Mind

[Davian]

Your first line in that post.

I still do not see where I said or implied that this particular discussion is pointless. Did I not clarify my intent in post #205?

Only not to you, because you are being contentious.

The word you are looking for is "scientific".

Mu.

See, that is what I came here for. That is the point of exchanges like this, for me.

Then what was the point of bringing it up?

I was responding to your implied argument from ignorance. "We don't know everything about how the brain works, therefore <insert theological claim here>"

Depends what you mean by "process".

How would that change the accuracy of personal experience?

They are definitions as I understand them. If you reject the very concept that is being defined, then from your perspective such definitions are irrelevant anyway.

We have yet to agree on what the words mean. You are working from presuppositions that I do not accept.

"Do you reject the concept of kifdif? Everything that isn't kifdif is kifdif. Is that "definition" not clear enough for you? Do you still reject it? Why?"

In other words, you're thinking this is futile.

No, it is just getting repetitive. The purpose of this exchange, on my part, has been met.

Would you like to continue to provide evasive responses to direct questions?

My point is that if I was denigrating and rejecting the concept of leprechauns on a leprechaun-believer's forum,

(my bold)

Again, how have I unfairly criticized what you have said? How was it unfair?

then one of those leprechaun-believers could point out that I was not exactly being honest in my rejection, because after all I must have had some interest in leprechauns to be posting on the forum in the first place.

(my bold)

On what basis could they make that accusation? Could you not be there simply to learn about them and why they believe what they believe?

 

[Michael]

Drop the practice of deleting sections of my posts in a fashion which, in effect, make it appear that you have addressed my points. This is intellectually dishonest. You can go back and respond to the entire post.

Um, unless you can demonstrate I skipped something important, as far as I know, the only things I skipped were off topic stuff, and redundant stuff. You're just whining at this point because your inflation deity is a bigger dud on Earth than an average concept of God.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

This is like claiming that because Deism doesn't predict anything specific on Earth, it somehow gains scientific credibility for predicting *nothing useful* at all!

Face it, your trio of invisible sky deities are a bigger dud on Earth than most religion concepts of God. At least most religions *predict* an interaction that occurs on Earth. That's at least a starting point. Your dead deistic inflation deity serves no purpose at all apparently, other than to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant falsification. Not only was it an invention of the human mind, I can even tell you *which* human mind invented it.

 

[Strathos]

I still do not see where I said or implied that this particular discussion is pointless. Did I not clarify my intent in post #205?

Eventually yes. So you think there is a point here?

The word you are looking for is "scientific".

But what I am discussing is not scientific in nature.

See, that is what I came here for. That is the point of exchanges like this, for me.

Do you know what that means?

I was responding to your implied argument from ignorance. "We don't know everything about how the brain works, therefore <insert theological claim here>"

Except I never made such an argument.

How would that change the accuracy of personal experience?

How would you determine the accuracy of any specific experience without having that experience yourself?

We have yet to agree on what the words mean. You are working from presuppositions that I do not accept.

"Do you reject the concept of kifdif? Everything that isn't kifdif is kifdif. Is that "definition" not clear enough for you? Do you still reject it? Why?"

Except I didn't just throw out a word devoid of context. I mentioned it in comparison to consciousness within physical substrate, and to the natural laws of the scientifically comprehensible universe, both concepts that you can hopefully comprehend.

No, it is just getting repetitive. The purpose of this exchange, on my part, has been met.

Would you like to continue to provide evasive responses to direct questions?

Only if you will continue to move the goalposts and arbitrarily reject my answers.

(my bold)

Again, how have I unfairly criticized what you have said? How was it unfair?

By refusing to even attempt to consider the definitions I have given you, for one.

(my bold)

On what basis could they make that accusation? Could you not be there simply to learn about them and why they believe what they believe?

Would that not demonstrate some interest in the subject?

 

[Davian]

Eventually yes. So you think there is a point here?

I have made mine clear. Am I to guess at yours?

