slimshady2357
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,093
Interesting Ian said:
Foaming at the mouth like this is a sign of complete and utter inability to address the points raised against you.
Adam
A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities
Foaming at the mouth like this is a sign of complete and utter inability to address the points raised against you.
Adam
slimshady2357
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,093
Loki said:
Excellent questions.
Adam
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
slimshady2357 said:
God you really are a stupid f*ck aren't you?
slimshady2357
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,093
Interesting Ian said:
God you really are a stupid f*ck aren't you?
Just keep foaming and keep avoiding Ian, it seems to be all you have left.
Adam
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
slimshady2357 said:
Just keep foaming and keep avoiding Ian, it seems to be all you have left.
Adam
I said I'd reply to you tomorrow arsewipe. Not that you've said f*ck all of the remotest relevance. Jesus f*cking Christ!
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Ian,
Don't hurry to reply. You either don't undersatnd the point being made, or you simply reject it. Nothing you've said seems to address the issue of location - you simply declare it "irrelevant".
Materialism predicts that consciousness is "bound" to a brain, and therefore a body. If it helps to point out why "location" *must* be relevant, then extend your "location doesn't matter" argument to it's logical conclusion :
*One* characteristic that every single living human body *must* have is "a unique location in space/time". To deny this is equivalent to saying that two (or more) living human bodies can occupy the exact same location in space/time. Either two bodies can be at the same location, or two bodies can't. You refuse to accept that they can't - so you *must* be arguing that they can.
At this point, I'm sure you simply decide that your point has been made :
1. Materialism says "1 body, 1 brain"
2. Materialism says "two bodies cannot have the same location"
3. Materialism says "identical bodies means identical consciousnesses"
4. Since we have two identical physical bodies, but the same consciousness (ie, only 1 consciousness), then materialism is stupid, since the one consciousness is in two places.
This only works if "two identical consciousnesses" is equivalent to "one consciousness". This equivalence cannot be true if there is a physical differnece between the two consciousnesses. How can they be different if their identical? Location of the body they are attached to. This *is* a physical fact, and it is a difference.
What's so hard to grasp??
(I realise that you aimed this at Slim, but I assume you include me under the general category of "arsewipe")
Don't hurry to reply. You either don't undersatnd the point being made, or you simply reject it. Nothing you've said seems to address the issue of location - you simply declare it "irrelevant".
Materialism predicts that consciousness is "bound" to a brain, and therefore a body. If it helps to point out why "location" *must* be relevant, then extend your "location doesn't matter" argument to it's logical conclusion :
*One* characteristic that every single living human body *must* have is "a unique location in space/time". To deny this is equivalent to saying that two (or more) living human bodies can occupy the exact same location in space/time. Either two bodies can be at the same location, or two bodies can't. You refuse to accept that they can't - so you *must* be arguing that they can.
At this point, I'm sure you simply decide that your point has been made :
1. Materialism says "1 body, 1 brain"
2. Materialism says "two bodies cannot have the same location"
3. Materialism says "identical bodies means identical consciousnesses"
4. Since we have two identical physical bodies, but the same consciousness (ie, only 1 consciousness), then materialism is stupid, since the one consciousness is in two places.
This only works if "two identical consciousnesses" is equivalent to "one consciousness". This equivalence cannot be true if there is a physical differnece between the two consciousnesses. How can they be different if their identical? Location of the body they are attached to. This *is* a physical fact, and it is a difference.
What's so hard to grasp??
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Ian,
Yes.
Not "exactly" as if the rest of the Universe exists. Obviously there will be differences.
Philosophically justify it? What kind of nonsense is this? That is what the mathematical theory claims. The mathematical theory is based on empirical evidence, not philosophical musings. Why should I have to philosophically justify it? What would that even mean?
I think what you really want is for me to explain it to you in terms you can understand. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. The difference between the stationary case and the orbiting case has to do with the distinction between reference frames which are accelerating with respect to each other, not with any "absolute frame of reference".
