Seriously, what is a helpful contribution? Is $50 respectable? I agreed with you the other day that this forum is not free like Facebook. I had a glitch in my PayPal, but just yesterday noticed that the GSC website takes credit cards also.
I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also. It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it. But that's ok, because I did get a few tips, and a few areas I will soon re-write.
On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more.
*/*/*/*
As for your constant complaint that I am taking over the website, I think that is not accurate. It is a total exaggeration. Maybe on one thread at a time, I will have the majority of the main posters VERY OCCUPIED trying to nullify everything I post. But that is far from taking over the whole website. That isn't even taking over the one thread where the action is.
for instance, if i see signs of someone acting like a troll - I may not have a clue as to what motivates them or the status of their mental health - so I just deal with the obvious and point out signs of trolling...I mean what else can I do?
Acting like a troll isn't the same as ASD. I'm confident you know that.
Seriously, what is a helpful contribution? Is $50 respectable? I agreed with you the other day that this forum is not free like Facebook. I had a glitch in my PayPal, but just yesterday noticed that the GSC website takes credit cards also.
I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also. It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it. But that's ok, because I did get a few tips, and a few areas I will soon re-write.
On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more.
*/*/*/*
As for your constant complaint that I am taking over the website, I think that is not accurate. It is a total exaggeration. Maybe on one thread at a time, I will have the majority of the main posters VERY OCCUPIED trying to nullify everything I post. But that is far from taking over the whole website. That isn't even taking over the one thread where the action is.
Talk to Raf or Pawtucket about the reasonableness of donation size.
Of course YOU THINK you're right and I'm wrong about you taking over GSC.
Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. What was it Wierwille use to say (quote), a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Nevertheless, for two decades you've been a thorn in the side of GSC and whenever you post, it ALWAYS becomes about YOU.
As to ASD type behavior/conduct, I observe that you often do not pick up on verbal cues of other posters. Granted, written verbal cues are harder to pick up on than when non-verbals can be observed, but after a while one would think you'd get the point that NOBODY is taking your "thesis" seriously. I mean, 26 pages so far. Sheesh.
I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also. It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it.
Yeah, 26 pages and having it pointed out to you pointedly.
"On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more."
If you are getting feedback there, why in the world do you feel a need to impose yourself on GSC?
Yeah, 26 pages and having it pointed out to you pointedly.
If you are getting feedback there, why in the world do you feel a need to impose yourself on GSC?
Different point of view here; different kind of opposition.
There is a sharpening effect that happens when trying to present something to a hostile audience. I am learning from it all. Not what you want me to learn, but what I want to learn about how to better present a strange new idea.
It's not my fault that my presenting this thesis for review attracts all the major posters and causes them to drop everything. I am NOT trying to cause that kind of commotion.
I am NOT imposing myself on this board; it's the board that rushes to me, BECAUSE I generally have serious challenges to how people are thinking here.
*/*/*/*/*
Ok, so I presented the thesis. I'm happy to have had the chance.
PLUS I am happy that non-posting readers have a chance to see it. Maybe one reader will connect with the idea sometime in the future.
I don't consider this recent rejection as indicative of the future for my minFW thesis at all. It was a very small sample size that was extremely biased against me, and obviously eager to reject anything I propose. I am undaunted, and will be re-writing soon from the suggestions I got here. So I am thankful.
You can be thankful that I feel finished with this idea and this thread. I tried to communicate something far off the beaten path here, and I succeeded. You folks failed to receive it, but there it sits, un-read and waiting.
Once again. It's not a theory or thesis, it's a hypothesis. It's not provable nor repeatable. Your research methodology is, to state it kindly , completely flawed. You have presented an idea you believe to be true. And that's fine. We all have ideas. Sometimes they appear to be rational to ourselves but not to others. This is why we are tasked with providing evidence to support those ideas. There is a process for providing evidence that is generally accepted by most. It involves adherence to a set criteria of research methods. If you want anyone to accept your ideas and advance your hypothesis to a theoretical level, you need to follow that process. You need to compile data in an acceptable manner and allow for the possibility that you might have to entertain conflicting data. You might even have to change your position. If you can do that, perhaps you'll find an audience that is more receptive. However, this is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do.
