Science and Awareness

[Freak]

I'm guessing 20yo, give or take a couple years. That's about the age when you think you are smarter than everyone else. After a while you actually learn something and realize you were dumber than everyone else.

[Alkan]

I'm guessing 20yo, give or take a couple years. That's about the age when you think you are smarter than everyone else. After a while you actually learn something and realize you were dumber than everyone else.

Well, if resorting to insults is your way of protecting your pride, then go ahead.

The Church also said that the earth didn't move, and no one believed the world moved, except Galileo and Copernicus, because they had a new idea, and something even more important: perspective.

Galileo Galilei was the laughing stock of intellectual table forums. Copernicus, the person who formulated the heliocentric theory, was the laughing stock of Rome. After all, it was a pretty ridiculous idea that the world was moving- things weren't flying off of it, right?

These people who insulted the great men, Galileo and Copernicus, were not idiots either. They were just midly arrogant.

If it helps you at all, think of the fact that you might possibly be this perspective lacking person.

It is a new idea, and you're shoving it off as nonsense, without any attempt to comprehend it.

[ksm]

The Church also said that the earth didn't move, and no one believed the world moved, except Galileo and Copernicus, because they had a new idea, and something even more important: perspective.

They had one more critical thing (two actually) - actual evidence, and a workable theory.

You have neither.

[Alkan]

The Church also said that the earth didn't move, and no one believed the world moved, except Galileo and Copernicus, because they had a new idea, and something even more important: perspective.

They had one more critical thing (two actually) - actual evidence, and a workable theory.

You have neither.

I think I just had comprehension your perspective, and realized that explaining this will be a lot harder than it already is.

Experimentation based on observation is absolutely impossible. The only thing that can observe, detect and know being is the brain. One could run a series of tests and make a robot that acts just like a human- even with an abstract awareness.

So, what I give to you is a highly probable hypothetical scenario. If energy only exists at point A, then point B, and thats all it does, just in a bunch of different arrangements, then the human brain might as well be a rock that has a unique, less predictable movements amongst arrangements of energy.

So, what are you going to do? Say "Well you didn't prove anything, so your idea is stupid," as you have been doing

[Freak]

I'm guessing 20yo, give or take a couple years. That's about the age when you think you are smarter than everyone else. After a while you actually learn something and realize you were dumber than everyone else.

Well, if resorting to insults is your way of protecting your pride, then go ahead.

It wasn't an insult. Are you saying that I am wrong?

[ksm]

So, what I give to you is a highly probable hypothetical scenario. If energy only exists at point A, then point B, and thats all it does, just in a bunch of different arrangements, then the human brain might as well be a rock that has a unique, less predictable movements amongst arrangements of energy.

Highly probable? It's pure conjecture on your part.

So, what are you going to do? Say "Well you didn't prove anything, so your idea is stupid," as you have been doing

Rubbish. I've actually said in this thread "you might be right".

You are just fail to demonstrate the validity of your idea in anyway.

[Alkan]

So, what I give to you is a highly probable hypothetical scenario. If energy only exists at point A, then point B, and that's all it does, just in a bunch of different arrangements, then the human brain might as well be a rock that has a unique, less predictable movements amongst arrangements of energy.

Highly probable? It's pure conjecture on your part.

So, what are you going to do? Say "Well you didn't prove anything, so your idea is stupid," as you have been doing

Rubbish. I've actually said in this thread "you might be right".

You are just fail to demonstrate the validity of your idea in anyway.

Maybe its not you, but I am having an increasingly harder time keeping track of who said what, and its kind of starting to meld into a convoluted blur.

If its not improbable, can you comfortably say "the action of being is a bunch of infinitesimal points existing at point A, then point B over time."

And maybe that question is more directed at Ambassador Pony, the guy who's being the biggest dick, making some nonsensical(on Am. Pony's part) leprechaun analogy.

[L6]

Galileo Galilei was the laughing stock of intellectual table forums.

It only took 4 pages for the Galileo Gambit to come out.

http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-28-they-laughed-at-real.html
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html

Did you read the Crank HOWTO before you posted here or something?

