Another "Chi" demonstration

[Hypernicus]

Feelings are the value we give something by rational thoughts. If you point a gun to a child it will not feel fear because it has no concept of the danger it is in. If you shoot a deer or another animal in herd the others have no concept of death and will continue grassing. Feelings suppose thoughts, if you are sad, you can change focus on something else and the sadness feelings will stop and other feelings emerge, like feeling joy if you saw someone scored a goal. No thoughts no feelings. Feelings are necessary for humans because its purpose is to achieve happiness and to avoid sadness. Animals don't need feelings as its existence is to eat, survive and breed so the specie can continue to exist. One can make a robot with nerves to detect a kick, heat, being trudged on. A robot is like animals preprogrammed. A robot is like animals not preprogrammed to commit suicide because its purpose is not to achieve happiness and avoid sadness. Humans can commit suicide if they are in an impossible situation to achieve happiness and avoid sadness and have a better life next time.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re-post your (own) replies, please.

 

[sphenisc]

Evolution science DOES NOT claim that humans evolved from apes.

I suppose no evolutionary scientist would ever have referred to the series of apes linking a modern human to a modern chimpanzee then?

I also suppose that Science would never publish an article with this title then?

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a New Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain
Salvador Moyà-Solà, Meike Köhler, David M. Alba, Isaac Casanovas-Vilar, and Jordi Galindo
Science 19 November 2004 306: 1339-1344 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1103094] (in Research Articles)

 

[Hawk one]

Meffy and sphenisc, I think I'll throw in a guess at what seems to be a miscommunication.

Meffy, is it so that you're really arguing that man did not evolve from any of the current apes we are having around? Because if that's so, then you're of course right.

But Sphenisc is also right, in that we did evolve from -some- kind of ape, which happened to branch out and eventually turning into humans and chimpanzees, as well as the now extinct neanderthals, and the "hobbit"; and others I won't bother to recollect right now.

So, am I correct in that the misunderstanding between you two is about the difference between current ape species and past ape species?

 

[sphenisc]

Meffy and sphenisc, I think I'll throw in a guess at what seems to be a miscommunication.

Meffy, is it so that you're really arguing that man did not evolve from any of the current apes we are having around? Because if that's so, then you're of course right.

But Sphenisc is also right, in that we did evolve from -some- kind of ape, which happened to branch out and eventually turning into humans and chimpanzees, as well as the now extinct neanderthals, and the "hobbit"; and others I won't bother to recollect right now.

So, am I correct in that the misunderstanding between you two is about the difference between current ape species and past ape species?

Yes, you're correct as to the substance of the argument, though I don't think it's a misunderstanding, we're both quite well aware that it's an argument about definitions. I've attempted to demonstrate that Hypernicus's implied definition (which includes fossil hominoids) is also used in a scientific journal. Until Meffy successfully refutes that, I don't think she's in any position to shout at people that they're wrong for using it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

A robot is like animals not preprogrammed to commit suicide because its purpose is not to achieve happiness and avoid sadness. Humans can commit suicide if they are in an impossible situation to achieve happiness and avoid sadness and have a better life next time.

I'm intrigued by your repeated use of suicide as an example. I can see that if one believed in chi, yet knew no evidence that chi exists even in the face of a million dollar prize, one could become depressed.

Are you depressed, Hypernicus? As with your previous replies, lack of an answer will be interpreted as "yes" and calling me a psychopath will be interpreted as "no."

 

[Hellbound]

There came quantum mechanics. The last resort for the cornered woo.

Aspects results are not as conclusive as presented by certain woos using QM to justify free will. There's still the issue of loopholes and Local Hidden Variable Theory. And the holonomic brain model proposed by Bohm is all speculation based on lack of proper data. Furthermore, it holds no falsification criteria. Pull the other one.

Your own claim that animals don't feel pain because they don't scream when tortured, is perhaps the most outrageous baloney I have ever heard. And you call us psychopaths. You're a truckload of irony and a clear example of why wooism is harmful.

Well, to be fair, Thomas, much of the research Hype quotes here is legitimate.

However, also to be fair, none of it says what he seems to believe it says.

Holohgraphic does not mean illusionary. It also does not mean projected. The holographic storage of the brain simply referes to the way memories and other aspects see to be dispersed through the cells, rather than centralized inot specific areas. The various connections between structures seem to play as much (if not more) of a role as any individual stucture. It's thoght that this plays into the plasticity of the brain (it's ability to relearn functions and re-assign tasks from damaged areas to others).

None of this research, however, implies that consciousness is not physical (or based on physical structures/eletrical and chemical propertires of the brain). None of it points to the existence of an Astral plane. Essentially, most of it implicitly denies his theories, but it would take understanding of the arguments and reading comprehension skills to understand that.