I am sorry if you don't believe me, but you lack of understanding of this topic can hardly be considered to be my problem.
I never denied it. The distinction I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with absolute space. You just are not able to conceive of any other way the two scenarios could be distinguishable. That is too bad.
Don't be stupid. I never said anything of the sort.
That is because your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
I just said how they differ. They are in different quantum states. You really don't understand what that means, do you?
They are not physically identical. They are not the same. You are being ridiculous.
Two different brains clearly implies that what they are doing constitute different processes. This is silly Ian, even for you.
Yes Ian. Everybody but you is a complete moron. In fact, you are so much more brilliant than anybody else, that it even overcomes your total lack of any scientific education or logical training. That is why you are obviously always right, even when you are arguing about things which you have no educational background in, with people who have studied it extensively.
Clearly I am wasting my time trying to argue with an intellect as vast as yours.
Dr. Stupid
Yes.
Not "exactly" as if the rest of the Universe exists. Obviously there will be differences.
Philosophically justify it? What kind of nonsense is this? That is what the mathematical theory claims. The mathematical theory is based on empirical evidence, not philosophical musings. Why should I have to philosophically justify it? What would that even mean?
I think what you really want is for me to explain it to you in terms you can understand. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. The difference between the stationary case and the orbiting case has to do with the distinction between reference frames which are accelerating with respect to each other, not with any "absolute frame of reference".
I am sorry if you don't believe me, but you lack of understanding of this topic can hardly be considered to be my problem.
I never denied it. The distinction I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with absolute space. You just are not able to conceive of any other way the two scenarios could be distinguishable. That is too bad.
Don't be stupid. I never said anything of the sort.
That is because your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
I just said how they differ. They are in different quantum states. You really don't understand what that means, do you?
They are not physically identical. They are not the same. You are being ridiculous.
Two different brains clearly implies that what they are doing constitute different processes. This is silly Ian, even for you.
Yes Ian. Everybody but you is a complete moron. In fact, you are so much more brilliant than anybody else, that it even overcomes your total lack of any scientific education or logical training. That is why you are obviously always right, even when you are arguing about things which you have no educational background in, with people who have studied it extensively.
Clearly I am wasting my time trying to argue with an intellect as vast as yours.
Dr. Stupid
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
slimshady2357 said:
Just keep foaming and keep avoiding Ian, it seems to be all you have left.
Adam
Sorry about my temper last night. But I was drunk. I'll try to address your mistakes later on today.
Let's take another step back. The theory of relativity correctly describes our universe, which has more than two objects in it. We can apply the theory to a universe with just two objects, and see what it predicts. This is what Stimpy has been doing. We can't assert that such a universe would in fact obey relativity, because we have no experience with that type of universe.
That is what relativity predicts, correct.
What's incoherent about it? Relativity predicts that if the two spheres are not rotating about each other, they will fall towards each other at a certain rate; if we find that they do fall at that rate, then we say they are not rotating. Relativity predicts that if they are rotating about each other at a certain rate, the distance between them will remain constant; if we find that the distance between them does remain constant, we say that they are rotating.
Whether they are rotating has other consequences too, besides just whether they fall towards each other. For example, it determines whether they experience centrifugal force. It is conceivable that the spheres do not fall and also do not experience centrifugal force. In that case, we must conclude that our hypothetical universe does not obey relativity.
Relativity dismisses the idea of absolute velocity; it doesn't dismiss the idea of absolute acceleration. Whether you choose to describe this as a dismissal of "an absolute space" is not really important.
(Actually, that is special relativity. General relativity does, in a sense, dismiss absolute acceleration. But if you choose to consider an object as unaccelerated, then you must also assume a gravitational field that produces the same effects as acceleration would. So this won't help you, really. A noninertial frame is a noninertial frame, however you look at it. [I think that's basically correct. I'm not an expert in general relativity.])
