Re: perhaps you missed a few things

Post #274,769

12/4/06 9:11:18 AM

Now I will grant that this theory is as provable as "man is causing global warming" but to dismis the argument because there is a sky pixie mentioned is bollocks.

No, it isn't.

The rest of your points are just appeals to authority.

Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[link|http://darwinia.co.uk/|[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]]

Post #274,805

by Ashton

12/4/06 11:19:19 PM

Careful..

[short form] Pshaw to your bollocks.

Your certainties are beginning to sound like marlowe's..
Being hooked on the religion of a-theism is no different from vice versa - remember? Nor is the absurdity of corporate religious machinations across the centuries - one half of some binary pair. Wouldn't you Like! it-all to be so either/or bloody simplistic.

You-as-Authority for railing at sky-pixies et al - will not make the ineffable disappear from human experience.. disappear into your approved mechanistic vacuum. As ignorant as the species (generally) remains about its origins, 'destinations' and its context within all that space-time -- the prudent one ditches *all* the fairy stories - no fair saving ones you like: like, say? "random chance + time' - then stir: from Nothingness".

Admit it: you Don't Know Shit. Any more than the super-string theorists 'know'. Either. About all that stuff (nor are you the cleverest-yet to imagine that you do.)
You cannot imagine.. Nothingness (never mind the 'vacuum' idea: that's not remotely It.)

The author attempts to collect a few useful, working truisms we've gleaned on the physical level thus far; this to see if any combination of those offer any useful insights - but you have to know about Some of the material he references - to play.

(Pity that math/logic-alone won't scale-to-infinity, either - but it beats joining some Certainty-cult, no?)

Post #274,807

by boxley

12/5/06 12:05:06 AM

some people dont grok uncertainty as certainty

just because there is room for faeries, chindi's, krishna's doppelgangers, white buffalo and republicans doesnt mean they dont exist. Let them explain relativity, they cant. Energy is never lost, it just changes form. What that form takes is philosophical at the moment but I would hate to be in the place that dertermanistically explains where that energy goes. Mullahs Hassids or Athiests I expect. With killing instructions for those that choose to regard such evidence as "bollocks"
thanx,
bill

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Post #274,818

by pwhysall

12/5/06 2:43:34 AM

12/5/06 2:44:33 AM

Oh please.

I can imagine the concept of invisible pink teapots that live around neutron stars and play bridge all day.

I don't expect anyone else to accept the possibility that they are there until I, who posits the bridge-playing invisible pink teapot hypothesis, provides some evidence.

All this "well, we don't know everything, so we must accept the possibility of sky pixies and ley lines and astral projection" bollocks is just that: bollocks.

Science works well enough when it's making really quite complicated things, like the computer and internet that we're using right now, but to cast it to one side just because we'd like to believe in an magical best friend who will make it all better?

Bollocks to that. That's childish thinking.

Give me just one piece of actual scientific evidence for anything paranormal. Ever.

Just one.

And you know what? Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars of research money that has been pissed up the wall in search of the paranormal over the past century or so, not a single result has been achieved that has withstood even the most cursory scrutiny.

It always boils down to fraud or chance in the end.

The only place the ineffable exists is within our own minds.

Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]

Edited by pwhysall Dec. 5, 2006, 02:44:33 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #274,829

by boxley

12/5/06 8:07:02 AM

so physics is wrong? energy dissapates? its not a constant?

and all these people are wrong/insane?
[link|http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/180library.html|http://blake.montcla...f/180library.html]

define paranormal please. Anything like a black hole? Want to refine your term or just keep it so broad and vague that anything fits under the hood.
thanx,
bill

Post #274,831

by pwhysall

12/5/06 8:17:18 AM

12/5/06 8:19:33 AM

Cold fusion, eh?

Now I know you're taking the mick.

Remember, the [link|http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/|PEAR] [link|http://skepdic.com/pear.html|project] ran at Princeton, a most august institution, and produced not a single item of evidence in favour of anything paranormal (and no, black holes aren't a paranormal phenomenon, because they are, to some degree or other, described with large chunks of mathematics that jibes with what little observational evidence exists). Not a sausage. They produced a lot of data that looks a lot like white noise and an awful lot of handwaving and interpretation.

Net result? Naff all, and the project is shutting down.

