Jump to content
Science Forums

Rade

Members
  • Content Count

    1,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Turtle in The Soul   
    In reply to the above post....
     
    I find that Hofstadter puts unjustified constraints on his concept of the 'soul' as it relates to the concept of life.  I say this because for Hofstadter, the ant is 'small-souled' while the cucumber and bacteria cell are 'soul-less'.  Hence the reason he finds no moral objection to eating cucumbers for dinner, but shuns eating fish.  Hofstadter's philosophic lapse is that while he associates the soul of living entities with patterns that trigger (a priori) the emergence of life [which is what I presented above motivated by the definition of soul of Aristotle], he concludes that the essence of a soul requires a process of self awareness by a living entity.   According to Aristotle it does not, and as sharp a thinker Hofstadter may be, he is no Aristotle. 
     
     
  2. Like
    Rade got a reaction from freeztar in The Underlying Problem Of Understanding "reality"   
    Why do you look for feedback here ?   You make a claim that Einstein equation of general relativity is not complete, that it is missing your radial term.  OK, let us suppose you are correct.   There must be 100s of professional physicists in the world that would consider themselves to have advanced knowledge of general relativity, and I suspect none of them read this forum. 
     
    So, write up your ideas presented here and submit them to a peer reviewed journal that deals with general relativity theory.  You may need to submit to more than one journal to find a journal editor that will submit your presentation for peer review.   After you receive the peer review letters, post them here so we can see what they have to say, and you can let us know why they use their knowledge of Einstein to hide their stupidity.  
  3. Like
    Rade got a reaction from CraigD in It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings   
    The scientific link between the concepts 'brain' and 'consciousness' is well established...for example, see this recent publication and the cited references.  
     
    http://montilab.psych.ucla.edu/publications/Crone_etal_15_EffConn_DOC.pdf
     
    If anyone is aware of a published paper that studies 'consciousness' as being present in other human organs, such as liver, kidney, heart, intestine, etc. please do share.  
  4. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Maine farmer in The Soul   
    It is a shame your very interesting OP question was taken so far off topic.   Could you please define what you mean by 'soul'  ? 
    Moderation note: 20 posts from this thread have been moved to It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings because they are off-topic.
  5. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Moontanman in The Soul   
    It is a shame your very interesting OP question was taken so far off topic.   Could you please define what you mean by 'soul'  ? 
    Moderation note: 20 posts from this thread have been moved to It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings because they are off-topic.
  6. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Moontanman in It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings   
    Well, no, the soul is not just another word for consciousness, they are in fact two separate concepts.  Your continued argument is thus based on a false premise, and any argument based on a false premise is a false argument. 
  7. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Moontanman in It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings   
    The scientific link between the concepts 'brain' and 'consciousness' is well established...for example, see this recent publication and the cited references.  
     
    http://montilab.psych.ucla.edu/publications/Crone_etal_15_EffConn_DOC.pdf
     
    If anyone is aware of a published paper that studies 'consciousness' as being present in other human organs, such as liver, kidney, heart, intestine, etc. please do share.  
  8. Like
    Rade reacted to Moontanman in Is It Even Possible To Acquire Evidence That Religious Belief Can Be (Or Is) Destructive.   
    Maybe theist apologists can't handle the truth of the destructive nature of religion? 
     
    When religions aren't persecuting people for false crimes like burning witches at the stake they were busy persecuting each for not worshiping the right god or not doing it the way they think worship should be done. 
     
    Religion does nothing but divide people, the fact that there are something like 41,000 different denominations of christianity show this. In africa Gay people are being killed right now due to american religious groups spreading an anti gay agenda that our secular government forbids. 
     
    In fact before secular governments gelded religion, in North America various denominations were actively persecuting each other even killing each over points of dogma.
     
    For literally more than 1500 years from the spanish inquisition to various regional wars inside of countries to wars between various countries religion was if not the cause it was the lubricant that allowed various groups to demonize each other. 
     
