Media Player

VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization - YouTube

Ok so the title is a stretch on my behalf but the video does support the idea that there is no independent self separate from others.
Demonstrated by mirror neurons, which supposedly formed during the big bang of human consciousness.

There are arguments against the conclusions the video forms and it's not a new idea by any means but possibly one worth discussing.

“... I also speculated that these neurons can not only help simulate other people's behavior but can be turned "inward"—as it were—to create second-order representations or meta-representations of your own earlier brain processes. This could be the neural basis of introspection, and of the reciprocity of self awareness and other awareness. There is obviously a chicken-or-egg question here as to which evolved first, but... The main point is that the two co-evolved, mutually enriching each other to create the mature representation of self that characterizes modern humans." - V.S Ramachandran

To take it another step you can draw correlations with 'noosphere' theories:

In 1923, C. Lloyd Morgan took this work further, elaborating on an 'emergent evolution' which could explain increasing complexity (including the evolution of mind).
Morgan found many of the most interesting changes in living things have been largely discontinuous with past evolution, and therefore did not necessarily take place through a gradual process of natural selection. Rather, evolution experiences jumps in complexity (such as the emergence of a self-reflective universe, or noosphere).
Finally, the complexification of human cultures, particularly language, facilitated a quickening of evolution in which cultural evolution occurs more rapidly than biological evolution.
Recent understanding of human ecosystems and of human impact on the biosphere have led to a link between the notion of sustainability with the "co-evolution" [Norgaard, 1994] and harmonization of cultural and biological evolution.

Thoughts?

I love lamp.





















































































Nah, will try and masticate, digest, and defecate this later yo.

Why do you use the word 'organism'? Question doesn't come from a place of cynicism, just seems a slightly strange choice.

I wonder if you could even call it an organism. How about entity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Ok so the title is a stretch on my behalf but the video does support the idea that there is no independent self separate from others.
Demonstrated by mirror neurons, which supposedly formed during the big bang of human consciousness.

There are arguments against the conclusions the video forms and it's not a new idea by any means but possibly one worth discussing.

A stretch? More than a stretch. I fail to see how the existence and evolution of mirror neurons relate to a 'oneness' of conciousness. The very idea of mirror neurons is that they imitate or empathise (not that the mirror neurons themselves have that property, they are linked to motor and sensory systems in such a way that they can select a 'motor program' that best imitates what the other person is doing. It is only by deliberate manipulation of sensory processes (i.e. direct stimulation of sensory pathways) that you achieve an illusion (which is still very much an illusion) of say, yourself being touched when another person is.

I completely disagree with the idea that this kind of imitation or empathy (lets call it neuonal empathy) dissolves a distinction between conciousnesses. As Ramachandran correctly states, the evolutionary advantages of mirror neurons are many. I completely agree with his arguments about their potential involvement in human evolution (http://williamlspencer.com/mirrorneurons.pdf). They assist in learning from others. Philosophically, does that not involve a transfer of an idea from on distinct entity to another? If there is no barrier between concisenesses then why is the communication limited to this singular motor or sensory program.? My opinion is that mirror neurons are not a direct mediator of concious introspection or empathy. What they do is select programs that best imitate the one observed through sensory input, in the same way that that pre-motor planning areas appear to select motor programs based on the desired result. That is a mechanistic process, the neuronal correlates of which are pretty well established. The programs that they select might certainly allow us to make inferences about others' mental state. I suppose you could view that as an attempt to 'read their mind', to to me it's more of a simulation. Certainly one by a separate entity.

I don't see any actual evidence here for a breakdown of the distinction between consciousnesses. Yes, we are equipped to imitate, and empathise and learn based on that imitation. But precisely how does this involve a dissolution of 'self'?

I think his 'meeting' of science an humanities is crap. What a discussion of a 'oneness' of conciousness does is bring non-scientific ideas into the neuroscience of conciousness. What is the empirical evidence that conciousness is shared in any way? (One could tentatively point to the observer effect as being the only evidence of an external effect of conciousness, but it's highly speculative as to whether it is even that, let alone shared conciousness). Does this idea come about as a result of scientific data? Or an attempt to incorporate 'eastern' philosophies into a theory of conciousness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

“... I also speculated that these neurons can not only help simulate other people's behavior but can be turned "inward"—as it were—to create second-order representations or meta-representations of your own earlier brain processes. This could be the neural basis of introspection, and of the reciprocity of self awareness and other awareness. There is obviously a chicken-or-egg question here as to which evolved first, but... The main point is that the two co-evolved, mutually enriching each other to create the mature representation of self that characterizes modern humans." - V.S Ramachandran