But what I am discussing is not scientific in nature.

I do not know what you are discussing. I am trying to get you to clarify. What would you propose as an alternate way of exploring reality, other than science?

Do you know what that means?

In the context of a yes or no question, evasion.

Except I never made such an argument.

As I said, implied.

How would you determine the accuracy of any specific experience without having that experience yourself?

That burden would rest on the individual claiming that a specific experience contained some level of accuracy in respects to reality. I am happy to assist, if you like. There is no need for me to have such an experience, and besides, how would one know? One of us could be lying.

Except I didn't just throw out a word devoid of context. I mentioned it in comparison to consciousness within physical substrate, and to the natural laws of the scientifically comprehensible universe, both concepts that you can hopefully comprehend.

And in that context those words appeared to be simply placeholders for that which you could not demonstrate or define.

Would you like to continue to provide evasive responses to direct questions?

Only if you will continue to move the goalposts and arbitrarily reject my answers.

That would be a "yes", then.

Arbitrary - adjective - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

No, it has not been random, and I have given you reasons (not scientific, etc), so it wasn't personal whim.

To clarify, what might appear to you as a move of the goalposts is actually multiple sets of goalposts, none of which you have reached at this point.

By refusing to even attempt to consider the definitions I have given you, for one.

Did you not admit that those definitions were merely assumptions?

Would that not demonstrate some interest in the subject?

I don't see why. You used the word "must". Again, On what basis could they make that accusation? Could you not be there simply to learn about them and why they believe what they believe? One must be careful not to project one's point of view onto others, no?

 

[Davian]

Um, unless you can demonstrate I skipped something important, as far as I know, the only things I skipped were off topic stuff, and redundant stuff.

If it were unimportant, I would remove it myself. Show some intellectual integrity.

You're just whining at this point because your inflation deity is a bigger dud on Earth than an average concept of God.

This is like claiming that because Deism doesn't predict anything specific on Earth, it somehow gains scientific credibility for predicting *nothing useful* at all!

Face it, your trio of invisible sky deities are a bigger dud on Earth than most religion concepts of God. At least most religions *predict* an interaction that occurs on Earth. That's at least a starting point. Your dead deistic inflation deity serves no purpose at all apparently, other than to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant falsification. Not only was it an invention of the human mind, I can even tell you *which* human mind invented it.

You were asked to provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth.

You have not demonstrated a working knowledge of inflation theory. Your failure to provide that paper is accepted as abdication.

 

[Michael]

If it were unimportant, I would remove it myself. Show some intellectual integrity.

Show some intellectual integrity then and at least point out what you think I missed that is oh so important. I noticed that you never addressed my points about Guth's ridiculous claims, including his claim to have solved a missing unicorn, er "monopole" problem. Face it, your impotent on Earth sky deity came right out of the overactive imagination of one guy, and apparently the concept caught on, kinda like (dead) deism becoming popular.

You were asked to provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth.

There isn't such a thing of course anymore than there is a scientific paper that expect a dead deistic god to have any effect on anything on planet Earth today. Your dead religion is pretty much akin to a dead deistic religion.

You have not demonstrated a working knowledge of inflation theory. Your failure to provide that paper is accepted as abdication.

Bah. You're just miffed because you invisible sky deity can be traced to the mind and the overactive imagination of one human being, and it's more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You were asked to provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth.

That's just it, there are NO scientific papers that shows inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. That's the whole point, it can't be demonstrated at all, it is a Fairie Dust theory with no basis in actual experimental evidence. it is merely a dream someone had at one time to explain away incongruent redshift data. When redshift began to be observed as technology advanced that would place galaxies at fractions of c, suddenly space began to stretch, even though spacetime had no inclusion in the theory prior, nor was it ever a prediction of the redshift theory.

Because astronomers ignore plasma in the universe and the fact that redshift has been actually observed in the laboratory as a cause of electron density in plasma.