    The christian crusades are a good example of wars for no reason other than religion. 
     
    Muslims are among the worst currently with them killing each other over details of their religion right now. 
     
    Hindus killing Sikhs, sikhs killing hindus and muslims killing everyone else. 
     
    Religion if followed to the letter of all the various holy books does nothing but divide people and allow for one group to demonize others for no reason other than religion. 
     
    Religion has been used to do more than just demonize other groups of people religious leaders have claimed that other groups of people had no souls and were therefore only animals to be enslaved or slaughtered at the will of the religious, 
  9. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Moontanman in Is It Even Possible To Acquire Evidence That Religious Belief Can Be (Or Is) Destructive.   
    An interesting statistic:
     
    75%    of America is Christian.
    75%    of prisoners are Christian.
    10%    of America is Atheist.
    0.2%   of prisoners are Atheist.
     
    – Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997
  10. Like
    Rade got a reaction from SwoopdeSwoop in What Is Nothing?   
    I agree, but not being observed does not mean such a space | | does not exist as potential that can become actual. Recall the definition of space used above, the inner most boundary of that which contains. Here I assume from Einstein that space-time is a dimensional entity that exists separate from other entities as objects.
     
    Suppose you sit at a table with two chairs and a friend sits in the seat next to you. So, you (Y) are a thing and your friend (F) is a thing, and both exist with a space associated with each chair, thus |(Y)| and |(F)|.
     
    Suppose your friend goes away from the table...what moves is (F) and what remains is the space they once occupied | |. When you look at the empty chair you do not see the | | space once occupied, you see nothing, but mentally you could imagine the shape of the | | your friend once occupied. So in this example you can imagine a space at present that has potential to exist in the future as the body shape of your friend as it once existed in the past, but it cannot presently be observed, yet it 'exists' as a potential that could be occupied in the future once your friend returned.
     
    Note how real this potential space as nothing that once occupied your friend can become to you. Suppose your friend told you they would return in 5 mins, and 20 min latter they have not returned, 1 hours latter no friend and you get worried. You keep looking at the chair they sat in and you can imagine the space they once occupied, what do experience ? You observe nothingness, a potential space outline | | that contains no friend. You experience panic when you observe this nothingness of space, perhaps they were in an accident, etc. Thus pure nothingness, a potential space not acutalized, can have cause-effect impact on your thoughts.
     
    What I suggest is that it is possible to have a potential virtual nothingness that exists as an empty space | | without a Being associated with it, but it never is possible to have a Being without a non-virtual potential nothingness of space coexisting with it as |(Being)|.
  11. Like
    Rade got a reaction from SwoopdeSwoop in What Is Nothing?   
    Let space be the inner most boundary that contains, thus the inner most boundary of |<   and  >|
     
    Let ~~~~ be something
     
    Then  | ~~~~~ | is space that contains something
     
    Therefore |    | is space that contains nothing.
  12. Like
    Rade got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Antimatter And Gravity   
    HB...There is no evidence that the hyperfine energy levels of hydrogen differ from antihydrogen....if you have a peer reviewed article to share, please post a link.   
     
    This graph shows how the energy levels of matter hydrogen (white background) and antimatter hydrogen (dark background) are predicted to have exactly the same hyperfine structure based on four different models.  
     

     
    Also, you suggest that somewhere in the history of physics a paper was published where the term 'antimatter' was shown to be what you call 'radial matter that has a higher free energy' than matter.  Please post the link to this interesting publication, I would like to read it. 
  13. Like
    Rade got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Antimatter And Gravity   
    I find that your discussion is misleading.  
     
    First, the matter proton with positive charge is not more stable than the antimatter proton with negative charge. 
     
