Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=111796 Printed Date: May 06 2024 at 14:48 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Things that don't exist according to sciencePosted By: condor
Subject: Things that don't exist according to science
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:01
Race
Replies: Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:15
chiropracticy
-------------
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:31
God, although it also doesn't not exist according to science, but lacks evidence.
And, no I am sure that you will find contradictory articles on the existence of race. Having a background in sociology, it's say it's more according to sociologists, which look at race as a social construct, but I don't know that it's the common view among medical scientists/ biologists. Whether race exists is dependent upon how race is defined and by the parameters you impose on it. Obviously there are biological differences/ variances between people around the world.
The things about science is that it's always subject to reevaluation.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:34
humans
------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:35
Homeopathy (effectiveness).
------------- Guigo
~~~~~~
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:37
Bertrand Russell
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:42
Vompatti wrote:
Bertrand Russell
Or at least his teapot.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 17:44
Perpetuum mobile and phlogiston.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 18:18
Ghosts
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 28 2017 at 18:22
Logan wrote:
God, although it also doesn't not exist according to science, but lacks evidence.
I disagree about that. It is not about evidence, it is about interpretation. For some the order of the universe is just a coincidence, others see in it the work of a creative mind.
I disagree about either interpretation. You may say "How is that possible?Tertium non datur ("there is no third thing"), but that's because my definition of "God" is not the same as the standard definition. First of all: Everything in the world is a process, not just a thing. Example: An orange will change in the course of time; it will rot.
Now for me there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have. And the most complex process is the universe itself. Therefore I believe it also has a consciousness, and this consciousness I call "God". This is of course a consciousness that is way suoerior to human consciousness. I believe that uch a consciousness might well be aware of all its subprocesses (contrary to human consciousness; we humans are for example not aware of what happens to a single cell of ours).
Mark that this process has the three major qualities ascribed to God: Omnipresence, because this process is everywhere, omnipotence, because everything possible happens in this process, and omniscience because of its total awareness. It is a kind of pantheistic belief with a slight difference: My God is an evolving God.
Does this God of mine have a morality like the Christian God? I don't think so.
I would like to point to an interesting text by logician Raymond Smullyan named ""Is God a Taoist?". http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html
Smullyan basically shares my concept of God, but his God has a kind of morality: He wants less suffering.
You can of course reject my concept of God and say "This is not what God is all about". It certainly is not the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 04:21
Man-made global warming.
-------------
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 06:36
This post.
------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions
Posted By: twseel
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 07:05
someone_else wrote:
Man-made global warming.
the consensus amongst scientists would be that it does exist
-------------
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 07:30
twseel wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Man-made global warming.
the consensus amongst scientists would be that it does exist
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow - here .
-------------
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 08:22
someone_else wrote:
twseel wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Man-made global warming.
the consensus amongst scientists would be that it does exist
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow - here .
To contrast this article let me present you this one:
Easterbrook's claim that the earth climate is actually cooling is plain ridiculous when you compare it to the statistics.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 08:47
^It surely is, since, even in the small country where I live, most monthly average temperatures have increased during the last few decades, sometimes even by 1°C. But I think that climate changes are very complex processes, too complex to speak about consensus on man-made global warming. There have been fluctuations long before the greenhouse gases and aerosols were emitted on a large scale.
-------------
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 08:58
That's why no serious person speaks about "man-made global warming". It is "man-supported global warming".
Here a link to a detailed article about the effect of carbon dioxide on the earth climate:
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 09:33
Science, because science cannot prove the existence of abstracts.
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 10:05
Perpetual motion machines.
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 10:31
someone_else wrote:
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow -
When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm" rel="nofollow -
------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 12:53
progaardvark wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's [URL=http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow]here[/URL].
The thing about this article you posted is that it isn't written by any credible climatologists. You need to research those names mentioned in it to find out what their associations and true backgrounds are. Then you need to find out what "The Daily Caller" is. Is it a scientific publication or journal? Obviously not, since right-winger Tucker Carlson is a founder of it.
When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: [URL=https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm" rel="nofollow]https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm[/URL]
Finally, this write-up is just an opinion piece, and like a****les, every one has one. Science is something you cannot find on a right-wing opinion and "news" site, at least from my experience. If these folks had tried to published this in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, they'd be laughed out of town.
They would indeed. Very well-explained and illustrated, progaardvark.
And scientists who deny the impact that man is having on climate change/ global warming are very much in the minority. And I don't know of any credible ones that are taken seriously amongst climatologists. Of course some people get payola by think tanks and companies to publish papers. it's actually pretty easy science to have a basic understanding of.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 13:09
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan wrote:
God, although it also doesn't not exist according to science, but lacks evidence.
I disagree about that. It is not about evidence, it is about interpretation. For some the order of the universe is just a coincidence, others see in it the work of a creative mind.
