Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bombus

  1. Talk to me after you have been mugged because some drug addict needed $50 to go buy his drugs and get his fix.


    Or better still, go talk to a close family member of a drug addict. Ask them how torn up they are inside because their loved one died from an overdose. Or how they felt when said family member stole from them to get their drug money. Or ask a father how he feels about his daughter pimping herself out because she needs the money for her drug habit. There are lots of other victims...


    Yes, but that is due to drugs being illegal and expensive. Our local police chief wants to legalize heroin and give it to drug addicts for free on the NHS. Apparently the crime that accompanies a single heroin hit costs society around £500 a time on average, but a dose of heroin on the NHS would cost only 50p! Plus it negates the need for addicts to mug people and spread misery, or become prostitutes etc.


    Anyway, a bit off topic there...

  2. When did I claim to know everything? Or that neurons were necessary for complex behavior?


    Here's two claims for you:


    1) I know much, much more about neurobiology than you do.


    2) There is no empirical evidence for quantum effects in the brain.


    Fine. I doubt 1) and agree with 2).


    The point is you claimed 'we understand perfectly how the brain works at the deepest level - they're called neurons, and there's no deeper level.


    This is just not true. Ignoring any speculation about QM, exactly how brains work is not well understood, especially the role of other cells and inter-cell structures such as glial cells, neurolemnocytes, synapses, microtubules, centrioles, etc. The idea that brain function cannot be reduced further than a neurone firing or not firing is very probably false (although to be fair, you didn't quite say that, but it seems implied).


    And yes, I do know messages are transmitted by ions, I learnt that in school, but they are essentially chemical transport systems for electrons - it all boils down to the same thing unless you wish to be particularly pedantic.

  3. This is getting tedious.


    bombus, there is a reason why we keep insisting on avoiding logical fallacies. It's not just our anal attempt to be "strict and logical", it's a way of making sure the argument remains consistent: That we argue on the same subject, the same point, and answer one another with valid answers. If we don't do these, the entire argument is moot.


    Well maybe you should pull up others as well for a change. e.g Mokele's claim that he knows more about brains than I. As far as I am aware that kinda talk is not allowed on this forum.


    bombus, you really should start paying attention to the way you relate to people's comments. It might serve you well to read a bit about what logical fallacies are, and why they are important to recognize. I don't really care if you can recognize them by name, but you should be fair enough with us (and your own argument, quite frankly) to try and argue valid points, rather than argue just for the sake of remaining correct and hope people missed the flimsy logic that was used.


    Look here, for instance:


    Mokele was refering to the physical level of our understanding, in which case he is far from being wrong. By changing the meaning of "deepest level" from physical level to metaphorical level, you presented him as wrong. That's called a straw man. It's a logical fallacy because it makes the comment absolutely moot. Mokele did not say what you claim he said. Your point only seems true because you misrepresent Mokele's counterpoint.


    I did not change the meaning of deepest level. Mokele states that there IS NO DEEPER LEVEL. And then goes on to say he knows more about brain functioning than me...


    If you would have answered what he actually said, rather than what you want to argue, it would have been a valid point to make. Try again.


    Well, you make a good point there, fair enough. I shall try harder.


    That might be, bombus, but that wasn't the purpose of this argument. insane_alien MENTIONED the point you made, when he said "of course this over looks the many practical problems". It was also a semi-non-related cynical addition, because the subject wasn't (yet) the morality or practicality of actually getting robots to work on something as sentient being, the point is that robots are able to.


    What you did in this point is shift the point of the argument and introduce a red herring. Those are two logical fallacies, and they don't make you right.


    I was actually making a light hearted joke (c/f the chinese box)



    This was a shifty little bump on your part, bombus. Here's insane_alien's FULL quote on the matter of quantum computers:


    What 'shifty little bump'? I was actually agreeing with him that my original phrasing was inaccurate and clarifying what I had meant earlier.


    So, when you look at the full answer in context, you see that what insane_alien answered was your point about brains being quantum systems. I am not sure who said that exactly (that seems to be another strawman, though a subtle one), but regardless, insane_alien's response was directly related to your comment.


    I don't think there is a problem with his answer nor my subsequent reply.


    Your answer doesn't stand against insane_alien's answer. His point was that "quantum" doesn't mean magic, and so it's not all that insane to compare a brain to it. Your quote:


    Again, I see no problem here. I am just pointing out that I know QM isn't magic - but it is wierd.