To take it another step you can draw correlations with 'noosphere' theories:

In 1923, C. Lloyd Morgan took this work further, elaborating on an 'emergent evolution' which could explain increasing complexity (including the evolution of mind).
Morgan found many of the most interesting changes in living things have been largely discontinuous with past evolution, and therefore did not necessarily take place through a gradual process of natural selection. Rather, evolution experiences jumps in complexity (such as the emergence of a self-reflective universe, or noosphere).
Finally, the complexification of human cultures, particularly language, facilitated a quickening of evolution in which cultural evolution occurs more rapidly than biological evolution.
Recent understanding of human ecosystems and of human impact on the biosphere have led to a link between the notion of sustainability with the "co-evolution" [Norgaard, 1994] and harmonization of cultural and biological evolution.

Thoughts?

Ramachandran's idea about mirror neurons being involved in introspection about previous movements is a reasonable one. It would be pretty easy to test I imagine. Not sure if anyone has done it.

Noosphere. wat. There's a massive leap in logic not supported by evidence. Belongs firmly in the realm of philosophy and thought experiment at the moment.



Actually if anyone here has a reasonable education level in quantum physics, particularly the observer effect, I have questions.

That reminds me of someone here, a few years ago, that thought a representation of string theory in the smoking of dmt, primarily on the basis that both are weird.

Aciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

I wonder if you could even call it an organism. How about entity?

Organism does seem a stretch. Entity on the other hand seems way more appropriate, but kinda of vacuous in that it could mean too many things, I reckon. Something that suggests a deeper interconnectedness than common western sense+vocabulary suggests, but doesn't undermine the modes of 'physical' demarcation.

Jungian Collective Unconscious?

Sounds like a poor rehash of David Bohm's "Thought as a System" tbh.

Man's achievement is to have created a world of the mind, of the intellect and imagination, which is as real in its way as any actual country on the map. Sir Karl Popper, in one of his most important papers, calls it "the third world," or World Three. The first world is the objective world of things. The second world is my inner subjective world. But, says Popper, there is a third world, the world of objective contents of thoughts... Teilhard de Chardin called this "third world" the noösphere-the world of mind.

New Pathways in Psychology - Colin Wilson

@ Griggle Maybe if we were talking about Eckart Tolle or someone like that I'd agree ^^

The whole quantum mysticism thing has been around for 100 years or something, is that a reason to discount new information surrounding it?

Entity has a vague philosophical bent to it. Words are just indicators anyway, everyone has a subjective lean on any term used.
Feel free to insert entity if it helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOSSARIANISSANE

A stretch? More than a stretch. I fail to see how the existence and evolution of mirror neurons relate to a 'oneness' of conciousness. The very idea of mirror neurons is that they imitate or empathise (not that the mirror neurons themselves have that property, they are linked to motor and sensory systems in such a way that they can select a 'motor program' that best imitates what the other person is doing. It is only by deliberate manipulation of sensory processes (i.e. direct stimulation of sensory pathways) that you achieve an illusion (which is still very much an illusion) of say, yourself being touched when another person is.

I completely disagree with the idea that this kind of imitation or empathy (lets call it neuonal empathy) dissolves a distinction between conciousnesses. As Ramachandran correctly states, the evolutionary advantages of mirror neurons are many. I completely agree with his arguments about their potential involvement in human evolution (http://williamlspencer.com/mirrorneurons.pdf). They assist in learning from others. Philosophically, does that not involve a transfer of an idea from on distinct entity to another? If there is no barrier between concisenesses then why is the communication limited to this singular motor or sensory program.? My opinion is that mirror neurons are not a direct mediator of concious introspection or empathy. What they do is select programs that best imitate the one observed through sensory input, in the same way that that pre-motor planning areas appear to select motor programs based on the desired result. That is a mechanistic process, the neuronal correlates of which are pretty well established. The programs that they select might certainly allow us to make inferences about others' mental state. I suppose you could view that as an attempt to 'read their mind', to to me it's more of a simulation. Certainly one by a separate entity.

I don't see any actual evidence here for a breakdown of the distinction between consciousnesses. Yes, we are equipped to imitate, and empathise and learn based on that imitation. But precisely how does this involve a dissolution of 'self'?

