TJ McCaustland

Yeah sure, And our Universe is a collection of gas and hard balls spinning around each other. That's it.

 

To the OP, if you're interested in split brain and alternative approaches to neuroscience maybe you can take a look at David Bohm and Karl Pribram Holonomic Brain Theory and also to the theory of the Bicameral Man. The Holonomic Brain theory basically states that the brain works with spatio temporal signals as well as in frequency domain. In the paradigm of this theory one hemisphere is probably more efficient at processing spatial signals and the other hemisphere more efficient at processing frequency signals. This could explain some things as the duplicity of consciousness in cases of split brain, differences between right handed and left handed people and even things that usually are closer to pseudoscience like out of body experiences and such.

 

To put it with an example:

 

1. You watch a video.

2. Your brain translates the spatio temporal information into its component frequencies in order to storage the information efficiently, via Fourier Transform (this is the great question of this theory, how the brain or the matter itself performs it).

3. If you want to remember the video, your brain takes the frequency components and via Inverse Fourier Transform gives you back the original spatial signal.

 

Of course this process would have some added noise.

 

I just don't know how all of David Bohm's amazing theories have been rejected... It makes me sad how science sometimes is more similar to a popularity contest than to a search for truth and coherence.

You know why? Because he is probably just as crackpotty as every other scientist who thinks he's onto something when he's only come across a metaphorical pile of rotten eggs. The question is can those rotten eggs become unrotten?

 

I disagree. It seems fairly obvious that science is a tool of reason based on observation. It doesn't work with religion, which is all about faith and NOT having evidence to back up your beliefs. The only "cold war" is when religion tries to imply it has the kind of evidence science looks for. It doesn't, never has, never will until god(s) become observable enough to make predictions that science can test.

 

Your argument (unless you're like SillyBilly, and aren't making any), implies this is more a difference of opinion, an argument across a fence, rather than religion trying to gain merit where it isn't warranted. There is no war; when religion tries to make physical assertions about reality using supernatural powers (think Shroud of Turin), science can refute them every time. And when religion falls back on god(s) that are unfathomable, unobservable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being(s), then science is completely useless for measurements since it relies on the natural rather than the supernatural.

But the question is is science truly science, or did we miss something in metaphysics that set us off on a false scent? You see my friend I can make an infinite amount of dubious claims like that that I cannot prove and you cannot disprove, therefore argument for one side is irrelevant, You must be neutral otherwise you cannot see the big picture.

Dima my congradulations, Hopefully you can come up with more equations like this, but hopefully something more original next time.

Once again this argument is like the cold war, Both sides can tear apart each other's arguments, but neither side can prove or disprove their points because all points that provide grounds for argument in favor of either sides' point in this are based on circumstantial evidence, So neither side can win or lose until he/she proves/disproves the other's point, so the only way to win is taking a neutral approach and using what facts you can muster to defend yourself while walking that fine line of neutrality.

Did I use the abbreviation for sulphur...... I meant Silicon....

Well what I was asking was how do you determine the outcome of mixing two elements? Must you do it in an experiment, or can you figure it on paper?

I think you are mistaken- the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God.

 

Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence.

There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth.

If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it.

 

Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers.

Did you think that through before you asked?

Stupid middle ages stuperstitions...... People were so ignorant back then.

Well snapdragon processors are really good in Androids, but then again Apples UI is nice but it has security issues........ If you want a truly K.A. phone buy the components you require for what you're going to do, either buy an OS like KitKat or Jellybean (Or make one yourself if you're the next Steve Jobbs.) and then pick up a casing and a nice battery, and maybe a nice decal or two. I personally recommend Snapdragon processors, although if you make a mini Ipad phone just get a Nvidia PC processor

Oh and by the way I think this is a bit of a cold war situation, Both sides have great stuff and big weaknesses, and both are about equal, But the question is who will come out on top?

Also do you know just how light this thing would have to be? It has to have the lift coefficent of a hummingbird!

 

Yeah but MIT has one the size of a fly so I know it can be done.

 

Yeah but why waste all that electricity unless you're like the NSA and wanna be super high tech and expensive?

 

It would allow for a smaller drone as a battery takes space and adds weight.

Yes but at the cost of massive amounts of electricity which would in turn economically be FAR more expensive that a simple battery, Even if you have to make the lift coefficent greater, Remember Air is a horrible conductor.

Well an example of a reactant of fuming nitric acid coming in contact with another reactant that would produce a hypergolic reaction. Is there a specific mathematical formula for determining the outcome necessarily when you mix two elements that react hypergolically? Or two stable elements such as O₃+S₂ --> 2SO₃? Or is it simply found out by experimenting?

Yes but we don't need to recharge we have wireless electricity. So as long as the drone was within the field it will work. The other option is that it recharges battery within the field and then has a range it can fly within for a while and return.

 

Though hummingbird size is a bit big maybe a fly.

Yeah but why waste all that electricity unless you're like the NSA and wanna be super high tech and expensive?

Also do you know just how light this thing would have to be? It has to have the lift coefficent of a hummingbird!

Yeah but why waste all that electricity unless you're like the NSA and wanna be super high tech and expensive?

Also do you know just how light this thing would have to be? It has to have the lift/weight ration of a hummingbird unless you change your lift coefficent. Also center of mass vs center of lift is a problem too.

It is hypothetical scientifically all religion, but science includes hypothesis no matter how far fetched, the question is can that hypothesis be turned into theory, and that theory to fact?

So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse?

