Pan writes:





For this 'suggestion' to be made, one must first wrongfully presuppose that my mood is not light enough.

I've seen the evidence, I assessed and evaluated it objectively. For you to assert that it was wrongfully presuposed is fallacious.

I like the circus clowns...




















































































































































at the circus.

Fail.

Sufficient and relevant grounds were already given.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

Sound familiar?

Yes. It sounds like the beginning of a few well shown points. Can the rest be copied as well?

That is when what can be shown as fact comes into play. It also highlights the need to be able to connect all the dots in one's thinking in order to show how the evidence being presented applies to what is being proven by it.



1.) Has to be able to be shown in order for another to properly assess or use it.

2.) Not necessarily.

3.) Not necessarily.

I keep switching between thinking you're a really spoiled loser and you've got some kind of memory problem.

Well either way I don't have any problem going back and grabbing some quotes.
"Sorry, but modern science has already made a very firm conclusion that we have no choice but to attribute the existence of this universe to what we can never know. "
"Currently this has even been proven mathematically"
"We have every logical reason to believe"
"we do have evidence to the contrary in quantum physics as well as in pure mathematics."
"I lean toward the mystical because this is where I see the evidence pointing. "

If that's not enough how many would you like me to grab?

But you said that emergent properties were nonsense because they had to all come from the very base of existence. That the quantum field has to have all of this in it.

If you want me to think of our brains on a quantum level the least you can do is think of democracy on an atomic level.
But right here it's clear that you see the problem- the mechanics we are talking about loan no sense to things so far from their scale. They do apply everywhere and the properties of atoms and other particles absolutely must include everything that it takes for our government models to exist but we don't deal with things that way. It's no use trying to work out communism on an atomic scale just like it's pointless trying to work out our brains on a quantum scale. It's almost pointless trying to work them out on an atomic scale but we're getting close to where computers would actually be able to do so.

However we'll quickly leave that behind and have the computers switch over to simpler considerations per cell just so we can simulate more of them at once. Eventually we will probably have them simulate whole clusters of cells as the individual units because that is where the phenomena we are concerned with happen and once we understand the base level we can factor it out of the equation. Whether we begin at the level of atoms or quantum field it only matters that we get it right before we are able to find easier ways of doing things.

So if you would still prefer to not concede the argument you need to tell me what aspect of our brains skips over the atomic level going straight from quantum field to consciousness or whatever term you would prefer to describe that aspec of us that most people call free will.

I'm not asking you to explain quantum gravity to me before we understand it. I'm asking you to point out where atomic interactions fail to account for some important part of us. The truth of the matter is that in the way you have described the quantum field atoms are it. So we really already know. It's like atoms and Newtonian mechanics: you don't need to know about atoms to measure and categorize force any more than you need to know about photons to tell if it's daytime or not. Light obviously is all photons but you can still figure out that it goes in straight lines, reflects off of some objects but is absorbed by others, and even how different density mediums alter it's angle.

And I am only asking that you tell me why what you do know is insufficient.

Do you not understand the difference between atomic and quantum?

I could very nearly call this an appropriate answer to my queries but there's a problem with even those atoms popping in and out of existence: if they pop in as atoms and protons they are incompatible with those ion channels and if they pop in as configured atoms then they have no charge and are not ions.

But if you'd like to go grab us the rates at which those particles pop up, about how long they last, and the range of configurations they take we'll get to see that they are nothing compared to ions involved with a single axon. Unlike your misuse of calculus in this case the impact really does approach zero.

Entanglement only has any usable impact if you know that you're dealing with an entangled particle. Are you proposing that our brains not only get a hold on both entangled particles but manage to place them so that they can use them for calculation?

Dear god, you actually were saying that.

Still, what aspect of how a neuron works does this impact?

You've missed the point here and I can tell before you even get very far into it. I'm not asking you philosophical questions here, this topic is specifically about evidence.

But I'm being even looser than that as I'm allowing you to point to the part of our biology where these quantum behaviors could fit in. I've not asked you to speculate about what quantum aspect actually goes there, just to tell me where the things we already understand do not account for something.

It's of interest to you because you've heard we want to make computers that use that and because you know our mind is like a computer but don't know any of the actual behavior of an axon or synapse this seems like a plausible hidden treasure that could be hidden in our heads to you.

