Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Genecks

  1. Why can't I argue E. for #1?

    I mean, I think it's B if I remember correctly, because genes on different parts of the genome might help synthesize that enzyme. But then, I can possibly equivocate about what "code" is, and no... the code does not generally unravel itself and start punching out proteins. Is the answer: "It's a microbio class, not a molecular bio class"? Maybe, then, it's A, because it's a microbio class.


    Anyway, the inability for the original poster to answer most of the questions shows a lack of studying the material. A little research is needed, I think, but there has been a lack of studying the material. That is the difference between a letter-grade, I think, especially observing one alleged question from a higher percentage bracket. In a situation like this, use a study group.

  2. I mean, I think the father wants son to have an independent income (not necessarily "work"). But I think son doesn't like the chance of getting kicked out of a nice place and settling for some disability home with other disabled individuals. But with medical privacy laws being the way they are, and SSDI income in the U.S.A. being on debit cards, it should be easy to hide whether ... lol... or not you're getting SSDI. Considering Locard's exchange principle, a change in monetary requests could signify a change in income, thus generating circumstantial evidence leading to being kicked out.

  3. There is no sense to be made from the legal system: It's all illusion. The trick is getting people to believe that something is being accomplished. In that, members of government are arguably engaging in criminal fraud. The government wants people to see itself as God in order to create "meaning" for people and establish order through law. And what happens in society makes sense because "they say so." However, the end-game is all for naught, I believe, because society eventually decays: So, the persistent motive of the legal system is to take advantage of people in the name of greed, while seeking rewards for itself and punishment for others due to a retributivist policy. Were it really about being pro-social, the politicians would bear the weight of the metaphysical issues, making it easier for those dealing with legal matters to re-integrate into society without much of an issue. I say politicians, because it would appear that "average" people are either too ignorant, stupid, or stubborn to bear the weight of the metaphysical issues, such as blame, responsibility, and culpability. The government wants a system where nobody questions their authority and simply accepts it.


    I was referring to Idiocracy, the movie. I'll interpret that you have not seen it. The U.S. president in the movie is/was a wrestler.


    No, Apple owes the government nothing, especially the delusional, schizoaffective government as it exists. The All Writs act is hearsay. The government is going to do what it wants in the court of law, possibly strike, seal, expunge whatever it wants in the court of law, and so forth. There is no contract or U.S. Constitution except the "illusion" of the contract. Contracts exist in weapons, who can pull more of his, her, or its weight in the fight for the monopoly on violence. Apple has a lot of money, as did Microsoft back in the 1990s. That translates to work rather than violence, so Apple would more than likely lose if the government keeps pushing.


    In the past few months I was reading about red-light cameras and their legality. If you want to talk about B.S., what the courts and other members of government (whoever passed the bill) did was some B.S.. Cops were presenting the evidence, but it was considered to be hearsay by the attorney who got the red-light ticket (they needed the company to authenticate it). The government ended up passing a bill to make the hearsay legitimate, thus not needing authentication. A bill was passed that was unconstitutional. Actually, a lot of stuff keeps getting passed into law that is unconstitutional, such as negligence laws. Actually, every law is ex post facto, thus unconstitutional: Philosophy of law. "This is the law, because I have more guns than you."


    What the government is doing with Apple is a clear sign that the government is starting to do whatever it wants.

  4. What is considered 'disabled' in the US? In Australia we currently have over 800, 000 people on a disability pension (our population is around 23.4 million). There were 127,000 claims made in 2013 and only around 72, 000 were rejected. The number of Australians on disability pension grew by 43% between 1997-2007. I find it hard to believe that many people are unable to work.


    With no disrespect to the OP, I just have no idea what disabled means anymore. So perhaps we should identify that first.


    I reason that would be the current case law definition of disabled: You could go to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling for a more definitive answer. But that could be scrapped and the reasonableness argued about until a mediated resolve occurs. Personally, I think "seriously disabled"s father wants him/her to go make his/her own money: That's the issue.

