A Question on Light and Temperature

[Correa Neto]

Mathematics is perhaps the most powerfull investigation tool ever created (if the this word can really be used in this case) to investigated nature.

Mathematics probably can be used to study "intuitive senses", but I am not an expert on this issue. However, if among these are the so-called "remote viewing" and similar, statistical studies have already been carried out. And, despite contrary claims, results do not back their existence.

As to "intuitive reflex", under this denomination several different things can be placed. Backing up from something that is recognized as potentially dangerous, for example.

We build mathematical models that can predict the behavior of a given system. The level of accuracy depends on a number of variables. What you seem to be asking is if someday we may be able to model intuitions and tought patterns. I would tend to say yes, one day, when we achieve enough comprehension of the way the mind works and new technologies are developed.

But my point is that methods such as remote viewing, mediums and similar never managed to provide informations or descriptions as exact as science can do. Their results are vague, ambigous and quite often need a lot of interpretation and guess to make any sense. Interpretation that is always questionable.

No observation made by these alternate methods ever managed to provide solid information such as orbital parameters of an asteroid or the location, grade and tonnage of an ore deposit.

Beliving that they work, however may be a matter of personal choice, since beliving on them may provide a cozy confortable feeling for many people. However, this is quite different and independent from their existance or not. So far, I am not convinced they are real.

 

[Navigator]

Mathematics is perhaps the most powerfull investigation tool ever created (if the this word can really be used in this case) to investigated nature.

Mathematics probably can be used to study "intuitive senses", but I am not an expert on this issue. However, if among these are the so-called "remote viewing" and similar, statistical studies have already been carried out. And, despite contrary claims, results do not back their existence.

As to "intuitive reflex", under this denomination several different things can be placed. Backing up from something that is recognized as potentially dangerous, for example.

We build mathematical models that can predict the behavior of a given system. The level of accuracy depends on a number of variables. What you seem to be asking is if someday we may be able to model intuitions and tought patterns. I would tend to say yes, one day, when we achieve enough comprehension of the way the mind works and new technologies are developed.

But my point is that methods such as remote viewing, mediums and similar never managed to provide informations or descriptions as exact as science can do. Their results are vague, ambigous and quite often need a lot of interpretation and guess to make any sense. Interpretation that is always questionable.

No observation made by these alternate methods ever managed to provide solid information such as orbital parameters of an asteroid or the location, grade and tonnage of an ore deposit.

Beliving that they work, however may be a matter of personal choice, since beliving on them may provide a cozy confortable feeling for many people. However, this is quite different and independent from their existance or not. So far, I am not convinced they are real.

Greetings Correa Neto

This is one of the most healthiest discriptions I have read, regarding the subject.

I have some things to comment on in reply, and will contemplate these as I go for a drive.

Thank you for you input.

 

[Navigator]

As to "intuitive reflex", under this denomination several different things can be placed. Backing up from something that is recognized as potentially dangerous, for example.

Greetings Correa Neto

Well there have been numerous documented statements regarding intuition. Like those who have claimed to have had ‘strong feelings’ not to board flight, have heeded the ‘warning’ and seen on the news that the flight crashed.
I can’t say I have had ‘disaster’ premonitions (I think premonition is an intuitive reflex) but I can say that I don't know of anyone who does not have these ‘intuitions’ - whether these are mundane or spectacular is not important to science or mathematicians, as far as I would say.
Perhaps important to sceptics....
But, these are not all Scientists.
So regardless of spectacle, the important thing is to focus upon the common denominator of intuition, and communicate on this ground.
Most fertile.
Everything must be examined - eventually.

Intuition MUST be relative, because it DOES happen regularly with everybody. (Including sceptics?)
Therefore, there is no real reason that Science (in general) cannot include intuition into the overall equation of life as experienced as human beings on a planet earth speeding serenely through the cosmos with the rest of the heavens in companion.
(that was a mouthful)



Anyhoo...I don’t think actual intuition is questionable...only the claims as to what is said as being intuited.
“Spirits” and other ‘paranormal’ attributed to intuition.

