Well if I let knowing what people were going to do stop me from giving them a chance to do otherwise I might as well go on a killing spree.

But so as to not focus on me quite so much: why should I be nice when I know nice isn't going to get the message across?

If you say so. Just to make sure it's clear though: your spiritual interpretations of these things are not science and are not eligible as standard explanations of the universe without evidence, but that does not mean they have been ruled out.

Nonetheless I've still got a list of questions you seem unable to answer or even acknowledge:

Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

You didn't "have to explain it".
So you are posing questions that you recognize have obvious answers?

Do I really need to be put to the test at this point?

Two meanings of sound:
Vibrations in the air: yes the tree does that.
The mental construction or those vibrations into a characteristic sensation: obviously not.

Surprisingly few people ever think to handle multiple meanings of words...

Actually cats "play with their food" because it takes the mouse a lot of energy to try to escape while it takes the cat almost no energy to sit there waiting and then just stop the mouse. There's at least one level of I-know-you-know going on so the cat also looks disinterested so the mouse can't tell if it's paying attention or not, which again makes it use up energy faster trying to escape.

This is handy because a mouse so thoroughly exhausted you'd think it was going to have a heart attack doesn't exactly have the energy to try and bite and claw at the cat as it goes to eat it.

We can see the same thing on a larger scale with some "primitive" human groups than hunt animals by just casually following them to catch them. Most animals have poor endurance, especially at the peak temperatures of the day. Humans on the other hand only run into problems of the same severity after more than a day without water.

Australian Aborigines actually use the technique to hunt cats.

No no no. Not expected. Hoped. I'm foolishly optimistic so I always maintain that people may act better than I predict. My predictions aren't wrong often enough that it's even worth acknowledging the exceptions but denying people an opportunity doesn't fit my moral code.

I'm aware of the distinction but even so we're far from equal. Society is built around inequality: you promote the person who is better, you put the best leader in charge, you cooperate with people who are most capable. Our lives aren't so stable that the entirety of your success as a person is up to you but it is still a generally good measure.

You could say that we're born equal but that's an even bigger mistake. The family you're born into has more sway over your potential as a person than anything we've talked about here. Being born rich is almost good enough to buy you tutors who will make sure you don't stay dumb while being born poor often means schooling where everyone proceeds just fast enough that the slowest numb skull will be able to keep up.

And I haven't even touched on how expectations shape a person.

Actually no. I've shown you how to test if that's the case. If you were to strip those molecules out of a rose but people could still smell the rose you would have shot the idea down.

Though I'm interested in how you would describe what else produces the smell for us. Do our spirits cast a magic spell?

Quantum mechanics is a step forward but it doesn't make any sense to say that it's holding you back from so many things.

Yet we still use Newton's formulas to calculate how long it will take an object the reach the ground if tossed from a building top. Can you, in your own words, explain why?
*I predict I am going to have to explain it whether you try or not.

When did I ever say that any part of science says there can't be a spirit? I think it's becoming obvious what you're really opposing here and it's not anything I've said.

I don't have any faith. Show me evidence that these things don't work and I'll drop an explanation in an instant, so long as you've got a more complete one for me to replace it with.

Now go back and read that one more time. I have been asking you to explain what questions are unanswered for two posts now and that is why. This is almost a get of of jail free card offer, you just have to take it.

Yup. I'm getting pretty tired of you doing that.

Tell me what you actually mean then.

Protip: If you can't write your thoughts clearly they aren't really clear.

Life operates on a chemical level. That's the main use of chemistry on our planet.

But I'm fully aware that the chemicals come together in ways that reach into other scales, bother larger and smaller. What I'm asking is for you to say something about how life reaches into the quantum scale, though please keep the context of our prior exchanges in mind if you stop dodging that question.

You're entirely too eager to make me into someone else making different arguments. Who are you really fighting here?


Apparently I'm fully aware of the vantage point that you're coming from. It appears that you are the one who is not aware of the vantage point that I'm coming from.

And here are a few questions you still haven't answered:
Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?


I would appreciate it if you would avoid cutting them out of the quote next time. Navigating back a few pages to copy and paste them isn't hard but it does get a bit tedious when you make me do it over and over like this.

After having established that the other person functions as a "light detector" you have all you need to use it as a tool for gathering evidence of light based phenomena.

We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses.

It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it...

Do you read the profile of everyone in a thread before you open your mouth?

I'm intentionally grating, confusing, and misleading. This topic really points in the direction of why I talk this way but I'll leave that up to you to figure out if you're really smart enough that I shouldn't act like I know more than you.

The thing is that you really don't know. I read a lot about how people think and the processes going on in our heads and that's just really not information most people are familiar with. They usually don't even want to be. It's upsetting to think that you can be reduced to a set of equations (and people aren't usually willing to take the time to understand I'm not saying that,) so I'm fighting a losing battle to begin with.

When I can't get my point across by being nice what's the point?

Read more than one post deep :p

That's lazy thinking. We're clearly different.

And to think that the physical differences don't equate to mechanical differences is obviously just wishful thinking.

