|
|
Post by maya55555 on Aug 22, 2017 19:04:18 GMT
EEH:
Face it you NEVER posted anything of value on this board. THINK for a moment, if you can, dear cockroach, have you ever composed a thread of your own study? Research?
Whatever?
NO!
Until you have, SU.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 22, 2017 19:44:36 GMT
LOFL twice in one thread. Your agenda is showing. Hitler, Cham, storm, and the rest of the ignorant masses still make up the majority, living like sheep. They are in fear of what they cannot control, and close their minds to Math, hoping that some magical power in themselves is a god. They can't even admit to themselves that they have an agenda. I know. I used to be as naive as they are. Most of us go through the early stages of life as dork, trying to fit in with the masses, accepting old wives' tales as facts because we feel safe being in control of the Universe. Yes, they have an agenda, but most of them have such a dread in their souls of not being in control that they can't admit it to themselves. Others are warlocks and witches, thinking their abuse of those who stand with them makes them godlike. No use in sorting out which is which in this existence, because we're limited to perceptions as we can get via the brain, and they themselves prove how feeble that data and input of data is. I'm not saying there is life after death. I'm saying that mathematically, since the meter reader of the brain is separate from the brain, that it can only be annihilated by something else besides the destruction of the brain. A meter reader doesn't disappear just because a gas meter ceases to function, even if he's chained to it. So, only a theist can logically believe in annihilation, since only a super form of supernatural power can dish it out. What we see here is the desire of witches and warlocks to control others, and if they can't, it just burns them up. We continue to get their emotional outbursts of this fear of not controlling you, me, anyone not among their sheep. The fact is that they can't even force annihilation upon their sheep (the dorks who naively believe them), so their psychopathic desire of control is more like a "movie" or "play", where they feel they do have this control. Ironically, they say they laugh at us, but they are really laughing at the fools who look up to them and accept them as gods. Those "fools" I do have pity for, and it's important for you and the rest of us to continue to burst the bubble of the psychopaths with the agendas for the sake of the sheep. Thank you, Eric. You're one of the wiser ones here. I'm glad you're here. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Aug 22, 2017 19:49:07 GMT
EEH:
Face it you NEVER posted anything of value on this board. THINK for a moment, if you can, dear cockroach, have you ever composed a thread of your own study? Research?
Whatever?
NO!
Until you have, SU. You've been lying to this board and the last one for years Molar. You can't say a word about the worthiness about anyone's posting. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Aug 22, 2017 19:49:47 GMT
Hitler, Cham, storm, and the rest of the ignorant masses still make up the majority, living like sheep. They are in fear of what they cannot control, and close their minds to Math, hoping that some magical power in themselves is a god. They can't even admit to themselves that they have an agenda. I know. I used to be as naive as they are. Most of us go through the early stages of life as dork, trying to fit in with the masses, accepting old wives' tales as facts because we feel safe being in control of the Universe. Yes, they have an agenda, but most of them have such a dread in their souls of not being in control that they can't admit it to themselves. Others are warlocks and witches, thinking their abuse of those who stand with them makes them godlike. No use in sorting out which is which in this existence, because we're limited to perceptions as we can get via the brain, and they themselves prove how feeble that data and input of data is. I'm not saying there is life after death. I'm saying that mathematically, since the meter reader of the brain is separate from the brain, that it can only be annihilated by something else besides the destruction of the brain. A meter reader doesn't disappear just because a gas meter ceases to function, even if he's chained to it. So, only a theist can logically believe in annihilation, since only a super form of supernatural power can dish it out. What we see here is the desire of witches and warlocks to control others, and if they can't, it just burns them up. We continue to get their emotional outbursts of this fear of not controlling you, me, anyone not among their sheep. The fact is that they can't even force annihilation upon their sheep (the dorks who naively believe them), so their psychopathic desire of control is more like a "movie" or "play", where they feel they do have this control. Ironically, they say they laugh at us, but they are really laughing at the fools who look up to them and accept them as gods. Those "fools" I do have pity for, and it's important for you and the rest of us to continue to burst the bubble of the psychopaths with the agendas for the sake of the sheep. Thank you, Eric. You're one of the wiser ones here. I'm glad you're here. Yeah, my mind is closed to math. That's it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 23, 2017 4:59:44 GMT
Hitler, Cham, storm, and the rest of the ignorant masses still make up the majority, living like sheep. They are in fear of what they cannot control, and close their minds to Math, hoping that some magical power in themselves is a god. They can't even admit to themselves that they have an agenda. I know. I used to be as naive as they are. Most of us go through the early stages of life as dork, trying to fit in with the masses, accepting old wives' tales as facts because we feel safe being in control of the Universe. Yes, they have an agenda, but most of them have such a dread in their souls of not being in control that they can't admit it to themselves. Others are warlocks and witches, thinking their abuse of those who stand with them makes them godlike. No use in sorting out which is which in this existence, because we're limited to perceptions as we can get via the brain, and they themselves prove how feeble that data and input of data is. I'm not saying there is life after death. I'm saying that mathematically, since the meter reader of the brain is separate from the brain, that it can only be annihilated by something else besides the destruction of the brain. A meter reader doesn't disappear just because a gas meter ceases to function, even if he's chained to it. So, only a theist can logically believe in annihilation, since only a super form of supernatural power can dish it out. What we see here is the desire of witches and warlocks to control others, and if they can't, it just burns them up. We continue to get their emotional outbursts of this fear of not controlling you, me, anyone not among their sheep. The fact is that they can't even force annihilation upon their sheep (the dorks who naively believe them), so their psychopathic desire of control is more like a "movie" or "play", where they feel they do have this control. Ironically, they say they laugh at us, but they are really laughing at the fools who look up to them and accept them as gods. Those "fools" I do have pity for, and it's important for you and the rest of us to continue to burst the bubble of the psychopaths with the agendas for the sake of the sheep. Thank you, Eric. You're one of the wiser ones here. I'm glad you're here. Thanks, drystyx. I've always considered you one of the wiser ones, and I'm glad you're here too.  |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Aug 23, 2017 8:02:00 GMT
