Bender

11 minutes ago, universaltheory said:

All you said about evolution is what makes it silly! Its indifference as you say led to the evolution of reasonable agents who are reasonable enough to judge between good and evil

Why do you think that is silly?

11 minutes ago, universaltheory said:

Secondly; if evolution allows morality to evolve through social expectancy, then if some one starts to expect more through inquisitivity and curiosity (skepticism); then i don't know why in the above perspective skepticism doesnt appears to be immoral

Morality does not (necessarily or exclusively) evolve through social expectancy. It evolves because groups with "fitter" morality are more successful. 

I can't follow the reasoning that follows. You claim that expectancy leads to morality; how then do you get to more expectancy leading to immorality? 

23 hours ago, universaltheory said:

(Why did God had to creat evil or see it and let it be?)-Evolution is so silly that it allowed evil to evolve through jeolousy and dictatorship since antiquity; though skepticism can also make some one loose some relevant morality

Evolution isn't silly. It is indifferent. Concepts of good and evil are irrelevant to evolution  (and nature in general).

Could you give an example of how skepticism makes one loose morality?

I see

It certainly looks interesting. Let us know how it turns out.

Assuming your simulations are valid and you can control the production tolerances, this looks promissing.

Cool. Where do you get oddly yet accurately shaped magnets that cheaply? I would have expected those alone would be above 2000$.

I haven't seen this design before. It reminds me of a pancake motor, but then a brushless variant with cooling.

It looks very complex and expensive. Do you have any idea how you would make it? What is your air gap? What are the required tolerances? One design in particular with the core wrapped around the coils looks pretty impossible to make.

But if you think you can make it and have the budget: go for it.

Some other remarks:

- does your power density include the volume and weight of the cooling system?

- Your efficiency is pretty poor. I would have hoped for a higher efficiency for an expensive novelty motor.

- isn't it much simpler to implement the cooling on a regular PMSM? The cooling would be much more effective if it didn't need such awkward shape.

On 15/6/2018 at 1:22 AM, Bjarki Freyr said:

We also have the opportunity to explore the universe we occupy, it is therefore our role to keep our world habitable and in check for all living beings (we have been horribly short sighted and selfish in that department), and search for greater knowledge about all processes in the physical universe

Who or what imparted that role on us?

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am not so quick to stop looking for answers.

Most people stop looking when they find the answer (or when they find the question irrelevant ).

You certainly seemed to have stopped looking as well. The only thing you are looking for is questions for which your answer of choice is the correct one.

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith doesn't become a delusion because you disagree with it.

Set of delusions. But you are right, my indifference is not required for faith to be a kind of delusion.

But I'm glad you agreed with my post. After all, why else did you follow up with a non-sequitur?

34 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

While that may be right, it should be considered that faith is often developed as one of a set of beliefs in a world view.

Rather than having a solid foundation, faith is something that has a context as a belief that forms part of a particular view of reality.

Faith can't be considered absolute truth, though it can still be accepted and thought of as true on an individual level, based on a worldview, although such acceptance would not make it absolute truth.

This is pretty much exactly what I said many pages ago in one of my first answers to you: Faith based on imaginary premisses can be internally consistent.

36 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith is not a delusion, as faith has a foundation in beliefs as part of a worldview, while delusions are isolated beliefs with little to no such context.

So faith is an internally consistent set of delusions, rather than a stand-alone delusion.

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

To say that such an observer does not exist is essential making the claim that "I" do not exist. Meaning, I would not be experiencing something because "I do not exist.

I am clearly experiencing something, and so are you. I can't possibly not exist...

There has to be some sort of conscious entity that is observing.

I didn't say there is no observer/consciousness; I said there is no reason to assume it is a separate entity. In fact all evidence suggests that there isn't.

36 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I'm only trying to use philosophical thinking in my arguments, though my reasoning is not always understood by others.

It is understood just fine, possibly even better than you understand it yourself. We just don't clasify it as "reasoning" in the context of a science forum which requires evidence.

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through.

"I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and interact with reality. 

Yet I still perceive the mind-body in the same way I experience my senses. 

This does not make me the mind-body, I am still an observer that experiences the mind-body in the present moment in the same way that I perceive the external reality.

The question still remains about this "I", the observer. It remains elusive to any scientific explanation that attempts to describe it's existence.

 

I don't "want" doubts to arise, I have doubts based on questions that arise. They appear when there are serious questions that aren't being answered, and instead are being thrown aside like they don't mean anything by the scientific community.

The problem of consciousness is not being treated as the major problem with the current scientific and materialistic paradigm that it is. There are serious problems and doubts that need to be addressed as fundamental problems with the current model of reality.

If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me.

I am not finding answers that I am looking for in the scientific construct of reality.