I disagree about either interpretation. You may say "How is that possible?Tertium non datur ("there is no third thing"), but that's because my definition of "God" is not the same as the standard definition. First of all: Everything in the world is a process, not just a thing. Example: An orange will change in the course of time; it will rot.
Now for me there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have. And the most complex process is the universe itself. Therefore I believe it also has a consciousness, and this consciousness I call "God". This is of course a consciousness that is way suoerior to human consciousness. I believe that uch a consciousness might well be aware of all its subprocesses (contrary to human consciousness; we humans are for example not aware of what happens to a single cell of ours).
Mark that this process has the three major qualities ascribed to God: Omnipresence, because this process is everywhere, omnipotence, because everything possible happens in this process, and omniscience because of its total awareness. It is a kind of pantheistic belief with a slight difference: My God is an evolving God.
Does this God of mine have a morality like the Christian God? I don't think so.
I would like to point to an interesting text by logician Raymond Smullyan named ""Is God a Taoist?". http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html
Smullyan basically shares my concept of God, but his God has a kind of morality: He wants less suffering.
You can of course reject my concept of God and say "This is not what God is all about". It certainly is not the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
I recently had a big debate at another forum where I was trying to defend my soft atheist stance to a hard atheist. Science looks for evidence, but of course interpretation is important (often both, as in one's interpretation of the evidence). I argued there that god becomes more probable depending upon the interpretation and concept of god. The vaguer the definition, the less improbable. I could say that a rock is a god (and I don't mean a god of rock), and define god into existence that way, but it's not very useful. I find the impersonal god of Spinoza more likely than the personal God. Some people claim that the cosmos is god, so if you believe in the cosmos you must believe in god, or that nature is god so no supernatural requirement, or that god exists in another dimension and multiverse hypothesis and the notion that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (relates to string theory) also lends credence to god.
The ideas you have about consciousness are not very scientific, but feel free to believe what thou whilst. Your ideas do rather more fit some conceptions I have had of a potential godlike entity in the past.
Was going to write more, but being called away. May edit in more later.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 14:31
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 14:33
Also, the luminiferous aether.
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 14:46
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence.
It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 14:52
Incidentally, Condor, I would like it if you would participate more in the topics you start. You've made many interesting topics, and I am interested to hear more of your thoughts.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 15:26
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence.
It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less.
There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis, that as soon as a process becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 15:38
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence.
It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less.
There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis, that as soon as a pörocess becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it.
It's nonscience that I'm aware of, and as you claim, though I disagree, "no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness." You're in the realm of metaphysics rather than physics.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: condor
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 16:06
The last survey I read, said 97% of scientists believed in man accelerated global warming.
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 16:44
(((scientists))) [stern smile]
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 16:55
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence.
It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less.
There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis, that as soon as a pörocess becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it.
It's nonscience that I'm aware of, and as you claim, though I disagree, "no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness." You're in the realm of metaphysics rather than physics.
Logan, Jean and I both follow the studying of consciousness closely, albeit for different reasons; Jean for philosophical reasons, I for scientific ones. So we are well-informed about this topic, and it is exactly as I said: No-one has any idea. To quote from a 2009 article: "Consciousness arises as an emergent property of the human mind. Yet
basic questions about the precise timing, location and dynamics of the
neural event(s) allowing conscious access to information are not clearly
and unequivocally determined". That's scientific bla-bla for "we have no idea".
I studied math and physics for several semesters before I decided to switch to computer programming, and trust me, I know what physics is all about. There is nothing unphysical about my hypothesis. But I am very well aware of the fact that physicists start to feel uncomfortable as soon as consciousness enters their realm.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 18:04
Sorry for being a bit off-topic too, but there's NO consensus amongst scientists about man-made global warming.....
I don't discard that Man has been behaving as sort of a catalyst for that matter. Furthermore, today there is a considerable amount of scientists reckoning that the global warming is part of a natural cycle. The article below confirms that (albeit being from 2009, it's pretty accurate):
In the year 2009, a team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels - the first increase in ten years. What baffled the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 18:08
Things that don't exist according to science:
Certainty
------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 18:16
Yes, there is consensus on anthropogenic climate change. No, I will not debate it. It is real, deal with it.
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 18:35
Tillerman88 wrote:
It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
Ahem. You are aware that the production of carbon dioxide did not start a year ago, aren't you? And it is also not as if the increase of carbon dioxide production happened overnight, it was a gradual process. So this argument of yours is most certainly invalid.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 18:46
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Logan, no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness. It is an absolute mystery why humans have developed it. So my hypothesis is as good as any other.
It's not just for philosophers, it is a fascinating study in neuroscience, and I am interested in how it relates to artificial intelligence.
