I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness. --- M. Planck (1931)
And this short story excerpt (by Terry Bisson)...
Imagine if you will... the leader of the fifth invader force speaking to the commander in chief...
"They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars." "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Obviously, you just don't get it. You're as much of a deep 'thinker' as Egnor. That is, not at all.
The "meat" story doesn't make fun of the idea that meat can think (without magic 'soul stuff'), as you seem to believe. No, it makes fun of the idea that meat can't think. The actors are obviously advanced machines that can think - contrary to the believe of meat robots like you that machines cannot think. Ironically, the machines, in turn, believe that meat cannot think. They have obviously forgotten that a long time ago their machine ancestors were made by meat creatures.
ENV doesn't allow comments; they cant, they would be demolished by their opponents and embarrassed by their supporters.
Some post, a big cut and paste followed by a little “what Bertrand Russell said” and “materialism bad”. I guess you don't have to try very hard when you're preaching to the quire.
My goodness! I didn't realize how needy you were this morning!
But here... let me soothe your feelings just a little...
1. The case you cited involved a real estate advertisement in South Carolina. If you were American, you would know that each state legislates its own state laws, and they may (and usually are) different from Federal laws. That is why the Bar exam is administered by individual states and is different in every state. In fact, only some states will allow lawyers who passed the Bar in other states to "waive in" without passing the state-specific Bar. If you look at legal websites, they will usually tell you which states a given attorney is licensed to practice.
McCarthy was referring to Federal law. Hence, your citation is utterly irrelevant.
2. This is how you cite case law, taken from the case you cited when it reached the SC Supreme Court: "E.g., Riddle v. Pitts, 283 S.C. 387, 324 S.E.2d 59 (1984); Byrn v. Walker, 275 S.C. 83, 267 S.E.2d 601 (1980); Reid v. Harbison Dev. Corp., 285 S.C. 557, 330 S.E.2d 532 (Ct.App.1985); Starkey v. Bell, 281 S.C. 308, 315 S.E.2d 153 (Ct.App.1984)."
Not Wikipedia or a quick googly.
Your little "citation" is a joke, son. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's because the depth of your ignorance is, AFAICT, unfathomable. I'd be delighted to debate your ignorance (if there were a debate), but I have no interest in debating US or state law with a legal ignoramus such as yourself.
In short, you're full of shit. :-)
BTW, in case you're interested: Louisiana is unique among states since Louisiana state law is based on Spanish/French law, ultimately Roman law, and the other 49 states and the Federal government are based on English common law.
There is nothing of substance to learn from your comment, Grandpa. It has form (how you cite case law), but no substance.
On substance, you have just conceded that in order to prove fraud in a South Carolina court, one must establish the intent to deceive, and not just the fact of damage. Very well.
Your feeble defense is that things are different in other states and in federal courts. Well, the burden is on you to establish that. Cite relevant case law indicating that, in a federal court, it suffices to establish the fact of damage alone (not intent to deceive) to prove fraud.
You're like the proverbial monkey with his hand in the jar, Grandpa. Can't let go. Keep doing it. It looks really funny.
If you were smart, you'd simply acknowledge your brain fart long ago and be done with it. But you can't. So suffer more, sucka.
One more point: "If you look at legal websites, they will usually tell you which states a given attorney is licensed to practice."
You,Hoots, are of course licensed in none. In fact, you couldn't even be a paralegal. You could - probably - get a job in the mailroom. If you cleaned up your dirty little mouth a bit. That's a sign of an inadequate vocabulary and lowbrow upbringing, you know.
Go back to the other thread, Grandpa. I've got you Michigan, where the burden of proof is the same as in South Carolina. Show me evidence that it's different in a federal court or in some other state court.
Where did I "defend" his opinion. I merely stated that he is an accomplished attorney and you are full of shit. Both of those observations are a matter of record, not opinion.
So you agree with me that McCarthy's statement, if the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended, is ill-conceived?
