Le Repteux

What I meant is, for a given illusion, one could possibly stop the illusion if he would look at it long enough. It took two weeks for the experiment I was talking about, thats the time it takes for the mind to change its idea of what to expect from reality.

I remember an experiment with lenses that could inverse the left /right vision. At first, the experimenter could not even grasp a glass directly, he had to see his hand move and bring it inch by inch on the other side until he hits the glass, but after having worn them all day long for two weeks, he could drive his bike without falling. He sort of gotten used to an illusion there, no?

Optical illusions come from real objects, it is the interpretation that our brain makes which is false. The brain expects what it is used to, and changes the facts to fit what it expects. It always tries to figure out in advance what is going to happen, and since most of the time things don't change, it expects no change. For the brain, evidence is thus no change. Want some evidence of that Strange?

This is the experiment that I was talking about, tank's strange. So, its not true that everybody do not see what they don't expect when they are already concentrated on something else, but it is true that it takes an important change in our sensations for us to get out of concentration. For instance, if the intruder had yelled or bumped onto people, everybody would have noticed him. Now, when we discuss, we are also concentrated on what we think, and it takes time before we notice a small change in our opponent's opinion. But this is not what Cladking means: he means that it would be impossible for us to even understand what is going on if we did not know it was an experiment. If you are convinced that what you see is usual, and that in fact, it is not, you cannot detect what's wrong with it. Inversely, if you are convinced it is wrong, as for and idea, you cannot detect what's normal in it.

"People can't see what they don't expect" This proposition from Cladking has been experimented by psychologists or neurologist, but I don't remember what it was. Anybody does?

You know what? Its not that bad an analogy, because I know it is probably part of my natural behavior.

You are absolutely right about my thread, I scanned it too and realized that I am mixing reactions to a similar thread on another forum, and reactions of xyzt on another subject here. I have a problem of discrimination I guess, I am getting old. But I am also on the defensive because of the personal attacks I had, and probably partly because I am getting old too. I repeat: resisting to change is the correct attitude, otherwise, my theory says that things would not even exist. It is the way people use to convince others that is not correct: if you see that a person is a lot weaker than you, you don't hit him if he only yells at you. Even if I know that a person is wrong about a personal theory, I will never try to degrade him like some people do on different scientific forums. This is precisely the reason for that topic by the way, otherwise it is fun to discuss our new ideas even if some don't agree with them or if they think they are not scientific. Here are those three laws (from wiki): First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3] Second law: . The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. Tell me where these laws explain how the different bodies that are actually on an inertial motion in the universe continue to do so. What do they do to respect those three laws? How do they proceed? Do they use a computer and check that they do not contravene them at each second they make a step forward?

Good example of how we can consciously add to our natural instinctive subconscious propensity to resist change. Explain what is for you inertial motion without saying that it is a property of massive bodies. Tell me again that you love my resisting to change, I love it! I think that I have been clear, so I don't insist. Oups, it seems that I can insist. I did not have time to develop much since a few of the interventions were too rude to be left unanswered. So the conversation rapidly turned around my right to develop such ideas in front of the scientific community. Naturally, I new by experience that it was going to happen, and I thus new it would not be easy to be able to discuss my ideas and to defend myself from attacking scientists both at a time. Even if it is what I feel, my theory helps me to understand that scientists do not have the feeling to attack me personally when saying that I am a crank, but I know that outside observers will tend to believe them because they are supposed to know what is right and what is not when it is question of science. The main problem here is that resisting to change is not a scientific question: it is a visceral question, so it is blind to arguments, whether they be scientific or not.

By everybody I know. Inertial motion is considered as a result of mass, no other explanation has been found. To me, the way we discuss here means that everybody thinks that the others are wrong, that they thus are resisting for nothing, and that if they could resist less, they would understand better. Is that your case? I just say that scientists are doing exactly what they should, but it also means that it is also what I do. Not if we take care to stay in the limits of the rule. There is always a small gap in the rules for us to play with them. Philosophy cannot explain the physical part of a phenomenon. If inertial motion exists, there is a physical explanation, and saying that it depends on mass is not physical: its an idea with no physical support. To use an unscientific meaning, its only visceral evidence.