Once again. It's not a thesis, it's a hypothesis. It's not provable nor repeatable. Your research methodology is, to state it kindly , completely flawed. You have presented an idea you believe to be true. And that's fine. We all have ideas. Sometimes they appear to be rational to ourselves but not to others. This is why we are tasked with providing evidence to support those ideas. There is a process for providing evidence that is generally accepted by most. It involves adherence to a set criteria of research methods. If you want anyone to accept your ideas and advance your hypothesis to a theoretical level, you need to follow that process. You need to compile data in an acceptable manner and allow for the possibility that you might have to entertain conflicting data. You might even have to change your position. If you can do that, perhaps you'll find an audience that is more receptive. However, this is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do.
I hear you and agree. Thanks for the terminology tip.
I do think the idea of minFW is provable and falsifiable, but not easy at this point in Neurobiology's maturity.
Change does happen for me at times. I had followed the idea that classical free will was possible, and could elude determinism via Quantum Mechanics and Godel's theorem. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose wrote two whole books on this idea and I consumed them eagerly in the 1990s. I pursued this same route from 1967 to 2013.
But that idea eventually ran dry, and I changed my approach to free will about 9 years ago. It was a jittery process at first, but also exhilarating to find a new idea to pursue.
I hear you and agree. Thanks for the terminology tip.
I do think the idea of minFW is provable and falsifiable, but not easy at this point in Neurobiology's maturity.
Change does happen for me at times. I had followed the idea that classical free will was possible, and could elude determinism via Quantum Mechanics and Godel's theorem. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose wrote two whole books on this idea and I consumed them eagerly in the 1990s. I pursued this same route from 1967 to 2013.
But that idea eventually ran dry, and I changed my approach to free will about 9 years ago. It was a jittery process at first, but also exhilarating to find a new idea to pursue.
So apparently Heisenberg doesn't fall into your determinism theory. Aren't the two incompatible?
So apparently Heisenberg doesn't fall into your determinism theory. Aren't the two incompatible?
Contrary to the pop science articles that saturate the Internet, there IS determinism in Quantum Mechanics. It does get tweaked a little, but it is still there.
I handle Quantum in Chapter 5 on determinism. There I explain why I abandoned Heisenberg and Godel. I also explain what kind of determinism survives Heisenberg.
I can cite Penrose on this assertion of mine here: there is determinism in Quantum. He says the Schrodinger equation is deterministic.
When I was in High School A.P. Chemistry we saw how the solutions to the Schrodinger DETERMINED the shape of the electron orbitals and their exact energy levels for Hydrogen.
I rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static. But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed. There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.
I rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static. But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed. There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.
I can find (with some work) a citation from Penrose on Schrodinger Equation being deterministic, along with orbital shapes and energy levels. That is totally nailed down CHEM 101 now. You can ask any Chemist or Physicist about this.
A citation on Quantum noise being useless in brain studies would be much more difficult to find. I have only seen the notion in passing over the years, and gradually came to believe it. This part of quantum indeterminacy is the frontier of science, and not at all nailed down. HOWEVER the RANDOM nature of quantum indeterminacy has been known all along.
A citation on Quantum noise being useless in brain studies would be much more difficult to find. I have only seen the notion in passing over the years, and gradually came to believe it. This part of quantum indeterminacy is the frontier of science, and not at all nailed down
Everybody missed a lot of what my theory is all about. I can tell from the errors in the criticisms.
I am clearly talking about biological freedoms and restrictions, and I see it being missed.
21 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I was watching this television program last night. There's a contest among chefs, and the winner will get backing and advice so they can open their own restaurant. The contest is to determine who is most ready for the opportunity- who COULD run a restaurant if given a chance. Each contestant thinks they're ready to do it, and has their own concept of the restaurant they want to open.
In the very first challenge, they were each given the task of making a single plate of food that embodied their concept for the restaurant. They were told that one person would be sent home afterwards, the one who performed least well in the challenge. (So, the task was to be making a single plate of food that embodied their concept for their restaurant, and also tasted good, which was obvious to all the contestants.) Everyone ran around and each prepared a dish.
