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.
You would think an atom-smashing, neuroscientist would know such rudimentary principles.
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.
My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO.
It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion," ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing."
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
This would make an excellent dictionary entry giving a poignant example of rationalization. So, you're now rationalizing having PUBLISHED online your book for discussion, claiming it's NOT published because it's not public ENOUGH?
Mike, remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
Pure bullshonta. You published it here, making it public because you know that there are WAAAAYYY more lurkers around here than actual contributors.
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
My father-in-law wrote a fairly lengthy memoir of his WWII experiences as an Army officer. With the help of my wife, he self-published it. It was only intended for a small, family audience, to aid in documenting family history. I assure you, though, it most definitely is "published".
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.
My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO.
It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion," ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing."
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
That's why there's always going to be that disconnect. There's a discrepancy between what words and terms mean in regular usage and what they mean in his mind.
Something is bugging me about your claim that you’ve posted your “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff in Facebookdiscussion groups “for approximately 5 years now, maybe more” and they’ve taken you seriously - and from what I’ve gathered from other things you’ve alluded to – you’ve had mostly positive responses.
But the way you’ve been coming down on Grease Spotters for their valid questions, and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies and challenging you for evidence/data as proof to support your hypotheses - something doesn’t fit with your Facebook claims…
So, it makes me wonder that your fanbase on Facebook might have really poor cognitive skills and are unfamiliar with the basics of philosophical theories, neuroscience, the basics of the scientific method (like observation, experimentation), or a general understanding of freewill vs determinism.
I mean to say …there’s such big holes, contradictions and nonsense in the “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff you’ve posted here – that I can’t imagine how any of this stuff would have passed the smell on Facebook, unless they were incapable of logic, noticing obvious contradictions and inconsistencies…
is what you shared on Facebook totally different from what you have shared here on Grease Spot ?
There's either a disconnect with what was presented, or who it was presented to. It would not surprise me to find out there WAS no such group.
That's why there's always going to be that disconnect. There's a discrepancy between what words and terms mean in regular usage and what they mean in his mind.
Which is EXACTLY why I was asking for Mike to clearly define his terms from the very beginning.
Which is EXACTLY why I was asking for Mike to clearly define his terms from the very beginning.
We've been asking for that from Mike since he first started posting. Good luck with that. Leopard, spots. He's never going to define anything. When he gets caught with another mistake, he'll claim we misunderstood him and he never actually made a mistake. Leopard, spots.
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.
What "determinism [is] in quantum mechanics"? The two are polar opposites: one states there is no certainty; the other, certainty. So, how does one square the circle?
What "determinism [is] in quantum mechanics"? The two are polar opposites: one states there is no certainty; the other, certainty. So, how does one square the circle?
No, they are not polar opposites. Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position. Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain.
There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty."
Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated.
If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality." The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.
No, they are not polar opposites. Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position. Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain.
There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty."
Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated.
If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality." The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.
Maybe energy levels and orbital shapes and momentum, but on the quantum level, particles too are unpredictable. They're moving backward in time and being in more than one state and being two places at once. The quantum level of the universe is nothing like ours, hence the uncertainty.
A group of little changes on the quantum level create a big change on our level, again, hence the uncertainty.
As far as position: you can predict the position, but then you can't predict the speed. Predict the speed and you don't know the position.
Maybe energy levels and orbital shapes and momentum, but on the quantum level, particles too are unpredictable. They're moving backward in time and being in more than one state and being two places at once. The quantum level of the universe is nothing like ours, hence the uncertainty.
As far as position: you can predict the position, but then you can't predict the speed. Predict the speed and you don't know the position.
The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry. Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty.
In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now.
Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level.
I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose. I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism.
The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry. Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty.
In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now.
Yah, the certainty of uncertainty.
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level.
I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose.
Just because, you and the others have failed to find anything useful doesn't mean there isn't anything useful. What if Edison had given up after trying to make a light bulb 75 times? We'd all be watching tv by candlelight.
If I were to hazard a guess, your own opinion about your theories got in your way.
On a quantum level small changes occur, these lead to minor changes in the brain, which lead to changes in behavior.
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism.
Glad you brought PLAF up. I wonder where Mike puts believing in determinism.
I see determinism as a helper or a friend in all that our brain does, including believing. We use determinism all the time in every technology. Our brain uses determinism as a tool or a resource in making decisions, and we can control this to a limited extent. The fact that we do have SOME control justifies the use of "free will" in describing our decision process.
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
OldSkool
You would think an atom-smashing, neuroscientist would know such rudimentary principles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO.
It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion," ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing."
In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This would make an excellent dictionary entry giving a poignant example of rationalization. So, you're now rationalizing having PUBLISHED online your book for discussion, claiming it's NOT published because it's not public ENOUGH?
Mike, remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
pub·lish
(pŭb′lĭsh)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Pure bullshonta. You published it here, making it public because you know that there are WAAAAYYY more lurkers around here than actual contributors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
minFW needs a minThesis.
post up the minThesis on Twitter and I’ll read it lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks for the minTip.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My father-in-law wrote a fairly lengthy memoir of his WWII experiences as an Army officer. With the help of my wife, he self-published it. It was only intended for a small, family audience, to aid in documenting family history. I assure you, though, it most definitely is "published".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Everybody except Mike got my point.
And publishing unofficially still publishes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's why there's always going to be that disconnect. There's a discrepancy between what words and terms mean in regular usage and what they mean in his mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There's either a disconnect with what was presented, or who it was presented to. It would not surprise me to find out there WAS no such group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Which is EXACTLY why I was asking for Mike to clearly define his terms from the very beginning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And on the next episode of.......
Dunn dunnah...............
The PUBLISHER
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I damn near snarfed my milk out my nose....dang you!!! lmao...got me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We've been asking for that from Mike since he first started posting. Good luck with that. Leopard, spots. He's never going to define anything. When he gets caught with another mistake, he'll claim we misunderstood him and he never actually made a mistake. Leopard, spots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What "determinism [is] in quantum mechanics"? The two are polar opposites: one states there is no certainty; the other, certainty. So, how does one square the circle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, they are not polar opposites. Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position. Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain.
There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty."
Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated.
If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality." The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Maybe energy levels and orbital shapes and momentum, but on the quantum level, particles too are unpredictable. They're moving backward in time and being in more than one state and being two places at once. The quantum level of the universe is nothing like ours, hence the uncertainty.
A group of little changes on the quantum level create a big change on our level, again, hence the uncertainty.
As far as position: you can predict the position, but then you can't predict the speed. Predict the speed and you don't know the position.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry. Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty.
In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now.
Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level.
I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose. I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Reality
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I've had exactly the same experience with PFAL !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, the certainty of uncertainty.
Just because, you and the others have failed to find anything useful doesn't mean there isn't anything useful. What if Edison had given up after trying to make a light bulb 75 times? We'd all be watching tv by candlelight.
If I were to hazard a guess, your own opinion about your theories got in your way.
On a quantum level small changes occur, these lead to minor changes in the brain, which lead to changes in behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Glad you brought PLAF up. I wonder where Mike puts believing in determinism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm guessing - but I think he may have a bad habit of compartmentalization
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see determinism as a helper or a friend in all that our brain does, including believing. We use determinism all the time in every technology. Our brain uses determinism as a tool or a resource in making decisions, and we can control this to a limited extent. The fact that we do have SOME control justifies the use of "free will" in describing our decision process.
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.