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
69dodge said:
Well so it would seem. He is talking about physics where as the issue is a philosophical one. Now you're talking about physics as well. I just give up.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
69dodge said:
You at least understand more than Stimp does.
I really don't know what else I can say which hasn't already been said. The 2 spheres maintain their distance from each other. There is nothing else in the Universe apart from space itself. So we could only conclude they are orbiting each other through physical effects such as centrifugal force. But that's kinda like a logical contradition. Any physical effects say they are orbiting around each other. Yet they cannot possibly be orbiting around each other. Not without introducing the notion of absolute space which is incoherent nonsense. This is why they cannot be any physical effects and thus relativity cannot be applied. So you and Stimp talking about what relativity predicts is a complete and total irrelevancy. You see?
And I don't care what relativity predicts since it results in the absurd notion of an absolute space which is nonsensical. If I believe that a material world is nonsensical I'm scarcely likely to embrace the concept of an absolute space!
Yes this is what I conclude as I have made abundantly clear from the very beginning.
Right, and relativity must apply even if there were only one object in the Universe. So it must make sense to suppose that one object is in absolute acceleration.
Going off topic a littel bit, does the existence of absolute acceleration explain the fact that in the twin thought experiment it is the one on the earth who has aged more than the one on the spaceship? Must do mustn't it?
BTW did you know that Newton was convinced that the existence of an absolute acceleration vindicated the notion of an absolute space?
The Immaterialist
Shouldn't that picture just show the background (or has someone done that joke already?)
Tommy
(My dad said he started a thread about your picture (is it called an avatar?) some months ago and that you were a good sport about it so I hope you won't attack me
)
(Also I saw your bad language above - You must be an Eminem fan as well
)
Sorry, the picture (?avatar) doesn't show
Shouldn't that picture just show the background (or has someone done that joke already?)
Tommy
(My dad said he started a thread about your picture (is it called an avatar?) some months ago and that you were a good sport about it so I hope you won't attack me
)(Also I saw your bad language above - You must be an Eminem fan as well
)Sorry, the picture (?avatar) doesn't show
Can I try this. My dad has tried to explain this to me
)
If that object was conscious, it could sense whether it was at rest or was accelerating so, yes, it makes sense.
Tommy
(Perhaps I should back and listen to my Eminem CD - or, God forbid dad's Jethro Tull DVD)
No, because "relativity" means relative to another object so there would have to be at least two objects. (I saw they rolleyesInteresting Ian said:
)oops, the rolleyes are hereInteresting Ian said:So it must make sense to suppose that one object is in absolute acceleration.
If that object was conscious, it could sense whether it was at rest or was accelerating so, yes, it makes sense.
I think that is right.Interesting Ian said:
I wonder why? Was it connected to the fact that he believed in absolute time? Maybe he was wrong twice.Interesting Ian said:
Tommy
(Perhaps I should back and listen to my Eminem CD - or, God forbid
dad's Jethro Tull DVD)Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Just found this.
I of course agree with Berkeley.
I of course agree with Berkeley.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Ian,
Kinda like a logical contradiction? Where is the logical contradiction?
You are talking out of your ass. It is not, in any way, necessary to introduce the notion of absolute space. There is more to the system than just the relative positions of the two spheres. You are, once again, applying your notoriously circular logic. You claim that the two scenarios are indistinguishable, and then when we point out that they are not, and how they could be distinguished by things like red-shift, length-contraction, and deformation do to centrifugal force, you assert that none of those effects are present. When asked why not, you claim that they cannot be because the two scenarios are equivalent.
The sad thing is, I don't think you even comprehend basic logic well enough to realize that this is fallacious.
Relativity is irrelevant? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you bring up this sphere nonsense as an example of how materialism treats indistinguishable objects? Are you now suggesting that materialism does not predict that your sphere example will function according to general relativity? If so, then it is you who are spouting off relevancies, not I.