A panel of 3 people was presented each dish one at a time. One person on the panel knew the concepts. The other 2 tried the food, gave their thoughts on the quality of the dish, and also speculated on the specific concept of the restaurant, which was compared to the stated concept.
Three chefs ended up performing less well than the others, and the one who performed least was sent home immediately. He said his concept was "Southern food and ramen." The dish he presented was not Southern food, nor did it contain ramen. Both guesses to the concept were from judges who could detect no pattern. "The concept is 'a mess.' "
When the chef was sent home, he told the cameramen that the concept was there, but for some reason the judges couldn't see it. (Um, neither could we, and we were watching from home.) He refused to accept that the responsibility for clear communication was his, and decided that if there was a miscommunication, it HAD TO be on the recipients because he was SURE he had communicated clearly. However, he had not- and we have the video recordings to prove it. It's a poor communicator that communicates vaguely and then blames the audience for not seeing his points.
21 hours ago, Rocky said:
What is CLEAR is you haven't taken it upon yourself to learn the fundamentals of communication. Likewise you refuse to own YOUR responsibility to make your message clear to readers.
IF you perceive that YOUR message is not being received in the way you intended it, the responsibility for clarification is YOURS alone.
21 hours ago, Rocky said:
However, like the story WW relayed about the chef, just before my comment, whether Mike knows what he's doing or not is not relevant.
That he refuses to OWN his responsibility for communicating his message clearly IS relevant.
IMO, it's well past time to send Mike home.
It's a poor communicator that communicates vaguely and then blames the audience for not seeing his points.
18 hours ago, Mike said:
He wouldn't do that, nor have I said that would be the case.
If natural man's free will can lead him to the new birth, then it works.
I started my study of natural man's mind because it is observable and with no spirit, there are less complications for the observer to keep track of. It is the more simple situation, which aids the observing scientist. Nothing wrong with the natural man or his free will here.
16 hours ago, waysider said:
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collected data. But, even then..."How do you know if there is “spirit” there or not?"
edit. Oh, silly me. I forgot all about the black heart/white heart thing.
16 hours ago, Mike said:
Seriously, what is a helpful contribution? Is $50 respectable? I agreed with you the other day that this forum is not free like Facebook. I had a glitch in my PayPal, but just yesterday noticed that the GSC website takes credit cards also.
I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also. It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it. But that's ok, because I did get a few tips, and a few areas I will soon re-write.
On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more.
*/*/*/*
As for your constant complaint that I am taking over the website, I think that is not accurate. It is a total exaggeration. Maybe on one thread at a time, I will have the majority of the main posters VERY OCCUPIED trying to nullify everything I post. But that is far from taking over the whole website. That isn't even taking over the one thread where the action is.
16 hours ago, Mike said:
How about a response instead of a reaction?
...and to which points do you refer?
Far from reactions, I am trying to damp down reactions and bad feelings.
11 hours ago, Rocky said:
Yeah, 26 pages and having it pointed out to you pointedly.
"On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more."
If you are getting feedback there, why in the world do you feel a need to impose yourself on GSC?
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Different point of view here; different kind of opposition.
There is a sharpening effect that happens when trying to present something to a hostile audience. I am learning from it all. Not what you want me to learn, but what I want to learn about how to better present a strange new idea.
It's not my fault that my presenting this thesis for review attracts all the major posters and causes them to drop everything. I am NOT trying to cause that kind of commotion.
I am NOT imposing myself on this board; it's the board that rushes to me, BECAUSE I generally have serious challenges to how people are thinking here.
*/*/*/*/*
Ok, so I presented the thesis. I'm happy to have had the chance.
PLUS I am happy that non-posting readers have a chance to see it. Maybe one reader will connect with the idea sometime in the future.
I don't consider this recent rejection as indicative of the future for my minFW thesis at all. It was a very small sample size that was extremely biased against me, and obviously eager to reject anything I propose. I am undaunted, and will be re-writing soon from the suggestions I got here. So I am thankful.
You can be thankful that I feel finished with this idea and this thread. I tried to communicate something far off the beaten path here, and I succeeded. You folks failed to receive it, but there it sits, un-read and waiting.