 

I think you are misunderstanding science. It focuses on the study of fact. There is no proof god exists thus god cannot be a fact.

 

Religion focuses on belief ie in the absence of fact what do you think happened.

But science also includes hypothesis, which are the better ideas without real evidence, but with overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

You might be thinking of dimensions as other universes, Well sadly they're not (That would be really cool), but in reality, as Phi said they're more like mathematical plains. Look up dimensional analysis, It helped me a lot.

Also, pursue this subject if it interests you, Never give up your hypothesis entirely, Just change it according to the laws which affect it and put together ways to collect evidence for this, and you will turn it into a theory eventually unless it is pseudoscientific.

Hi, so I know how to balance chemical equations, (instead of H2O it's 2H2O) But what exactly differs a reaction equation from abalancing equation?

Ok what the heck is this? Our brains are our brains, they are clusters of neurons and receptors. That's it.

Oh fine. Dimensional analysis it is. This better be worth it....

The reason why hell is outside existence itself is it's existence without truly existing, in other words you are conscious only of your existence by being able to feel pain.

That's not just obviously wrong but insulting.

What do you think I can't visualise because I have no religion?

 

Now, if the best you can do when presented with the facts is to insult people, perhaps you should stop posting until you have grown up a bit.

Excuse me did I ask for your opinion? No. That is not insulting, as religion itself is purely personal beliefs, You have your own religion in not believing in God, or believing in some ancient god like Ra, it is up to you to define your own concept of the universe, Whether that concept is correct is another matter.

!

Moderator Note

Posts discussing whether science can explain consciousness have been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91820-can-science-explain-consciousness/

Swansont, I know that we're not supposed to comment on these, but I have a question as to what split defines in the term of the post?

Some god isn't omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent then?

 

An omnipresent god would still exist in hell.

 

An omniscient god would have knowledge of Satan's repentance.

 

An omnipotent god would be able to be there, hear and act.

You did not listen to what I said, the reason why hell is without God is because it is without existence, And actually you can make up a new place which is not part of all because it is a technicality.

Some god isn't omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent then?

 

An omnipresent god would still exist in hell.

 

An omniscient god would have knowledge of Satan's repentance.

 

An omnipotent god would be able to be there, hear and act.

Not necessarily, because Hell is existence outside existence.

To me the first idea that comes to mind is the pentalpha (or pentagram)

Ok wow...... Just wow.......... I can see where that came from, but I was speaking mathematically.....

Guess again.

In all of us science precedes religion.

Science is the embodiment of the natural curiosity that all humans (and most animals) have.

You don't need to learn science; you are born with it.

Every child playing with blocks is doing science- they are doing things, observing the outcome,and modifying their experiments, based on those outcomes.

In the same way, humanity was doing science before it invented religion.

You don't experiment on the best type of cave to live in on the basis of your guesswork about an afterlife or the existence of a creator.

We had science and technology first.

No, not wrong at all, Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, it is that thing that gives religion a purpose, Science is the fruit of curiosity yes, but the most out-of-the-box ideas that have been conceived stem partially from religion, because it acts similarly to philosophy, I was wrong in how I explained it, not wrong entirely though.

The argument is bound by a lot of hidden premises that are assumptions of the ecclesiastical god.

 

I am uncertain that Christianity accepts the premise that given sufficient time all beings will be saved by God. I've never heard this belief before. If this can't be shown the argument isn't valid.

 

An easy way out would also be to assume our view of good is simplistic when compared to God's omniscience. God doesn't deems it good to provide some who aren't deserving with salvation and deems it good and appropriate to punish them eternally.

 

However I now wonder why I even bothered to comment because the whole arguments initial assumption of God's existence has no supporting evidence and all qualities this fictional god has are therefore fictional themselves.

 

State your assumptions and list the premises ie the qualities of god/define the god you're referring to.

 

Oh I get you now. Free will means he's free to reject god and each choice is independent of the last, there is no limit to how many times he can choose not to accept god, he can do so eternally and not violate free will. It is only necessary for there to be the option for him to accept not that he must eventually do so.

 

To use an example a coin flip has a 50/50 chance of heads or tails, it is entirely possible although infinitesimally likely that given an infinite number of flips the coin will continually land on only one option. The other option is always a possibility at every flip but having the option doesn't dictate it must occur.

 

It is the same for a dichotomous choice and free will. The choices options being heads or tails and the choice being the flip. There is no law which says both options must occur even once in an infinite number of flips.

I think the problem here is that you're viewing choice as not being independent of prior choice at each moment. The premise that an available choice must eventually made given an infinite number of decisions or the option isn't really a possibility is false. Options aren't required to occur in a scenario for them to have existence since possibility is an abstract thing.

 

If assumed true, your reasoning could be extended using god then as the subject. God has free will, he is eternal, at some point god must choose to be evil or that choice doesn't exist and he has no free will.

 

What if, when Satan chooses to repent as his one good act in eternity, God then chooses to reject that as his one evil act in all eternity?

If Satan DID repent, he would still be denied heaven because it would not be a whole repentence, only partial, as there is still sin on his soul, because forgiveness only comes through confession, which comes through priests, which comes from God, so a place without God cannot have forgiveness as those who chose to attend such a place rejected his existence, and therefore put themselves beyond reach of forgiveness.

Bit of Avenged Sevenfold, Some Iron Maiden, Generally lighter stuff

Exciting! If this proves correct I wonder if future peoples could see their younger selves in other universes...... That would be....... Interesting......