How is anyone supposed to show a paper justifying inflation theory demonstrated on the Earth when it never has been? YOU need to show a paper showing this demonstration, since YOU claim inflation theory is valid. Until then you have nothing but wishful thinking.

But oh yes, it only happens far, far away where we can't actually measure it right? And might as well be in a galaxy far, far away as well.

None of mainstreams Fairie Dust entities are needed in any working model of the solar system. No inflation, no Dark Matter, no Dark Energy, no Fairie Dust at all, and the math works just fine without it. it is only in the vast reaches of space, where the density is low where the electrical and magnetic force in plasma overwhelms the gravitational force.

[astro-ph/9906485] Magnetic Fields in Clusters: Theory vs. Observations

Observations of Magnetic Fields - J.P. Vall&#233;e

Which contradicts every galactic formation model you have.

Your NED Search Results

Magnetic studies may pose cosmic puzzle. - Free Online Library

Primordial Magnetic Fields and the Largescale Structure of the Universe

But continue to live in the 1900's and ignore all the data since the space age.

 

[Davian]

Show some intellectual integrity then and at least point out what you think I missed that is oh so important.

I already did that - the entire post. But, if you say that editing the post you are responding to is not big deal, lets git it a try. I'll only do this for you, Michael.

I noticed that you never addressed my points about Guth's ridiculous claims

You mean, your ridiculous straw man arguments? no, I don't address those, unless to call you on them, as I did here.

You have not demonstrated a working knowledge of inflation theory. Your failure to provide that paper is accepted as abdication.

There isn't such a thing of course

Then it would be dishonest to make the claim that inflation theory should meet that test, correct?

You have not demonstrated a working knowledge of inflation theory. Your failure to provide that paper is accepted as abdication.

Bah.

I'm surprised you took that so well. Better than your usual pile-on-the-strawman approach.

 

[Davian]

That's just it, there are NO scientific papers that shows inflation can be demonstrated on Earth.
<snip unrelated rant>

Exactly, that's why it is dishonest for Michael or yourself to demand that it should, if you know that the theory does not make that claim.

Are you still failing to find anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation?

 

[Strathos]

I have made mine clear. Am I to guess at yours?

I don't believe you have.

I do not know what you are discussing. I am trying to get you to clarify. What would you propose as an alternate way of exploring reality, other than science?

I am not proposing any such thing.

In the context of a yes or no question, evasion.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

As I said, implied.

Where?

That burden would rest on the individual claiming that a specific experience contained some level of accuracy in respects to reality. I am happy to assist, if you like. There is no need for me to have such an experience, and besides, how would one know? One of us could be lying.

If you think I'm lying, that's your prerogative.

And in that context those words appeared to be simply placeholders for that which you could not demonstrate or define.

Relating them in opposition to those concepts is completely logical as a definition.

That would be a "yes", then.

Arbitrary - adjective - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

No, it has not been random, and I have given you reasons (not scientific, etc), so it wasn't personal whim.

Except I said my definitions were not scientific, so that's not a qualification to reject them.

To clarify, what might appear to you as a move of the goalposts is actually multiple sets of goalposts, none of which you have reached at this point.

Not really.

Did you not admit that those definitions were merely assumptions?

According to you they aren't even clearly defined, so how can they be assumptions?

I don't see why. You used the word "must". Again, On what basis could they make that accusation? Could you not be there simply to learn about them and why they believe what they believe? One must be careful not to project one's point of view onto others, no?

I don't see the point of visiting a leprechaun-believers' forum without having any interest in leprechauns.

 

[Davian]

I don't believe you have.

Did you not agree in post #243 that I clarified my intent for being here? Which is it?

I am not proposing any such thing.

Then clearly state what you are proposing when you relate your experiences.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Don't complain to me about painting yourself into a corner. Most theists simply walk out over the wet paint.

Where?

In your response to my suggestion that you should consider informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science. You said "There is much about the workings of the brain we don't understand." If I was wrong, clarify what you implied by that.

