Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bombus

  1. Would you say he's a traditional conservative as opposed to a neo-conservative? If so that would probably explain it. Trad Cons like value for money as much as anyone!
  2. The USA makes heart pacemakers which are sold to European healthcare systems/citizens for £5000 dollars each, but they are sold to US citizens for £35,000 each! Heard it today on Radio 4 (link below) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m67vv/Peston_and_the_Money_Men_Jim_Chanos/ This is a good documentary - mostly about the credit crunch but mentions the US healthcare issue towards the end (at 26:00 mins - you can go straight there)
  3. I'm sorry to harp on about this, but no they cannot be safely dismissed, and the interpretation of the results is only 'semantics and philosophy' because many (most?) QM physicists simply don't engage with the implications of QM experimental results. It's perfectly possible to 'cook with quanta' and produce lasers, processors, solid state electonics etc without ever having to assess what one is 'actually' doing. What one IS doing is the mystery and does have profound implications that result in very 'unbelieveable' scientific explanations. I suggest all who disagree with me read John Gribbins 'In search of scrodingers cat'. The author very well sums up the background, nature and implications of Quantum Theory. If you are familiar with QM you might wish to skip to Chapter 10: The Proof of the Pudding. This is for the most part correct, but the interpretations have come about from rigorous scientific experiment, so it is perhaps a little unfair to say its simply 'philosophy'. Also one should remember that science is a form of philosophy anyway...
  4. I suggest you look up the work of David Bohm, John Bell, Bernard d'Espagnat, and John Wheeler.
  5. Of course this is a coup - by the rich, powerful elites - as ever. Zelaya was a champion of the poor, and that just will not do. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/grandin/single http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/day-three-democracy-held-hostage-honduras Photos of the coup here. As ever the army beats up the poor. http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/Golpe/militar/Honduras/6580-1/elpgal/
  6. Mmm. I've never seem Oprah and Osama in the same room at the same time! You might have stumbled upon something there
  7. That's all pretty wierd if you ask me. I can't think of anything more wierd actually, can you? 'Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it' - Neils Bohr He was right then, and still is now. The whole universe can be thought of as a delayed choice experiment in which the existence of observers who notice what is going on is what imparts tangible reality to the origin of everything - John Gribbin 1984
  8. I don't expect anyone to provide proof of anything in speculations and psuedoscience - it is the only place in the forum where one can float 'crazy' ideas, HOWEVER, I think the issue here is that a GRAND UNIFIED THEORY needs to define how all the fundamental forces can be explained in terms of a single field. Just saying all are unified in the atom does not help because, Yes, of course they are unified in the atom and everywhere else in the universe, but HOW is the question. If you can answer that (preferably in mathematics) then you will be genius. Apologies if I have misunderstood you.
  9. OK. Are we saying that artificial intelligence/consciousness (perhaps not the same thing?) could theoretically be achieved (according to some schools of thought) by a computational system comprised of ANYTHING. So long as the system functions it could be slaves in labyrinths, water in complex pipe networks, lights and mirrors, ballbearings rails and gravity... Is this correct? Darn it - wrong thread....! Actually, maybe not. I have an idea forming. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA different thread (now mysteriously closed) highlighted that according to some theories of computation a computer could be made up of almost anything i.e., iot doesnt have to be electrons passing through a processor. It could be totally mechanical, or ball bearings in tubes under gravity, water in pipes, anything. Is it possible that particles, planets, suns, solar systems, held together by gravity could constitute a computable system - hence the universe being a huge 'computer'?
  10. Eddington - 1939: The philosophy of physical science: Tarner lectures 1938 Cambridge University Press W. Heisenberg: Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. In: Zeitschrift für Physik. 43 1927, S. 172–198. W. Heisenberg (1930), Physikalische Prinzipien der Quantentheorie (Leipzig: Hirzel). English translation The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930). Gribbon, J (1984) In search of Scrodinger cat: London. Black Swan This is patently obvious anyway.
  11. GutZ, you're not wrong there. However, the Uncertainly Principle is that electrons (or any sub-atomic particles) cannot have a definite momentum AND position. This is sometimes attributed to being a problem of hidden variables that detectors are not accurate enough to detect, or because the detection device itself affects the result, but while this is true enough, it's actually an intrinsic quality of reality at the sub-atomic level. There is simply no such thing as an electron (or any sub-atomic particle) that possesses both a precise momentum and a precise position. Heisenburg stated 'We cannot know as a matter of principle, the present in all its details'. The Uncertainly principle does not work backwards in time though. An electron can be shown to have had both precise momentum and position in the past - i.e., we can know as a matter of principle the past in all its details.'
  12. I wish to complain about Mokele. As a moderator he is picking on me and not in any way being impartial. I do not think he is a suitable moderator.