1 hour ago, waysider said:
Once again. It's not a theory or thesis, it's a hypothesis. It's not provable nor repeatable. Your research methodology is, to state it kindly , completely flawed. You have presented an idea you believe to be true. And that's fine. We all have ideas. Sometimes they appear to be rational to ourselves but not to others. This is why we are tasked with providing evidence to support those ideas. There is a process for providing evidence that is generally accepted by most. It involves adherence to a set criteria of research methods. If you want anyone to accept your ideas and advance your hypothesis to a theoretical level, you need to follow that process. You need to compile data in an acceptable manner and allow for the possibility that you might have to entertain conflicting data. You might even have to change your position. If you can do that, perhaps you'll find an audience that is more receptive. However, this is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I hear you and agree. Thanks for the terminology tip.
I do think the idea of minFW is provable and falsifiable, but not easy at this point in Neurobiology's maturity.
Change does happen for me at times. I had followed the idea that classical free will was possible, and could elude determinism via Quantum Mechanics and Godel's theorem. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose wrote two whole books on this idea and I consumed them eagerly in the 1990s. I pursued this same route from 1967 to 2013.
But that idea eventually ran dry, and I changed my approach to free will about 9 years ago. It was a jittery process at first, but also exhilarating to find a new idea to pursue.
40 minutes ago, Mike said:
Contrary to the pop science articles that saturate the Internet, there IS determinism in Quantum Mechanics. It does get tweaked a little, but it is still there.
I handle Quantum in Chapter 5 on determinism. There I explain why I abandoned Heisenberg and Godel. I also explain what kind of determinism survives Heisenberg.
I can cite Penrose on this assertion of mine here: there is determinism in Quantum. He says the Schrodinger equation is deterministic.
When I was in High School A.P. Chemistry we saw how the solutions to the Schrodinger DETERMINED the shape of the electron orbitals and their exact energy levels for Hydrogen.
I rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static. But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed. There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.
35 minutes ago, waysider said:
Citation?
25 minutes ago, Mike said:
I can find (with some work) a citation from Penrose on Schrodinger Equation being deterministic, along with orbital shapes and energy levels. That is totally nailed down CHEM 101 now. You can ask any Chemist or Physicist about this.
A citation on Quantum noise being useless in brain studies would be much more difficult to find. I have only seen the notion in passing over the years, and gradually came to believe it. This part of quantum indeterminacy is the frontier of science, and not at all nailed down. HOWEVER the RANDOM nature of quantum indeterminacy has been known all along.
Talk to Raf or Pawtucket about the reasonableness of donation size.
As to ASD type behavior/conduct, I observe that you often do not pick up on verbal cues of other posters. Granted, written verbal cues are harder to pick up on than when non-verbals can be observed, but after a while one would think you'd get the point that NOBODY is taking your "thesis" seriously.
I could tell that most posts were not serious. A few were, like So_crates, just now.
I could tell hardly any of my chapters were seriously read any more than a fast skim.
But that's ok.
I probably picked up on more cues that you know, but just didn't have time to deal with them, or I just felt that plodding on to the end was still worth it.
I finally, after a week of hassling, got my PayPal account in order and started paying my way here better. I am sorry it slipped my mind for years. I'll start at the $50 membership level and I would like a maroon colored tote bag that comes with it.
Will nobody read the tags? Those tags were established twice in the very beginning. We're WAY off topic with this bullshonta.
This thread is NOT about free will and determinism, unless it relates to the stupidity of four crucified* or the manipulation of T7TMOG or the failure of the music coordinator and his waterhead baby.
*New topic on the stupidity of Bullinger's four crucified coming soon! It will be a dandy.
No, YOU can ask any chemist or physicist about it.
4 hours ago, Mike said:
It's not my fault that my presenting this thesis for review attracts all the major posters and causes them to drop everything. I am NOT trying to cause that kind of commotion.
Bullshonta. You seem to KNOW (anticipate enthusiastically, perhaps).
Instead of development of an esoteric hypothesis about free will, you might find it more fruitful to focus on YOUR OWN exercise of will and taking responsibility for your actions.
