I agree with the "probably not a very good estimate" part, but you lost me when you contradicted yourself by saying it might not be off by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus Vernum
Printable View
I agree with the "probably not a very good estimate" part, but you lost me when you contradicted yourself by saying it might not be off by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus Vernum
I have a bad habit of always trying to hedge my bets with my statements which often results in such things :( but hey, maybe you'll luck out and accidentally manage to get just the right measurement to make your estimate work even though your assumptions were way wrong :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Cedar Point
I agree. Just stop saying know when you mean believe. If the science changes, for any reason, those who swore they knew something look rather foolish. By you I mean scholarly types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus Vernum
Assumption is sometimes the key to unlocking a mystery. It can be dangerous. dealer'choiceQuote:
We have a reasonable approximation sure. It's not hard to make one if you make a few reasonable assumptions[1], and if you decide that you shouldn't be assuming things about the universe then you have to use more difficult but also more rigorous methods.
I believe it was him, and it was understandable, even to me. Although, I probably got less from it than you.Quote:
was it this guy?
'cause that was an awesome lecture and I thought it was a fairly understandable look at how science and scientists work, and the difference between theorists (who like their equations coming out as simple solutions) and experimentalists (who have to determine whether or not they actually do come out as simple solutions)
No afterlife, no deities, I can accept. It's the assumption of human superiority that I can't reason. No evidence of anything smarter than us, so it doesn't exist? Bah!Quote:
If you're not a religious person you can only go by the evidence, which suggests there is no afterlife nor any dieties to create one.
[1]For example, assuming that the universe is roughly the same in all directions, with an even distribution of galaxies and quasars and the like then all you have to do is observe a small patch of sky, estimate the mass in that area, then extrapolate it to the rest of the observable universe and voila... an estimation of the observable universe's mass. Probably not a very good estimate but it might not be off by much.
A reasonable approach for the observable universe. Thats the part where human arrogance and assumption become a big risk. But as they say, the bigger the risk the bigger the reward.
Oh, and I'm not a religious guy, per se. I'm undecided. I don't mean to bash science, but rather, challenge the scholar. Without challenge,... ...
The problem with using the word "believe" is that it's tied up with the word "faith" in many peoples minds and then people take it to mean that science is a matter of faith. "accept" might be a better word to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
Generally the less asumptions you have to make the better, and your assumptions should be backed up with damn good reasons for making them.Quote:
Assumption is sometimes the key to unlocking a mystery. It can be dangerous. dealer'choice
I understand most of what he's saying, but he begins to lose me around the point where he starts using the microwave background to create a triangle large enough to be affected by the universes curvature, and the anthropic stuff near the end mostly goes over my head.Quote:
I believe it was him, and it was understandable, even to me. Although, I probably got less from it than you.
Depends on what aspect of humanity you try to define as being superior I guess. As much as people in the CC liked bashing Alberjons transhumanist philosophy (he was pretty optimistic and overenthusiatic about it) I see alot of appeal in humanity using its technology and intellect to master the secrets of time and spaceQuote:
No afterlife, no deities, I can accept. It's the assumption of human superiority that I can't reason. No evidence of anything smarter than us, so it doesn't exist? Bah!
A reasonable approach for the observable universe. Thats the part where human arrogance and assumption become a big risk. But as they say, the bigger the risk the bigger the reward.
Oh, and I'm not a religious guy, per se. I'm undecided. I don't mean to bash science, but rather, challenge the scholar. Without challenge,... ...
Transhumanist thinking, what little I've heard, does sound intriguing. I do beleive it would be quite impossible. Even if the memories of a person could be transferred, the personality could not. I stayed away from calling the soul ther intentionally, because the arguement is the same for both I think. The intangible elements of our existence(soul/spirit/personality) just can't be manipulated in that manner.
Our knowledge of how the mind works is so limited and there are so many different approaches to transhumanism that it's hard to know which are plausible and which are mere fancy, which is why everyone made fun of Alber so much as he regularly brought up the more whimsical aspects of human augmentation.
His ridiculous optimism, refusal to listen to anything else, and arrogance didn't help his side at all.