  5. If the government messed up in data retrieval, I see no reasonable need for Apple to provide a resolve. I don't think Apple should need to provide a resolve, anyway, because they didn't initially have the resolve or allege to have a reasonable resolve to the issue prior to the case. As such, they did not have the key to the lock but simply a lot of locks without a single key to open them. No, I don't think it's Apple's responsibility at all to provide or design a key.


    Honestly, I think this is a stupid and petty issue. No, Apple should not have to do the work. What the government ought to have done was privatize the issue to Apple rather than harass Apple with magical beliefs about reality.


    The courts are inspired by greed and sociopathy. They are the reptilian complex at its finest. They wish to be an entity upon their own. Legalism. Personally, I think they're hardcore delusional.


    lol @ a frightening number of them being ex-pro wrestlers: Idiocracy.

  6. Hard logic answer: Instantaneously? No.... YMMV depending on your interpretation of time-space and physics.


    Empathetic answer:

    Neo has a cyborg brain. The Matrix movie doesn't go into too much depth of all of what's involved with that cyborg brain. But if we look at some aspects of things, you can get two scenarios: (1) Mind uploading with no B.S. in between or (2) a virtual classroom, whereby you engage in an accellerated timeframe to learn mathematics. That is to say, while Neo was learning martial arts (as per Phi for All... to use in The Matrix, because if you remember him fighting Smith in a person's body while in the "real" world, Neo sucked at fighting "Smith"--2nd movie), he was either (1) getting a mind upload or (2) engaging in a virtual "classroom" to learn martial arts. With a mind upload, we'd have to consider how there would be a paradigm to upload the ability to "abstract" about mathematical problems in order to solve them. There would have to be an understanding of neural networking to the point where you could say with 95% certainty that the topic has been "learned" once the neural network has been established. We would be getting into neural programming at that point.


    But then again, Neo had a cyborg brain... so it would be quite definitive without all the biological molecules, their position, their kinetic energy, their relative position to others in other neurons... But if we're getting into the classroom model, that's as much as putting Neo into a white room with a calculus book, saying, "Read this and let me know when you're done with all of the problems," and then ejecting him from the virtual realm once he's done.


    The question becomes: How do you operationally define when the mathematics have become "learned"?


    Does it occur if I give you a computer with Wolfram Alpha on it? A calculus book as an extension of yourself?

    So, it comes down to the operational definition of "learned."

  7. University of Chicago first came to mind. Then the NIH.


    Personally, I would probably be the dude working on invertebrates trying to turn them into cyborgs, because that stuff is the bomb to me. The idea of taking a snail, "enhancing" it, and then giving it some "desire" to explore a virtual reality for "food" in a way it normally NEVER would, is the fun stuff: Biohacking into the digital world. I added something to the animal that was never there before. Aside, I think regenerative medicine will continue to prosper.


    Regenerative medicine and stem-cell tech is a highlight for transhumanism and future gens. But I think, sociologically, I've come to the belief that cyberization will create a large reduction in sociological issues: So, I've increased my belief bioengineering feats. Proximally, stem-cell tech seems to require less work.


    But, if I take a look at things, you're probably at a really basic level of what you do. You're going to learn molecular bio at all kinds of places, so the skill set would be somewhat the same wherever you go. You might want to go to a place that's using cutting edge technology to do the techniques people often do (I don't know who has the tech at the moment). But if you were to, say get into a bioweapons lab, that would definitely be a unique experience you wouldn't be able to get much of anywhere else.


    Despite UofC and NIH first coming to mind, what then came to mind was a bioweapons lab. If you can get into ​anywhere, then aim for a bioweapons lab. They don't just let ​anyone into those. Skills might be similar, but getting access to the materials is a completely different story.


    1. University of Chicago

    2. NIH

    3. NIMH

    4. Bioweapons lab


    Last I recall, UofC has a bioweapons lab.


    There was an academic paper I came across, whereby it said a pharma company had invested in making a treatment for prion disease in humans. And they gave the drug some obscure alphaletter name, if I recall correctly. I think that would be an interesting place to do research in, especially if the issue is still cutting edge.


    So, bioweapons is an idea. Another thing is getting in with a group that is doing human trials on something.


    I think the general idea I'm portraying is getting involved with something you more than likely wouldn't unless someone gave you a really pretty key.