Edited by pwhysall Dec. 5, 2006, 08:19:33 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #274,896

by Ashton

12/5/06 6:33:09 PM

Spent a lot of time around Jesuits?

This is prime reductio.

OK then - define love or any other of the ruminations in that jelloware we don't yet grok .0000000001% of. Relate that to humans' priorities about "energies". What? you have no dimensions within which to test, measure and speadsheet your proofs/results? Pity. I guess that one is an illusion, too.

Describe what science "is to do.. with a singularity" [aka - we have No Idea wtf goes on, nor can anyone get behind an Event Horizon to measure stuff] - what happens at the "center" of a black hole; undefined, you say? You betcha. (Not that our term 'black hole' may be mistaken for some knowledge about 'Reality' either; it's just another currently interesting guess - amidst all that ignorance.)

Do you think in 11-dimensional space, much? Do you think you might?
So then, let's say we've discovered a passel of 'Laws of Nature' .. (oft seen as the metaphor for a prisoner: first, you map your cell.)

But your cell map won't tell you a thing about how it happens that There Are "Cells", why things happen to drop at what you call "One G" - nor why the Universal Constant just happens to favor matter over anti-matter: by a smidgeon. Nor will any of the above 'explain' how it is that you+everyone found selves within one. Need I extrapolate 'cell', for the literal-minded?

Since you favor the didactic expression of your personal Wisdom of the Ages, here are some others' takes on your predicament -

Your wit's too hot, it speeds too fast, 'twill tire.
-- Shakespeare

ie. Be wiser than other people if you can,
but do not tell them so.
--The Earl of Chesterfield

(They're both from your provinces)

ta

Post #274,929

by pwhysall

12/6/06 1:21:45 AM

Re: Spent a lot of time around Jesuits?

None of your tangents address my point which is that all this flim-flam about "quantum mind" and "the paranormal" is exactly that.

Philosophy is good. Physics is good.

It all goes to ratshit when practitioners of the latter start playing with the former.

(In all seriousness, you sound like a closet god-botherer in these posts)

Post #274,933

by Ashton

12/6/06 6:00:40 AM

It's a Republican thing

[short form]

When/If you define The Question as:

A) There's this anthropomorphic Patriarch, see .. who's benevolent and sadistic, in turn; likes goat cheese and being adored etc.

OR

B) There's Nothingness ie. Stuff Just Happened

then, as with the recent pathetic case of Muricans allowing the Repos to define/claim [Religio + all the trappings] and win elections and stuff:

Sane people have to cry BS! to your inane protrayal of (any question relating to what might be Real.) ie

You postulate inchoate binary slogans? and - I'll say:
it's Dumb Stuff.

Want one definition of 'The Real'? Try one that's popular in some circles -
"That which is permanent and unchanging"
Ever 'seen' (tasted, felt, heard) anything remotely like that?

As to dudgeon about the article -
I see an earnest attempt to try to collect some phenomena that may.. be related to The Mystery (of why there is anything at all.) The screed Cannot / Could not ever "describe the Real" - for libraries-full of reasons. As to the unfortunate insertions of silly neologisms: it's what people do, when they think they're on to something.

Remember Kuhn and 'paradigm shift'? That was not a silly observation, not-at-all, but silly people began bandying that phrase about until it died as horrible a death as was the torture-murder of innovation by you-know-who.

Not my problem. Throw out baby w/bathwater: ignore all his words. That still won't mean that you know Shit about Reality.

(Does anybody, currently on the planet, know anything about Reality?
Wouldn't. you. like. to. know !?)

Post #274,968

by ubernostrum

12/6/06 12:32:34 PM

Re: It's a Republican thing

You postulate inchoate binary slogans?

\r\n\r\n

No, I vertically integrate leveraged B2B strategies to focus on core competencies.

\r\n\r\n

Seriously, though, Peter's got a point here. People who know the physics but slept through the philosophy are nicely complementing people who know the philosophy but read the physics in <cite>New York Times</cite> articles, and the result is lots of mumbo-jumbo that only sounds respectable if your criterion is "uses lots of big words".

\r\n\r\n

And unfortunately, philosophy of mind is currently rife with these sorts of folks who, while they provide a nice counterpoint to the equally-stupid eliminative materialists, need to go back and re-read their Wittgenstein -- whereof they do not know, they should keep silent.

