Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
clouds of an electron's probability
#11
That's a very Rumsfeldian concept you have there Stanky.  It took me a while to absorb the gist .. but I like it.

It's an advantage sometimes, and in some ways, to be uneducated in the real depths of scientific knowledge. 
It's a comfort to be also free of the weight of woo applied to the emergence of what we term the universe.

To be also incapable of defining the whole thing in numbers means that internal visualisation becomes the basis of how I have to correlate the knowledge I do have.

I 'see' things (scientific and even things like politics and CTs)  in a form of 3d grid, or when more things become connected in my brain as a 3d 'tapestry'.  Eventually a fuller picture emerges, if not I feel content to file it under R for Rumsfeld.

It only works for me on a very primitive level.  It certainly ain't science, but nor is it woo.

The freedom  from mental constraints of the strict rules of both science and religion allows naive minds like mine to be a little more comfortable in visualising  and testing fantasy 'possibilities' that are far from probabilities without feeling too stupid. 

Pretend I'm the hominid, sitting by the campfire who sees a meteor flash past and thinks "wtf was that??"
...  and then starts to wonder also where it came from.  There's two ways to go from there. 

Either rely on the observable 'knowns' available to him, which forces him to conclude that it could only have been thrown. 
The only way 'known', ... to him, that things can fly horizontally, which aren't  birds,  are things that are thrown.
 
Ergo, logically, it was thrown.

That leads the emerging intellect to conclude that it was thrown by something massively bigger and with greater 'powers' than said hominid.  
Which then leads to wondering who threw it, concentrating on what 'unknown' entity that could be, and how not to piss it off,   instead of looking for other explanations.  It's  attention is diverted away from exactly wtf it really is.
   = religion

Or he can cogitate about how far away it was, where it come from, why it was so bright,  and what is it's relationship to those other bright spots seen up there at night.
 = science.

Luckily for the species, not all hominids jumped to the same conclusions so we had the seeds of both germinating around the same time.  Unfortunately religion got a head start because it was easier to believe and took zero research effort.

But a form of astronomy has been around about as long as religion so some dreamers still asked the questions beyond the known. They didn't settle for the answers that religion was infallible and that all the science was 'in.'

 And that's about where I still am. [Image: happy-smiley35.gif]   (except I haven't even got a campfire!)

.. I'll get to the point in the next post.
Reply
#12
Que?

I can split wood.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#13
(05-24-2017, 02:56 AM)Shiner Wrote:  Que?

I can split wood.

Keep splitting it into smaller and smaller pieces until you have one piece the size of an atom...

one more split should create an enormous kaboom, so be ready to jump back quickly.
"Who's with me?." - stanky
Reply
#14
Have you tried a meat grinder or a juicer?
Reply
#15
(05-24-2017, 12:42 AM)stanky Wrote:  Nuts and bolts work fine.
What we have trouble with is accepting that they are made out of nothing.

Say that after you've whacked your shin on a towbar...

(05-24-2017, 02:33 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Pretend I'm the hominid, sitting by the campfire who sees a meteor flash past and thinks "wtf was that??"
...  and then starts to wonder also where it came from.  There's two ways to go from there. 

Channelling A C Clarke?
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#16
I have smacked my shin on a towbar, and it did smart mightily.
Yet, the pain was essentially a manufactured interpretation of electrical impulses devoid of corporeality or any meaning without our agreement on how we interpret the on off switches.

On channel two, those same particles are part of a tree-like creature. Every bit as real. Which makes us slightly less real., which has its percs.

The 'youness' of who or what you are is different than the bodily mass you inhabit, when you think about it. It's more ephemeral. we don't know much about it. If we have large chunks of our bodies removed; quadruple amputation, the inner 'me' thingy remains intact.
We even recognize ourselves in dreams, even though we never see our bodies in them.

Question is, if a brain is scrambled, is that it with the self reflection and recognition of the inner me? It is no longer able to express or function. But maybe it's still there. Who knows.

My hunch is that we're all 4th dimensional energy field beings that are able to engage with a 3d organism, and operate it, like a car, via our command over some electro magnetic force field.

if i sound nutty, consider this (Di excluded):

Most young male adults, and even plenty of older ones, can do this thought experiment:

Lay on your back and get comfy. remain very still. Then, concentrate really hard on a sex fantasy. With any luck, the penis will actually change shape and move...by thought.
Big deal, right? So what.

The interesting part of that test is to hone in on the "Me" that instituted that thought process that moved that limp flesh.
I guess we mostly don't try to hone in on that part. we're happy enough to offer some pointless lip-service regarding biology and brain function and such...but we have no ability to explain that which commands the sparking of neurons that enable the movement of blood down into the shame-filled lower chakra cesspool of sin, where that command has now manifested in a visually obvious and disgraceful way.

It's too bad people are so shy that we really don't get to know a lot of interesting stuff about their command central.
It's weird to even entertain the idea that some 4d energy cluster has taken over your body...it's weirder to know who it is.
We're trained to look away and ignore it, even if it is the actual inner me that operates this flesh heap, in some sort of electrical way.

