Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't make sense of what you are saying. We can't know anything except the kind of knowledge that led to cell phones? That doesn't make any sense to me, and ignores everything I already wrote.
In your last post you brought an issue, you brought up basically "mainstream knowledge". Basically questioning who get to decide what are the knowns.
Then I said you have a valid point. One way to tell if a "known" is reliable is see what we can do with. Can people anywhere, anytime, anyway, use the "known" independent of you or me.
The example I used is the cell system use "knowns" to operate. In fact, the the connectivity of the internet and cell phones pushes our knowns to the limit.
What I did was shrink the knowns to "empirical knows". I made the "Known" set even smaller to demonstrate the point. They produce a working "entity" in the future. That is a right powerful thing for a known to do. It basically means, we can't really, in good faith, argue the reliability.
I shrunk the "knowns" to even a smaller sample set. And even with that smaller set, I asked you the same question.
Is it reliable to form a belief off of a set knows or it is more reliable to form a belief off of an unknown?
Then, I said, after you answer that honestly, we can then address your concern about the reliability about "knowns" and see if there is a way to determine reliability of the knowns.
Its just you and I talking. No winners or losers. No right and wrong. You not changing me and me not changing you ... just trying to learn.
In your last post you brought an issue, you brought up basically "mainstream knowledge". Basically questioning who get to decide what are the knowns. Then I said you have a valid point. One way to tell if a "known" is reliable is see what we can do with. Can people anywhere, anytime, anyway, use the "known" independent of you or me. The example I used is the cell system use "knowns" to operate. In fact, the the connectivity of the internet and cell phones pushes our knowns to the limit. What I did was shrink the knowns to "empirical knows". I made the "Known" set even smaller to demonstrate the point. They produce a working "entity" in the future. That is a right powerful thing for a known to do. It basically means, we can't really, in good faith, argue the reliability.I shrunk the "knowns" to even a smaller sample set. And even with that smaller set, I asked you the same question.Is it reliable to form a belief off of a set knows or it is more reliable to form a belief off of an unknown? Then, I said, after you answer that honestly, we can then address your concern about the reliability about "knowns" and see if there is a way to determine reliability of the knowns.Its just you and I talking. No winners or losers. No right and wrong. You not changing me and me not changing you ... just trying to learn.
people know stuff that you don't.
do you admit that yet?
what is "known" varies, it is not the same for every person. or group. or organization. or book. or resource.
In your last post you brought an issue, you brought up basically "mainstream knowledge". Basically questioning who get to decide what are the knowns. Then I said you have a valid point. One way to tell if a "known" is reliable is see what we can do with. Can people anywhere, anytime, anyway, use the "known" independent of you or me. The example I used is the cell system use "knowns" to operate. In fact, the the connectivity of the internet and cell phones pushes our knowns to the limit. What I did was shrink the knowns to "empirical knows". I made the "Known" set even smaller to demonstrate the point. They produce a working "entity" in the future. That is a right powerful thing for a known to do. It basically means, we can't really, in good faith, argue the reliability.I shrunk the "knowns" to even a smaller sample set. And even with that smaller set, I asked you the same question. Is it reliable to form a belief off of a set knows or it is more reliable to form a belief off of an unknown? Then, I said, after you answer that honestly, we can then address your concern about the reliability about "knowns" and see if there is a way to determine reliability of the knowns.Its just you and I talking. No winners or losers. No right and wrong. You not changing me and me not changing you ... just trying to learn.
Regarding bold above,
let's use medicine as an example. does it work the same anywhere, anytime, for all people, any way it is taken? no, it does not. it has variable results. does that mean medicine is "not reliable"? some people it works great for. for some people it does nothing. for some people it makes them worse or causes harm and damage; some people even die from it.
do you then reject medicine out of hand and refuse to use it? do you claim medicine is "unreliable" because it doesn't work the same all the time for everyone? how about a placebo which is demonstrated to have the same or better results as those taking medicine? placebo (which science "discovered by accident") works on the principle that belief produces tangible results. how about prayer, which also works on the principle that belief produces tangible results.
my point is that if you reject something as "unreliable" because it doesn't work the same for everyone everywhere all the time under all circumstances, then that includes rejecting medicine. and rejecting marriage. and rejecting going to school (some people do well in school, some people fail; some people get a job after school, some people don't, results and outcomes are "not reliable").
those are a few examples. given for the purpose of pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in bold above.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-12-2021 at 07:50 AM..