So you admit it! You presented a thought experiment about materialism, but applied to it your own assumptions about what would happen, and not those of materialism. Thus your thought experiment says absolutely nothing about materialism. It just indicates that materialism is not compatible with your own ill conceived views of how things work.
No. As usual, you have no idea what relativity actually predicts.
No. That "paradox" can be resolved without any references to general relativity at all. The apparent symmetry which seems to lead to the paradox, is broken by the fact that the experiment begins, and ends, in the reference frame of one of the twins, and not the other.
Newton was convinced of a lot of things that were not true. So what?
Tommy,
Blah! Ditch all of that crap. What you need is some good old-fashioned Heavy Metal. Start yourself off with some soft and melodic, like Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath, and then work your way up to stuff like Slayer and Pantera.
Dr. Stupid
Kinda like a logical contradiction? Where is the logical contradiction?
You are talking out of your ass. It is not, in any way, necessary to introduce the notion of absolute space. There is more to the system than just the relative positions of the two spheres. You are, once again, applying your notoriously circular logic. You claim that the two scenarios are indistinguishable, and then when we point out that they are not, and how they could be distinguished by things like red-shift, length-contraction, and deformation do to centrifugal force, you assert that none of those effects are present. When asked why not, you claim that they cannot be because the two scenarios are equivalent.
The sad thing is, I don't think you even comprehend basic logic well enough to realize that this is fallacious.
Relativity is irrelevant? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you bring up this sphere nonsense as an example of how materialism treats indistinguishable objects? Are you now suggesting that materialism does not predict that your sphere example will function according to general relativity? If so, then it is you who are spouting off relevancies, not I.
So you admit it! You presented a thought experiment about materialism, but applied to it your own assumptions about what would happen, and not those of materialism. Thus your thought experiment says absolutely nothing about materialism. It just indicates that materialism is not compatible with your own ill conceived views of how things work.
No. As usual, you have no idea what relativity actually predicts.
No. That "paradox" can be resolved without any references to general relativity at all. The apparent symmetry which seems to lead to the paradox, is broken by the fact that the experiment begins, and ends, in the reference frame of one of the twins, and not the other.
Newton was convinced of a lot of things that were not true. So what?
Tommy,
Blah! Ditch all of that crap. What you need is some good old-fashioned Heavy Metal. Start yourself off with some soft and melodic, like Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath, and then work your way up to stuff like Slayer and Pantera.
Dr. Stupid
Re: BillHoyt, would you please share your rational side with us?
Gee, Titus, I'm just a lowly strip-club bouncer. I happened to see you make an assertion about theoretical biology and I happened to ask some theo. bio. guys who were apparently getting ready to do a lab practicum at the club, if ya know what I mean, to comment on it. After they read your claim, they spat out so much beer, I bought them another round on the house.
Now since that time, I've asked you to back up the claim that there is some kind of vitalism debate in theo. bio. circles, and you've been foaming at the mouth! On one occasion, you said you were talking about wholism, not vitalism. I fed back to you your quote, where this is clearly NOT the case! Then, when called upon for citations from peer-reviewed theo. bio. journals that give evidence of a vitalism debate, you tried a McCarthyesque appeal to unnamed authority. (I know I don't have much education. I got "McCarthyesque" from Tania, one of the club dancers. Her grand-momma was in Hollywood back in the 50s, and she was subjected to Senator McCarthy's House UnAmerican Activities committee abuse. As he accused her of being a Commie, he held up a buncha papers and said "I have here in my hand the names of communist party members that you've worked with in Hollywood, Miss Goodbody!" He never did name them, of course, much as you told us of these theo. bio. friends of yours whose names you couldn't divulge.)
Again, I don't have much of an education, except for what I learn from all these college-girl dancers, but they tell me that a simple "No, Bill, I have no evidence to back up that assertion" would have saved a whole lot of something they call "bandwidth". I dunno. I'm just a strip club bouncer. For my two cents, though, you would probably have saved yourself alot of embarassment and foaming at the mouth as well.