May I cross Biology off of the list of subjects you could have been involved with yet?

If you had something like Sky's psychic random number generator group here I would say you had understood what I was asking for...

You need to amend that.
"All I do is suggest plausibility arguments based on what I know about the physical world." would be correct.

That's not what people are mad at you for. It's those times where you're not just making plausibility arguments like when you said that we can't understand how humans make choices and will NEED to understand quantum mechanics or some other uncharted field before we can. That's not speculation, that's telling us that you know some precise shortcoming of current knowledge and then refusing to share it.

Come on, you were involved with science before you retired or whatever so you should know how to handle technical speak and scientific journals. Go dig up something so convoluted and technical that I can barely even follow it aside from the simple sentences where they explain how atomic interactions don't account for all of the behaviors of a neuron. If your claim is justified you know there's got to be mention of it in someone's research.

That's only because you're bouncing photons off of it to get the position. We can work out the velocity just fine if we're not measuring the position.

Oh, and thanks for finally getting to these.


That's not what I asked.
Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics (on a macro scale.)

So why aren't we studying them to figure out quantum mechanics? Surely you're not saying that it's easier to deal with quarks than electrons!?

That's right. I explained that doing something before you have evidence is a good way to test a phenomena. You know, like the scientific method sets out in neat little steps?

Then you said that you didn't think we could understand it because of quantum mechanics.

Were you completely mixed up about what I said back then?

They change the way of thinking but they don't change the measurements. We know the Earth is round(ish) but we still build our houses flat and plan our towns and cities on square grids. We have 365 day years and just throw in an extra day when the measurement gets inaccurate instead of having fractions of a day on our calendars.

Shoku,

I'm only going to respond to some specific comments partly because I'm short on time here, and partly because you appear to be coming from a direction that I'm not even concerned about entertaining.



I'm not concerned with the topic of this thread. I was responding to issues that you brought up that clearly began in other threads in general. I'm not claiming to have "evidence" for anything. I've made that perfectly clear all along. If I had "evidence" I wouldn't be sitting here babbling about it on a dating site, I'd be writing scientific papers and submitting them to the proper institutions.

No one on this dating site has any 'evidence' for anything profound. If they did they wouldn't be here babbling about it.



I wasn't aware that anyone was mad at me.

Also I'm not claiming that we need to understand quantum mechanics or some other uncharted field before we can understand it. On the contrary, I'm not even convinced that we can ever understand it on a scientific level and the reason is the following:



I stand by all of those comments:

My Comment: "Sorry, but modern science has already made a very firm conclusion that we have no choice but to attribute the existence of this universe to what we can never know. "

Can you explain the non-local behavior of quantum effects? I don't believe that anyone can, nor may they ever be able to. As far as I'm concerned the property of complementarity and the Heisenberg Uncertain Relationship forever forbids any such knowledge. (at least as based on our currently scientific theories) and that's the context that I'm working within. If science changes then by views on science will also change. All the rest of my comments you quoted all refer back to this basic principle.

So, no, I didn't forget, and I stand by what I've said.



If you believe that Biologists know everything there is to know about how neurons work (especially in terms of synchronicity in large arrays, they either you're the one who should cross biology off the list of subjects you could be involved with, or biology has come a very long way since I've retired. However, I will state that I have recently watched at least 3 up-to-date lectures on biology, two of which were specifically on neuro-biology, and they claimed to be the cutting-edge material, and I didn't see any indication that we know all there is to know about neurons (especially how they work in orchestration in large networks). On the contrary, the lectures I've watched suggested that there are many mysteries yet to be solved.



That was never my claim, nor my goal. I originally came to post information for spiritualists who are interested in plausible connections with what we understand (and don't understand) about the physical world.

However, every time I try to communicate that information so-called "scientists" start barking at me accusing me of "misrepresenting science", etc. So I end up in conversations with grouchy scientists (like in this conversation).

One thing that you need to keep in mind is that from your point of view, as a scientist, you're demanding that everything must ultimately be knowable, and/or have a scientific explanation. From my point of view, I've accepted that we can never know certain things (like precisely how non-locality can work behind the quantum veil of complementarity).

I accept that there are some things we can never know (or explain) from a scientific point of view.

So I just take what science does know and extrapolate from that.

For example, science knows that non-locality is a property exhibited by this universe.

