| Author
|
528 Hz
|
oggabogga
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
62
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 17:27
|
================== WEBS OF MEANING. ==================
If every meaning in a mind depends on other meanings in that mind,
does that make things too ill-defined to make a scientific project work?
No, even when thing go in circles, there still are scientific things to do!
Just make new kinds of theories - about those circles themselves! The
older theories only tried to hide the circularities. But that lost all the
richness of our wondrous human meaning-webs; the networks in our
human minds are probably more complex than any other structure
Science ever contemplated in the past. Accordingly, the detailed theories
of Artificial Intelligence will probably need, eventually, some very
complicated theories. But that's life, too.
Let's go back to what numbers mean. This time, to make things easier,
well think about Three. I'm arguing that Three, for us, has no one single,
basic definition, but is a web of different processes that each get meaning
from the others. Consider all the roles "Three" plays. One way we tell a
Three is to recite "One, Two, Three", while pointing to the different
things. To do it right, of course, you have to (i) touch each thing once and
(ii) not touch any twice. One way to count out loud while you pick up each
object and remove it. Children learn to do such things in their heads or,
when that's too hard, to use tricks like finger-pointing. Another way to
tell a Three is to use some Standard Set of Three things. Then bring ‹set of
things to the other set, and match them I one-to-one: if all are matched
and none are left, then there were Three. That "standard I Three" need
not be things, for words like "one, two, three" work just as well. For Five
we have a wider choice. One can think of it as groups of Two and Three, or
One and Four. Or, one can think of some familiar shapes -. a pentagon, an
X, a Vee, a cross, an aeroplane; they all make Fives.
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o
Because each trick works in different situations, our power stems from
being able to shift from one trick to another. To ask which meaning is
correct - to count, or match, or group - is foolishness. Each has its uses
and its ways to support the others. None has much power by itself, but
together they make a versatile skill-system. Instead of flimsy links in
chain of definitions in the mind, each word we use can activate big webs
of different ways to deal of things, to use them, to remember them, to
compare them, and so forth. With multiply-connected knowledge-nets,
you can't get stuck. When any sense of meaning fails, you can switch to
another. The mathematician's way, once you get into the slightest trouble,
you're stuck for good!
Why, then, do mathematicians stick to slender chains, each thing
depending as few things as is possible? The answer is ironic:
mathematicians want to get stuck! When anything goes wrong, they want
to be the first to notice it. The best way to be sure of that is having
everything collapse at once! To them, fragility is not bad, because it helps
them find the perfect proof, lest any single thing they think be
inconsistent with any other one. That's fine for Mathematics; in fact,
that's what much of mathematics is. It's just not good Psychology. Let's
face it, our minds will always hold some beliefs that turn out wrong.
I think it's bad psychology, when teachers shape our children's
mathematics into long, thin, fragile, definition tower-chains, instead of
robust cross-connected webs. Those chains break at their weakest links,
those towers topple at the slightest shove. And that's what happens to a
child's mind in mathematics class, who only takes a moment just to watch
a pretty cloud go by. The purposes of ordinary people are not the same as
those of mathematicians and philosophers, who want to simplify by
having just as few connections as can be. In real life, the best ideas are
cross-connected as can be. Perhaps that's why our culture makes most
children so afraid of mathematics. We think we help them get things
right, by making things go wrong most times! Perhaps, instead, we ought
to help them build more robust networks in their heads.
================== CASTLES IN THE AIR. ==================
The secret of what something means lies in the ways that it connects to all
the other things we know. The more such links, the more a thing will
mean to us. The joke comes when someone looks for the "real" meaning of
anything. For, if something had just one meaning, that is, if it were only
connected to just one other thing, then it wold scarcely "mean" at all!
That's why I think we shouldn't program our machines that way, with
clear and simple logic definitions. A machine programmed that way
might never "really" understand anything -- any more than a person
would. Rich, multiply-connected networks provide enough different ways
to use knowledge that when one way doesn't work, you can try to figure
out why. When there are many meanings in a network, you can turn
things around in your mind and look at them from different perspectives;
when you get stuck, you can try another view. That's what we mean by
thinking!
