Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

I have stated often Robert Wright as my favorite dialectician. I would request that a few of you whom are interested take a look at this exchange between Wright and Daniel Dennet, who probably is the GodFather of materialist reductionism in philosophy.

Daniel Dennet is a perfect example of a brilliant man who understands the 1 value, understands the 0 value, but has NO understanding of the 2 value.

This is apparent in this exchange when Dennet creates contradictions with his philosophy on consciouness. Wright concludes that Dennet is basically saying concsciouness does not exist, and he is correct in concluding that about Dennet.

Wright says this because Dennet cannot identify 'experience', only 'hard-ware'.

I agree with Dennet on many things, he is a genius at the first value. Dennet sees the 'conflict' in our brains and the 'winning' element being consciousness. Indeed, Dennet would agree with the phrase "I am always winning" in terms of consciousness.

Dennet also does an amazing job of clarifying that 'ethics' are an eternaly true princaple, and we can come to develop a perfect objective criteria for 'morals', which is in complete harmony with OS 012.

Yet he is lost when it comes to the value of 2, he cannot account for it, and avoids addresssing it critically. To dennet, there is no 2 value in existence, it's an illusion. What he misses is that it is a very real illusion, and has existence!

These are two very brilliant men, and Robert Wright's arguments are HIGHLY similar to mine, and Dennet's arguments are HIGHLY Similar to all of yours.

two schools of thought. One school includes both schools by default, and that is what STUMPS the other school.

Enjoy

http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=dennett&topic=complete

 

[WWHP]

Blimey Mojo, whay has it taken you so long to start scoring Bubb on this?

I challenge anyone reading this to find where there are contradictions in my princaple argument.

I challenge anyone to produce contradictory statements to reality in my princaple argument.

I challenge anyone to copy the arguments where I explain how great this is but refuse to explain it's theoritical nature logically and rationally.

But then I am a hidebound reactionary.

...20 points to me, w00t!...

Indeed, I hope others are keeping score too.


BF

 

[Mojo]

Hawkins

5 points.

 

[WWHP]

5 points.

Keep playing magical games with magical evaluations Mojo. Your addings and subtracting of magical values does not refute my arguments


BF

 

[Mojo]

Your addings and subtracting of magical values does not refute my arguments

The fact that you appear totally unable to get anyone to agree with you does that.

 

[jimbob]

Bubblefish,

I'll come back on the philosophy a little later:

earlier you asked me for a history of perpetual motion scams:

Wiki has quite a comprehensive list (even if the article "needs cleanup" thebasic story can be told)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

Look how many there are:

A selection:

In 1812, Charles Redheffer, in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a "generator" that could power other machines. Upon investigation, it was deduced that the power was being routed from the other connected machine. Robert Fulton exposed Redheffer's schemes during an exposition of the device in New York City (1813). Removing some concealing wooden strips, Fulton found a cat-gut belt drive went through a wall to an attic. In the attic, a man was turning a crank to power the device.

In 1870, E. P. Willis of New Haven, Connecticut made money off a "proprietary" perpetual motion machine. A story of the overly complicated device with a hidden source of energy appears in Scientific America article "The Greatest Discovery Ever Yet Made". Investigation into the device eventually found a source of power that drove it. [17]

Guido Franch reportedly had a process of transmuting water atoms into high-octane gasoline compounds (named Mota fuel) that would decrease the price of gasoline down to 8 cents per gallon. This process involved a green powder (this claim may be related to the similar ones of John Andrews (1917)). He was brought to court for fraud in 1954 but acquitted; but in 1973 was convicted. Justice William Bauer and Justice Philip Romiti both observed a demonstration in the 1954 case.

I have to go now...

JIm

In 1978, Robert Stewart developed a freon machine which could operate at the freezing point from vaporation by radiant heat for a closed cycle engine. The vapor does not condense to liquid to start the cycle over again, however, thus making the system inoperable. This design may be related to John Gamgee's work (1882). Stewart reportedly gained over $3,000,000 of investment money (much from farmers). Stewart later disappeared.

 

[WWHP]

Jimbob,

How many claims were there about flying machines before the wright brothers?

How many claims in science have thier been that were also proven to be hoaxes? (I am trying to remember the name, the discovery of ancient human skeletons in britain somewhere)

James Randi himself has committed hoaxes! Do you assume that every statement James Randi makes is therefore also a hoax?

A=A.

We can only make a certain claim about a hoax after it is verified it is a hoax, and I find no wiki entry on steorn's claim being a hoax/scam

[EDIT: AND THEY ARE NOT TAKING MONEY OR ASKING FOR MONEY UNTIL THEY PROVE THIER EXPERIMENT WITH SCIENCE. So how can you scam someone unless you take thier money?)

 

[WWHP]

The fact that you appear totally unable to get anyone to agree with you does that.

There is so much agreement with the values of OS 012 all over this thread, it's funny.

Truth passes through three stages, remember?

