Tormod Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with human behavior and there is no empirical evidence to support that. I think the synaptic nodes in the neural network that is our brain are perfect examples of how quantum mechanics play a role in the human physiology. The fact that there is a gap in the wirings and the moelcules actually have to cross this gap means there is an uncertainty in whether a given signal will reach the brain or not. This can't be explained with determinism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 I think the synaptic nodes in the neural network that is our brain are perfect examples of how quantum mechanics play a role in the human physiology. The fact that there is a gap in the wirings and the moelcules actually have to cross this gap means there is an uncertainty in whether a given signal will reach the brain or not. This can't be explained with determinism. Show some empirical evidence that supports your analogy above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 I am rather neutral to the concept of determinism. However, I have used this concept in this forum in the context of astrology. I would quote what I said earlier for the benefit of the newer members. I said What's your reaction to this Freddy Astrology? You cannot be serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Show some empirical evidence that supports your analogy above.I have noticed over the years that there are generally TWO meanings for this inocuous-seeming request. 1. I would like to accept your proposition, but I will need some supporting evidence first. Got any? 2. I'm demanding that you go to unreasonable extremes to provide an inordinate amount of evidence (most of which I shall discard out-of-hand) for an argument that I will refuse to discuss, but of course, I will blame this on you because you did not provide the inordinate amount of evidence, thereby letting me off the hook of trying to refute your argument. Which one did you intend to convey, Freddy? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 I would like to accept your proposition, but I will need some supporting evidence first. Got any? 2. I'm demanding that you go to unreasonable extremes to provide an inordinate amount of evidence (most of which I shall discard out-of-hand) for an argument that I will refuse to discuss, but of course, I will blame this on you because you did not provide the inordinate amount of evidence, thereby letting me off the hook of trying to refute your argument. I love you pyrotex! Your reply touches me somewhere deep down. I posted some very similar thoughts in the thread "Can science ever overtake religion in popolarity":) :) :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 I love you pyrotex! Your reply touches me somewhere deep down. I posted some very similar thoughts in the thread "Can science ever overtake religion in popolarity":) :) :(Thanks, hallenrm. I think. :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I have noticed over the years that there are generally TWO meanings for this inocuous-seeming request. 1. I would like to accept your proposition, but I will need some supporting evidence first. Got any? 2. I'm demanding that you go to unreasonable extremes to provide an inordinate amount of evidence (most of which I shall discard out-of-hand) for an argument that I will refuse to discuss, but of course, I will blame this on you because you did not provide the inordinate amount of evidence, thereby letting me off the hook of trying to refute your argument. Which one did you intend to convey, Freddy? :shrug: I asked for some evidence to support your assertion. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I asked for some evidence to support your assertion. That is all.So, #2 it is... :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 So, #2 it is... :shrug: No, if you are going to assert something you need to show evidence if you want others to take it seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 No, if you are going to assert something you need to show evidence if you want others to take it seriously.Actually, this is usually reserved for "remarkable" assertions.I assert that Manhattan does not contain any 40-foot purple parrots. This is not a remarkable assertion. Rather, it is a pretty mundane (& boring) assertion of "normality". Demanding that I offer evidence for the lack of giant avians stomping all over Central Park would be considered by most as a good idea for a skit on Saturday Night Live. Tormod's assertion was not that remarkable. Brain cells communicate by the transfer of small molecules. The movement of small molecules under non-linear forces can be modeled, yielding probabilities of occurrence. But at the molecular level, quantum "forces" begin to make their presence felt. Other threads here have discussed in detail the esssential nature of probability at the quantum level. Some have argued that these "probabilities" are just a reflection of human ignorance, but the fact is, the equations that (successfully) describe quantum activities deal with "probability" as an inherent and unavoidable attribute of reality, NOT a reflection of our ignorance or inability to understand. Of course, if you have not delved into quantum discussions, assertions such as Tormod's may seem "new" and "remarkable". To give you the benefit of the doubt, I hereby provide the evidence requested, summarized above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I assert that Manhattan does not contain any 40-foot purple parrots. This is not a remarkable assertion. The hell you say. They are the servants of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I DEMAND EVIDENCE OF THEIR NONEXISTENCE. :) TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 The hell you say. They are the servants of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I DEMAND EVIDENCE OF THEIR NONEXISTENCE.{ahem} It is my policy not to banter with writers who work for Saturday Night Live. However, JUST THIS ONCE, I will provide evidence. Ready?I could fly over Central Park and video the whole thing, but there is an easier way, and you can do it yourself in the comfort of your own living room. Now, it is well known that the substructure of Manhattan Island is supported by a biomorphotic field of anal retention stressors, that link aural associations to photonic emissions. Therefore, to prove to oneself that there are no giant parrots in Central Park, it is only necessary to obtain a video camera with a huge honkin 250 mm zoom lens, coat the lens casing liberally with Vaseline, orient oneself toward Manhattan Island, stand naked within a circle of natural magnetite stones which act as a biomorphotic focusing agent, bend over until your head is between your ankles, and then forcefully shove the zoom lens up and through your anal sphincter as hard as you can. You will find all the evidence that you deserve.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 I've already tried that. Jeez. Parrots aren't magnetic, I don't know how that could possibly be expected to work. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Parrots aren't magnetic, I don't know how that could possibly be expected to work.You are a very silly person.Ordinary parrots are not magnetic.But 40-foot tall Deterministic Parrots (remember the name of this thread?) ARE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 :) I don't see them now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Uh oh... I think I see him!! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 uhh... that parrot is blue. Pyrotex only claimed the non-existence of the purple ones. Everybody knows about the blue parrots. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.