Pseudoscience Vortex

[BeyondET]

Those features are built upon existing features.

I never said that dogs or fish have the exact same conscious complexity of a human being or primate, merely that they do have a kind of primitive consciousness, they have an inward reality of being.

Slime mold is quite intelligent.

 

[BeyondET]

Who are 'they'? What do you mean by 'memory' in this context?

As best we can tell, instincts are genetically coded complex automatic behaviours or predispositions as a result of evolutionary selection pressures. There are some effects of individual experience, e.g. starvation, that can 'tag' particular genes and alter their expression. These 'epigenetic' tags may be inheritable for a few generations. These could potentially alter a descendant's behavioural predispositions (e.g. influence their eating patterns), but it's only a 'memory' in the broadest sense.

People feel all kinds of things about their ancestry. IMO, what they 'feel in their blood' about their ancestors should not be taken too seriously. We are all the survivors of evolutionary selection - we all have ancestors who will have suffered unimaginable hardship and trauma - genetic evidence suggests that the human population has been through several severe bottlenecks, possibly down to as few as between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs.

The Monarch butterfly migration is a example of information memory passed on. They migrate from continent to continent over multiple generations to the same exact place in Mexico then back to Canada through another set of multiple generations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Monarch butterfly migration is a example of information memory passed on. They migrate from continent to continent over multiple generations to the same exact place in Mexico then back to Canada through another set of multiple generations.

OK, well, all memory is information, it just comes in different forms and may be used in different ways. So if we count genetic inheritance as memory, some may be used behaviorally (e.g. reflexes, imprinting, docility/aggressiveness, innate navigation) and some developmentally (e.g. metamorphosis). But this is significantly different from the experiential memory of an individual, (e.g. episodic, semantic, procedural, etc) which is acquired rather than innate.

 

[BeyondET]

OK, well, all memory is information, it just comes in different forms and may be used in different ways. So if we count genetic inheritance as memory, some may be used behaviorally (e.g. reflexes, imprinting, docility/aggressiveness, innate navigation) and some developmentally (e.g. metamorphosis). But this is significantly different from the experiential memory of an individual, (e.g. episodic, semantic, procedural, etc) which is acquired rather than innate.

elephants have episodic memory and other animals have the ability as well.

 

[Diamond7]

The first person quoted was talking utter nonsense.

Musk is the first person to land a space ship. He now builds all the rockets for NASA. Interesting how you think the richest man in the world talks nonsense. This is like saying Edison is talking nonsense. Moving pictures, electric light bulbs, that is nonsense. Or Einstein's theory that challenged the traditional Newtonian view of space and time as separate, absolute entities.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Musk is the first person to land a space ship. He now builds all the rockets for NASA. Interesting how you think the richest man in the world talks nonsense. This is like saying Edison is talking nonsense. Moving pictures, electric light bulbs, that is nonsense. Or Einstein's theory that challenged the traditional Newtonian view of space and time as separate, absolute entities.

Musk *was* talking nonsense -- about genetics. He has no identified expertise in genetics and what he said was nonsense.

Expertise/genius IS NOT FUNGIBLE. Being an expert in something DOES NOT make someone an expert in anything else. (As you have you have stated to me repeatedly.)

 

[Diamond7]

Musk *was* talking nonsense -- about genetics.

In a 2018 interview, he discussed the idea of using genetic modification to make humans better suited to life on Mars, such as by increasing their resistance to radiation or by enabling them to produce their own food. I suppose the fact that he has built a spaceship to go to mars does not make him an expert on DNA. But people are always throwing money at him for whatever he wants to do. Yes, those are people on the ground standing next to the spaceship. They did not believe in Noah and his Ark but somehow they believe in Musk and his spaceship. Musk always seems to have people that can do what he wants to be done. Elon Musk has been known to ask unconventional interview questions to job candidates to assess their problem-solving abilities and creativity. As a carpenter, we run into problems that seem impossible to solve. My experience has been if I keep working on it a miracle will happen and all the pieces will fall into place. I do not know of anyone that has not finished their project. As long as they do not stop and keep working on it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In a 2018 interview, he discussed the idea of using genetic modification to make humans better suited to life on Mars, such as by increasing their resistance to radiation or by enabling them to produce their own food.

Just because he talked about it earlier doesn't mean it was realistic.

I suppose the fact that he has built a spaceship to go to mars does not make him an expert on DNA.

Correct.

 

[Gene2memE]

Musk is the first person to land a space ship. He now builds all the rockets for NASA.

No, he wasn't, and no he doesn't.

SpaceX was the first company to land a commercially viable re-usable launch vehicle after an orbital journey.

