Longest Running Thread EVER

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

At home, I can usually tell when I'm too phased out with fatigue, but I have an acid test. If I can't win a game of Freecell in three tries, then I am too brain-fried to accomplish anything more complex than taking out the trash and I need to go to bed. And that means, go directly to bed; I leave the pick-up-and-pack-the-briefcase for the morning too.

 

It's terrible when I fear I've hit that barrier already, and it's only 2:40 PM.

[Bazza]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Very few people who were in the racket at the time were happy (in terms of finding the new theoretical developments were fully in tune with their sense of esthetics) with the findings that led into what we call "modern physics". (Relativity is less of an issue than quantum mechanics in that regard' date=' though my experience is that laypeople find relativity more baffling.) [/quote'] you are right in that this layperson finds the concept of relativity harder to grasp than quantum mechanics.

 

 

All of it is experiment-driven, though. Even among those 19th century physicists whose work established the modern atomic/molecular model there were people who did not believe that molecules existed (they thought the "molecule" idea was a convenient but oversimplified fiction). Similarly, Einstein was (famously) dissatisfied with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics even though his own work helped establish the necessity of that formulation. Though modern philosophers wrestle with the question of what it means to know something when physics seems to show that the underlying nature of the Universe at very small scales is "merely" probabilistic, from the physicist's POV, that model gives us an ability to predict phenomena that we can measure and confirm, while purely classical models fail in some catastrophic ways.

 

Is there any way to reliably test consciousness or is this field likely to remain theoretical?

 

I think I can understand why reality - quantum mechanics - is based on probability and its relationship to consciousness, but this comes from a New Agey book. Well anyway, thanks Cancer, for helping put another piece of the puzzle we cLl reality together for me.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Einstein's initial paper introducing special relativity is available on the web, but even the introduction assumes some familiarity with physics you are unlikely to have. There's a textbook on special relativity by A.P. French dating from the mid-1960s that has a decent run-up of the background data, but it too assumes you're conversant with introductory physics with calculus.

 

Is there any way to reliably test consciousness or is this field likely to remain theoretical?

 

At the moment ... I don't think the term "consciousness" is defined with enough rigor to test it quantitatively and repeatably in a way that would satisfy a physicist's need for it to be a classical experimental science. The bar is in a different place for the observational sciences, but the definition is still fuzzy enough to be an issue. It isn't necessary to understand the underlying nature of the phenomenon to make for a valid scientific study of it, but you do have to be able to specify the phenomena that characterize the presence (and absence!) of "consciousness" enough so one can make measurements of some kind with no ambiguity about whether something has it or not.

 

I think I can understand why reality - quantum mechanics - is based on probability and its relationship to consciousness, but this comes from a New Agey book. Well anyway, thanks Cancer, for helping put another piece of the puzzle we cLl reality together for me.

Well, I have misgivings about anything you'd characterize as "a New Agey book", but I'll hold my peace here.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

A "spanker" is a gaff-rigged sail on the mizzenmast on a sailing vessel.

 

Do NOT do an image search for "spanker", however. Almost all the results will be NSFW and approximately none will be nautical in nature.

[lemming]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

A "spanker" is a gaff-rigged sail on the mizzenmast on a sailing vessel.

 

Do NOT do an image search for "spanker", however. Almost all the results will be NSFW and approximately none will be nautical in nature.

 

+ship spanker only has a few NSFW using google image search, with safe search off

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Well, I omitted the "+ship" part on the first search I did. (I tend not to remember to do qualified searches.) The results were ... um ...

[lemming]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Well' date=' I omitted the "+ship" part on the first search I did. (I tend not to remember to do qualified searches.) The results were ... um ...[/quote']

 

Well, there are few things one can search for without coming up with something NSFW.

 

People say that social media has finally overtaken porn on the net. Personally, I think porn is taking over social media.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Obviously I do only boring searches (or, perhaps, the machines here at the office have some measure of filtering that I don't know about), because I am always caught by surprise when I get something NSFW. I'm not offended, just amused by the incongruity.

[lemming]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Obviously I do only boring searches (or' date=' perhaps, the machines here at the office have some measure of filtering that I don't know about), because I am always caught by surprise when I get something NSFW. I'm not offended, just amused by the incongruity.[/quote']

 

I think I was looking for some machine part the other day and came up with something that had me curious how did that sex technique corresponded.

