Jump to content

dimreepr

Senior Members
  • Posts

    13378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by dimreepr

  1. 8 hours ago, naitche said:

    No to what?! existence?

    If you consider yours meaningless, that doesn't dictate that we should assume your perspective is correct.

    No to the idea that there's objective truth (whatever definition) to be told or taught, for life to make sense we have to self contextualise, then our story can flow.

    There is no correct perspective, not even your's.

     

  2. 1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

    Because it breaks people, like me. SAD is a real thing, then someone comes along and magnifies it with DST . I don't give shit which one is used, but it would be nice to see a smooth, natural transition through the seasons. It is psychologically terrible for a lot of people. My brother goes to Goa to soften the blow.

    That's a good reason, thanks for the info...

  3. 11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Sorry - that's just the way it sounded. Personally, I think the idea is way past its sell-by date.

    If it ain't broke, why fix it?

    The only way it affects me is, two Sundays a year I'll wake up, either a bit earlier or a bit later than I expected...😉

  4. 21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    It's similar to your comment about trees not knowing why! I am still struggling with this one. If I give you a complex behaviour such as this one:

    Bumblebees successfully learned a two-step puzzle box task through social observation. This task was too complex for individual bees to learn on their own. Observing trained demonstrator bees performing the first unrewarded step was crucial for successful social learning. 

    Bee-2-Bee influencing: Bees master complex tasks through social interaction | ScienceDaily

    Do you imagine you're any less trainable?

    21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    I guess that we can grow with the help of knowledge and one day be able to see through the window, only to discover that the window is not a window, but a blank space leading to a dead end.

    It won't be a dead end, but it will never lead to the 'ultimate' truth... 😉

    21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Then, should-I have used "simple binary response" instead of action potential in relation to synaptic firing?

    Indeed, that was my point...

    Any notion that we're somehow special/spiritual is purely subjective, if you want to believe otherwise, then good luck my friend, but:

     

    if-a-person-wishes-to-achieve-peace-of-mind-and-happiness-th-author-friedrich-nietzsche - Copy.jpg

    I've always thought that that quote should end with the word, 'honestly', just to remind the pseudoscientist's...

  5. 6 hours ago, naitche said:

    You are too caught up in numbers. I have said many times there is no value in The Objective.

    TBH I thought it was you that brought up the number's related objective, but OK let's bin that; what's left is objective purpose (unless you have your own definition), which, when we drill down to the fundamentals, is to continue living; but that's not a universal given for all people or creature's, some of them get the urge to shag themselves to death, they wake up one day and their purpose has changed they now fundamentally, want to die and some people chose now to end their life.

    Like I said, "whatever way I parse this, the answer is no." 

  6. On 3/11/2024 at 5:09 PM, TheVat said:

    IMO, if it's so important that people can go enjoy outdoor activities after work with plenty of daylight for that, then employers should get on board with more flex hours for those who want to pursue activities requiring daylight. 

    Employer's only really care that their employees aren't sad enough to pull a sickie... 

  7. 21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing. A while back, we thought that non-human animals could not feel pain or emotions. Now, we are almost certain that they do, without having acquired full disclosure. It is the same with consciousness. Every time I go down a rabbit hole, I come back up with more data that makes me less and less a believer that it is only about neuronal synapses.

    But what's left is a spiritual aspect, and there's as much evidence for that as there is for a god. 

    My ant analogy was meant to illustrate that a simple (binary) response can give the illusion of intelligence (thinking), without a conscious mind that control's their action's.

    Even if we do come to understand our own consciousness, which we don't, that wouldn't be evidence of any other entity's qualification.

    21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Note: Could not quote from your last post, so I took your first one and pasted onto it the text of your last one. Don't know why it was not working.

    I am not saying that our current understanding of the mind-brain connection is wrong, but incomplete.

    I bring philosophical baggage to the table, but may have more knowledge of this fact than most in the hard sciences.

    Aware that philosophy is hard on pseudo science, quasi scientific speculation, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies.

    What I am trying to do here is neither of what is indicated.

    Posted phenomenon (NDE's and terminal lucidity) because they exist and challenge the orthodox view of the mind-brain connection.

     How do you know they're not lying, or suffering from a bias they're unaware of?

    Just acknowledging that bias exists doesn't mean you're not free of them, it's like the oft heard excuse from someone accused of racism "I can't be a racist because my best friend is black". 

    21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    We will never know for sure, but we can get close to knowing.

    That's like saying, "when I'm tall enough to see out of this window, I'll be able to see the whole world."  