As an aside to Hype, to answer a much earlier question, we can determine how much of the brain must be removed to remove consciousness. Heck, by your various definitions someone under anesthesia is no longer conscious (they no longer react to pain), thus we have proof that consciousness can be physically manipulated, and is thus physical.

 

[Hypernicus]

we can determine how much of the brain must be removed to remove consciousness. Heck, by your various definitions someone under anesthesia is no longer conscious (they no longer react to pain), thus we have proof that consciousness can be physically manipulated, and is thus physical.

I know, but the question was how much, because it would implicate the last place that hasn't been removed would contain consciousness, which isn't true according to the mice experiment. It isn't located exactly anywhere. It isn't in the brain at all. When one is not aware of the senses incoming data about the outworld one is no longer consciousness in the physical world. The body falls asleep.

 

[Thomas]

Well, to be fair, Thomas, much of the research Hype quotes here is legitimate.

I'm wasn't trying to refute the work Bohm did in collaboration Pribram as such (but I'm aware that it could seem that way when I look at it now as I did call for falsification), but rather the speculative nature of his later philosophies that seems to have emerged after a couple of crisis, and furthermore when he became taken by the mega-lo-mania speculator Krishnamurti.

However, also to be fair, none of it says what he seems to believe it says.

Holohgraphic does not mean illusionary. It also does not mean projected. The holographic storage of the brain simply referes to the way memories and other aspects see to be dispersed through the cells, rather than centralized inot specific areas. The various connections between structures seem to play as much (if not more) of a role as any individual stucture. It's thoght that this plays into the plasticity of the brain (it's ability to relearn functions and re-assign tasks from damaged areas to others).

None of this research, however, implies that consciousness is not physical (or based on physical structures/eletrical and chemical propertires of the brain). None of it points to the existence of an Astral plane. Essentially, most of it implicitly denies his theories, but it would take understanding of the arguments and reading comprehension skills to understand that.

As an aside to Hype, to answer a much earlier question, we can determine how much of the brain must be removed to remove consciousness. Heck, by your various definitions someone under anesthesia is no longer conscious (they no longer react to pain), thus we have proof that consciousness can be physically manipulated, and is thus physical.

I figure that this part isn't adressed to me, because it's mainly the same that I and others have tried to tell him all along in various forms (provided you have followed this thread).

 

[CFLarsen]

This is better than television.

 

[qayak]

If you shoot a deer or another animal in herd the others have no concept of death and will continue grassing.

From your quote above it is easy to tell that you have never hunted. I, on the other hand, have hunted for years. Your statement above is completely wrong.

Animals that have no experience with firearms do not understand that the person 100 metres away is a threat because it has not activated their flight reaction. Once they learn that anyone with a rifle is a danger at any distance, they run as soon as they see the rifle.

Ian

 

[Hellbound]

I'm wasn't trying to refute the work Bohm did in collaboration Pribram as such (but I'm aware that it could seem that way when I look at it now as I did call for falsification), but rather the speculative nature of his later philosophies that seems to have emerged after a couple of crisis, and furthermore when he became taken by the mega-lo-mania speculator Krishnamurti.


I figure that this part isn't adressed to me, because it's mainly the same that I and others have tried to tell him all along in various forms (provided you have followed this thread).

Well, I skimmed the thread, so apparently missed the details Sems that a lot of his ideas come from a complete miusunderstanding of the definitions of words like digital, quantum, and hologram.

 

[Meffy]

@sphenisc: Yes, Hawk has it. End of sideshow.

[edit] In fact, for me it's end of show too. This thrashing can go nowhere. I disagree with Claus; bad as television is, Hypernicus's vehement meaninglessness is worse.

 

[Curnir]

@sphenisc: Yes, Hawk has it. End of sideshow.

[edit] In fact, for me it's end of show too. This thrashing can go nowhere. I disagree with Claus; bad as television is, Hypernicus's vehement meaninglessness is worse.

I agree with Meffy, it makes my head hurt.



Actually it is the head-desk I preform when I've finished reading the posts, that give me a head ache... but still.

 

[Hypernicus]

Alpha, the guy who thinks 0.9... is somehow different from 0.99...

"The redefinition of the language "infinite sum" was not done until some 300 years ago. The real reason was philsophical to support a mechanical universe. If .99999... = 1, then one could with math describe movements of objects in a mechanical way. If .99999... was not equal to 1, one had no math which could describe this and the theory about universe had to be completely rewritten to a quantum theory of modern physics which in fact is possible to describe without using the ".99999... = 1 error". The paradox of Zeno is only a problem for Newton-style math and not Quantum theory because in Quantum theory a particle may jump from one position to another(teleportation in reality) without beeing between, making this system "digital". Read http://mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm for more about this. A digital system has no infinite things. A computer has nothing infinite. No infinite math is needed here."
- Alpha

"En bruker ordet hologram for å unngå å si sannheten rett ut - nemlig at universet er datagrafikk, dvs. VR (virtual reality). Et holografi er mer fysisk håndgripelig. Dette er en flate (eller prikk) som en kan observere fra flere ulike vinkler og på den måten danne illusjonen av dybde, bredde og høyde. I holografiet er det observatøren som endrer posisjon og innholdet er statisk. I VR er det motsatt for da er observatøren er i ro, mens innholdet forandrer seg dynamisk.