\r\n\r\n

I see an earnest attempt to try to collect some phenomena that may.. be related to The Mystery (of why there is anything at all.) The screed Cannot / Could not ever "describe the Real"

\r\n\r\n

Whenever I see someone talk about "the Real" I want to beat them over the head with Kant's Critiques. Yeah, there is in all likelihood a "Real" out there. No, we ain't ever gonna get at it. Yes, it's a fundamental limitation of what we are. The best we can ever manage is rigorous empirical testing that lets us conclude "well, it seems to work this way, but we could still be wrong about that". The Truth is out There in the continuinuinuinuum, and it's all very quantum. Accept it and move on.

\r\n\r\n

(can you tell I don't care much for metaphysics?)

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #275,008

by Ashton

12/6/06 6:04:16 PM

12/6/06 6:10:51 PM

Agreeable..

Indeed the world is filled with small amateurs with Big mouths (I tend to regard even less, the Professional Class; anyone can profess-to-know.) Some things you have to do entirely alone -- even within the noisiest culture yet

As to canny Ludwig... Kant as Rock Star of the age? Hard to better such gems as,

Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie.

(Love It when he agrees with moi; The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.)

I reiterate my main bone of contention with *all* flippant dismissals of The Mystery, whether from those who acknowledge little-interest-in the topic they are so Certain about - or those who imagine that meta- is about raps on tables in seances. And fie on every, 'show me the Proof that there's The Real and, THIS is IT.pdf'

Having paid my dues in BS (Big Science) I fancy I grok adequately its general appropriateness for mapping one's cell. Having paid other dues, where the lab is in unmapped territory - I notice I become less tolerant of either the casual smug dismissals - or the I Know Truth!! of the besotted acolyte.

I maintain that, in these matters the most probably 'True' response to just too many casual assertions is,

You Don't Know Shit.

Yes, I too subscribe to niti niti [not this.. not that..] .. an awareness that our jelloware faculties are far better at recognizing the smell of that which is unTrue, than ever noticing outright ... some gleaming little bit of the True. Why, there are whole Schools built around that theme. Just not at Harvard or CalTech.

oTpy

Edited by Ashton Dec. 6, 2006, 06:10:51 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #274,944

by imric

12/6/06 7:19:26 AM

Science IS Philosophy.

Whether YOU want to consider it the ONE and ONLY truth or not.

BTW - using the scientific method, prove to me that there is no Quantum Mind.

And after that, you can show me the experimental verification of string theory.

Oh - and that dark energy thing? Perhaps you could show me some? No, not the holes in current theories that requires it's existance.

You, like many, indulge in 'scientism', and call it 'science'.

Good show of faith, though.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,945

by Another Scott

12/6/06 7:47:11 AM

No it isn't.

[link|http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science|Science]:

1.\ta branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.\tsystematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.\tany of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.\tsystematized knowledge in general.
5.\tknowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.\ta particular branch of knowledge.
7.\tskill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

and [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy|Philosophy]:

1.\tthe rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.\tany of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.\ta system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.\tthe critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5.\ta system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6.\ta philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

are (perhaps subtly) different things. Ultimately science comes down to evidence, predicative ability, and falsify-ability. Philosophy is about rationality and isn't tied to evidence or the physical world as strongly. IMO.

I think some of you folks are talking past each other. I think Ashton is saying that there are many things that science can't explain. I think Peter is saying that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition. "It's bollocks."

I think [link|http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/|Victor J. Stenger] (author of the original linked piece) is saying roughly the same thing as Peter.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #274,950

by imric

12/6/06 8:59:29 AM

Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy'

it's A philosophy...

Even in your definitions, Natural Philosophy (2) is more properly known as Physics...

I think Ashton is saying that there are many things that science can't explain. I think Peter is saying that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition. "It's bollocks."

In fact, what Peter said was that everything 'paranormal' has been 'found' to be either fraud or chance.

Now, I don't know about this instance of trying to fit 'paranormal' phenomena into a scientific framework, myself. But if he really meant "that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition "It's bollocks."" in general, he would HAVE to reject both 'dark energy' and string theory, and say that they are 'bollocks'.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,952

by pwhysall

12/6/06 9:16:52 AM

Re: Good point. Science isn't 'Philosophy'

In fact, what Peter said was that everything 'paranormal' has been 'found' to be either fraud or chance.

It has.