    .. brings an exception - a "weird thing that happened once" - with quantum computers, presents it as a usual occurance with quantum computrs (is it? I don't think so) and it seems you use this to show that quantum computers are, therefore, not like the brain. Your conclusion doesn't follow that logic: For one, you need to demonstrate what EXACTLY it means by "the computer didn't run". Was there electricity through it, but just not any software? Well, if that's the case, isn't that *exactly* how our brain works? You don't have any software, you have electrical signals going back and forth between the neurons -- which is what has been told in the thread.


    I have been studying QM for since 1991, and think you are wrong to dismiss this as a one-off. It's a development of QM and quantum computing, many years in the making.


    So essentially, you've presented a case that doesn't necessarily come against the claims put forth to you, but presented it as if the obvious conclusion is that the other claims are wrong. The logic doesn't not follow the conclusion, bombus.


    I don't think there were claims against me. Just comments. We're having a discussion.


    So, to summarize - everyone will benefit greatly if we all avoid logical fallacies. Not just for the rules of the forum (which state, quite clearly, against their use) but for us to have a *VALID* discussion, one we can all mutually learn and understand from.


    OK, but I think you're scolding the wrong person, or at least, I'm not the only offender.


    I think maybe my reputation is too tarnished to carry on as I am being prejudged and misinterpreted. Maybe I should retire bombus and start afresh - but I'd rather not, I think I've been around for 4 years now...





    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Not if they're just following a set of rules.


    I was only joking actually. The joys of text message communication:-)

  4. this is not how quantum computers are special, they are special in that the can run algorithms that are impossible to run on standard computers.


    Yes. Fair enough, but that's how it's often described:


    Quantum computers have the potential for solving certain types of problems much faster than classical computers.


    Anyway, I suspect quantum computers will not be hindered by Gödel's theorem. I have just started reading Shadows of the mind, so will get back to you about that...

  5. My father (now deceased) worked in the middle east for a while in the 80's. He once told me that arabs have AK47's like westerners have golf clubs.


    [As an aside, he reckoned that the so-called 'soldiers in civilian clothes' who tried to defend Basra from the invading Brits in 2003 were probably veterans of the Iran/Iraq war as most looked well past 40 and all had AK47's - he called them BagDADS Army (maybe you gotta be a Brit to get that joke).]


    Anyway, I would bet that a relatively high proportion of Iranians do have an AK47 in the cupboard. Most of them probably support the government though. Also, there's no proof whatsoever that the Iranian elections were rigged in the first place, so the 'rebels' might be outnumbered anyway if it came to it.


    Personally, I think private ownership of guns is generally a bad idea for society. I think hunting rifles/shotguns are OK, so long as proper checks are made, but hand guns should be outlawed. Maybe the genie can't be put back into the bottle in the USA though.

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Well John, that is your opinion, I have mine.


    Its a moot point really, we are arguing about the shades of black between the pot and the kettle. Easy access to a gun is generally a bad idea. Easy access to drugs is also a bad idea.


    But drugs only harm oneself - and most don't harm at all unless abused...

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Maybe we should ban cars


    Now you're talking!:)

  6. No, we understand perfectly how the brain works at the deepest level - they're called neurons, and there's no deeper level.


    You are very wrong there. However, if you do know, maybe you should write a scientific paper on it. I'm sure the science world would love to know that you know exactly all there is to know about brain function.


    Paramecium function, including hunting out prey, without a single neuron, as do other single celled creatures. Neurones are not therefore the only things that can give an organism 'intent'.


    Try here for some ideas:



    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    yes, we could do that.


    if you really wanted you could breed a few octillion slaves and give them all abacus's and use messenger pidgeons as the data bus. of course this over looks the many practical problems but in principle it is possible.


    Using sentient slaves might be seen as a flaw!



    i think you are assuming the word quantum means any number of wacky things can occur. it is not equivalent to magic


    No, its just that quantum computers can do many more calculations simultaneously - even solving problems without fully running programs!


    Using an optical-based quantum computer, a research team led by physicist Paul Kwiat has presented the first demonstration of "counterfactual computation," inferring information about an answer, even though the computer did not run. The researchers report their work in the Feb. 23 issue of Nature.