To be fair, the "original" from April 1st has a link to another article from November 2016. But since all these articles more or less say the same, and so far have failed to do more than speculate, then maybe, until further notice, we can treat them as April's fools. I missed that, perhaps egg on face. I assumed that it was an April fools joke, but maybe there is some seriousness in it? Why do you think it's a spoof? The authors have written about consciousness for years and they updated their theory in light of some recent work on microtubules www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 23, 2017 8:49:41 GMT
I missed that, perhaps egg on face. I assumed that it was an April fools joke, but maybe there is some seriousness in it? Why do you think it's a spoof? The authors have written about consciousness for years and they updated their theory in light of some recent work on microtubules www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htmThis is actually a good article. It delivers the current state of science matter-of-factly and does not try to conflate quantum vibrations with life after death. And it stresses the dependency on the brain, and mentions possible applications, like treatment of Alzheimer's. This article should not be treated as an April's fool joke; unlike articles who try to use scientific theories as evidence for unscientific hypotheses, like life after death. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Aug 23, 2017 9:52:48 GMT
The agenda of laughing at junk science? How many genders are there? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 23, 2017 11:02:55 GMT
Their theory is still considered fringe nonsense by most people who study how the brain produces consciousness. This new "evidence" is just desperate grasping. Penrose, who has had about as much academic training on consciousness as your plumber, was only motivated to team up with Hameroff because of his goofy ideas on A.I. and Godel's theorem. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Aug 23, 2017 18:10:14 GMT
This is actually a good article. It delivers the current state of science matter-of-factly and does not try to conflate quantum vibrations with life after death. And it stresses the dependency on the brain, and mentions possible applications, like treatment of Alzheimer's. This article should not be treated as an April's fool joke; unlike articles who try to use scientific theories as evidence for unscientific hypotheses, like life after death. I think I misunderstood you, the article that the OP linked did read like a spoof and bears little resemblance to the actual theory |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Aug 23, 2017 18:14:54 GMT
Their theory is still considered fringe nonsense by most people who study how the brain produces consciousness. This new "evidence" is just desperate grasping. Penrose, who has had about as much academic training on consciousness as your plumber, was only motivated to team up with Hameroff because of his goofy ideas on A.I. and Godel's theorem. It's not something I know much, if anything, about. It does seem to be universally laughed at by people who work in the field and the OP is even more of a stretch |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 23, 2017 18:25:32 GMT
I missed that, perhaps egg on face. I assumed that it was an April fools joke, but maybe there is some seriousness in it? Why do you think it's a spoof? The authors have written about consciousness for years and they updated their theory in light of some recent work on microtubules www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htmHonestly I had never heard of them and my suspicions were aroused by the limited content of the OP, when I looked at the source article quoted in the article linked and saw the publication date of 1st of April I got a false positive apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 23, 2017 18:33:42 GMT
Honestly I had never heard of them and my suspicions were aroused by the limited content of the OP, when I looked at the source article quoted in the article linked and saw the publication date of 1st of April I got a false positive apparently. Penrose in particular is extremely famous in relevant fields of academia--physics, mathematics, philosophy, cognitive science, etc. Some of Penrose's early work was done in partnership with Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, Penrose has seemed to lean a bit towards the loopy end as he's gotten older . . . a bit similarly to Ray Kurzweil. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Aug 23, 2017 18:51:12 GMT
Honestly I had never heard of them and my suspicions were aroused by the limited content of the OP, when I looked at the source article quoted in the article linked and saw the publication date of 1st of April I got a false positive apparently. It does sound like a load of old tosh, especially the way it's parsed through the OP. Penrose has written a few pop sci books but I've never heard of the other author. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 23, 2017 19:10:29 GMT
Honestly I had never heard of them and my suspicions were aroused by the limited content of the OP, when I looked at the source article quoted in the article linked and saw the publication date of 1st of April I got a false positive apparently. It does sound like a load of old tosh, especially the way it's parsed through the OP. Penrose has written a few pop sci books but I've never heard of the other author. Hamerof. Which seemed again like a joke name. I might go read it all again though as it seems much more legit than I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 23, 2017 20:13:24 GMT
Hamerof. Which seemed again like a joke name. No, he's real enough, unfortunately, though it isn't exactly spelled that way. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 23, 2017 20:46:52 GMT
There is only one thing you need to point out to debunk this article, there is a supporting link to the original, check the publication date on the original. Fair enough! |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 23, 2017 20:49:02 GMT
There is only one thing you need to point out to debunk this article, there is a supporting link to the original, check the publication date on the original. Fair enough! [/quote] Actually it turned out to be a false positive, this was republished on the 1st, but came from earlier. But with all the fake articles that abound on the 1st I am actually quite surprised any legitimate science is published ever on the same day. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 23, 2017 21:12:37 GMT
Actually it turned out to be a false positive, this was republished on the 1st, but came from earlier. But with all the fake articles that abound on the 1st I am actually quite surprised any legitimate science is published ever on the same day. Either way, THIS is not "science", it's fantasy! |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 23, 2017 21:24:43 GMT
Actually it turned out to be a false positive, this was republished on the 1st, but came from earlier. But with all the fake articles that abound on the 1st I am actually quite surprised any legitimate science is published ever on the same day. Either way, THIS is not "science", it's fantasy! How so? it is getting published in scientific journals, what exactly differentiates science and fantasy in your mind? |
|