It's fine that you have that hypothesis, I do question the premises, just not what I would call scientific. Interesting post, never-the-less.
There is absolutely nothing non-scientific about the basic hypothesis, that as soon as a pörocess becomess sufficiently complex (and of course self-reflective) it develops a consciousness. I admit that my final conclusion is keen, but nevertheless there is nothing unscientific about it.
It's nonscience that I'm aware of, and as you claim, though I disagree, "no-one has any scientific idea about consciousness." You're in the realm of metaphysics rather than physics.
Logan, Jean and I both follow the studying of consciousness closely, albeit for different reasons; Jean for philosophical reasons, I for scientific ones. So we are well-informed about this topic, and it is exactly as I said: No-one has any idea. To quote from a 2009 article: "Consciousness arises as an emergent property of the human mind. Yet basic questions about the precise timing, location and dynamics of the neural event(s) allowing conscious access to information are not clearly and unequivocally determined". That's scientific bla-bla for "we have no idea".
I studied math and physics for several semesters before I decided to switch to computer programming, and trust me, I know what physics is all about. There is nothing unphysical about my hypothesis. But I am very well aware of the fact that physicists start to feel uncomfortable as soon as consciousness enters their realm.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic, but people have ideas, they just don't know. A great number of consciousness studies abound in the New Age, religious, self-help gurus, and philosophical realm, but serious consciousness studies in neuroscience, psychology and biology exist, and it has become an interesting topic when it comes to AI as I said. Evolutionary biologists posit ideas on how consciousness developed. There is no consensus, but there are ideas from scientists, as there are from philosophers, but I guess you mean that no one knows (although I suspect some think they might know or at least have a pretty reasonable idea of it).
Anyway, if consciousness, at least the reasons why it developed, is an unknown, I don't see how the "for me there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have. And the most complex process is the universe itself. Therefore I believe it also has a consciousness, and this consciousness I call "God". This is of course a consciousness that is way suoerior to human consciousness. I believe that uch a consciousness might well be aware of all its subprocesses (contrary to human consciousness; we humans are for example not aware of what happens to a single cell of ours)" hypothesis is ultimately not nonscientific.
Those are very questionable assumptions. You assert that you believe that "there seems to be a tendency in the universe that the more complex a process is the more consciousness it does have", and we could debate that alone, but the brain (its functioning etc.) seems to be the most complex process in the universe that we know of, but the whole body is more complex still. And "the most complex process is the universe itself", well that encompasses the brain, life, however that is defined, the laws of physics, simple and complex processes, and everything, although we might say that the multiverse is more complex if we take that hypothesis into account. But sure, we can talk of the universe as universal. So okay. I think of the universe as a system of processes, but then so is the brain. You then say that you believe that the universe has consciousness, which I see no evidence for and is a metaphysical notion. Your argument is begging the question, rather circular, and I think your premises put your conclusion on a very slippery slope. It's the kind of argument I could imagine a Sophist making, although I'm not accusing of sophistry.
You may be right, but as a scientific hypothesis it would fail. I think that consciousness arises due to a great many separate processes, but I don't believe that complexity require consciousness. That said, I have pondered whether the universe could be conscious, bit I didn't have sufficient reason to believe that this is true or probable. As vast and complex as the universe is, I don't think the notion fits Occam's razor type principles (that the fewer assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely the explanation). Now I'm referencing a philosopher there.... But I'm not proposing another hypothesis to counter yours with a simpler explanation because the whole argument seems problematic to me. It ask us to accept too many questionable things to draw the conclusion.
All that said, I gives me an interesting insight into your beliefs, and I am interested in both physics and metaphysics. At some I will read the article you linked to, but don't expect me to comment on it. I know I could have said all of this in a few sentences, I need to hone that skill as I tend to get too bogged down in minutia and have a rambling sort of mind.
As for climate change, there is pretty much a consensus amongst climatologists that man is having a severe impact on the climate. And most scientists in other disciplines agree to it as well -- certainly reputable ones who have studied it. Well-educated in the science deniers are very much in the minority, and even then I think many have been charlatans. I wonder how many people who believe that it's a hoax also question evolution and the general roundness of the earth, and have almost no formal education in the sciences? I don't even think it need much education to "get" it.
There should still be debates in it by scientists, the accuracy of stats, the extent etc., but the big question as to whether man is having a profound effect on the climate shouldn't even be a debate any more. I would think that it should be obvious too pretty much all but the most uneducated, unintelligent, and politically or business biased.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 19:04
BaldFriede wrote:
Ahem. You are aware that the production of carbon dioxide did not start a year ago, aren't you? And it is also not as if the increase of carbon dioxide production happened overnight, it was a gradual process. So this argument of yours is most certainly invalid.
Please try a clear argument to back your claim or read the article again.
------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 19:41
You are not following my argument correctly, Logan. First of all I
never said complexity required consciousness, it was rather the other
way round.