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
Step two: Disseminate your idea
Step three: (Do Not) Respond to Criticism
Step four: Get Persecuted!

Read those links, then ask yourself why we are unable to take you seriously. Could it be, possibly, because you are acting exactly like a crank?

[Alkan]

Galileo Galilei was the laughing stock of intellectual table forums.

It only took 4 pages for the Galileo Gambit to come out.

http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/07/doggerel-28-they-laughed-at-real.html
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html

Did you read the Crank HOWTO before you posted here or something?

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
Step two: Disseminate your idea
Step three: (Do Not) Respond to Criticism
Step four: Get Persecuted!

Read those links, then ask yourself why we are unable to take you seriously. Could it be, possibly, because you are acting exactly like a crank?

I never said that I was an innovator. I just asked you to not shut yourself off from it. However, if my idea ridiculous, show me why.

So, instead of actually giving me the argument about my idea, you just point stereotypes at me?

I wish I could delete your comment, because it's nothing more than intelligent spam...

[Ambassador Pony]

Maybe its not you, but I am having an increasingly harder time keeping track of who said what, and its kind of starting to meld into a convoluted blur.

If its not improbable, can you comfortably say "the action of being is a bunch of infinitesimal points existing at point A, then point B over time."

And maybe that question is more directed at Ambassador Pony, the guy who's being the biggest dick, making some nonsensical(on Am. Pony's part) leprechaun analogy.

I am sorry you have to resort to insult rather than address the idea plainly, distinguishing invisible intangeable leprechauns from your idea about.....ah.....an undetectable invisible cause for the phenomena you say exists in your head.

It is very sad that you can't appreciate the genius of the leprechaun idea in my head that I can't communicate to you using language. But trust me, I am very smart and my idea if probably correct. Therefore, god exists.

Thanks.

[Ambassador Pony]

FT, I know it is upsetting to you to see a demonstration that your idea is as valid as any stupid idea anyone can make up, but free from your biased internal view of things, that is reality.

Unless you can now explain and demonstrate it logically. 

[Alkan]

FT, I know it is upsetting to you to see a demonstration that your idea is as valid as any stupid idea anyone can make up, but free from your biased internal view of things, that is reality.

Unless you can now explain and demonstrate it logically. 

As long as your comfortable with the statement "a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is being."

I also didn't make the claim that its scientific, or at least I hope I didn't. Science and Awareness as a title didn't mean "Awareness was just proven with science." It was a title to lure certain people and get certain aspects of an idea to be understood. The title literally means this "Here's what we know in science, and this is awareness. What do you think?"

I'd also like to ask you, if my internal view of things is biased, is yours not? Its unfortunate that human beings all can't have the intuition of Ernest Rutherford. I'd expect Rutherford to understand exactly what I mean, then be able to come up with some REAL reason as to why I could be wrong.

[Ambassador Pony]

Despite not having evidence, or the ability to describe, logically, the necessity of the existence of this thing which you label "being" and associate with awareness, you go on to say it is probable, and we are responsible for disproving it.

You haven't even shown it should or does exist! Never mind what it is in the first place!

Now disprove that undetectable leprechauns, that I cannot describe to you, are not controlling your ideas. I guess if you can't even do that, then you're just an ignorant hot head who can't figure out my genius ideas.

Publish your idea, send it off to those Unis, I'll wait here to eat craw, alright?

Did you get started on it, the most important philisophy of our century? Or, are you busy with homework today?

[Ambassador Pony]

I'd also like to ask you, if my internal view of things is biased, is yours not? Its unfortunate that human beings all can't have the intuition of Ernest Rutherford. I'd expect Rutherford to understand exactly what I mean, then be able to come up with some REAL reason as to why I could be wrong.

If I had an idea that I wanted others to understand, the first thing I would have to do is objectively demonstrate how it could logically be (aside form defining it clearly). That would accomodate my own bias.

Apply that logic to leprechauns now, FT, since I cannot demonstrate their existence (however possible it is), what is the truth value of my idea? 

