different brains in the same culture don't handle information the exact same way but are similar enough to be a part of a particular culture. American Y likes hot dogs with ketchup, american x likes hot dogs with mustard, similar but not exactly the same.

next

Dear High Priestess of Woo Woo, BowingBowingBowing
I bow before you royal crappiness. .

Prove it.
No it isn't. How a brain "handles" anything, is dependent on :
1. the physical limits of physical reality, (atoms and molecules and the working of brain structures, (cells)).
2. genetics, (as we know it determines part of memory,
3. memory, and how it's stored by molecules,
4. What is has "individually" learned *ABOUT* society and culture. There is no magical woo woo of "society and culture" inside a brain, until it's learned, and saved by memory, (which is 100 % dependant on Chemistry.) It would be really nice if you would get an education, on Neuro biology before you make a fool of yourself any further. "Society and culture" are "constructs". There is no *actual* society and culture. They are tiny individual data points.

Genetics doesn't determine whether or not a person lives in a specific culture.

If you drop a coke bottle into a primitive culture thousands of years ago, will they know what the fuck it is? FUCK NO because it is not part of their culture, what a tool is or what an objects use value is, is determined by society.

Was it their molecules in their brain that made their brain not know what it was, was it their genetic make up that made them not know what it was? no you fucktard

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW was learned from the society around you, it didn't generate in your molecules, or your genetics. How does one know about ketchup or mustard being good on a hot dog? OH YEAH thats right, they have to be in a culture that........has similar eating styles, with the existence of hot dogs and the existence of mustard and ketchup.


And you think this is woo woo to say that humans mimic and copy from the culture around them? How the fuck is that woo woo to say that if a kid grows up in x culture he will grow up living like x culture.

Is it woo woo to say that if a person grows up in an english speaking country he will grow up speaking english? Is that really hard for you to understand? FUCKING WOW
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2012 02:49 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(20-10-2012 11:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  And you think this is woo woo to say that humans mimic and copy from the culture around them? How the fuck is that woo woo to say that if a kid grows up in x culture he will grow up living like x culture.

Is it woo woo to say that if a person grows up in an english speaking country he will grow up speaking english? Is that really hard for you to understand? FUCKING WOW

To be honest with you - I find it very difficult to convince atheists that they are ultimately trapped in the margin of human error determined largely by American Christian culture, by their defining a reality of infinite possibilities and ambiguous abstract organizing; and that they make inaccurate analysis of society and theories of social organization, because of this deficeincy.

Atheists believe they are independent and critical thinkers unaffected by any erroneousness of the culture that surrounds them.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 02:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheists believe they are independent and critical thinkers unaffected by any erroneousness of the culture that surrounds them.
Unfounded generalizations. 'Gotta love 'em. Thumbsup

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2012 04:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(20-10-2012 11:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 09:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Dear High Priestess of Woo Woo, BowingBowingBowing
I bow before you royal crappiness. .

Prove it.
No it isn't. How a brain "handles" anything, is dependent on :
1. the physical limits of physical reality, (atoms and molecules and the working of brain structures, (cells)).
2. genetics, (as we know it determines part of memory,
3. memory, and how it's stored by molecules,
4. What is has "individually" learned *ABOUT* society and culture. There is no magical woo woo of "society and culture" inside a brain, until it's learned, and saved by memory, (which is 100 % dependant on Chemistry.) It would be really nice if you would get an education, on Neuro biology before you make a fool of yourself any further. "Society and culture" are "constructs". There is no *actual* society and culture. They are tiny individual data points.

Genetics doesn't determine whether or not a person lives in a specific culture.

If you drop a coke bottle into a primitive culture thousands of years ago, will they know what the fuck it is? FUCK NO because it is not part of their culture, what a tool is or what an objects use value is, is determined by society.

Was it their molecules in their brain that made their brain not know what it was, was it their genetic make up that made them not know what it was? no you fucktard

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW was learned from the society around you, it didn't generate in your molecules, or your genetics. How does one know about ketchup or mustard being good on a hot dog? OH YEAH thats right, they have to be in a culture that........has similar eating styles, with the existence of hot dogs and the existence of mustard and ketchup.


And you think this is woo woo to say that humans mimic and copy from the culture around them? How the fuck is that woo woo to say that if a kid grows up in x culture he will grow up living like x culture.

Is it woo woo to say that if a person grows up in an english speaking country he will grow up speaking english? Is that really hard for you to understand? FUCKING WOW

Genetics has been proven, idiot, to determine in part, how memory works. You can call me all the words you want asshole, it doesn't make you correct. It would help if you had an 8th grade education.

"Genetics doesn't determine whether or not a person lives in a specific culture."

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. It DOES determine, how, IN THAT culture you learn something. A bacteria, in the jungle, learns no more than a bacteria in New York.