[Bazza]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Einstein's initial paper introducing special relativity is available on the web' date=' but even the introduction assumes some familiarity with physics you are unlikely to have. There's a textbook on special relativity by A.P. French dating from the mid-1960s that has a decent run-up of the background data, but it too assumes you're conversant with introductory physics with calculus.[/quote'] never head any familiarity with calculus, so I reckon I'll give it a miss.

 

Had a quick look at Einstein's paper, reminded me of Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order (which I own).

 

At the moment ... I don't think the term "consciousness" is defined with enough rigor to test it quantitatively and repeatably in a way that would satisfy a physicist's need for it to be a classical experimental science. The bar is in a different place for the observational sciences, but the definition is still fuzzy enough to be an issue. It isn't necessary to understand the underlying nature of the phenomenon to make for a valid scientific study of it, but you do have to be able to specify the phenomena that characterize the presence (and absence!) of "consciousness" enough so one can make measurements of some kind with no ambiguity about whether something has it or not.

From your description it sounds like consciousness may be too nebulous a topic to become a practical science. Also seems likely that it may remain a topic for mysticism for time to come. This is also to say that attempts will be made by science to try to study it*, but -at a guess- remain theoretical and/or philosophical.

 

Edit: so the 'hard question' remains.

 

I am aware that there was a scientific study of meditation, and the effect of prayer on peoples health (a focused use of consciousness), and other studies that would raise the eyebrows of a physicist.

 

Well, I have misgivings about anything you'd characterize as "a New Agey book", but I'll hold my peace here.

that is why I mentioned it, being honest

 

Edit: basically the idea is: the consciousness of a person can manipulate the probabilities of the quantum world for it's benefit and use. The measure is that the holier a person and conscious is, the easier it is to accomplish. This may explain the notion of miracles and the science of quantum mechanics and the probility of the uncertainy principle provide a partial scientific explanation.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Edit: basically the idea is: the consciousness of a person can manipulate the probabilities of the quantum world for it's benefit and use. The measure is that the holier a person and conscious is' date=' the easier it is to accomplish. This may explain the notion of miracles and the science of quantum mechanics and the probility of the uncertainy principle provide a partial scientific explanation.[/quote']

 

'Holier' as measured by what yardshtick?

[Bazza]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

'Holier' as measured by what yardshtick?

 

Holiness has only one yardstick, to use your term, but many metaphors.

[RPMiller]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

But what is purity? One of the things you'll find when you read through all of the religious philosophies is that they are essentially the same with regard to the Golden Rule. Even Confucius stated the Golden Rule nearly the same as the Bible. Also, Bazza, it sounds like you would be much more interested in the Eastern philosophies which maintained the metaphysical much later in their histories than the Western. Socrates, and the post-Socratics really changed the mindset and ideals *hehehe* (Plutonic joke) of the Western world, and caused a large shift in what you are calling mysticism. At the same time the Eastern philosophies held onto their acceptance of the "unseen" being reality. There is notable exception in the Eastern philosophies, but alas my memory is failing me right now, so I'll have to keep you in suspense until I find the book.

 

And just to be clear, I actually accept some of the Eastern philosophies such as Qigong, but that is because I have personally felt and experienced it. However, if wasn't at the level prescribed by the "more advanced practitioners" such as those who practice dim mak. That said, I am still very much a Westerner and prefer a more scientific approach.

[Bazza]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Holiness has only one yardstick' date=' to use your term, but many metaphors.[/quote']

 

The Ancient People in Khem had a tradition of using the lightness of a feather. The Hindi use karma; Christians use "original sin"; others could use "the golden rule" which to me is a basic restatement of the principle behind karma; the list goes on, and on but all come back to the same, for there is only one measure...and infinite degrees.

 

A good starting point would be purity in thought, action, and deed.

