The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
What programs are you experiencing the problem with?  Are you surfing the web at the time?

I have the problem with some websites.  It is annoying because one website puts the "return" out of order.  Personally, I believe that FLASH is very very inefficient.

Anyway:
How much memory do you have?
Are you running a 64 bit operating system?
Do you hear the hard drive thrashing during these episodes?

Bring up your memory manager and check how much free memory you actually have vs swap usage.  Also check the CPU usage.
22
The title states the problem. It's really bad. The computer's only a few months old too. I ran Norton and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and cleared all problems and its still a problem. How do I find out what the problem is and fix it? The keyboard is wireless and I think it started when I started using the new keyboard. Or at least it got severe at that point.
23
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Libido and age
« Last post by PmbPhy on 28/11/2014 21:45:45 »
I think testosterone levels peak in the 30's, and decrease after that, although perhaps "free testosterone" peaks even earlier. 

Marriage and children also apparently negatively affects the testosterone levels.
I read that there was no set relationship between the tw
24
We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )
The only thing we know is what our observations reveal. The observations (including those given above) are entirely consistent with, and support the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Any competing hypothesis must also at least be consistent with and account for what we observe.

Your introduction of a non-material consciousness appears entirely redundant given the observations above, and you seem incapable of providing any plausible explanation or reason why it is necessary - just the unsupported assertion that something indescribable, unknown, inexplicable, and undetectable must nevertheless interact with our brains in some unknown and inexplicable way that is indistinguishable from no interaction at all. It's so far beyond useless it's 'not even wrong'.

Hitchen's Razor is appropriate: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Bullshit , sorry .

Positivism holds no water either .

This wiki link of yours is almost a good description of Graziano's theory :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Well, since i am working , i will just repost the following :

99,9999999999999 ..% of the universe,including you and me,  is made of 'empty space " and the rest is "matter " , not to mention "matter's" wave/particle duality , and you are telling me that almost nothing  (matter )  produces the key feature of the universe which is undetectable ,directly , that is : consciousness : You gotta be kidding me : even a kid wouldn't buy that .(Don't misuse this latter metaphorical  analogy for your own materialistic purposes , in the sense that kids believe in imaginary friends and other myths .)





Once more - how does your non-material consciousness hypothesis account for brain damage causing changes to personality, character, emotion, attention, recognition, understanding, sense of self, focus, and awareness, unless those features are actually all functions of the brain? What is left for this proposed non-material consciousness to do?
Excellent point dlorde,.....If consciousness is somehow extra-dependent from the material character of the brain as Don would have us believe, why would material damage to the physical brain cause relative changes to said consciousness?

Either consciousness is connected directly to the material function of the electro-chemical processes within the physical brain or it is not. You can't have it both ways Don.

The reason I use the term: "extra-dependent" is because none of us believes that consciousness is completely "independent" from the physical brain. However, considering how Don's logic works, he might even believe that.

Who said that consciousness is independent from the brain, let alone that it is completely independent from it ?  Not me, that's for sure .

Read what i said carefully, please : there is a mutual interaction between consciousness and the brain , as they can't function without each other , consciousness and the brain are inseparable, in this life at least , needless to add , and consciousness has to work through its brain as well thus , has to have some sort of interaction with its brain , both ways , the brain as a transceiver (transmitter-receiver ) for consciousness , consciousness interacting with its brain via some sort of a non-mechanical causation  at that , that is,an instantaneous one at that  ,that is ,without any transfer of energy whatsoever ,as QM or just 1 particular interpretation of the latter that's more simple and plausible than the rest shows ....

When you pay attention to something or to someone , when you focus on that , you instantaneously get aware of that.

The conscious awareness part is thus instantaneous without any transfer of energy , the mediating brain in that has to obey the laws of physics of course , needless to add , conscious awareness not .

In short : what you focus on is your reality , almost .What you focus on is what you get : our reality is mostly mental .