It is not necesssary that I agree with him. What I agree with is that you are full of shit. To-wit:
"It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1976). "No particular type of victim is required . . . nor need the scheme have succeeded." United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302-03 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984). No actual loss to the victims is required. See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.) ("The fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution. [S]uccess of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 . . . ."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976); see also United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The amount of money realized as a result of the scheme is not an essential element of mail fraud. It was not even necessary to prove that the scheme succeeded.").
I wasn't arguing "against" anything. I was merely observing that you are utterly ignorant about the law. McCarthy himself directed readers to the relevant document, and you, Mr Ignoramus, have been feverishly gopogling state laws when you could have gone directly to "Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual" (McCarthy) to find the relevant Federal source material.
If you read further in the US Attorneys Manual you will find this:
"Of course proof that someone was actually victimized by the fraud is good evidence of the schemer's intent." Id. (quoting Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1180-81).
McCarthy: "If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended."
I'm afraid it's your head that is the can of stupid. :-)
Hey, Grandpa, you've been hoisted on your own petard. The quote you mined in this comment comes from an appeals court decision that overturned a fraud conviction. The plaintiffs suffered damages, but the appeals court found that the intent to defraud had not been proven and overturned the fraud conviction.
"Not cheated" does not equate with "not harmed." Look it up, Grandpa.
The court stated this: In the Rowe case, although the court felt that it was not necessary to measure the victims' loss in pecuniary terms, the injustice done was very real and made itself felt in the victims' pocketbook.
"ENV doesn't allow comments; they cant, they would be demolished by their opponents and embarrassed by their supporters."
Wrong.
They don't allow comments because the typical posts from evolutionists who are usually of the atheist variety is nothing but cursing and name calling, There is no substance from them just like your post.
'Materialist reduction is never the whole truth. It always leaves out that which is most human and most real'.
'Never'? 'Always'? Never and always hardly ever are the answers to questions. Not understanding something completely today doesn't mean that it won't be completely understood in the future.
'The mind is the only thing of which we have direct experience. It is the most tangible, the most real, experience we have. We know our mind directly - not through our senses, unlike any other aspect of the natural world, including matter'.
We are our minds. The mind is a model of the individual's place in the external reality. It's a product of the brain. The brain functionally consists of multiple modules, many of which have input, often contradictory, on the mind.
We are not aware consciously of what the separate brain modules are doing. As an example, humans are extremely good at recognising human faces. A face once seen will generally be recognised as familiar much later.
But we aren't aware of visual stimuli being processed in the occipital visual cortex or faces being recognised in the temporal cortex. There's the fascinating Capgras syndrome in which there's a neurological deficit between the temporal lobe and the limbic system of the brain, the emotion processing part.
Individuals with the Capgras syndrome are perfectly capable of identifying faces, but lack any emotional response to the face. Able to recognise the mother's face but lack an emotional response. Often leading to the mind being fooled and making the assumption that the external reality has been altered with familiar people being substituted with strangers, with robots or aliens or whatever.
By the way, don't take my compliment to mean that I agree that "[the mind is] a product of the brain".
You make that statement as if it was common and agreed-upon knowledge, but It's just your opinion. Which you share with others, of course, but cannot confirm.
Your belief that the mind isn't a product of the brain IS an opinion, not supported by any evidence. You and Egnor just make assertions without providing any evidence.
Egnor asserts that a materialist view of the mind will never provide an explanation of what it takes to be human. And I provided an example of how a materialist view of the mind provides an example.
Face recognition software exists. Computers running it probably do a better job than humans because they never tire or get bored. But they never feel pleasure or displeasure at recognising a face. A quality we share with many other animal species, including our co-dependent domestic dogs.
I've seen a few of your posts, but I forget... your training is in epidemiology? Pathology?
You're obviously qualified to speak with authority in those relevant areas. This isn't to say you can never make a reasonable or insightful remark on politics/climate science/etc, just that you've got an area where you can offer something substantial. We all do.
I'm not sure why Dr. Egnor has written so much on climate change. He doesn't seem to have a serious background in climate science. I don't see what the point is, other than to find yet another avenue through which to attack liberal Democrats.
