|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
you seem to have a lot to learn... We all do. Perhaps I will learn something from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I don't know if the human mind can be totally understood by science. However, I am sure that being able to reproduce the workings of the mind artifically might be possible. We might not understand WHY a decision making algorythem becomes 'intellgent' and 'self aware'.. but I would not be surprised if we could mimic it artifically. We might never do so. If we can't.. that is just a lack of our cleverness. Clever is one matter....wise is another.I must say to do so would open up a bigger can of worms that we need. What I do find distubing personally is the research into living computers. Using actual neural neworks. The search for knowledge is great but we do so blindly without wisdom. It is a bit disconcerting. I have allways wondered why we are working so hard to artificially recreate ourselves when we can have children and it is much more rewarding.....the initial process ain't bad either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I will plug your definition into your sentence.
Our problem is with your incorrect use of the word force where it doesn't apply.
Quote "And both the [rate of change of momentum with respect to time] of [rate of change of momentum with respect to time]and [rate of change of momentum with respect to time][rate of change of momentum with respect to time]'s are defined as just that." Yes, I see now how this clears things up.Hence my use of the word force Defined by who?
Gravity is the tendency of initially inertial frames to accelerate with respect to each other in the vicinity of Stress-Energy.Show me gravity. I want to see it. Better yet define it. NRW tried that. I pointed out the problem that occurs. The same occurs when we try to describe the "force" that is us There is no problem there. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm gathering that you're describing a self-referencing problem in science.That since science comes from our minds and since neither science nor any other branch of knowledge has full knowledge of the mind, the "source" of science goes unexplained. This leaves science with some flaw. Is this what you're saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
2ice_baked_taters writes: Show me gravity. I wanna see it. Better yet define it. Fg=Gm A mB / r2mA mB = mA X mB W=Fg 1/r2=1/rxr Pt=stV=tG G=9.8m/s2 *nevermind.*edited again to correct 2ice_baked_tater's quote This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-14-2006 10:43 AM This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-14-2006 12:33 PM "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You keep using that word "source", but you have never explained what you mean. My context is clear. My position is clear. But for you That would be the "you" you so conveniently keep refering to.It's allways all about "you", isn't it....lol However....nothing in science is precise.
Measurements are imprecise. But scientific laws and definitions can be very precise.
Scientific method is a thought process derived by "you's" and used by many "you's" to establish facts and general laws concerning the physical world through observation and testing by "you's"
When you turn the switch, and the light goes on, that isn't a matter of thought processes. When astronauts landed on the moon, it wasn't just a matter of thought processes.
Anywho if the term "you" I have used does not work for "you" in this context I have established please feel free to offer reasonable alternatives. I am open to suggestions.
There are legitimate questions as to what constitutes a person. Is it just the atoms? Is it the chemical and informational processes? Is it an immaterial spiritual soul? People disagree about how to account for personal identity. This is the kind of issue that is studied in cognitive science. In my opinion, you are confusing the issue by trying to make it one of science in general, instead of concentrating on it as an aspect of cognitive science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
When he farts he succeeds in clearing the room of people. Hence the force the is he does indeed manipulates events in reality. edit spelling.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-14-2006 03:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Our problem is with your incorrect use of the word force where it doesn't apply. Then why do we use it in this "incorrect" way? I am using it exactly the same way every person must use it to comunicate the idea.Find a way around this for me and it will go away. Find a way for all of science to clearly define it's own definitions in this regard. Hence my reason for refering to us as a force. Gravity is the tendency of initially inertial frames to accelerate with respect to each other in the vicinity of Stress-Energy. There is no problem there. I do not believe I said there was a problem there. Although some day I may see one, should I choose to put my mind to it. Now if you can accept this abstract interpretation of something you cannot see and only identify through "evidence" of, why the hesitence to accept this view of us?
As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm gathering that you're describing a self-referencing problem in science. Science is built on clear and precise definitions is it not?
That since science comes from our minds and since neither science nor any other branch of knowledge has full knowledge of the mind, the "source" of science goes unexplained. This leaves science with some flaw. Is this what you're saying? That would apear to be a fundamental problem.Science has no knowledge, evidence or good definition of "the mind". You get the same brain fart as when you say "force of gravity" Hence my topic. However I believe that to measure this in any way will prove elusive.It will likely involve the likes of gasp! "string theory" twice removed in abstract form. It is much easier just to say: Hi....how are yah doing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
When he farts he succeeds in clearing the room of people. Hence the force the is he does indeed manipulates events in reality. edit spelling. Hmmm....I believe only if it was expelled with the intent....But I am jumping ahead.....one step at a time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
2ice_baked_taters writes:
We don't.