You haven't done that. The assumptions you have put forth are vague and are defined as necessary or existent only in your own head.

Like L6 said, crank.

[Alkan]

I'd also like to ask you, if my internal view of things is biased, is yours not? Its unfortunate that human beings all can't have the intuition of Ernest Rutherford. I'd expect Rutherford to understand exactly what I mean, then be able to come up with some REAL reason as to why I could be wrong.

If I had an idea that I wanted others to understand, the first thing I would have to do is objectively demonstrate how it could logically be (aside form defining it clearly). That would accomodate my own bias.

Apply that logic to leprechauns now, FT, since I cannot demonstrate their existence (however possible it is), what is the truth value of my idea? 

You haven't done that. The assumptions you have put forth are vague and are defined as necessary or existent only in your own head.

Like L6 said, crank.

So, your problem is saying that I cannot demonstrate that we're being and actually here? Do you not observe this every day? Because you just said it was like leprechauns.

[Freak]

I'm guessing 20yo, give or take a couple years. That's about the age when you think you are smarter than everyone else. After a while you actually learn something and realize you were dumber than everyone else.

Well, if resorting to insults is your way of protecting your pride, then go ahead.

It wasn't an insult. Are you saying that I am wrong?

By your silence I take it that I'm correct. Perhaps it's prudent to think on that a little.

[Ambassador Pony]

I'd also like to ask you, if my internal view of things is biased, is yours not? Its unfortunate that human beings all can't have the intuition of Ernest Rutherford. I'd expect Rutherford to understand exactly what I mean, then be able to come up with some REAL reason as to why I could be wrong.

If I had an idea that I wanted others to understand, the first thing I would have to do is objectively demonstrate how it could logically be (aside form defining it clearly). That would accomodate my own bias.

Apply that logic to leprechauns now, FT, since I cannot demonstrate their existence (however possible it is), what is the truth value of my idea? 

You haven't done that. The assumptions you have put forth are vague and are defined as necessary or existent only in your own head.

Like L6 said, crank.

So, your problem is saying that I cannot demonstrate that we're being and actually here? Do you not observe this every day? Because you just said it was like leprechauns.

Oh you are talking about the same "being" as I am? It's simple then, that comes from being born and having a brain. The perception of it comes from having a pre-frontal cortex.

Now you don't have to worry about sending your idea out! More free time for free thinking eh?

EDIT: or, boo hoo, am I not being intelligent enough to comprehend your genius idea that you can't explain or describe properly?

[Alkan]

Oh you are talking about the same "being" as I am? It's simple then, that comes from being born and having a brain. The perception of it comes from having a pre-frontal cortex.

Now you don't have to worry about sending your idea out! More free time for free thinking eh?

Isn't it ironic that your idea is just as much of, if not more of an assumption than mine is?

[Ambassador Pony]

Oh you are talking about the same "being" as I am? It's simple then, that comes from being born and having a brain. The perception of it comes from having a pre-frontal cortex.

Now you don't have to worry about sending your idea out! More free time for free thinking eh?

Isn't it ironic that your idea is just as much of, if not more of an assumption than mine is?

Bwahahahahahahaha. How so?

[Alkan]

Bwahahahahahahaha. How so?

Now I'm starting to laugh. Tell me exactly, what is it that neurologists have found that causes being?

I'm not talking about consciousness either- an obviously replicable thing. I'm talking about the fact that we're here. It seems kind of random doesn't it? And also abstractly assumptive to just point at the brain's complexity.

If I did get your ego here, just don't take it personally, because I just want people to sort of realize that we really don't have any explaination AT ALL for being.

[Ambassador Pony]

Bwahahahahahahaha. How so?

Now I'm starting to laugh. Tell me exactly, what is it that neurologists have found that causes being?

I'm not talking about consciousness either- an obviously replicable thing. I'm talking about the fact that we're here. It seems kind of random doesn't it? And also abstractly assumptive to just point at the brain's complexity.