I think his 'meeting' of science an humanities is crap. What a discussion of a 'oneness' of conciousness does is bring non-scientific ideas into the neuroscience of conciousness. What is the empirical evidence that conciousness is shared in any way? (One could tentatively point to the observer effect as being the only evidence of an external effect of conciousness, but it's highly speculative as to whether it is even that, let alone shared conciousness). Does this idea come about as a result of scientific data? Or an attempt to incorporate 'eastern' philosophies into a theory of conciousness?

If this 'oneness' view stems from fundamental neuroscience what reason is there to exclude it from such a discussion?
Apart from ingrained habitual thinking..

He is suggesting that the fact mirror neurons communicate with each other from person to person dissolves the separation between individuals; a web of inter connected neurons communicating from person to person.

He states that this is a scientific meeting point where typically 'eastern' theories can be discussed in conjunction with modern neuroscience. That's the whole point, it's not one or the other and that mechanistic dualism Descartes instilled in society is not accurate.

There's whole chains of neurons around this room talking to each other, and there is no real distinctiveness from your consciousness to his consciousness, and this is not mumo jumbo philosophy, it emerges from a basic understanding of neuroscience

I'm not saying this is definitive evidence, it's merely a gateway for discussion.
The consensus isn't out and there's debate as to whether mirror neurons even exist but to dismiss the implications would be beyond ignorance.

Quote:

Belongs firmly in the realm of philosophy and thought experiment at the moment.

Actually if anyone here has a reasonable education level in quantum physics, particularly the observer effect, I have questions.

Denying the role of philosophy in interpreting quantum physics is a bit backward isn't it?

I don't understand it by any means (from what I've read nobody does) but the mathematical conclusions reached have no impact on reality without a philosophical element being incorporated into the interpretation.

Understanding of mind is fundamental to the scientific conclusions drawn from any empirical evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

Jungian Collective Unconscious?

Kinda fits in a way...but then collective unconscious is distinctively unconscious and primordial, which seems to conflict somewhat with the ideas of this dude.

I'm thinking something more along the lines of "network". It's a bit ghey though, and doesn't quite capture the 'no-self' angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Entity has a vague philosophical bent to it. Words are just indicators anyway, everyone has a subjective lean on any term used.
Feel free to insert entity if it helps.

I reckon it's fairly important. It's the widespread and powerful rhetoric of 'self' that has run rampant over the past however many years that has made us think in such concrete, particularised ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funkedub

Man's achievement is to have created a world of the mind, of the intellect and imagination, which is as real in its way as any actual country on the map. Sir Karl Popper, in one of his most important papers, calls it "the third world," or World Three. The first world is the objective world of things. The second world is my inner subjective world. But, says Popper, there is a third world, the world of objective contents of thoughts... Teilhard de Chardin called this "third world" the noösphere-the world of mind.

New Pathways in Psychology - Colin Wilson

I reckon this cultural/biological change being referred to could be better summarised by saying "language has become a lot more complex".

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

Jungian Collective Unconscious?

Jungist Massive

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

If this 'oneness' view stems from fundamental neuroscience what reason is there to exclude it from such a discussion?
Apart from ingrained habitual thinking..

He is suggesting that the fact mirror neurons communicate with each other from person to person dissolves the separation between individuals; a web of inter connected neurons communicating from person to person.

He states that this is a scientific meeting point where typically 'eastern' theories can be discussed in conjunction with modern neuroscience. That's the whole point, it's not one or the other and that mechanistic dualism Descartes instilled in society is not accurate.

There's whole chains of neurons around this room talking to each other, and there is no real distinctiveness from your consciousness to his consciousness, and this is not mumo jumbo philosophy, it emerges from a basic understanding of neuroscience

I'm not saying this is definitive evidence, it's merely a gateway for discussion.
The consensus isn't out and there's debate as to whether mirror neurons even exist but to dismiss the implications would be beyond ignorance.

The 'oneness' view doesn't come about as a result of fundamental neuroscience though. It comes about as a result of an attempt to incorporate an 'eastern cultural view' (for lack of a better term) into neuroscience. It's a leap in logic that purports to be supported by empirical evidence when in fact it is not.

Mirror neurons DON'T communicate in any way between people. They are involved in observation, not communication. They are involved in recognition of novel (or not) patterns of behaviour and a virtual simulation of that behaviour (i.e. selection of appropriate motor programs to imitate the behaviour). That entire process is contained wholly within the observer's brain, there is no communication beyond the initial unidirectional sensory observation. Ramachandran's proposition that mirror neurons are somehow talking to each other is a ridiculous notion. It's not a matter of communication between consciousnesses, at least in any way a conciousness as an entity is defined in neuroscience. Frankly I don't think he meant it in quite the manner it comes through in the talk, it certainly does not emerge from a 'basic understanding of neuroscience'.

