OK, now all we need
-
Oakman wrote:
he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. :laugh: )
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics.
You are right, of course, but compared to the simplicity that Stan prefers (e.g. Pi=3.0) the explanation is quite complex.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sure it's unsatisfying; especially from my viewpoint as a physicist. The boundary between classical and quantum has always troubled me. However, I'm not really active with physics anymore. I wasn't smart enough to handle the deeper mathematics, so I couldn't build a career on purely theoretical physics. I had to go into other things. I think about these things, but at the moment I don't have much time - I'm occupied with a million other things. I try to follow the popular press and read articles by scientists I know are working on the problem. Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
Then take Stan's word for it: God touched Adam's forehead and said: "Thimk!"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Yeah, we're still at war, but we've agreed to a Christmas Truce.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough
Rubbish. If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
we've agreed to a Christmas Truce
I prefer a Christmas Spruce myself. The teal color goes nicely in my livingroom.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I prefer a Christmas Spruce myself. The teal color goes nicely in my livingroom.
"Teal". Gah. I have a complex about that word.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Not educational opportunity, too?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, I don't see how that's possible. My kids will obviously have more opportunities than the kids of a single, drug addicted, illiterate mother. But, you're right, in that access to education is something that all people should receive. But that's not welfare, that' just something that should exist by default in society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Well, I don't see how that's possible. My kids will obviously have more opportunities than the kids of a single, drug addicted, illiterate mother. But, you're right, in that access to education is something that all people should receive. But that's not welfare, that' just something that should exist by default in society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I have always admired what I understand the Japanese model to be. Free education as long as you can pass the exams. And the exams, especially for the good schools, are tough.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, education is essentially free here, but the fact is, kids from more educated households will have a head start. But, in theory, anyone can get any sort of education here, which is perhaps why it did not occur to me to mention it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I have always admired what I understand the Japanese model to be. Free education as long as you can pass the exams. And the exams, especially for the good schools, are tough.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That was the problem with the UK's former 11+ exam. If you passed you got to go to a better class of school - a Grammar School, but those who failed got to go to a Secondary Modern. Secondary Modern was for failures and thus many of these pupils were marked as such - failures - and to tell a child of 11 they were failures was considered an abuse of sorts. Thus, this system was abolished during the 1970's in favour for Comprehensive Education where all pupils were taught at the same pace irrespective how the individual pupil performed. This Comprehensive Education was not beneficial to all as those that were either "bright" or "dumb (for want of a better word)" as their needs were not necessarily serviced. But... Today, there is some discrimination insofar that ability by subject dictates would level of schooling you receive - that means if you are a wizard with, say, mathematics, you would be placed into a classroom together with similar pupils who have the potential to do well but if your mathematics was not at that standard you would be taught but not at the same degree of excellence. Also, there is an identification of those who might be classed as "gifted" and suitable education packages for those are under way or under review. Personally, I do not like the label "gifted" as it does signify some degree of "special measures" that could result in some kind of resentment from other pupils which can, and does, lead to some degree of bullying.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough
Rubbish. If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
and medical care
And if the opportunity is the choice between self destructive behaviours and acting as a contributing member of society do not those opportunities follow upon making the right choice at that opportunity? And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs? Where does it end?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Christian Graus wrote:
and medical care
And if the opportunity is the choice between self destructive behaviours and acting as a contributing member of society do not those opportunities follow upon making the right choice at that opportunity? And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs? Where does it end?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs?