No neurologist necessary. Being born. Unless you can come up with an example of someone who was never born existing.

How could I calculate its randomness? Using what scale? Do I just sit in my parents' basement long enough, then whatever I deem is random, is random?

Learn to read, I point to (and understand) the brain's complexity as being the mechainism by which we perceive our own existence.

Freak was wrong, you're 17 at best.



 

[Alkan]

Bwahahahahahahaha. How so?

Now I'm starting to laugh. Tell me exactly, what is it that neurologists have found that causes being?

I'm not talking about consciousness either- an obviously replicable thing. I'm talking about the fact that we're here. It seems kind of random doesn't it? And also abstractly assumptive to just point at the brain's complexity.

No neurologist necessary. Being born. Unless you can come up with an example of someone who was never born existing.

How could I calculate its randomness? Using what scale? Do I just sit in my parents' basement long enough, then whatever I deem is random, is random?

Learn to read, I point to (and understand) the brain's complexity as being the mechainism by which we perceive our own existence.

Freak was wrong, you're 17 at best.

Now you're starting to blabber off into nonsense, after what was a very long pause. Did I get you? Don't worry. Thats not my goal.

It seems very possible that a human could be born without being, but not function without a consciousness. Consciousness and being- possibly and by definition two completely different things.

So, you also " 'understand' that the brain's complexity is a mechanism by which we perceive existance." The brain only calculates existence into a big assortment of energy, you've shown no evidence that it causes being...

And the accusation about my age is a clear example of lack of argument. Its a common occurance in debate- when one has no evidence to argue with, just attack the accuser to try to turn people away. You're showing me that you're clearly uncomfortable- a situation I've been in many times.

The only reason I don't give it out is because of how prejudice people here are. I'm 16. Now, what I'd expect from you is "Ahaha, its just a 16 year old coming up with nonsense, lets not listen!"

I expect nothing better than that... Unless you can prove your point right, with imperical evidence. 

[Ambassador Pony]

No neurologist necessary. Being born. Unless you can come up with an example of someone who was never born existing.

How could I calculate its randomness? Using what scale? Do I just sit in my parents' basement long enough, then whatever I deem is random, is random?

Learn to read, I point to (and understand) the brain's complexity as being the mechainism by which we perceive our own existence.

Freak was wrong, you're 17 at best.

Now you're starting to blabber off into nonsense, after what was a very long pause. Did I get you? Don't worry. Thats not my goal.

It seems very possible that a human could be born without being, but not function without a consciousness. Consciousness and being- possibly and by definition two completely different things.

So, you also " 'understand' that the brain's complexity is a mechanism by which we perceive existance." The brain only calculates existence into a big assortment of energy, you've shown no evidence that it causes being...

And the accusation about my age is a clear example of lack of argument. Its a common occurance in debate- when one has no evidence to argue with, just attack the accuser to try to turn people away. You're showing me that you're clearly uncomfortable- a situation I've been in many times.

The only reason I don't give it out is because of how prejudice people here are. I'm 16. Now, what I'd expect from you is "Ahaha, its just a 16 year old coming up with nonsense, lets not listen!"

I expect nothing better than that... Unless you can prove your point right, with imperical evidence. 

You did not address any of the points I made. Nor was there much evidence that you have properly considered, or have a working undersanding of, the variables being discussed. You still seem to think I think a brain is necessary for existence, for example.

You did not need to "give out" your age. It was easy to figure it out as the posts mounted. When the way you present your argument is consistent with how a teenager might present it, it is an inevitable conclusion for some. There is nothing wrong with being young, but there are some things you have not discovered yet, and in fact, your brain may not be fully developped yet (not an insult, just reality of brain development). There are certain behaviours that go with youth, not all bad, but some are not conducive to this type of discussion.

It is a personal rule of mine not to discuss anything of any substance with anyone under 18. Sorry about being rude, I was not sure you were so young. It is completely my fault for not asking earlier.

School is starting tomorrow, have a good one.

Regards

[L6]

I just asked you to not shut yourself off from it. However, if my idea ridiculous, show me why.