    Next, it is not true that "the positron was originally a stable part of matter, coexisting in the nucleus as part of a proton..."   Also originally (as you mean it) was the antineutron, which can beta+ decay into a positron (e+) + antiproton + neutrino.   So, your hypothesis that the e+ is only a stable part of matter is false, it is equally a stable part of antimatter within your meaning of these terms. 
  14. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Eclogite in Feynman Lectures On Physics Online   
    See this link for the complete Feynman Lectures on Physics.  Use arrows in upper right of page to view all three volumes:
     
    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
  15. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Welchroth in Photon Emission   
    There are many different preon models...e.g., QM structure smaller than quarks.   See for example the Rishon model papers published in top journals of physics:
    Harari, H. (1979). "A Schematic Model of Quarks and Leptons". Physics Letters B 86 (1): 83–86. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...83H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90626-9. Shupe, M. A. (1979). "A Composite Model of Leptons and Quarks". Physics Letters B 86 (1): 87–92. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...87S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90627-0. Zenczykowski, P. (2008). "The Harari–Shupe preon model and nonrelativistic quantum phase space". Physics Letters B 660 (5): 567–572. arXiv:0803.0223. Bibcode:2008PhLB..660..567Z. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.01.045.
  16. Like
    Rade got a reaction from sman in Feynman Lectures On Physics Online   
    See this link for the complete Feynman Lectures on Physics.  Use arrows in upper right of page to view all three volumes:
     
    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
  17. Like
    Rade got a reaction from CraigD in Photon Emission   
    There are many different preon models...e.g., QM structure smaller than quarks.   See for example the Rishon model papers published in top journals of physics:
    Harari, H. (1979). "A Schematic Model of Quarks and Leptons". Physics Letters B 86 (1): 83–86. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...83H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90626-9. Shupe, M. A. (1979). "A Composite Model of Leptons and Quarks". Physics Letters B 86 (1): 87–92. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...87S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90627-0. Zenczykowski, P. (2008). "The Harari–Shupe preon model and nonrelativistic quantum phase space". Physics Letters B 660 (5): 567–572. arXiv:0803.0223. Bibcode:2008PhLB..660..567Z. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.01.045.
  18. Like
    Rade got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Antimatter And Gravity   
    Yes. Antihelium-3 isotope was produced in 1970s, and more recently antihelium-4 (the anti alpha)...see this link for the latter: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/04/24/antihelium/
  19. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Buffy in Antimatter And Gravity   
    Yes. Antihelium-3 isotope was produced in 1970s, and more recently antihelium-4 (the anti alpha)...see this link for the latter: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/04/24/antihelium/
  20. Like
    Rade got a reaction from sanctus in Antimatter And Gravity   
    HB...There is no evidence that the hyperfine energy levels of hydrogen differ from antihydrogen....if you have a peer reviewed article to share, please post a link.   
     
    This graph shows how the energy levels of matter hydrogen (white background) and antimatter hydrogen (dark background) are predicted to have exactly the same hyperfine structure based on four different models.  
     

     
    Also, you suggest that somewhere in the history of physics a paper was published where the term 'antimatter' was shown to be what you call 'radial matter that has a higher free energy' than matter.  Please post the link to this interesting publication, I would like to read it. 
  21. Like
    Rade got a reaction from sanctus in Antimatter And Gravity   
    I find that your discussion is misleading.  
     
    First, the matter proton with positive charge is not more stable than the antimatter proton with negative charge. 
     
    Next, it is not true that "the positron was originally a stable part of matter, coexisting in the nucleus as part of a proton..."   Also originally (as you mean it) was the antineutron, which can beta+ decay into a positron (e+) + antiproton + neutrino.   So, your hypothesis that the e+ is only a stable part of matter is false, it is equally a stable part of antimatter within your meaning of these terms. 
  22. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Buffy in Empty Promises On Climate   
    This is a very informative graph. I have a question. From the period between ~ 1940-1960 the temperature levels, and as I recall this was the time a few scientists (but not the majority) were writting about a golbal cooling effect. However, it seems to me, now clear from data after 1960, that the 'cooling' trend was more a result of massive destruction of CO2 producing industry in much of the industrial world during WWII and Korea war. Would this be an accurate conclusion, do we have worldwide CO2 data before, during, and after the 1940-1960 period that can be associated with the temperature trends ?
     