  8. If you're disabled, then I would think you qualify for housing and disability income. I'm not too sure how other nations deal with it, but in the U.S.A., those options exist. I don't see what your problem is unless you're not a legal adult yet. And if you're not a legal adult, then the issue is the legality of your father's actions. There ought to be plenty of resources for you to engage in independent living.


    Move on. Yes, your father is more than likely stupid (unable to learn or do anything about circumstances) due to how the universe works and the no free-will issue. Move on.


    There are a lot of resources for disabled individuals. Sure, they may not be able to partake of higher-level actions often found in higher institutions, but they can sure find a baseline for themselves and maintain a steady life.

  9. Someone already touched on it: The issue of "graded potentials," which tend to be involved in vision. An action potential can be binary, but a graded potential not so much. Maybe there is a way to look at things in a binary way, but I don't know of that right now. That is to say, perhaps a graded potential can eventually be described in a binary way for the result that the graded potential would "cause." Graded potential causes Mental State (Q17659), thus all that is needed is a binary system to cause Mental State (Q17659) to be turned on. But then we're arguing that there is the illusion that graded potentials occur: Possibly, but if you're using an analog system to check the "charge" (been a while), you're going to see a signal that is not binary. Maybe it results in a unique, monovalent response at the end of the pathway; but just visualizing things in this world, it does not appear be to binary. That could be an illusion. Perhaps the analog visual is actually a computer program that I've been deluded into believing is analog rather than a result of binary computation from a 5th-dimensional or super-universal lifeforce. I've played with computer programs that portend to give an "analog" example of what would be observed.


    Also, yes, someone already quipped about "quantum entanglement." The argument, I believe, is saying that cause-and-effect is a "false" notion.


    I think that the universe being a "computer simulation" just creates the infinite regress situation. I don't think it's an impractical belief. Maybe rather than cause-and-effect we look at dimensions and question what exists in higher dimensions. Also, a potential glitch in a "simulation" would be how far we can get with our technology until things seem to be strangely limited: But that would be dependent upon "learned" knowledge. Think of the CDC episode in The Walking Dead or perhaps other examples: "Why are there 'walkers'? Answer: Magic!"


    The answer is that the scientist is in a television show. One of the actors (Lizzie) catches onto this, but she is told to look at the flowers and is shot. I can only hope children of future generations are more like that little girl. There is a cut scene (not of the episode) where it becomes obvious that the walkers are actors.


    Something eventually seems "amiss" in relation to our science and technology with the dream argument.


    It tends to be the resolve to the "dream argument," whereby you'll eventually notice that there is something illogical about the situation. Perhaps the philosophy of absurdism argues well enough that we're in a dream. I think the dream argument is definitely something that needs to be more studied and discussed.


    Dream, simulation, what-you-ma-call-it... synonymous terms for "reality" or "the universe." It doesn't really matter how you describe it, because it ends up being that one thing. If you want to argue that we're in a reality like in the cartoon ReBoot, that still creates an issue of there being a reality beyond this reality: And then you get into Plato's allegory of the cave, or the infinite regress issue (whereby there are always caves you're trying to get out of).


    What I like about the simulation hypothesis, though, is that it tends to argue why we haven't seen aliens (resolve the Fermi paradox): We're in a simulation. So, this layer of reality is very much a simulation, thus bringing to question what the outside looks like, what the physics are like, and so on.


    I think on a low level, the Fermi paradox (one resolve to it) argues we're in a simulation. Someone is deceiving us: Otherwise, there really isn't socially intelligent life out there (thus bringing a bivalent possibility). On a high level, absurdism knocks it all down and says, "Whatevah..."


    I see the simulation hypothesis as an "analogy," which in my rhetorical discourse, I've been taught that analogies can be knocked down due to insufficient criterion listing with the real thing. That's a high-level inference. It does a good job, though, of creating a "model" to question reality. Photons like electrons on a circuit board going to the video card, which is like _____ in this world: Maybe photons from the big bang travelling to the retina to be brought forth in consciousness? Seems to go into the realm of the anthropic principle, though: Arguing that without "brains" there would be nothing to "process" the information in the universe. I find it hard to argue against the anthropic principle with the Fermi paradox in consideration, however. I'm not saying Genesis, but it kind of feels like Genesis.