I'm fine with him and others attempting to investigate, scientifically, whether ideas that emerge from 'eastern philosophy' have any relevance to neuroscience. What I resent is when people take experimental evidence and established concepts, and make far-fetched conclusions that require multiple leaps in logic, then pass those off as direct implications of the evidence. In this mirror neuron example, he's taken the very well supported idea that mirror neurons are involved in learning (and probably cultural evolution), then taken it as evidence for a dissolution of the barriers between conciousnesses. That's a massive leap not supported by the evidence about the function of mirror neurons.

If you're going to discuss this conclusion as being scientific fact, it very much is one or the other. It is either supported by current evidence or it is not. By all means, make a prediction, come up with a theory and work out a way of testing it. Discuss it all you like, but don't say 'it emerges from a basic understanding of the neuroscience' when it most certainly does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Denying the role of philosophy in interpreting quantum physics is a bit backward isn't it?

I don't understand it by any means (from what I've read nobody does) but the mathematical conclusions reached have no impact on reality without a philosophical element being incorporated into the interpretation.

I'm not denying anything about the role of philosophy in interpreting quantum physics. I think this noosphere is a crock of shit, like many other theories of collective conciousness. The problem with using the more esoteric philosophical interpretations of quantum physics is that people apply them to a different context, outside of anything remotely resembling the observations that equations actually attempt to explain. So in my view, certain aspects of quantum mechanics may provide a possible framework for these more weird theories to operate in, but it is no more evidence for them than bio-flux equations are evidence for enzymatic activity in grasses. So it's all very well to use a philosophical element to explain the behaviour observed at the quantum level, but I don't think it's valid to use that behaviour as evidence of the validity of that particular philosophical element in all situations. Especially when the exact mechanisms of such behaviour don't really translate perfectly in the philosophical metaphor.

Anyway, that rant is not really related to what I was saying. I can deny this noosphere shit, because there is no real evidence for it, while still accepting a majority of the philosophical issues that come with quantum physics. It's not mutually exclusive. I certainly don't deny an entire field by calling out specific theories as claptrap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Understanding of mind is fundamental to the scientific conclusions drawn from any empirical evidence.

In terms of understanding the psychology of bias and heuristics that we use in making conclusions and determinations based on what is presented to us? Orrrr? Of course we need to bring some understanding of a method of thinking in order to draw conclusions (i.e. scientific method), it doesn't mean we need to waltz down crackpot avenue with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YossarianIsSane

I'm fine with him and others attempting to investigate, scientifically, whether ideas that emerge from 'eastern philosophy' have any relevance to neuroscience.
.

Not sure if I am.

I don't think much of Eastern philosophy has anything to do with this stuff, really.
Nagarjuna and some other of the East's philosophically stronger proponents would roll over in their grave if they thought the key to undermining the west's preoccupation with a static conception of self was best formulated in scientific realist terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Not sure if I am.

I don't think much of Eastern philosophy has anything to do with this stuff, really.
Nagarjuna and some other of the East's philosophically stronger proponents would roll over in their grave if they thought the key to undermining the west's preoccupation with a static conception of self was best formulated in scientific realist terms.

Fair enough, I am not really well versed in anything that one could term 'eastern philosophy'. I use the term more because Ramachandran does. And I agree, it should not be coached in scientific terms if there is no scientific basis to it. Certainly, as a scientist, I have an ingrained bias to look at things in a very realist manner. But I think that provides the best basis for me to look at data and draw sensible, testable conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningWithScissors

fuck is that?

Real response later when thinking doesn't hurt.

Isn't this sort of what Kalmatica was getting at?

the issue I have with him sciencizing it is it's not verifiable by scientific method, so what's the point?
Leave it as philosophy.

This is just a theory and its nothing new. TV is collective consciousnes. Akashic record has been or Matrix has been know for 1000's of years. Like all theories ie string theory, quantum mechanics and relativity, it has not been proven yet.

Like Tolsoy said, I am wise enough to know that I know nothing.

Scientific theories like quantum mechanics and relativity - even ones like Newtonian mechanics - are not considered "proven", however repeated results of experimentation bear them out. The theories fit what we know of the world today so we use them, because they work as models of our world, repeatedly and reliably. Even if someone came along and turned scientific thought on its head and found out Einstein was wrong, it wouldn't mean that all those measurements taken previously were also wrong. It would just mean the theory had to be extended to include the new evidence, in the same way F=ma had to be extended to include the concept of relativistic mass.
The worth of a scientific theory is in how well you can measure it.

"Theories" like the Akashic records or the collective unconscious are not the same at all. They can't be validated with an experiment. They can't be measured and they can't be used to predict system behaviour, not even using mathematical modelling. They are not "like" quantum mechanics or relativity at all.

You cant measure theories you can only speculate. You said it yourself that it has not been proven. You know how it is dog only wags its tail when you want it to. Now that has been proven. Based on that nothing in this universe happens without our mind or consciousness.

I am not disproving Einstein, I am just saying that he made it all up and we bought it until we evolve our consciousness.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...8IMZDce43KzS9w

You either a) didn't unhderstand one word of what I wrote, or b) have no idea what you're talking about - I'm leaning towards both.

Either way, this isn't a case of opinion or things being proven or not proven or speculating or what - you are just, plain, wrong.

People CAN and DO measure theories. This is part of what is known as the scientific method. You're saying however that the scientific method doesn't exist/work, it's just "speculation", is that correct? What is it about the scientific method, specifically, that is flawed, then?

As for Einstein, have you actually read about any of his work? If so, what, may I ask? What is your evidence that he "made it all up"? What bits in fact, did he make up?

You picked out relativitiy in an earlier post, so why don't you describe to me exactly where Einstein's theory of relativity falls down? You seem to be pronouncing its failure fairly summarily, so you should be able to do that, right? You're the one telling us Einstein was wrong, so please, do elucidate and tell us where he went wrong.

In other words, put your money where your mouth is, and back your words up with some real data. Otherwise you're just talking shit.

Actually, to be honest, you don't really have to answer, I already know you're talking shit.

Don't bother Becy.

It's like trying to play chess with a pigeon - you can be the best chess player in the world, but the pigeon is only going to knock over the pieces, shit on the board and then strut off like it won.

hahaha you're right. I thought later that it was starting to remind me of that time I had an "argument" with a bot on msn.


[EDIT] I love how he hastily assures us that he's not actually disproving Einstein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

the issue I have with him sciencizing it is it's not verifiable by scientific method, so what's the point?
Leave it as philosophy.

The two can't be thought of as distinct disciplines when one is playing an intrinsic role in the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Becy

Scientific theories like quantum mechanics and relativity - even ones like Newtonian mechanics - are not considered "proven", however repeated results of experimentation bear them out.
The theories fit what we know of the world today so we use them, because they work as models of our world, repeatedly and reliably.

One look at the number of interpretations of quantum mechanics says otherwise doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

The two can't be thought of as distinct disciplines when one is playing an intrinsic role in the other.

Yes, actually, the two can be thought of as distinct disciplines, however it doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

One look at the number of interpretations of quantum mechanics says otherwise doesn't it?

No, it doesn't "say otherwise".


Read this
and note the following: "Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations."
You can interpret whatever you like to its meaning but the theory still holds.
Which is what I said previously - that repeated results of experimentation bears the theory out.

discourse and science are two different but equally valid ways of knowing the world

but I say to anyone who misunderstands the post-Kantian position of subject relations:

jump in front of a bus and prove to me it's nothing but a sensual ephemera

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

You either a) didn't unhderstand one word of what I wrote, or b) have no idea what you're talking about - I'm leaning towards both.

Either way, this isn't a case of opinion or things being proven or not proven or speculating or what - you are just, plain, wrong.

People CAN and DO measure theories. This is part of what is known as the scientific method. You're saying however that the scientific method doesn't exist/work, it's just "speculation", is that correct? What is it about the scientific method, specifically, that is flawed, then?

As for Einstein, have you actually read about any of his work? If so, what, may I ask? What is your evidence that he "made it all up"? What bits in fact, did he make up?

You picked out relativitiy in an earlier post, so why don't you describe to me exactly where Einstein's theory of relativity falls down? You seem to be pronouncing its failure fairly summarily, so you should be able to do that, right? You're the one telling us Einstein was wrong, so please, do elucidate and tell us where he went wrong.

In other words, put your money where your mouth is, and back your words up with some real data. Otherwise you're just talking shit.

Actually, to be honest, you don't really have to answer, I already know you're talking shit.