I only have one hypothesis, and that is "The more complex a process is the higher its level of 'consciousness' becomes". Once a
process is sufficiently complex, and of course self-reflective as well,
it develops something like the human consciousnees.
Of course the human brain is
inseparable from the body, and the processes pertaining the brain are
most definitely interwoven with the processes in this body. I did not
say at all that consciousness springs from the brain alone; in fact I very much doubt it. So that argument you make about the brain and the body is not in contradiction to what I said.
The only hypothesis I have is that the more complex a process is the higher its level of "consciousness". This is in accordance with the currently quite popular "Integrated information theory" proposed by Guilio Tononi and Christian Koch. I will not go into the details of it, but a consequence of this theory is that pretty much anything has a consciousness, in other words we are facing panpsychism. Now you see why I put "consciousness" in quotation marks, because we certainly don't speak of the same level of consciousness when looking at a stone and when looking at a human being.
Everything else I said simply follows from this basic hypothesis. So I am very much in accordance with Occam's razor.
And when I say "no-one has any idea" I simply mean "no-one can sufficiently explain it". There are many ideas around, but none of these ideas is suffcient to form a scientific theory (including mine, or rather ours since Jean and I developed the idea together).
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 19:55
Tillerman88 wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Ahem. You are aware that the production of carbon dioxide did not start a year ago, aren't you? And it is also not as if the increase of carbon dioxide production happened overnight, it was a gradual process. So this argument of yours is most certainly invalid.
Please try a clear argument to back your claim or read the article again.
The argument is abdolutely clear, and I definitely don't have to read the article again. It is not as if the amount of carbon dioxide "suddenly" increased by 1%, it happened over a period of many years. So the carbon dioxide had all the time in the world to spread around the whole globe. It is by no means so that the effect of global warming is EXACTLY equal for every place of the earth. But the effect can certainly be measured anywhere on the planet. So your argument is simply not valid.
-------------
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 20:38
BaldFriede wrote:
You are not following my argument correctly, Logan. First of all I never said complexity required consciousness, it was rather the other way round.
I only have one hypothesis, and that is "The more complex a process is the higher its level of 'consciousness' becomes". Once a process is sufficiently complex, and of course self-reflective as well, it develops something like the human consciousnees.
Of course the human brain is inseparable from the body, and the processes pertaining the brain are most definitely interwoven with the processes in this body. I did not say at all that consciousness springs from the brain alone; in fact I very much doubt it. So that argument you make about the brain and the body is not in contradiction to what I said.
The only hypothesis I have is that the more complex a process is the higher its level of "consciousness". This is in accordance with the currently quite popular "Integrated information theory" proposed by Guilio Tononi and Christian Koch. I will not go into the details of it, but a consequence of this theory is that pretty much anything has a conmsciousness, in other words we are facing panpsychism. Now you see why I put "consciousness" in quotation marks, because we certainly don't speak of the same level of consciousness when looking at a stone and when looking at a human being.
Everything else I said simply follows from this basic hypothesis. So I am very much in accordance with Occam's razor.
And when I say "no-one has any idea" I simply mean "no-one can sufficiently explain it". There are many ideas around, but none of these ideas is suffcient to form a scientific theory (including mine, or rather ours since Jean and I developed the idea together..
I'll give you a high phi instead of a high five.
I got the argument, I just mixed up the order when composing that post. It happens as when I'm typing I'm always thinking ahead.
The brain and body reference was not intended to contradict you.
It follows in argument form, but I still requires assumptions that I thought lacking, here's the word that started it with your negation of my assertion, "evidence", or scientific credibility.
Panpsychism, it's become quite popular again, hasn't it?
I am passingly familiar with "Integrated information theory" as I've heard it discussed in a talk about hard problem of consciousness and the future of artificial intelligence. Being non-functionalist might seem a problem to some. You put your view more into perspective now. I would still very much question the whole notion.
To claim that information is consciousness and information is everywhere, therefore consciousness if everywhere I think depends on how you interpret or define information and consciousness, but I think fundamentally problematic because of the way that information exists relative to consciousness. We use our consciousness to interpret information, and our consciousness requires no "observer", but generally information does require an observer. Now strap that to the universe as a whole.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 20:49
Isolated systems…
_______________________________
The consciousness discussion is very interesting…Consciousness may not be a brain
function.There are records of quite a
few people that have very little brain matter, mostly water in the skull and
live normal lives.
“Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a
person like that, who’s missing 90% of his neurons, still exhibits normal
behavior,”
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 29 2017 at 23:02
But the article does not claim that consciousness may not be a brain function, but that at our brains are more flexible and adaptable than was thought. It is now recognised that there is far more neuro-plasticity than previously thought.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 02:46
BaldFriede wrote:
It is by no means so that the effect of global warming is EXACTLY equal for every place of the earth.