KNOWING that you will stir up "that kind of commotion" belies your claims of non-responsibility... or perhaps IRresponsibility.
I tried to communicate something far off the beaten path here, and I succeeded. You folks failed to receive it, but there it sits, un-read and waiting.
Uncanny really how you claim to have communicated successfully, when you did NOT succeed in communicating at all. That is, according to communication theory, which posits that success in communication consists of encoding a message, sending it, then having it received and accurately decoded by the intended audience. YOU do not succeed until YOU receive acknowledgment that YOUR message was accurately decoded by the intended audience.
OTOH, you did claim to not have PUBLISHED your book. But your description of having put it here on GSC for other readers to hopefully someday read it contradicts said claim. That IS what publishing consists of.
IOW, Mike, we have plumbed the depths of your intentions and actions based solely on words that you posted responding to my probing challenges to you.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
No doubt.
Very little trying is required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He's wanting a reaction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And I'm freaking capt obvious....lmao
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How about a response instead of a reaction?
...and to which points do you refer?
Far from reactions, I am trying to damp down reactions and bad feelings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Acting like a troll isn't the same as ASD. I'm confident you know that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Talk to Raf or Pawtucket about the reasonableness of donation size.
Of course YOU THINK you're right and I'm wrong about you taking over GSC.
Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. What was it Wierwille use to say (quote), a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Nevertheless, for two decades you've been a thorn in the side of GSC and whenever you post, it ALWAYS becomes about YOU.
As to ASD type behavior/conduct, I observe that you often do not pick up on verbal cues of other posters. Granted, written verbal cues are harder to pick up on than when non-verbals can be observed, but after a while one would think you'd get the point that NOBODY is taking your "thesis" seriously. I mean, 26 pages so far. Sheesh.
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
But the Lord weighs the hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yeah, 26 pages and having it pointed out to you pointedly.
Edited by Rocky"On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more."
If you are getting feedback there, why in the world do you feel a need to impose yourself on GSC?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Different point of view here; different kind of opposition.
There is a sharpening effect that happens when trying to present something to a hostile audience. I am learning from it all. Not what you want me to learn, but what I want to learn about how to better present a strange new idea.
It's not my fault that my presenting this thesis for review attracts all the major posters and causes them to drop everything. I am NOT trying to cause that kind of commotion.
I am NOT imposing myself on this board; it's the board that rushes to me, BECAUSE I generally have serious challenges to how people are thinking here.
*/*/*/*/*
Ok, so I presented the thesis. I'm happy to have had the chance.
PLUS I am happy that non-posting readers have a chance to see it. Maybe one reader will connect with the idea sometime in the future.
I don't consider this recent rejection as indicative of the future for my minFW thesis at all. It was a very small sample size that was extremely biased against me, and obviously eager to reject anything I propose. I am undaunted, and will be re-writing soon from the suggestions I got here. So I am thankful.
You can be thankful that I feel finished with this idea and this thread. I tried to communicate something far off the beaten path here, and I succeeded. You folks failed to receive it, but there it sits, un-read and waiting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Once again. It's not a theory or thesis, it's a hypothesis. It's not provable nor repeatable. Your research methodology is, to state it kindly , completely flawed. You have presented an idea you believe to be true. And that's fine. We all have ideas. Sometimes they appear to be rational to ourselves but not to others. This is why we are tasked with providing evidence to support those ideas. There is a process for providing evidence that is generally accepted by most. It involves adherence to a set criteria of research methods. If you want anyone to accept your ideas and advance your hypothesis to a theoretical level, you need to follow that process. You need to compile data in an acceptable manner and allow for the possibility that you might have to entertain conflicting data. You might even have to change your position. If you can do that, perhaps you'll find an audience that is more receptive. However, this is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do.
Edited by waysidermissed a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I hear you and agree. Thanks for the terminology tip.
I do think the idea of minFW is provable and falsifiable, but not easy at this point in Neurobiology's maturity.
Change does happen for me at times. I had followed the idea that classical free will was possible, and could elude determinism via Quantum Mechanics and Godel's theorem. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose wrote two whole books on this idea and I consumed them eagerly in the 1990s. I pursued this same route from 1967 to 2013.