There's no reason not to consider this. Ask yourself "Who runs my brain?"
What was that odd interface between states, when 'i' first made the command to the brain to drum up a great sex fantasy for the sake of the experiment that demonstrates mind over matter?

I don't know what it is. I call mine 'me'.
(Hi, me in there!)

but we can only pretend to understand it.
Strangely enough, pretending universes creates them.
or at least we can't disprove it.

we really can't explain consciousness at all....in any frame of reference from this dimension.
yet, it clearly is the most significant underlying factor in all that we choose to perceive.
It's the elephant in the room. It's the glaring gap in our scientific understanding of the human body.
The main thing we know about consciousness is that it is definitely not some crazy ass deal that stanky made up.
Other than that, we know nothing about it.

Between that gaping hole of knowledge, and the other one, concerning the pre-big bang state and the thermodynamics of it, there we are.

Hence, our knowledge of the crucial information about the place from where stuff did spew, to the nature of the mechanism that commands your brain...we don't know shit.
We know tons about the movie. we know nothing about the projector. The topic is offensive and wooish. it could lead to weird religious like outfits or god knows what all.

Once the command unit has been recognized, it is not limited to this perceptual probability. It can command other channels of interest. navigate in other realities. Interestingly enough, this is not possible if your commander is presently engaged in a denial mode. It tells you that there is only this, and it's nuts and bolts following nuts and bolts rules.
And so it is.

And yet, there is nothing about anything i'm suggesting that is in violation of laws we know or knowledge we have.

wide open territory
hard to get there with science, if that science is committed to excluding its possibility.
it's not about machinery.
Reply
#17
Quote:hard to get there with science, if that science is committed to excluding its possibility.

it's not about machinery.

Should I be worried that all of that seems legit to me?  ... but I haven't time to get into it now as I've wasted most of it on rambling for the entertainment of the lurkers on OZ/NZ thread.  ... that just blows me away, why do they keep hitting that???

I'm going to drop in ad for touring OZ, seems a shame to waste the audience.  TA, wanna do a NZ one??
Reply
#18
(05-24-2017, 02:39 PM)stanky Wrote:  There's no reason not to consider this. Ask yourself "Who runs my brain?"

This is Philosophy 10 you're on here, mate. The brain runs itself - I seem to recall there being quite a bit of evidence to support that.

As Douglas Adams would have said, it's hard to take a vague bunch of perceptions and try to make any decision based on them.

Personally, I think you're looking for something that isn't there, but there's no harm looking.

(05-24-2017, 02:39 PM)stanky Wrote:  but we can only pretend to understand it.

What bits don't we understand?

(05-24-2017, 02:39 PM)stanky Wrote:  we really can't explain consciousness at all....in any frame of reference from this dimension.

Only if you attach special significance to consciousness. If you look at it as just another part of the brain - like sight, smell and how to play cards.

We can show which parts of the brain light up when we have certain thoughts; I'm not sure what you're talking about, so I'll give it back to you to expand on.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#19
Quote:Personally, I think you're looking for something that isn't there, but there's no harm looking.

No there isn't.  As long as we're only looking and not drawing conclusions based on thought bubbles.  But blowing the bubbles is fun as hell.

I forgot to ask something that I'm curious about.  I get funny looks when I describe how I 'see' scientific stuff.
So how the hell does everyone else see it??   To echo our dear departed Marius ... what is your concept of the universe??

... e.g. when you hear the word qasar, what concept of that springs to mind??  Do you see a picture based on those artists concept things we are shown?  or does register as a series of numbers or what??   What do you 'see' when you hear qasar??

Or black hole, or dark matter or the effects of gravity on light waves or whatever, do you 'see' a sheet of paper with equations on it or do you see a mind's eye picture of your conception of it?   Do you picture the forces involved affecting the material objects involved in a kind of mental video?? 

I can't see why people look at me funny at the  '3D tapestry' view of the universe with all it's little pieces in it?   Is there another way of getting an overall concept of it all??   Works for me, I can zoom in whatever part  I'm trying to figure out without having to be a guru at anything.   But there must be other concepts surely??

I'm interested too in how much of that perception/concept we/I have is simply reflecting someone else's imagined concept from Hubble photo enhancements, and 'artists impressions' of what it all "looks like"..  ???

I imagine it in colour because it's easier to define the 'bits' but is it also because those enhanced photos are always in vivid colours?   What colour is the Horsehead nebula really??  If viewed with the naked eye?? Anyone know?
Reply
#20
The part we don't understand is the 'instigator' of the thought that causes certain parts of the brain to light up.
We know a fair deal about the fleshy stuff.

Why wouldn't we place special significance to consciousness?
What could be of more special significance?

The standard avoidance of the subject is to see it as a by-product of the fleshy stuff.
Other approaches are in violation of a sort of Newtonian loyalty oath that may in fact, obscure the reality.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)