    My personal opinion leans on the belief that this universe was a latch-ditch effort to save "life," thus we're a universe inside a universe. Kind of a Silver Surfer situation.


    If we describe "best" as "optimal" in a mathematical way (mathematical optimization), then we want a language that is "best" for the CPU. But that's an analogy. Also, that gives a biased perspective based on our view of what a computer is or what would "cause" a simulation to occur, potentially a The Matrix argument. An optimal language would reduce energy usage while allowing the most processing. Personally, I think the big bang was nothing less than an archive file being unzipped (.zip file format or whatever). Linux/Unix bringing the idea that "everything is a file" makes a strong argument for what kind of OS style to have. It seems to end up being you need a 5th-dimensional being for this reality or a different view for what is described for relativity. Interestingly, I'd have to say this is the first time I've questioned whether or not time travel is possible in The Matrix due to there being an outside layer of reality (albeit "4-dimensional"). One thing I've questioned is if a 5th dimensional (or acausal) being does interact with this reality, how would we notice? I don't think we would, because changes would be instantaneous. So, if the universe is a computer program or simulation, I don't think we'd ever notice changes to it being such, thus failing to recognize it as such due to the instantaneous nature of any outside influence.


    I've not seen decent arguments as to why the "laws of physics" are the way they are. I don't think the response "because they are energy efficient" is the correct answer. That would make sense if "time" truly were unidirectional. I think the response is more around the lines of "because they balance each other out." With that said, maybe there is a binary nature to the laws of physics: Something for one law to be balanced out by another in a "binary" way. That's beyond the scope of my knowledge, though.

  10. DARN!!


    They changed the rules for getting the million dollars, because Randi retired and now they're setting up "new" protocols, which supposedly come out this year. I have a hypothesis on how to get the million dollars. I actually completely held the desire to go do it within the past few months, grab a suitcase of my clothes, and personally walk down there and get the million dollars. That'd be like hundreds of miles, but I'd do it.


    Anyone willing to back me if they have it as a condition that I need academic support? Also, I more than likely will not tell you how to get the million dollars.


    I firmly believe the new rules will prevent me from personally getting the prize, which leads to an unfortunate situation; but I don't think Randi cares. He'll simply come to an understanding that something has "changed."


    I thought of going down there, claiming the prize, and if they refused to give it to me, suing for fraud. It appears they're saying they don't want people coming down and asking to be tested. http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status

  11. I'm referring to the r-complex in relation to the triune brain hypothesis.


    Does anyone think it would be a fair argument to say that homosexuals have more brain excitation in their r-complex on average than heterosexuals on average?


    I was taking an evolutionary look at this by thinking about how some lizards undergo asexual reproduction.

  12. It's all about what philosophy of mind you want to adopt. I have been an identity theorist, thus saying the mind is the brain. But that didn't appeal to me once I started thinking more about things. There is a signal and an image. To be the signal, you'd have to be the object giving off the signal, which isn't likely: You would have to be at two places at once. You're the brain taking in a signal that is somehow generated into an image. A television takes a signal and projects an image. The image occurs in the mind. Sure, there are multiple signals that give the appearance of a single image: And that there is a single image is an illusion. Nonetheless, an image, one of many, is made: And that is occurring.

    I think you understand what I mean, Gee. What you see on a computer monitor is the computer's mind: It's the mind of the computer if but at least what the computer is visualizing. Without a graphics card, like the biological visual aspects of the human brain, a computer would not be able to "see." All the physical processes work together and give an output. It's what the computer is visualizing, and you can see what the computer is visualizing on the monitor. It's about as conscious as a piece of grass, yeah. You grasp what I'm saying. A blade of grass doesn't have a video card and output, so you can't see what it's "thinking."

    I think my answer is that there is some kind of bridge connecting the physical and the "psychological," which is the qualitative aspect of things. You'll have to understand that I think there is a descriptive answer to what the mind is. Although in conflict with my previous arguments, it could just as well be that everything is acausal. I mention the psychological arrow of time, because I think it's arguable that it has an influence on our perceptions of everything, thus what occurs in the mind. But if causality is an illusion, then only acausality exists. And I've started to come to the strong belief that's a possibility. Thus, only the psychological exists, thus only the mind: And I mean, we don't see signals. We see what they've transformed into after a process.