But that idea eventually ran dry, and I changed my approach to free will about 9 years ago. It was a jittery process at first, but also exhilarating to find a new idea to pursue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So apparently Heisenberg doesn't fall into your determinism theory. Aren't the two incompatible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Contrary to the pop science articles that saturate the Internet, there IS determinism in Quantum Mechanics. It does get tweaked a little, but it is still there.
I handle Quantum in Chapter 5 on determinism. There I explain why I abandoned Heisenberg and Godel. I also explain what kind of determinism survives Heisenberg.
I can cite Penrose on this assertion of mine here: there is determinism in Quantum. He says the Schrodinger equation is deterministic.
When I was in High School A.P. Chemistry we saw how the solutions to the Schrodinger DETERMINED the shape of the electron orbitals and their exact energy levels for Hydrogen.
Edited by MikeI rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static. But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed. There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Citation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can find (with some work) a citation from Penrose on Schrodinger Equation being deterministic, along with orbital shapes and energy levels. That is totally nailed down CHEM 101 now. You can ask any Chemist or Physicist about this.
A citation on Quantum noise being useless in brain studies would be much more difficult to find. I have only seen the notion in passing over the years, and gradually came to believe it. This part of quantum indeterminacy is the frontier of science, and not at all nailed down. HOWEVER the RANDOM nature of quantum indeterminacy has been known all along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sooooo.....no citation. Got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
the above quotes for the sake of "continuity"
and here's my contribution > How to spot pseudoscience on the internet — a case study with masks
fyi - checkout out the article about masks within the hyperlink - has a fascinating point from consumer psychology: disrupt then reframe
Edited by T-BoneAdded note
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
BTW, I forgot to thank you for the serious Heisenberg question.
I am trying to wrap things up here, and wasn't expecting that.
*/*/*/*
Was it with you I discussed one of my next writing projects being ECNs for twi people on "old wine skins" and debt doctrines and policies?
If not I want to throw those two items out there again. I am seeking threads or documents or tapes on how they went down, from the 1990s on.
I know those two items (old wine skins & debt) are changed now in the new TWI, but I am seeking more detail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Write:
The Teacher
Box 328
New Knoxswill, Ohio 45871
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I could tell that most posts were not serious. A few were, like So_crates, just now.
I could tell hardly any of my chapters were seriously read any more than a fast skim.
But that's ok.
I probably picked up on more cues that you know, but just didn't have time to deal with them, or I just felt that plodding on to the end was still worth it.
I finally, after a week of hassling, got my PayPal account in order and started paying my way here better. I am sorry it slipped my mind for years. I'll start at the $50 membership level and I would like a maroon colored tote bag that comes with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Is it against the Internet Rules for trolls to donate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Will nobody read the tags? Those tags were established twice in the very beginning. We're WAY off topic with this bullshonta.
This thread is NOT about free will and determinism, unless it relates to the stupidity of four crucified* or the manipulation of T7TMOG or the failure of the music coordinator and his waterhead baby.
*New topic on the stupidity of Bullinger's four crucified coming soon! It will be a dandy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's been a long, strange, trippy, derailed thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No, YOU can ask any chemist or physicist about it.
Bullshonta. You seem to KNOW (anticipate enthusiastically, perhaps).
Instead of development of an esoteric hypothesis about free will, you might find it more fruitful to focus on YOUR OWN exercise of will and taking responsibility for your actions.
KNOWING that you will stir up "that kind of commotion" belies your claims of non-responsibility... or perhaps IRresponsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Uncanny really how you claim to have communicated successfully, when you did NOT succeed in communicating at all. That is, according to communication theory, which posits that success in communication consists of encoding a message, sending it, then having it received and accurately decoded by the intended audience. YOU do not succeed until YOU receive acknowledgment that YOUR message was accurately decoded by the intended audience.
OTOH, you did claim to not have PUBLISHED your book. But your description of having put it here on GSC for other readers to hopefully someday read it contradicts said claim. That IS what publishing consists of.
IOW, Mike, we have plumbed the depths of your intentions and actions based solely on words that you posted responding to my probing challenges to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.