Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yes, gullibility in force. Congratulations. 

cormac

 

Meet Joe. His real name is Steve.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Will Due

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Influenza keeps coming back year after year because of an adpative collective response to our efforts to resist it. It is a mistake to impute intelligence to the virus, but is it a mistake to impute intelligence to the apparatus of natural selection as a whole? (Sometimes, this thought is expressed by proverbs like "ants aren't intelligent, but ant colonies are.")

Beats me, but holds my interest.

Definitely, very interesting, that's a great proverb concerning ants too.  So what then is the quality that an ant colony has that an ant doesn't?  It's very slippery stuff, but I can see what you are referring to with viruses vs natural selection a little.  It's tough though as neither has a nervous system nor sentience.  As far as we can tell, they both operate essentially as automatons, is it just because there's more complexity or variety in evolution?  If natural selection is intelligent then why aren't the natural laws that form solar systems intelligent?

Probably my favorite example for questions like these is Commander Data from Star Trek TNG, he's difficult to distinguish from a human and is in fact superior in most ways, especially in what we'd call intelligence.  I think he may have even said something along the lines of, 'I was programmed to learn and therefore can move beyond my original programming'.  So assuming that he's both alive and intelligent, what then distinguishes Data from the ship's computer, or is it also intelligent?  Maybe it's that he can learn and I'm not sure if the computer does.  But natural selection doesn't learn either so-

As far as instinctual belief in God, maybe, I think it's more that IIP is so open and vague.  There are frequent arguments here about studies concerning the identification of IIPs by young children that I think are overstated when narrowed down to 'god is instinctual'.  I don't think children are identifying gods, I think they've identified basic agency and being so new here obviously don't know enough to distinguish between different categories of agents, especially the impersonal ones. Why did we have dinner?  Because Dad made it.  Why does it rain?  Because God/Captain Howdy/my invisible friend/Superman made it rain. (Or maybe just as likely, 'because Dad made it rain'...)

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Meet Joe. His real name is Steve.

 

He looks full of pride, and arrogance

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

He looks full of pride, and arrogance

 

LOL!

 

 

[jmccr8]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I like you jmccr8. 

I'm curious, is your last name r2d2?

 

 

If it doesn't add up to 8 then no, likely not even a relative.

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

26 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Make sure you don't get hurt in the ensuing stampede to the bookstore.

jmccr8

You think stampede would be more brutal than black friday? Sign me in! should be fun... i need to run like a bull arrrgghh!!!

[jmccr8]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Meet Joe. His real name is Steve.

 

Oh okay, you're saying that it's well received by an audience of fictional Joes, stands to reason.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

You think stampede would be more brutal than black friday? Sign me in! should be fun... i need to run like a bull arrrgghh!!!

What!! you don't use a black bat baseball bat? How do you survive?

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

What!! you don't use a black bat baseball bat? How do you survive?

jmccr8

Using teeth, eating meat bots around me to get to the blue book, lets go!!

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Oh okay, you're saying that it's well received by an audience of fictional Joes,

 

Only in Canada.

 

 

[jmccr8]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Using teeth, eating meat bots around me to get to the blue book, lets go!!

Okay but just so you know I have alien fangs so don't get in the way when I'm gnashing.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Only in Canada.

 

 

We aren't fictional we are stealth shielded so that we don't appear to be here.Well that and Red Rose Tea is only in Canada

jmccr8.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

We aren't fictional we are stealth shielded so that we don't appear to be here.Well that and Red Rose Tea is only in Canada

jmccr8.

 

Wait. Doesn't Rosie O'Donnell live in Canada?

 

 

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Wait. Doesn't Rosie O'Donnell live in Canada?

 

 

Not unless we have invaded and taken over Manhatten.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Not unless we have invaded and taken over Manhatten.

jmccr8

 

That's fine. Just leave Trudeau at home.

 

 

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

That's fine. Just leave Trudeau at home.

 

 

That smoke over Manhatten isn't smog, it's mystical quantum smoke.

jmccr8

Edited February 9, 2018 by jmccr8
Not sure

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

That smoke over Manhatten isn't smog, it's mystical quantum smoke.

jmccr8

LOL. i concur.

[Illyrius]

A little example of how things in science get “upgraded” with new insights which radically change previous concepts;

Newton considered light to be a stream of tiny particles. Later other scientists proposed that light is a wave, and it took more than 100 years when Thomas Young showed that Newton’s corpuscular theory was not really on the point and that light is a wave. How many time will pass till quantum physics radically changes the illusive picture of reality created by inadequate mechanical approach to world and universe remains the question.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Illyrius

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

A little example of how things in science get “upgraded” with new insights which radically change previous concepts;

Newton considered light to be a stream of tiny particles. Later other scientists proposed that light is a wave, and it took more than 100 years when Thomas Young showed that Newton’s corpuscular theory was not really on the point and that light is a wave. How many time will pass till quantum physics radically changes the illusive picture of reality created by inadequate mechanical approach to world and universe remains the question.

