If ESP ever does prove itself an authentic protocol, then its tendency to allow the mind to accurately observe remote locations could suggest a breach in the presumed dependency of consciousness on the form. I also recommend visiting the CIA's CREST database and searching amongst the many thousands of Remote Viewing documents that have been released. Despite rational assumption, there's more than redaction lines to look at.
Here's my take on Remote Viewing: if any people (or animals) had this ability, it would be such an advantage that they would rapidly displace those who don't have it. But the vast majority of people don't have this facility, and animals don't have it, so probably nobody does.
If people don't know that the John Templeton Foundation is a private pot of that gets spent on pseudoscience and fuffery, there's not much we can do to correct their misconceptions.
Who wouldn't want a grant like that? There's absolutely no possibility of accountability. The notions are so vague and there's so many different views, even among the same religion, about what an afterlife would be like that you can't really be proven wrong. Basically, they weaseled their way into $5 mill with no chance of being asked for results.
Oh, I'm sure there will be some results, but all they have to do is dick around for a couple years then publish a report detailing what they "learned" which will be that it appears probable based on (waves hands) that there is some sort of afterlife and more research is required to find out for sure and what exactly that afterlife consists of and whether we can in any way influence what happens to us there.
Jesus Christ came and made the claim that he is God. The people of his day, especially the religious ones were unbelievably upset by this claim. They were torqued out of shape enough to conspire with the Roman governmental authorities to have Jesus executed. Jesus proved his claim to deity by resurrection from the dead.
You said a bunch more but it was claptrap not even worth quoting and for the most part nonsense anyway.
What we know is a lot less than what you said. We don't know that Jesus ever made the claim that he was God. We only know that that claim was made on his behalf after he was dead. And he was executed by the Roman Empire because they thought his followers were trying to set him up as some sort of king. Nipped that in the bud, they did.
As for his alleged resurrection, he never got around to proving it to anybody but the insiders of his little cult and by the time all this stuff got written down, it's not even clear whether the whole thing was intended to be taken as a literal fact or meant as a metaphor for spiritual renewal.
And maybe all that means is that consciousness is a flawed idea. We can't explain it, we can't observe it in others (but we assume they have it). The fact that we can't even describe what it is except using circular reasoning should be a big clue that perhaps it isn't anything at all.
The first thing to find out is what makes consciousness appear. Currently we have no clue.
I've never thought that was a particularly interesting question. Imagine you have a computer that is so powerful and has such a comprehensive decision tree that it can simulate what we perceive as conscious behavior to a level indistinguishable from a natural human being. Is it conscious?
Unless you're going to arbitrarily insist that "true consciousness" can only exist in human beings and unseen supernatural beings, YES.
Does it matter? I can see philosophical value in telling the difference but practically speaking I just don't see where it's relevant. And if there is a quantum mechanical principal that consciousness relies on then that just adds complexity it doesn't make reverse engineering intractable. I do realize that I am doing a bit of conceptual hand-waving with the whole "simulates consciousness" bit but the idea only really breaks down at the level of simulating creativity. In particular creative problem solving. Can a computer ever be capable of designing its own successor without outside help? To me that's the ultimate Turing test.
We can't do it (yet). Are we to say that everyone who has lived to date was not conscious?
Virtually all the great geniuses of recorded history have believed in an afterlife. Some AC on slashdot confidently states otherwise. Who has more credibility - Isaac Newton or Anonymous Coward on the internet? That is indeed a tough one.
That's appeal to authority, but not a very well-formed one because you didn't even bother to declare what authority you were appealing to. The fact is, without any evidence to back up such claims, they can be dismissed -- on anybody's authority.
This story reflects the fundamental bias of science -- that the Universe is objective. Without that bias science as we know it would be radically different, but that doesn't mean the bias is accurate.