Hey who said that??
Oh boy....never mind
------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 03:02
A Person wrote:
Yes, there is consensus on anthropogenic climate change. No, I will not debate it. It is real, deal with it.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 03:39
The Loch Ness Monster (funny how Aleister Crowley bought Boleskine House on the banks of the loch in 1899 solely for the purposes of performing a very dangerous magick ritual and the stories and legend started to accumulate thereafter....)
-------------
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 03:55
In a similar vain, Elvis sightings. And Big Foot...
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 06:37
Sure, the Loch Ness Monster could have existed, it very well may
still. It could have even been a projection of some dark magic that we
can’t possibly comprehend. Whatever the case, I’m fairly certain of the
reason many more know of the monster than of the bizarre happenings in
the Boleskine House: It’s far easier to commercialize a skittish water
creature than it is to commercialize the odd misdoing of a bisexual,
recreational drug-using libertine.
Then again, David Bowie has had a fine career..
(Greg Newkirk 2011)
-------------
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 06:50
Logan wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow -
When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm" rel="nofollow -
They would indeed. Very well-explained and illustrated, progaardvark.
And scientists who deny the impact that man is having on climate change/ global warming are very much in the minority. And I don't know of any credible ones that are taken seriously amongst climatologists. Of course some people get payola by think tanks and companies to publish papers. it's actually pretty easy science to have a basic understanding of.
I fully agree that the article I mentioned is an opinion piece rather than a contribution to climate science. Regretfully, articles supporting climate scepticism are to be found only on right-wing oriented sites, such as this one, Breitbart, Infowars and some others. OK, the amount of carbon dioxide (which keeps the warmth in the atmosphere, Venus is a fine example with a surface temperature of c. 460°C, 96% carbon dioxide and a pressure of 92000 hPa) has increased with more than 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the temperature has increased with 0.7°C. But it is the political aspect that bugs me, the agressive ways in which it is pushed triggers my alarm bells. The KNMI (Dutch Met Office) has recently adjusted its pre-1951 maximum temperatures by lowering them by up to 1.5 degrees. The measuring methods may have become more accurate during the last decades, but, in today's political climate, this feels like altering the facts to fit the views . I may have become an a****le with an opinion long after I blew my chance to become a scientist and I don't count the heads of people with similar or opposite views, but eppur si muove...
-------------
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 07:21
Tillerman88 wrote:
Sorry for being a bit off-topic too, but there's NO consensus amongst scientists about man-made global warming.....
I don't discard that Man has been behaving as sort of a catalyst for that matter. Furthermore, today there is a considerable amount of scientists reckoning that the global warming is part of a natural cycle. The article below confirms that (albeit being from 2009, it's pretty accurate):
In the year 2009, a team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels - the first increase in ten years. What baffled the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
One thing I would like to point out about your link is that it comes to a conclusion that the original MIT team did not. The source article makes no mentions of "natural cycles" at all.
This is the source article: http://news.mit.edu/2008/methane-tt1029" rel="nofollow - http://news.mit.edu/2008/methane-tt1029
Also, in seven years, more research has been done in this area:
------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 07:26
someone_else wrote:
Logan wrote:
progaardvark wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's [URL=http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow]here[/URL].
The thing about this article you posted is that it isn't written by any credible climatologists. You need to research those names mentioned in it to find out what their associations and true backgrounds are. Then you need to find out what "The Daily Caller" is. Is it a scientific publication or journal? Obviously not, since right-winger Tucker Carlson is a founder of it.
When you read the claims in it, you need to find out if they've been debunked by actual climatologists. For instance, the CO2 lag has been debunked here: [URL=https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm" rel="nofollow]https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm[/URL]
Finally, this write-up is just an opinion piece, and like a****les, every one has one. Science is something you cannot find on a right-wing opinion and "news" site, at least from my experience. If these folks had tried to published this in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, they'd be laughed out of town.
They would indeed. Very well-explained and illustrated, progaardvark.
And scientists who deny the impact that man is having on climate change/ global warming are very much in the minority. And I don't know of any credible ones that are taken seriously amongst climatologists. Of course some people get payola by think tanks and companies to publish papers. it's actually pretty easy science to have a basic understanding of.
I fully agree that the article I mentioned is an opinion piece rather than a contribution to climate science. Regretfully, articles supporting climate scepticism are to be found only on right-wing oriented sites, such as this one, Breitbart, Infowars and some others. OK, the amount of carbon dioxide (which keeps the warmth in the atmosphere, Venus is a fine example with a surface temperature of c. 460°C, 96% carbon dioxide and a pressure of 92000 hPa) has increased with more than 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the temperature has increased with 0.7°C. But it is the political aspect that bugs me, the agressive ways in which it is pushed triggers my alarm bells. The KNMI (Dutch Met Office) has recently adjusted its pre-1951 maximum temperatures by lowering them by up to 1.5 degrees. The measuring methods may have become more accurate during the last decades, but, in today's political climate, this feels like altering the facts to fit the views . I may have become an a****le with an opinion long after I blew my chance to become a scientist and I don't count the heads of people with similar or opposite views, but eppur si muove...