If you think I'm lying, that's your prerogative.

This has nothing to do with what I think. I am asking you, how would you know if someone were lying about their personal experiences?

Relating them in opposition to those concepts is completely logical as a definition.

That is a use of the phrase "completely logical" that I have not seen before. How would one test such a definition? Or are you still being unscientific here?

Except I said my definitions were not scientific, so that's not a qualification to reject them.

What you need to develop is a basis for acceptance.

Not really.

lol.

<sportscaster 1>Goal!
<sportscaster 2>Did he reach the goal post?
<sportscaster 1>Not really.
<sportscaster 2>

According to you they aren't even clearly defined, so how can they be assumptions?

That is the descriptor you used, as in "the description I gave is what I assume spirit to be".

I don't see the point of visiting a leprechaun-believers' forum without having any interest in leprechauns.

What if you had some serious leprechan-beleivers in your family, and to the best of your knowledge, leprechauns are simply characters in books? Given the opportunity to explore these beliefs with strangers first rather than family, I would take the former. What would you do?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Exactly, that's why it is dishonest for Michael or yourself to demand that it should, if you know that the theory does not make that claim.

Are you still failing to find anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation?

So you admit you have not one single bit of evidence to support your inflation theory, merely wishful thinking.

And if you complain about people editing posts and not replying, you skipped half of mine.

John Earman & Jesus Mosterin, A critical look at inflationary cosmology - PhilPapers

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

Except there is one problem with theory.

What are the odds? Part 2: Cosmic Inflation! &#8211; Starts With A Bang

Plasma still makes up 99% of the universe, so only 1% has condensed into solids, liquids and gasses, but BB theory requires a tremendous amount of plasma to have cooled into normal matter, not observed.

Plasma Physics: VII LAWPP 97 : Proceedings of the 1997 Latin American ... - Google Books

Analytical and Numerical Methods for Wave Propagation in Fluid Media - Krzysztof Murawski - Google Books

99.999% plasma - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Only BB theorists ignore the universe for their math.

 

[Davian]

So you admit you have not one single bit of evidence to support your inflation theory, merely wishful thinking.

Do not put words in my mouth. In post #211, you posted "predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests".

Are you lying now, or forgetful?

And if you complain about people editing posts and not replying, you skipped half of mine.
<snip unrelated text>

I think I snipped more than that, as it was unrelated to the topic at hand. Unlike Michael, I clearly marked where the snip was made, and why. Besides, you are off-topic for this thread.

That being said, I was saying why it is dishonest for Michael or yourself to demand that inflation theory should demonstrate claims that it does not make, if you know that the theory does not make that claim.

And, I am still waiting for you answer my question: Are you still failing to find anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation?

 

[Michael]

I already did that - the entire post. But, if you say that editing the post you are responding to is not big deal, lets git it a try. I'll only do this for you, Michael.

Oh for crying out loud. If you *really* believe I missed some *important* point you were trying to make, spit it out already.

Then it would be dishonest to make the claim that inflation theory should meet that test, correct?

It's dishonest to try to claim that inflation theory is anything other than an invention of the human mind and imagination, specifically the mind/imagination of one human being. The "faithful" then latched on to the concept *in spite of* a lack of empirical connection between photon redshift and Guth's "make-believe" force of nature. The whole concept is *imaginary*, and *impotent* in the lab. It's akin to a dead deistic religion that has *zero* useful application on Earth in the present moment. Apparently it's only 'use' is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant destruction. I'd say it's pretty darn useless.

At least belief in God has tangible benefits in the present moment, right here on Earth:

Believing in God can help treat depression | Mail Online

That's a whole lot more than your dead and utterly useless inflation deity will ever do in any lab study.

 

[Strathos]

Did you not agree in post #243 that I clarified my intent for being here? Which is it?

Said intent does not comport with what you are saying now, making all these demands of me.

Then clearly state what you are proposing when you relate your experiences.