    "In a sense, it is the possibility that the algorithm could run which prevents the algorithm from running," Kwiat said. "That is at the heart of quantum interrogation schemes, and to my mind, quantum mechanics doesn't get any more mysterious than this."


    See here:http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html

  7. the points you raise are difficult to answer (certainly for me) but our understanding of how the brain works is still unknown at the deepest level - I doubt it's just down to neurones firing - so I'll keep my mind open on brains being quantum systems.


    However, the idea that a purely mechanical system could become conscious really intrigues me. How presposterous could we make the 'computer'? How about one made of wood and bricks, powered by steam with water doing the same job as electricity?

  8. String theory is currently unfalsifiable.


    I'm bored of this conversation. It's going round in circles.


    Lets just wait and see shall we?


    I'm outta here.


    Thanks for the chat.

  9. As i said [sigh] he may well be crank, but that's not the point! Is what he is saying about PT correct or not?


    Anyway. I have looked up where you got those extracts from, and it is from a text about the beliefs of ancient cultures, and the third extract plainly states 'according to theosophy...'. You are cynically misrepresenting his own beliefs there.


    However, his stance on AIDS plainly shows he's a crank...



    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    My main problem is a distinct inability to suffer fools gladly.


    You are just plain rude.



    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged


    That is not an extract from another paper. It is an extract from the same paper you cited earlier. You even said so yourself ("See the link above"). The cited passage looks like a mix of mischaracterizations of credible sources (note the lack of quote marks) and one exact quote from a disreputable source.


    So what? I made a mistake. It's not relevant to the discussion.


    You will not get closer to the truth by posting straw men.


    That is not a strawman.

    So why then do you persist in posting straw men?


    why do you?:


    Have you seen movies of deep sea dives? There is a constant rain of sediments from above. Of course ocean trenches were initially expected to contain a huge accumulation of sediment. That they weren't was a key indicator that something was wrong with the science of geology at the time the trenches were discovered. The discovery of the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges was one of the driving forces behind the development of plate tectonics.

    Do you have even the foggiest idea of how real science works?


    Are you aspergic?


    Crank, crank, crank. Seriously, crank. Let's see what else he has to say:


    I would repeat what I said earlier, but you don't seem to understand the point.


    Look DH, just sod off if you can't be civil. I'm going to ignore you in this thread from now on.

  10. That's ridiculous. Ever heard of a neurotransmitter?


    No it's not, and Yes.


    Neurotransmitters are just one part of brain functioning.


    I'd also appreciate it if you would share a source for that text which you copy/pasted. Not only is it the rules, not only is it just good personal policy, but I'd like to read the context in which the comments were made so as to better understand them.


    sure It was only an article I found somewhere, not a scientific paper.




    A sentence suggesting that some guy Hameroff is not convinced isn't good enough.


    Isn't good enough for what?


    Finally, those superconductors operating at higher temperatures that you mention... those are made out of materials which simply aren't present in the brain.


    No, but the brain has far more complex structures than superconducting material. I am just pointing out that temperature may not be such a factor as previously thought.

  11. Name some, please.


    See the link above. This is an extract from another paper. I have not checked out the references yet:


    Maxwell (1974) stated that many earth-science papers were concerned with demonstrating that some particular feature or process may be explained by plate tectonics, but that such papers were of limited value in any unbiased assessment of the scientific validity of the hypothesis. Van Andel (1984) conceded that plate tectonics had serious flaws, and that the need for a growing number of ad hoc modifications cast doubt on its claim to be the ultimate unifying global theory. Lowman (1992a) argued that geology has largely become "a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts ... used as confidently as trigonometric functions" (p. 3). Lyttleton and Bondi (1992) held that the difficulties facing plate tectonics and the lack of study of alternative explanations for seemingly supportive evidence reduced the plausibility of the theory.



    It would be best to keep EET out of this thread.


    Agreed. I was only pointing out that evidence of PTT does not generally disprove EET. But that will do on the subject.



    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged



    You should give many hoots. Using logical fallacies is not a valid form of discourse.


    I don't deliberately post strawmen. So long as I get nearer to the truth I'm fine with that.


    It took me but a few seconds to find this.


