0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
If that's you away, Don, fare thee well and good luck with whatever you turn to next.
... The sky would not even be the ...limit then , i guess .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2013 18:36:19... The sky would not even be the ...limit then , i guess .The sky isn't the limit for science, e.g. there's a vehicle currently on Mars , and another has just left the solar system.
NB: DonQ has come-out as a god-botherer in another thread. [ You didn't do a very good job of hiding it Don ].
You must have a masochistic streak to try to convert those of a scientific persuasion to believe in your invisible-friend and associated religious intangibles.
The "scientific world view " is thus false ...that's all .
Quote from: Pmb on 10/11/2013 08:56:07Quote from: David CooperAn example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.That’s not a problem in special relativity. The problem here is with your understanding of special relativity. I’ll explain your error to you: If two observers are moving relative to each other such that each measures the speed of the other to be v then each reckons the other’s clock to be running slow. That’s not a problem whatsoever. No true paradoxes or contradictions arise from this observed fact. By observed fact I mean that time dilation has actually been observed so we know that it’s true from an experimental point of view.You're missing the point. Rocket A and Rocket B are sitting together in space. They may be stationary, or they may be moving - either description is equally valid according to SR. Now, A accelerates to 86.6 the speed of light (relative to B) and goes off on a long trip, then stops, turns round and comes back at the same speed before stopping next to B. Clocks on each rocket reveal that during this trip, one year has gone by on A and two years have gone by on B.However, we can view the whole thing a different way. A and B are initially moving at 86.6% the speed of light to start with (relative to rocket C, which I'm only adding in to provide something specific to relate their speed to). In this scenario, rocket A suddenly stops (such that it is now stationary relative to C), then after a long time it suddenly accelerates to chase after B (at a speed which I won't bother to calculate), before decelerating to match the speed of B when it catches up with it.These are just two of an infinite number of rival accounts as to what happened, and all of them are supposedly equally valid. It is impossible to pick out any one of those accounts and to say that it is right and that all the others are wrong - there is no experiment that can be done to determine that.The problem comes in when you want to identify a mechanism for what has taken place. In the first account, rocket A accelerated and resulted in time slowing down for it for the first half of its trip, but in the second account rocket A decelerated and resulted in time speeding up for it for the first half of the trip. It cannot have both slowed down and speeded up at the same time.Technically though, time doesn't work like that in SR. What really happens is that some things are able to take shortcuts into the future relative to other things by travelling through less time. Again though, in one account we have rocket A accelerating and taking a shortcut into the future compared with B, while in the other account A stops taking a shortcut into the future while B continues to do so.That is where there is a mechanistic contradiction in SR which invalidates it. What happens though is that you all ignore the whole business of mechanism on the basis that you cannot detect whether A accelerates or decelerates, because all that counts from your point of view is that the total time elapsed works out correctly when the two rockets are reunited. You simply ignore the contradictions which necessarily come in as soon as you try to apply an actual mechanism to what has taken place.QuoteThere is a famous scenario called the Twin’s Paradox which is used to clarify the nature of time dilation. This subject came up recently in my science forum. We have a resident expert on general relativity there who sent me his article on the subject. If you’re really interested in learning the correct understanding of time dilation then you can download and read about it here – The twin paradox and principle of relativity – by Øyvind Grøn which can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4154That was interesting, but unless I'm missing something, I don't think it addresses the point I'm making. I would be happy to discover that I'm wrong though as it would be good to sort this out. I have another objection to relativity which appears to kill it by a different route (showing that the apparent chains of cause-and-effect events which appear to run through the universe cannot be cause-and-effect at all under SR but must exist by chance alone, at odds which render the word "astronomical" powerless to describe the degree of improbability involved), but we can get onto that later.
Quote from: David CooperAn example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.That’s not a problem in special relativity. The problem here is with your understanding of special relativity. I’ll explain your error to you: If two observers are moving relative to each other such that each measures the speed of the other to be v then each reckons the other’s clock to be running slow. That’s not a problem whatsoever. No true paradoxes or contradictions arise from this observed fact. By observed fact I mean that time dilation has actually been observed so we know that it’s true from an experimental point of view.
An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.
There is a famous scenario called the Twin’s Paradox which is used to clarify the nature of time dilation. This subject came up recently in my science forum. We have a resident expert on general relativity there who sent me his article on the subject. If you’re really interested in learning the correct understanding of time dilation then you can download and read about it here – The twin paradox and principle of relativity – by Øyvind Grøn which can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4154
The best approach is to look for the causation linkage. It doesn't really matter what kind of voodoo is used to support consciousness, because at some point it has to interact with the computer that is the brain, and that interaction is something that science should be fully able to examine and document, and although the complexity of the brain will ensure that progress will be very slow, it will be a task that can be completed over time.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2013 20:26:19The "scientific world view " is thus false ...that's all . There’s no “thus” about it . The "scientific world view" created the clothes on your back , the food in your belly, the roof over your head, and the medium you’re using to communicate* , so evidently is not “false”.Worshipping [insert God here] did not make these things possible : it was science wot done it.[* BTW why do you bother using the internet if “telepathy is normal” : just communicate telepathically, it’s gotta be cheaper].
Quote from: David Cooper on 15/11/2013 19:05:10The best approach is to look for the causation linkage. It doesn't really matter what kind of voodoo is used to support consciousness, because at some point it has to interact with the computer that is the brain, and that interaction is something that science should be fully able to examine and document, and although the complexity of the brain will ensure that progress will be very slow, it will be a task that can be completed over time.What you do fail to understand so far, is as follows, despite all these lengthy kilometers of pages :How can the "unconscious " matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness that's irreducible to the material or to the physical biological ?In other words :How can physics and chemistry account for the mental or for the non-physical ? No way .