Not to mention the fact that  9,99999999...% of the universe is "empty space " ,and the remaining 0,00000000000000001  ... % is "matter " : do the maths  :  "matter " is almost nothing in the universe, to say nothing about its wave / particle duality  , and materialist lunatic scientists tell us that matter produces the mind lol = almost nothing produces the key "component or key building block " of the universe : consciousness which is non-material   and hence undetectable directly ,that is ............

25
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Libido and age
« Last post by CliffordK on 28/11/2014 21:34:51 »
I think testosterone levels peak in the 30's, and decrease after that, although perhaps "free testosterone" peaks even earlier. 

Marriage and children also apparently negatively affects the testosterone levels.
26
Just Chat ! / Equivalent American and British terms
« Last post by cheryl j on 28/11/2014 21:25:19 »
To be honest, I got almost to leg sleeves before I realized it was a joke.
27
We should all start from what we know , not otherwise : we know that consciousness is not a product of the brain (how can it be ? )
The only thing we know is what our observations reveal. The observations (including those given above) are entirely consistent with, and support the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Any competing hypothesis must also at least be consistent with and account for what we observe.

Your introduction of a non-material consciousness appears entirely redundant given the observations above, and you seem incapable of providing any plausible explanation or reason why it is necessary - just the unsupported assertion that something indescribable, unknown, inexplicable, and undetectable must nevertheless interact with our brains in some unknown and inexplicable way that is indistinguishable from no interaction at all. It's so far beyond useless it's 'not even wrong'.

Hitchen's Razor is appropriate: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
28
Quote from: lightarrow
I haven't understood what you say here. Are you talking of a mass increase of a particle with speed or what?
Yes. I'll restate it to make it clearer. In what follows what I mean by the use of the term mass I mean inertial mass in the Newtonian case and relativistic mass in the relativistic case.

In Newtonian mechanics mass does not increase with speed.
In relativistic mechanics mass does increase with speed.

Simple, yes? :)

Quote from: lightarrow
And what are you saying about a mass spectrometer?
That's one way to measure the relativistic mass of a charged particle.

Quote from: lightarrow
That you could measure a particle's mass increase with speed using that device? If you are saying this, it's incorrect, and not because it would be too small, but because you can't.
That's  incorrect. In fact Wikipedia states that in 1901 Walter Kaufmann used a mass spectrometer to measure the relativistic mass increase of electrons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mass_spectrometry

See also the article in American Journal of Physics about this particular point at
http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/papers/1995/RelativisticMassAJP.pdf

However a mass spectrometer is in essence a cyclotron which can measure a mass increase due to relativistic mass.

The physics principles are the same as they are in a cyclotron. The particle is charged and that makes it move on a circle in a magnetic field. The radius of the circle it moves in. The physics for a cyclotron and a mass spectrometer is in the following webpage in my website: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/cyclotron.htm

Quote from: lightarrow
If you are saying this, it's incorrect, and not because it would be too small, but because you can't.
Please provide a proof of this. A derivation whose results show what you assert would be fine. Thanks.
29
Cheryl :

Thanks for your posts , appreciate indeed .
Unfortunately enough , no time left to respond to that : duty calls ,sorry.

I have in a way already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos  here above .


No, not really. They were pretty simple questions about a theory you've been promoting for quite sometime.

I couldn't resist checking out this forum from work .

I have already responded to your posts through those of dlorde and Ethos .
30

Similarly , go tell physicists to explain to you why they don't understand QM while using it so successfully .
The fact that we don't know how the non-physical consciousness interacts mutually with its brain is no reason to dismiss the non-physical nature of consciousness : similarly,  nobody understands QM : is that a reason enough to reject it ?
The critical difference would be that QM has predictive ability,  but your theory has none.





[/quote]

Yet without the mind , no QM or science .

Without the mind or consciousness ,we can't understand or be aware of the universe .

Better still : QM can never be understood without reference to the mind = they are both inescapably and inseparably intertwined with each other : no silly or insane absurd paradoxical MW interpretation of QM can make that fact go away .
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines