How about the sasquatch? Chupacabra? Aswang?
This topic is killing what little brain cells I already have remaining
Yea well to question a dogma (I hope everyone knows what a dogma is right?) in an open debate is not something that can be taken so lightly. Whatever I have written in the previous comment can be easily understood by anyone with a healthy amount of IQ provided he or she does not have dyslexia or cognitive dissonance or an unwillingness to know.
For instance many of you who have never been to India would imagine what it looks like from Bollywood movies and isolated conversations with various travellers but once you come here be prepared to find that no one searches for spirituality becos no one seems to find any and the garbage littered and the ugly women will hit the sense right back till you change your perspective then and there. Seems many of us have tons of things left to experience, regardless of whether we have a high IQ or not.
You could argue why a highly educated physics graduate or mathematician leaves his profession to become a terrorist becos he chooses to go militant inspite of common sense or his training which makes one question his perspective and not his education or qualification or IQ level. A dogma can be a very powerful thing.
About sasquatch and all that, never seen one. Demons yea I have, and they are quite freaky to look at and on many instances are best never to encounter. Perspective changes can come at the most inopportune or unexpected moment.
You know the worst thing I fear about my ciritical thinking, that is to have a closed belief system which by definition is stagnated.
Anything that goes beyond science can safely be disregarded as mumbojumbo. Not because of dogma or claims of what is “true” or not - but because of practical and rational reasons.
Short story: Truth is a religious concept. Science only deals with “what works”. Anything beyond science is pure speculation. Any speculation that cannot be tested is nonsense - or at the very best - “amusing”.
Perfect, so science cannot explain how the human hearing system works so it’s amusing to me that any Black box speculation what I call ‘groping in the dark arts’ is bs because the current ‘level’ of science cannot pinpoint the how it ‘works’ and every thing is empirical data and I suppose any ‘other explanation’ of how things work at the brain processing level is pure nonsense, becos science is ‘yet’ to come up with one. Gimme a break, will you. How can anyone do science without first understanding the philosophy behind it or asking the existential questions ? Or maybe like Stephan Hawking’s you would probably say ‘philisophy is dead’. Yea right, that’s why we should all aim to be robot minds dissecting things with our rather limited and blunt ‘scientific’ methods which btw have a very dark and tarnished reputation and history so far, and stop being human beings.
Some really cool things done in the name of science one which I would possibly encourage anyone to try out of a camaraderie for science is : a lobotomy. It’s scientifically proven to decrease agitated behaviour and make someone docile.
Another scientifically proven method to reduce agitation and loud behaviour is to use Ritalin in high doses. Scientifically proven to control the mind of your test subject. Any takers here?
I really don’t get conspiracy theorists…
Why bother proving that 9/11 was an inside job… when you have an ACTUAL “conspiracy” of fake weapon of mass destruction to make up a purpose to invade a country for no reason…
Why bother proving that earth is flat… when you have ACTUAL conspiracies to make sure we do nothing to prevent global warming that would impede the good ol’ business as usual.
And what about international trade treaties ? These are LITERALLY people plotting in secret to mold the world to their own interests with no regard for the rest of us.
Conspiracy theorists, are you tired of all these skeptics mocking you ? Then pick a conspiracy theory based on solid evidences, there are plenty out there !
You are free to make a guess of “how things work”. But if your guess cannot be tested, it is indeed nonsense.
Without the requirement of falsifiability, there would be no way to reach rational consensus. People would just go around making unfounded claims for various reasons, and most likely, less virtuous values than pragmatism would become dominating.
Exactly so just like so many of the ‘data fitted’ papers published so far and models constructed to prove someone fabrication rather than reality, that due diligence should obviously be never questioned becos any random dude can publish any bs and that is the last word, innit?
I would prefer to question any and everything in a rather peer reviewed manner than practise this mockery of science called blind belief. I am actually totally pro science, just not the way it’s normally passed around…especially in todays times
Like the proof of prime numbers, it’s done by contradiction btw and not at all objective or specific becos science does not have an answer so it assigns a symbol and it’s connected idea of infinity.So what is infinity? I suppose we has an answer for everything. Or rather it just etched some man made glyph to any and all concepts that man can think about whether or not he has the capacity to understand it actually takes a back seat, for instance calling something we don’t really understand God.
What? Possibility of peer reviewing is part of science, yes. Any claims must be reproducible or observable by other parties.
How do flat earthers want to test their theory?
Obviously flat earthers don’t love a glass bubble. That is why. If Stephen Hawking has the audacity to tell people that philosophy is dead that in itself begs question of why something that came way before science ever did needs validation.
