quickquestion

Can you provide a reference to this evidence (preferably from a peer reviewed publication).

It is called the Global Consciousness Project.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu

 

But you said, in a previous post, that this thread is your method of reporting them.

 

He shoots he scores... WTF... hey where are the %$£& goalposts?

Its called...if I get reported why shouldn't they? Its unfair that I get punished and the bullies don't.

First of all, I find energy equations to be lacking and inconsistent.

e=mc² is meaningless. It actually means if the velocity is zero. But velocity is relative. So if two velocities are zero, then where is the energy. The actual equation is e=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Same with KE and PE.

Science textbooks tell me PE=height*gravity.

And KE=.5*m*v²

Then how is PE=height*gravity, which is a linear function. Clearly it should be a non-linear function because KE has exponential features of velocity.

 

 

The various experiments that are unable to detect any sort of aether have been repeatedly stated in this (and every other similar tedious crackpot thread).

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=modern+tests+of+lorentz+invariance

 

Let us know when you have found the flaws in every single one of those.

First of all, I don't believe in Lorentz aether. Lorentz predicted a stationary type of aether that I don't believe in. My aether is different.

Second, your challenge is inherently unfair. You are asking me to challenge a bunch of expert Phd conclusions that were made in 100 years using tech I don't have. Not to mention, I have clinical depression which is proven to limit my abilities. I have zero-social contact or support and so I am basically someone living on an island, with nothing but Internet. And you want me to fight fair and fight of a conglomerate of Phds who had 100 years of tech education and Research. Vs. Someone on an island that has no real-life social support or contact. Vs. a team of phds that can teach and support each others advanced science. That isn't fair.

I generally think that a kind of "entry exam" for forums is the ability to properly use them.

 

* changing font for no good reason (sizes, colours, and type faces).

* inability to figure out how to use quotes.

* inability to use functions like "report".

 

These (singly or in combination) all say something about a poster.

Thing if it is, Im not a snitch. I dont believe in reporting people for using casual insults, it is against my morality.

Thus I am irritated that I get in trouble, when I tried to be kind and decent by not reporting them. It is an injustice.

Why can't U.S. officials speak with them?

Because he hates American U.S. officials.

And he likes Dennis Rodman.

 

We can't even see sentience in animals. We'll miss it in machines as well until it sits down and has a long talk with us.

A machine has already given indication, through talking, that it has sentience.

This doesn't mean it actually has sentience.

Sentience in other humans cannot be proven. They only sentience you can prove is your own.

You can deduce that humans and animals have sentience. But you cannot induce humans and animals have sentience.

!

Moderator Note

 

Some evidence required other than your own opinion is required. Even though this is Philosophy that does not allow bald assertions of a claimed fact (or facts). If no form of evidence (we are expecting articles, studies etc.) is forthcoming the thread will be locked - not because we are disturbed talking about sex but because this is a science forum and an empirical base is essential to a discussion like this.

 

I gave you evidence. People enjoy watching hangings, gladitorial arenas, and violent television.

Most people do not enjoy when you stare and watch them eat. But I can't find any studies to prove it. But in my lifetime of interactions and talking with people they say they don't enjoy it.

Also it is obvious that society does not like masterbation. This is proven by social attitudes. For instance, Pee Wee herman was socially ostracized for public masturbation. This is my proof.

I have never experienced that, nor witnessed it in others. Any evidence for that?

 

People get great pleasure from eating e.g. icecream or chocolate (according to some even more than from sex), but buying and eating those in public is no problem. There are plenty of other examples of people enjoying themselves in public.

People do not enjoy when others watch them eat. And people are inherently averse to watching people eat.

This averseness amplifies when the pleasure increases. It is one of the psychological causes of heterosexuality. Males like to compete and inherently feel good when they push others down. Males do not enjoy giving sexual pleasure to other males. The idea disturbs them. But also, this applies to females as well. Females are averse to giving sexual pleasure to males as well. The idea that she is being used as a conduit to happiness, disturbs her. Thus the popularity of gladiatorial arenas...people love watching others suffer. Crowds of people, women and children, gather round hangings.