 

Yeah, maybe when the stop colliding electrons they'll find what they're really made of. 

 

Spoiler

Ultimatons 

 

 

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Yeah, maybe when the stop colliding electrons they'll find what they're really made of. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Ultimatons 

 

 

What are ultimatons?

[eight bits]

LG

Quote

It's tough though as neither has a nervous system nor sentience.

But then, neither does my computer. One thing the AI enterprise seems to have succeeded at is to shift the perception of organ meat from being a prerequisite for intelligence toward being a prerequisite for biological evolution of intelligence. A special case.

If you are interested in invertebrate biological intelligence, then check out the reserach on octopus (and other cephalopods') cognition.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/

Quote

If natural selection is intelligent then why aren't the natural laws that form solar systems intelligent?

Well, Einstein has come up in the thread, and that's pretty close to his idea of the organizing mind or intelligence that he thought of as "Spinoza's God," or his interpretation of it.

Quote

So assuming that he's both alive and intelligent, what then distinguishes Data from the ship's computer, or is it also intelligent?

The TNG producers actually hired some AI researchers as consultants along the way. Data is clearly a strong "Turing Test" entrant - everybody on the crew treats him like a colleague, treats him just as they treat each other. They would take a bullet for him (and more happily, sleep with him, as you will recall). The ship's computer might pass, too (the judge of the Turing Test doesn't get to see the contestants), but she (the voice, OK?) doesn't try as hard as Data does to maintain a personality and social place.

The doctor on Voyager is interesting, too. But we digress. I really only meant to establish that the idea of IIP isn't so far-fetched that we'd be surprised if it were nearly universal.

An affirmative argument for the ancients' situation was made by Julian Jaynes ("Bicameral mind"). He felt that people used to hear their own (otherwise unconscious) thoughts as being voiced by "others." Think of Jeanne d'Arc in more modern times.

"Hearing voices" is still common enough (Jaynes thought it is a relic of what was once everyday), and may be closely related to the "felt presence" experience. It also seems to be close to the Voodoo or Piraha transient possession phenomena (although there it is other people who hear a real voice).

Well, what was Jeanne supposed to make of her voices? What were her friends or captors to make of them? She experienced them as distinct from her own mind and body, they told her things that as far as she knew, she didn't know, and they told her to do things that no right-thinking person in her situation would think of doing. And yet, the voices' recommendation was for her to do righteous and honorable things (from her prespective).

IIP. The "intelligence" is her very own, and "invisible" because hidden in her mind.

Anyway, I am really arguing for the plausibility of a near-universal "familiarity" with IIP-like ideas, past and present. Neither Hume nor I argue that all those riotously divergent versions of the concept are correct (which couldn't be true anyway), just that the template for such constructions is everywhere and always near at hand. Also, I was thinking mainly of adults, but children's performances would be relevant to the "instinct" aspect raised by joc here and mentioned by Hume as an issue.

[Will Due]

23 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

What are ultimatons?

 

Mutual attraction holds one hundred ultimatons together in the constitution of the electron; and there are never more nor less than one hundred ultimatons in a typical electron. The loss of one or more ultimatons destroys typical electronic identity, thus bringing into existence one of the ten modified forms of the electron.

 

Ultimatons do not describe orbits or whirl about in circuits within the electrons, but they do spread or cluster in accordance with their axial revolutionary velocities, thus determining the differential electronic dimensions. This same ultimatonic velocity of axial revolution also determines the negative or positive reactions of the several types of electronic units. The entire segregation and grouping of electronic matter, together with the electric differentiation of negative and positive bodies of energy-matter, result from these various functions of the component ultimatonic interassociation.

 

The electronic axial revolutions and their orbital velocities about the atomic nucleus are both beyond the human imagination, not to mention the velocities of their component ultimatons. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, Hre2breal said:

No disrespect MW but how can prove that these babies caught whooping cough from an unvaccinated child..After doing some research Ive seen that whooping cough can be contracted from anyone at all different ages...My son had whooping cough an his brothers were vaccinated an all kids in my extended family also...honestly you cannot prove this was the result of an unvaccinated child

You are correct. Anyone, from  any age, may acquire it,  and then pass it on to any one else of any age, who is not vaccinated  Pertussis vaccines are only effective for about 4 years

Thus an unprotected infant can pick up the virus from anyone and can also pass it on to anyone, including another infant.

