Jump to content

OSHMUNNIES

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About OSHMUNNIES

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. No, the site doesn't depend on "population influx", I just think that scientific progress is beneficial to humanity. To make scientific progress, one needs scientists, to get scientists, one needs to get people interested in and comfortable with science, and to do that, one could utilize established scientific communities, such as this one.
  2. That's how I see it, but others may have different views or better knowledge of the subject. Some people study this sort of philosophy in much greater depth, but I really enjoy this subject. I refer to myself simply as an atheist. But I'm now thinking that I'm an ignostic atheist who's partial to pantheism (is this getting ridiculous?). I doubt the existence of deities as they are commonly defined (atheism), but still acknowledge the need to properly define the deity before passing judgement (ignosticism), and am open to a philosophical view which emphasizes an appreciation of nature.
  3. I'm definitely aware of the classical definitions of agnosticism and atheism. But I maintain that agnostics are actually atheists that do not fully understand why they are atheists. Here's what I mean: 1.) Agnosticism is commonly defined as skepticism of the existence of a deity, and viewed as "less extreme" than atheism. The latter point seems to be based upon the assumption that atheists doubt the existence of a deity with absolute certainty. 2.) Atheism is commonly defined as a lack of belief in the existence of a deity based on the lack of empirical evidence for one. In my experienc
  4. 1.) God/deity (as defined by Wiki): a supernatural being (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics). 2.) My own (simplified) definition of pantheism: the equation of the universe with a deity 3.) In my experience, I've never interacted with a self-described pantheist who believes that the universe is supernatural 4.) In my experience, I've never interacted with a self-described atheist who believes that universe doesn't exist Based on 1-4, I'm inclined to assert that atheism and pantheism are not fundamentally or significantly different from one another. Would you mind expanding on
  5. I just invited several of my science-minded friends to "Like" the SFN Facebook page (because I think this is a great community, and would like to share it), only to find that no one has posted anything on it since 2010! Now, I'm not one of those that has Facebook open in my browser 24/7 (honestly), but it seems like the administrators of this site should want to generate as much support/interest as possible, no? Facebook is, in fact, one of the most relevant ways to do so nowadays...just sayin' I am of the opinion that we need more scientific thinkers on this planet, and this site is
  6. I come to these forums every now and again for expertise on field-specific topics and help understanding various concepts, but I also really enjoy hearing what the science community has to say about deeper, more contemplative subjects. I'm curious to hear what ya'll have to say about pantheism in particular. In your opinion, is it different from atheism? If so, how? Are agnostics really separate from atheists? Or are they just "nicer" about their lack of belief? I have my own opinions, mainly pertaining to how the deity in question is explicitly defined, but I'm very curious to se
  7. I'll be honest, I only skimmed most of the above posts. It seems that the general takeaway message from most of the other comments, however, is that they are trying to convince Mike that no one field of study (currently) can encompass every complex system present on the Earth. Mike seems to understand this perfectly fine, however. If I may, Mike...I think that you're driving at the concept of the future of integrated Earth Systems Science (all sciences, effectively). Although no single human is capable of fully conceptualizing the interconnectedness of all Earthly processes, we do have c
  8. Your profile says your interests are "astrology and geology" ...I hope you mean astronomy. Maybe English isn't your fist language? That's ok, but since this forum is in English, you'll have to work on your language skills if you want any feedback here.
  9. Thanks, guys for your input. I did resolve the problem within a couple days, simply by sitting him/her down and calmly asking him/her to explain myself. It turned out that he/she had been having some family issues shortly before our encounter, hence the short fuse and stubbornness. I regret posting this now, but I was pretty flustered and uncertain at the time. I actually love the program. I plan to dedicate my life to the field. In this case it was actually a communication issue, not my lack of experience. That was part of the reason I was so confused and flustere
  10. I can't speak to the nanotech saftey issues, but the concepts of physical enhancement and the Sigularity are both very intriguing to me. It seems that access to these hypothetical physical enhancement procedures is analogous to present-day access to health care. If we continue to perpetuate a global capitalistic economy, then only the wealthy will have access to the most advanced improvements. This opens a whole economics can-of-worms that I'm not sure is appropriate for this thread (or is it?), but the only path to equal access (for anything, be it healthcare, food, modern technology,
  11. I have been in graduate school for almost two years, and I have been working on my thesis for the past 6 months. Today I definitely lost some respect for my advisor (who shall hereafter be referred to as Dr. X). This morning I got an email from Dr. X, which said: "I did what you are proposing for a thesis and published it in [a scientific journal] 23 years ago." (by the way, I've been speaking about my thesis frequently with Dr. X, but Dr. X randomly tells me this NOW?) The email, continued: "[You] need to find a thesis topic that is new unless the goal is to disprove what h
  12. If anyone still reads this post, I think you'll find this interesting: "Volcanic Shield can Protect from Eruptions and Generate Electricity" http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Volcanic-Shield-can-Protect-from-Eruptions-and-Generate-Electricity.html
  13. If that is an observational comment on the present, it seems a little redundant. Of course it (the technological singularity) is not feasible right now, it's a theoretical projection of the progression of human technological capability. If you are denouncing the feasibility of the singularity in the future, then a.) you are contradicting much of the rest of your comment, and b.) it seems you should expand on your reasoning for denouncing it.
  14. This is one of those topics that always excites me to the core. It can't really be confined to a single field (computer science, neuroscience, physics, maths, etc.), and its possible implications are deep and unpredictable, so the philosophy forum seemed appropriate.... I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the concept of the technological singularity (as popularized by Ray Kurzweil); the theory that computation and neuroscience will one day be so advanced that technology and neurology will converge. Supposedly, at this singularity, all human minds will have instantaneous communica
  15. If it helps, the relationships are given by: VP = √{(E/ρ)((1-μ)/((1-2μ)(1+μ)))} VS = √{(E/ρ)(1/(2(1+μ)))} where VP = P-wave velocity VS = S-wave velocity E = Young's Modulus ρ = density μ = Poisson's Ratio I just cannot find the reason that an increase in density causes a decrease in seismic velocity. Just at first glance, it seemed to me that an object with higher density would propagate a seismic wave more easily than an object with lower density; i.e. that more atomic matter would allow for a better transmission of a wave. I was thinking of this problem macro
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.