Son Goku writes: Our problem is with your incorrect use of the word force where it doesn't apply. Then why do we use it in this "incorrect" way? I am using it exactly the same way every person must use it to comunicate the idea.
Evidently, you do not understand how "force" is used in physics.
Find a way for all of science to clearly define it's own definitions in this regard.
Science already has a clear definition for "force."
Hence my reason for refering to us as a force. Science is built on clear and precise definitions is it not?
Clear and precise definitions, with empirical procedures that make use of these definitions (as in measuring).
That would apear to be a fundamental problem.
And why is that a problem for science?Science has no knowledge, evidence or good definition of "the mind". Incidently, there are people who study the mind. Some of them assert that there are no such things as minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
"We don't." You did right here below in this exerpt from your post 71. You used it the same way I intended it to be used.Explain this. Son Goku should have worded that as "rate of change of momentum with respect to time." And both the force of gravity and electromagnetic forces are defined as just that. Perhaps you are a bit rusty on your physics. Unless you are going to claim that the writen language should be eliminated from physics definitions. I am still waiting for a clear definition there.I understand the problem though. Science already has a clear definition for "force." Oh I can see that quite clearly.Nothing like a little bit of having yer cake and eating it too. Clear and precise definitions, with empirical procedures that make use of these definitions (as in measuring). Yes....science will have no problem with everything above concerning my idea but the measuring part. That will pose the biggest problem for science proving the foundation upon which it is built.Have to start somewhere no? A different perspective perhaps?
And why is that a problem for science? Incidently, there are people who study the mind. Some of them assert that there are no such things as minds. More power to them.It is after all a matter of perspective. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-16-2006 02:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
2ice_baked_taters writes:
I'm not clear on what you think needs explaining. You did right here below in this exerpt from your post 71. You used it the same way I intended it to be used.Explain this. Son Goku should have worded that as "rate of change of momentum with respect to time." And both the force of gravity and electromagnetic forces are defined as just that. Perhaps you are a bit rusty on your physics. My reference was to "force" as used in physics. It is precisely defined. Whatever you have been trying to describe as "force of me" is still unclear after 85 or so messages in this thread.
Unless you are going to claim that the writen language should be eliminated from physics definitions.
I'm not sure of your point. Pick up a physics book. It will have a clear definition. If it still isn't clear, then take a physics class. The laboratory component of that class is where you will learn, through practical experience, what is meant by "force."
Yes....science will have no problem with everything above concerning my idea but the measuring part. That will pose the biggest problem for science proving the foundation upon which it is built.
The foundation for measurement is simply its repeatability, as demonstrated with empirical testing. It requires no more foundation than that.
Have to start somewhere no?
Science is pragmatic. Scientists do what works. It is not a system of logical proof from first principles. There are no first principles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Dude, go to wikipedia and look up 'force' and read it, then come back to "your idea". Which isn't really anything in the first place.
Fuck it, I'll hold your hand and walk you to it CLICK HERE---->The definition of forcePLEASE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I recently issued this warning in a similar thread yesterday, here it is for this thread:
This thread is fine so far, but I just wanted to step in before things spiraled out of control. Everyone should keep in mind that the Forum Guidelines require that you address rebuttals and strive to keep the discussion moving forward, but it should also be realized that moderators cannot micromanage a discussion, and that there are oftentimes little moderators can do to help a thread along. In other words, if you decide to debate in this thread, please keep your frustration in check.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
2ice-baked-tators writes: The laws of physics do not recognize the force of me. My physical body though, must obey them so I must succumb to them in that context.I affect the world around me on a daily basis in some very unique and unpredictable ways. I am a force that does things at will and in many ways not according to any known physical laws. In fact it can be said that the force that is “us” generates it’s own set of changing laws called beliefs. The force that is us succumbs to these laws both by coercion of other similar forces and our choice. By obeying these laws we in turn can have a profound and unpredictable effect on the physical world. In effect, our changing Laws can become a force and in turn, affect the physical world in unpredictable ways according to the laws of physics. In addition to this we as individual forces can choose to act against the very laws we generate. Perhaps thinking of us in terms of an energy force will allow science to have a better glimpse at that which is “us”. I want to say that I couldn't agree more. I do not think that thought can be predicted. If so why would a mammel that was made with the instinct to survive give up all instinct and sacrifice itself for love. Thought is a beautiful thing. We can read a thought and program our minds to react differently through action. With our moral compass we decide what right and wrong is and change the rules of our society and thus the world we live in. We are the only beings who wage wars just for the sake of an idea, or greed, or hatred. Us humans truly are outside the laws of nature
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Us humans truly are outside the laws of nature
Do you have any evidence at all to support this conclusion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024