Cheers,
Titus Rivas said:Mr Irrelevant said:
Another question: where is the evidence for your reading abilities? Not on this forum I suppose.
Titus
Gee, Titus, I'm just a lowly strip-club bouncer. I happened to see you make an assertion about theoretical biology and I happened to ask some theo. bio. guys who were apparently getting ready to do a lab practicum at the club, if ya know what I mean, to comment on it. After they read your claim, they spat out so much beer, I bought them another round on the house.
Now since that time, I've asked you to back up the claim that there is some kind of vitalism debate in theo. bio. circles, and you've been foaming at the mouth! On one occasion, you said you were talking about wholism, not vitalism. I fed back to you your quote, where this is clearly NOT the case! Then, when called upon for citations from peer-reviewed theo. bio. journals that give evidence of a vitalism debate, you tried a McCarthyesque appeal to unnamed authority. (I know I don't have much education. I got "McCarthyesque" from Tania, one of the club dancers. Her grand-momma was in Hollywood back in the 50s, and she was subjected to Senator McCarthy's House UnAmerican Activities committee abuse. As he accused her of being a Commie, he held up a buncha papers and said "I have here in my hand the names of communist party members that you've worked with in Hollywood, Miss Goodbody!" He never did name them, of course, much as you told us of these theo. bio. friends of yours whose names you couldn't divulge.)
Again, I don't have much of an education, except for what I learn from all these college-girl dancers, but they tell me that a simple "No, Bill, I have no evidence to back up that assertion" would have saved a whole lot of something they call "bandwidth". I dunno. I'm just a strip club bouncer. For my two cents, though, you would probably have saved yourself alot of embarassment and foaming at the mouth as well.
Cheers,
Aha! Thanks for the correction.Stimpson J. Cat said:
My dad has a stack of records about 3 feet high. I'll see what he's got.Stimpson J. Cat said:
BTW, I noticed you used bad language as well in your post. Are you sure you don't listen to Eminem?
Tommy
(It's holidays so I'm up late - even dad's in bed - but I'd better go now.)
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Stimpy said:
~~ Paul
Yikes! Don't listen to him, Tommy! It's a plot to kill the brain cells of other humans. Stimpy is either a lying mongrel and doesn't listen to that stuff, or he's a freak of nature who can listen and not rot his brain. Anything past Black Sabbath is death music! Run away!
~~ Paul
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Stimpson J. Cat said:
I'm sick of explaining this to you.
I'm afraid it is. Let's make it even simpler. Consider what I quoted before:
"In Einstein's Universe, which has no reference point or common center of mass, inertial forces such as centrifugal forces for example, are generated even in the absence of the fixed stars, in
contrast to the earlier relativity theories of Berkeley and Mach. A
spinning Earth would, in a mysterious way, generate centrifugal force at the equator even if all other matter in the Universe was removed. This reverts back to Berkeley's argument, "How then can we say that the Earth is spinning and relative to what?""
http://www.colutron.com/download_files/chapt1.pdf
It could only conceivably be spinning relative to space. Therefore space must be absolute. Which is a nonsensical notion.
The point is there could not be any reason for them to be present since the 2 spheres could not be considered to be revolving around each other.
No, because incoherent. Consider the spinning earth in an otherwise empty Universe. The only way you can claim it is spinning is through physical effects such as centrifugal force. But here you simply are begging the question! Spinning is a cause of cntrifugal force. But you are defining it by the very presence of centrifugal force!
That is clearly absurd.it has absolutely nothing to do with materialism. It's a question of basic logic. How can one say the earth is spinning in an otherwise empty Universe?? The problem doesn't go away simply because one is a materialist!
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Damn, Stimpy. Way to go! Where would you fit Metallica?
BTW, could the problem in communication between you & Ian have something to do with as I understand it Ian has actually postulated two identical universes, not spheres in "the" universe. Question then is what contains 2 universes, and what laws control that?
Remember the Physics 101 trick question, "Define the universe, and give three examples."?