Yes if your country offers Universal healthcare free at the point of delivery paid by your taxes, as happens in the UK. But if, say the USA doesn't offer such universal healthcare, then presumably you need to rely upon the kindness of charity, which can be demeaning.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Because it most likely comes from some kind of organized interaction, the roots of which, probably lie in quantum mechanical interactions. I think the key is "organization" on some level. A hammer on a rock isn't a sustained process that displays some kind of organization. Electromagnetic fields can resonate an produce peculiar effects as well. So there are lots of possible mechanisms to investigate, and possibly mechanisms to discover as well. You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
Based on the explanations in the site you pointed to, this does not pass a simple sniff test. If the skull were as good a Faraday cage as is claimed by the writer, cell phone radiation would not penetrate. I do agree that radio waves that are on order of the frequency with brain waves would have not effect on the brain waves. Brain waves are all grouped in frequencies less than 18 Hz, and the brain is not an effective antenna for waves with 10,000 mile wave lengths. EM radiation that had a frequency well matched to the head would be in the gigahertz range (300,000,000 m/s / head size < .33 m). To have internal structure in the field that would hold the information of the mind, the frequency would have to be much higher. Assume the mind can be represented by a gigabit, in the form of active memories, thought and mind 'process'. Assume a BIG headed, blockhead of a kid, with head that is 1/3 meter on each side, so would hold that data in a cube, 1000 bits on a side. Since the .3m is the size of GHz waves, it would require terahertz freq waves to fit the data. But our brains do not emit in the THz range. The brain waves are EMF manifestations of chemical processes that resonate in the < 18 Hz range. The EMF energy generated by these is minuscule, and the interaction they would have with EMF waves is minuscule. There are no standing THz EMF wave in our heads. Physics says this theory is total BS.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
and medical care
And if the opportunity is the choice between self destructive behaviours and acting as a contributing member of society do not those opportunities follow upon making the right choice at that opportunity? And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs? Where does it end?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
is the choice between self destructive behaviours and acting as a contributing member of society
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that all people on welfare are deliberate cheats ?
DRHuff wrote:
And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs?
No, nothing should be free, or people will just take it. But, subsidised drugs, for sure. I went to a GP in the US, who gave me a bad diagnosis, b/c they would not listen to me, and filled me with useless drugs. This cost $500. I shudder to think what a good doctor would cost. This is just unacceptable. In Australia, I pay $25 to see a doctor, and $20 tops per drug. I also get a doctor who listens to me. A free doctor here would be better than what I paid $500 for. Your system is abused, it's abused by the doctors and the insurance companies.
DRHuff wrote:
Where does it end?
Perhaps with a fair society ? Certainly it would end with something far different to the USA today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
DRHuff wrote:
And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs?
Yes if your country offers Universal healthcare free at the point of delivery paid by your taxes, as happens in the UK. But if, say the USA doesn't offer such universal healthcare, then presumably you need to rely upon the kindness of charity, which can be demeaning.
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't? If charity is saving your life do you really consider it to be demeaning? Actually - if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible. Hopefully that will provide you with some motivation to change your situation for the better. I live in a country with universal health care - if you call living in a small town with no family physicians universal. The system is great if you can get into it. But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on. The availability of medical professionals is declining because a lot of people are viewing it as a not-so-well paying civil service job. If healthcare is a right who do we force to provide it when nobody wants to do it?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
DRHuff wrote:
is the choice between self destructive behaviours and acting as a contributing member of society
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that all people on welfare are deliberate cheats ?
DRHuff wrote:
And what level of medical care is enough? Access to MRI and major surgery? Free prescription drugs?
No, nothing should be free, or people will just take it. But, subsidised drugs, for sure. I went to a GP in the US, who gave me a bad diagnosis, b/c they would not listen to me, and filled me with useless drugs. This cost $500. I shudder to think what a good doctor would cost. This is just unacceptable. In Australia, I pay $25 to see a doctor, and $20 tops per drug. I also get a doctor who listens to me. A free doctor here would be better than what I paid $500 for. Your system is abused, it's abused by the doctors and the insurance companies.
DRHuff wrote:
Where does it end?
Perhaps with a fair society ? Certainly it would end with something far different to the USA today.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
all people on welfare are deliberate cheats ?
No - but they aren't exactly contributing to society either.
Christian Graus wrote:
and $20 tops per drug.
Sweet - so who pays for the R&D costs of those drugs? Americans for the most part.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your system is abused, it's abused by the doctors and the insurance companies.
Its not my system - and I agree that it is being abused. The US system is terribly inefficient while at the same time being a huge source of innovation. If the US adopts a similar universal health care system watch for a huge decrease in new pharmacutical research (both in the US and the rest of the world).