Now, I don't know about this instance of trying to fit 'paranormal' phenomena into a scientific framework, myself. But if he really meant "that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition "It's bollocks."" in general, he would HAVE to reject both 'dark energy' and string theory, and say that they are 'bollocks'.

No, I wouldn't. I'd call them "hypotheses", because that's what they are.

Get the difference? Dark energy and string theory may or may not be right. The scientific method of hypotheses-observation-evidence-GOTO 10 will either support or demolish them.

But there's a fuckload more convincing maths for either of those two ideas than there is for the half-baked gibberish that's summarised by the phrase "quantum mind".

Post #274,951

by pwhysall

12/6/06 9:14:01 AM

You don't understand the scientific method...

...if you're asking me to prove a negative and then claim it as some kind of logical advancement of your position.

I don't claim "quantum mind" exists; it's up to those who do to provide the hypothesis and the observed evidence.

Remember, dark energy and string theory and all the other things that collide with your world view are, at the moment, hypotheses.

They'll either stand or fall on the basis of the available evidence. I defend neither.

You need to understand that hypotheses demand evidence before they can be described as theories. They evolve. They change as evidence is either produced or not. You're tilting at windmills.

And the "paranormal"?

Simply show me one example of psychic/religious/telepathic/ghost/insert_your_woowoo_here phenomena that has withstood rigorous scientific investigation. I'm talking double-blind random testing. I'm talking not letting Uri Geller provide or touch the spoons he purports to bend (he completely fails to bend them, by the way).

You won't be able to do it. Every single time anyone's had a go at this - and there's been a vast amount of time, effort and money poured into it by otherwise-reputable institutions and individuals - the result has been the same.

Fraud or chance.

Post #274,954

by boxley

12/6/06 9:42:16 AM

question then

you, when corporal have a "measurable" magnetic field surrounding your body. Some people's are higher than others. What happens to that field when you suck your last breathe? goes somewhere because it isnt measurable by your corpse any more. Please explain where it goes and why.
thanx,
bill

Post #274,956

by Another Scott

12/6/06 10:05:22 AM

My stab at it.

The magnetic field from the body has 3 components: 1) an intrinsic contribution from the magnetic moments of the magnetic atoms (like iron, chromium, etc.) and 2) the magnetic field that results from changing intrinsic electrical activity (firing of neurons, etc.); 3) magnetic fields generated by induced electrical activity due to exposure to external electric or magnetic fields (e.g. MRI scans, lightning, etc.).

Maxwell's Equations tell us that electrical currents give rise to magnetic fields.

Quantum Mechanics tell us how to calculate the magnetic fields from atoms.

There's nothing mysterious about the magnetic field from a living body - AFAIK. When it dies, the contribution from the magnetic atoms remains. The contribution from the intrinsic electrical activity ceases when the intrinsic electrical activity ceases.

In each case, the fields are very, very small, compared to the magnetic field of the Earth.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #274,957

by boxley

12/6/06 10:18:46 AM

since energy transforms rather than dissapate

and the loss of the field suggests that "some" energy has transformed/transferred. There is Peter's wooly booger, it is measurable and defined.
thanx,
bill

Post #274,960

by admin

12/6/06 10:47:30 AM

The field lines collapse...

... and generate a negligible amount of heat.

Where's the mystery in that?

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #274,961

by boxley

12/6/06 10:49:39 AM

no mystery, if thats the explaination

the field may just go elsewhere.
thanx,
bill

Post #274,958

by pwhysall

12/6/06 10:25:42 AM

Odd question.

Your brain's electrical activity will cause some magnetic effect (although very small) and when your brain stops, it stops.

Post #274,963

by imric

12/6/06 11:03:49 AM

Agreed -

Well, add the whole nervous system...

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,970

by ubernostrum

12/6/06 12:38:36 PM

Ah, geez.

Back in the old days, they weighed people just before and just after death, and so came to an entirely accurate measurement of the weight of the soul (which obviously departed at the moment of expiration). Turns out it doesn't weigh much, but hey, the weight changed a tiny amount! There must have been something that left the body! Let's see these dumb rationals explain that!

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #274,983

by boxley

12/6/06 1:36:00 PM

1/4 of an ounce, everybody knows that

Post #274,984

by imric

12/6/06 1:36:35 PM

That's what, 50 bucks?