That is why EVERYONE, including young children, should be vaccinated 

While there are small risks, and perhaps even deaths, from  vaccination, there are much bigger risks and many more known deaths (tens or hundreds times more )  because people are not vaccinated The youngest are physically most at risk  A person who does not vaccinate their child is not protecting them but making them vulnerable . I realise this might sound hard but it is a simple statistical scientific and common sense An un vaccinated child is only protected at all because most other people are vaccinated 

Most of the claims of any  anti vaxers are just rubbish or lies (Plain scientifically wrong)  Like you can protect yourself with good diet, healthy life style, exercise etc. While things like a poor immune system  or other physical weakness might make you more vulnerable, diseases can strike the strongest, fittest, and healthiest. 

The deeper question is that, knowing the facts, can parents be allowed to expose their children to harm because of their own beliefs  This has already been decided in the negative by most legal jurisdictions The problem with vaccination is tha there IS a tiny risk involved 

I appreciate that personal experience is very emotionally convincing and compelling. I was convinced by my sisters case (and while one cannot prove from whom a disease is caught she was one of a group of infants with common contacts who all caught the disease most probably from each other after it was introduced to one from someone older.)

I am as passionate as you but on the other side, and for the opposite reason. I grew up just as these vaccines were being introduced and saw first hand the reduction in deaths and crippling effects from many of these diseases  My wife and her two sisters (who are a bit older than me)  were made infertile by  a disease  which today is prevented by the MMR vaccine .

Personally i am still a bit divided but if the govt chooses to mandate vaccinations i can understand why.  It will save many more lives than might be affected by vaccination.

Of course if you  are one that is harmed  or affected by vaccination this might seem wrong. 

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, Kismit said:

Mod Note: The topic is Quantum Mysticism not wether or not to Vaccinate your chuld.

Please feel free to start a seperate thread for that discussion if that's what your into.

Sorry. I  missed this post while working down through the 47 new responses when I woke up this morning    To me, it represents the same schism between science and  belief as outlined in the topic, and I think that was how it was introduced into the thread,  but i will not respond on it further.   

[Hre2breal]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

LG

But then, neither does my computer. One thing the AI enterprise seems to have succeeded at is to shift the perception of organ meat from being a prerequisite for intelligence toward being a prerequisite for biological evolution of intelligence. A special case.

If you are interested in invertebrate biological intelligence, then check out the reserach on octopus (and other cephalopods') cognition.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/

Well, Einstein has come up in the thread, and that's pretty close to his idea of the organizing mind or intelligence that he thought of as "Spinoza's God," or his interpretation of it.

The TNG producers actually hired some AI researchers as consultants along the way. Data is clearly a strong "Turing Test" entrant - everybody on the crew treats him like a colleague, treats him just as they treat each other. They would take a bullet for him (and more happily, sleep with him, as you will recall). The ship's computer might pass, too (the judge of the Turing Test doesn't get to see the contestants), but she (the voice, OK?) doesn't try as hard as Data does to maintain a personality and social place.

The doctor on Voyager is interesting, too. But we digress. I really only meant to establish that the idea of IIP isn't so far-fetched that we'd be surprised if it were nearly universal.

An affirmative argument for the ancients' situation was made by Julian Jaynes ("Bicameral mind"). He felt that people used to hear their own (otherwise unconscious) thoughts as being voiced by "others." Think of Jeanne d'Arc in more modern times.

"Hearing voices" is still common enough (Jaynes thought it is a relic of what was once everyday), and may be closely related to the "felt presence" experience. It also seems to be close to the Voodoo or Piraha transient possession phenomena (although there it is other people who hear a real voice).

Well, what was Jeanne supposed to make of her voices? What were her friends or captors to make of them? She experienced them as distinct from her own mind and body, they told her things that as far as she knew, she didn't know, and they told her to do things that no right-thinking person in her situation would think of doing. And yet, the voices' recommendation was for her to do righteous and honorable things (from her prespective).

IIP. The "intelligence" is her very own, and "invisible" because hidden in her mind.

Anyway, I am really arguing for the plausibility of a near-universal "familiarity" with IIP-like ideas, past and present. Neither Hume nor I argue that all those riotously divergent versions of the concept are correct (which couldn't be true anyway), just that the template for such constructions is everywhere and always near at hand. Also, I was thinking mainly of adults, but children's performances would be relevant to the "instinct" aspect raised by joc here and mentioned by Hume as an issue.

Once again I hear what you are saying an the good far out way the bad scenario however MW I also hear you saying things like small risk any tiny risk it blows my mind....If you can call losing your child to a small risk a tiny thing you are deluded..This MW is exactly like I said russian roulette which child dies at times..Its a sad thing that reguardsless babies will die, If you wana sacrifice your child for someone elses your a bigger person than me...I was very lucky not to lose my boy an I would nit like to put anyone in that situation MW because it does feel like you killed your own child it really does..I happy he didnt die for sure bit I never want to go through that experience again thats also for sure...