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps with a fair society ?
Life ain't fair - why should society be. Western society has become increasingly more fair since the end of WWII. But remeber that the experiment is only 60 years old. We have to live through a few more years to see if the social experiments going on are sustainable across multiple generations and declining indigenous populations.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't? If charity is saving your life do you really consider it to be demeaning? Actually - if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible. Hopefully that will provide you with some motivation to change your situation for the better. I live in a country with universal health care - if you call living in a small town with no family physicians universal. The system is great if you can get into it. But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on. The availability of medical professionals is declining because a lot of people are viewing it as a not-so-well paying civil service job. If healthcare is a right who do we force to provide it when nobody wants to do it?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't?
I don't see a fair education system as being part of welfare, nor do I see a health system that's accessible to all, as welfare. They are part of a fair society. Is insurance, welfare ?
DRHuff wrote:
if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible.
Yeah, because that's the way to integrate people into society - embarrass them.
DRHuff wrote:
But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on.
Where do you live ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't? If charity is saving your life do you really consider it to be demeaning? Actually - if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible. Hopefully that will provide you with some motivation to change your situation for the better. I live in a country with universal health care - if you call living in a small town with no family physicians universal. The system is great if you can get into it. But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on. The availability of medical professionals is declining because a lot of people are viewing it as a not-so-well paying civil service job. If healthcare is a right who do we force to provide it when nobody wants to do it?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
Healthcare systems in Canada are different from those applied in the UK. It is true that if you live in an area that is sparsely populated the probability of you finding even basic GP services is low. But then, there are huge wide open stretches of territory in Canada where populations are sparse, so, it is understandable that such services will be restricted. Perhaps you have a visiting GP every month or so, it is not ideal at all. But if you live in a large community such as a larger town/city, then healthcare provision should not - will not be an issue. But if there is a need for a healthcare provision and that authorities can be persuaded to that point of view, then that point of view should be made as forcefully as possible. At the end of the day the healthcare authority needs to justify its expenditure and its existence. Of course, Australia has huge areas of sparsely populated areas, but they have a Flying Doctor service and don't often suffer snow and ice conditions. But our Aussie friends can comment of the kind of services applicable in such sparse areas. Yep, I fully understand the American concept of "if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible", so I'll not argue that.
Last modified: 8mins after originally posted --
-
Christian Graus wrote:
all people on welfare are deliberate cheats ?
No - but they aren't exactly contributing to society either.
Christian Graus wrote:
and $20 tops per drug.
Sweet - so who pays for the R&D costs of those drugs? Americans for the most part.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your system is abused, it's abused by the doctors and the insurance companies.
Its not my system - and I agree that it is being abused. The US system is terribly inefficient while at the same time being a huge source of innovation. If the US adopts a similar universal health care system watch for a huge decrease in new pharmacutical research (both in the US and the rest of the world).
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps with a fair society ?
Life ain't fair - why should society be. Western society has become increasingly more fair since the end of WWII. But remeber that the experiment is only 60 years old. We have to live through a few more years to see if the social experiments going on are sustainable across multiple generations and declining indigenous populations.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
No - but they aren't exactly contributing to society either.
I am all for work for the dole programs and other ways to make sure that people who are on welfare, make some sort of contribution and keep themselves in the swing of having responsibilities and spending their time doing something productive.
DRHuff wrote:
Sweet - so who pays for the R&D costs of those drugs? Americans for the most part.
Actually, most Americans seem overly dismissive of medical research that takes place under systems that are tax subsidised, but a lot of stuff gets discovered outside the US. Either way, Americans pay for it most b/c they are a drug addicted society. Drugs get paid for here, the same as they do in the US. There's just an insurance system that helps make them affordable by covering the gap.
DRHuff wrote:
If the US adopts a similar universal health care system watch for a huge decrease in new pharmacutical research (both in the US and the rest of the world).
Well, actually, a lot of the research that goes on, isn't really new, it's slightly altering existing drugs in order to extend patents and keep prices high. I doubt there's more innovation in medicine in the USA than other parts of the world, if you take into account the ratios of population between countries.