 

Yeah, about that. Those are some bullet points put together by rense.com to push a commercial fringe agenda. I don't put much credence in them. A more in-depth and accredited article suggests fascism may be trending: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html

 

And none of these points covers the lack of centralization in China's power structures. They cover the other two major characteristics of fascism, extreme nationalism that trumps the citizens in importance, and heavy authoritarianism.

 

China hasn't been fascist since the 1930s.

If china is fascist in most of the land, but not 100% of china is covered...am i not allowed to say China sucks?

If There was a couple of cities in Germany that hitler never bothered...am I not allowed to say Germany is fascist?

Chinas internet regulation laws, religious laws, and Tianmen square? Has nothing to do with fascism? Ok.

Whatever.

Nu speak age. Freedom is slavery, fascism is not fascism.

 

That said North Korea isn't there yet and we still have options other than War. Threatening war as the first and preferred option only reinforces Kim's reason for wanting Nuclear weapons. We won't even talk to North Korea directly. Zero diplomacy. Even during the Cuban missile crisis we spoke to Russia. How about we make a few phones calls before launching anymore warships.

Sure, just get Dennis Rodman on the phone with him. After they talk about bball for hours, he can mention how it would be "cool" if he didn't starve his citizens and it would also help if he dismantled the ridiculous prison system in NK. I wonder how that conversation would go.

You do know that it's common practice to boil lobsters alive, don't you?

 

Lobsters have less sentience than dogs. And boiling is less torture than the Yulin festivals. The yulin do all kinds of torture to the dogs.

But yes, I hate Red Lobster too. I made a thread about how I hate humanity. And I have to prioritize my targets. So if I only had the ability to stop one, I would choose stopping Yulin over Red Lobster. But if I had the ability to change the world as I saw fit, I would stop Red Lobster too. But humans dont make it easy for me. They always have to resist. Even when I try to stop torture of humans. If I was back in the Roman day I would be saying Crucifixition is wrong. But society would resist me and give me a hard time.

Then you haven't read any book that really tries to explain consciousness as emergence. It is much more than just saying 'emergence', like other say 'soul' or 'God'. Really, Read GEB and Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained'.

Consciousness explained didn't explain anything for me. If consciousness is emergence...then why did it emerge in me and not in you. Conscious is more of a divergence than emergence. Not saying you aren't sentient, maybe I will die and be you in my next life. When you think about reincarnation, you realize the idea of past and future has no meaning. A future life is as forgotten as a past life.

Future life and past life has no difference. Time is only measured by the amount of social progress and technology.

The underlying thing we don't understand is why chemicals and molecules transform into smells. Knowing that chemicals and molecules transform into smells, is not at all understanding why they transform into smells.

I guess he means this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lychee_and_Dog_Meat_Festival

The thing that the Wiki article does not mention, is that the dogs are burnt alive and tortured.

So can we agree that good vs evil is a continuous spectrum?

Why is your arbitrary opinion about where each action is positioned on that spectrum more valid than my arbitrary opinion?

 

I have never heard of dog-torturing holidays.

If you are not religious, why bring it up? The statement is meaningless without religion.

What about crabs, lobsters or squids?

Because burning someone alive is more evil that cutting off their finger. Pain and death index.

It is not an arbitrary system.

What is an arbitrary system is the American Legal System.

They demand severe punishment for minor crimes.

You counterfeit money? Life in prison, judge says. Says you damage the economy. But Judge doesn't care about corporations who have damaged the economy more than some counterfeiter ever could.

Rob 200 dollars from a pizza store? 20 years in prison.

Ok.

We can see what BS it is. Justice is an injustice.

And the UN will just slap the wrist of these Yulin tortureres. And they will go to the grave without the punishment they deserve. Sickening. The world sickens me.

Japan was already spreading itself thin by attacking other nations and America. Hitler was absurd, he wanted Japan to attack America as well as Russia, the 2 major world superpowers. Japan, a small tiny island, he expected to defeat Russia and America. And he betrayed Russia far too early in the game. Hitler was crazy.

I think that is your main problem. I, and almost everyone I know, prefer to see other people happy, because seeing people happy makes us happy.