    The Cascadia subduction zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and northern California contains forearc basins in several areas, according to Fuller. As it moves to the east at 2 inches a year, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate slides beneath the North American plate that contains the landmass of the Pacific Northwest. In the process, sediment as deep as 1.5 miles is scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate and is deformed into surface depressions on the North American plate, forming the basins where sediment from coastal rivers is deposited. The probability of large earthquakes is greatest in these areas.


    And I found this: Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence. Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments. The rest do contain "accretionary wedges" along the landward slope, but smaller than expected. Accretionary wedges were expected to grow and uplift with time, but it is now known that some have subsided several kilometres. Moreover, the sediment in them is usually horizontally layered and undisturbed, and is mainly derived from the land rather than being offscraped oceanic sediment.


    Rather than taking the claims made in some woo-woo web site as truth, I suggest you use your brains and see if those claims have any validity.


    Jesus! What is wrong with you? I am not taking anything as truth. I am investigating the claims to see if they stand up to scrutiny.


    I'd suggest you read the information my link above leads to before making any more posts.


    Try this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm


    and I don't want to hear 'he's a crank'. I don't care if he's a chocolate sponge, it's whether what he is saying is correct/incorrect or an accurate acount/misrepresentation of data that's the issue.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Or to put it another way, the only requirement with regards to area is that the combined area of all plates remains constant. There's no reason individual plates should have a constant area.


    OK. Thanks.

  12. I may not be on the high ground, but neither am I shifting the goalposts nor posting strawmen. I never said there was no debate on the matter. What I said was


    I have not deliberately posted strawmen here. I never deliberately post strawmen.



    There certainly is some debate outside of physics, but I don't care about that so much. It's not particularly rigorous, from what I can see, and much of it seems to be located within the new-age crowd, who are just tacking the term "quantum" onto their schlock in an attempt to legitimize it. It's not science, so it can't be scientific debate. If it was science, all you'd have to do is devise an experiment for it — then you might have a debate.


    Much of what you have said sounds like opinion to me, and again, passing it all off as new age rubbish. I'm sure a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn't.


    Within physics, I don't consider a few scattered papers in low-level journals to be debate, especially as nobody seems to be engaging these few authors. The response seems to be a collective yawn.




    I am giving you the benefit of my experience as a physicist. Take it for what you will. As for proof, I will state once again: not my burden. I can't prove a negative anyway, so it's disingenuous to ask me to do so


    OK proving a negative is difficult - I was expecting a link to a paper solving all the issues. However, I have posted enough to show that it is being debated by respected, serious physicists working in respected institutions, and there is plenty more out there.


    We'll have to agree to differ I think.

  13. bombus, you are misinterpreting what he is saying. he is saying that the reasons why plate tectonics tend to be completely ignored by proponents of expanding earth, they only focus on the problems without even attempting to account for the things that plate tectonics works for, often leaving these things out entirely. the only incredulity is in regard to the behaviour of these people.


    any theory that is going to replace tectonics must be capable of describing everything plate tectonics does right and then some more.


    I am not interested in the bits that support PTT - I have no problem with these. It's the bits that don't fit that are the problem. However, EET would have pretty much the same evidence as PTT - even a degree of subduction according to some - which makes the holes in PTT (if they exist) more problematic. However, I can't stand closed mindedness on either side.


    However, I suspect many of the opponents to PTT do not believe in EET either

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    bombus, you have presented one purported "problem" with plate tectonics and it has been dealt with. Your only direct response was


    It is a straw man argument. The argument depends upon the implicit assumption that plates are of a fixed size. Plate tectonics does not say this at all. Saying (or implying) that it does and then attempting to tear down plate tectonics based on this is a straw man.


    I couldn't give two hoots if it is a strawman. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the claims. Chill out for god's sake!


    What other "problems" with plate tectonics theory do you see?


    Lack of scraped off sediment at subduction zones. Where is it? It was predicted - and should occur, but doesn't.



    Now you are employing another logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have a complete theory does not invalidate the theory. Good thing that; there is no such thing as a complete theory in any branch of science.


    Some theories - such as evolution by natural selection - are pretty damn watertight. So is relativity. PTT does not have anywhere near the same logical authority or evidence.