In short :You're just chasing a ...mirage you do take for ...real , like a desert mirage that gets taken for water : no matter how long and how hard you would chase it , it will continue to be as elusive , as deceptive as ever , leaving you thirsty ,and leaving you dying as a result ...unless someone or something would rescue you by offering you some real water , the offered latter you continue to reject in favor of that elusive deceptive surreal absurd mirage of yours .How irrational can you ever be indeed .
Hi, folks :I will try to respond to the above , later on .I will just say the following , for the time being at least though :Thanks for your interesting insights i do appreciate indeed , althought they are just materialistic ones, once again...no wonder :The assumption that life is just a biological process ,for example, has more to do with materialism as a world view , than with science proper : take a look back at the past to find out about the roots of such assumption , and regarding the birth of materialism itself .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/11/2013 19:08:28Quote from: David Cooper on 15/11/2013 19:05:10The best approach is to look for the causation linkage. It doesn't really matter what kind of voodoo is used to support consciousness, because at some point it has to interact with the computer that is the brain, and that interaction is something that science should be fully able to examine and document, and although the complexity of the brain will ensure that progress will be very slow, it will be a task that can be completed over time.What you do fail to understand so far, is as follows, despite all these lengthy kilometers of pages :How can the "unconscious " matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness that's irreducible to the material or to the physical biological ?In other words :How can physics and chemistry account for the mental or for the non-physical ? No way .Your voodoo doesn't make it any easier. The key problem is the interface, while the actual means by which the voodoo happens is a side issue.
QuoteIn short :You're just chasing a ...mirage you do take for ...real , like a desert mirage that gets taken for water : no matter how long and how hard you would chase it , it will continue to be as elusive , as deceptive as ever , leaving you thirsty ,and leaving you dying as a result ...unless someone or something would rescue you by offering you some real water , the offered latter you continue to reject in favor of that elusive deceptive surreal absurd mirage of yours .How irrational can you ever be indeed .You're the one being irrational here. Your voodoo powered consciousness still has to interface with a machine, and at that point it must show up no matter how lacking in material it might be. If it did not interact, it would have no role and could not make the machine speak about it.
There might be some other totally different forms of causation out there , if we would take into consideration the fact that reality as a whole is not just materialial or physical, and hence the mental is irreducible to the physical.
Just answer the question then :How can the "unconscious " matter account for the immaterial consciousness , or at least how physics and chemistry can account for consciousness ?
Life is no machine , silly
Once again, how can physics and chemistry account for consciousness ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/09/2013 20:35:57Hi, folks :I will try to respond to the above , later on .I will just say the following , for the time being at least though :Thanks for your interesting insights i do appreciate indeed , althought they are just materialistic ones, once again...no wonder :The assumption that life is just a biological process ,for example, has more to do with materialism as a world view , than with science proper : take a look back at the past to find out about the roots of such assumption , and regarding the birth of materialism itself . I don't really care what Descartes said. You could take any philosopher or scientist and trace their intellectual influences all the way back to cave man ancestors, who undoubtedly had all sorts of false assumptions or explanations about the causes of things - that doesn't prove or negate anything. That's just a reverse appeal to authority.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/11/2013 19:12:31There might be some other totally different forms of causation out there , if we would take into consideration the fact that reality as a whole is not just materialial or physical, and hence the mental is irreducible to the physical.Causation will still be causation.
QuoteJust answer the question then :How can the "unconscious " matter account for the immaterial consciousness , or at least how physics and chemistry can account for consciousness ?How do you know that matter isn't sentient? (Consciousness = sentience.) But hey, I don't care what it is that's sentient so much as I care about how the information system of the brain interacts with whatever it is that is sentient. It can be sentient matter/energy/spacefabrid, or it can be sentient geometry (magical emergence), or it can be something else in another realm entirely, but wherever and whatever it is, it still has to interact with the machine that is the brain, and that will show up.
QuoteLife is no machine , sillyLife is precisely a machine. We will soon be manufacturing artificial plants which are understood 100% mechanistically
QuoteOnce again, how can physics and chemistry account for consciousness ?Matter could be sentient, so that isn't a problem at all. The problem is in how you interface between that and an information system in order to extract knowledge of consciousness from it.
Fundamental causation might turn out to be non-physical .
The brain is no machine , the immaterial consciousness might be interacting with the physical brain non-physically , as the most fundamental causation of them all might turn out to be non-physical as well .
LIfe is no machine , manufacturing plants artificially is no evidence for that : there might be some non-physical causation at work at the level of living organisms that underlies the laws of physics , the latter that cannot explain how living organisms are relatively self-organizing , how they can give rise to their own forms shapes ...DNA or physics and chemistry alone cannot explain the latter .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/11/2013 17:02:58Fundamental causation might turn out to be non-physical .It's certainly non-material, but it doesn't matter what it is - it is there as something which governs interaction and it is of zero importance which realm you want to shove it in.
QuoteThe brain is no machine , the immaterial consciousness might be interacting with the physical brain non-physically , as the most fundamental causation of them all might turn out to be non-physical as well .The brain is a machine. It is made up of lots of pieces of neural network which mechanistiaclly compute.
QuoteLIfe is no machine , manufacturing plants artificially is no evidence for that : there might be some non-physical causation at work at the level of living organisms that underlies the laws of physics , the latter that cannot explain how living organisms are relatively self-organizing , how they can give rise to their own forms shapes ...DNA or physics and chemistry alone cannot explain the latter .That's just an assertion for which you have no evidence. It looks as if they can account for everything about life except for consciousness.