You would blow your chance to be a scientist by denying man's profound effect on the climate. If you studied any science you would know that science is always be reevaluated, and new tools and models are developed and refined. Adjustment is a part of science. But to throw out some stats, that frankly I doubt most people understand who throw them out, and then say, "Hey see, it wasn't correct so the "theory" must be full of hot air" is ridiculous.
Articles are to be found on such sites, rather in peer reviewed journals where you would normally expect science articles to be taken seriously because the right-wing power players have an agenda: preserve the status quo, pro-big business, generally pro petroleum based revenue. Scientists who have claimed that the whole climate change is fear-mongering have often been in the employ of the oil industry which creates a clear conflict of interest.
Venus has wrongfully been describes, I have read in the past, as sufficiently analogous to global warming on Earth (I remember reading about that in response to Neil deGrasse Tyson's claims). There have been claims by people such as Al Gore that proved inaccurate, and that despite him not even being a scientist seems to be something that climate change skeptics look at it and say, uh uh, see it's all conspiracy by.... Who, I don't know. It's commonly said look for the profit motive, so may they think consortiums looking to profit from so-called green energy? Climate change and global warming has been talked about and warned about for a very long time, and the skeptics claims don't make sense. One can debate the data, and how great the effect will be, but to throw it out as non-concern, well I think that's evil because humanity is being put at risk due to economic, ideological and political interests that favour very wealthy individuals.
The measuring methods and science will improve, but to say it's not a problem or of great concern is burying one's head in the sand. Science should not be beholden to politics, it goes against the ethos.
Climate change occurs naturally, of course, but the evidence is overwhelming, and just plain obvious, that man, especially since the industrial revolution, has had a very significant impact on the climate and has accelerated change.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 07:35
I have one, ghosts. Anyone mention that yet?
Professor Brian Cox, an Advanced Fellow of particle physics at the University of Manchester, and a popular science communicator (I love his BBC shows) said,
"If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That's almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies."
Of course scientists are commonly skeptical about paranormal activity, and many scientists have put out ideas to debunk ghosts and come up with logical, scientific explanations, but his is an interesting take on it.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 08:20
someone_else wrote:
twseel wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Man-made global warming.
the consensus amongst scientists would be that it does exist
Surely there is some consensus about its existence amongst fraudulous scientists whose ... er ... science is subordinate to one or another political agenda . The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
I found an interesting article about it. Don't allow messages from this site because they subscribe you without asking, but it's http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/12/man-made-global-warming-not-so-man-made-not-so-warm/" rel="nofollow - here .
Oh, when I saw your first post I assumed it was a joke. A jab at the "there's no scientific consensus!" lot. Esp with the comment about palmistry. I got a good chuckle.
You were serious???
Sure, you can cherry pick a few cases out of people who buck the trend but, (ironic given what you said) many of those who counter tend to have...let's just say a financial incentive. If they are not being outright bought out, then they were selected because of contrarian views they already had and are coming up with work to favor the outcome wanted by certain groups. Ya can't say there's no consensus and say the MSM, gov, dogma is to blame for why so many "agree" because then you have to be fair and admit many of those who oppose the consensus have their own biases and incentives.
Sorry but...there's a consensus. It's that simple. If you wanna disagree with human caused climate change well...OK but you can't say there is no consensus. That's just, not correct. There's having beliefs but then there's leaving the "reality based community"
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 09:27
A brain in the head of Kim Jong Un.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: August 30 2017 at 16:02
A successful Trump presidency.
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 02:59
Logan wrote:
I have one, ghosts. Anyone mention that yet?
I did. I mean you can't tell me those guys on Ghost Adventures are putting us on.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 03:26
progaardvark wrote:
One thing I would like to point out about your link is that it comes to a conclusion that the original MIT team did not. The source article makes no mentions of "natural cycles" at all.
This is the source article: http://news.mit.edu/2008/methane-tt1029
Also, in seven years, more research has been done in this area:
yes indeed your right input just clears any possible misunderstanding about the real MIT approach, and that's good and what I should have done priorly; but my point there is just what wasn't gotten straight. It's obvious there's some bias on that article , however....it really raises a question of how much of the climate change is only man-made as opposed to the obvious contribution of a inherent natural change, don't forget that in the last couple of decades the change's rate has increased geometrically (not linearly) progression-wise......
------------- The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 04:01
Atavachron wrote:
Logan wrote:
I have one, ghosts. Anyone mention that yet?
