Leaderboard

Please proceed then. So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant. I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

Someone who liked base 10 more than base 8.

Yep. You are right. 😊

This might just be what Einstein might have referred to as un-spooky action at no distance...

I know, I didn't mean it seriously. Even Einstein used the term spooky to describe something scientific. I think the term spooky can be used to describe something that hasn't or can't be explained, without it meaning ghosts.

Is available on my screen so is likely local to your browser. The icon looks like a chain link beside the smilies and quote option. Try refreshing your browser. If it still fails, just manually wrap the text in URL tags in the following syntax (no spaces): [ url=www.link.com]hyperlink text here then close URL tag[ /url] Here’s how it renders once you do: hyperlink text here then close URL tag

Similar situation where monks decided to build their monasteries, the meteora in Greece. The natural beauty enhanced by baffling human creativity. Meteora net lift, 1908 by Frédéric Boissonnas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frédéric_Boissonnas

Nope. These are based on scientific discoveries that were built upon other scientific discoveries. Babylonian science discovered that the sun is a God. Gluttons for punishment?

The tepuis (tepuyes in Spanish) from Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana and Colombia. Karst topography is awesome almost beyond words or concepts. But not beyond belief, because it's there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepui Because the first continents had no plant cover to protect them from erosion, for eons upon eons sediments formed over vast regions, which later became exposed to more selective wearing down, sculpting canyons, plateaus, grottos, and seemingly bottomless chasms. That's what a blind, unconstrained by intention, relentless force can do. No thinking is necessary, if given enough time. Gigantic pillars carved out of the depositions of a long-lost world, where once big dinosaurs roamed, and tiny mammals scurried around, waiting for their moment to arrive, these monuments are silent, patient witnesses to the existence of Gondwana. No human-made temple is remotely comparable to this. No religious feeling can echo in our minds what the first people coming from the Bering Strait must have felt when they first saw this more than 15'000 years ago. Picture from: https://hananpacha1.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/tepuy/ (In Spanish.)

No shit...

Nobody has disputed that. But the house is not. Similarly, the potential for intelligence is there in pond scum, but intelligence is not there. So, you were wrong to say "These means that intelligence must have always existed."

That's not a fact. It's barely an hypothesis. Even if it was true then questioning ideas would still be important. You put forward an idea "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals. What then are the implications?" The idea you put forward was that you noticing something about a broken rock has (implicitly, significant) implications. Well, prove it...

Your experience is not suprising or unusual. The chemical reactions that provide the electricity don't stop completely, they just get slower and slower and slower.... Eventually they get to a state that they can't provide the necessary current to drive the clock continuously so it goes in fits and starts, the time between the starts gradually lengthening until it is stopped more than it is going. It probably 'started' (and stoped) several times when you were not there. Does this help ?

What kind of comment you are looking for? Since tSpeech is undefined I guess you shared a part of a program. As far as I can tell the the programs posted above provides random answers based on input and training data, potentially providing quite humorous responses (which may be the intention). It also illustrates typical issues with a naive approach towards NLP; that insight may be useful when studying more useful methods.

How does one “let” some other one think? The profound arrogance embedded in and oozing out from this statement is staggering. You cannot even control your own thoughts, Bart. It’s time for you to take a pause from suggesting that you ought to control the content of others thoughts and to instead amplify awareness of your own copious opportunities to minimize the heavy burden of ignorance.

Wiki. Contemporary english.

Sometimes people with high IQs are just better at rationalising their bad decisions. Sometimes people with high IQs use them to con people with low IQs. (I leave it as an exercise for the student to think of any noteworthy examples.) Sometimes people with high IQs are smart enough to avoid politics. Sometimes people with high IQs are too busy making posts on science forums.

That seems pretty close. Add the missing " after the string and the code will run:

Yes, moss is a major contributor to soil formation where there is no soil. How does that contradict the fact that moss grows on rock, with no soil? That's what it does, and you said it. And more importantly, what does that have to do with the Babylonians? If you don't subscribe to modern science, my suggestion is: Don't use electricity, ok? Use Babylonian science only.