    Also, fyi, in 1956, during the period when temperature was leveling (and some were claiming the next ice age around the bend), once a physics professor at Texas A&M (and other universities), Gilbert Plass, predicted CO2 would result in significant global warming by the end of the century, a bold prediction at the time because, as seen from the graph, the world temperature data available in 1956 would have suggested a neutral or opposite trend. However, Plass was aware of the 'general warming trend' as seen in the graph from ~ 1900-1950. History shows that Plass was on target in his prediction, even if there are some errors in his calcuations. See this reprint, with modern commentary at the end, of the 1956 Plass paper in American Scientist:
     
    http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings%202012/CO2%20and%20Climate.pdf
     
    While Plass apparently was incorrect in some details, temperature data over time cannot falsify his 1956 hypothesis prediction, it is confirmed.
  23. Like
    Rade got a reaction from sanctus in Antimatter And Gravity   
    Hi,
     
    As an introduction to the topic to begin some discussion for this exciting thread, see this 1962 paper by Robert Forward...it was one of the first attempts to link antigravity to Einstein relativity. There is much science fiction concerning antigravity, this information comes from a journal that I assume was peer reviewed. Forward suggested propulsion engines that used antigravity:
     
    http://u2.lege.net/culture.zapto.org_82_20080124/passed_shows/Om%20nya%20energik%E4llor/Energy%20papers%20%20%20%20Mina%20dokument/antigravidity/Robert%20L.Forward%20-%20Guidelines%20to%20Antigravity.pdf
     
    ==
     
    This physicist, Dr. Hajdukovic, at CERN works in the area of antigravity...perhaps who you read about ?:
     
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.1260.pdf
     
    ==
     
    And see these theory papers by Villata on antimatter and predicted antigravity as relates to time (read in order given):
     
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20001/pdf/0295-5075_94_2_20001.pdf
     
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.1201v2.pdf
  24. Like
    Rade got a reaction from Elisa in What Makes An Adult?   
    Are we supposed to discuss what makes an adult (the title of the thread), or what makes a person mature (the OP text)?  Some adults are mature, others not, and some very mature persons I have met are not adults.   
  25. Like
    Rade got a reaction from pagetheoracle in What Makes An Adult?   
    I think my definition adresses your concern about a creationist via the terms fullfilled and virtuous.
     
    First, I agree with you that creationists are not fully mature because they do not hold a 'fullfiiled expectation' on the issue of species origins as adopted by the majority of Christian sects.  The expectation of the vast majority of Christian theologians is that God can and did will to allow species to have origin via evolutionary processes.   The majority interpretation of Christian thinkers thus serves the role of the wine maker to decide when a wine is fully mature.  The creationist view is less than the expectation of accepted Christian thinking, thus it is by my definition less than fullfilled and hence immature.
     
    Next, the understanding of species origins by creationists is not virtuous for the reason you mention, their thoughts on the issue are guided by indoctrination rather than by use of reason to weight all sides of the issue and accept the possibility that God can will that species be formed only via laws of nature, and that the process does not demand a search for supernatural causes.  
     
    Thus a creationist is immature for two reasons, they do not hold a fullfilled Christian religious expectation on the issue of species origins (that is, they refuse to allow for the possibility that God allows for the possibility of evolutionary change), neither is their thinking on the issue virtuous because they refuse to allow for the possibility that laws of nature can act independent of the supernatural.  
     
    You mention that the indoctrinated person has the ability to 'make sense' of issues, but I would disagree.  It seems to me that making sense is the contrary condition of such a person because those who are indoctrinated make a free will choice not to think outside the world-view to which they are indoctrinated, a serious constraint on fully understanding or making sense of the issue at hand.  
×
×
  • Create New...