BUT the important thing is that the differences are not as great as we picture them to be. Ultimately most racial (and I'm using the term to signify anything that's not middle-class-Caucasian-male here,) thinking is just self-serving.

It's the most visible in people who have leadership and organizational roles as they have to make choices. You have to recognize that the role is all about making sure the group works well together and a narrow band of races will most certainly make that job easier, if only because of the closer cultural views.

It's rampant everywhere though. Just name what groups you think have the most problems with race and what groups don't have problems with it. Your bias will be immediately clear to anyone of another race regardless of where you place them.

The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin.

As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot.

Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards.


Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy.

And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.)

And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them.

Really it would be quite elementary.

That's absolutely correct. Would you please tell me something about what it was you did already?

I'm talking about the way you talk on here.

All I've seen is you preaching on an internet dating sight and not charge for it.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I'll just repeat some questions without your quotes getting in the way:
Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

Appeal to authority fallacy. Stop drumming yourself up if you're not going to demonstrate enlightenment or even tell me what field of science you worked in.

I agree. Why do you refuse to accept that there is any value in studying them?

Or would you like to take back that bit about how you think human traits are so far beyond us that we can't work on them?

You should take your own advice and stop backpedaling into quantum mechanics every time you don't really have anything to say.

Condition: smell of roses.
Method of testing: double blind smelling tests with various ground up materials and extracts.

Possible (probable because people have already done this) conclusion: most of the scent comes from beta-damascenone, beta-damascone, beta-ionone, and rose oxide.
Further test: grind up fresh roses and extract these compounds then test remains. Possibly genetically engineer roses to express different compounds that should have the same structural impact but no aromatic quality.

Now I foresee a little objection here as the chemical that we are smelling is not the same as the sensation but I will direct you to the posts of one Mr Abracadabra in this thread explaining how the lower levels of phenomena explain everything that there is about more complex levels.

Checkmate. (I know you're going to pick your queen and both rooks up off the sideline and place them back on the board but I'm ready to capture them all again.)

It wasn't an insult. I don't know anything about if you're employed, some housewife, or even a child. I'm just saying that women have men to fall back on so they don't need the same pay as someone supporting a family.

Kind of sad that nobody has caught that it's electrons that are the negatively charged particles in an atom. Neutrons stay in the middle with the protons.

But it's so much easier to say that you're just a biased jerk than to actually think about why a proposal has failed. Much easier to say that anyone that does not accept my arguments is only doing so because they subscribe to a false faith.

Nothing make me think that. We're speaking philosophy remember? You said that you thought the problem wasn't even worth working on because we're nowhere near the solution and I said you have to work on something to get anywhere near the solution. Too hard to understand?

Though I still haven't ever heard any mention of what exactly it is that you did. Care to share or do you just say that you used to be a scientist so that you sound more like you know what you're talking about?

Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

How is this releveant to the questions I have raised?

Now you're just repeating yourself.

What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

Macro properties that we are already familiar with.

Yes, I've talked about this before.

You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Ya but the Higgs boson is the one that the standard model relies on.

Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

I don't acknowledge it to people with a poor grasp of what it signifies. This is essentially an expert's detail that holds no meaning at a layman's level and is in fact counterproductive to their comprehension.

If everyone was excited by science and wanted to learn this would be a different story.

As you've said to me: I already know about that.

The issue here is not what you've chosen to say but the reason you've chosen to say it. What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

From what I've seen of how you work it seems that they are just a scarecrow to divert attention from questions you do not want answered.

Typo right? You left out the word don't somewhere in there I think.

It's phrases like this that show your true character. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes it clear what you want.

We have a great deal of understanding of what's going on. Newtonian mechanics explain 99% of the things people will ever come across. To say that we didn't have a clue what was going on even back in his day would have been a bald faced lie.
Now we know 99.9999% of what there is to know about the world in the mechanical sense.

You seem to want to equate things like the knowledge of how many hairs are on a person's head with the comprehension of how hairs grow (inhibitor that is it's own promoter and promoter that inhibits the inhibitor by the way,) but the desire to justify belief trumps honesty I suppose.

Replace both of those with hiding your motives if you value honesty.

I was hoping you'd form an argument against it instead of sinking to the same level but oh well.

Actually you've got the DNA thing wrong, at least in tone. There is exactly one gene that men have that women do not. It's the first step that determines male or female and then every other step in the chain is on the other chromosomes (it's safer out there as you're less likely to degenerate on paired chromosomes.)

Ok, I lied. It's more than one gene but everything else on the Y chromosome is just sperm enhancer stuff and the ability to make sperm doesn't have much to do with your merit in an office, hospital, or making material stuffs.

-

You need to be careful about saying what men and women are better at lest you throw this whole topic off course with nature vs nurture arguments...

*In case you're not familiar: if a girl grew up with the people around her treated the "female role" as the one that should be leaders or have high spacial awareness she might be just as likely to be better at those things. I won't word the other situation though because God forbid we ever put a boy into feminine roles, he'd probably turn out gay.

Better that we let murderers go when we can't prove they did it than that we lock up people we simply suspect are criminals.