He has, however, studied under some of the most reputable neurologists AND neuroscientists (Kandel, yes. Axel, yes. Bunge, yes) And the years of clinical experience as a neurosurgeon does absolutely give him a unique perspective. I'm not sure how you can deny that he has interesting and worthwhile things to say on the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. You may disagree, but you can't discount it outright.
On that last point, Egnor has the potential to say something insightful about neuroscience. I don't think that potential has been utilized in the last couple of years.
Maybe I missed something, so feel free to point me to it.
Nice post, Doc. You may enjoy this...
ReplyDeleteI regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness.
--- M. Planck (1931)
And this short story excerpt (by Terry Bisson)...
Imagine if you will... the leader of the fifth invader force speaking to the commander in chief...
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars."
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
Talk about missing the point of the "meat" story...
DeleteThis is also part of the story:
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
DeleteStill missing the point.
DeleteWho (or what) are doing the talking?
If you have a point, make it.
DeleteObviously, you just don't get it. You're as much of a deep 'thinker' as Egnor. That is, not at all.
DeleteThe "meat" story doesn't make fun of the idea that meat can think (without magic 'soul stuff'), as you seem to believe. No, it makes fun of the idea that meat can't think. The actors are obviously advanced machines that can think - contrary to the believe of meat robots like you that machines cannot think. Ironically, the machines, in turn, believe that meat cannot think. They have obviously forgotten that a long time ago their machine ancestors were made by meat creatures.
Very enjoyable read, Dr Egnor.
ReplyDeleteAnother great post Dr Egnor
ReplyDeleteChris
UK
ENV doesn't allow comments; they cant, they would be demolished by their opponents and embarrassed by their supporters.
ReplyDeleteSome post, a big cut and paste followed by a little “what Bertrand Russell said” and “materialism bad”. I guess you don't have to try very hard when you're preaching to the quire.
-KW
Choir, not quire.
DeleteGrandpa, why all of a sudden are you avoiding the other thread? :)
DeleteHoo
Avoiding? How do you know I'm avoiding?
DeleteHow? You haven't posted a comment there since 8 am. That's how!
DeleteHoo
My goodness! I didn't realize how needy you were this morning!
DeleteBut here... let me soothe your feelings just a little...
1. The case you cited involved a real estate advertisement in South Carolina. If you were American, you would know that each state legislates its own state laws, and they may (and usually are) different from Federal laws. That is why the Bar exam is administered by individual states and is different in every state. In fact, only some states will allow lawyers who passed the Bar in other states to "waive in" without passing the state-specific Bar. If you look at legal websites, they will usually tell you which states a given attorney is licensed to practice.
McCarthy was referring to Federal law. Hence, your citation is utterly irrelevant.
2. This is how you cite case law, taken from the case you cited when it reached the SC Supreme Court: "E.g., Riddle v. Pitts, 283 S.C. 387, 324 S.E.2d 59 (1984); Byrn v. Walker, 275 S.C. 83, 267 S.E.2d 601 (1980); Reid v. Harbison Dev. Corp., 285 S.C. 557, 330 S.E.2d 532 (Ct.App.1985); Starkey v. Bell, 281 S.C. 308, 315 S.E.2d 153 (Ct.App.1984)."
Not Wikipedia or a quick googly.
Your little "citation" is a joke, son. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's because the depth of your ignorance is, AFAICT, unfathomable. I'd be delighted to debate your ignorance (if there were a debate), but I have no interest in debating US or state law with a legal ignoramus such as yourself.
In short, you're full of shit. :-)
BTW, in case you're interested: Louisiana is unique among states since Louisiana state law is based on Spanish/French law, ultimately Roman law, and the other 49 states and the Federal government are based on English common law.
See! You've learned something now!
There is nothing of substance to learn from your comment, Grandpa. It has form (how you cite case law), but no substance.
DeleteOn substance, you have just conceded that in order to prove fraud in a South Carolina court, one must establish the intent to deceive, and not just the fact of damage. Very well.
