HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

But there is nothing wrong in it. It is another approach to solve the mysteries of nature. You criticize cuz you don’t like the idea. As I was saying before, we might get closer to the answer when the LHC goes online. If it does, then we might just get a different VIEW of nature.

I also see that Spirituality has no connection with this and solving the mysteries of nature or unveiling the secrets of nature has nothing to do with spirituality. They were formulated by humans on the basis of morality. But that is just my opinion. I know you have a different opinion. I don’t want to criticize anything about your beliefs. No two people think alike.

I guess Tipler’s theories about immortality and resurrection never became popular for this VERY reason. It does not coincide with the spiritual view of nature which contradicts POPULAR beliefs formulated so far. Its just a fear that “What if” God does not exist, then there would be no morality within human beings. That is fine and I understand the way it is and I would not debate it on the basis of moral values. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

I also see that Spirituality has no connection with this and solving the mysteries of nature or unveiling the secrets of nature has nothing to do with spirituality. They were formulated by humans on the basis of morality.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, you are confusing "religion" with "spirituality." I would agree with what you say based on religion.

But this is a good opportunity for me to claim that YOU do not understand MY interpretation! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif You will note in my post that I used the term "aphysical" and only gave the word "spiritual" a parenthetical place. That is because our Mind, Soul, and Spirit are all parts of our non-physical, or aphysical selves. So in fact, our aphysical selves DO have a LARGE connection to what we perceive and understand of the physical world. This cannot be escaped, and I am quite sure that Roger Penrose agrees on this issue, as the mainstay of his work has been in trying to understand the impact of mind on science, and vice-versa.

The part that consciousness (our aphysical selves) plays in our physical reality is the very thing I was referring to when I spoke of the "rude awakening" that is coming to the die-hard reductionists. The universe DOES depend on observers, and their consciousness. The fact that science has not yet folded the aphysical into their theories is the real reason they cannot "solve" the paradoxes that trouble them. However, there are some physicists worth their salt who do understand that consciousness is the missing factor. One of them is Penrose, another is Sarfatti.

RMT
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

Hi nitescott,
Wow that’s a big quote for you to make.

Prey tell RMT!

Part with this wisdom!

Share this enlightened information with your beer drinking brethren from the land of OZ!!!
Click to expand...
One could say it is an issue of "emergence", with this referring to the fact that complex systems exhibit properties that are emergent in that these properties are greater than the sum of their parts. Many have suspected that consciousness is an emergent property of non-linear, closed-loop systems (such as the human body/brain).

Have you heard of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, nitescott? Are you aware of the fact that Dark Energy is, by far, the dominating force of Energy in our universe, and that normal, baryonic, gravitating matter is only about 4% of total Energy? Well, it is my opinion that as we come to understand the nature of Dark Energy that this will be the "trigger" which will lead to a wholesale abandonment of the strictly reductionist approach that has held science in its grasp for so long. I also believe that it will solidify the central role of consciousness (aphysicality) in the forces that shape Massive SpaceTime. All the pieces are in place, and there are many people who are continuing in their research and development of complex systems (i.e. chaos theory). They will bring the tide that washes over all of the compartmentalized forms of science. The next great story of human emergence will be a result of INTEGRATING the currently compartmentalized disciplines with a better understanding of the impact that consciousness has on physicality and observation.

But it might be better to move this off to another thread with a more meaningful title?

RMT
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

Let me give an example. Say you buy a computer. The hard disks are mass produced and there is no guarantee that all hard disks would be the same. Lets assume you get one of the hard disks in your computer by PROBABILITY that crashes very often, and you are into trouble. No one "conciously" put that particular hard disk into your computer knowing that you would be in trouble. Its a matter of probability that you got that particular hard disk. If you have got another one, may be your work would have been fine. A lot of events depends upon nature and its probability.

Conciousness does have impact our future, my opinion is it depends more on the probabilities of nature, than conciousness. There has been natural Disasters that had impact on the minds of people. While "concious" man made disasters like war and bombings also have similar effects. May be if the events that killed the dinosaurs, was a matter of probability, then that might have had a huge impact on evolution. Talking about the universe as a whole, we have seen disasters on Earth avoided by gravitational force of Jupiter.
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

BAH! Murphy's law will tell you that only the people putting highly critical data on hard drives will get the duds. Also there are many times when I would dismattle a defective peice of electronics for spare parts when it would suddenly spring back to life! I had a broken VCR once and when I took the cover off ready to take the main motor out, I decided to test it one last time. And guess what, it suddenly sprung into action. Of course alot of it was probally just coincidence, but to the observer (me) it was quite impressive. I'm sure RMT with the work he does can tell you stories of the machines that simply do not want to die. :D The second you start waving that screw driver BANG perfect operation, you leave the room, everything starts failing again.