  13. It is highly filtered as it's primary purpose is to offer an alternative to mainstram corporate media (even though many of the articles are taken from the more highbrow mainstream media) and emphasise reports that hardly see the light of day otherwise. As I am sure I have said in the past, I take in news and information from many places, CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, and this is just one other place. Anyway, Fox News is way more whacko - does anyone with brains watch it seriously!? I am not in any way an extremist. Questioning total trust in the free market, the role of western secret services in foreign lands, the legal legitimacy of wars, or the fairness of global free trade (etc) does not make me an extremist. It just means I want a better more peaceful world. If you want a story from a site even you can trust, try here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html Just coincidence? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Incorrect. Not a logical fallacy at all. I disagree with your opinion there. In your opinion, not mine however. Read Greg Palast's book 'the best democracy money can buy' Do you think he's a whacko? Yeah, especially when so many black people were denied the vote in Jed Bush's state! If that's what you choose to believe, so be it. Please provide proof that he is a 'whacko' - or does 'whacko' mean someone who holds different political and moral opinions to you? Your incredulity appears to be based on opinion, not facts. Your choice to believe 911 is all above board is your's to make. There are many - not all cranks or whacko's - who disagree. But let's not digress. In your OPINION. Some may think he's seen the light. A false footing? I think not sir. Proof please. I didn't write the article for a start, and the author is clearly being a little sarcastic. Is that lost on you? He is inferring media bias. Can you not even detect the media bias? I suggest you read this (uh oh another Whacko site!) http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/090508_the_left_wing.php All this is explained in the article. Read itagain. Again, I suggest you re-read the article. Once the opposition declare victory its a race agasinst time for the other side to do likewise as the longer the delay the more it looks like they are fixing the result. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government. Yes, and conspiracy theorists who are quite sane invoke the CIA as well, because its what the CIA do. You do know that the CIA armed and trained Osama Bin Laden? Note the word NUT always comes after the word Conspiracy with you:-) Some conspiracies just happen to be true. History proves this. How can you say even if this is true it has nothing to do with whether the election was rigged. They are separate issues. They are quite obviously linked???? So the opposition chose green - since when does choosing a colour = revolution?
  14. Yes you are correct. My father was talking of people in the middle-east in general - it was my mistake to call Iranians arabs. (In fact the word Iran has the same roots as Aryan - Iranians are an Aryan people)
  15. Ahem, shall I repeat it? Maybe you like to discuss things without knowing the background or context? Game, set and match to me I think.
  16. It's a Speculation. And other scientists have speculated it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paola_Zizzi How can it be completely non-helpful when we are talking about evidence for a conscious universe? That is Panpsychism. Maybe you like to discuss things without knowing the background or context?
  17. OK. You can check out the facts yourself though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks Pangloss. I'm not even saying I agree with the articles but some have gone mad about whatever I suggest they consider - yet again. I appreciate your open mindedness and sense of fairness.
  18. If that's what you think, that's fine. I simply don't know enough to judge. Do you think that the Bush/Gore election was rigged in the US? I think an option to vote for 'none of the above' should be compulsory on voting cards. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Many articles on Information Clearing House are from other sources - most being perfectly reputable. The Paul Craig Roberts article is produced by ICH directly though. ICH does publish articles from very well respected Journalists such as John Pilger, and Paul Craig Roberts is also very well respected In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States Look them both up on the web. I agree that one should always check out the sources and add pinches of salt accordingly, but I would not recommend dismissing ICH as unreputable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is it? I'm not saying it isn't, but what do you base that opinion on?
  19. Well, probably because we are in Pseudoscience and Speculations, and it relates to Panpsychism which is more or less the subject of this thread.
  20. Please re-read what I said. I said 'Forget about QM for a minute'. Please do that and re-read the rest. I am not talking about QM for the rest of that post. I am also not making a firm hypothesis, I am merely making a speculation. I am telling you my opinion based on current neurobiological study. I do not ACTUALLY mean that neurones THINK, hence my use of inverted commas, I am suggesting that their action is far more complex than simply fire or not fire in that they process and assess at a cellular level impulses they receive before firing (or not) - and most people working in the field think so too. No, I don't see your point at all. I am surprised you can't see mine though. Please read up about the chinese box thought experiment, and you will see that the use of a conscious person in the box has lead to some saying it's a flaw in the argument, even though others say it's inconsequential. It's only a minor point, and nothing to get flustered about, and as I've said, Sysiphus is correct. What more do you want me to do? Can we please get back to the subject of the thread?
  21. The thing is Britain is made up of the many peoples who arrived here. The Britons (Welsh, Cornish, Picts) then Anglo-Saxons invaded Southern Britain, the Scotti invaded Caledonia (Scotland), the Irish set up colonies, then we had the Vikings, followed by the Normans (French vikings). So we ended up with not just many accents but a fair few languages as well. Plus the accent young people have in London now is heavily influenced by West Indian (Jamaican) accents, Asian accents and even US gagster rap speak. It's changed since I lived there only ten years ago! I'd guess that US accents probably derive from British West-Country accents, Irish and Dutch with some East European and Italian in some eastern cities.
  22. Well, one can't really argue with that...
  23. Surprise surprise, I have a proposal that the vote rigging story is a hoax... See here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22875.htm Also, find out more about Mousavi (the loser) Butcher of Beirut - not such a nice guy?? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22903.htm
  24. Certainly good sir, Forget QM for a minute. I am saying that even the fundamental mechanisms are not that well understood. Sure, we know pretty much what neurons, synapses etc do, but how their functioning is influenced by (as you say) neurotransmitters, glial cells, and other brain 'meat' and chemicals is not that well understood. In a nutshell, I don't think neurones are the biological equivalent of computer bits as I think they 'think' for themselves via smaller structures within them, and are influenced by lotsa stuff outside them. And yes, I agree, neurotransmitters are not just transport systems, but thier function seems to be to influence the nerve impulses in the brain (which are believed to be the primary mechanism for brain function - but not the only function). You are probably agreeing with my overall point in fact, that there are deeper levels than just neurons Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes you are right, but you'd be more open to criticism.
  • 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.