    Cube 1 and Cube 2 are movies.

    I think that the psychological arrow of time, entropy, and the measurement problem also take in to what we "observe," thus our perception of mind. We think time flows a certain way, a certain pattern, within an oscillation common to our biology: But without any reference, what we observe or believe with the mind could be a very different situation.

  13. There's definitely something odd about all of it. From my explanation, you can't experience what the mind is, because then you would have to break all of your ignorance. In "law," this means you'd have to become "the reasonable person," which is God in the legal system. You have to mediate opposing viewpoints and destroy negligence in the process. Thus, I've questioned if the answer to a lot of modern riddles is psychologism. So, to experience or know what the mind is would be to learn acausality, which I would assume that to know acausality is to be independent of causality, thus to know God, thus to be God. To know is to be. To know what the mind is, is to know yourself.


    I guess that works under the monist philosophy that to know what something is, is to be that thing. Anything else is an approximation. It's Maya and the measurement problem at work. I feel the philosophy of "Move along. Nothing to see here." is probably the best to adhere to.


    Questioning what the mind or perception is, is fun and exciting. However, if it actually gets into the depth of acausality, I reason it gets quite frightening. A causal being with the "desire" to understand something "acausal," just ain't goona happen. It seems descriptively possible to say that mind=God, but to actually fully realize it would be a different story. Thus, there would be an empathic aspect that would necessary to obtain.

  14. Is our mind inside or outside of our brain? Our mind is spiritual where our brain is biological. Which part the mind or the brain holds our emotions? I'm for our mind. It' said our emotions are in our brain? It is also said that our thoughts are in our mind and not our brain. What say you? Mind one


    My current belief is that qualia and quantity exist on different planes, such as different dimensions.

    Dimension A = the physical

    Dimension B = the psychological


    When I consider thinking about the mind, I get into topics, such as mathematics, psychology, engineering, and vision. We could use sound, but I don't have too much of a background in the neurobiology of sound interpretation.


    Much of my interpretation has come about from studying the visual system and fourier transformations. I think there is some kind of evolutionary mathematical process that taps into another dimension. So, the brain takes a signal, and upon a signal taps into another dimension, whereby perception occurs. I talked about something like this on philosophyforums.com, but the site was hacked and loads of stuff erased.


    Basically, I was postulating that the brain evolved to open some kind of obsure dimension, such as a stargate. The holonomic brain principle, I think, was of the last things I was investigating. The brain evolved a bridge to connect Dimension A and Dimension B.


    - Holonomic brain theory


    So, I was under the belief that somehow the brain evolved to generate a bridge that could cross between the physical and the psychological. This eventually led me to research whether or not an acausal dimension exists. Jung was investigating something similar. Coincidences could be argued to be things that are separate and yet related. They don't cause each other, but there is a link, a bridge. So, the question becomes: What is the bridge?


    If there is a psychological dimension, it may have to do with the law of entropy and the psychological arrow of time.


    There is a lot more investigation to due, but I'm not sure if math is simply the way of trying to figure it all out. I'm fond of the mathematical universe hypothesis and have belief in it. I don't know how something acausal would be mathematically described.


    If we consider that the mind is based on the psychological arrow of time, then there are physical constraints. Sigh... ughh..


    So, I was trying to find a way to combine philosophy, law, and neuroscience. Eventually, I came to some kind of obscure scientific model, whereby I was combining science and law. So, if you're in a room and there isn't a clock around, then Einstein's theories of relativity are not true at the moment ("if you can't prove something in court, it's not true"). I started to define and specify "court" as a kind of organism if not entity, thus kind of like calling yourself "the court."


    Perhaps this is like a Schrodinger's cat situation. Even if there is a clock, if you don't have something to compare it to, such as a learned pattern of time, it's going to be difficult to argue how much time is passing. You don't know. You can't prove it. You can't prove it to yourself. You can claim all you want that time is passing, but if you can't prove it, you're stuck. So, the mind is dependent on obscure environmental variables of proof. The relationship between mind and environment determines what is observed. If anyone's watched Cube 2, this might make sense. Thus, I started to study what is called "fraud." Those who have studied philosophy and religion might say this is called "Maya," and maybe you're wondering how any of this is relevant.



