Conspiracy theories, scientific issues, life, the universe, and everything

But that isn't red. It's the expansion of a machine based on input of a specific frequency of light.


Think of red. That's red.

Necratoid said:

If I wanted to claim it could work on this Earth... I would gibber on and on...

Click to expand...

Yes, I can tell!

Necratoid said:

...about exotic properties of super heavy elements and their constant decay and reformation into different super heavy elements within a mostly closed system. Possibly about super heavy elements and massive amounts of random exotic radiation types and crystaline structures giving a false readings where you mentioned them.

Click to expand...

Yes... random radiation types would produce a non-random pattern! Way to go!

Necratoid said:

That or radiation based gods altering the results just to screw with you...

Click to expand...

Now THAT is actually logically possible! Gotta hate them gods that like to screw with you...LOL

Necratoid said:

Also, just to spite you. I can make red detectable by purely mechanical means. 'Red' is just a certain spectrum of frequencies the electromagnetic spetrum. All you would need to do is make a material that expands when exposed to the electromagnetic waves catagorised under 'red'. Take that material and stick it inside a pressure sensor.

Click to expand...

ROFL!!!!!!!! Yes... I can tell it is just to spite me (you switched sides in order to do so...using a rational, scientific approach). No worries. Humor aside... I honestly don't think you grasped my point.

Yes, I know that you can make red "detectable" by purely mechanical means. Infrared sensors do it all the time with infrared light. If it can be done with one frequency it can be (and is) done with another. However, (and I sincerely hope you understand this,) while machinery can be made (by something that is sentient) to respond to red, it cannot have the experience of red for two reasons:

1. There is nothing fundamental about the frequency of red nor the electrical impulses that result from the red frequencies (whether in the brain or the machine) that equates to the thought (concept) of red. This is because the arrangement of atoms and energy in the brain (or machine) have no properties in common with the experience (and resulting concept) of red. One is completely objective, the other completely subjective in nature. As Wolfensoul9 says, think of red. That is red! A series of cause and effect cannot define red because cause and effect are completely devoid of meaning (without a subjective component).
2. In order to have the experience of red, a subjective component must exist (the "mind"... and whatever that consists of) AND something must bridge the gap between the physical cause (objective component) and that subjective component, resulting in the concept. Sentience (the "spark" of life... whatever) provides that bridge. Science currently has no way to define that "spark" because it only deals with reality using objective terms. (And weren't you the one that was opposing science to begin with? I am saying that I half agree with you!)

primem0ver said:

ROFL!!!!!!!! Yes... I can tell it is just to spite me (you switched sides in order to do so...using a rational, scientific approach). No worries. Humor aside... I honestly don't think you grasped my point.

Yes, I know that you can make red "detectable" by purely mechanical means. Infrared sensors do it all the time with infrared light. If it can be done with one frequency it can be (and is) done with another. However, (and I sincerely hope you understand this,) while machinery can be made (by something that is sentient) to respond to red, it cannot have the experience of red for two reasons:

1. There is nothing fundamental about the frequency of red nor the electrical impulses that result from the red frequencies (whether in the brain or the machine) that equates to the thought (concept) of red. This is because the arrangement of atoms and energy in the brain (or machine) have no properties in common with the experience (and resulting concept) of red. One is completely objective, the other completely subjective in nature. As Wolfensoul9 says, think of red. That is red! A series of cause and effect cannot define red because cause and effect are completely devoid of meaning (without a subjective component).
2. In order to have the experience of red, a subjective component must exist (the "mind"... and whatever that consists of) AND something must bridge the gap between the physical cause (objective component) and that subjective component, resulting in the concept. Sentience (the "spark" of life... whatever) provides that bridge. Science currently has no way to define that "spark" because it only deals with reality using objective terms. (And weren't you the one that was opposing science to begin with? I am saying that I half agree with you!)

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is (IMO) a null argument. How something is perceived ('feels') is necessarily qualifiable only within the confines of that consciousness. 'Red' may feel totally different to you than it does to me. That doesn't make one of us any more or less sentient than the other. You cannot appreciate the beauty of 'grataph' (which is an artistic expression of olfactory communication chemicals amongst a sub-species that inhabits part of the Lesser Magellanic cloud) - dopes that make you non-sentient? Would they be valid regarding you as such for that reason? Something is 'subjective' if it arises internally to the information processing - machine-based information processing can also have 'subjective' elements - IMO it's just pattern matching and emergent behavior in a complex system.

@Thunderbrd

I haven't forgotten about your request. I will address it when I have time to read your links.

Keep in mind though... while I am a "scientist", I also know that science (in practice) is partially flawed. I agree with Necratoid's criticism of scientists who go on rant's to criticize religious belief, particularly because their own belief system is fundamentally flawed. But I am equally annoyed by religions and religious fanatics who denounce science based on equally flawed grounds. I would ask them... so your god wants you to remain ignorant about the world you live in? (As a teacher I had many students who used their god as an excuse not to learn).

