Individual consciousness or identity is an illusion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: water detected on moon before chandrayan went kaput - plentyof it
Next: Australia Dust Storm ... WELL DESERVED DIVINE RETRIBUTION FOR WELL KNOWN COLLECTIVE CRIMES
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 30 Sep 2009 21:47 Osmium wrote: > [snip] > > In my opinion the sole reason they are not is that they do not have > the same memories. If my twin could be programmed now to have > identical memories as myself then he would be my doppelganger and if > he died it would not really be like him dying---the two people, in > this hypothetical case would not be two separate conscious beings > (unless you believe in a soul). That person would have to have identical life experiences. For tha to be possible, my doppelganger would have to follow me everywhere and do as I do. Inevitably, we'd get in a fight over the TV remote. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
From: alien8er on 1 Oct 2009 18:10 On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) > "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no > patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before > propounding on it." > > This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are > no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 (I'd give a direct link to one of his many posts on the subject but you have the same access to old posts as I do; do your own searching) I am still hugely amused that his greatest detractors over that one comprised the anti-Einstein crowd; they all want to attack the other foundation, the constancy of c. None of them _ever_ thought of Unc's approach. > Secondly when > someone does come up with a fascinating speculation (not talking about > myself) Uncle Al shoots it down with a brief adolescent insult and > then cites some standard science such as, "There are no exceptions to > the Second Law of Thermodynamics". Well, speculations with the prerequisite of ignoring fundamentals like the second law _are_ stoopid. What's your point? .. > Not only is he a killjoy, or a discussion killer, but he demonstrates > the failure to think "outside the box" (sorry for the trite phrase-- > couldn't think of any other) that prevented the theory of relativity > from being discovered earlier, and which would have prevented the > invention of the laser, or the integrated circuit. Nonsense. He kills pointless, stoopid discussions by pointing out that they have no foundation and thus can go nowhere useful. If he is right about spacetime being left-handed, all sorts of interesting, even useful, things become possible. I'm thinking propellantless "grip the fabric of spacetime and _push_" drives, artificial gravitational fields, and perhaps even FTL. Mark L. Fergerson
From: purple on 1 Oct 2009 18:48 alien8er wrote: > On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) > >> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no >> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before >> propounding on it." >> >> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are >> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. > > You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its > foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- > handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 That's because physicists know better. > (I'd give a direct link to one of his many posts on the subject but > you have the same access to old posts as I do; do your own searching) > > I am still hugely amused that his greatest detractors over that one > comprised the anti-Einstein crowd; they all want to attack the other > foundation, the constancy of c. None of them _ever_ thought of Unc's > approach. > >> Secondly when >> someone does come up with a fascinating speculation (not talking about >> myself) Uncle Al shoots it down with a brief adolescent insult and >> then cites some standard science such as, "There are no exceptions to >> the Second Law of Thermodynamics". > > Well, speculations with the prerequisite of ignoring fundamentals > like the second law _are_ stoopid. What's your point? > . >> Not only is he a killjoy, or a discussion killer, but he demonstrates >> the failure to think "outside the box" (sorry for the trite phrase-- >> couldn't think of any other) that prevented the theory of relativity >> from being discovered earlier, and which would have prevented the >> invention of the laser, or the integrated circuit. > > Nonsense. He kills pointless, stoopid discussions by pointing out > that they have no foundation and thus can go nowhere useful. Then he should have stifled the left/right handed discussions before they got any traction. > If he is right about spacetime being left-handed, all sorts of > interesting, even useful, things become possible. I'm thinking > propellantless "grip the fabric of spacetime and _push_" drives, > artificial gravitational fields, and perhaps even FTL. This is solely a chemist's refuge.
From: alien8er on 3 Oct 2009 13:21 On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > alien8er wrote: > > On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) > > >> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no > >> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before > >> propounding on it." > > >> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are > >> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. > > > You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its > > foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- > > handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? > > >http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > That's because physicists know better. Which physicists have done experiments showing his speculation is unphysical? > > (I'd give a direct link to one of his many posts on the subject but > > you have the same access to old posts as I do; do your own searching) > > > I am still hugely amused that his greatest detractors over that one > > comprised the anti-Einstein crowd; they all want to attack the other > > foundation, the constancy of c. None of them _ever_ thought of Unc's > > approach. > > >> Secondly when > >> someone does come up with a fascinating speculation (not talking about > >> myself) Uncle Al shoots it down with a brief adolescent insult and > >> then cites some standard science such as, "There are no exceptions to > >> the Second Law of Thermodynamics". > > > Well, speculations with the prerequisite of ignoring fundamentals > > like the second law _are_ stoopid. What's your point? > > . > >> Not only is he a killjoy, or a discussion killer, but he demonstrates > >> the failure to think "outside the box" (sorry for the trite phrase-- > >> couldn't think of any other) that prevented the theory of relativity > >> from being discovered earlier, and which would have prevented the > >> invention of the laser, or the integrated circuit. > > > Nonsense. He kills pointless, stoopid discussions by pointing out > > that they have no foundation and thus can go nowhere useful. > > Then he should have stifled the left/right handed > discussions before they got any traction. Please cite experimental evidence showing his speculation is unphysical. > > If he is right about spacetime being left-handed, all sorts of > > interesting, even useful, things become possible. I'm thinking > > propellantless "grip the fabric of spacetime and _push_" drives, > > artificial gravitational fields, and perhaps even FTL. > > This is solely a chemist's refuge. Please cite experimental evidence showing his speculation is unphysical. Mark L. Fergerson
From: purple on 3 Oct 2009 15:38
alien8er wrote: > On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> alien8er wrote: >>> On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) >>>> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no >>>> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before >>>> propounding on it." >>>> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are >>>> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. >>> You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its >>> foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- >>> handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? >>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> That's because physicists know better. > > Which physicists have done experiments showing his speculation is > unphysical? You might want to reword that if you expect a reply. >>> (I'd give a direct link to one of his many posts on the subject but >>> you have the same access to old posts as I do; do your own searching) >>> I am still hugely amused that his greatest detractors over that one >>> comprised the anti-Einstein crowd; they all want to attack the other >>> foundation, the constancy of c. None of them _ever_ thought of Unc's >>> approach. >>>> Secondly when >>>> someone does come up with a fascinating speculation (not talking about >>>> myself) Uncle Al shoots it down with a brief adolescent insult and >>>> then cites some standard science such as, "There are no exceptions to >>>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics". >>> Well, speculations with the prerequisite of ignoring fundamentals >>> like the second law _are_ stoopid. What's your point? >>> . >>>> Not only is he a killjoy, or a discussion killer, but he demonstrates >>>> the failure to think "outside the box" (sorry for the trite phrase-- >>>> couldn't think of any other) that prevented the theory of relativity >>>> from being discovered earlier, and which would have prevented the >>>> invention of the laser, or the integrated circuit. >>> Nonsense. He kills pointless, stoopid discussions by pointing out >>> that they have no foundation and thus can go nowhere useful. >> Then he should have stifled the left/right handed >> discussions before they got any traction. > > Please cite experimental evidence showing his speculation is > unphysical. Ditto: >>> If he is right about spacetime being left-handed, all sorts of >>> interesting, even useful, things become possible. I'm thinking >>> propellantless "grip the fabric of spacetime and _push_" drives, >>> artificial gravitational fields, and perhaps even FTL. >> This is solely a chemist's refuge. > Please cite experimental evidence showing his speculation is > unphysical. Third time's a charm. <BURP> > Mark L. Fergerson |