DRHuff wrote:
Life ain't fair - why should society be
Because we're not animals ? Because we're capable of compassion ? How about, because if you don't provide a safety net, people will provide their own by robbing your house ?
DRHuff wrote:
We have to live through a few more years to see if the social experiments going on are sustainable across multiple generations and declining indigenous populations.
I think that most systems are broken right now. Ours sure is. We give money for life to a 12 yo girl who decides she'd rather have a baby than go to school. And no-one has to guts to tackle the problem. There's a whole range of safety nets in Australia, and I earn too much to qualify for any of them. I'd still rather see a system that gets abused sometimes, than a system that kicks people to the curb for not being successful, and calls them lazy, and lets them die.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of
-
That was the problem with the UK's former 11+ exam. If you passed you got to go to a better class of school - a Grammar School, but those who failed got to go to a Secondary Modern. Secondary Modern was for failures and thus many of these pupils were marked as such - failures - and to tell a child of 11 they were failures was considered an abuse of sorts. Thus, this system was abolished during the 1970's in favour for Comprehensive Education where all pupils were taught at the same pace irrespective how the individual pupil performed. This Comprehensive Education was not beneficial to all as those that were either "bright" or "dumb (for want of a better word)" as their needs were not necessarily serviced. But... Today, there is some discrimination insofar that ability by subject dictates would level of schooling you receive - that means if you are a wizard with, say, mathematics, you would be placed into a classroom together with similar pupils who have the potential to do well but if your mathematics was not at that standard you would be taught but not at the same degree of excellence. Also, there is an identification of those who might be classed as "gifted" and suitable education packages for those are under way or under review. Personally, I do not like the label "gifted" as it does signify some degree of "special measures" that could result in some kind of resentment from other pupils which can, and does, lead to some degree of bullying.
Back when I was 11, I was tracked into a high performance group because I had extremely high scores on aptitude and IQ tests - and had done well in grammar school except when I was too bored. By highschool I was nicknamed "The Professor and was taking college level courses.) When I was 13, I tried out for Little League along with my best friend. I didn't get it in - even though my best friend's dad was a coach! :(( So I was told I was a success in areas where I could succeed and a failure in areas where I would fail. When I went to my highschool 25th year reunion - I was greeted by the nerds and the jocks didn't have any idea who I was. Kids today can't fail in too many schools - unless of course, they act out because they're bored beyond belief either because the work is too hard for them to try, or the work is too easy. Sure it hurts their feeling when they are told that they failed. But it gives meaning to the times when they are told they are successes. Schools and parents should do their damnedest to make sure every kid fulfills his total potential - whether that is as a counterjockey at McDonalds, or an auto repair guy, or an actress, or a Marine, or a nuclear physicist. When we don't do that, we are failing our kids. When we give them ersatz awards and meaningless diplomas based on time-served, we are screwing them over, and ourselves, and our civilization.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But oversimplification ruins everything. Simplest is good, but simplest-er is horrible.
Well, fine. But please explain why the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be considered as, say, simply being aware of an apple. Why is that 'simplest-er'? Wouldn't consciousness of an apple be the same as consciousness of anything else?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Because the body is well set-up to use electrical impulses, owing to sodium and potassium ions generating voltage. It's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY electricity that carries action potentials: between neurons in the chemical synapse, to carry the impulse from one cell to another a chemical neurotransmitter is generated from the axon of the first neuron and binds to receptors in the second.
All of which represent well known energy exchanging reactions fundamentally no different than countless others one could mention. At what clearly descernable point in the process is a unit of consciousness generated?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. But please explain why the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be considered as, say, simply being aware of an apple. Why is that 'simplest-er'? Wouldn't consciousness of an apple be the same as consciousness of anything else?
We're not arguing the definition of 'consciousness', we're arguing the definition of 'mind'. Consciousness arises from the mind, but the mind encompasses unconscious and subconscious processes.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which represent well known energy exchanging reactions fundamentally no different than countless others one could mention. At what clearly descernable point in the process is a unit of consciousness generated?
I would have to understand the mind better to say for certain.