Rapture BlogTV, and Doctors Without Borders Charity Event

[stevehayes13]

Why do Americans call Médecins Sans Frontières Doctors Without Borders.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@stevehayes13 Perhaps because most of us do not speak French, and because that is what they call themselves in English speaking countries.

[stevehayes13]

@SisyphusRedeemed Here in England, where we speak English, they call themselves Medecins Sans Fronieres.

[Samsaptaka]

@stevehayes13 Perhaps it's purely an Americanism, but they do translate their name into English on this side of the pond.

[stevehayes13]

@Samsaptaka So they are called Doctors Without Borders in the US cos they think Americans are too insular and stupid to understand Médecins Sans Frontières. That is funny.

[Samsaptaka]

@stevehayes13 I think that's reading far too much into their motivations. One assumes that their American representatives are aware of what the US is like. In my hometown, there are native speakers of over a hundred and ten languages. This diverse population is united by English. The majority who don't speak English as their first tongue speak Spanish, and very few speak French at all. The time when French was the Lingua Franca is long over.

[roentgen571]

@SisyphusRedeemed I understand it to be because of the laws regarding charities in the US...they have to have a US-based office in order to take US-tax-deductible donations, or something like that. The US-based branch has an English name for obvious reasons. But I dunno, I could be way off... lol

[Uhlbelk]

I think I'll have to read this color stuff myself, I didn't quite comprehend the experiments and results from this conversation.

[QuantumGh0st]

I've recently discovered that William Lane Craig is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. And this guy has a reputation as a supporter of science? I get the sense that Craig’s apparent interest in science is a charade; an act designed to attract the attention of rational & intelligent people who he can, proudly, debate in front of a less than astute audience. He is very good at creating the illusion of triumph in debates.

What do you guys think?

PS, spread the word about Craig’s fellowship

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@QuantumGh0st I absolutely agree. I would love to ask Craig to talk about something from science that interests him that DOESN'T have theological implications. The man is a hack, but his credit, at least he admits as much. He openly says that evidence and argument could not dissuade him from believing in God, it's a foregone conclusion for him, he is immune to any idea that contradicts him. Seriously, fuck that guy.

[philonous09]

Yeah, reading Craig's argument in an article has disillusioned me...I'll never forget how bad that article was, I was about to have a "philosophical vomit"

[LoquaciousApe]

@QuantumGh0st It comes as no surprise that he endorses the Discovery Institute (would be more accurately named the Indoctrination Institute). What's more surprising is that he has a reputation as a supporter of science. This is the first I'm hearing of it.

[stevehayes13]

@QuantumGh0st Craig is not public record as saying if the evidence completely disproved Christianity, he would still believe.

[andyissemicool]

I read all these really heavy philosophical comments, so my brain is too mushy to say anything smart. But I do like your cat :).

[2bsirius]

DAMN! 7-8 pm EST? Unfortunately, that is the middle of the night and very early morning here in England.

I'm so tired of missing all the fun because of the time zone I live in.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@2bsirius I'll try to record it and post it on my channel, so you and others like you can catch it. I'll also try not to drag my feet for months before I post it, like I did with this one.

[defcore108]

There are a ton of great ideas being exchanged here. Glad you decided to upload it. :-)

[MorallyDepraved]

@HonestDiscussioner Are you refering to self recognition in Great apes? I should probably have mentioned that he thinks that there are at least rudements of consciousness in their brains.

[MorallyDepraved]

Any thoughts on Ramachandran's theory of consciousness and it's ethical implications? In case you aren't aware he thinks that consciousness is uniquely human.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@MorallyDepraved Given that other animals that are NOT human seem to have a level of consciousness, I think that assertion is untenable.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@MorallyDepraved I'm a fan of Ramachandran's work in general, but I hadn't heard him speak of this. I suspect he's either using 'consciousness' in an unusually rarefied way, such that it's technically true, but uninteresting. If not, then I'd say he's just wrong.

[LoquaciousApe]

@SisyphusRedeemed So how does one find out about these conferences in time to attend one, instead of having to watch a recording?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@LoquaciousApe By 'conferences' do you mean the BlogTV sessions? We're having another one this Sunday. HD and I have an hour, from 7-8 EST, on DRPJones' Charity Drive. Check out the links in the description box for more.

[zakiechan]

@MorallyDepraved Where does he say consciousness is uniquely human? I have read/watched everything he has produced (for a popular audience at least) and I don't recall him ever saying anything along the lines of consciousness being uniquely human.

[AlainG80]

@7:43 youtu be/wrnVidjnXRo?t=6m6s

[DeJach]

The whole science-explaining-experience thing is fun. My take on it is that experience is a way of experiencing the algorithm "from the inside". You may know the algorithm and its output and can give a general explanation of the feeling, but actually experiencing it requires you to be in the algorithm itself. So while science may not be able to explain with words some experience, I think it will eventually be able to alter your brain to think it's had the experience so that you'll understand.

[rmeddy1]

I always wondered how exactly does one demarcate between Natural and Supernatural.

Also I expect the Hard Problem of consciousnesses to go the same route as Zeno Paradoxes

[colourmegone]

I believe, without being fully acquainted with it, that "unreliable faculties" argument is not only correct but is the basis of the scientific method, i.e. peer review. This acknowledges the unreliability of an individual or even a group to grasp the full truth about an observed phenomenon and allows us to progressively refine and alter our opinions to conform more closely to objective reality.

[PlanetJeroen]

@rmeddy1 One does not get to demarcate between the two, as we are only able to proces the natural world. So supernatural is just a synonym to fantasy.

[rmeddy1]

@PlanetJeroen I'm sorry I just deleted my comment to create an addendum (Youtube should really put in an editing system)

with respect to your response that's pretty much my standard response, it's just natural we have paradigms for and natural we don't have paradigms for

[zarkoff45]

That guy sounds like he watches my videos.

[MroyalT]

You have been gone for so long!!! We need more updates on the channel... I would have loved to watch your blog tv. If only you posted an update on youtube to tell me!

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@MroyalT I'm going to be on this Sunday, 7-8pm est, for DPRJones' Doctor's Without Borders benefit. Check the (updated) description of this video for more info.

[tsimon1234]

Almost 2 hours of SisyphusRedeemed!!?? O: So there is a heaven! :P