Unlike a search for 'garden gnomes', I am searching for answers of the very core of my existence. 

Ah, the notion of the separate observer, often depicted as a little man in our head. Pop culture obviously keeps this image alive with a multitude of hilarious cartoons and sketches.

Alas, there is no indication that such a separate observer exists. I agree that raises a whole bunch of questions, but the reason for that is simply that it actually makes very little sense. Have you considered the much, much simpler explanation that this "observer" is simply another program running on your hardware instead of some separate unexplainable entity?

Science does not deal with this issue, because scientifically, there is no issue; there isn't even the smallest hint of an issue.

The reason you don't find your answers in science is not that they aren't there, but that you don't like them.

So yes, I still think you want to have these doubts, because even acknowledging that they might be superfluous could shatter your world view, for which you decided their must be something special about your consciousness even before you start looking for evidence or "reasoning" towards it. That's begging the question. 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It is this very "we" or rather the "I" that eludes explanation.

Not at all. The bag of meat and bones that resides in my skin is "I".

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Doubts arise about the nature of reality and existence that can not be resolved within the scientific framework and cast a shadow of doubt on scientific thought.

These doubts only arise if you want them to. They are by no means necessary or even implied by any objective observation.

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no reason not to try to look for answers about human existence through reason.

Is there a reason not to try to look for garden gnomes?

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first.

We can't assume there are no garden gnomes in your garden without trying to find them. Have you searched for garden gnomes?

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

Nothing.

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no explanation as to why the brain should be anything more than a machine. Nowhere should the brain require a conscious self to function if the brain really functions in the way that science says it does.

There is no evidence that we are anything more than a complex machine. We know from computer science that in complex systems, it is best to have a higher level program to organise lower level processes without being bothered with the details.

Without this higher level program, which we experience as consciousness, our brain would be too unorganised to function. I'm sorry, but p-zombies are impossible. 

On hilly terrain, don't forget the need to switch to a breaking resistance when your battery is full.

Can the batteries even handle the current on a steep hill?  It can be considerably larger than during normal operation.

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We shouldn't assume that there is no reason for existence.

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is.

32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

An example of such an approach would be reaching the conclusion that it is ones self that has an independent existence,

As I explained earlier, you need faith for this imaginary conclusion, so you are still basing faith on faith.

Besides, I fail to see any logic in the supposed reasoning that follows. 

20 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If everything in reality have an explanation, how is it that there is no explanation for existence?

There are plenty of things that have no explanation beyond random chance. I guess I assumed "random chance" doesn't qualify as an explanation for you, because if it did, your conclusion wouldn't make any sense.

16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

How is it not a necessity? There is a need to explain everything that exists, including ourselves and our existence within reality. Faith can be a part of the explanation.

No, there is no necessity. You (and many with you) just want there to be. I guess this desire could be caused by a fear that everything would be dull and pointless without it. Then again, I can only guess, because I don't experience any such necessity (at least not to explain the why; science does a great job at explaining the how).

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why can't faith have any basis in reasoning or understanding? Can't faith be based on conclusions that one makes/

If you draw conclusions based on imaginary premisses, it just means there is some internal consistency in your faith. It doesn't mean there is any relation or consistency with the actual world which is independent of your faith.

Do you need the numbers of your arm specifically, or just some average. The latter can be found in tables. The good tables even contain spread.

10 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Wishful thinking involves thinking based in wishing or desiring rather than a necessity. It is not simply a jump in reasoning.

But you wish it to be a necessity.

33 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The acceptance occurs as a result of reasoning by one that leads them to the acceptance. Faith can be placed once one reaches a conclusion, based on previous conclusions reached.

A specific kind of evidence is not always required to reach a conclusion, in certain context. What constitutes evidence is not always consistent in every situation.

The reasoning you are referring to, seems to be "wishfull thinking", which I indeed won't accept as evidence.

Google "center of gravity limbs" you'll find tables for all parts of the body.

3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer.

This is just an eufemistic way of saying "wishfull thinking".

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The jump in reasoning occurs once a necessity for an explanation is accepted, such that it leads to faith.

Accepting something for which there is no evidence (this need) requires faith, so you are argueing that faith leads to faith.

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

A need implies that there has to be an explanation for one's own existence that leads them to faith.

Or one wants there to be an explanation  (beyond the scientific one).

7 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It is about necessity for an explanation. Faith derives from the need to explain one's own existence.

Is it a need or a desire?

Draw Fs on the right in the opposite direction. In other words, draw a free body diagram of the hinge. Perhaps that will make things more clear.

Fs as drawn is a force exerted by the hinge on the left rod, Fd and Ft as drawn as forces exerted by the right rod on the hinge. I guess this causes your confusion.

Edit: it could be the other way around, if the piston is driving rather than driven.