I don't need to explain how that works to accept that it is a property of this universe.

Science knows that entanglement is a property exhibit by this universe.

I don't need to explain how that works to accept that it is a property of this universe.

Science knows through the observation of the behavior of Einstein-Bose condensates that quantum effects can be orchestrated on, at least to some degree, of the macro scale.

I don't need to explain how that works to accept that it is a property of this universe.

So I just take those property that science has revealed that the universe exhibits and postulate from there. I don't need to explain how they work. I'm not even suggesting that I could even do that.

So your objections are based on your need to have objective explanations for everything not mine. I have no need to the precise details. Just knowing that the universe has these capabilities is enough for me to claim to have plausibility arguments based on the observations of science not on the technical details.

I'm not proposing a "scientific theory". Like I say, if I had a "scientific theory" I'd write it up and send it to the proper reviewers.

All I have ever claimed is to have plausibility arguments for how spirit might interact with the physical world that would mostly be of interest to spiritualists.

But what I end up with is mad scientists attacking me on charges of 'distorting science' which is hogwash because I've never claimed to have anything other than plausibility arguments based on what science already knows, and or doesn't know, or even can never know according to their very own theories

So I hope this clears things up a bit.

Your confusing the concept itself with the application of it.

If the above is held as true, then the meaning of the term evidence must be contingent upon it's use. It is not. The meaning of the term establishes a baseline. Whether or not a thing is evidence(a sign or indication of proof) is determined by it's evaluation according to a specific idea or situation, however, that determination does not establish the meaning of the term itself, it provides a framework for determining whether or not *something* qualifies as evidence.

Therefore, neither the term nor the concept is meaningless "outside of the context of the specific situation or idea that the 'evidence' is being said to support".



This claim is false, the OP does not say "without reference to any specific situations or ideas". It said...



The concept depends upon our well-founded confidence in a consistent objective universe. The direct observation of consistency in the universe facilitates this. The sun rises and sets in the same manner. There are fish in the water. The sky is always blue. The night always comes. The clouds can block the sunshine. A particular kind of tree has a particular kind of fruit, and so on.

Every day humans depend upon a consistent universe in order to even be able to draw conclusions. We all draw conclusions based upon what we believe to be true. Whether or not we realize or admit it, they are based upon belief in consistency. It is absolutely necessary in order to function in this world.



I disagree, and have just given the grounds for it. A discussion of the concept does not require the need for any particular set of circumstances, it does require the discussion of the common denominators in all of those.



To demand that a particular set of circumstances constitutes the context of the concept itself is to confuse the concept with it's usefulness.



I would like to see how this conclusion has been drawn. Can you show that?

So are we having any fun yet?

I love this stuff!



The possession of 'profound' knowledge does not necessarily exclude people who are here, nor does that necessarily indicate intellectual superiority.

Whether or not something is held to be 'profound' depends upon what the 'profound' evidence is being compared to. Nothing can be considered as 'profound' unless there is a prior lack of understanding.

I would not assume that everyone here holds the exact same views. That is the only situation in which there can be nothing considered 'profound'.

Last attempt at providing EVIDENCE of my logic...

I am looking for an indication of proof of intelligence.

I am looking for an outward sign of intelligence.

I am looking for evidence of intelligence.


So, if I don't find what what I'm looking for in any of these questions, does it mean it didn't exist? (if I find one, I find it all unless we play semantic games)


Edit* to change "doesn't " to "didn't "

Do you desire "intellectual superiority?"

Not I.

If I can get away with the illusion of it, I's be happy.
Just as long as I win.

JB,

Only when compared to myself and used as a measurement of maturity.

What is 'it' referring to in the question, intelligence or evidence of intelligence?

***with no condesending tone whatsoever***

I'll resubmit in shorter form.


I am looking for an indication of proof.

I am looking for an outward sign.

I am looking for evidence.



Please don't ask "of what?", this is a condensed version of the first.

There may be evidence in someone else's possession. Therefore, just because you do not find it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.

When regarding evidence which establishes proof of *whatever* existing...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In other words, just because there is no evidence to prove 'pink unicorns exist' does not necessarily mean that they do not.

That proves my stance. Some people insist that absence DOES prove it's not evidence.

P.S. they are white, not pink.

Here are the real unicorns.

http://www.sideshowworld.com/interview-OZ.html