Post #274,944
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
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
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
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".
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 #274,951
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.
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 #274,954
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
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 #274,956
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
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
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 #274,960
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
12/6/06 10:49:39 AM
|
no mystery, if thats the explaination
the field may just go elsewhere.
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 #274,958
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.
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 #274,963
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
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
12/6/06 1:36:00 PM
|
1/4 of an ounce, everybody knows that
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 #274,984
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
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
12/6/06 5:43:20 PM
|
is that for the good BC stuff or the ONT ragweed?
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 #275,009
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
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
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.
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 #274,974
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
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.
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 #274,981
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
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
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.
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||]]
Edited by pwhysall
Dec. 6, 2006, 01:17:36 PM EST
|
Post #274,972
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?
|
Post #275,010
12/6/06 6:33:01 PM
|
omigawd___ the tragedy of psoriasis^h^h_ ab != ba
|