    21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Maybe using potential in the wrong way; meant meeting a certain threshold before firing; not reaching threshold implies not firing at all. No middle ground.

    No, it basically means the potential for the right neuron to receive the message; in wiring term's, a big enough charge to bridge the gap.

  8. 17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Apparently, it processes more that simple data and if it thinks as we understand it, we will never know as in the dog example.

    And we circle back to my point, even if a computer is conscious we will never know. That's the thing about rabbit holes, they're a warren of unknowns. 😉

    17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    As for paragraph 3, some articles that I consulted used action potential as a "go" or "not go" potential. Maybe I mixed things up!

    I think the word potential is confusing you, think of it in terms of the wiring rather than the thinking.

  9. 46 minutes ago, naitche said:

    Naturally. Your whole being is designed to serve That Objective Human existence identified here as Dimreepr. No  purpose to existence is there, if we have no Objectives to serve.

    We're either talking past each other or you're being obtuse. I seek no objective in life, I'm happy to just sit here and think about thing's, what number would you give that?

    46 minutes ago, naitche said:

    Read the sentence you quoted before you single it out for reply.

    Either I'm to stupid to understand or you haven't explained it well enough, it's bad form to refuse a request for clarification.

    46 minutes ago, naitche said:

    Then you should be able to show me why not. I would actually be quite happy for some one to do that.

    Ok, please show me the mathematics of how you would model the reality of fun? You do know that we haven't got a TOE, nor the prospect of getting one, don't you?

    46 minutes ago, naitche said:

    This is not fun.

    Irony, I suspect, is just as difficult to pin down for a mathematician. 😉

  10. 21 hours ago, Airbrush said:

    "Daylight saving time was first introduced in the United States in 1918 under the Standard Time Act as a measure to save on fuel costs during the First World War by adding an extra hour of sunlight to the day....

    "In 2005, Congress amended the Uniform Time Act to expand daylight saving time to the period in effect today: Starting on the second Sunday of March and ending on the first Sunday of November, according to the Congressional Research Service. This move was again for energy saving purposes.

    "A Department of Energy study following the amendment’s implementation found the extra four weeks of daylight saving time saved around 0.5% in total electricity daily in the U.S., equaling energy savings of 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours annually."

    Who invented daylight saving time? Time change purpose and origins (usatoday.com)

    I don't care which one, standard or DST, just stay with one. Anyone in favor of continuing to change the time twice every year?

    Employers care, they want more natural light during working hours, all that free vitamin D makes less sad worker's... 

    The night shift, on their own... 🤞

  11. 13 hours ago, naitche said:

    You are not listening.

    And you're not making any sense...

    13 hours ago, naitche said:

    The Objective totality of your measure has no value. Its value neutral,  As a totality.

    It has to me...

    13 hours ago, naitche said:

    No, you are projecting.. 

    What is it I'm projecting? 

    13 hours ago, naitche said:

    The nature of existence is the same as the nature of mathematics. One is a model of the other.

    Whichever way I parse this, the answer is no...

  12. 18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    I thought long and hard about thinking coming solely from synaptic action reaction and was getting to agree with your position until, by chance, I stumbled on the following article.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/

    What if all cells, not only neurons, can process information? Would they still do it by action potential, I am not sure! They talk about transistors, but not sure if it only applies to neurons.

    That's just diving down a rabbit hole, that we don't need to explore; for instance, an ant can do some very clever thing's in real estate but it's no architect, it never thinks (as we understand it) it just processes very simple data according to a relatively simple algorithm.

    18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    The article also reaffirms some of my assumptions that cognition is a bottom-up process and is everywhere in nature.

    Trees communicate, but they never think about why... 😉 

  13. On 3/1/2024 at 11:16 AM, Externet said:

    Good day.

    Is there any found causal or relation between the fall of Rome by the middle of first century and the legalization and rise of christianity ?

    The prosper peaceful 'pax romana' era that had abundant reported wealth in many roman citizens...  Where did that people obtained/earned their wealth ?  What business were they involved in those times ?  There were also the not wealthy population; but what activities not tied to government made the rich rich  ?

    Yes, can be moved to somewhere else as deserved.  Into politics, history, lounge...

    Essentially, the fall of Rome is the same as every other epoch, IOW "This too shall pass"... 

  14. 20 hours ago, DanMP said:

    It's not a problem, because we can (and did) make clocks, devices that count repetitive events, so we have more than our subjective perception. 

    Indeed we all have clocks, some of them slow and some of them fast, without them we're bloody useless at guessing/perceiving the time. 

    20 hours ago, DanMP said:

    I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic. 

    Can you please clarify what the topic question actually is?