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,986

by jake123

12/6/06 1:38:31 PM

Up here that'll run you at least 65$CDN

and maybe all the way up to eighty five, depending on where you live and the means of rendition...

Post #275,006

by boxley

12/6/06 5:43:20 PM

is that for the good BC stuff or the ONT ragweed?

Post #275,009

by jake123

12/6/06 6:23:33 PM

It's not ragweed anymore

You know, there's this university in SE Ont called Guelph, which is the premier agricultural school in Canada, and in the eighties a huge cohort went through it specifically to learn how to breed weed, and the results have been spectacular; it's thanks to those guys that the weed is so much more potent now.

Post #274,962

by imric

12/6/06 11:02:28 AM

Therefore, your PHILOSOPHY

is that if it doesn't withstand rigorous scientific testing, it doesn't exist, right? Right?

And insofar as your 'fraud or chance' thing goes, 'chance' can encompass almost ANY observed phenomena if extended far enough, so it sure makes for a convenient way to dismiss inconvenient observations, don't it? Fraud? Yeah, it happens with things not understood or not well understood.

It is a matter of FAITH however, that all things must fit into a scientific framework to be 'real'. It is a matter of philosophy. You can't prove otherwise from within the scientific framework.

Whether YOU like that fact or not.

And as for understanding scientific method? ROFL. ROFLMAO.

Tell me, just what do you think 'my position' is? What do you think I'm trying to say here? That 'quantum mind' is scientific and needs to be treated on the same level as ST and DE? (well, maybe so, since ST is designed to be unprovable and DE occupies about the same position that epicycles did in the 14th century).

No.

What I don't like is the assumption that science is all, and all is science trotted out as factual.

Taint so, Peter. Can't be proved.

To claim it is is itself unscientific.

All science is, is a way of looking at the world and it's phenomena. Is it practical and useful? Sure! Is it a good way of looking at the world? Yup!

Is it the One, True Way™? I dunno about THAT.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,966

by pwhysall

12/6/06 12:03:32 PM

Please don't misrepresent what I said.

And I never said that anything HAS to fit into ANY particular framework.

That straw man is of your own making.

My point is, quite simply this:

Quantum Mind (and other woowoo/flimflam guffinations) are not scientific, and it's wrong to present them as such. Further, the woowooflimflam stuff has no credible evidence at all, your weaselling on chance and fraud notwithstanding.

If an event happens, and the two possible explanations are "chance" and "new phenomena that transcend all known laws of physics, but which mysteriously don't have much of an effect the rest of the time", you're damn right I'm going to call it chance, because the second answer requires extraordinary evidence, which quite simply never turns up.

All the other stuff about faith is irrelevant to my point.

Post #274,974

by imric

12/6/06 12:59:47 PM

Horse-

crap.

You have routinely mocked - in many posts in this thread - even the idea of the existance of anything paranormal because of the lack of scientific evidence.

And now you never said that to be real it has to fit into a scientific framework?

Well, I suppose that's almost sort of true. You never EXPLICITLY said that.

Quantum Mind (and other woowoo/flimflam guffinations) are not scientific, and it's wrong to present them as such. Further, the woowooflimflam stuff has no credible evidence at all

Which is why I brought up ST. ST is ALSO not scientific (at least in it's present form), and is DESIGNED to be untestable. It's just pretty math. DE is just another word for comostatic repulsion, and the only 'evidence' for it is as a bookkeeping trick to prop up current scientismic cosmological ideas. But both of those ideas are fashionable. They fit current scientismic dogma. The idea that you consider Quantum Mind to be a 'woowoo/flimflam guffination' for the same reasons that I disbelieve/dismiss ST & DE amuses me mightily.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #274,979

by pwhysall

12/6/06 1:16:04 PM

Whatever.

You're wagging my dog with its tail.

The very concept of "quantum mind" - those very words - implies that the proponents of this woowoo idea want it to be taken seriously as a scientific concept. Why not just call it, oh, I dunno, "gestalt microbrainism" or "feng shite", or some such? Don't wheel out the maths unless you're going to play according to the scientific rules.

You're very excited about dark energy and string theory. That's good.

I particularly like the way you use two very hard concepts with oceans of ugly, difficult mathematics describing them to justify the woowoo-ism of quantum mind.

They might well be total bollocks. The bollockosity quotient of dark energy and string theory is in no way related to the bollockosity quotient of quantum mind.