    It has to do with the measurement problem. Our environments are deluding us and only let us see what they want us to see. It influences observation, thus affects the mind. The mind is obviously a psychological phenomenon: It's qualia. Maybe not obvious, fine. It's a different dimension. It's separate. There is a signal for green, and then there is the visualization of green even if you can't linguistically describe it as green.


    I think asking what the "mind" is, is a good starting ground. However, I think there will be other obstacles we need to overcome before we start understanding what the "mind" is, such as understanding what's involved with the realm of the psychological, what kind of things are involved, and what intervening variables (things that delude us) exist.


    The oogey boogey answer, I think, is that there are other things in this acausal psychological realm that go bump in the night. I know a lot of you might not think that's very scientific, and I don't care. And these things don't want us to know what the mind is. I think if there is this acausal, psychological realm, we don't want to experience it: You're better off shooting yourself in the head before truly learning acausality exists.


    There is an answer to what the mind is, but one or more things are deluding us as to what that is. My belief is that the mind is acausal. But to understand the mind, then, would to be going into the realm of acausality, somehow trying to understand acausality with a supposed causal mind, and yet trying to not let reality shatter at the same time.


    My earliest memory as a child was at about 6 months of age. I perceived things. I observed things. I didn't have language to describe the fact that I perceived things. I assume if there was a way to relay what I observed, it would be quite a circular argument: Simply a visual replaying of what I visually observed with no language to describe such. So, my visual system was working. I couldn't discern shapes, colors, etc.. But I observed things. Granted, that I observed things is in retrospect. IT could be well enough to say that I'm delusional that I ever observed anything, because I didn't have language to describe any psychological phenomena that was occurring to me.


    But looking back, nonetheless, I did not see pure darkness. I did not see blackness. I deny that I observed nothing. So, obviously, the brain found a way to interpret all these signals from physical objects, the light bouncing off the objects into my eyes, and developed a signal that eventually displayed an image. Where the signal was developed and transformed, I'm not too sure: I think that's where the bridge comes in.


    There's a bridge somewhere. If you use FTIR to analyze a molecular substance, you'll understand. You have a white powder, but the FTIR can punch out a signal. The bridge is the machine that does the analysis. You might argue that's an inaccurate mathematical description of the object and but an approximation, and I'm going to say that I still think there is some biophysical process that analyzes all the signals, finds a way to punch them out into a signal, transfers that signal past a bridge, whereby we visualize what's going on: Two distinct realms (the physical and the psychological).


    Also, watch Cube 1 and Cube 2. I remember when I watched Cube 1 for the first time, I said to one of my peers something like: "I'm no fool. I'm not going to explore that maze. I'd sit right where I am and not move."


    I think the mind is acausal, and I don't think anyone would really want to know what that is. I think.... the mind is God. The mind is court. You are God but you are too delusional to realize that. Ever physical object is God visualizing itself, thus like a camera. We're all a bunch of cameras.

  15. Hi, I have a question. Is the brain completely mapped by current science ? As in do we know every part of the brain and it's role ? Or is research in this department still needed ?


    No. No. Yes.

  16. Let's say I've witnessed an event to where I've seen general relativity and special relativity falsified. Knowing that these theories are false, how is that useful? Would that mean there is another theory if not paradigm shift to discover?


    At the same time, however, I continue to believe in the paradigm of thought that anything can be mathematically described; however, the mathematical universe hypothesis is not absolutely valid.

  17. I think there is a lot more to vision and consciousness than we understand. Philosophers of science are on the right track, but I sometimes wonder if the scientific method that we use is limited ("measurement problem" issue). However, there is still the whole mathematical basis of vision, such as related to Fourier transformations, which makes me a strong believer in the mathematical universe hypothesis. With that said, I think "consciousness" can be related to a mathematical construct. I covered something like this on philosophyforums.com before it was hacked and wiped.

  • 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.