It was necessary for science to make any progress. If everything is subjective, there is no such thing as knowledge. And the assumption that the universe is objective has been remarkably fruitful and accurate because it allows us to make useful predictions and enabled the creation of the technology that (for instance) makes it possible for you to type letters into a computer and for me to read them half a world away.
If we take it as read that everything within the Universe arises subjectively, that is, it emanates from consciousness instead of consciousness emanating from matter, then it not only becomes a much more interesting place, but we can better understand phenomenon like the rapid pace of biological evolution, dreams and "paranormal" experiences, as well as physical death and what may or may not proceed it. It also resolves the problem between "God or no-God" -- if matter is energy and energy is consciousness, then an external God cannot exist, and yet "God" becomes pure consciousness, the thing itself that animates all reality.
At this point in the game I don't see why it's so much trouble to simply try switching the bias from objective reality to subjective, from mechanical to conscious. I realize the objective approach is connected to the necessary split that had to occur between religion and science, that science had to distance itself as much from matters of God as it could to avoid persecution, and this led science to dismiss any inherent consciousness to matter. In the end, though, I think we'll find that a subjective Universe is actually a more intuitive bias.
Second would be to investigate the full range of questions about Judeo, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other Asian religions' conceptions of the afterlife to see if they're theologically and philosophically consistent. 'We'll look at near death experiences both in western cultures and throughout the world and really look at what they're all about and ask the question — do they indicate something about an afterlife or are they kind of just delusions that we're hardwired into?
Fixed. And who cares if they're "theologically and philosophically consistent" if they're wrong?
I second the pen and paper note-taking suggestion. I've found that if I type my notes in class, I spend more time transcribing every word the lecturer says instead of paying attention to the lecture and noting down the points that are important. Of course, you can always ask the lecturer if you can record the class if you need the crutch.
My problem with typing notes (as opposed to hand writing them) is that I spend far too much time spell/grammar checking my notes, and end up completely missing large chunks of the lecture.
Not to diss the idea completey - It would probably be a far more viable method for someone who's not an O.C.D. Grammar Nazi like I am.
The *point* of the pencil-and-paper not taking is that you ingest the information and analyze it to decide which points in the lecture are worth writing down because either
you won't easily remember them
they're likely to be needed for tests or homework
or you don't understand them and you will need to do further research or ask the professor
This is a greatly more active role in learning than you will achieve by either sitting in class without taking notes or by recording the entire lecture or grabbing the lecture notes off the professor's web page. And that's why it can be effective. But it's only effective if you take notes in such an analytic way. If you try to write down everything (some people can, using shorthand). there's not enough thinking involved and you will retain less information in your head and less-useful notes.
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
Assuming he is a human, of course his brain does. As does yours, mine, and Stephen Hawking's. No human brain can actually multitask. Some people are just faster at switching between one task and another than others.
And everyone loses efficiency when doing it. The more you switch tasks, the more time you lose and the worse the result.
Buddhism has nothing to do with biology or sport. What a person believes about her or his gender has nothing to do with atheletic ability. Let's leave those issues out of this. The question is whether there is a way for women to excel in sports if they can't have a category that excludes men. In some some sports the answer is no. So either you enforce a biological distinction or you accept that women wont get to compete in some events.
That is not a good system. The wealthier party can always use the threat of hiring really expensive lawyers as a deterrent and the deterrent works even of you have a legitimate case. Also in some cases both parties are partially right. You shouldn't be penalized for having a court sort out a judgment.
If the claims are truly frivolous the plaintiff should have to pay whatever they asked for in damages to compensate their intended victim for damage to their reputation. And it shouldn't just apply to trolls. The same should go for big sue-happy companies.
Slashdot Mirror
One bit of information might be enough. Sell or don't sell.
Are you suggesting that it was a profitable financial enterprise?
You're mistaken. I made no such claim. I don't think any such thing exists.