That's why I dislike logic, and prefer to work with webs of circular
definitions. Each gives meaning to the rest. There's nothing wrong with
liking several different tunes, each one the more because it contrasts
with the others. There's nothing wrong with ropes - or knots, or woven
cloth - in which each strand helps hold the other strands together - or
apart! There's nothing very wrong, in this strange sense, with having all
one's mind a castle in the air!
To summarize: of course no computer could understand anything real --
or even what a number is - if forced to single ways to deal with them. But
neither could a child or philosopher. So such concerns are not about
computers at all, but about our foolish quest for meanings that stand by
themselves, outside any context. Our questions about thinking machines
should really be questions about our own minds.
|
|
|
oggabogga
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
62
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 17:27
|
================== ARE HUMANS SELF-AWARE? ==================
Most people assume that computers can't be conscious, or self-aware; at
best they can only simulate the appearance of this. Of course, this
assumes that we, as humans, are self-aware. But are we? I think not. I
know that sounds ridiculous, so let me explain.
If by awareness we mean knowing what is in our minds, then, as every
clinical psychologist knows, people are only very slightly self-aware, and
most of what they think about themselves is guess-work. We seem to build
up networks of theories about what is in our minds, and we mistake these
apparent visions for what's really going on. To put it bluntly, most of
what our "consciousness" reveals to us is just "made up". Now, I don't
mean that we're not aware of sounds and sights, or even of some parts of
thoughts. I'm only saying that we're not aware of much of what goes on
inside our minds.
When people talk, the physics is quite clear: our voices shake the air; this
makes your ear-drums move -- and then computers in your head convert
those waves into constituents of words. These somehow then turn into
strings of symbols representing words, so now there's somewhere in your
head that "represents" a sentence. What happens next?
When light excites your retinas, this causes events in your brain that
correspond to texture, edges, color patches, and the like. Then these, in
turn, are somehow fused to "represent" a shape or outline of a thing.
What happens then?
We all comprehend these simple ideas. But there remains a hard problem,
still. What entity or mechanism carries on from there? We're used to
saying simply, that's the "self". What's wrong with that idea? Our standard
concept of the self is that deep inside each mind resides a special, central
"self" that does the real mental work for us, a little person deep down
there to hear and see and understand what's going on. Call this the
"Single Agent" theory. It isn't hard to see why every culture gets attached
to this idea. No matter how ridiculous it may seem, scientifically, it
underlies all principles of law, work, and morality. Without it, all our
canons of responsibility would fall, of blame or virtue, right or wrong.
What use would solving problems be, without that myth; how could we
have societies at all?
The trouble is, we cannot build good theories of the mind that way. In
every field, as Scientists we're always forced to recognize that what we
see as single things - like rocks or clouds, or even minds - must sometimes
be described as made of other kinds of things. We'll have to understand
that Self, itself, is not a single thing.
============ NEW THEORIES ABOUT MINDS AND MACHINES. ============
It is too easy to say things like, "Computer can't do (xxx), because they
have no feelings, or thoughts". But here's a way to turn such sayings into
foolishness. Change them to read like this. "Computer can't do (xxx),
because all they can do is execute incredibly intricate processes, perhaps
millions at a time". Now, such objections seem less convincing -- yet all
we did was face one simple, complicated fact: we really don't yet know
what the limits of computers are. Now let's face the other simple fact: our
notions of the human mind are just as primitive.
Why are we so reluctant to admit how little is known about how the mind
works? It must come partly from our normal tendency to repress
problems that seem discouraging. But there are deeper reasons, too, for
wanting to believe in the uniqueness and inexplicability of Self. Perhaps
we fear that too much questioning might tear the veils that clothe our
mental lives.
To me there is a special irony when people say machines cannot have
minds, because I feel we're only now beginning to see how minds
possibly could work -- using insights that came directly from attempts to
see what complicated machines can do. Of course we're nowhere near a
clear and complete theory - yet. But in retrospect, it now seems strange
that anyone could ever hope to understand such things before they knew
much more about machines. Except, of course, if they believed that minds
are not complex at all.
Now, you might ask, if the ordinary concept of Self is so wrong, what
would I recommend in its place? To begin with, for social purposes, I don't
recommend changing anything - it's too risky. But for the technical
enterprise of making intelligent machines, we need better theories of
how to "represent", inside computers, the kinds of webs of knowledge and
knowhow that figure in everyone's common-sense knowledge systems.
We must develop programs that know, say, what numbers mean, instead of
just being able to add and subtract them. We must experiment with all
sorts of common sense knowledge, and knowledge about that as well.
Such is the focus of some present-day Al research. True, most of the world
of "Computer Science" is involved with building large, useful, but shallow
practical systems, a few courageous students are trying to make
computers use other kinds of thinking, representing different kinds of
knowledge, sometimes, in several different ways, so that their programs
won't get stuck at fixed ideas. Most important of all, perhaps, is making
such machines learn from their own experience. Once we know more
about such things, we can start to study ways to weave these different
schemes together. Finally, we'll get machines that think about themselves
and make up theories, good or bad, of how they, themselves might work.
Perhaps, when our machines get to that stage, we'll find it very easy to
tell it has happened. For, at that point, they'll probably object to being
called machines. To accept that will be will be difficult, but only by this
sacrifice will machines free us from our false mottos.
|
|
|
|
oggabogga
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
62
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 17:28
|
================== KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON SENSE ==================
We've all enjoyed those jokes about the stupid and literal behavior of
computers. They send us silly checks and bills for $0.00. They can't tell
when we mean "hyphen" from when we mean minus They don't mind
being caught in endless loops, doing the same thing over again a billion
times. This total lack of common sense is one more reason people think
that no machine could have a mind. It's not just that they do only what
they're told, it's also that they're so dumb it's almost impossible to tell
them how to do things right.
Isn't it odd, when you think about it, how even the earliest Al programs
excelled at "advanced" subjects, yet had no common sense? A 1961
program written by James Slagle could solve calculus problems at the
level of college students; it even got an A on an MIT exam. But it wasn't till
around 1970 that we managed to construct a robot programs that could see
and move well enough to handle ordinary things like children's building
blocks and do things like stack them up, take them down, rearrange them,
and put them in boxes.
Why could we make programs do those grown-up things before we could
make them do those childish things? The answer is a somewhat
unexpected paradox: much "expert" adult thinking is basically much
simpler than what happens in a child's ordinary play! It can be harder to
be a novice than to be an expert! This is because, sometimes, what an
expert needs to know and do can be quite simple -- only, it may be very
hard to discover, or learn, in the first place. Thus, Galileo had to be smart
indeed, to see the need for calculus. He didn't manage to invent it. Yet any
good student can learn it today.
The surprising thing, thus, was that when it was finished, Slagle's
program needed only about a hundred "facts" to solve its college-level
calculus problems. Most of them were simple rules about algebra. But
others were about how to guess which of two problems is likely to be
easier; that that kind of knowledge is especially important, because it
helps the program make good judgments about what to do next. Without
this such programs only thrash about; with it they seem much more
purposeful. Why do human students take so long to learn such rules? We
do not know.
Today we know much more about making such "expert" programs -- but
we still don't know much more about making programs with more
"common sense". Consider all the different things that children do, when
they play with their blocks. To build a little house one has to mix and
match many different kinds of knowledge: about shapes and colors, space
and time, support and balance, stress and strain, speed, cost, and keeping
track. An expert sometimes can get by with deep but narrow bodies of
knowledge - but common sense is, technically, a lot more complicated.
Most ordinary computer programs do just the things they're programmed
for. Some Al programs are more flexible; when anything goes wrong,
they can back up to some previous decision and try something else. But
even that is much too crude a base for much intelligence. To make them
really smart, we'll have to make them more reflective. A person tries,
when things go wrong, to understand what's going wrong, instead of just
attempting something else. We look for causal explanations, or excuses,
and, when we find them, add them to our networks of belief and
understanding. We do intelligent learning. Some day programs, too, could
do such things -- but first we'd need a lot more research to find out how.
================== UNCONSCIOUS FEARS AND PHOBIAS. ==================
I'll bet that when we try to make machines more sensible, we'll find that
learning what is wrong turns out to be as important as learning what's
correct. In order to succeed, it helps to know the likely ways to fail. Freud
talked about censors in our minds, that keep us from forbidden acts or
thoughts. And, though those censors were proposed to regulate our social
activity, I think we use such censors, too, for ordinary problem solving --
to know what not to do. Perhaps we learn a new one each time anything
goes wrong, by constructing a process to recognize similar
circumstances, in some "subconscious memory".
This idea is not popular in contemporary psychology, perhaps because
censors only suppress behavior, so their activity is invisible on the
surface. When a person makes a good decision, we tend to ask what "line
of thought" lies behind it. But we don't so often ask what thousand
prohibitions might have warded off a thousand bad alternatives. If
censors work inside our minds, to keep us from mistakes and absurdities,
why can't we feel that happening? Because, I suppose, so many thousands
of them work at once that, if you had to think about them, you'd never get
much done. They have to ward off bad ideas before you "get" those bad
ideas.
Perhaps this is one reason why so much of human thought is
"unconscious". Each idea that we have time to contemplate must be a
product of many events that happen deeper and earlier in the mind. Each
conscious thought must be the end of processes in which it must compete
with other proto-thoughts, perhaps by pleading little briefs in little
courts. But all that we do sense of that are just the final sentences.
And how, indeed, could it be otherwise? There's no way any part of the
mind could know everything that happens in the rest. Our conscious
minds must be like high executives, who can't be burdened with the small
details. There's only time for summaries from other, smaller parts of
mind, that know much more about much less; the ones that do the real
work.
================== SELF-CONSCIOUS COMPUTERS. ==================
Then, is it possible to program a computer to be self-conscious? People
usually expect the answer to be "no". What if we answered that machines
are capable, in principle, of even more and better consciousness than
people have?
I think this could be done by providing machines with ways to examine
their own mechanisms while they are working. In principle, at least, this
seem possible; we already have some simple Al programs that can
understand a little about how some simpler programs work. (There is a
technical problem about the program being fast enough, to keep up with
itself, but that can be solved by keeping records.) The trouble is, we still
know far too little, yet, to make programs with enough common sense to
understand even how today's simple Al problem-solving programs work.
But once we learn to make machines that are smart enough to understand
such things, I see no special problem in giving them the "self-insight"
they would need to understand, change, and improve themselves.
This might not be so wise to do. But what if it turns out that the only way
to make computers much smarter is to make them more self-conscious?
For example, it might turn out to be too risky to assign a robot to
undertake some important, long-range task, without some "insight" about
it's own abilities. If we don't want it to start projects it can't finish, we'd
better have it know what it can do. If we want it versatile enough to solve
new kinds of problems, it may need to be able to understand how it
already solves easier problems. In other words, it may turn out that any
really robust problem solver will to understand itself enough to change
itself. Then, if that goes on long enough, why can't those artificial
creatures reach for richer mental lives than people have. Our own
evolution must have constrained the wiring of our brains in many ways.
But here we have more options now, since we can wire machines in any
way we wish.
It will be a long time before we learn enough about common sense
reasoning to make machines as smart as people are. Today, we already
know quite a lot about making useful, specialized, "expert" systems. We
still don't know how to make them able to improve themselves in
interesting ways. But when we answer such questions, then we'll have to
face one, even stranger, one. When we learn how, then should we build
machines that might be somehow "better" than ourselves? We're lucky
that we have to leave that choice to future generations. I'm sure they
won't want to build the things that well unless they find good reasons to.