Personalities obviosuly exist, but souls and spirits? There's no evidence for them, why believe in them just because the Shaman at church says so? Strong evidence points to the simple answer - your mind IS your brain. When your brain stops - aka dies - so does your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
Its the arrogance I had the problem with. Optimism's fun. Being ignored is way to common place to pin to his shirt, but that attitude. Grrr. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I'm not so sue that the brain IS the mind. The brain is an information processor/sensory organ. I think (just a working theory here) that the mind is somehow independant of the brain. The brain perceives either the bio-electrical field of the body, or some "cosmic consciousness"( I know, pfft!), or whatever, and translates that into thought. Like I said just working on an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
There is no evidence that a mind exists outside the physical brain - no soul, no spirit. There IS evidence that the physical brain is the mind. There's many documented cases of brain damage that resulted in major personality changes. If you have a soul or spirit that is your moral center, how can you become a lying, cheating bastard just because a metal rod got rammed through your brain? I don't want to be disrespectful, but unless you're doing actual scientific research, whatever you're working theory is has no more validity than Greek Mythos.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
Well if the brain is some kind of receiver for personality waves from planet Omikron Persei 8, the receiver becoming damaged could harm the reception of the signal.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
That no such signals are known to exist shouldn't interfere with these kinds of theories, one can but point at something like dark matter or dark energy and say the signal is some kind of vibration in it, or whatever else dumb crap one feels is sufficiently ridiculous. And trying to explain why only human brains can receive these personality signals, well, they just do and you can't show otherwise, neener neener
So basically minds are these things shooting through the universe, and we're all part of a collective consciousness that is all gods dreaming together, and the world will end when one of them wakes up and finds Patrick Duffy in the shower.
Also his unfathomable ability to marginalize any studies or statements by people in fields that would actually have some knowledge or say in areas dealing with the mind, while simultaneously uplifting any statements by Kurzweil and the like, or studies/statements that agreed with his point of view. Or the "we already know everything we need to know about the human brain" line of reasoning...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
OMG, you may very well have given me an epiphany. It IS dark mattergy. That's where heaven is. That's where hell is. That's where my soul is. DAMN. That explains everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Obligatory http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...m/2-waffle.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Why is this?Quote:
Even if the memories of a person could be transferred, the personality could not.
Who you are is more than just a sum of things you remember, depending on what you're calling a memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I think you have the makings of a new religion, one that will be more plausible and more difficult to show as inane stupidity. You just need to write all that down in flowery language, take a vacation to a desert or something and claim that while lost and thirsty as hell you got a revelation. Next stop? PARADISE. :coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'm not sure drug-fueled sodomy parties count as paradise. Maybe. Might get pretty nasty, health-wise, after awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I'm trying to get at why he thinks the personality couldn't be transfered.
Wait, before I respond. Are the parties in the afterlife? Or in your Churches?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Oh. Even though its more than just memory, I think it's probably possible to do it. Cant' be done now, but give it a little study.... (It wouldn't be you though... :o )Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
God indeed created all things. Therefore he is not under any obligation to be subject to any laws whether physical or spiritual since he was the one who created them. The only law that God would possibly be subjected to is his own word! For whatever he says that he will do, then surely he will accomplish it! Here's something else to consider. New Age thinkers are not all that off when it comes to our planet. They believe the earth is alive some how and that what we do has a significant effect on it. The bible says that the earth actually has birth pangs meaning that it eagerly waits for the return of Jesus Christ to restore the earth. As a result of these "pangs", the bible says that in the last days there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes in various places, famines and pestilences, and also floods. These are obviously happening around the world as we speak and are greatly increasing in frequency. Any scientific studies will show this to be true.
Another question some have is will the world end? Not according to the bible. The world as we know it will end, but it will be made new so that the physical part of the earth will remain, it will just receive a serious makeover. The bible also talks about the elements being destoroyed, the earth being burned and a lot of others things that are hard to grasp because nothing like this has ever happened before.
That "somehow" doesn't really cut it without some explanation into how the earth could be alive. Certainly the surface of the earth is a dynamic system with a biosphere and climate that can respond to human input, but that doesn't make the earth any more alive than my computer. The inside of earth is also a dynamic system but as far as I know the currents in the mantle and the spinning of the earths core are utterly unaffected by human activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weber
While I've read some entertaining fiction on the possibility that the biosphere could be, or become, a conscious entity it's just that; fiction.
Sounds like a pretty useless prediction to me. Wars and rumours of wars? Like that doesn't cover all of human history to date, likewise famines, pestilences and floods.Quote:
The bible says that the earth actually has birth pangs meaning that it eagerly waits for the return of Jesus Christ to restore the earth. As a result of these "pangs", the bible says that in the last days there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes in various places, famines and pestilences, and also floods. These are obviously happening around the world as we speak and are greatly increasing in frequency. Any scientific studies will show this to be true.
The increasing frequency? sure if our proposed negative impact on the climate is borne out then we'll see an increase in all of those things as the climate changes for the worse, but then that's not God's doing but is instead Man's for not taking better care of his planet.
I haven't heard of any scientific studies seeing an increase in earthquakes though.
The bible says this, the bible says that...
*ugh*
Using the preacherman's interpretation of the Bible is great for people who are incapable of thinking for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter Jeweler
I don't care how it is interpreted. It's FICTION.