No allow me to try and explain my view, and you dont have to agree. However you being all defensive says alot about how sure you are in what you are saying.

Theory of relativity is the theory of very very large and Quantum mechanics is a theory of very very small. In the old days people would say "as above, so bellow". This describes these two theories to be coexistant and suportive of each other.

The reason why you think that you can prove them is because you have set up an experiment so that you see what you have set out to discover.

yes I read alot of stuff and Einstein himself has said that everything he discovered, " he discovered within". Meaning he first came to these conclusions in his mind. He did not spot these "forces" in nature in the way that Newton did when an apple fell on his head.

I never said Einstein was wrong I am just saying that he has scratched a surface of a limitles ocean of ideas. I also think that his theories will be unified soon and become one and the same. On this you can quote me.

You seem to be a proponent of scientific fundamentalism. In your view things are very dogmatic and you cant except the uncertainty of "not knowing". What I am saying to you is you really dont know anything and are dumb just like the rest of us.

So nobody has proven Einsteins theories as you said however you know that he is right? Please explain?

I'm not going to rewrite the same words and repeat myself. You didn't get it before. You aren't going to suddenly get it now.

And if you don't understand the fundamental basics about performing experiments, then, to be blunt, you shouldn't be arguing about it on the internet.

Yes I know. Shock horror. How dreadfully dismissive of me. But ffs, come on. This is a joke. You've got no evidence, no real theories, nothing but a lot of waffle.

I win.

Haha. Yes you certainly scattered the pieces and shat on the board.

How fucking prescient was that post!

Quiter.

I rest my case.

Ok here is the question for you to ponder on regarding relativity. Is truth singular or can it have two sides?

What is true to you might not be true to me. For example. I am hunting you down through the forest with a spear and I also have a sharp sword. You on the other hand are hurt and have no weapons. The truth to me is I am a hunter and a predator, the truth to you is I am a pray and have to run to stay alive. Truth is not singular but always dual.

Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Ok here is the question for you to ponder on regarding relativity. Is truth singular or can it have two sides?

What is true to you might not be true to me. For example. I am hunting you down through the forest with a spear and I also have a sharp sword. You on the other hand are hurt and have no weapons. The truth to me is I am a hunter and a predator, the truth to you is I am a pray and have to run to stay alive. Truth is not singular but always dual.

Peace

You're not related to the Milats are you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

So nobody has proven Einsteins theories as you said however you know that he is right? Please explain?

Daniel Dennett is a fairly uncontroversial example of where science and philosophy meet, I think.

He is doing a free lecture next week-

When:
Thursday, 12 April 2012 | 6.30pm to 7.30pm

Where:
Public Lecture Theatre
Ground Floor, Old Arts Building
The University of Melbourne
PARKVILLE VIC 3010

~

Incorporating findings in brain imaging (the famous trolly car experiment etc) to consider how moral judgements are made and what that could mean in a normative context is one thing, speculating as to the nature of reality as based on scientific experiments that investigate the fabric of the universe is another.
The more philosophers that leave the metaphysical stuff behind, the tighter the relationship becomes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelFucker

Quiter.

Ffs.

Learn to fucking spell.

I enjoyed "as above, so bellow"

I felt like bellowing reading that crap too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Ok here is the question for you to ponder on regarding relativity. Is truth singular or can it have two sides?

What is true to you might not be true to me. For example. I am hunting you down through the forest with a spear and I also have a sharp sword. You on the other hand are hurt and have no weapons. The truth to me is I am a hunter and a predator, the truth to you is I am a pray and have to run to stay alive. Truth is not singular but always dual.

Peace

What noise to pigeons make?

It's kinda like a 'coo, coo, truth is always dual,coo'

Something like that, anyway.

Quote:

Truth is not singular but always dual.

Stop pretending you understand special relativity.

The truth is entirely singular to any and all observations relative to time and space.



If two particles both have a velocity >.9c and they collide, what is the impact speed relative to either particle?

I am not pretending anything, I told you what I think and I gave you a Milat concept.

Do you think that right now truth is still singular between you an me? Cant you see that your truth and my truth are different as we are having this conversation? The only difference is that I am willing to come to the agreement that it may be all part of the same. Just polar opposites of the same sphere. You are stuck to dogma and dont want to see it.

Relative speed would be double to either particle, but there are 2 particles.

Ok now how about if I sent you to the woods of Siberia with nothing but a hachet how long before you can send me an email?

So just to confirm your answer, you're saying 'relative speed' would be at least 1.8c for each particle?