Why are you quoting Planck, when you claim to be more of an expert on the topic than he is?
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Why have you reposted this quotation when I addressed and refuted the content of it earlier, and you've failed to make a rebuttal?
Just that panorama, with no one to view it, requires beating most of the monstrous adds against.
I'd call self-aware intelligence a fait-accompli once the universe we see exists for the amount of time involved, and I'd also expect a lot of it. With the distances involved I don't see much interaction with technologically backward doofs like us at this moment -- again, thank Ed. I don't care to speculate on the out-of-context problem we would be presented with given a visit by entities capable of it.
I've recently seen the idea that the abundance of U-235 may be just the final IQ test. Fail, and in 50 or 100 million years whatever is left tries again, although unfortunately we've pretty well used up the easily available enrygy resources & minerals, especialy metal ores.
I don't attempt to conceptualize any "god".
Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks this way. So, can anyone say strawman?
No, not the top of your head.
It seems more like random brainstem activity to me. The top of your head is more cortex, involved in higher thinking. The kind you are allergic to.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Er, no. That was actually you quoting yourself.
Please show us the other people who think as you do.
I am conscious. This is the source of my objectivity ... hence the ability to observe time and space.
It is the source of your subjectivity, you mean. Use your dictionary.
What, with respect to the alleged words of Max Planck? Trying doing an Internet search.
That was the best laugh I've had all day.
Your claim was:
So, are you now saying that by continuing to accuse you of making this stuff up, you simply mean challenging your Planck quote? Move goalposts much?Iacchus said:
No, the body is subject to the physical reality. The mind is not, otherwise we would not be able to perceive the truths of it.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Your mind is not subject to phyiscal reality? That's astounding! If the oxygen levels in your blood lower, you won't pass out? If your blood sugar drops, you will not become hungry? If your blood pressure drops suddenly, you're in no danger of shock? If someone were to inject you with sodium pentathol, you would remain perfectly adept at handling heavy machinery?
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
Eh? The mind is not subject to physical reality (as if there was any other type) because it couldn't perceive the 'truths' of it (whatever that might mean in Iacchus land) otherwise.
Care to try that again Iacchus, but you know, dumbing it down for us mere mortals so all the words use the meanings we commonly understand rather than the more exhalted one's you have?
Are you saying that these word suggest nothing to you? I'm saying that I've bought into the concept behind the words, as I'm sure any number of other folks have. Otherwise I doubt that it would be so widely quoted.
You are quite simply wrong.
Your claim, as you are blissfully unaware, is against copious evidence collected over more than a century. Start with G.T. Fechner (who, by the way, was attempting to prove the idealist monism correct) and his experiments on visual perception. To his delight, he found that perception is describable by a mathematical relationship (first, the Weber fraction, then Fechner's logarithmic improvement on that) with environmental stimuli.
More than a century of work after that continues to show that our minds, by any definition, are subject to physical reality as it is understood. (once again, the monism is irrelevant to the relationship, in case you try to pull that one again.)
You are quite simply wrong, and ignorant of over 100 year's worth of evidence which goes against your claim.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the "other folks" who pass around this quote interpret it in the same manner in which you do. Given the vastness of the internet, you may find one or two, but frankly I doubt it.