Merely the fact that these experiences serve as evidence applicable to myself, and I myself consider them significant.

Don't complain to me about painting yourself into a corner. Most theists simply walk out over the wet paint.

In case you didn't get it, your question was improperly framed and a false dichotomy. Quite similar to AV's yes-or-no 'gotcha' questions.

In your response to my suggestion that you should consider informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science. You said "There is much about the workings of the brain we don't understand." If I was wrong, clarify what you implied by that.

I meant that the amount of objective conclusion you can reach via simple introspection is quite limited.

This has nothing to do with what I think. I am asking you, how would you know if someone were lying about their personal experiences?

I wouldn't. But I wouldn't go around accusing them of it just because I disagreed.

That is a use of the phrase "completely logical" that I have not seen before. How would one test such a definition? Or are you still being unscientific here?

All A is not B. If B is defined, then you can test it by seeing if you can find an A that is B, which would be a counterexample. Quite simple, really.

What you need to develop is a basis for acceptance.

Why do you even care? You don't believe in the existence of what I am attempting to define.

lol.

<sportscaster 1>Goal!
<sportscaster 2>Did he reach the goal post?
<sportscaster 1>Not really.
<sportscaster 2>

You arbitrarily declare my definitions aren't good enough, I respond with an equally arbitrary disagreement.

That is the descriptor you used, as in "the description I gave is what I assume spirit to be".

It's how I define it. Your point?

What if you had some serious leprechan-beleivers in your family, and to the best of your knowledge, leprechauns are simply characters in books? Given the opportunity to explore these beliefs with strangers first rather than family, I would take the former. What would you do?

Respect their beliefs, as long as they weren't obnoxious about them.

 

[Davian]

Oh for crying out loud. If you *really* believe I missed some *important* point you were trying to make, spit it out already.

The entire post. I am not going to sort out the mess you made of it.

Then it would be dishonest to make the claim that inflation theory should meet that test, correct?

It's dishonest <snip yet more burning strawmen>

Indeed.

At least belief in God has tangible benefits in the present moment, right here on Earth:

Believing in God can help treat depression | Mail Online

You don't need real gods for that, do you? Such is the power of the mind.

That's a whole lot more than your dead and utterly useless inflation deity will ever do in any lab study.

Is that an honest thing to say? Did you not fail to provide any scientific papers that would suggest that inflation should show up in the lab? How long ago did the inflationary epoch end, Michael?

 

[Davian]

Said intent does not comport with what you are saying now, making all these demands of me.

Sure it does. Why else are you here in this thread, other than to respond to those demands?

Merely the fact that these experiences serve as evidence applicable to myself, and I myself consider them significant.

This forum is, in effect, an arena of ideas. Are you declaring that your experiences should not be scrutinized by others?

In case you didn't get it, your question was improperly framed and a false dichotomy. Quite similar to AV's yes-or-no 'gotcha' questions.

Perhaps - it could be that you do not have an opinion of whether or not your personal experiences should be disregarded by others. You could have said that the first time I asked.

Again: by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"? Yes, no, or I don't know?

I meant that the amount of objective conclusion you can reach via simple introspection is quite limited.

Then you were not properly responding to my statement, as I was referring to informing your opinion of how the brain works using 21st century science. Have you considered doing that?

I wouldn't. But I wouldn't go around accusing them of it just because I disagreed.

And if you disagreed with how "they", based on their "personal experiences" that you disagree with, affect the government of your country, the education of your children, etc. would you accept their experiences over yours? When would you challenge them?

All A is not B. If B is defined, then you can test it by seeing if you can find an A that is B, which would be a counterexample. Quite simple, really.

My high school daughter needs a subject for a physics class presentation. I suggested the transistor effect. Accordingly, all she needs to tell the class is that the transistor effect is not any other effect. Completely logical? Do you have a suggestion for a counterexample?

Why do you even care? You don't believe in the existence of what I am attempting to define.

