savithru wrote:
I don't have to prove my credibility to anyone. My arguments are my credibility, I was deeply influenced by Sir Roger Penrose and I studied molecular neurobiology at the age of 16, Cell and Molecular Biology, I still have that book on my shelf and it explains neuroscience at the deepest molecular level. Don't fuck with my credibility.

This is one of the clearest examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect I have ever seen.

Possibly. I await answer to my questions concerning the Alma Mater and the undergraduate supervisor of the poster in question.

Not that I expect any answers, of course, but if one is going to set oneself up as an authority, bona fides are not an unreasonable expectation, not least because the only evidence thus far is that the poster managed to find an old book on Amazon which (s)he may or may not have actually read.

My money is on Trollbridge University, or perhaps the University of Soxford.

Varangian wrote:My money is on Trollbridge University, or perhaps the University of Soxford.

Is that in Poeland?

sdelsolray wrote:

savithru wrote:
I don't have to prove my credibility to anyone. My arguments are my credibility, I was deeply influenced by Sir Roger Penrose and I studied molecular neurobiology at the age of 16, Cell and Molecular Biology, I still have that book on my shelf and it explains neuroscience at the deepest molecular level. Don't fuck with my credibility.

This is one of the clearest examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect I have ever seen.

That's before you factor in his assertions about quantum mechanics, that manifestly demonstrate he hasn't studied the topic at all, and has simply picked up on yet more assertions and treated them as fact, because they tickle his ideological erogenous zones.

Quantum mechanics doesn't for one moment erect any assertions about "mind", it concerns itself with the behaviour of particles. Furthermore, it tells us that the reasons for much of the observed counter-intuitive behaviour observed are centred upon [1] the existence of non-zero commutator relations between quantum operators in Hilbert space (which is the underlying reason for the emergence of the Heisenberg relation, and practically the definition of entanglement), and [2] the fact that the moment one introduces an operator into a system that filters out wave-like behaviour, particle-like behaviour ensues.

hackenslash wrote:

CharlieM wrote:If it is that easy you will be able to manufacture or locate a perfect circle in this physical universe and direct me to where it is. If you can do that I will quite happily dance round it. So where can I find this perfect circle?

What total, thought-free twattery is this?

Was it fucking Plato who realised that a perfect circle might be physically unrealisable? No, nor was it any other ignorant, pre-scientific 'god of thought' (to the credulous, at least), it was science, in the form of Quantum Mechanics, that first suggested that a perfect circle might not actually be possible. Does this support the scientifically-illiterate guff that Plato propounded? No, because he couldn't even dream of such fucking phenomena.

It should also be pointed out, to anyone who thinks Charlie's arsewater is anything more than sophistry, that even QM doesn't rule out a perfect circle (though M Theory might), it only places limits on the degree of perfection we can demonstrate.

Does any of this mean that the perfect circle 'exists' somewhere 'out there'? Does it fuck.

Total fucking cock.

Your question concerning "thought-free twattery" is more suited to the words that you wrote after it than it is to my preceding questions.

You obviously haven't thought about the perfect circle and you are wrong about Plato. We don't need quantum mechanics to understand that a perfect circle is unrealisable in the physical world, we just need to know geometry. Rumraket makes the same mistake. The physical world is three dimensional, a circle is extended in two dimensions. A sphere is not a circle. Do you know of any entities in this physical world that has extension in two dimensions but not in the third dimension? Also, the perfect circle may be extended in two dimensions but it does not take up any area of the plane as the line which describes it has no thickness.

In The Republic, Plato has Socrates saying:

And do you not know also that although they make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble; not of the figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on --the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind?

You ridicule others for believing in gods yet you believe in gods yourself. In your mind Quantum Mechanics is a being which can make suggestions and rules. You have even capitalized it.

CharlieM wrote:You ridicule others for believing in gods yet you believe in gods yourself. In your mind Quantum Mechanics is a being which can make suggestions and rules. You have even capitalized it.

CharlieM wrote:Also, the perfect circle may be extended in two dimensions but it does not take up any area of the plane as the line which describes it has no thickness.

Something around here is getting pretty thick. You go, Charlie. Speak your Truth.

CharlieM wrote:You ridicule others for believing in gods yet you believe in gods yourself. In your mind Quantum Mechanics is a being which can make suggestions and rules. You have even capitalized it.

Bollocks. Did you take yourself seriously when you posted this dribblingly encephalitic, palsied nonsense?

The reason those of us who actually paid attention in physics classes have respect for quantum mechanics, is because it fucking works. Your computer, the one you're typing your bilge on, is a product thereof, not to mention every laser that has ever been built. When your magic man turns up and actually provides real evidence for its existence, you might be in a position to talk, but until then, the sort of statement you've posted above is nothing more than the usual fatuous supernaturalist cant, yet another tiresome attempt to project the supernaturalist modus operandi on those of us who point and laugh at apologetics, and who recognise that mythology is fiction.

savithru wrote:I don't have to prove my credibility to anyone. My arguments are my credibility, I was deeply influenced by Sir Roger Penrose and I studied molecular neurobiology at the age of 16, Cell and Molecular Biology, I still have that book on my shelf and it explains neuroscience at the deepest molecular level. Don't fuck with my credibility.

A book published in 1987. That's the sum of your knowledge about neuroscience? A book that offers a basic introduction to molecular biology. Not a neuroscience text, a basic general molecular biology one. Published in 1987. Wow. I'm impressed. Therefore Mithras is real.

Off to sacrifice a bull. brb

I was deeply influenced by Blue Peter and studied biology in high school. You wanna mess with me?

LucidFlight wrote:

Varangian wrote:My money is on Trollbridge University, or perhaps the University of Soxford.

Is that in Poeland?

In a metaphysical sense, yes.

In a metaphysical sense, everywhere is Poeland, and everywhere is Poland. JA jestem Polskie.

LucidFlight wrote:I was deeply influenced by Blue Peter and studied biology in high school. You wanna mess with me?

I went on a school trip to the Natural History Museum and have got the 'Planet Earth' boxset. Yeah, das right, I'm baaaad!

I just woke up and thought stuff. So yeah - step off, biatch.

CharlieM wrote:
In The Republic, Plato has Socrates saying:

Do you think you're the only one who's picked up a fucking book? Does that book you've read make Plato correct?

Come back when you've got substance. As for the rest, I'll just sit over here and laugh, because telling you what I really think would be unwise at this point.

Fallible wrote:I just woke up and thought stuff. So yeah - step off, biatch.

Yeah, well I invented the post it note. At least I would have done if I had. Check out that Milkshake.

Calilasseia wrote:

sdelsolray wrote:

savithru wrote:
I don't have to prove my credibility to anyone. My arguments are my credibility, I was deeply influenced by Sir Roger Penrose and I studied molecular neurobiology at the age of 16, Cell and Molecular Biology, I still have that book on my shelf and it explains neuroscience at the deepest molecular level. Don't fuck with my credibility.

This is one of the clearest examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect I have ever seen.

That's before you factor in his assertions about quantum mechanics, that manifestly demonstrate he hasn't studied the topic at all, and has simply picked up on yet more assertions and treated them as fact, because they tickle his ideological erogenous zones.

Quantum mechanics doesn't for one moment erect any assertions about "mind", it concerns itself with the behaviour of particles. Furthermore, it tells us that the reasons for much of the observed counter-intuitive behaviour observed are centred upon [1] the existence of non-zero commutator relations between quantum operators in Hilbert space (which is the underlying reason for the emergence of the Heisenberg relation, and practically the definition of entanglement), and [2] the fact that the moment one introduces an operator into a system that filters out wave-like behaviour, particle-like behaviour ensues.

Oh it doesn't erect any philosophical implications for the mind? Really? Think again, The properties of a quantum system like position and momentum doesn't exist prior to measurements as proven by experiments violating the inequality of Bell's theorem which shows that local realism is dead.

In philosophical terms we define an object through its properties and if the properties themselves doesn't exist then it makes no sense to even think that the object exists. What we call reality is indeed a state of mind.

The Quantum Theory and Reality

Of course I'm not a working scientist otherwise I would have screwed everyone in the scientific community for their foolish dogmatic beliefs in scientism.

Spamming the board with repeat postings of the Templeton Prize link isn't an argument.

Oh, and as for your pretensions that you would have "screwed everyone in the scientific community", we've seen this sort of self-aggrandising hyperbole before, usually from people whose abilities are woefully inadequate to match their braying.

savithru wrote:
Of course I'm not a working scientist otherwise I would have screwed everyone in the scientific community for their foolish dogmatic beliefs in scientism.

It is amazing that people who make such claims would rather make them here, than actually take them out into the scientific community and show how "wrong" they all are.