Of course it's not fiction you dunderhead, it says it right there in the Bible that it is so!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter Jeweler
Of course it's not fiction you silly billy, just look at the marvels of the world around you!
Of course it's not fiction you doubting Thomas, God himself told me He is real!
Of course it's not fiction you...Oh. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...emot-eng99.gif
Sorry for the wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's because the whole is greater than the sum of it parts. You say the brain is the mind, so what organ is the emotions? the heart? that's what everyone says. Maybe it's the lungs, they're close to the heart, and everyone was confused by the proximity.
My point is, there are things in this world for which there is no hard evidence, that doesn't mean they don't exist. It also doesn't mean we can just dismiss the idea for lack of evidence, this isn't a trial or a test of any kind. It's just life, don't take it so seriously or you might miss the best parts.
Um, the answer is in fact 'the brain'. The heart thing is just a metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
Stop right here. Source please. It has to be objective and verifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weber
First, how can you say this when we don't yet understand what all the parts do and how they work together??? Second, even if it is true, why can't you simulate all the parts in a computer so the greater whole can be simulated as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
There is no difference between emotions and the mind. Emotions are part of the mind and originate in the brain. The idea emotion comes from the heart is pre-science and probably has to do with the rush in your chest you feel when adrenaline is released.Quote:
You say the brain is the mind, so what organ is the emotions?
Name a thing in this world for which there is no 'hard' evidence that we should nevertheless whole heartedly embrace. :|Quote:
My point is, there are things in this world for which there is no hard evidence, that doesn't mean they don't exist. It also doesn't mean we can just dismiss the idea for lack of evidence, this isn't a trial or a test of any kind. It's just life, don't take it so seriously or you might miss the best parts.
Love.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Most non-rape unionsQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
1: A build-it-yourself bookcase comes in a box, just a bunch of parts. You can pour them onto the floor, doesn't make it a bookcase. You can ignore the assembly instructions and assemble it as seems appropriate, maybe it's okay maybe your books end up on the floor amongst a pile of bookcase parts. Assembled properly, the whole serves more function than the parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
2: Emotions have many physiological effects, not the other way around.
I never said we wholeheartedly embrace anything. I said we cannot wholeheartedly dismiss anything soley on the basis of a lack of evidence. Curiousity and wonder, my friend, is the reason we've come so far in the first place.Quote:
Name a thing in this world for which there is no 'hard' evidence that we should nevertheless whole heartedly embrace. :|
A couple of years ago, a religious TA from my (physics) faculty introduced me to the Omega Point Theory:
(mind you, this guy is not to be mistaken with THE Tipler, who is much less insane.)Quote:
The Omega Point is Frank Tipler's term for what he maintains is the ultimate fate of the universe required by the laws of physics. Tipler has summarized his theory as follows:
- The universe has finite spatial size and the topology of a three-sphere;
- There are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point, called the Omega Point;
- Sentient life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it;
- The amount of information processed between now and the Omega Point is infinite;
- The amount of information stored in the universe asymptotically goes to infinity as the Omega Point is approached.[1]
According to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end in a specific kind of Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe will be accelerating exponentially faster than time runs out. In principle, a simulation run on this universal computer can thus continue forever in its own terms, even though the universal computer is embedded in a universe that will last only a finite time. The Omega Point Theory requires that the universe eventually contract, and that there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time to exploit the computational capacity of such an environment.
Tipler identifies the final singularity of this asymptotically infinite information capacity with God. According to Tipler and David Deutsch, an implication of this theory is that this ultimate cosmic computer will be able to resurrect (via emulation) everyone who has ever lived, by simulating all possible quantum brain states within the master simulation. This will manifest itself as a simulated reality. From the perspective of its simulated inhabitants, the Omega Point is an infinite-duration afterlife, which could take any imaginable form due to its virtual nature.
[...]
Tipler argues that his Omega Point theory is fully consistent with what God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14, whose Hebrew original Tipler translates into English as: "I shall be what I shall be." Tipler (2007) argues that his theory is consistent with orthodox Christianity.
For somebody who became the world's biggest drama queen when challenged about your trophy house conspicuous consumption, you sure are comfortable attacking something that is near and dear to somebody's sense of self: their religion. Maybe you want to re-think that hypocrisy, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
How exactly is there 'no hard evidence' for love. Is it like some kind of mythical beast that no one has ever encountered, like the Yeti?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Emotions are in the brain. Ignorant savages said heart because strong emotions cause a clenching of muscles there. Feels like the heart. Capiche?Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
It ain't romantic, but it's all glands and neurons. Anybody who has ever taken some steroids can attest to this. OMG the prednisone. :(
And if I were you I'd refrain from talking anything remotely related to physics unless it's got a "meta" in front of it. Just some advice.
Even then, really.