Jump to content

- - - - -

doth conscious?

what is consciousness consciousness experience perception mind

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#26 DiscoStu


    Jealous God

  • Members2
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Climate or location:temperate

Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM

but all that aside, lee smolin might be an author some of you wish to investigate,

i've not read any of his works but he does focus on the philosophy of mathematics, 

something which interests me in general,

What’s remarkable is that atoms have assembled into entities which are somehow able to ponder their origins.

#27 ThunderIdeal


    like an unfinished analogy,

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,019 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:wrangling this raging life-on
  • Climate or location:Brisbane

Posted Yesterday, 10:37 PM

well, this "flawed physics" is basically making this entire thread possible,


hay here's an idea, if physics is so shit why don't you come up with your own?


bearing in mind in order to come up with your own physics you have to invent your own mathematics.

calculus is bunk it's just elitists making shit up as they go along?

maybe you think the idea of "2+2=4" is flawed?

theres no such thing as the number five?


thunder, i think you should invest some time in number theory, you'd get a kick out of it


disclaimer:  physics may not be flawed.  i'm not exactly qualified to say am i?  i'm an arm-chair ponderer.  i do come up with my own "physics" but as a hobby.  the fact is that there are lots of real scientists who DO have dissenting models so there's no need for lowly thunderideal school dropout to rock any paradigm-smashing leaps forwards. 

i think your tone is friendly antagonism but if you are genuinely bothered that i'm questioning some science on account that it may have become a bit dogmatic (dogma and science shouldn't mix) then let me remind you that my opinion doesn't really matter.  do you want citations?  i wouldn't know how to put a wikipedia url into a primary school bibliography okay?  if i tell you that relativity predicts phenomenon that should be observable but aren't then you can investigate further or just ignore me.  if i suggest that there probably is no such thing as "missing matter" (dark matter), just missing evidence for the accepted model, you can contemplate further or remain faithful in unprovable undisprovable spaghetti monsters.  if i draw your attention to objects interacting with each other despite having very different redshifts, you could infer that maybe our estimates of the distance of many objects is questionable (and therefore the perception of pulsars as being so energetic because they are "so far away") or you could assume like everyone else does that halton arp was a brilliant astronomer for a while then he just lost the plot.  if i point you to possible explanations for all of the above there's no need to entertain any of them.... the standard models will work there are just a few minor details and hiccups to be ironed out. 


i love science enough to love it if it's wrong... even if it won't admit it at first.  just so long as it does admit it before becoming the next numbskull religion. 


technological advancements, and models that yield them don't equate to perfect science/knowledge.   i'm awed and ingratiated to scientific progress and i shouldn't even have to say so just because i question some of it.  that's the hallmark of religion "you are not permitted to call the doctrine into question".


i've always wished i was a scientist, and i'm jealous of any cunt who actually is.  the reality of being a poverty-stricken student.. the reality that my mind refuses to work unless it wants to work (eg problems of its choice eg cbf completing tafe assessments let alone real schoolwork)....  the reality that i have no idea where it will lead me... and NOW, the reality that i'd have to regurgitate science in which my faith has been totally shattered.



thanks for the recommendation but maths isn't my thing right now.  overviews are fine but i'm getting dumber with age, maths requires huge intellect, it's abstract and doesn't appeal to my sense of exploration, it doesn't embiggen my soul or contribute to my fantasy models.  (euclidean) geometry on the other hand, while technically maths, is not the subject of mathematical advancements (it's fairly done and dusted) and is more engaging.  geometry interests me.  i want to start a thread on literal descriptions of the behaviour of the living geometry seen during CEV.  all it requires is an observant mind experienced enough not to be overwhelmed, to make mental notes like you would while studying any other phenomena and then transfer them onto paper.  chaos science tends to involve maths pretty heavily, it was more or less born when computers were, when it became possible to crunch huge numbers.  chaos science is cool but i don't hear about it very often unless i look for it.

In Occidental theology, the word transcendent is used to mean outside of the world. In the East, it means outside of thought. To imagine that your definitions of your God have anything to do with that ultimate mystery is a form of sheer idolatry from this standpoint. Your God is good enough for you and mine’s good enough for me. A God, from this point of view, is merely a reflex of one’s ability to conceive of God. Since people have various abilities of this sort, they have various powers of apprehending God.

#28 DiscoStu


    Jealous God

  • Members2
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Climate or location:temperate

Posted Today, 12:41 AM

i appreciate what you're saying, but

i just think the people who say physics is flawed have no alternative,


remember, "physics" exists because it's verifiable, if you have something that's verifiable too then great,



and when people start to say "man, physics is shit" then they don't actually know what they're talking about

and yes, there's lot's of things that "science" doesn't "know", but so what? does anyone expect humans to have all the answers? i don't,




**disclaimer** i'm shit at physics but i know that it's the closest thing we have to a description of the natural universe,



p.s. lawrence krauss is a knob



now, getting into the politics of science, well there you can say that certain ideas gain traction based on the politics of the institution,

atheism i guess has a strong sway in the scientific community, and as such the idea of a consciousness (at least human like) existing outside of the human mind is dismissed summarily,


but is that a bad thing? how can you test for a mind existing in space?

What’s remarkable is that atoms have assembled into entities which are somehow able to ponder their origins.