Curiosity. I still don't know what you are trying to define, so my belief in it has yet to be determined.

You arbitrarily declare my definitions aren't good enough, I respond with an equally arbitrary disagreement.

What I declared about your "definitions" was not done randomly or on a whim. Your response, on the other hand, may have been on a whim, but was accurate.

It's how I define it. Your point?

You asked, "According to you they aren't even clearly defined, so how can they be assumptions?" Are you simply being argumentative?

Respect their beliefs, as long as they weren't obnoxious about them.

They are. Now what? Do I learn now, or wait until it escalates?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do not put words in my mouth. In post #211, you posted "predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests".

Are you lying now, or forgetful?

No, you posted that, I pointed out that most scientists question those observations, being that inflation theory causes more problems than it solves, problems no one has yet found solutions for. But had you read more than one viewpoint, you would know this. Instead you read only what supports your theory and dismiss the rest, not very scientific.

I think I snipped more than that, as it was unrelated to the topic at hand. Unlike Michael, I clearly marked where the snip was made, and why. Besides, you are off-topic for this thread.

That being said, I was saying why it is dishonest for Michael or yourself to demand that inflation theory should demonstrate claims that it does not make, if you know that the theory does not make that claim.

And, I am still waiting for you answer my question: Are you still failing to find anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation?

I gave you those sites, you just never read them. Don't ask for citation then fail to read them, then make claims none were given. You need to back up a few posts and read.

You snipped redshift because you don't want to talk about your false redshift beliefs, which leads to the interpretation of inflation. A belief you can not justify. There is nothing off topic about redshift, being as it it that incorrect assumption that leads to your theory of galaxies receding and hence inflation. Without your incorrect beliefs on redshift and quasars, there is no need for expansion, and hence no inflation.

 

[Davian]

No, you posted that, I pointed out that most scientists question those observations, being that inflation theory causes more problems than it solves, problems no one has yet found solutions for.

No, I checked. You quoted wiki, in direct contradiction with your claim that "there is not one single bit of evidence to support your inflation theory, merely wishful thinking."

Actually, you dishonestly tried to make that my claim. Where do you get your ethics?

But had you read more than one viewpoint, you would know this. Instead you read only what supports your theory and dismiss the rest, not very scientific.

It is not my theory. Enough with your dishonest tactics of telling me what I am saying, thinking, and claiming.

I gave you those sites, you just never read them. Don't ask for citation then fail to read them, then make claims none were given. You need to back up a few posts and read.

I did not ask for sites, I asked for specifics, and you failed to provide anything to show where inflation theory violates the law of conservation, didn't you?

You snipped redshift because you don't want to talk about your false redshift beliefs, which leads to the interpretation of inflation. A belief you can not justify. There is nothing off topic about redshift, being as it it that incorrect assumption that leads to your theory of galaxies receding and hence inflation. Without your incorrect beliefs on redshift and quasars, there is no need for expansion, and hence no inflation.

Confusing inflation and expansion is a novice mistake. And you still fail at telling me what my beliefs are.

I am amazed by how much fail you can accumulate.

 

[Michael]

The entire post. I am not going to sort out the mess you made of it.

Translation: You're just whining to hear yourself whine.

You don't need real gods for that, do you? Such is the power of the mind.

How do I know that the "power of the mind" would work at all in the absence of God?

Is that an honest thing to say? Did you not fail to provide any scientific papers that would suggest that inflation should show up in the lab? How long ago did the inflationary epoch end, Michael?

In other words, you're just mad because your impotent on earth, physics defying, "free lunch", monopole destroying, invisible supernatural sky entity died at childbirth apparently. LOL! Compared to almost *any* theistic concept of God, your impotent dead sky deity is just an *absurdly* useless physics theory. It cannot *ever* be tested in the lab, whereas at least my ideas *might* pan out, and produce actual laboratory support with the right technology. That's a whole lot more than can *ever* be said for your impotent invisible sky thingies.