It might well be that all three concepts are complete toss.

At the moment, however, it's much clearer that one of these three is much, much tossier than the others.

Post #274,981

by imric

12/6/06 1:24:16 PM

*chuckle* Justify Quantum Mind?

Hardly. When did I even attempt that?

And I really like that term: "bollockosity quotient".

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #275,044

by drewk

12/7/06 12:00:05 AM

ICLRPD (new thread)

Created as new thread #275043 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=275043|ICLRPD]

===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #274,980

by pwhysall

12/6/06 1:16:08 PM

12/6/06 1:17:36 PM

Dupe, ignore

Weird dupe, at that. Same post 4 minutes apart. I only hit save the once.

Edited by pwhysall Dec. 6, 2006, 01:17:36 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #274,972

by ubernostrum

12/6/06 12:40:02 PM

12/6/06 12:41:01 PM

I'm reminded of Willard Van Orman Quine

It is reputed that at one point someone quoted to him the line from Hamlet -- "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy" -- and that Quine said, "I'm trying to ensure that there are not more things in my philosophy than in heaven and earth".

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Edited by ubernostrum Dec. 6, 2006, 12:41:01 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #275,010

by Ashton

12/6/06 6:33:01 PM

omigawd___ the tragedy of psoriasis^h^h_ ab != ba

Post #274,910

by drewk

12/5/06 9:34:42 PM

Bzzzzzt

Give me just one piece of actual scientific evidence for anything paranormal. Ever.

Everything was paranormal until there was evidence for it. And nothing is paranormal after there's evidence for it.

===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #274,930

by ubernostrum

12/6/06 2:07:54 AM

Ooh! Me next!

First up:

\r\n\r\n

If reality is defined by consciousness, where was all the reality before us conscious slugs of carbon came along to observe it? How did we get to be real without being observed? Whose wave-form collapsed first, the chicken's or the egg's?

\r\n\r\n

Difficulty: no Berkelian cop-out; God's got better things to do with His time than observe a tree in the courtyard just so it can keep existing when everyone's down at the pub.

\r\n\r\n\r\n

Second:

\r\n\r\n

So quantum mechanics could explain action at a distance, all sorts of psychic phenomena. Fine, good, except at the moment there's no evidence that there are any psychic phenomena to explain. Nobody has yet managed to put James Randi's money where his mouth is. Solution in search of a problem, maybe?

\r\n\r\n

Difficulty: hire professional magicians, preferably stage folk and mentalists, to come along and conduct test observations of any claimed paranormal phenomena. Let me know when you find something they can't explain using the standard tricks of their business.

\r\n\r\n

Third:

\r\n\r\n

Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Patricia Newton explains the mechanism: "(Traditional healers) are able to tap that other realm of negative entropy - that superquantum velocity and frequency of electromagnetic energy and bring them as conduits down to our level. It's not magic. It's not mumbo jumbo. You will see the dawn of the 21st century, the new medical quantum physics really distributing these energies and what they are doing"

\r\n\r\n

Tell me what the heck the "negative entropy" and "superquantum velocity" and such are. Because it sure sounds to me like a quack hiding behind big trendy buzzwords. It's "(a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists" in new clothing.

\r\n\r\n

Final potshot: author of linked article admits just how much BS there is in this stuff.

\r\n\r\n

Respond!

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #274,934

by Ashton

12/6/06 6:10:14 AM

Re: Ooh! Me next!

First up:

If reality is defined by consciousness, where was all the reality before us conscious slugs of carbon came along to observe it? How did we get to be real without being observed? Whose wave-form collapsed first, the chicken's or the egg's?

AH, it's Reality which you'd like presented, perhaps as MAN-Reality?
Ummm.. "Get Real". Who (ever) said that reality is defined by consciousness -?- Surely Not I.

I'm going to stop with #1, because see.. I was here for The. Religion. Thread., several venues ago. Most of what can be said (even with Sanskrit fix-packs for common words) has been said. Serious enquiries just don't juxtapose popular slogans, imagining that that rote process will ever get beyond simple-minded mechanical logic.

And who.. ever said that Reality would conform to something so simple that nascent bipeds could grok it to fullness -?- perhaps by finding the Reality website and just making a pdf? Surely there need not be any work involved..

I mean ... {sheesh}

Welcome to IWETHEY!