Well, hell… So THAT’S why everything I’ve eaten lately tastes like shit! Son of a… I KNEW there was something I needed to do. Thanks for the reminder… (digging in tool box for crescent wrench and screwdriver…)
1 Like
Well the purpose of the forum is debate, why would anyone be obliged to stop debating? You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit, as am I.
You claimed that I kept misrepresenting you, I asked you for one single example as it was untrue, you failed to evidence the claim with a single example, QED.
You’re kidding right? Seriously you are the one who has from the start and relentlessly made this personal, you even said you’d prefer to exchange insults than address my posts on the topic. While I have tried to stay on topic, so that accusation is simply hilarious.
It’s a debate, only you wanted a fight, and again you don’t get to tell me when or what I can post. You seem to be playing some sort of game now, with false accusations of trolling.
You started the thread, so it’s bizarre to claim not to want to debate it, and you were the one who started the personal attacks yet again, so this talk of low blows is just absurd, you even said unequivocally that’s what you preferred when I warned you to desist at the start. Now you want to try and play the victim, all I have tried to do is debate the topic and the claims you made.
More personal insults, and who is winning what? This is a debate, one may sway others with compelling arguments, or by presenting sufficient objective evidence, beyond that there is no winning that I am aware of.
I have seen no objective evidence that consciousness exists independently as “space in the brain” as you claimed, nor that it might be indestructible, again as you claimed, the idea it is immaterial has also not been objectively evidenced, the only argument you have offered seems inconsistent as it had you claiming an itch was immaterial as it couldn’t be weighed, but you failed to explain how something immaterial could be physically scratched, as just one example of why I didn’t find that argument at all compelling.
2 Likes
I’m not angry about it, but it seems like Ratty and Sheldon are slightly miffed with one another.
I’ve never thought of anger as just manipulation on the part of the person before, but it makes sense when you state it the way you did.
My mind is officially blown.
1 Like
Nope, it would take more than someone being irrational, and ignoring reasoned debate in favour of angry ad hominem to annoy me. Though I can sometimes have a soft spot for vituperation now and again, if delivered with some panache.
3 Likes
This is one of the problems with writing. You are relying soley on text and have no external clues. This is also the ‘art’ of writing. A good writer can manipulate words to such a degree that they can share with you exactly what they mean without the gestures, tone, rate of speech, pacing, that goes along with spoken communication. You can’t really say what is going on in the author’s head as thughts are being written. We merely assume the person doing the writing is authentically expressing emotionala content. When you see anger or anger words as manipulation, they are much easier to deal with. An agnger reaction is always an attempt to manipulate the world around you. (Now other emotions also have this characteristic; however, not as dogmatically as anger.) There is no instance when anger is not an attempt at manipulation (even though, as I said before, it can be completely justified at times).
Crying, depression, humor, guilt, fear, disgust, nervousness, pleasure, aversion, excitement, and I think any emotion you can think of, including ‘Love,’ can all be used as manipulation. Whenever you hear the words, 'You made me _______! You know it is a manipulation. This is a very different expression than sayng something like; 'When you did ___________ I got angry." I thought you did it because ______. It seemed to me like you were _____________. This is pretty basic stuff. Knowing when an expresion of emotion is an attempt at manipulation is not always easy but a good rule of thumb this. When the person does not take responsibility for their own emotional state and try to blame others or situations around them, it is manipulation. (Now we have to look at intentional and unintentional.) But Not This Time.
3 Likes
Fuck you Ratty, now you fucked me up. I say this in a positive and friendly way.
I try to keep an open mind and did a little personal research on consciousness.
Please understand that this seems to be Deepak Chopra territory, none has been proven, and it is not generally accepted by the scientific community. But it is worth investigation and consideration.
Two sets of laws… The Quantum: immaterial, coexisting (WTF??? How in the fuck is something immaterial and at the same time existing. Demonstrate an immaterial (non-measurable) existence of anything. ) non-local - (WTF does that mean? Not only is it immaterial but it is not here. Not anyplace you can possibly see it. It’s over there someplace.) If it is fucking non-local and immaterial, how in the fuck would you know it was unified and connected - (What is unified and connected if it is non-material. What is there to do the connecting?) It has some ultimate truth but we don’t know what it is? (This is the stupidest comment I have ever heard. How in the fuck would you know until you knew what it was?) Deeper levels of reality - HUH! New age bla bla that means nothing at all. So far this is just SUPID. There is no “Two Realms” and certainly not two sets of physical laws. Unless of course one set of physical laws is non-corporal, non-physical, and immaterial. Yea yea that’s it… Immaterial Physical Laws. ( IPLs ) The man is a QUACK!
He does not even get the Classical World view correct: It’s a billiard ball universe? Material, Newtonian (relating to or arising from the work of Sir Isaac Newton. WTF We have Einstein’s gravity now. Science has dismissed Newton’s ideas about gravity. Newtonian mechanics are known to be absolutely wrong, but approximately correct, especially for things moving very slowly relative to the speed of light.) Where is this Newtonian universe this guy speaks of? Macroscopic? (You don’t just get to eliminate the Hydron Collider and all the work being done. ) Boring? BORING? Oh give me a fucking brfeak.
This has got to be the stupidest video on the internet today. Definately
WOO WOOO WOO Take the CHOO CHOO to NAA NAAA Land.
OH FUCK _ WHAT IS LIFE? He’s really going to go there?
Biology is a set of self organizing functions with no secrets. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Well we can just stop all the research then. What a fucking dipshit thing to say. Brain activity is equivalent to computers, BY ANALOGY not reality. A moron would not make this mistake.
APPLYING QUANTUM PHYSICS TO BIOLOGY? WTF?
Quantum physics and the life sciences are both attracting increasing interest, and research at the interface between both fields has been growing rapidly. As of today, experimental demonstrations of quantum coherence in biology are still limited to the level of a few molecules. This includes for instance all quantum chemistry, tunneling processes, coherent excitation transport, and local spin effects.
Listen to him… may be… might be… could be… HE IS NOT SAYING SHIT. Potential connections, consistent with eastern traditions.
OH FUCK… I CAN’T LISTEN TO ANY MORE OF THIS SHIT.
3 Likes
Wot iz yuh, ignurent? It can’t be weighed like, so like you’re wrong like, geddit?
1 Like
I si sdupiter fut wadtcheeng tat der veedeeo.
4 Likes
quantum flap-a-doodle
I agree.
This stuff is very untestable, and that is why it is not accepted by the scientific community. Personally it is deep within the land of woo woo.
But we are unable to disprove it, and I do try to keep an open mind. Even against the longest odds.
1 Like
When they tell you that reality behaves in such and such way, well I guess you can keep an open mind for those long odds. When they tell you QM says XYZ, when XYZ violates the postulates of QM; the odds of that being true are zero (by non-contradiction).
Like when a fruit cake tells you that QM says the cat in the famous thought experiment is both alive and dead (or the entangled nucleus decayed and didn’t decay). That isn’t a state in QM, there are no eigenvectors/values associated with that. No measurement can demonstrate that. The statement that the cat is both alive and dead is an interpretation, a crutch to help think about it.
1 Like
Though I am reluctant to hinder this thread with a post about Hitler - for anyone interested in whether there was justice for his “sins,” and whether it likely occurred while he was alive, I offer the unrivaled work on the subject.
Carry on.