No, the "materialists" are going on what is most probably true based on the evidence we have. If you want to change that, you need to provide extra evidence instead of just denying things on the internet and pretending there is some science priest hood.
Materialists go on what is most probably true according to materialism. Circular reasoning.
AI has always been on the wrong track because it assumes that the firing of neurons cause mental functioning, in spite of there being no evidence for that.
Quantum effects in the microtubules within neurons might be related to consciousness, according to Penrose and Hameroff. Involvement of the quantum ("woo") level in mental and biological processes would be a tragedy for current AI. So you ignore and deny it.
Materialists go on what is most probably true according to materialism. Circular reasoning.
AI has always been on the wrong track because it assumes that the firing of neurons cause mental functioning, in spite of there being no evidence for that.
Quantum effects in the microtubules within neurons might be related to consciousness, according to Penrose and Hameroff. Involvement of the quantum ("woo") level in mental and biological processes would be a tragedy for current AI. So you ignore and deny it.
Actually, the synaptic firing is evidence that the consciousness does exist as quanta but unlike the flames of fire is undifferentiated by the amplification of resonance into a BEC resident in the spacetime field, NOT the brain.
Materialists go on what is most probably true according to materialism. Circular reasoning.
Yes, if your straw man was true, it would be circular reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
AI has always been on the wrong track because it assumes that the firing of neurons cause mental functioning, in spite of there being no evidence for that.
Drugs, alcohol, head injuries, the fact we have mapped certain areas of the brain with mental functions, AND can effect those functions with electrodes, the fact that AI replicates mental functioning using models of neurons, the evidence is overwhelming. That is how I earn a lot of my money, because of that evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Quantum effects in the microtubules within neurons might be related to consciousness, according to Penrose and Hameroff. Involvement of the quantum ("woo") level in mental and biological processes would be a tragedy for current AI. So you ignore and deny it.
We do not deny it, we ignore it because there is NO evidence for it, ACTUAL evidence against it, it does NOT explain consciousness, AND is contradicted by the AI work you are ignorant of and deny. Whereas you ARE denying decades of neuroscience.
You are just another faker who has little understanding, just some woo you have read and want to believe.
Oh, well that's simple and easy. But what about all the things that science, math, logic have not proved or disproved?
Then do not trust it, because we know without the tools of science, mathematics and logic, our brain is not very good at finding the truth. That is why we invented science, mathematics and logic, to get around the problem of a brain that is not that good at thinking.
Yes, if your straw man was true, it would be circular reasoning.
Drugs, alcohol, head injuries, the fact we have mapped certain areas of the brain with mental functions, AND can effect those functions with electrodes, the fact that AI replicates mental functioning using models of neurons, the evidence is overwhelming. That is how I earn a lot of my money, because of that evidence.
We do not deny it, we ignore it because there is NO evidence for it, ACTUAL evidence against it, it does NOT explain consciousness, AND is contradicted by the AI work you are ignorant of and deny. Whereas you ARE denying decades of neuroscience.
You are just another faker who has little understanding, just some woo you have read and want to believe.
At least your user name appears to be accurate.
Haha resorting to insults, predictably, because your earning money depends on illogical beliefs.
All that you said about the brain and AI here is wrong. We all know that drugs and alcohol influence our mental states. Of course the mind is influenced by what happens to the brain, and what enters through the senses. If it weren't, the brain would be useless. That doesn't mean the mind is created by the firing of neurons.
Mapped certain areas of the brain with mental functions? If an area of the brain becomes active during certain mental states, you think that means those mental states are created by those brain areas. Your reasoning is careless and superficial. But you don't want to think harder, because you don't want to question the materialist dogma.
Thanks for the insults, they just prove you have no real confidence in your beliefs.
Then do not trust it, because we know without the tools of science, mathematics and logic, our brain is not very good at finding the truth. That is why we invented science, mathematics and logic, to get around the problem of a brain that is not that good at thinking.
Speak for your own brain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
