Originally posted by Rob Ross:
[QB]Since it's hard (even impossible) for us to visualize higher spacial dimensions it's usually easier to use a 2D example.
If you take a piece of paper, and draw a straight line with a pencil, you've created a 2-dimensional object, ie, the line has width and length (discount the fact that the graphite atoms on the paper also have height )
Rob
SCJP 1.4
as a way of comparing how 11-dimension space might be "hiding" in our "percieved" 3-dimensional space.
Originally posted by Rob Ross:
Human consciousness, though seemingly real, is just an illusion created from all our individual cells working together synergistically.
Dave
Originally posted by Suchak Jani:
This is for Rob Ross.
-------------------------------------------------
Human consciousness, though seemingly real, is just an illusion created from all our individual cells working together synergistically.
--------------------------------------------------
If that is true , i have a challange for you.
You know what chemicals cells are made of.
Create cells and create make the "cells work together synergistically", and thus ceate "Human conciousness".
That will prove your point that "Human Conciousness is an illusion".
And no "Post Dated checks", i mean that "we will do it in the future" thinge.
I have seen no evidance of "Human Conciousness " coming form a combination of cells which in turn are made of chemicals.
Regards
Suchak Jani
Rob
SCJP 1.4
I have seen no evidance of "Human Conciousness " coming form a combination of cells which in turn are made of chemicals.
Rob
SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Rob Ross:
I'm not sure how relevant your post is. Every atom in your body was once part of a star that went supernova in the nearby vicinity, so everything on this planet, from a rock to a computer to a killer whale to YOU is made up of the same "ingredients." So your "challenge" has already occured!
[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Rob Ross ]
If your premise is, "if you can't create conciousness yourself, right now, that proves it can't be done" I think your logic is faulty.
That's like telling someone in 1950, "If humans can leave the planet then build me a rocket to the moon right now and I don't want you to say 'oh we can do it in the future.', and if you can't do it this proves it can't be done."
That's just silly.
Have you looked in the mirror lately?
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Can any one of science can tell me why g is equal to 9.8 only. You can say it is constant and fits perfectly everywhere you use it .. but why ??
from where you get this value ??
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
I think conatnats are nothing but manipulation which somehow can prove your theory to numeric world also.
I thank God/Allah/Buddha/Whoever/Whatever for the inconceivable chain of events that led to the invention of the Pizza.
And Warcraft III. May God/Allah/Buddha/Whoever/Whatever (if He/She exists) bless those good people at Blizzard. Just keep 'em coming...
Amir
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
I think "fudging" constants has something to do more with justifying the theory with the physicist's personal philosophical inclinations, as for example, with Einstein's cosmological constant.
Originally posted by Ronnie Phelps:
For you science nuts: There are so many things in life that just wasn't meant to be understood. There isn't allways a mathematical formula that can tell you why or how somethings has come about.
Originally posted by Ronnie Phelps:
In summary, I really don't care why I was put here and how. I just want to stay happy
Originally posted by Christophe Lee:
1.) Science requires faith - i recall the first sentence spoken by my prof in freshman physics was "Does reality exist?" What a weird question, but a very valid one. Keep in mind that science is only a model for measuring reality. Its validity first must presume that a reality indeed exists and is measurable. The philosopher David Hume once said that just because the sun rises today, and rose everyday for a million years, does not mean it will definitely rise again tomorrow. (He meant it in a philosophical sense...not a scientific one - such as the sun imploding). Science requires a strong faith in observed events happening in the future.
2.) "Natural" laws are almost as ambiguous as "religious" laws. Natural laws are a necessary building block for science. For exampl: matter has gravity. No one knows the reason; it is simply so. The reason does not matter so long as we can use its measurement. No one knows the reason for these laws but that does not seem to undermine the entire usefulness of science.
3.) Science is not as ironclad as most people who have a blind faith in it claim. Science has been used for and against racism (anyone ever read about the cranial studies to "prove" black people were inferior? - and by reputable biologists!)...I'm sure there are other examples; I just cannot think of any right now. But to discard religion solely based on human mis-interpretations is akin to rejecting science because of those racist biologists. (also, ever heard of the saying "facts must be interpreted - they do not speak for themselves"? - science may produce facts, but people will still interpret them differently - sorta like religion)
Now, I think science is incredibly important, but it should not shield you from religion (and vice versa). My senior synthesis teacher gave me a really good model: (God is used very generically here). Religion is like God reaching down to us...science/philosophy/logic is like us trying to reach up to him. Using a combination of both would be the most effective approach to connecting with each other.
Rob
SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Sometime I think I should not believe in science as when there was no electron, things were working accordingly.
When there were electronic which were orbiting on fix path around nucleous then also thigns were working. Now when they have no fix orbit and they are as electron cloud, things are still working.
If tomorrow some one proves that they dont orbit at all, they are still. Things will be working still
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
unlike, say a tautology like 2 + 2 = 4 which is always true (Shura notwithstanding).
Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
Yes it is.
Have you read the whole text?
If we believed you, all true statements were tautological. How about "universally true" instead?
It will be back to normal by Monday, I am sure.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
mooooooo ..... tiny ad ....
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards
https://gardener-gift.com
|