If ESP ever does prove itself an authentic protocol, then its tendency to allow the mind to accurately observe remote locations could suggest a breach in the presumed dependency of consciousness on the form. I also recommend visiting the CIA's CREST database and searching amongst the many thousands of Remote Viewing documents that have been released. Despite rational assumption, there's more than redaction lines to look at.
Here's my take on Remote Viewing: if any people (or animals) had this ability, it would be such an advantage that they would rapidly displace those who don't have it. But the vast majority of people don't have this facility, and animals don't have it, so probably nobody does.
If people don't know that the John Templeton Foundation is a private pot of that gets spent on pseudoscience and fuffery, there's not much we can do to correct their misconceptions.
Who wouldn't want a grant like that? There's absolutely no possibility of accountability. The notions are so vague and there's so many different views, even among the same religion, about what an afterlife would be like that you can't really be proven wrong. Basically, they weaseled their way into $5 mill with no chance of being asked for results.
Oh, I'm sure there will be some results, but all they have to do is dick around for a couple years then publish a report detailing what they "learned" which will be that it appears probable based on (waves hands) that there is some sort of afterlife and more research is required to find out for sure and what exactly that afterlife consists of and whether we can in any way influence what happens to us there.
Jesus Christ came and made the claim that he is God. The people of his day, especially the religious ones were unbelievably upset by this claim. They were torqued out of shape enough to conspire with the Roman governmental authorities to have Jesus executed. Jesus proved his claim to deity by resurrection from the dead.
You said a bunch more but it was claptrap not even worth quoting and for the most part nonsense anyway.
What we know is a lot less than what you said. We don't know that Jesus ever made the claim that he was God. We only know that that claim was made on his behalf after he was dead. And he was executed by the Roman Empire because they thought his followers were trying to set him up as some sort of king. Nipped that in the bud, they did.
As for his alleged resurrection, he never got around to proving it to anybody but the insiders of his little cult and by the time all this stuff got written down, it's not even clear whether the whole thing was intended to be taken as a literal fact or meant as a metaphor for spiritual renewal.
Nah, lots of people have been hit by bullets and lived to tell the tale. The same can't be said of death.
And maybe all that means is that consciousness is a flawed idea. We can't explain it, we can't observe it in others (but we assume they have it). The fact that we can't even describe what it is except using circular reasoning should be a big clue that perhaps it isn't anything at all.
The first thing to find out is what makes consciousness appear. Currently we have no clue.
I've never thought that was a particularly interesting question. Imagine you have a computer that is so powerful and has such a comprehensive decision tree that it can simulate what we perceive as conscious behavior to a level indistinguishable from a natural human being. Is it conscious?
Unless you're going to arbitrarily insist that "true consciousness" can only exist in human beings and unseen supernatural beings, YES.
Does it matter? I can see philosophical value in telling the difference but practically speaking I just don't see where it's relevant. And if there is a quantum mechanical principal that consciousness relies on then that just adds complexity it doesn't make reverse engineering intractable. I do realize that I am doing a bit of conceptual hand-waving with the whole "simulates consciousness" bit but the idea only really breaks down at the level of simulating creativity. In particular creative problem solving. Can a computer ever be capable of designing its own successor without outside help? To me that's the ultimate Turing test.
We can't do it (yet). Are we to say that everyone who has lived to date was not conscious?
Virtually all the great geniuses of recorded history have believed in an afterlife. Some AC on slashdot confidently states otherwise. Who has more credibility - Isaac Newton or Anonymous Coward on the internet? That is indeed a tough one.
That's appeal to authority, but not a very well-formed one because you didn't even bother to declare what authority you were appealing to. The fact is, without any evidence to back up such claims, they can be dismissed -- on anybody's authority.
Then propose a testable hypothesis and we'll do some experiments. The fact is, you got nothin'.
Also drugs aftect the brain and that affects consciousness. Same with electrical stimulation.
This story reflects the fundamental bias of science -- that the Universe is objective. Without that bias science as we know it would be radically different, but that doesn't mean the bias is accurate.