So in this we share the same ‘point’ -

What you seem to be asking is if someday we may be able to model intuitions and tought patterns. I would tend to say yes, one day, when we achieve enough comprehension of the way the mind works and new technologies are developed.


Intuition exists, and therefore we will ‘intuit’ the tools in which to better measure it.
I don’t know if you are aware of my “Science of The Soul’ topic in JREF forum, but my claim is in essence, that I have developed a tool for exploring this intuitive nature in better detail.
From such a tool, far better ones could easily be developed, given the field of keen mindedness in every branch of Science.
Philosophy also deals with the subject of intuition, and indeed, these two Sciences link more productively could speed the process immensely.
As far as what “mind” is - well there is no telling how vast this thing is...this thing called ‘Mind’.


In Love

William

 

[SGT]

Well there have been numerous documented statements regarding intuition. Like those who have claimed to have had ‘strong feelings’ not to board flight, have heeded the ‘warning’ and seen on the news that the flight crashed.

William

To fly is almost frightening. Almost everyone has feelings before boarding a plane. Some people may even resign to travel because of these feelings. I would say that hundreds of people do that everyday and nothing happens, so they forget their premonitions.
Once in a while a plane crashes and someone that didn't board that plane believes to have had a genuine premonition. This is called selective thinking.

 

[Navigator]

Greetings SGT

To fly is almost frightening. Almost everyone has feelings before boarding a plane. Some people may even resign to travel because of these feelings. I would say that hundreds of people do that everyday and nothing happens, so they forget their premonitions.
Once in a while a plane crashes and someone that didn't board that plane believes to have had a genuine premonition. This is called selective thinking.

Selective thinking?
2: Which branch of Science named it that?
1: Are you saying that this branch of Science refers to 'intuition' as Selective Thinking?

I woke up this morning (hey! Great first line for a song!) and thought to myself, in relation to this thread unfolding topic, that we are at a very...juvenile stage of our evolution, and although the guesswork in some areas has stabalised into evidence, a lot of areas we are still completely ignorant of, and still guessing.

Maybe this is also 'Selective Thinking" and we will mature and progress into Collective Thinking eventually.

 

[SGT]

Greetings SGT





Selective thinking?
2: Which branch of Science named it that?
1: Are you saying that this branch of Science refers to 'intuition' as Selective Thinking?

Psycology calls it that. Do you believe psycology is a science?
For more information on selective thinking, please read:
http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html

 

[Navigator]

Psycology calls it that. Do you believe psycology is a science?
For more information on selective thinking, please read:
http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html

I believe in anything which grows and expands, rather than stays put and pouts.



You are saying that this branch of science regards intuition as 'selective thinking'?
I will check out the link...

 

[Navigator]

selective thinking
A:
Selective thinking is the process whereby one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus, while ignoring unfavorable evidence for a belief.

B:
This kind of thinking is the basis for most beliefs in the psychic powers of so-called mind readers and mediums. It is also the basis for many, if not most, occult and pseudoscientific beliefs.


http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html

A: Of course, this was in answer to my stating that I have heard of those who get a strong intuitive reflex NOT to go flying.
I did not assume that the person was normally afriad to fly, and know that their are many individuals who love to fly.
(this is to say, that not everybody who flies, is always afriad to fly)
Then, based upon this intuit feeling, the person decides not to take the flight and the flight crashes, it is resonable for the individual to associate the intuitive feeling + the decision not to fly + the fact that the plane crashed, as a good argument in favour of not only recognising the intuition as a tool, but to develop the potential of that tool, for the apparent purpose it seem intended for.
Under this light, I don;t see how sceptics can argue that intuition and more importantly, acting on intuition, is invalid, by reducing it's potential to something called "Selective thinking."
If anything, it is the sceptic who is guilty of selective thinking in this case.

B: The general discriptive of selective thinking can be attributed to most (if not all) branches of beliefs, including scepticism.
In other words, such thinking practice is not limited to those who are religious or occultist.

Cheers!