How to test it, I have no friggin idea but I am learning more about it since last week. I am a physics and mechanical engg. graduate btw… maybe I could put some ‘science’ to the test.
Also if things do come out truez it puts everything else to the test as well.
in my environment the new god is science
at least, the term objectivity is often used and equated with truth
I think it’s like Philip k Dick
r_eality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away_
My objective reality tells me that my brain is doing something that current science does not have the balls to , which is separate reverb from the wet signal. That makes my brain superior to mankind science so when I stop the test the belief does not go away that science is inferior to my brain.
Science does not have the last word by definition, it will never achieve God status, xcept for false God status, if that. Another Tower of Babel in the making.
i think life is not much more than perception, with or without scince
everything else is usually a matter of perspective
This thread is full of nonsense, which isn’t surprising given its topic.
Your argument is a fallacy - a false syllogism. I’m quite surprised that you’d pull off such an argument.
“My brain can do things that science can’t. Therefor, what my brain thinks is better than science”. Just wow.
Sure is not that a scientific test? The current algorithms CANNOT do what the brain does. It’s like a simple NOT logic, even my computer understands it.
Science is a product of the human brain. It has no existence out of that. It’s all man made constructs. How can you put the product of the brain ahead of the brain itself. ??
If you go by that logic then far ahead our own man made creations will start questioning whether humans exist, lol. Those creations will be scientists too.
How can you put the product of the brain ahead of the brain itself. ??
In effect, you claim that a computer can’t have abilities that your brain doesn’t have. Because computers are products of the brain.
That’s just nonsense.
PS. Here is a good list of fallacies that I think you should read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
separate reverb from the wet signal
Because you have this concept in your minds eye (ear?) about how a given sound would be like, and that might have sounded really convincing to you.
Problem is, you couldn’t share it with anyone, because it wasn’t_real._ Our mind is exceptionally good at “inventing” the details as we shift our focus around on a given subject. So it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking that what you experience is a full representation.
But some of the guys at accusonus must have had a similar idea, and made it into a product:
https://accusonus.com/products/era-r
Not sure how advanced the plugin is, as I haven’t tried it myself - I guess it’s mostly about fixing recordings from vocal booths and such.
The main things is that, well this is possible. Just like when the polyphonic melodyne was announced, and many people was quick to point out that it couldn’t be done.
What I’m trying to say is that the human mind has moved immensely in the last century or so - we’ve gone from horse carriages to spacecraft. Splitting the atom, etc. etc.
It’s just that the “stories” that we tell - to fullfull the need to explain the world around us - haven’t really had sufficient time to catch up. At least, in my opinion.
So the flat-earth could be seen as a counter-reaction to that, reverting to a previous story - a simpler one.
In effect, you claim that a computer can’t have abilities that your brain doesn’t have. Because computers are products of the brain.That’s just nonsense.PS. Here is a good list of fallacies that I think you should read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Consciousness, gravity, infinity, largest prime numbers etc I suppose science has to label everything it CANNOT describe or begin to understand. Our bandwidth of hearing and sight in terms of frequencies is limited as far as science ‘measurements’ tell us. Beyond measurements and conjecture how else does the brain come up with ‘theories’ to suit his ‘limited observation bandwidth’. If you go by that measure then everything is a product of the brain, it’s all a hallucination end of the day. Your ears translate 'so called physical vibrations ’ to a brain phenomena called sound. Same with eyes. The colour white only exists in our brains and mind. It’s already well agreed upon the science community that the brain is not the source of thought just a mediator. So now we gonna discuss about mind and universal conciousness? How do you make a computer concious? By making it watch YouTube all day and come up with recommendations and likewise study gamers’s playing patterns and genetically optimise the output of this data stream put through a neural sieve ! And LO we have a ‘concious computer’. The ability of the brain is nothing to do with ability of mind. The computer will at it’s BEST emulate and simulate our brain after going through generations of ‘supervised training and data analysis’ : really novel approach to become human I suppose. Real is only what the brain can make of it, we are NOT the creators of the reality we are in. If you exclude solipsism then we have a very serious problem to solve: the problem of finding the roots of our existence. You can substitute sugar for aspartame or stevia and you won’t tell which one is bad or healthy for you just by taste alone now would you? You could sweeten cyanide and still call it tasty.
Further if computers were never human to begin with and came AFTER us you would probably say humans evolved to silicon beings and at some distant long gone era computers were once human before they sacrificed humanity for man made precision.
Great direction humans are going to. You will all forget who made you or how you came to be and be too busy constructing your own fabricated reality. How is that human in the end? I think it’s totally escapist.