 

Ps: thanks RPMiller for your post, I did post the above but edited it, thought you might find it of some value. It is now way past 11pm, so off to bed. Reply again tomorrow

[RPMiller]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Ah ha! Found it, the Cārvāka school of thought. Check it out. You may be surprised. This is a very ancient Indian philosophy that reached its peak in about the sixth century B.C.E. For being such an old philosophy, and Eastern, it amazes many people because it is extremely materialistic. In a nut shell it states that religion is for fools, and anything beyond what you can see, hear, and touch is just imagination. I'm sure you can find out more via Wikipedia or something. The one downside is that, according to my book, most of the original texts are gone. So all that is really known comes from later scholars.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

To a considerable degree, science begins when you have something you can measure repeatably. That's the main obstacle. Of course, if you take measurements in a way that always gives you the answer you were looking for (whether you realize that's what you're doing or not), then that's pseudoscience.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

But what is purity? One of the things you'll find when you read through all of the religious philosophies is that they are essentially the same with regard to the Golden Rule. Even Confucius stated the Golden Rule nearly the same as the Bible. Also, Bazza, it sounds like you would be much more interested in the Eastern philosophies which maintained the metaphysical much later in their histories than the Western. Socrates, and the post-Socratics really changed the mindset and ideals *hehehe* (Plutonic joke) of the Western world, and caused a large shift in what you are calling mysticism. At the same time the Eastern philosophies held onto their acceptance of the "unseen" being reality. There is notable exception in the Eastern philosophies, but alas my memory is failing me right now, so I'll have to keep you in suspense until I find the book.

 

And just to be clear, I actually accept some of the Eastern philosophies such as Qigong, but that is because I have personally felt and experienced it. However, if wasn't at the level prescribed by the "more advanced practitioners" such as those who practice dim mak. That said, I am still very much a Westerner and prefer a more scientific approach.

 

Qigong? As in Obi-Wan's master?

 

:ducks:

[RPMiller]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Qigong? As in Obi-Wan's master?

 

:ducks:

 

Yeah, Lucas' fault, not mine.

[RPMiller]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

To a considerable degree' date=' science begins when you have something you can measure repeatably. That's the main obstacle. Of course, if you take measurements in a way that always gives you the answer you were looking for (whether you realize that's what you're doing or not), then that's pseudoscience.[/quote']

 

Which makes it really tough for me to explain my experience with Qigong, or chi for those that don't know the Chinese name. I've felt it both passively, and aggressively, so I know it is a "thing," but I have no idea what it could be other than the bodies energy/electrical system. I've seen at least one show where they tried to "prove" its existence, but it was pseudoscience so I can't stand behind it, but I am still left puzzled by what it could be.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Well, the problem is the "measurement" part. I don't want to deny anyone's personal experience; I just don't have a good idea about how to go about studying it in a scientific way. Because as you point out, the investigations I have seen of things like what you describe are pretty clearly not going about it in a satisfactory way.

 

As is amply demonstrated over and over, there's a lot of cases where you don't have know how to do it right in order to be able to tell some cases where they're clearly doing it wrong. The reverse, however, is not true.

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

In an uncharacteristic bit of restraint, I elected not to post a snarky comment about bankers in the "Bloodsucker Rampage" announcement thread. So I'll post it here.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

... Yes? What was it?

[Cancer]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Perhaps rather than "comment about" I should have said "mention of" bankers in the context of bloodsuckers on a rampage.

[RPMiller]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Well, the problem is the "measurement" part. I don't want to deny anyone's personal experience; I just don't have a good idea about how to go about studying it in a scientific way. Because as you point out, the investigations I have seen of things like what you describe are pretty clearly not going about it in a satisfactory way.

 

As is amply demonstrated over and over, there's a lot of cases where you don't have know how to do it right in order to be able to tell some cases where they're clearly doing it wrong. The reverse, however, is not true.

I don't remember enough about it, I sort of put it out of my head, but they had some sort of video-camera-filter-analyzer-thingy doohickey that they used to film the chi flow, but as it wasn't anything I ever heard of, or understood, I put it into the "right, it's magic... please continue" category. I would really love for someone to really figure out a way to test for it though. I think part of the problem is the Western mindset, the one I think that is needed to come up with a way to measure it, tends to start off with a "it isn't real" mentality, so it basically fails before it even starts. And the Eastern mindset is such that they aren't likely to set up the experiment in a truly pure science way because they tend to "want it to be real." So we need someone that has a good amount of skepticism, but is willing to accept that it is real, and has the scientific know-how to create a way to measure it.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

 

Perhaps rather than "comment about" I should have said "mention of" bankers in the context of bloodsuckers on a rampage.

Aha!