Just as Evolution changed man's view of Life, Al will change mind's view
of Mind. As we find more ways to make machines behave more sensibly,
we'll also learn more about our mental processes. In its course, we will
find new ways to think about "thinking" and about "feeling". Our view of
them will change from opaque mysteries to complex yet still
comprehensible webs of ways to represent and use ideas. Then those
ideas, in turn, will lead to new machines, and those, in turn, will give us
new ideas. No one can tell where that will lead and only one thing's sure
right now: there's something wrong with any claim to know, today, of
any basic differences between the minds of men and those of possible
machines.
|
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 19:10
|
Quote:
|
And like you are not full of it yourself. You come off as an ass, so is that the value you bring here?
And maybe in a million years all this science trip will be obsolete anyways and it will be no better than what you call now pseudo science. I just think you are a little to sure of your own views.
|
|
Please show me where in the thread I went off about my specific views and how they are so correct and infallible and everyone elses are wrong. Oh that's right, I didn't. I'm an agnostic and my love of knowing that I don't know applies to many areas of my life (btw, you don't know either, even if you think you do...especially if you think you do). If it's one thing that I am sure of, it is that I am not sure of anything.
I like threads like this because it is a rare opportunity to foster discussion among people who might actually know enough about what they're talking about to smack some sense into the people who aren't using logic and are following their inner hippy instead - to the detriment of everyone that reads their arguments and believes them. The information becomes like pollution. Don't litter. I'm especially appreciative precisely *because* I don't understand some of these discussions enough to merit jumping in and trying to explain why someone is wrong; I am not a scientist so I feel that would be hypocritical of me. In order to explain a complicated subject succintly or to create an analogy that makes sense you need to have a pretty high-level understanding of the subject you're discussing.
Anyways...there's nothing wrong with spirituality, or exotic ideas and concepts - as long as you don't make the mistake of mixing science in there without using the scientific method. At that point you have pseudo-science and it innately becomes less valuable.
As for being an ass - that's your interpretation. Some people have certainly called me that in the past, you won't be hte last I'm sure  The things that sets me off in relation to this discussion are numerous. For example, people saying that they know things and trying to explain them, when it is blatantly obvious they don't comprehend the most basic structure about what they are talking about. See Moki and isotopes.
Also when people take one person's word as pure truth - simply because they like the concept - even though countless others have disproved that theory - see moki's "I don't care" comment in relation to torsion. That is ignorance and pride having stupid babies, pure and simple.
 If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 19:31
|
you dont show any specific views so you cannot be wrong anyway. it takes some more guts and courage to actually have an opinion and your own statement. and be called wrong.
scientists and people who love to grwo and dont like status quo system, know that disputes are important. dialectics is important. of course it is a work of art for itself, the way to have dialectics, because it takes more than repeat 10 times same thing and be sure you cant be told anything new from the person you are walking with. and it is not possible if you consider the person stupid and too uneducated to judge anyway.
at the end there is no winner, because everyone is a winner if he can learn from dialectics. it is the art to dispute controversely. and btw i am nerved by this trolling word with every constroversal conversation. it would be more than boring to have the same opinion on anything.
as a matter of fact, it is sad that there is no account delete button in isratrance.  i would have dropped the line many times till now. where would i go beyond the line? whereever. somewhere else. it just nerves me too much that anything that might not be understoond by the bunch of X1 X2 and X1000 users of isratrance must be wrong because a1 and b1 told you so. and actually there must be a way to finanly put an end to an useless effort.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 19:38
|
|
and long live web 1.0. how much more would any of us be able to do with his time if he would do it directly on his website. web 2.0 is the failed trial of dialectics.
|
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 19:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 19:10, willsanquil wrote:
Quote:
|
And like you are not full of it yourself. You come off as an ass, so is that the value you bring here?