  14. But the structures in the brain are classical objects. What does QM have to do with it?


    Structures in the brain are classical objects, but thinking is done by chucking electrons around the brain. One could say that the brain is a structure to contain and 'herd' electrons, i.e., it is the electrons that are the important bit rather than the meat itself. I suspect that Quantum effects come into play. Some proposals have been put forward, but this is debated, and Max Tegmark thinks the brain too warm and wet:


    If our neurons have anything at all to do with our thinking, if all these electrical firings correspond in any way to our thought patterns, we are not quantum computers," says Tegmark. The problem is that the matter inside our skulls is warm and ever-changing on an atomic scale, an environment that dooms any nascent quantum computation before it can affect our thought patterns. For quantum effects to become important, the brain would have to be a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero.


    Hameroff is unconvinced. "It's obvious that thermal decoherence is going to be a problem, but I think biology has ways around it," he says. "Water molecules in the brain tissue, for instance, might keep tubulin coherent by shielding the microtubules from their environment. In back-of-the-envelope calculations, I made up those 13 orders of magnitude pretty easily."


    Also, superconductors are functioning at ever higher temperatures, so nature could have got there already via millions of years of evolution. We can but wait and see.

  15. Fair enough. So, those would be "plate boundary slidey zones." I'm really not too interested in this particular discussion to be perfectly honest. I find the blatant lack of regard for why we accept plate tectonics to both be rather appalling and annoying.


    You are clearly being led by your incredulity. That is not scientific! I suggest you look further into PTT. It's not as solid as many will have you believe. That's not to say it's not still true though.

  16. "All physicists agree" is not a reasonable standard. Don't shift the burden of proof.


    That some physicists discuss the role of consciousness is not the same as saying it is a significant, contested and debated topic within the physics community. A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals doesn't fit the bill.


    I see. So I ask a question and then have to justify the asking of a question by providing proof that my question is valid, while no proof needs to be provided to back up the proposal that there is no debate on the matter. You are not on the scientific high ground here. You have provided no proof so far.


    Also, only a proportion of physicists actually work on QM anyway, so there are not going to be that many debating the issue. And when emminent physicists like Roger Penrose are n the debate I hardly think it's fair to say that the debate is about a 'A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals'


    It's a debate that is still occurring and I have shown this to be true. Shall we carry on discussing retrocausality. I do not consider there is much left to discuss here.


    I's also like to note that contains contradictory statements. The two cannot be equal if one does not include the other. The former was never asserted.[/


    I think you are splitting hairs based on semantics here.

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    --You never responded to this.


    I did but maybe not directly. Your proposal is one interpretation, and there are others. If it was as simple as you put it why would it ever have caused such a fuss? I don't think the evidence backs up that proposal, but I shall investigate it.

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    Yes, well, the key difference here is that my ... belief as you put it is a falsifiable theory whereas yours is not. My theory that the equipment/application of experiment was faulty is verifiable, and at some point in the future it WILL be proven right or wrong. This is the difference between tackling a problem and explaining it away. Our theories are nor equivalent.


    Some of the interpretations of QM may well not be falsifiable, but some of the data cannot be explained by current science. Some interpretations of QM do provide a possible solution. However, if the proposals are not falsifiable directly, there may be experiments that could be devised that might imply them to be true. The giaia theory is a difficult one to falsify, but the Daisy World hypothetical model swayed a lot of doubters as it's hard to argue with.


    The experimenters? Probably not, I doubt people pushing the borders of science are crackpots, but we are not talking about them, now are we? We discuss several interpretations of the observed experiments.


    I think we may well be talking about people who are pushing the borders of science. Who do you mean?


    If Newton decided that gravity is mass multiplied by gravitational acceleration, conducts an experiment and makes a (reasonable for classical thinking) theory, then good for him, up in the hall of fame he goes.


    We should NEVER confuse his experiment with an outside person (the crackpot) who sees gravity as not the apple falling down attracted by earth, but pushed by the tree. Or that claims that if Newton weren't there, the apple would have never fallen, or that apples don't fall unless there's a human there to see it.


    That's an inaccurate analogy. Data is being produced that cannot be explained by current 'mainstream' physics, but could be explained using some interpretations of QM.



    On a lighter note, maybe I missed it but I don't remember anyone arguing towards the following:


    In the first experiment, without the observer, the particles form a wave pattern. Is this experiment not observed, even if indirectly? Are the physicists now aware of the particles' behavior and is their consciousness not there in the mix?


    It is, but some doubt that consciousness actually influences the experiment.