Your feeble defense is that things are different in other states and in federal courts. Well, the burden is on you to establish that. Cite relevant case law indicating that, in a federal court, it suffices to establish the fact of damage alone (not intent to deceive) to prove fraud.
You're like the proverbial monkey with his hand in the jar, Grandpa. Can't let go. Keep doing it. It looks really funny.
If you were smart, you'd simply acknowledge your brain fart long ago and be done with it. But you can't. So suffer more, sucka.
Hoo
One more point: "If you look at legal websites, they will usually tell you which states a given attorney is licensed to practice."
DeleteYou,Hoots, are of course licensed in none. In fact, you couldn't even be a paralegal. You could - probably - get a job in the mailroom. If you cleaned up your dirty little mouth a bit. That's a sign of an inadequate vocabulary and lowbrow upbringing, you know.
Hoots: "Your feeble defense..."
DeleteDefense of what? The observation that you are an ignoramus? I need not defend that. The evidence is on the table in abundance.
And your comment about SC law is also wrong. Read the SC Supreme Court decision. If you can.
So, Grandpa, you choose death by a thousand cuts. Very well.
DeleteLet's go back to the other thread, this thing here is off topic.
Hoo
Defense of what?
DeleteGo back to the other thread, Grandpa. I've got you Michigan, where the burden of proof is the same as in South Carolina. Show me evidence that it's different in a federal court or in some other state court.
DeleteHoo
Defense of what?
DeleteFirst, of Andy McCarthy's brain fart. Now, of your own.
DeleteHoo
In the other thread, Grandpa, we now have South Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia in my column. Nothing in yours. Hoo 3, Grandpa 0.
DeleteHoo
Where did I "defend" his opinion. I merely stated that he is an accomplished attorney and you are full of shit. Both of those observations are a matter of record, not opinion.
DeleteSo you agree with me that McCarthy's statement, if the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended, is ill-conceived?
Delete:)
Hoo
It is not necesssary that I agree with him. What I agree with is that you are full of shit. To-wit:
Delete"It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1976). "No particular type of victim is required . . . nor need the scheme have succeeded." United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302-03 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984). No actual loss to the victims is required. See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.) ("The fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution. [S]uccess of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 . . . ."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976); see also United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The amount of money realized as a result of the scheme is not an essential element of mail fraud. It was not even necessary to prove that the scheme succeeded.").
Here
That's why McCarthy is a lawyer, and you are not. You are full of shit.
Q.E.D.
I wasn't arguing "against" anything. I was merely observing that you are utterly ignorant about the law. McCarthy himself directed readers to the relevant document, and you, Mr Ignoramus, have been feverishly gopogling state laws when you could have gone directly to "Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual" (McCarthy) to find the relevant Federal source material.
DeleteIf you read further in the US Attorneys Manual you will find this:
"Of course proof that someone was actually victimized by the fraud is good evidence of the schemer's intent." Id. (quoting Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1180-81).
McCarthy: "If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended."
I'm afraid it's your head that is the can of stupid. :-)
Now, was there anything else?
By the way, you should remain on notice that there is a major difference between automobile accidents and fraud. :-)
DeleteAnd Pintos and iPads.
DeleteAnd the equity markets and the climate.
DeleteHey, Grandpa, you've been hoisted on your own petard. The quote you mined in this comment comes from an appeals court decision that overturned a fraud conviction. The plaintiffs suffered damages, but the appeals court found that the intent to defraud had not been proven and overturned the fraud conviction.
DeleteWhat a dork you are, Grandpa!
Hoo
I wasn't arguing "against" anything.
DeleteExactly. You were just bullshitting as always.
Hoo
Clearly wasn't enough in that case. :)))
DeleteHoo
And by the way, you're welcome, ignoramus.
DeleteThanks for proving my point, Grandpa.
DeleteHoo
Hoots: "Clearly wasn't enough in that case."
DeleteIlliterate, too.
"No customer testified that he felt he had been cheated." In other words, no one was actually victimized. Lied to, but not victimized.
Whatever you decide to do with your life, stay away from the law.