It was necessary for science to make any progress. If everything is subjective, there is no such thing as knowledge. And the assumption that the universe is objective has been remarkably fruitful and accurate because it allows us to make useful predictions and enabled the creation of the technology that (for instance) makes it possible for you to type letters into a computer and for me to read them half a world away.
If we take it as read that everything within the Universe arises subjectively, that is, it emanates from consciousness instead of consciousness emanating from matter, then it not only becomes a much more interesting place, but we can better understand phenomenon like the rapid pace of biological evolution, dreams and "paranormal" experiences, as well as physical death and what may or may not proceed it. It also resolves the problem between "God or no-God" -- if matter is energy and energy is consciousness, then an external God cannot exist, and yet "God" becomes pure consciousness, the thing itself that animates all reality.
At this point in the game I don't see why it's so much trouble to simply try switching the bias from objective reality to subjective, from mechanical to conscious. I realize the objective approach is connected to the necessary split that had to occur between religion and science, that science had to distance itself as much from matters of God as it could to avoid persecution, and this led science to dismiss any inherent consciousness to matter. In the end, though, I think we'll find that a subjective Universe is actually a more intuitive bias.
More intuitive maybe. Less useful definately.
Second would be to investigate the full range of questions about Judeo, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other Asian religions' conceptions of the afterlife to see if they're theologically and philosophically consistent. 'We'll look at near death experiences both in western cultures and throughout the world and really look at what they're all about and ask the question — do they indicate something about an afterlife or are they kind of just delusions that we're hardwired into?
Fixed. And who cares if they're "theologically and philosophically consistent" if they're wrong?
I second the pen and paper note-taking suggestion. I've found that if I type my notes in class, I spend more time transcribing every word the lecturer says instead of paying attention to the lecture and noting down the points that are important. Of course, you can always ask the lecturer if you can record the class if you need the crutch.
My problem with typing notes (as opposed to hand writing them) is that I spend far too much time spell/grammar checking my notes, and end up completely missing large chunks of the lecture. Not to diss the idea completey - It would probably be a far more viable method for someone who's not an O.C.D. Grammar Nazi like I am.
The *point* of the pencil-and-paper not taking is that you ingest the information and analyze it to decide which points in the lecture are worth writing down because either
This is a greatly more active role in learning than you will achieve by either sitting in class without taking notes or by recording the entire lecture or grabbing the lecture notes off the professor's web page. And that's why it can be effective. But it's only effective if you take notes in such an analytic way. If you try to write down everything (some people can, using shorthand). there's not enough thinking involved and you will retain less information in your head and less-useful notes.
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
Assuming he is a human, of course his brain does. As does yours, mine, and Stephen Hawking's. No human brain can actually multitask. Some people are just faster at switching between one task and another than others.
And everyone loses efficiency when doing it. The more you switch tasks, the more time you lose and the worse the result.
Everyone's brain fails to multitask. The brain has only one attention center (at best).
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking
All except the control part. What they can apparently do is MEASURE which way the photon WENT using the entangled partner.
Google had the money to ensure that Android capable devices would be made.
Buddhism has nothing to do with biology or sport. What a person believes about her or his gender has nothing to do with atheletic ability. Let's leave those issues out of this. The question is whether there is a way for women to excel in sports if they can't have a category that excludes men. In some some sports the answer is no. So either you enforce a biological distinction or you accept that women wont get to compete in some events.
That is not a good system. The wealthier party can always use the threat of hiring really expensive lawyers as a deterrent and the deterrent works even of you have a legitimate case. Also in some cases both parties are partially right. You shouldn't be penalized for having a court sort out a judgment.
What's clever about a retina display? Pretty yes. Obvious also yes.
If the claims are truly frivolous the plaintiff should have to pay whatever they asked for in damages to compensate their intended victim for damage to their reputation. And it shouldn't just apply to trolls. The same should go for big sue-happy companies.
Welcome to the dark side.