However, the Space Shuttle was a re-usable "space ship" decades before the Falcon 9 and there were multiple other small and large scale reusable rockets - including the space capable New Shepard which beat Falcon 9 by about 8 days to a vertical landing- that completed vertical landings before the Falcon 9. Some date as far back as the 1960s.

Also, Musk didn't do any of that personally. He was just the founder of the company that did it. It's a bit like arguing that Enzo Ferrari won Le Mans.

Also, SpaceX doesn't build "all the rockets for NASA".

Since 2020, NASA has used launch vehicles from United Launch Alliance (Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V), RocketLab (Electron), Orbital Sciences Corporation (Taurus/Minotaur-C), Orbital ATK/Northrop Grumman (Minotaur IV and Antares) and Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne). Plus, NASA tested their own Space Launch System in late 2022.

Falcon 9/Falcon 9X account for about 40-50% of all NASA's commerical launch vehicles in any given year, and probably 50-70% of payloads by mass.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The Law of Attraction Vortex

Is success too difficult in this reality?

 

[Diamond7]

However, the Space Shuttle was a re-usable "space ship"

I did not say space ship. I said rocket. The rockets for the space shuttle were a one-shot deal.

Also, Musk didn't do any of that personally.

He may not do any of it. Although he claims to help solve the problems. All he wants are people that can solve difficult problems. If you persist, eventually you will find a solution. If you work long enough and hard enough.

 

[Diamond7]

Just because he talked about it earlier doesn't mean it was realistic.

I think it is a scam. I think he wants to harvest precious elements from astroids. In college my son worked on a robotics for core samples. He even went to Washington to put on a demonstration to secure funding.

Metallic asteroids are primarily iron and nickel, but can contain rare metals like platinum, gold, iridium, palladium, osmium, ruthenium and rhodium at concentration several times higher than what is found on Earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did not say space ship. I said rocket. The rockets for the space shuttle were a one-shot deal.

Good grief. The only non-reusable part of the Space Shuttle was the fuel tank.

The solid rocket boosters (SSRBs) were recovered and refueled.
The same engines (SSMEs) on the back of the orbiter were used for repeated flights. (In fact the recent Orion 1 unmanned launch to Moon use SSMEs one more time as the main motors for that launch.)
Even the re-entry heat shield was reusable, rather than the ablative thermal shields used on nearly every other space capsule. (including the SpaceX Dragon capsules that need new heat shields installed for each flight)

 

[Diamond7]

The solid rocket boosters (SSRBs) were recovered and refueled.

The results are clear in a statistical analysis of NASA and SpaceX projects. In 118 space missions, NASA saw an average cost overrun of 90%. Over 16 missions, SpaceX saw an average cost overrun of 1.1%. SpaceX projects tended to take an average of about four years, while NASA projects averaged about seven years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The results are clear in a statistical analysis of NASA and SpaceX projects. In 118 space missions, NASA saw an average cost overrun of 90%. Over 16 missions, SpaceX saw an average cost overrun of 1.1%. SpaceX projects tended to take an average of about four years, while NASA projects averaged about seven years.

So I point out your error (claiming the rockets in the Space Shuttle were disposable) and you respond by changing the topic. Since this thread his been revived after a couple weeks rest, I haven't addressed any deficiencies of Mr. Musk or his companies, only your errors. Your response is irrelevant.

 

[Diamond7]

So I point out your error

When we compare my tiny little errors to your huge massive errors there really is no comparison. You are clearly the the winner in that department. You swallow the camel and strain out the gnats. Same with the Bible you pick out tiny little translation issues and ignore the massive amount of scientific evidence that the Bible is accurate and true. You could turn your stumbling blocks into stepping stones, but you just do not want to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When we compare my tiny little errors to your huge massive errors there really is no comparison. You are clearly the the winner in that department. You swallow the camel and strain out the gnats. Same with the Bible you pick out tiny little translation issues and ignore the massive amount of scientific evidence that the Bible is accurate and true. You could turn your stumbling blocks into stepping stones, but you just do not want to.

It was *you* that took the time to "correct" and "error" that you claimed was in post #89, and you were exactly opposite of correct. You made "tiny little error" in someone's post into your response and you were completely wrong. The bible has nothing to do with this.

 

[Diamond7]

It was *you* that took the time to "correct" and "error" that you claimed was in post #89, and you were exactly opposite of correct. You made "tiny little error" in someone's post into your response and you were completely wrong. The bible has nothing to do with this.

you you you you you and never me, i get it

 

[Hans Blaster]

you you you you you and never me, i get it

So far your only complaints about me are that:

1. I care about factual accuracy and keep correcting you
2. I don't follow your religion or take it's doctrine seriously

 

[JohnEmmett]

I don't follow your religion or take it's doctrine seriously

the afterlife is the only thing necessary to take seriously