Human is not enough, let’s be faster and become super human, not enough yet let’s be our own Gods…the Tower of Babel again. Time and time again this comes up…
So based on your list of fallacies: Computers can ‘emulate’ the ‘features of the brain’ purely by analysis data collection, design and construction done by humans done at the origin and it’s as good as the ‘real’ thing. I think nothing sells fabricated shit better than this argument. No wonder plastic surgery is such a big thing with women in today’s world. Eveyone NEEDS to feel inadequate to feel adequate. A fallacy? No it’s a global trend.
Bottom line , science is always an after thought btw, unless we are the creators of the world we can live on right down to the atom, and we should not complain about the Uncertain Principle or quantum entanglement becos in that human made universe these paradoxes will be removed, back to a more ‘simple’ explanation of things, that ‘suit’ our pallets and look more ‘convenient’. Humans are like this in everything. Easy way out, convenient asnwer to the tough questions. Emulation solves everything!!. So we can’t change the universe, too large, too complicated, let’s make our own version of it. Hehe love this, how it resembles a Linux project fork. Disagreements leads to multiple universes I suppose.
If software can feel and emote and live in a biological computer like ours maybe we hit the right spot and cant distinguish between fabrication or reality. Consciousness though beats the hell out of everything because material can be emulated, really difficult to emulate something you can’t even understand. I still need the reverb separation plugin though, cos my brain does it everytime and I would want that convenience in my setup. NOT!
If you go by the logic of fallacy then by argument: Humans cannot have the faculties of a God because it’s a product of God. That would be the most awesome fallacy ever right because it’s nonsense to hubris and not common sense.
The fallacy list reads like an excellent pyschiatry manual prescribing a drug for every eye brow movement. Lol.
How science thinks:
'If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! (Regarding its man made concoctions)
‘If we can’t fix it, let’s break it!’
(Regarding the rest of the existence)
Bulk of so called scientific testing done :
Test pools aka volunteers or innocent animals. Collect data, formulate theories. If testing space is too huge or unreachable work with whatever empirical data you can collect.
The designer who made all this reality is obviously adept at science or magic or whatever and who are we to question the validity of his scientific experiments? Analysis is second rate to creation.
I really don’t get conspiracy theorists…
Why bother proving that 9/11 was an inside job… when you have an ACTUAL “conspiracy” of fake weapon of mass destruction to make up a purpose to invade a country for no reason…
Why bother proving that earth is flat… when you have ACTUAL conspiracies to make sure we do nothing to prevent global warming that would impede the good ol’ business as usual.
And what about international trade treaties ? These are LITERALLY people plotting in secret to mold the world to their own interests with no regard for the rest of us.
Conspiracy theorists, are you tired of all these skeptics mocking you ? Then pick a conspiracy theory based on solid evidences, there are plenty out there !
About why bother with various flavours of conspiracy or whatver, I would call it investigation. You chase up all leads to eliminate the false ones. Or rather if you follow the money you are bound to encounter some laundered ones or fabricated ones. How do you which from which unless you treat them equally and not assume which is which. Which approach is more scientific? Preassumption are like axioms, the danger is that the entire theory might be a poor approximation because the axiom chosen was incorrect.
Everyone knows engineering is all about approximation. It’s an approximation of science. The theories of science are approximations of nature or creation. Thus in this line of approximated thinking axioms are passed around freely to suit a better fitting theory. This is as far from precision as it can get. ‘Best fit’ is a term I am growing more abhorrent to day by day.
One good indicator of a theory is predictions. String theory has yet to make any, yet theoretically it’s sound as it gets.
Scientific endeavour nowadays has one overseeing agenda: Hubris. (We know it all, just few parts left. Yea right!)
Secondary political agenda for obvious competition reasons: Deception
Being approximate by it’s very nature it provides simplistic models for any complex phenomena, and the universe as we know it is highly interconnected and complex : Simplification (aka doodles)
Inaccuracies are by very definition the ‘science’ precisely because of approximations(oxymoron?) and the solution : Emulation.
Measurements are by nature imprecise bacuse the concept of a point is an imaginary one. Thus size of Earth etc are approximations with a good degree of error margins taken into account: Error thresholds (we can fuck up too guarantees!)
Theories are fallible by nature: Universe ain’t going anywhere, tomorrows theory will very well change with new discoveries encountered.
With all this how can anyone actually take science seriously? Technology is more like it. You don’t need to know how God invented flour for you to bake a cake. But don’t be fooled, we still don’t know how God created flour.