1.) First it is rediculed (badscience.net and calling me a 'troll')

2.) Second, It is violently opposed (badscience.net {COMING TO} JREF forums, with fevered attempts to refute me, shame me, humiliate me)

3.) thirdly, it is claimed to be self evident (i.e., the stage we are now at, as in 'OS 012 isn't anything new, we already know that!)


Sheesh, it's the most predictable thing in the world once you get it.

Please dont value how things appear as objectivly true, rather question how things appear to you and engage in dialectic, what you once thought was true may surprise you!



BF

 

[Z]

Rome, the problem is what is being claimed, is not possible. Flight was theoretically possible - daVinci demonstrated as much in his mathematics. Human skeletal remains are found all the time - there's no reason to doubt such as fraud, initially. Yes, some nay-sayers tried to say that flight would never be possible, but those were the undereducated few - the same people who, today, attempt to convince others that perpetual motion and overenergy machines are possible.

See, this is the real problem: a device that has vastly greater output than input would violate the very fundamental principles under which the universe operates. In short, it's a device that simply isn't possible. This device would literally have to be pulling matter or energy out of thin air - worse, out of nothing at all - and aside from a few magicians' tricks, that's never, ever happened.

It's not that this claim is akin to flight or human remains - it's more that this claim is akin to fairies or lead that rises instead of falls. It is a demonstrably fantastic claim, that's been tried again and again and again, and has ALWAYS been one of two things: a misunderstanding, or a hoax.

I'm voting for B) based on reading their financial and activity records since their inception; the company floundered and basically vanished for a short time, before returning with this new Orbo brewing in their garages. But I am willing to accept A). I'm even willing to accept that they have found what they claim they have, but that would be a truly world-shaking event that would usher us into an all-new age, one that would begin with warfare on a scale you cannot imagine. After all, he who owns the first inexhaustible, non-resource-consuming power source, WILL dominate the planet. It's inevitable.

It's the Holy Grail in the power industry, Rome. Lots of people look for it, lots of people claim to find it, but it just never existed in the first place.

 

[Timanfaya]

5 points.

Good one!

 

[WWHP]

Good one!

PV, is this you? Are you committing sock puppetry?

 

[WWHP]

edit double post

 

[WWHP]

Rome, the problem is what is being claimed, is not possible.

according to wikipedia, no scientist can make the claim that violation of the second law is impossible, just highly unlikely

Flight was theoretically possible - daVinci demonstrated as much in his mathematics.

according to the scientist I believed that helped develop the second law, air flight was impossible.

Human skeletal remains are found all the time - there's no reason to doubt such as fraud, initially.

Why not? If there was skeleton frames that were found to disprove our concepts of evolution, I'm sure those would get called hoaxes too. Even the cave paintings found in france were called hoaxes by academia because such advancements in creative expression contradicted thier views on anthropology

Yes, some nay-sayers tried to say that flight would never be possible, but those were the undereducated few - the same people who, today, attempt to convince others that perpetual motion and overenergy machines are possible.

this is not an historical accurate statement. They were not naysayers, they were men of science who were saying it was impossible.

See, this is the real problem: a device that has vastly greater output than input would violate the very fundamental principles under which the universe operates.

No, it would be in accordance to how the universe operates, and would be conflicting to our models of how the universe operates

In short, it's a device that simply isn't possible.

according to wikipedia, no scientist could claim that violation of the second law is impossible

This device would literally have to be pulling matter or energy out of thin air - worse, out of nothing at all - and aside from a few magicians' tricks, that's never, ever happened.

YOu can't say how it would work, your not a scientist. Perhaps it is pulling energy from another dimension, who knows? (did'nt azimov write a novel about the discovery of a free energy device that pulled energy from another universe?)

It's not that this claim is akin to flight or human remains - it's more that this claim is akin to fairies or lead that rises instead of falls. It is a demonstrably fantastic claim, that's been tried again and again and again, and has ALWAYS been one of two things: a misunderstanding, or a hoax.

It may still be a misunderstanding on steorn's part, that is a possibility i consider

I'm voting for B) based on reading their financial and activity records since their inception; the company floundered and basically vanished for a short time, before returning with this new Orbo brewing in their garages.

I dont think I would agree with that OP/ED on thier company

But I am willing to accept A). I'm even willing to accept that they have found what they claim they have, but that would be a truly world-shaking event that would usher us into an all-new age, one that would begin with warfare on a scale you cannot imagine. After all, he who owns the first inexhaustible, non-resource-consuming power source, WILL dominate the planet. It's inevitable.

Now you can predict the future? Naturally, it would usher in a new age, and that is going to happen regardless. I dont mean New Age the way 'woos' use the term, but rather 'new age' to mean 'new age'. HUmanity is on the cusp of a new age, technology is bringing us hyper intelligence, longevity, and space travel. That's a new age, baby, and we will have that with or without Steorn's device.

And if all sides have access to 'infinite wealth', then there is no need for war over resource, I find your evaluation irrational here.

and I think what causes the reaction of the fundamentalist disbelievers is the 'terror' of the vision of what a 'new age' will be. it's an unknown, and they are afraid to consider the unknown, because no matter what happens, our global paradigm is about to be undone, and a new one is coming no matter what any of us do.