I've repeatedly said that I can't even ridicule your idea, because you have not yet communicated your idea. I'm ridiculing your presentation, because your presentation:

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is being."

...is so far utterly nonsensical.

"a bunch" is vague. "infinitesimals", "existing", and "point" require definition, and furthermore appear to simply assume a background of time and space. Given that, all you've done is present a definition that we have no reason to accept; you still would need to make the logical connection between whatever:

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is..."

...means and:

"...being."

(And your complaint that I'm using stereotypes is just further evidence that you're a crank, because it's a way for you to cry persecution.)

[Alkan]

I just asked you to not shut yourself off from it. However, if my idea ridiculous, show me why.

I've repeatedly said that I can't even ridicule your idea, because you have not yet communicated your idea. I'm ridiculing your presentation, because your presentation:

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is being."

...is so far utterly nonsensical.[1]

"a bunch" is vague. "infinitesimals", "existing", and "point" require definition, and furthermore appear to simply assume a background of time and space. Given that, all you've done is present a definition that we have no reason to accept; you still would need to make the logical connection between whatever:

"a bunch of infinitesimals existing at point a then point b is..."[2]

...means and:

"...being."[3]

(And your complaint that I'm using stereotypes is just further evidence that you're a crank, because it's a way for you to cry persecution.)[4]

1. Its not nonsense:

2. That is functionally what energy is. Its a way of explaining how a transformation is not the becoming of something new that is different but equal in proportion, but how a transformation is merely the rearrangement of previous energy. I never meant that energy was literally an infinite amount of infinitesmals occupying a closed space, because I don't know if that could be the case.

3. Being= the act of being in this universe able to observe, versus consciousness, the illusion that you are in this universe. If awareness is matter and energy, then awareness is an illusion. So, the argument boils down to the question of whether or not it is.

4. Well, why come up with an argument challenging who I am as a person, rather than an argument challenging my idea. Thats the only reason I'm "crying persecution," or rather, being annoyed by denotation as some raving lunatic, when all I did was offer another perspective.

So, just stop blindly calling me a lunatic and actually try to argue. If not, I'm not even going to respond to you.

[Vynn]

So, just stop blindly calling me a lunatic and actually try to argue. If not, I'm not even going to respond to you.

When did L6 "blindly call you a lunatic"?

And, i'd think, based on his last post, that he sees nothing with which to argue, which raises the question, how, and against what, do you expect him to present an argument.


"Let's all meet up tomorrow for a cook out!"

"Where? What time? What should i bring?
 
"Don't call me names!?! If you don't want to have a cook out, tell me why we shouldn't have one!"

"I'm just asking where you want to have it, and at what time, can you give me details?"

"Look, if you're not going to argue this, i'm not going to respond to you!"

[Alkan]

So, just stop blindly calling me a lunatic and actually try to argue. If not, I'm not even going to respond to you.

When did L6 "blindly call you a lunatic"?

And, i'd think, based on his last post, that he sees nothing with which to argue, which raises the question, how, and against what, do you expect him to present an argument.


"Let's all meet up tomorrow for a cook out!"

"Where? What time? What should i bring?
 
"Don't call me names!?! If you don't want to have a cook out, tell me why we shouldn't have one!"

"I'm just asking where you want to have it, and at what time, can you give me details?"

"Look, if you're not going to argue this, i'm not going to respond to you!"

I'll try your tactic on you.

How do you know that the act of being is caused by the brain? That is a fact you seem to believe readily.

[Vynn]

I'll try your tactic on you.

What is "my tactic"??

How do you know that the act of being is caused by the brain?

I don't know that the act of being is caused by the brain.

That is a fact you seem to believe readily.

When did i express that?

[Alkan]

I'll try your tactic on you.

What is "my tactic"??

How do you know that the act of being is caused by the brain?

I don't know that the act of being is caused by the brain.

That is a fact you seem to believe readily.

When did i express that?

Maybe you didn't, but others have.

I offered an example that seems to make it less likely that being is simply a product of the brain.