  15. 13 hours ago, naitche said:

    Then what are 'you', if not the measure of your subjective experience? ie: all that has occurred beyond and within your consciousness, to produce or build the structural manifestation of you? 

    That doesn't mean its objectively measurable by anyone else.

    13 hours ago, naitche said:

    Your experience is subjective, its collective manifestation is The Objective attained.

    Like I said you're confusing the word, and yourself, in the context of the question asked.

  16. 10 hours ago, npts2020 said:

    Which leads to the question of "exactly what is time and how does it apply to the universe?". It seems pretty obvious time applies to humans because, so far, all of them have a pretty definably observed beginning and end but we only have a single universe of which we have seen neither the beginning nor end, or even much of the in between (if there is such a thing). If I have "invoked a creator or the supernatural", please post the quote.

    My bet is that once we figure out a reliable way of measuring gravitational effects from bodies outside our visible universe on bodies inside our visible universe, its size and age will increase greatly. 

    My bet is, you've missed the point...

  17. 9 hours ago, iNow said:

    No. We entered it almost 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution. It’s just now becoming so overwhelmingly beyond baseline that even non-experts are seeing it everywhere. 

    Remember these years. They’ll never be this good again. Hashtag uplifting I’m not 

    Indeed, all we got left is the brace position and the hope that it won't hurt too much...

  18. 4 hours ago, DanMP said:

    My point was/is that we observe/see change (in fact the succession of changes/events), and from that we understand that it must be something somehow similar with a spatial dimension, something that we call time.

    The only problem with that argument is, that we all perceived that change at different rates, even when we're sitting on the same sofa... 

  19. 20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Yes it does........not so simple

    It never is, nevertheless that is what it does when we think about thing's.

    20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

    ·         Secreted chemicals - action potential when occurring at the synapse

    ·         Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions - don't think its' action potential

    ·         Electric currents - electrical current not action potential (wiring), but neuron firing is action potential

    ·         Electromagnetic waves - field generation not action potential, but firing is

    ·         Physical contact by cells - guess not action potential

    ·         Biological nanotubes between cells - not sure; could not get the info

    I'm no neurologist, but that all just seems like the type of wiring needed for a neuron to do it's job.

     

    20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

    There is also talk of overall brain electromagnetic waves being used for communication, which should not be action potential.

    That's the spark they send (when they fire) down the wire, if you mean they have inbuilt wifi, I'm going to disagree...

  20. 9 hours ago, naitche said:

    Thank you.

    It is both Objective and Subjective as a duality. 

    Celery is the Objective you have subtracted from existence in reference.

    Its not cucumber. Its definition is independent of other plants or existences otherwise defined. 

    Its not sunlight. Its not soil. Those are relative, and it is subject to the existence of those things. They are not included in its definition though. They are objectively exclusive.

    Celery can be relative to cucumber, if the referenced Objective is to lets say, vegetables. Then  both are subject to that objective definition. Their values contribute to that definition as  property.

     

    Your relationship with celery is subjective.

    Its being edible is subjective.

    Its not defined by its edibility, but by its genus. There will be examples of celery that don't conform to the edible Objective. Its a separate definition. The fact a piece of celery being inedible does not alter its definition.

    To say otherwise is contrary to its definition.

    It would require  reduction to the objective definition of celery.

    It could never then be clearly defined because you have introduced subjectivity, a relationship to edibility, into its definition.

    You are an Objective existence, independent of your relationship with the rest of existence by 'your' definition.

    There  you are!

    At the same time, there would be nothing of 'you' with out the rest of 'existence', as Objectively defined. Your objective being is subject to such a thing as  'being'. Your being  is a value  to existence. Your being adds to its properties

    Its a matter of the the alluded perspective. 

    Subtracted to the definition of property, or in relation to property.

     

    Well, you could have put that a lot more concisely, 🙄 but what I took from it was, you're confused about what objective means in this context.

    For instance, there is no objective measure of my subjective experience, which brings us full circle, bc that is the nature of our existence. 😉 

  21. 19 minutes ago, kenny1999 said:

    For a long time, I'd like to get a smartphone with a large screen but I haven't yet got one because there are some trade-offs, e.g. weight and convenience. If I don't watch videos or play mobile games, I just use my phone to read ebook and information on the web (mainly text and pictures), will it feel a lot better by using a bigger screen? What's your opinion?

    Depends on what's on it.

    Some stories are easier to parse in person... 

  22. 1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

    It does not only fire or not,

    Yes it does...

    2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

    but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate.

    That's the wiring, or do you think a neuron can see electromagnetism?

×
×
  • 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.