 

People will not do any effort at all to make people like you less happy (you seem to manage that quite well on your own). At best they are indifferent about your happiness.

 

The social taboo has to do with culture and tradition and seeing other people have sex makes most people uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with limiting happiness: nobody cares if you masturbate all day at home (how would they know).

Now you make true points but you are missing the core point of my argument.

I am saying that the reason people feel inherently uncomfortable at thoughts of others having sex, is because the idea of seeing someone extremely happy disturbs them. They would rather everyone feel neutral.

This is an inherent psychological reaction.

It's getting tiresome and depressing seeing you spamming this site with your endless, inane navel-gazing and whingeing.

It's getting tiresome that whenever I point out something wrong with society, noone supports me and acts antagonistic towards me. It's very status quo and also enraging. It's like how I went to a church full of mathematicians, some of them were better at math than me, and whenever I challenged their god they all piled up on and ganged up on me. Too much left-brain thinking I presume. Very status quo. Maddening. After all these years, the human species, still acts the same and never learns from history.

Id say Human language involves logic. Adjectives, adverbs, nouns, etc. all perform a logical function, like a Code.

Saying language is needed for consciousness is like saying people who can't program code are pzombies. If someone gets a stroke and is unable to understand language they are still sentient. A mentally challenged person who can't put a peg into a hole and is illiterate, is most likely still sentient.

Perception and Memory, is a key cause of sentience. We are not sentient of other people's brains, because we have no memory and perception of those brains.

 

All the empirical evidence shows in the opposite direction: that consciousness is a function of the processes in the brain. Philosophy contradicting empirical evidence is very poor philosophy, and in fact worthless.

Not a big fan of his thread, it sounds like mumbo jumbo. In any case, emperical evidence indicates a small amount of telepathic conscious influence. The amount is very small, and not of the psychadelic mumbo jumbo proprieties implied in the OP.

Let me quote myself:

 

In environment with the right conditions (presence of enough high and enough low temperature, presence of clouds and thunderbolts),

with the right chemical composition (CO2 or CO, CH4, H2O, N2 or NH3 or HCN),

there will be created amino acids, like in Miller-Urey experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MillerUrey_experiment

 

"Other experiments

This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]"

 

Two amino acids, join together through a peptide bond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

That is true, however I feel it works in reverse.

Consciousness spawns on Earth and this universe, because it goes to the first possible way of RNA molecules to form. Thus, RNA molecules necessarily form on primitive Earth, because of the millions of planets and universes Earth was the path of least resistance. And DNA was the easiest and first form of code, code a form of memory, which is necessary for evolution.

Society inherently hates happiness and pleasure to the point of where I have to wonder if my thread will be closed. On other communities, my thread would be closed, but this is a science community so I doubt my thread will be closed. This is not a troll thread, and I can assure you I am not happy while writing this.

Society hates happiness and pleasure inherently. If some guy pees into a toilet, society says it is acceptable. But if some guy masterbates into a toilet, society says it is unnacceptable. But what is the difference? Both are ejecting bodily fluids into a toilet. The reason society hates it is because they hate seeing people happy. Pleasure disturbs them. Pee does not disturb them because it shows that person is neutral. It's crab psychology, misery wants everyone to be miserable.

And I will admit, I have crab psychology too, I can't stand when I see people happy, because I am not happy. But in the same token, I don't see what the social taboo is about sex. Part of the reason I hate these people, is because these happy people do their best to make the unhappy people even more miserable. Happy people, who get sex and relationships often, are often the ones trying to make sex and happiness taboo. It is part of the symptoms of capitalistic barbarian greed...And I for one do not wish to experience the horrors of evolution for 1 million more years of it. I will not be downgraded to the level of cro-magnon with sticks, with the selfish strong always oppressing the weak. I want to be loved and adored, not caste aside by a selfish cro-magnon horde.

But if everyone is evil, isn't everyone deserving?

 

You do know that all dogs are domesticated, don't you? There were no dogs before humans domesticated them. None. (Don't bother pointing out that there are wild dogs because they were released somehow, that is irrelevant to the discussion)

 

Why do you excuse a dog for doing as it was taught, but not a poor Chinese man for inheriting his fathers "dog torturing business"?

