andrewcellini

Sure, but the most common forms of female genital mutilation involve either the partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans along with the clitoral hood, and some practices involve sewing the labia majora together on top of what is essentially the complete destruction of the external genitalia. Thus it may not be fair or accurate to say

That's not an argument from authority at all actually. Raider did not allude to any specific expert in psychology in his claim that you are wrong - if he did then he'd have been in argument from authority territory - but rather (what I presume he meant is) the set of knowledge that has been accrued by psychology. Though he didn't substantiate his claim with anything specific, neither did you. You told a nice story though. Put into the form of a rhetorical question: when did psychology become a person?

Are you then sick of yourself? You are (I think) human. Do you think you're violent, sadistic, and a bully as well? Or are you above all that?

That's not the full quote: "We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious - not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." which is pretty important unless you want to misrepresent his view as a denial of consciousness, which it's not unless you accept qualia in general or in the epiphenomenal "side effect" sense. To provide a bit of background, if you were to study consciousness with the heterophenomenological approach (the one Dennett promotes in Consciousness Explained), there's nothing which tells you the "lights are on and someone is home" other than their reports, correlated physiological changes etc. If qualia (from the epiphenomenal account) are to have no function, arise from changes in our brains without themselves having a sort of measurable effect on other brain states (causally inert), then we cannot falsify them and so "we're all [empirically] zombies." Dennett is a compatibilist. What did you mean by this, the typical libertarian free will? He doesn't, his theory just attempts to avoid the "hard problems of consciousness" by explaining away the hard part. Consciousness is still a thing to be studied, otherwise his whole "heterophenomenology" would be pointless, no?

a single artist with auditory hallucinations disproves this. here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis Edit: I am in no way implying that Schizophrenia, or any mental illness for that matter, is necessary for creativity or that creativity is somehow a symptom of Schizophrenia (it's not).

wavenumber in this context is given by 1/λ assuming the op means v is frequency rather than velocity otherwise he just "redefined" velocity by accident.

we can use computers to grow parsley.

needs more myeeeah see

I'm gonna be the wild card and say no, it's a reptile.

"I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist." - hoffman https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ edit: woops too late , you mean to tell me there's a page 2!

Excuse me if I say something wrong. AFAIK, they are predictable insofar as you can take some initial conditions and forecast the systems behavior at an arbitrary future time, but in practice because the initial conditions used in the prediction only approximate their actual values the predicted trajectories can be very different from reality. The rate at which the two trajectories diverge is governed by a lyapunov exponent. That's about where my understanding of sensitivity of initial conditions in chaotic systems ends lol.

Chaotic systems are deterministic and unpredictable, at least after some time has elapsed as the uncertainty in the prediction grows exponentially.

For Introduction to Biopsych and Behavioral Neuroscience we used the book Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat which is not technical at all, it's fairly light on the history in each section, and describes little "experiments" you can do to demonstrate certain phenomena. It also introduces the effects of genetics and epigenetics on behavior, as well as giving evolutionary perspectives.

There are two books I've read by Oliver Sacks geared towards the general public about the neurological basis of several disorders along with case studies, the first is The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and the second Hallucinations. I would say if you're looking for infotaining reads they satisfy that criteria.

one of my favorite albums

It's not clear how a) that is confirmation bias b) you think I don't notice the link between doctrine and action. I even talked earlier in this thread about the actions of pope's such as the one in the OP and how those actions have biblical justification. Then how can you make generalizations about what Muslim nations do? A handful of reports going one way can be easily met with a handful going the other. These reports on their own, or even having a few are about as useful to this discussion as anecdotes. I am not saying I disagree with the point you trying to get across, I am simply critiquing the way that you are trying to do it.

Nope, I +1ed several of your posts in this thread which had content I thought was reasonable and happened to be in line with my view. I only have contention with vague notions such as "Muslim countries do ___" because it offers no perspective on how many, which etc., and one can easily find a handful to the contrary and make the naive conclusion that "hey they can't all be bad". It would just be nice if you dealt out some stats along with what you write as your summary. My response was more to cajole you to do so than me exhibiting confirmation bias.

It would probably be appropriate to read this quote in its proper context as a response to Mig.

"You do realize there is more than one muslim country don't you? You do realize that they all enforce Islamic law to varying degrees don't you?" That was my point in bringing up Saudi Arabia. Relax. "Islam is fully a religion of peace and does not encourage actions of this sort." I've never argued this, and it's evidenced in this thread. Stop putting words in my mouth and learn to use the quote function. "I never made the argument that all muslims commit these atrocities. Rather, I'm saying that the worst atrocities coming from the Islamic world right now have clear ties to the doctrine" As do the worst atrocities coming from Christianity, right now.