In my opinion, "true" science and "spiritual" truth do not contradict one another. They are opposite sides of the same epistemological coin.

Koshling said:

How something is perceived ('feels') is necessarily qualifiable only within the confines of that consciousness. 'Red' may feel totally different to you than it does to me. That doesn't make one of us any more or less sentient than the other. You cannot appreciate the beauty of 'grataph' (which is an artistic expression of olfactory communication chemicals amongst a sub-species that inhabits part of the Lesser Magellanic cloud) - dopes that make you non-sentient? Would they be valid regarding you as such for that reason?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Just because a person (or a member of that particular race) is color blind doesn't make them less sentient. It simply means that he/she/it is "wired" differently. The objective is just as much a part of experience as the subjective.

Koshling said:

Something is 'subjective' if it arises internally to the information processing - machine-based information processing can also have 'subjective' elements - IMO it's just pattern matching and emergent behavior in a complex system.

Click to expand...

And yet patterns are non-existent to a machine. A machine only appears to respond to a pattern because of a prearranged sequence of cause and effect... its programming. Think of the game "Mouse Trap." A computer is just a super complex Rube-Goldberg machine. All that logic must be put in place by something that is sentient. A machine (composed of ordinary matter) is incapable of thinking about/comprehending and reflecting on those patterns even though its programming elicits a response to them.

Ultimately my point is that intelligence (or whatever it is made of) is just as fundamental to reality as what we call matter (or whatever it is made of). It is not programmed. IMO it innately "aggregates" and somehow gives rise to sentience. Matter exists in a state of entropy. Intelligence has the opposite affect. IMO, experience (and life) exists where these "two" realities intersect.

NOTE: I put "two" in quotations because it is still logically valid to consider them one. Baruch Spinoza criticized Descarte's mind body problem because the latter could not explain how the two realities affected one another. He solved this by proposing that "mind" and "body" (subjective and objective and using my terms: matter and intelligence) are opposite sides of the same coin. This is a perfectly reasonable stand to take as long as you account for the subjective side of reality (by believing that matter can have subjective properties). As for me... I am neither a dualist nor a Spinozan.

primem0ver said:

Of course not. Just because a person (or a member of that particular race) is color blind doesn't make them less sentient. It simply means that he/she/it is "wired" differently. The objective is just as much a part of experience as the subjective.



And yet patterns are non-existent to a machine. A machine only appears to respond to a pattern because of a prearranged sequence of cause and effect... its programming. Think of the game "Mouse Trap." A computer is just a super complex Rube-Goldberg machine. All that logic must be put in place by something that is sentient. A machine (composed of ordinary matter) is incapable of thinking about/comprehending and reflecting on those patterns even though its programming elicits a response to them.
.

Click to expand...

Up to here I agree with you. However, I think the same applies to what you refer to as 'sentience'. IMO it is 'just' programming in the sense you define programming. I see no need to invoke a mystical extra property.

Koshling said:

Up to here I agree with you. However, I think the same applies to what you refer to as 'sentience'. IMO it is 'just' programming in the sense you define programming. I see no need to invoke a mystical extra property.

Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the problem. I do comprehend red. I can think about it. Sentience reflects upon the subjective meaning of red, how it makes them feel; the impression the color gives us. I think therefore I am. I am the cause of thought. With me the process of cause and effect is reversed. I make order from disorder (entropy). It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover at some point in the future that the electrical impulses that are associated with thinking happen after the actual thought occurs. In my opinion, this is the way it works. IMO the same applies to all sentient creatures.

And the "extra property" is less mystical than dark matter. Dark matter currently stands as the invention of scientists to explain why galaxies and clusters of galaxies stay together. They have too much "gravity" for normal matter to explain their behavior. Dark energy is even more "mystical."

Someone who is a die hard observer of religion or a pure philosophical idealist could easily (and logically) argue here that dark matter doesn't exist. Galaxies and clusters of galaxies stay together because that is the order that a god (or some idealistic scenario) imposes on them. That gravity is simply the result of the will the gods or singular god or whatever...

But IMO, dark matter is the perfect solution to the mind-body problem. I actually believe in "dark" matter because of this. Personally, I think its ironic that some scientists dismiss what cannot be seen or sensed and still believe in dark matter and energy (in spite of our detecting "it" which in reality only amounts to detecting anomalous movement of matter). Here is why:

Science defines four fundamental forces that are known to exist: gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. Dark matter (according to the current theory) only has access to one of these: gravity. We cannot see dark matter because it has no properties that interact with the electromagnetic force (which is how we see things). Seeing dark matter is literally impossible (and herein lies part of the irony). So are we dealing with a "substance" that only has one interaction?

I don't believe so. It is not logical to assume that this has to be. There are other forces that exist in reality. The existence of subjectivity demands it. According to physicists, only 4% of matter and energy can be interacted with and therefore be detected. The rest is "dark." That means that 96% of existence is unaccounted for. 96% of existence cannot be observed.