Psykopater misliker sterkt oppfatningen om at virkeligheten er VR (som i matrix filmen forøvrig). Dette medfører nemlig at mennesker må ha en ikke-fysisk sjel og at åndeverdenen derfor eksisterer. Dette er ikke kompatibelt med psykopatens filosofi, for dersom sjelen er ikke-fysisk er også viljen ikke-fysisk og ikke determinert av den fysisk verden. Viljdeterminismen er den fundamentale måte å manipulere mennesker på i politikken. Dessuten vil psykopaten da stå til ansvar for hva de har gjort i dette livet og det er ingen besnærende tanke for de fleste av dem med mindre de får gratis sex av utallige jomfruer om de ofrer seg for Allah. Psykopater kan derfor fint være muslimer så lenge de følger koranens bud."
- Alpha

"Oppsiktsvekkende påstand? Mulig. Det hele avhenger av om en snakker om Jorda som objekt eller Jorda som mengde.

Objektet Jorda er flatere enn en pannekake fordi objektet universet også er helt flatt jfr. Scientific American (universe is a flat hologram), og metafysikk(http://radikal.net/filosofi/metafysikk/). Vi må her skille mellom objektet Jorda og mengden jorda. Objektet Jorda er tilstanden på et gitt tidspunkt og det er faktisk kun et stereo-bilde - en observasjon fra en vinkel. Da er den helt flat. Mengden Jorda er alle mulige vinkler for observasjon og først da fremstår den som rund fordi den da kan beskrives matematisk som rund.

Skillet mellom objekter og mengder her følger logisk det skillet jeg trakk mellom objektforflytning og mengdeforflytning. Å skille mellom objekter og mengder er det som løser Nille er en stein problematikken.

Mener en fortsatt at jorda som objekt er rund så mener en også logisk implisitt at Nille er en stein. Mer om det i spistemologien."
- Alpha

http://www.antipsykopat.org/miniBB/index.php?topic=3814.0

 

[CFLarsen]

Hypernicus, du taler altså norsk?

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Why are you all wasting time with this knucklehead? I came to this after his fifth post or so. Not so much for his unintelligible spewing, but his failure to answer simple questions.

I usually give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But at a certain point, one has to realize one is wasting one's breath. Or bandwidth.

 

[asmodean]

"The redefinition of the language "infinite sum" was not done until some 300 years ago.

.. snip lots of garbage ...

Uhm, yeah, about 300 years ago Leibnitz and Newton (independently) founded calculus. And what a nice tool it is.

However, zero-point-bar-9 is exact same as 0-point-nine bar nine, or 0-point-bar-ninety-nine and so on. Your "philosopher" alpha fails to comprehend this simple fact and hence I can see no reason to take any of what he says about math seriously.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The Chi Gene

Are you depressed, Hypernicus? As with your previous replies, lack of an answer will be interpreted as "yes"

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You remind me of a manic depressive woo I once knew. Have you been diagnosed with manic depression?

Given enough time, using yes/no questions, it would be possible theoretically to sequence Hypernicus's DNA but we don't have that much time.

Which brings me to what seems a novel point, derived from what I think Hypernicus is saying. As before, signify that you believe I'm right with silence. Where you think I'm wrong, quote me and ask if I'm a psychopath. OK? Fine.

Hypernicus seems to say:

1) Only humans have souls.
2) Souls are required to have chi powers.

Mr. Scott reasons therefore:

3) A human grows from a single egg cell, the development of which is determined by its genes, and there is no other significant difference between a human and, say, a higher ape egg cell.
4) If humans develop souls and animals don't, then humans must have soul genes that animals don't have.
5) If #4 is true, then a human with a damaged soul gene will not have a soul and an animal with cloned soul genes from a human will have a soul.
6) The animal with the cloned soul genes would then have chi power and be able to knock down bricks for a TV news crew.

Hypernicus, T'ai Chi, anyone else, what's wrong with my reasoning?

 

[Unnamed]

From your quote above it is easy to tell that you have never hunted. I, on the other hand, have hunted for years. Your statement above is completely wrong.

Are you a psycopath, or something? A==A! Hunting is for nominalists.

(to Ian: in case you didn't notice, the reply is for him, not you)

Welcome to the forum!