LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fast Lorentz transforms: was Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
Next: -*MARK*- meet George Re: LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: Dr. HotSalt on 5 May 2010 05:18 On May 4, 3:44 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:37:34 -0400, George Hammond<Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > >[Hammond] > > Hi Mark Ferguson, > > I have printed out your last post and will study it for a > >few days before replying. OK. > [Hammond] (snip) > ...I DON'T KNOW if there IS or ISN'T such a > thing as LAD !!! Therefore, I am suddenly VERY interested in > what responsible intellectuals have to say. I don't know if I qualify as "responsible", but my mind immediately says "try to devise an experiment to measure *any* activity in the microtubule system in a live subject". (The experiment should be completely blind to neuron activity.) Any modulation on that activity should correlate to experience; finding that correlation would be "necessary but not sufficient" proof. Finally the experiment would involve a dying person as a subject for explicit proof. Ethical issues aside, I'll have to think about the technology. > So, I will study your last post for two or three days and > then make a reply on ARK and SPR. > Look for me then...... George Hammond Will do. Mark L. Fergerson AKA Dr. HotSalt
From: Dr. HotSalt on 5 May 2010 05:27 On May 4, 8:31 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 6:44 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:37:34 -0400, George Hammond<Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > I dont mind using my name OR posting my picture. > > And you? The 'shadow' :-) > > Mr Ferguson may well be a decent individual with good insights, but he > has told you he is a 'doctor of kibology'. I know I am but what are you? Also, are you implying the two classes are mutually exclusive? > Doesnt take much research to discover what they are about (good fun), > and we all know how important qualification is to you. I also wrote (to Hammond): "Yeah, ARK is largely about mockery, but...I don't mock you (much, and never about the SPOG)" That's not a lie. (snip) > One thing to take into account. Anything happening at the biological > level can be discovered. With the latest mri technology, we can trace > every activity within the brain, as you would obviously know, but > regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes, there can only > ever be, at the scientific level, speculation regarding consciousness. What sort of technology would *you* suggest to use to directly detect microtubule system activity? Mark L. "Dr. HotSalt" Fergerson
From: nuny on 5 May 2010 06:41 On May 4, 7:59 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 3, 11:40 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: (snip) > If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic > emperical beliefs, then it must either: > > (1) terminate in unjustified beleifs > > (2) go on infinitely (without circularity) > > (3) circle back upon itself in some way. The Scientific Method is said to be "recursive" because theories are explanations of observations, which suggest new observations to make. If those observations are as the theory suggested, the theory is reinforced. If not, the theory is shown to be limited. In other words, science keeps testing (justifying) its beliefs via experiment. Science doesn't have much in the way of untestable "beliefs". It "believes" in the universality of physical law, which observations consistently support. It "believes" in cause-and-effect, which observation again consistently supports. You might say that the Scientific Method is "believed" to work, but how would you go about falsifying it? > You have not shown any reason to show that the microtubules do > anything after someone dies. Screw "sophisticated" argument, let's design an experiment to *look* for it. > ...are you suggesting > that some time relativism is involved? If [so] it seems like more > the desire for a moment to last forever? How long does an experience take? > Rub your hand up the side of your other arm, feel that? That part of > what makes the self "feel like something" except there is the entire > body in the brain feeling like something. > > Homunculus - the mapping of the body surfaces in the brain. This isn't about the neuronal brain. Mark L. Fergerson
From: bigfletch8 on 5 May 2010 06:58 On May 5, 5:27 pm, "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 8:31 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 5, 6:44 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:37:34 -0400, George Hammond<Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > > I dont mind using my name OR posting my picture. > > > And you? The 'shadow' :-) > > > Mr Ferguson may well be a decent individual with good insights, but he > > has told you he is a 'doctor of kibology'. > > I know I am but what are you? Many respond to the 'what' question, by saying "I 'am' and engineer, artist etc. That describes what they do (pat of their life at least). This is integrated with what could be called the G.H. Dillema. What is a piece of music? Trying to disect it into its smaller componants, hardly provides an answer. > > Also, are you implying the two classes are mutually exclusive? That's for you to decide. > > > Doesnt take much research to discover what they are about (good fun), > > and we all know how important qualification is to you. > > I also wrote (to Hammond): > > "Yeah, ARK is largely about mockery, but...I don't mock you > (much, and never about the SPOG)" > > That's not a lie. You obviously missed my part regarding his dedication. He suffers from intellectual snobbery, but there are worse traits. He absorbed some of my stuff, and then regurgitated it because I didnt qualify.. I have spent my working life dealing with garbos to political leaders, from sports superstars to esteemed scientists, working with them on their 'self improvement', so I recognise many such characteristics. All 'common rungs on the unique ladder of the 'self'. > > (snip) > > > One thing to take into account. Anything happening at the biological > > level can be discovered. With the latest mri technology, we can trace > > every activity within the brain, as you would obviously know, but > > regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes, there can only > > ever be, at the scientific level, speculation regarding consciousness. > > What sort of technology would *you* suggest to use to directly > detect microtubule system activity? Observing biological effects are not of great interest to me. Im more interested in the causal nature of the individual. As I said, there is no possibility of detecting the nature of consciousness by looking at the effects, although I greatly admire the intelligence and dedication of those who pursue such investigation. They are 'actualy' developing their own conscousness in the process, as do all people of self discipline. BOfL > > Mark L. "Dr. HotSalt" Fergerson
From: nuny on 5 May 2010 09:18
On May 5, 3:58 am, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 5:27 pm, "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 4, 8:31 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: (snips) > > > Mr Ferguson may well be a decent individual with good insights, but he > > > has told you he is a 'doctor of kibology'. > > > I know I am but what are you? > > Many respond to the 'what' question, by saying "I 'am' and engineer, > artist etc. That describes what they do (pat of their life at least). I did not answer any question. I agreed with the two qualifications you assigned to me. That doesn't exclude any others. > This is integrated with what could be called the G.H. Dillema. I know what a di lemma is, what's a dill ema? > What is a piece of music? Trying to disect it into its smaller > componants, hardly provides an answer. Non sequitur. > > Also, are you implying the two classes are mutually exclusive? > > That's for you to decide. That's not what I asked you. > > > Doesnt take much research to discover what they are about (good fun), > > > and we all know how important qualification is to you. > > > I also wrote (to Hammond): > > > "Yeah, ARK is largely about mockery, but...I don't mock you > > (much, and never about the SPOG)" > > > That's not a lie. > > You obviously missed my part regarding his dedication. That's nice, but I made a linear statement. We get that you're capable of lateral thinking. Can you think linearly also? > > What sort of technology would *you* suggest to use to directly > > detect microtubule system activity? > > Observing biological effects are not of great interest to me. Im more > interested in the causal nature of the individual. You can't talk about causality without describing effects. You can't describe them without examining them. > As I said, there is no possibility of detecting the nature of > consciousness by looking at the effects That's one of *your* unjustified beliefs. I do not share it. Mark L. Fergerson |