But that number assumes that all existence must interact with gravity which doesn't necessarily follow. I am willing to bet that there are "materials" or "pieces of existence" out there that do not interact interact with any of the four fundamental forces. Perhaps that 100% in reality in turn makes only a total of a "new" 4% of reality when all forces that truly exist are "discovered." Meaning that if this hypothetical percent turns out to be correct, normal matter (including energy) as we define it only makes up 0.16% of existence.

I also believe that it is possible to have materials which only interact with the weak or strong forces. But such material would be nearly impossible to detect because it would only interact with matter over extremely small distances (in the micro and nanometers or less range).

This is why I am not a Spinozan or a dualist. IMO, our current understanding of forces and "dark" concepts provide a much better model. Dark matter and other currently hypothetical materials that only have one force in common with what we call matter could bridge the "Spinozan gap" between "mind" and "body" because these materials are a link between forces we can interact with and forces that we cannot directly interact with.

Moderator Action: Attention, this was cut out from another thread in the Caveman2Cosmos forum.

Also... anyone know much about Hollow Earth theory?

*smacks head* not the "hollow earth theory". You need to lay off the Coast to Coast AM.

What's next the hollow moon?

Moderator Action: *snip*

And yeah, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist - have been for a long time. In this case, theory is about as far as it goes.

Hydromancerx said:

*smacks head* not the "hollow earth theory". You need to lay off the Coast to Coast AM.

What's next the hollow moon?

Click to expand...

Another serious burst of laughter!

Shouldn't this be in a C2C Off topic thread instead? And besides, I didn't think it was too off topic anyhow. As a team we need to be aware of each other's paradigms in various areas because its necessary for us to harmonize our views so that we can have future scenarios grounded in something that is acceptable to all of us, or at least know what should be part of a modmod vs portions of the main thread.

Open dialogue philosophy debates are not against the nature of this game's development and its helpful to see each other's points of views. I thought for a moment we were getting irritated here but I now don't believe any of us are or have been.

And the discussion has been ultimately fun and rewarding imo.

Thunderbrd said:

Shouldn't this be in a C2C Off topic thread instead? And besides, I didn't think it was too off topic anyhow. As a team we need to be aware of each other's paradigms in various areas because its necessary for us to harmonize our views so that we can have future scenarios grounded in something that is acceptable to all of us, or at least know what should be part of a modmod vs portions of the main thread.

Open dialogue philosophy debates are not against the nature of this game's development and its helpful to see each other's points of views. I thought for a moment we were getting irritated here but I now don't believe any of us are or have been.

And the discussion has been ultimately fun and rewarding imo.

Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I asked "The J" if we could continue the discussion somewhere else. This was the option he offered me. I took it. Although I agree it would be nice to have an off topic forum in the C2C project, I am kind of glad he moved it here... it will attract more input from people other than C2C enthusiasts. I generally enjoy these types of discussions. I find them both enlightening and fun as long as people don't get too personal with gibes.

Meanwhile, I will post a comment/thread in the C2C forum that will redirect people who were interested in the conversation to this thread.

What time warp brought these people to our sector of the galaxy!

Birdjaguar said:

What time warp brought these people to our sector of the galaxy!

Click to expand...

ROFL

We hail from the dark matter side of existence!

who are you people and what are you talking about?

Good grief! Look what's dropped in!

They're talking stuff, here, Mr H.


Here's my scenario: The sun suddenly turns black. Nothing else. Just stops emitting radiation in our direction - I presume it wouldn't affect the gravitation, but who knows? What happens here on earth? And how long does it take? I know it would take - what? - about 8 minutes for us to realize.

I foresee dire consequences. To put it mildly.

But all's not lost. The earth core still produces some heat. And there's technology to save the very lucky very few.

What do you think, you life_the_universe_and_everything guys?


And why, btw, have you dropped in?

(I was going on a Civbbatical, but this looks interesting.)

Stock in solar panel producing companies plummets.
We'd have to switch to artificial light grown food, which would suck big time, and transitioning will take to long. I think starvation would happen. This would be a good moment for all of humanity to turn vegetarian.
Plants die, that is bad, since CO2 levels will rise dramatically and 02 will get rare.

O2 will all be frozen, in about what time scale? A year, or two?

Your only chance is a nuclear reactor. Plenty of those around in certain parts of the world. Then, seizing enough food and defending it from hungry people shivering in the winter* - doable. And hope you can keep going till you can sort out more fuel for the reactor. Then sort out how to grow food under lighting.

How many survive the first year?

*How far and how fast does the temperature drop?

Not frozen, used up. Chemistry 101 Every time we burn stuff (coal, food in our bodies), 02 is transformed into CO2 (and some other stuff). Plants, under the influence of sunlight, perform a reverse process, transforming CO2 into O2 and burnable stuff. Remove sunlight, you remove the CO2->O2 part of the circle and we'll be stuck with CO2. I'm not sure about the time scale though.