And maybe in a million years all this science trip will be obsolete anyways and it will be no better than what you call now pseudo science. I just think you are a little to sure of your own views.
|
|
Please show me where in the thread I went off about my specific views and how they are so correct and infallible and everyone elses are wrong. Oh that's right, I didn't. I'm an agnostic and my love of knowing that I don't know applies to many areas of my life (btw, you don't know either, even if you think you do...especially if you think you do). If it's one thing that I am sure of, it is that I am not sure of anything.
I like threads like this because it is a rare opportunity to foster discussion among people who might actually know enough about what they're talking about to smack some sense into the people who aren't using logic and are following their inner hippy instead - to the detriment of everyone that reads their arguments and believes them. The information becomes like pollution. Don't litter. I'm especially appreciative precisely *because* I don't understand some of these discussions enough to merit jumping in and trying to explain why someone is wrong; I am not a scientist so I feel that would be hypocritical of me. In order to explain a complicated subject succintly or to create an analogy that makes sense you need to have a pretty high-level understanding of the subject you're discussing.
Anyways...there's nothing wrong with spirituality, or exotic ideas and concepts - as long as you don't make the mistake of mixing science in there without using the scientific method. At that point you have pseudo-science and it innately becomes less valuable.
As for being an ass - that's your interpretation. Some people have certainly called me that in the past, you won't be hte last I'm sure The things that sets me off in relation to this discussion are numerous. For example, people saying that they know things and trying to explain them, when it is blatantly obvious they don't comprehend the most basic structure about what they are talking about. See Moki and isotopes.
Also when people take one person's word as pure truth - simply because they like the concept - even though countless others have disproved that theory - see moki's "I don't care" comment in relation to torsion. That is ignorance and pride having stupid babies, pure and simple.
|
|
Please, i think most in this thread has come around as an ass, even me, but i was fast enough to edit my post, maybe Basilisk saw it hehe.
So who is bashing whom for what reason,
I think this is more of a debate than a pursue for truth or logic.
Its one thing to have muse for bullying but saying:
"For example, people saying that they know things and trying to explain them, when it is blatantly obvious they don't comprehend the most basic structure about what they are talking about. See Moki and isotopes."
What do you know what moki knows or comprehends? This would be such a good and solid evidence of human assumption that is used by everyone, Even Mike A, he is no god damn super human, he is a student, i dont know his degree, sure he come off as very confident, and i guess he knows a thing or two, probably more than me and you, at least about chemic and mathematics, but this dont mean he has all the answers and that the science he learned is 100% fact, things change you know, a science evolve and find new things, even old science is not solid proof for anything.
To use a open mind and to do research and experiments is the only way to gain knowledge. And this water thing is what it is, if its true or not we can just consider it art, and art has a value even too scientist.
anyway its easy to become a bully and to have fun on other peoples behalf, but when you become the victim almost all the time its not so fun, and we do need a balance, if not for that this forum would be dead and boring and no interesting discussions would appear.
and i dont think this thread was about water to begin with, Even Disco tried to tell that, and he is one who in fact contributed with some open minded ideas.
But we are all the balance, but we should try and keep it friendly even if it boils, its a good thing. All emotions is nice we all have them...
But lets not slag music and frequencies and old ancient philosophy, and Even art
-Edit, but we can slag science, haha
I think Mike has a good point about belief, I think i have a little grudge with Mike A sometimes, hehe he is so damn confident 
|
|
|
|
Jacynth
Inactive User
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
451
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 20:13
|
|
i see long posts here. |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 20:27
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 20:13, Jacynth wrote:
i see long posts here.
|
|
lol
|
|
|
|
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 20:30
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 20:13, Jacynth wrote:
i see long posts here.
|
|
this music is dance
|
|
|
|
oggabogga
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
62
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 20:30
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 20:13, Jacynth wrote:
i see long posts here.
|
|
Text to speech torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5775036/IVONA_Studio_voice_packages
|
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 20:34
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 20:30, oggabogga wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-11 20:13, Jacynth wrote:
i see long posts here.