 

[LucyR]

Of course, this was in answer to my stating that I have heard of those who get a strong intuitive reflex NOT to go flying.
I did not assume that the person was normally afriad to fly, and know that their are many individuals who love to fly.
(this is to say, that not everybody who flies, is always afriad to fly)
Then, based upon this intuit feeling, the person decides not to take the flight and the flight crashes, it is resonable for the individual to associate the intuitive feeling + the decision not to fly + the fact that the plane crashed, as a good argument in favour of not only recognising the intuition as a tool, but to develop the potential of that tool, for the apparent purpose it seem intended for.

Much too lazy to read the whole thread, but have you considered the number of individuals who had a correct intuition that their plane would crash vs. the number who had an incorrect intuition that it would crash?

It comes down to coincidence, I think. And selective memory of course.

 

[Navigator]

Much too lazy to read the whole thread, but have you considered the number of individuals who had a correct intuition that their plane would crash vs. the number who had an incorrect intuition that it would crash?

It comes down to coincidence, I think. And selective memory of course.

Before we get too bogged down, I used the plane crash situation as one point of reference.

I don't think intuition is limited to what can and cannot be intuited.

So we may be speaking of different things. Or some may prefer to see intuition as selective thinking.

As far as 'coincidence' goes, like serendipity and synchronicity, these are all the same.
Putting associations on to coincidence might well rub some beliefs up the wrong way, but I am one person who has seen strings of coincidences together show definate patterns of intelligence and design, not to brashly brush it aside as 'just' coincidence.

This is majorly because I prefer to have both eyes open.

So the subject is not 'selective thinking' as much as it is, 'intuitive thinking.'
The two are not the same.

Also - by pooh poohing coincidence, ones steps solidly into the realms of selective thinking, and can be blind to this fact, while pointing it out to others.

In closing - selective thinking is a process, and as such, everybdy does it. They select what they want to think about and ignor what they don't want to think about.

Some possibilities frighten some individuals.
The answer or antidote to selective thinking, is to unlimit the thought processes and boldly step into arenas that challenge the mind to expand rather than retreat.

 

[SGT]

Navigator

What LucyR and I are saying is that everybody, believers and skeptics alike, have hundreds of intuitions everyday. Most of these don't happen and we forget them, but once in a while an intuition turns to reality and we assign importance to it. This is selective thinking: to select only the facts that corroborate our opinion forgetting the ones that don't.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Navigator

What LucyR and I are saying is that everybody, believers and skeptics alike, have hundreds of intuitions everyday. Most of these don't happen and we forget them, but once in a while an intuition turns to reality and we assign importance to it. This is selective thinking: to select only the facts that corroborate our opinion forgetting the ones that don't.

Or, possibly, deducing something, or predicting something based on previously observed patterns, and attributing the accuracy of the prediction to "intuition" or something like that, rather than experience of logic.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator

What LucyR and I are saying is that everybody, believers and skeptics alike, have hundreds of intuitions everyday. Most of these don't happen and we forget them, but once in a while an intuition turns to reality and we assign importance to it. This is selective thinking: to select only the facts that corroborate our opinion forgetting the ones that don't.

This is good, and thank you for clarifing.

The subject topic of "Intuition" deserves a thread of it's own.

Cheers.

 

[Navigator]

I have been thinking about this topic of light.

I was wondering - we can measure the speed of light - how is invisible light measured in terms of how fast it is travelling?

 

[davidhorman]

I was wondering - we can measure the speed of light - how is invisible light measured in terms of how fast it is travelling?

Do you think visible light is measured by someone watching photons whizz past?

We are technically advanced enough to build machines that can detect wavelengths of light other than visible.

David

 

[davidhorman]

Double post

 

[Navigator]

Do you think visible light is measured by someone watching photons whizz past?

We are technically advanced enough to build machines that can detect wavelengths of light other than visible.

David

No - My Question implied that observable light can be measured for speed.
How fast are these invisible parts of light travelling

 

[Soapy Sam]

c

 

[hammegk]

Or we could say that measurement in any reference frame results in "c".

A photon -- onboard clock stopped -- has all the Time there ever was, is, or will be to be everywhere at once to any "observer".

 

[Navigator]

Hmm - I will assume that 'c' is the speed of light?

So invisible light is also travelling at the same speed as visible light?

Faster?

Slower?