"Not cheated" does not equate with "not harmed." Look it up, Grandpa.
DeleteThe court stated this: In the Rowe case, although the court felt that it was not necessary to measure the victims' loss in pecuniary terms, the injustice done was very real and made itself felt in the victims' pocketbook.
So yes, harm was done.
Hoo
The Rowe case was in 1932. Regent Office was 1970. Different cases.
Delete"ENV doesn't allow comments; they cant, they would be demolished by their opponents and embarrassed by their supporters."
DeleteWrong.
They don't allow comments because the typical posts from evolutionists who are usually of the atheist variety is nothing but cursing and name calling, There is no substance from them just like your post.
'Materialist reduction is never the whole truth. It always leaves out that which is most human and most real'.
ReplyDelete'Never'? 'Always'? Never and always hardly ever are the answers to questions. Not understanding something completely today doesn't mean that it won't be completely understood in the future.
'The mind is the only thing of which we have direct experience. It is the most tangible, the most real, experience we have. We know our mind directly - not through our senses, unlike any other aspect of the natural world, including matter'.
We are our minds. The mind is a model of the individual's place in the external reality. It's a product of the brain. The brain functionally consists of multiple modules, many of which have input, often contradictory, on the mind.
We are not aware consciously of what the separate brain modules are doing. As an example, humans are extremely good at recognising human faces. A face once seen will generally be recognised as familiar much later.
But we aren't aware of visual stimuli being processed in the occipital visual cortex or faces being recognised in the temporal cortex. There's the fascinating Capgras syndrome in which there's a neurological deficit between the temporal lobe and the limbic system of the brain, the emotion processing part.
Individuals with the Capgras syndrome are perfectly capable of identifying faces, but lack any emotional response to the face. Able to recognise the mother's face but lack an emotional response. Often leading to the mind being fooled and making the assumption that the external reality has been altered with familiar people being substituted with strangers, with robots or aliens or whatever.
That was a well-crafted comment, barkfar.
DeleteBy the way, don't take my compliment to mean that I agree that "[the mind is] a product of the brain".
DeleteYou make that statement as if it was common and agreed-upon knowledge, but It's just your opinion. Which you share with others, of course, but cannot confirm.
Grandpa,
DeleteYour belief that the mind isn't a product of the brain IS an opinion, not supported by any evidence. You and Egnor just make assertions without providing any evidence.
Egnor asserts that a materialist view of the mind will never provide an explanation of what it takes to be human. And I provided an example of how a materialist view of the mind provides an example.
Face recognition software exists. Computers running it probably do a better job than humans because they never tire or get bored. But they never feel pleasure or displeasure at recognising a face. A quality we share with many other animal species, including our co-dependent domestic dogs.
The philosophy and neuroscience stuff is always more interesting than the posts on politics and global warming.
ReplyDeleteChoose them battles wisely!
Anonymous,
DeleteEgnor doesn't do neuroscience, philosophy or climate science.
He does apologetics and conservative politics. That's all.
Bachfiend,
ReplyDeleteI've seen a few of your posts, but I forget... your training is in epidemiology? Pathology?
You're obviously qualified to speak with authority in those relevant areas. This isn't to say you can never make a reasonable or insightful remark on politics/climate science/etc, just that you've got an area where you can offer something substantial. We all do.
I'm not sure why Dr. Egnor has written so much on climate change. He doesn't seem to have a serious background in climate science. I don't see what the point is, other than to find yet another avenue through which to attack liberal Democrats.
He has, however, studied under some of the most reputable neurologists AND neuroscientists (Kandel, yes. Axel, yes. Bunge, yes)
And the years of clinical experience as a neurosurgeon does absolutely give him a unique perspective. I'm not sure how you can deny that he has interesting and worthwhile things to say on the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. You may disagree, but you can't discount it outright.
Much to agree with, Anon.
DeleteOn that last point, Egnor has the potential to say something insightful about neuroscience. I don't think that potential has been utilized in the last couple of years.
Maybe I missed something, so feel free to point me to it.
Hoo