Mart

What? I didn't mean an actual business. I meant it was my intention to act in a one way and not another. Yes there are. I do. Do you? Have you ever had experience of someone deliberately trying to confuse you? Have you ever deliberately tried to confuse someone?

If you think there is a nature which is distinct from a model of nature than there is a big problem. This has to be an assumption unless you have had direct experience of nature - nature as it is and not seen through our models. It could be that all there is are models of nature.

Good riposte. I like it. However, it always helps if we are trying to reach an understanding that terms used are mutally agreed and known to be agreed. I think this may be a basis for "forms of evidence". Of course, if your intention is to confuse people then anything goes. And again, you may confuse people without intending to. I'm not in the business of trying to confuse people. What about you?

Anthropomorphisation? Is that a DubYa-type word? I know I am conscious. You know you are conscious. Or do you? How can I be sure? You could be a Zombie - no offence intended - Zombie is a technical term for a creature without consciousness which behaves in exactly the same way as someone with consciousness. I assume you are conscious but I have no empirical evidence for my assumption. And I assume that if you and I are both human then we share human-like characteristics. I also assume that humans and other animals have some similar characteristics. Consciousness may be one of them although it may not be like human consciousness. Whatever consciousness is I know I have some of it Are you conscious? Can you prove it to me?

One wrong one will do. Can you give me an incorrect statement?

I think we're using the word experience in two different ways. My use means "what it is like" for me. When I say "I feel pain" I'm referring to an unpleasant experience that I can tell you about. I'm not referring to the source of the pain (the injury) or to the body's unconscious response to that injury. You can see my injury but you can't see my pain.

The problem is that some mathematical models of nature predict outcomes much better than others. So it seems that either the models have some fundamental connection with what they represent or what we take to be nature is in reality our model of nature.

Sayonara³, this was the question I asked you Do you mean by characteristic something like the intersection of the shadow-volume with the ground and by identity as the shadow-volume (and the ground)? This was your answer What stops you answering my simple question with a simple answer? Why do you complicate the situation by referring to something else which is only indirectly connected? Here's my question again Do you mean by characteristic something like the intersection of the shadow-volume with the ground and by identity as the shadow-volume ? Attempt to answer my question in a direct and simple way. You can do it. Try.

Have you ever had an experience of pain that you didn't experience consciously. If you have, what was it like?

When a jury convicts it does so on the basis of probabilities. The jury doesn't know for certain whether the accused is guilty in the sense that they really did it. In many cases only the accused can know that for certain. So in a court of law whether a person is or is not a monster is not the issue. The issue is whether the crime is considered monstrous enough to deserve the death penalty. There are many crimes that I think require the death penalty. What worries me are the people who commit such acts. Especially when they show no remorse and may not even view their acts as wrong.

So we are objects of space-time. But unlike rocks and stones we have consciousness. Does this mean that space-time has consciousness?

If creatures experience pain they would have to be conscious' date=' wouldn't they? Is it possible to [b']experience[/b] pain and be unconscious (not aware)?

So would you say that objects and space-time are not separate? Like say frequency is not separate from wavelength when we think about waves?

Thanks Cap'n. What worries me about his site is he seems to a non-expert like me to be acting rationally and seems to have some good knowledge of the subject. I expect you're an expert and can spot his crankiness. I can't. Of course, my problem extends to every area where I'm not an expert : there are so many! So I either I have to trust your judgement (or someone with your depth of knowledge) or take the long route (like you will have done) and study the details. It seems to me that topics of this type should be confined to an expert forum or at least have a health warning.

Do you mean by charateristic something like the intersection of the shadow-volume with the ground and by identity as the shadow-volume (and the ground)?

I'm not an expert in Atomic Physics. Can you point out to me the first thing on the site that you know to be wrong?

They don't know everything. They do know more about some things than you do or I do. That's good. They can help us if they want to. Unfortunately some people who have a lot of knowledge in certain areas don't want to share it. You may not need to try harder. You may just need to try things in a different way. If your attempt to solve a problem isn't working search for other methods.

I'm puzzled. If you are not required to do them then why bother?

Thank you

Please explain

Wouldn't it be safer to say that a sleeping person has less self-awareness than when they're awake. This all or nothing stuff bugs me. Of course, if Nature is fundamentally digital then I'll have to rethink

It's a two stage problem. Draw a piicture of the situation. Place the distance numbers that you know in the picture. Use X to show the distance number you don't know. Use similar triangles to equate your numbers. Then you will be able to find X using some algebra. That's the first part. Second part follows after you've done this (that's when you use the 6 feet per second. You need to do this for yourself. If you get stuck attach the picture you drew and we can continue.