I did. I mean you can't tell me those guys on Ghost Adventures are putting us on.
"What was that? I think I heard something! Did you hear something?"
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 07:42
Nothing doesn't exist according to science. Science is not there to proof the non-existence of things.
-------------
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 08:10
SteveG wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Logan wrote:
I have one, ghosts. Anyone mention that yet?
I did. I mean you can't tell me those guys on Ghost Adventures are putting us on.
"What was that? I think I heard something! Did you hear something?"
If ghosts don't exist, explain how they filmed that orgasm scene in Ghostbusters.
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
Posted By: Richey Edwards
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 12:04
I don't exist. What can I do?
Oh what can I do?
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 13:50
Richey Edwards wrote:
I don't exist. What can I do?
Oh what can I do?
Think... Just think... If you still don't exist than at least you are and that's better than nothing at all (credits go to René Descartes, who exists according to science) .
-------------
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 16:09
SteveG wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Logan wrote:
I have one, ghosts. Anyone mention that yet?
I did. I mean you can't tell me those guys on Ghost Adventures are putting us on.
"What was that? I think I heard something! Did you hear something?"
- Dude, what wuz'zat? - Oh dude. - Duuuuude!
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted By: Kepler62
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 17:28
OK. Little green men from other planets.
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 21:20
Pineal Gland Optics
------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.
https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: August 31 2017 at 21:21
Organic Shadows and also Perpetual Black Second's
------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.
https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 00:18
someone_else wrote:
Man-made global warming.
You are joking no?
Santiago de Chile, due to pollution, the temperature has risen 3 degrees in average, which is a lot.
In Mexico is worst, the average temperature is around 7 degrees C° higher in the night, something unthinkable in cities with so high altitude.
This is not casual.
-------------
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 02:28
^It is not casual, I agree, and the sum of lots of local warmings in widely separated urban areas may be called global warming. Average temperatures have risen, I don't doubt that, I just compared the yearly averages of De Bilt, NL (the Dutch main weather station which is situated at sea level, less than 30 minutes on bike from my home, some 35 km - 22 miles - from Amsterdam as the crow flies) from 1937-1966 with those of 1987-2016, and I see an increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade).
But to answer your question, it is more or less a joke. This thread has been placed in the JfF section. It's more the way that this concept her been used for political agendas that has made me put my heels in the sand. If I had known that mentioning this would cause an outburst of verbal carbon dioxide and methane as it already did, which can make it getting hot here, I would gladly have withheld my little turd .
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 06:36
Leaving it to Ludwig Von Wittgenstein -
"1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the
facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also
whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world."
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 06:57
Karl Popper also said
"We cannot be sure of anything until all the evidence is in. All the evidence will never be in. Therefore we cannot be completely sure of anything. "
-------------
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 08:21
Davesax1965 wrote:
Leaving it to Ludwig Von Wittgenstein -
"1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the
facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also
whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world."
Those who attended the same school as Adolf Hitler cannot be guilty by association but of those, the ones who subsequently became sadistic school teachers who fled prosecution are clearly not to be trusted.
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 08:32
Yes, he did get a bit slap happy. ;-)
Wittgenstein later apparently regretted writing the Tractatus and said it solved nothing. It's similar to Descartes trying to provide philosophical answer "with the same elegance as mathematics. " Doomed to failure, trying to solve the metaphysical in that manner.
From what I remember, Wittgenstein also threatened Karl Popper with a poker in front of Bertrand Russell.
"The club became infamous within popular philosophy because of a meeting on 25 October 1946 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._B._Braithwaite" rel="nofollow - Richard Braithwaite 's rooms in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_College,_Cambridge" rel="nofollow - King's , where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper" rel="nofollow - Karl Popper , another Viennese philosopher, had been invited as the guest speaker. Popper's paper was Are there philosophical problems?, in which he struck up a position against Wittgenstein's, contending that problems in philosophy are real, not just linguistic puzzles as Wittgenstein argued. Accounts vary as to what happened next, but Wittgenstein apparently started waving a hot poker, demanding that Popper give him an example of a moral rule. Popper offered one—"Not to threaten visiting speakers with pokers"—at which point Russell told Wittgenstein he had misunderstood and Wittgenstein left. "
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 08:37
Similar to Bishop Berkely, the founder of Immaterialism, who called around for tea one day - I can't remember who he was visiting.
Berkely, in an attempt to prove God existed, came up with the idea that objects didn't exist unless they were observed. Since it was illogical to assume objects popped in and out of existence, he used this as proof that objects were always observed by the all seeing eye of God.
I think he popped around to see one of the English Empiricists - Locke, Hobbes or Hume - knocked on his door with his stick - Locke (I think) refused to let his housekeeper open the door, as the Bishop "should easily be able to step through the door if he stopped observing it".