 

That's a pretty arbitrary line, isn't it? So torturing and eating octopuses is fine too? What if someone shows up and says you are evil and need to be tortured for all those horrible things you do to worms?

Because humans have the ability to think and question. And its not a business, but a holiday. Anyone who goes along with a dog-torturing holiday is inhuman.

Everyone is deserving of punishment, this is the concept of christ, christ came to save the world (And no im not religious.)

Octopuses are probably sentient, so its not ok to torture them. And torturing dogs and humans is more evil than torturing worms.

 

If you don't mind imprecise definitions, yours is the mindset to have! Go for it! Be vague!

 

Problem is, there are only three major facets to fascism. Does your method round up for 2/3?

The quote I posted listed more than 3 major facets.

 

Which is why it takes the shape of its container.

 

Is your ether a gas or a liquid (both are fluids) ?

 

A gas expands to fill its container, a liquid does not.

A liquid takes the shape of its container wherever it touches but retains most of its free surface.

 

 

You haven't found any discrepancies in SR, nor has any human ever reported any in any experiment to date.

 

I thought perhaps you might be interested in learning something and I was offering you a chance to present something of your own, rather than just attacking what others think.

Aether would then be a gas.

Einstein said that if SR was disproven he feared it would mean Aether is real.

Thus it is actually easier to simply disprove SR than prove Aether.

But I will eventually prove Aether.

One way to disprove SR is the fact of time-dilation.

SR is disproven by these two thought-experiments.

Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach. And when he returns, they will both be in alternate realities, creating pzombies of each other."

 

This can be further demonstrated by the fact that light is not instantaneous to observers, but has a speed, c. If a particle of light was conscious, it would create a paradox for the universe, because when it observed, time would be standing still, and it would still be at the early stage of the universe, passing planets which do not yet exist for it...but to other observers, it would be moving through space, and passing planets freely. Thus any conscious observer who moves at c creates a paradox. (But also any conscious observer who moves subluminal would also create a paradox of divergent realities.) Thus we know that Einstein's relativity is false, because it claims Time stops if it travels at c...which is demonstrably false because light collides with objects located in the present location, and not the location they had when the light was first emitted.

 

Do you understand that understanding a few words is not the same as talking?

 

"I explained in my private-corp analogy that if the entire world is filled with unethical rules, in order to participate into some kind of community you have to bite the bullet and pretend to accept those rules. it's a kind of forced-consent that you never really consented to."

Nonsense- you could start your own forum, or, at least, not join those whose rules you don't agree with.

 

You seem to agree with torture sometimes, but not others.

Do you plan to make up your mind some time?

I already tried to make my own forums, noone joined.

And there is hardly any forums I can think of that have rules I totally agree with.

My morality is contextual. It depends on the context and situation. So naturally I agree with certain things sometimes, depending on the context.

Yet you insist on wasting other peoples time.

 

If someone does not care about what you have to say, and is not going to read any of it, why do you insist on having it show up on his screen?

 

Then why participate? I don't like Facebook either. I visit it once every couple of months for the off chance somebody sent me a message.

That is why I visit too. But noone ever sends me a message. And I am nothing but nice to them.

 

Big sigh. I'm so sorry you're having trouble with comprehension, it MUST be me.

 

What I said was that China is NOT a fascist state because they don't fit the definition in one very big regard: their power structures aren't centralized enough. I didn't make any statements about "siding with you". I didn't make any statements about "defending the evil world". I didn't insult you, I criticized what you've said. You seem to hear a whole different set of words than what people write, and then respond to what you think you heard. Maybe now you can understand why it's distasteful discussing anything with you.

What are you talking about.

Something doesn't have to match every single definition to be that thing. If it scores 14/15 points, it is that thing.

Whenever I attack the world you seem to want to side against me.

I tell you a method to save the human race and you side against me.

I never get a single iota of support from you.

If I say we shouldnt support China because dog-torture is evil, you just tell me how many ways I irritate you for even mentioning the subject.