The work that has been thus far in the field of Artifical Stupidity, better known as AI has yeilded little results. Why you may ask? Is it because reseach in the field has been limited? NO! It is because the more we learn about the brain, the more we realize that all of us are composed of many rather simple yet highly efficient algorithms. One programmer (sadly I don't know the name) even went as far as describing AI as "anything we can not do in software yet." The more we learn about ourselves the more we push back what we claim to be spiritual. My point is, are we really that advanced? I mean our greatest aspect is the fact that we our self aware. But we are still based on simple rules, say....someone slaps me across the face, I punch them in the head. Simple cause and effect example. My free will tells allows me to enjoy the company of women, but evolution has curved my genetics to shape my desires. Higher up, more "intelligent" paired algorithms has lead man to create technology and discussion.


On the macro scale, given that the planet has been creating more powerful and potent hurricanes, one can say from an outside (non-human) observation that the animals (us) are reaching equallibrium with our planet. Beacuse of our over-population and global warming, the planet is now fixing itself. I do admit that that is apart of the GAIA interpretation, and it is not full proof (like any theory), but I must say this; I believe that the planet, since it operates on the same type of cause and effect reaction as us can also be considered self-aware to a degree, and we are just a small part in the grand scheme of the universe. I belive that is part of what RMT was getting at. That we have to start treating systems more as though they are self-aware beings because on the macro-scale they are. So is their probability in the equation? Yes, but there is also the probability that there will be an equal or opposite reaction to it. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

It's hard to explain, and I hope I made myself clear. I am not in the Intelligent Design or Creationism camp either. Darwism is validated by the scientfic method, and as such logically should not be dismissed. The scientific method is based on observation. Since Human Beings are the only creature on the planet doing the observing their is a natural predjuduce in judgments. There is a paradox on the way we describe our system as being external, rather than absolute and apart of us, and us apart of it. Pretty spiritual, eh?
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

I'm sure RMT with the work he does can tell you stories of the machines that simply do not want to die.

I know RMT is in a different field. If he is having a debate with his friends about "technical" Aerospace, I would not drop in and make comments on any of the issues based on what they are talking.
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

I know RMT is in a different field. If he is having a debate with his friends about "technical" Aerospace, I would not drop in and make comments on any of the issues based on what they are talking.
Click to expand...
One thing that people don't understand about being an aerospace systems engineer is that you develop deep knowledge across multiple disciplines, since all of these disciplines are required in order to make complex aerospace vehicles function properly. Whereas certain engineering disciplines are "specialized" (such as electrical engineering, or chemical engineering), when you look at aerospace engineering curriculum, you see that the aerospace engineer needs to be proficient in most, if not all of them. In order to do my job I need to know not only fluid mechanics, but structural mechanics, kinematics, chemical reactions, electrical principles, electronics design, software and OS design, control theory, and all of it supported by a strong understanding of mathematics. Do you know that of all the engineering disciplines, aerospace engineers are required to take the most mathematics courses, especially in the areas of vector calculus?

The point being that I am quite qualified to comment on many areas where you seem to think I am not qualified. I have a "deeper" understanding of computers and OS architectures than you seem to think.

RMT
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

I have a "deeper" understanding of computers and OS architectures than you seem to think.

Then you should have used the technical terms in the conversations, rather you were cutting and pasting and analyzing and comparing and finding faults in my statements. Go back and read the thread, to see how much "cut and paste" work you have done.

I have discussed it with other members, think its newbie_0 and RenUnconcious, the conversation was very simple with the technical terms. Not much cut and paste work done.
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

Go back and read the thread, to see how much "cut and paste" work you have done.
Click to expand...
You make this sound like a bad thing. Could you please explain precisely why quoting you, and challenging your quotes in their veracity, is a bad thing? I have clearly selected the points of yours that are weak, and pointed out the problems. I suggest YOU go back and read the thread and pay special attention to all the points I made that you never addressed... at all.

That is quite telling of the foundation of your "proof".

I have discussed it with other members, think its newbie_0 and RenUnconcious, the conversation was very simple with the technical terms. Not much cut and paste work done.
Click to expand...
The conversation was also vague, and you kept changing your point. Brevity does not always equal scholarly (or even correct!).

RMT
 
Re: HISTORY Creedo gives RMT a potato:

It is pointless. Any "technical" person reading that would understand you "logic" and "tactic" to debunk Titor.
 
Back
Top