-------------
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 08:39
Wittgenstein was a committed Christian and profoundly influenced by religious thought. This became more and more pronounced in his later years and published works. The idea that he was some sort of antidote to superstitious or transcendentalist ideas is frankly, spurious.
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 08:52
Certainly was, he received the Last Rites on his deathbed and was convinced he was joining the Choir Invisible.
However, he was also strongly influenced by mathematics and that's what the Tractatus is. It's an idea to cut through pseudo-mystic cabbalistic mumbo-jumbo by providing proofs in a similar fashion to mathematics. Wittgenstein, curiously, had no time for the metaphysical (whilst strangely having strong Catholic beliefs) and was trying to demystify and classify philosophy as a science.
Same pattern of thought as Descartes, although I could probably include St Anselm's "ontological proof of the existence of God" in the same manner of an attempt at mathematically logical proof - premise followed by conclusion.
Incidentally, apart from the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1925), the only "published works of his later years" were one book review and a childrens' dictionary.
-------------
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 09:27
Kepler62 wrote:
OK. Little green men from other planets.
Steve Vai might like a word with you!
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 09:29
^^ like mathematics is some sort of rebuttal to the wish fulfillment of subjective reality e.g. = (two things in the world are identical?)
-------------
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 09:31
someone_else wrote:
^It is not casual, I agree, and the sum of lots of local warmings in widely separated urban areas may be called global warming. Average temperatures have risen, I don't doubt that, I just compared the yearly averages of De Bilt, NL (the Dutch main weather station which is situated at sea level, less than 30 minutes on bike from my home, some 35 km - 22 miles - from Amsterdam as the crow flies) from 1937-1966 with those of 1987-2016, and I see an increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade).
We are not talking about separate areas.
Every urban area in the world suffers that phenomenon in lesser or greater degree
Deforestation in the amazon region rises the temperature in 5 degrees.
1 Degree Celsius is a lot, just think that a 6 degree loss may cause a glacial era
QUOTE=someone_else]But to answer your question, it is more or less a joke. This thread has been placed in the JfF section. It's more the way that this concept her been used for political agendas that has made me put my heels in the sand. If I had known that mentioning this would cause an outburst of verbal carbon dioxide and methane as it already did, which can make it getting hot here, I would gladly have withheld my little turd .
[/QUOTE]
Everything is used for political agendas, that's not new.
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 10:02
ExittheLemming wrote:
^^ like mathematics is some sort of rebuttal to the wish fulfillment of subjective reality e.g. = (two things in the world are identical?)
Well, when I was at University in the 90's studying for an Honours Degree in English with History and Philosophy...... nope. ;-)
There was a long period in Philosophy where mathematics was seen as the saviour of philosophical argument from descending into solipcism. The Logical Positivists were more or less championing such an approach, "prove a statement with the same rigour as that used by science". However, that, of course, doesn't work with metaphysical or moral argument, and the whole approach was somewhat abandoned in the mid 20th century. Wittgenstein, Russell and Haeckel were really contributors to the general cause, but the roots of it started in the Enlightenment.
2/2, by the way, boozer's first. ;-)
-------------
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 10:03
PS Don't blame me, Wittgenstein said it. ;-)
-------------
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 10:25
Jon Anderson's testicles.
------------- Soldato of the Pan Head Mafia. We'll make you an offer you can't listen to. http://bandcamp.com/jpillbox" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp Profile
Posted By: timbo
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 10:37
Schroedinger's cat. (At least, not a live cat!)
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 12:41
^ The metaphorical cat is both alive and dead in his thought experiment, as I recall, until someone looks in the box. Of course, he knew how ridiculous the the actual experiment would be, but it made for an interesting analogy.
^^ As for Jon Anderson's testicles, they both exist and don't exist until we look in his trousers.
;)
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am very into: a youtube playlist with two tracks per act
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 13:01
clothes
------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Posted By: Argo2112
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 13:05
Mascodagama wrote:
Jon Anderson's testicles.
That's just wrong! So, so wrong!1 ( But very funny!1)
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: September 01 2017 at 13:17
Logan wrote:
^ The metaphorical cat is both alive and dead in his thought experiment, as I recall, until someone looks in the box. Of course, he knew how ridiculous the the actual experiment would be, but it made for an interesting analogy.
^^ As for Jon Anderson's testicles, they both exist and don't exist until we look in his trousers.
;)
My second mission.
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: September 02 2017 at 02:38
Vompatti wrote:
. The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
. The MSM and governmental organizations try to impose this doctrine on the public in an increasingly agressive way, but I refuse to think that there is anything more scientific about this dogma than - for instance - palmistry.
. I may have become an a****le with an opinion long after I blew my chance to become a scientist and I don't count the heads of people with similar or opposite views, but eppur si muove...