|
|
Text to speech torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5775036/IVONA_Studio_voice_packages
|
|
Do you have recording tools? it would be nice if you recorded that and put it on soundcloud!
haha
|
|
|
|
Jacynth
Inactive User
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
451
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 21:16
|
|
no, i dont have tools baba. sorry. your post is short. |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 22:52
|
this is sometimes so ridiculous. i had a conversation with two of my friends who are professors in chemistry. if you wonder about it, i just happen to have more friends who are professors than friends in my age like you or A B C from the party scene. i just dont seem to come well along with the party scene. and with two professors in chemstry i have a very intensive letter interraction ( hand letter).
and what i know from them is that you definitely cant leave it by 27 isotope combinations. so mike's facts seem wrong for me for the fifth time.
i say this straight, although i had the goal to actually excersise the concept pf non violent communication, but things obviously must be said straight. i refuse to accept false facts for right.
but i like you mike because your iq is obviously significantly higher than most people here and because you somehow dont give me the feeling of majority and discrimination (yet), which is a rare thing. but i dont like the mentality of " science is done my way". science is not done your way. science is done with hypothesis and proves. with experiments, with questions. you definitely did not give me the impression that you prove everything you claim wrong.
what does confidence mean to me? i have seen thousends of confident students, they all have these type of " let me speak because i am the one to know everything and to educate you". my 5 years in the university were the hardest human interraction ever. so many blind horses, you cant believe. i still recreate from that time.
most of them dont develop a single hypothesis in their whole life and only repeat what others say. on costs of my taxes.
science is based on hypothesis and statistics. . you assume a belief which is your hypothesis. it can be whatever the fuck your mind can think of and accept .then you try to prove it wrong. you dont prove it right, you prove it wrong. or may be mike can give me another methodology done in science?
scientists love to prove beliefs wrong. then dont say, it is wrong because it is placebo or it is belief. they say it is wrong because of fact one two three, and significance of x percent in the statistics. this is everything.
and placebo btw is also a subject of statistics. if i can prove scientifically by means of statistics that placebo is significant for my body, then i have proved a hypothesis. no matter how weird it is.
second mike, you wrote three pages about certain things you learned to repeat, but you did not find the time to find out what photos are these exactly. you either knew the magnification, nor do you know that there is a certain time (minute xyz) they are taken in. there is only ONE photo of this time. which is again a moment where i see that your facts are not straight. hundreds of photos of one and the same ice? no. not at all.
third. i am tired of this low level of factology and always this football mentality. who is the victim, what the hell is a victim ? a victim is someone who never questions his views. he is a marionet doll. i believe only what i see and what i cmprehend with logic. if it is called pseudo science is irrelevant. you can call it whatever you want. i believe what i see. i believe what i observe.
why do we need to talk so much about isotopes. emoto does not talk about isotopes. but why do we need to talk anyway. it is easy to impress a forum community with false facts. do this with real scientist communities which is another world.
|
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Feb 11, 2011 23:01
|
It doesn't take guts to spout a bunch of crap that you read somewhere but don't understand. It takes guts to admit when you are wrong, or have/had a paltry understanding of the discussion at hand. If I were in your position and someone came around and offered to explain to me why my understanding of the physical world was incorrect I would applaud their effort, because they would have just done me a great service. Instead you react defensively and cling to your pseudo science...for what?
I can't even comprehend your most recent posts moki, I think its a language thing - I know english is not your primary so I won't pick it apart bit by bit, but there is one in particular which you need to stop misusing - Dialectic.
Btw, for people that are looking at Dialectics and going er???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
What you are doing in this thread is not dialectic. It is more akin to debate, in that you are firmly entrenched in your viewpoint of the topic at hand...even when someone has gone out of their way to educate you as to why you are wrong.
From the Wiki: "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason"
These words...they do not mean what you think they mean. Using words that you do not completely understand degrades your argument, not enhances it.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
|
