geordief

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1075
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

geordief last won the day on August 25 2016

geordief had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About geordief

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

7016 profile views
  1. On another forum I wondered whether philosophy might be defined as the skill of turning one's intellectual (and emotional ,presumably ?) attention inwards in addition to the coping mechanism we all develop and which feeds on and organising the consequences of external stimuli . My point** ,in the thread I started was that this facility could be programmed into an artificial machine and so would allow "robots" to become thinkers in the round.The "philosophy" they would build from scratch would be based on their own external sensory stimuli allied to an internal questioning of how they arrived at the responses they did (and possibly the authority to tamper with their own inner processes or micro programs) We might call the result an "artificial philospophy" .As with our own philosophy ,it would vary from one machine to another and develop over time. I am not advocating going down this road ,but if it is feasible then maybe it is also going to happen whatever we may or may not wish. **apart from the simple idea that philosophy could also be "artificial".
  2. What is that? Is there an interface(or common ground) between philosophy and scientific research?
  3. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    Sure. Without good cause I was wondering whether you leant towards the view that we actually change events in the physical world by "thinking about them" Some people (not myself) do seem to believe that in a half baked way . It is not a view amenable to scientific discussion in my view but is doubtless entertaining to those who are attracted to it.(can't give you anything like chapter and verse on the subject-surprised you are unfamiliar with it by the way;I think it is quite a common unscientific belief **) **no innuendo intended
  4. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    No ,you have answered it fine. I was just unsure as to whether this was relevant to your question and the way you might have been framing it. I can now see it is not (I think my concern was off topic)
  5. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    Does "observation" (for you) involve a change in the structure of the brain (or psyche?)of the experimenter or does it (as I would understand it) a hurdle in the experimental apparatus that the wave must pass?
  6. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    Bigger fleas have little fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em And little fleas have lesser fleas And so on, ad infinitum Spike Milligan
  7. Referring to posts in threads

    That should help since multiquote seems to be automatic (up to a certain time delay I expect)
  8. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    I also like it . It seems to help me with my self questioning "when is a slit a slit?" "(I am starting from scratch ,just trying to keep up with the posse at the closest distance possible )
  9. Posts don't seem to have numbers . How can I say which one I am talking about without actually using the quote function?
  10. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    Is that from AK's programme?(no I don't know what is missing) Btw I found Dalo's Single Slit Interface video ten or so posts back revelatory (and this thread comparatively easy to follow) Is that video totally uncontraversial (insofar as anything can be)?
  11. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    When I thought it couldn't get any stranger...... The interference pattern doesn't change in "real time " surely? It doesn't "reverse itself" surely .?That would be madness. Have you a link that describes this experiment?
  12. The double slit experiment and Superposition

    Does the burden of proof actually lie on those who believe that measurements can be made without interference?** Do they have to produce an example of a measurement that can be made without interference ?(interference in the sense of "affect" rather than the possibly related "interference pattern") ** I think I have heard that measurements can be made indirectly but am not clear on this.
  13. Black hole?

    Thanks. I'll have a look at that.
  14. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    So is the problem more in the organisations where the offenses take place than in the actual state bodies tasked to investigate them?