    Sure they don't check EACH particle,


    Actually they have done.


    I blame the measuring mode


    As far as I understand, the measuring mode being the key issue does not correlate with all the evidence. I will look further into it.

  17. Yet you can accept that a purely chemical one can?


    Maybe... but due to interactions at the sub-atomic level.


    I suspect it's actually something to do with quantum mechanics. I think quantum computers could become sentient, but not the ones we use today. (I know QM is involved with 'normal' cpu's but I mean qbits rather than bits)


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    how hard it is to accept has no bearing on its reality however.


    Very true. a current theme I keep noticing recently is how much scientific investigation is influenced by incredulity - including my own. I have been reading a brief history of time again, and research on black holes was delayed because certain influential scientists didn't like the idea and encouraged others not to bother with research. Trendy ideas get funding for research, unfashionable or unpopular ideas do not. Scientific study is often not that scientific. It is a little worrying.

  18. That was never asserted. What was explained was that any interaction counted as an observation.


    It was stated, and not all scientists agree on this!


    But the tone of the subsequent argument was that consciousness was required for any observation ("No consciousness means no observation"), and that this topic was an active debate among the physics community. It isn't, and it's not.


    It would seem that it is among some - as my posts have suggested. Can you please direct me to a source that shows all physicists agree that interaction is the same as observation.


    No, what I question is someone purportedly establishing the QM behind a phenomenon that has never been confirmed experimentally, the author's claims notwithstanding (I'll have to check out his references to see if he's just misrepresenting them. Somehow I doubt that a Nature paper confirms telepathy). As with my note about "revised quantum dynamics" — building one hypothesis upon another hypothesis is truly shaky ground. This author repeatedly references himself as if one conjecture is true, and more likely than not is just building a house of cards.


    I'd suggest that both hypothesis can exist without each other, but perhaps one can support another. Anyway, I don't wish to discuss telepathy here.

  19. Why is the growth of the Antarctic plate a problem? There's no rule saying that plates cannot grow or shrink. The only way this would be a problem is if the increased surface area was not matched by decreases elsewhere.


    where are the subduction zones?

  20. My first post merely questioned the assertion that interaction does not include observation - or to be more precise, that observation=interaction.


    I am claiming that that has not been proven and that it is still being debated, as some QM experts do claim that interaction does indeed have to involve conscious observation. (Note:The other side of the argument is just as bereft of evidence).


    I am not necessarily making that claim myself, but have been offering proof that the issue has not been resolved.


    (However, I have probably been subject to a little 'mission creep' and have at times been defending the 'conscious observation is required' argument.)


    I actually don't know what the 'truth' is - no-one does.


    Also. re the paper on telepathy. This is what I mean by incredulity influencing scientific study. Are you suggesting that you would not even consider the possibility of telepathy?



    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged


    This hardly rises to the level of a debate.



    That's debateable:-)

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    First of all, the electrons must have ceased acting like waves and began acting like particles sometime before and up to the moment they passed through the slit in order for the interference pattern on the screen to disappear. Since the only conscious rendering of the situation is formed after observing the electrons' imprints on the screen, and the devices inside the slits are not actually recording anything, it is clear that conscious observation is not the issue here.


    Also, as soon as you say "This is IMHO a big issue in science," you lose. Nothing is anything in your opinion, as far as science is concerned. Science really doesn't care what you think if you don't have evidence. And a single paper is not evidence enough for the controversy you seem to point to.


    Oh, well I've lost then. Obviously.

  21. Cperkinson,


    Your life may not be predetermined. Quantum Theory gives (some of) us a way out of that. I do not believe free will to be an illusion. I think it's real. No need to contemplate suicide - contemplate quantum consciousness instead (although be warned, you'll probably be deemed a crank - but at least you'll be a happy crank!):)

  22. You have created a straw man. The obvious answers are that (1) not all of the oceanic ridges are active right now, and even more important (2) the Antarctic plate is growing.


    It's not a straw man as far as I am concerned. You have given a good answer there that I had not considered. Carry on the good work!

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    bombus, where is that image sourced from?


    Neal Adams website. I doubt it's made up. He may be a proponent of EET but I don't think he's a hoaxer, and claims to be using already existing data. I'd venture that if he is incorrect he is just misinterpreting the data, as ID proponents often do.

  • 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.