It's the Holy Grail in the power industry, Rome. Lots of people look for it, lots of people claim to find it, but it just never existed in the first place.

The holy grail most certainly did exist as a historical object if jesus existed as an historical person. The holy grail does exist as a metaphor as well, as a 'myth' that one can use to find truth. Read Joseph cambell, you too can find the holy grail!


BF

 

[trvlr2]

Well, Bubblefish, invest all you have in this great stuff-later, you will be able to spit on us poor skeptics!
I await the righteous saliva!

NOT!

 

[Z]

PLEASE spell the man's name right, Rome. It's NOT 'AZIMOV', it's Asimov.

Spell it right, or the discussion is over.

 

[WWHP]

Well, Bubblefish, invest all you have in this great stuff-later, you will be able to spit on us poor skeptics!
I await the righteous saliva!

NOT!

OS 012 is PURE SKEPTICISM exalted to it's FURTHEST POTENTIAL.

Dont confuse fundamentalist disbelief with skepticism, and I dont wish to spit on you, I wish to see you CLEAR and HONEST

 

[WWHP]

PLEASE spell the man's name right, Rome. It's NOT 'AZIMOV', it's Asimov.

Spell it right, or the discussion is over.

it's Asimov, cleary-o...

and the discussion is never over until there is resolution, it will continue on in the mind alone or with another human being. That's just how we are hardwired.The mind doesnt accept spelling errors as a cancel or allow function, only resolution

BF

 

[WWHP]

Here is Steorn's claim in thier own words. Are these deceptive words, wished to mislead? Or are these honest words, given in a sense of openess, with full disclosure, seeking only independent scientific validation?

Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely.
The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007.

 

[Z]

Here is Steorn's claim in thier own words. Are these deceptive words, wished to mislead? Or are these honest words, given in a sense of openess, with full disclosure, seeking only independent scientific validation?

Considering that they have not, in fact, released anything TO the scientific community, but rather have HIRED a team of 'experts' for a year for undisclosed procedures, behind closed doors... I'm afraid, R, that these words do appear deceptive and misleading.

Paid scientists under company orders are a bane of scientific honesty. Think of the medical experts under hire from the Big Tobacco industries, and some of THEIR 'expert opinions'...

Until Steorn releases their data or devices for independent study and analysis, they're not being open and honest. They may be being good businessmen; they may be cautious, and savvy with regards to the potential for some other agencies to steal their tech; but they are definitely NOT being open and honest.

Quick clue: putting scientists on the company payroll automatically compromises the 'independent' portion of that requirement.

 

[WWHP]

Considering that they have not, in fact, released anything TO the scientific community, but rather have HIRED a team of 'experts' for a year for undisclosed procedures, behind closed doors... I'm afraid, R, that these words do appear deceptive and misleading.

Zaay, look at how misleading your own language is! You say they hire a team of 'experts'. The team of 'experts' are a member of the set scientific academic community picked from another set of a few thousand applications to test thier claim with the criteria of 'most skeptical' and academically qualified. They have even selected members from their forum, voted on as most skeptical by forum members, to fly out there, view thier list of scientists, sign and NDA, and report back that all 12 members are indeed extremly highly qualified.

And the 'secrecy' behind closed doors, as you so misleadingly put it, is nothing more than the 'secrecy' that any pharmacutical or bio tech company would have regarding thier own product. Yet once the tests are complete, Steorn will publish and release the full details.

Paid scientists under company orders are a bane of scientific honesty. Think of the medical experts under hire from the Big Tobacco industries, and some of THEIR 'expert opinions'...

Thier expert opinions, if shown in peer reviewed literature, would still have to stand the test of the academic community. Science is science. Badscience.com specializes in critiquing such 'reports' you mention. To assume that 12 scientists, all working independently of each other, would come to the same result that would 'fool' the academic community is a stretch.

Until Steorn releases their data or devices for independent study and analysis, they're not being open and honest.

That's not true, they have released it to independent study. Because Steorn compensates the scientists for their time is no reason to assume fraud, that is ludicrous. The experiments will take a very long time, did you expect 12 scientists to conduct experiments with no funding?

All appears to be being done well and with buisness way regarding Steorn.

They may be being good businessmen; they may be cautious, and savvy with regards to the potential for some other agencies to steal their tech; but they are definitely NOT being open and honest.

They are being open and honest about what they are doing. they are claiming to have stumbled upon a technology that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. They are not asking anyone to believe their claim, rather, they have sought and found 12 members from the scientific academic community to test it independently, and request that we believe their claim only when the scientists have either verified or refuted their claim.

Quick clue: putting scientists on the company payroll automatically compromises the 'independent' portion of that requirement.

That's absurd, if it were true, absolutly no advancements in medicine, biotechnology, or computer technology would ever have happened. You cant fake science and have it still work, that's rediculous.

Hehe, but I do like your reversal, now your skeptical of the scientists!

BF