The native and the Coke bottle is the Fallacy of the False Analogy, fool. The native sees *something* and remembers *something* depending on what he *thinks* he sees. He "remembers* dependent on his brain chemistry. The *content* of the memory is dependent of his culture.
Without the genetics, and the molecules you learned NOTHING.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 02:52 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 02:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheists believe they are independent and critical thinkers unaffected by any erroneousness of the culture that surrounds them.
Unfounded generalizations. 'Gotta love 'em. Thumbsup
The fact that atheists have not established a classification system is my proof of the deficiency I described.

Atheists need to establish a classification system of reality, or human knowledge, in order to prove that they have noticed that they are affected.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 04:21 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 03:59 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(25-10-2012 02:52 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Unfounded generalizations. 'Gotta love 'em. Thumbsup
The fact that atheists have not established a classification system is my proof of the deficiency I described.

Atheists need to establish a classification system of reality, or human knowledge, in order to prove that they have noticed that they are affected.

A classification system of what?
And why do you keep lumping atheists together as though it was a single philosophy?

Atheism is merely one aspect of a person's belief system and world view.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-10-2012, 04:27 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 02:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  To be honest with you - I find it very difficult to convince atheists that they are ultimately trapped in the margin of human error determined largely by American Christian culture, by their defining a reality of infinite possibilities and ambiguous abstract organizing; and that they make inaccurate analysis of society and theories of social organization, because of this deficeincy.

Atheists believe they are independent and critical thinkers unaffected by any erroneousness of the culture that surrounds them.

What a load of stinking shit. So you *have* convinced European atheists of something ? Hahahahaha. What a troll. You spout shit from every orifice with your crap generalizations, and unsupported shit. Thanks for living up to your name. You have NOT ONE shred of evidence that atheists do anything. You are a troll, and you know it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 05:33 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 02:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  And you think this is woo woo to say that humans mimic and copy from the culture around them? How the fuck is that woo woo to say that if a kid grows up in x culture he will grow up living like x culture.

Is it woo woo to say that if a person grows up in an english speaking country he will grow up speaking english? Is that really hard for you to understand? FUCKING WOW

To be honest with you - I find it very difficult to convince atheists that they are ultimately trapped in the margin of human error determined largely by American Christian culture, by their defining a reality of infinite possibilities and ambiguous abstract organizing; and that they make inaccurate analysis of society and theories of social organization, because of this deficeincy.

Atheists believe they are independent and critical thinkers unaffected by any erroneousness of the culture that surrounds them.

I don't know what atheists you are speaking to but I am very aware of encultranation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enculturation

In fact encultranation was one of the first things from my notes I shared with the community.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m-my-notes

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2012, 05:40 PM
RE: Reification Fallacy, "god(s)" and human language
(25-10-2012 03:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 11:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  Genetics doesn't determine whether or not a person lives in a specific culture.

If you drop a coke bottle into a primitive culture thousands of years ago, will they know what the fuck it is? FUCK NO because it is not part of their culture, what a tool is or what an objects use value is, is determined by society.

Was it their molecules in their brain that made their brain not know what it was, was it their genetic make up that made them not know what it was? no you fucktard

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW was learned from the society around you, it didn't generate in your molecules, or your genetics. How does one know about ketchup or mustard being good on a hot dog? OH YEAH thats right, they have to be in a culture that........has similar eating styles, with the existence of hot dogs and the existence of mustard and ketchup.


And you think this is woo woo to say that humans mimic and copy from the culture around them? How the fuck is that woo woo to say that if a kid grows up in x culture he will grow up living like x culture.

Is it woo woo to say that if a person grows up in an english speaking country he will grow up speaking english? Is that really hard for you to understand? FUCKING WOW

Genetics has been proven, idiot, to determine in part, how memory works. You can call me all the words you want asshole, it doesn't make you correct. It would help if you had an 8th grade education.

"Genetics doesn't determine whether or not a person lives in a specific culture."

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. It DOES determine, how, IN THAT culture you learn something. A bacteria, in the jungle, learns no more than a bacteria in New York.

The native and the Coke bottle is the Fallacy of the False Analogy, fool. The native sees *something* and remembers *something* depending on what he *thinks* he sees. He "remembers* dependent on his brain chemistry. The *content* of the memory is dependent of his culture.
Without the genetics, and the molecules you learned NOTHING.

How the fuck did genetics determine what language you would speak growing up? How does genetics determine whether a girl likes justin bieber? it doesn't stupid. A person is shown something then they like or don't like it, it is shown to them first stupid.

Name one part of or aspect of your personality that you didn't learn from your environment. NAME ONE There should be many you can list because according to you, it's genetics and brain cells that determine all these things right. Prove your theory true and just NAME ONE thing about yourself that you didn't learn from your environment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: