Tub

52 minutes ago, puppypower said:

 

 The observation of centers of consciousness can be proven using a simple experiment. For example, say you were walking along and someone jumps out from behind a door and may jump and even scream due to the surprise. This is not a voluntary action, but rather comes from data processing within the unconscious mind. In most cases, the  ego and conscious mind would prefer not to be embarrassed, by jumping and screaming. However, it cannot control the unconscious reaction to the stimulus since it occurs quickly before the ego can censor it.

 

 

 

 

 

I can vouch for this! Recently, walking peacefully around a quiet corner, i was completely startled by a woman running into me - i jumped and let out a squeal like a little girl! I'm a big boy and i couldn't believe i could be such a scaredy cat, so easily frightened. My inner-peace was certainly disturbed then!

As for true inner-peace, what causes me most inner-disturbance is worrying: worry about family, friends, money, health, work, relationships, world events etc etc.To me, then, inner-peace would be being able to stop all this worrying by not always imagining the worst - but I can't see that ever being possible; maybe  some turmoil is necessary: rough seas make good sailors.

On 3/9/2018 at 6:21 PM, Butch said:

A lame horse in a Delta V rocket could be the fastest horse.

Ha, Ha. True enough, i suppose, ( John Cuthber posted something similar above ), but i did say my horse is the fastest horse " that has ever lived " and, as far as i know, no horse has yet flown in a rocket and i think the riddle also says enough to imply that the horses have to be running so, at its fastest, my horse is still the fastest horse that has ever lived. Yaaaay! Thanks for the reply. 

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The 'niceness' is a veneer to help acquire whatever it is they are after.  Only in young children will you see humans at their best and most transparent; they are what they feel at any given moment.

True. Everyone has to exploit someone else in on way or another: some do it" nicely ", kindly and with respect; others with arrogance and contempt - an attitude attributed to some petty officials who have had a little taste of power, however small. ( What Shakespeare, in Hamlet, called "... the insolence of office. " ).

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

I think if you did a poll of those who know me best you would hear that I'm generally a good person by nature.

There are a lot of obviously bad people in the world, and many of those who behave well do so because they were trained well, or because it is in their best interest. If people didn't have to worry about consequences I believe we'd have a much more honest view of others. A well respected college professor was recently recorded (much to her chagrin) telling a young family to "go back home" because they appeared to be of Asian heritage. If she could preach her beliefs to her students without fear of retribution I think she would.

Me too, ( usually ), but circumstances can change very quickly..........https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato_dialogue_the_ring_of_gyges.html 

On 3/7/2018 at 2:08 PM, Butch said:

My living horse is the fastest running horse that has ever lived, but it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived. Why not?

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

•  
•  
• Quote

 

Sorry, Butch, but i don't quite understand your post. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more. Thanks.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

In the end I had the time to read, and react on it. I like the article**. It is interesting to see that Feynman (I would say of course...) surely has made philosophical ideas about doing science. So I would say that his disdain for philosophy is partially explainable by the (bad) philosophy he has seen during his excursion at the philosophy faculty. Instead he could have developed his own philosophy of science, contradicting ideas he thought stupid. That would have been a valuable impetus to the philosophy of science. Interestingly enough he touches at some (radical) ideas of Paul Feyerabend:

 

 

** https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Thanks for the Feyerabend link - what a fascinating character. I wasn't familiar with him but, quite by chance and in the last couple of days, i have come across several YouTube videos of Terence Kemp McKenna, himself also an interesting character in this field, who was influenced by Feyerabend. 

As regards the OP, i vaguely remember this quote : " Science and Philosophy each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference ". Unfortunately, i can't remember who or where it came from but it seems to me to be a sensible and equitable way to view both disciplines.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

What is philosophical science? Never heard of it. Something like Christian Science, but then based on philosophy instead of christian belief?

If you have a scientific theory, like QM, and all agree this theory is an extremely good theory of empirical reality, how can one do then empirical research in its interpretations? 

I think that we should leave the interpretations of physical theories to those people that understand these theories. Mostly these are physicists themselves, not academic philosophers. And I, as an academic studied philosopher, have nothing against physicists 'going philosophy'. There is no guarantee that some good philosophy comes out of it, that should clarify itself in an ongoing discourse with other physicists and philosophers (but please philosophers that know their limitations...).

 

I found this article very interesting. https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

My horse was delivered to my home by alien rocket ship and was, therefore, the fastest horse on the planet ever.

But it's an old nag and can barely run faster than I can.

Ha,ha - an alien horse,eh?  Was it a small grey?

My living horse is the fastest horse that has ever lived, but it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived. Why not?

16 hours ago, 1x0 said:

 

Could we have a space program if we would do not count with time just with space? We need to be aware of time to be able to determine the route of the rocket and the point of arrival in outer space.

One could say we need to know the velocity of the rocket and not the time how long it takes to make the journey but then does not velocity is indeterminable without time (km/h).  

 

This useful link refers to that and what koti and swansont have said:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Guys you know what they say. Time is effected by the gravitational pull and speed. Here is my question. How can they be sure that the effected thing is time but not the watch, the clock itself?

This intrigued me too, but as well as the other posts above, i found this link very helpful:  http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

P.S. I hope you don't mind that i changed your " gravitial " to  " gravitational ".

13 hours ago, Strange said:

 

This thread went off topic a long time ago

True, there have been a lot of twists and turns along the way - just like with my cheap sat-nav - but perhaps that makes the journey more interesting. Anyway, returning to the OP,  could it be said that genetically-transmitted information is a physical phenomenon?

On 5/21/2015 at 5:53 PM, 1x0 said:

Can/should we count information as physical entity?

 

 

Hello,1x0. I think there is one way to say that  information can be a physical entity. For example,  i have a car, a silver Peugeot 206, and that information is stored physically in my brain in my memory-cells so that, if someone asks me what car i have, i can retrieve that information from its physical location in the brain. Each time someone asks me that same question , i go to the same location , the same memory-cells, and the same information is still there. Even when i am not thinking of my car, the information is still stored in that physical location until the next time i need it. So, as the action of memory is a mechanical function, i think it is not too unreasonable to say that the information stored in the memory-cells has a physical presence.

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Does anyone know what the mass of a gas planet would have to be for it to be stable and fusing deuterium if it was made up of 100% deuterium? 

Or if such a body was made up of helium 3? 

I've been trying to use google to get some info on that possibility but evidently no one wants to know but me... 

Maybe this link will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability. I think it covers what Sensei mentioned.

3 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

Here's the quote from wiki page on brown dwarfs:

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

 

The size, though, will be more or less the same as the Jupiter, which is as I understand is more or less as big as a gas giant can get. After that it won't increase the size much, just will become more and more dense. Even smaller M-class red dwarfs like Proxima Centauri are only ~20% larger than Jupiter in size.

Not sure about ³He though.

Jupiter's mass is measured at 1.898 x 10 to the power of 27 kg. and would need to be about 75% to 80% more massive  to achieve  stellar ignition (   http://nuclearplanet.com/Stellar Ignition and Dark Matter.html  ). I'll let you do the maths - i can't! 

Incidentally, i believe that Proxima Centauri has fuel enough to last for 4 trillion years!    

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Feel free to argue my point?

On reflection, dim, i see your point............or do i?  

1 hour ago, koti said:

I browsed through the video, they are confusing with that statement in the video where they say that just adding matter together can create a black hole. The important part to keep in mind is that matter needs to reach the Swarzchild radius to become a black hole - matter needs to be squeezed to the point that it reaches a critical density and that point is the Swarzchild radius. Matter and mass are very different physical concepts. Matter is the atoms that form molecules which form stuff around us. Mass is one of the „qualities” of matter. Mass is like weight but its independand of gravity where „weight” depends on gravity. If you have an object of say 1kg of mass on earth it will weigh less on the moon and more on Saturn because the gravity dictates how much it weighs. On all 3 planets the mass is the same though - 1kg. If that 1kg object flies around in space where there is no gravity it it still has a MASS of 1kg but weighs nothing. I don’t know if this helps, Im trying

I suggest we stay away from what happens with an object at near light speeds for now, you need to understand the basics first or you’ll get confused beyond comprehension when trying to understand General Relativity.

Thanks from me too, Koti. At my level of scientific nescience, i did find it helpful - especially about the difference between mass and matter/weight. I gather, then, that mass is independent of acceleration and motion in general too? If i could employ a little analogy: if i had a bullet in my hand and  tossed it gently at a wall, it would just bounce back harmlessly; if i threw it as hard as i could, it may mark the wall but would still bounce back; but if i shot it from a gun, it would do significant damage to the wall. So the mass of the bullet always stays the same but its weight increases exponentially with accelerating velocities. Forgive me if i ignore your suggestion about NLS, ( just for one moment, haha, ), but i imagine that if the bullet did hit the wall at NLS then the wall would be totally destroyed.

Just now, jajrussel said:

Thank you!

You're welcome.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I'll revisit the video maybe I misunderstood. I was sure it said adding enough pressure by adding Mass would cause the collapse. It even gave a formula. I watched it again and got the same impression.

I don't know how to link it.  It's on YouTube called (The Black hole Tipping Point) posted by minutephysics. 

Is it because I am confusing matter with Mass?

Hello J. If you want to link to a website you can do this: open a new tab now and type " Black Hole Tipping Point " in the address/search bar; then  when the YouTube website opens, highlight  " https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=brmjWYQi2UM  " in the address/search bar, right-click on it and select " cut " from the options. You can then close YouTube if you want. Then to enter the link into a post , get to the point in the post where you want to enter the link, right-click and select " paste " from the options and your link should appear. Just do the same with the next link you want to post. ( The link to BHTP will stay in your cut and paste function until you cut again on something different ). You can experiment by pasting links into new e-mails then deleting the e-mails.

Can't help with the Black Hole though, sorry.

Edit: Ha,ha. Just seen your new post. Well done.

1 hour ago, Tub said:

Would it help to clear away the semantics roadblock if we used " sense " instead of " see "?  So we can " sense " visible light, but we can't " sense " invisible light.

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

That seems to open a whole new can of worms.  For example, we can sense infrared but can’t see it. And what, exactly, does “sense” mean?

15 minutes ago, Eise said:

One could do that. Your 'sensing' however would be the same as my seeing2. But if you do not introduce a different concept for 'seeing1' the confusion will continue. One should exclude the meaning of 'sensing' from 'seeing'. To clear this up I am using 'seeing1'.

Your use of the concept 'semantics roadblock' is interesting. If one wants to try confusions as illustrated in this thread, one should be prepared to introduce new concepts for words, making them more precise, and sometimes introduce new ones. But obviously the resistance against such semantic moves is very strong. A semantic roadblock, as you say.

Yep. Therefore I introduced non-existing words: see1 and see2.

Thank you, Strange; thank you Eise. That was my best shot - should i say " Shot in the dark "?  Perhaps not! ( It's difficult to avoid puns in this  particular thread ). There are so many words to use here: seeing, looking, watching , sensing, sight, vision, perception, so i'm sorry if i've opened-up a whole new can of " words ". 

If it's not off-topic too much, i've noticed that, while watching a TV programme that's not too interesting, i sometimes drift-off into some train of thought, or some reverie ,and then, when i eventually  "come back to my senses ", i notice that the programme has finished; so my eyes have been gathering the EM signals from the TV but i have.'t been " seeing " them.    Oh dear.

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

 

 

Whatever version of "see" you use; you can see light.

Would it help to clear away the semantics roadblock if we used " sense " instead of " see "?  So we can " sense " visible light, but we can't " sense " invisible light.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Ooo-er, missus.

54 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think the answer is no. Unless it is within some weird non-linear medium. 

Shouldn't you have said " Nay, nay and thrice nay " ?

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don't interact (via vision) with photons if they're not hitting your eye

Aha. Thanks

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't think you see the torch. To borrow from John's point above, what color is the torch?

4 hours ago, Eise said:

.

If we 'see' light, we mostly mean we see something that emits light. If I look into a beam of a torch I do not see light: I see the torch. But if we do not recognise the source of the light, it is very usual to say 'I see some light'. 

 

Just a few moments ago, i went into a large, darkened room with a small torch i have on my key-ring; i held the torch up to eye-level and to the  right side of my head, pointing it directly across my eyes, and at a wall to my left, and switched it on........now, moving my eyes slightly to my right, i could see the lit bulb in the torch and then glancing to my left i could see a patch of light on the wall about 2 metres from where i was standing but between the wall and the bulb i didn't see anything - no beam of light at all, just darkness! I find that very puzzling.

3 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

 

Usually our eyes detect light and send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex. Here our brain creates a representation/simulation of the outside world, based on those impulses. The world you see is actually this internal representation. It even has a representation of you in it. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply, Furyan5; this would explain the old phrase: " It's all in the mind ". Relating to the OP, then, is it reasonable to say that " visible " light  is white, reflected light of a certain frequency detectable by the eye, while " invisible " light , such as UV and IR,  is unreflected light of a frequency above or below our visual spectrum, and that " visible " light strikes the eye as a blanket of white, ( Studiot mentioned a sort of " whiteout "), until the eye, acting as a prism, sorts the different frequencies into separate colours - or is that done later by the brain? 

3 hours ago, Furyan5 said:

Now, when we dream, our brain is creating images, not from impulses from the eyes, but impulses from our imagination. It looks and sounds the same, because it occurs in the same part of the brain. 

 

 

 

Shakespeare, in " The Tempest ", famously wrote: "... We are such stuff as dreams are made on.. ". ( Act 4, Scene 1 ). Seems he was right.

Just now, StringJunky said:

In the same parts of the brain that you 'see' wakeful stuff; the input during sleep is from memories and other senses.

Thanks, SJ.

On 2/22/2016 at 5:24 PM, The_Believer1 said:

Hello friends!

 

I have a question about light. We all know that we see objects because they reflect light into our eyes. But we never see the actual light. So my question is why can't we see light. Or can we in fact see light. If so, how?

If it isn't too far off-topic, i'd like to ask how we " see " dreams: obviously reflected light is not involved so there can't be any photons to be detected, and is it still the visual cortex that is involved? Can anyone enlighten me? ( Sorry ! ).