That, is actually brilliant. Maybe tomato-hachiya sauce with a little corn vinegar.

No. It depends a lot on what exactly you mean by the qualifier "pretty much", though. I for example am on the autism spectrum (I have Asperger's), which I consider to be a form of neurodivergence, rather than a disability - I'm differently abled, not disabled. I have noticed all my life that my approach to solving certain problems can be very different from the way a neurotypical person would approach the same problem, so clearly my built-in framework is subtly different compared to that of others. Sometimes that's an advantage, other times it's a hindrance, depending on circumstance.

I have tried discussing this before but my threads are always shut down. After shutting the last one down I got a message for the admins saying I should lead with the evidence. Well the first thing you need to read is this: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ The big bang has had its time, everytime the data has falisfied it, its been saved by adding a modern day epicycle, inflation and dark matter being examples of this, there is no underlying reason for them they are just there to balance the equations. The LHC has produced nothing new and scientists say nature is not giving them any clues. Its about time we had a serious discussion about 'why' reality is mathematical because the theory I am proposing self-evidently explains 'why' reality is mathematical, not only physically, but metaphyscially. Now the key in the last sentence is 'self-evident' because the admins asked me to lead with the evidence, well the theory IS the evidence. If some is murdered police will gather evidence and develop a theory as to what happened, that is what scientists are doing at the moment. However, if you see or film the murder there is no need to develop a theory because you know what happened. And that is what it is like with this theory. And its a little different to current theories because if true it would not be a theory, it would be a fact, it would be the final truth about the universe and would put an end to theological and theoretical ideas about the universe. I can reduce physics to a single object, a unit of polymorphic spacetime of which the universe is entirely composed. This implements the rule Wolfram is looking for. Now you can close my thread down if you want, I am indifferent to what I consider poor attitudes towards other peoples perspectives in the scientific community. But let start here, please tell me 'why' reality is mathematical, if you cant, show some humility and open your minds to what I am presenting.

In this video, Richard Dawkins, a leading light in biology says one should remain humble and open minded. However, actions speak louder than words and despite preaching humilty and openess he is in fact arrogant and close minded. This is a serious problem amongst scientists, it hubris. Some of the people on this forum are suffering from the same thing. Please explain to me how potential does not exist prior to manfesting is some form or another. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so, leaving the only other option, that something must exist as potential prior to becoming actual. This doesnt make any sense: Since the definition of potential requires that the thing in question not exist YET, then nothing can possibly exist as potential, and in fact, nothing does exist as potential. Please elaborate.

Ok, but its not wrong to say that intelligence has always existed as potential at least.

I didn't call it 'meditation'. Where do you see I called this word?

I don't subscribe to modern science. Here's why: That genuine science began as a branch of ancient philosophy. Modern science disowns it's ancestry for the sake of modern commercial interests, primarily institutions descending from mass manufactures. So this thread concerns the science I subscribe to, that being ancient science. That being said, I noticed today in my natural observations, some moss growing along the railroad as I was doing my daily winter rounds for next year's crop. And I remembered how moss will grow without soil and actually manufacture it. I remembered how vivid green it grows even sometimes on manmade concrete. I remembered that modern science objects, saying that the moss utilizes a minimal amount of soil in such circumstances. But I discovered some moss a few weeks ago growing on rock projecting laterally where soil could not have been. And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals. What then are the implications?

Because we let them think they invented the calculator; the first was five fingers on the left, and five fingers on the right. Who made that one?

You're either a very poor reader or very hasty "(or worse)".

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here. Philosophy is the parent. https://www.google.com/search?q=word+origin+philosophy&oq=word+origin+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57.12449j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

It's intellectual dishonesty coming from you. Only you mentioned the word mediation and you wrote it in your post. Prove me wrong. Try to be more careful with the terms and with the logic when you're trying to make fine points.