Got your left foot on the ground first this morning Strange? Have a coffee! I am talking of a principle that is not very well understood: how is it that change and resisting to change stand alongside? How is it that constancy and change exist at the same place and at the same moment? How is it more precisely that massive bodies resist a change while changing at the same time? And don't answer me that mass induces constant motion: this is not an explanation. Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others. Scientists thus react exactly like they should. The topic is about new theories being trashed, why not use mine as an example? Afraid of publicity? Newton did not explain how mass and inertial motion were physically linked, he only developed the formulas.

Good morning Swansont, Most people think that resisting to change is not a good thing. Numerous psychological studies are about ways to avoid resistance in population of workers. And you have the impression that what I say about it is obvious? This might mean that you are changing a little about me, but I noticed that your thinking was often different from others. My idea is about change and resisting to change, remember? That I apply it to scientists is anecdotal, it applies to everything. I am not making the point that scientists resist a change, my point is my theory about mass, and since it concerns anything that resists a change, I use it to defend itself.

Respiration is such an automatism that has to resist to change without us noticing it, if you try to slow it down or accelerate it, you're in trouble. Of course respiration is an instinct, it cannot change at all, you can train it to dive longer, but once you forget it, it works all by itself. Some automatisms are instincts, but some are learned, and these ones can change, but it takes time. Nothing changes instantly. An individual that would change automatically would have to rely on others not to get destructed, but there is no chance that it happens because everything resists to change, from an atom to a galaxy. Everything changes, but everything resists automatically to change. This seems to be a law of nature, not only for massive bodies, but also for ideas. The problem is that we do not have this feeling that we resist to change when we discuss, we think that it is the other's fault if he does not understand what we say, its him that resists to change, not us. Our conservation instinct is difficult to objectivize, we take it for granted that we are right because our automatisms always act subconsciously to protect ourselves. Some of them are unchangeable, and some are, but which ones are changeable in a discussion, and how to change them?

It has been formerly established that these limits were about data from observations, not about ideas, so any idea that does not contradict the observations should be considered by the Boxers (nice joke, isn't it?). Some of you think that my idea about mass cannot work because atoms do not radiate constantly, which would contradict the data, and I answered that what has to be considered is what atoms exchange between them, not what we observe from the outside. Nobody knows what is going on between two atoms of the same molecule, precisely because nothing comes out of that interaction. Some claim that actual theory does not fit mine, and that it prevails. They just do not respect the limits everybody should respect in order for the science to progress: the limits of our ideas. Some say I have no maths to present: I did present some numbers, but nobody seems to care. If I had maths, it would probably be the same. On the other hand, the relativity formulas can be applied to the small steps the same way they can be applied to anything that moves fast. Not exactly, we just say that scientists are humans, and that they have the same human needs than everybody else. One of these needs is to resist to change their automatisms, otherwise they would die, like everybody else. Are we wrong to defend our automatisms? All I know is that we don't have the choice. Am I right to pinpoint the problem? Who knows?

You are studying the historical part of our ideas, so you call them events, and I am studying their physical part, so I call them motions. I guess I finally found a way to mix the two ideas: tying motion to evolution with the rope of change and resisting to change. Acceleration and resisting to acceleration for a body in motion, change and continuity for a society in evolution, change and resisting to change for ideas in evolution. To understand what I mean, I think that you only have to understand that there is no resistance to acceleration without an acceleration, and transpose the principle to our ideas, which then means that the resistance that we think others offer voluntarily to our ideas is completely subconscious, thus involuntary. Does that fit your thinking about the language?

I sometimes take part to discussions about religion or philosophy, and after a while, the same feeling surges: nothing can be observed for real so anything can be said. What I suggest when it happens is to try to improve our notions of what intelligence is about, which means for me to plug my idea about how the mind physically works. Without any physical limit to respect, one can say anything he wants about everything. Some of you reproach me to be unscientific. This is wrong but I can't prove it. Of course my ideas are only ideas for the moment, but they are precisely ideas about the limits we should always be giving to our ideas.

Impossible, this is why I asked for precisions, and I guess it helped me understand the difference between the way we think and the way a community has to think if it wants to move for real in the real world. When you give to a crowd the same meaning the word evidence has for an individual, you get many individual meanings of the same idea. But if you want a society to progress, you have to stick to the "data" meaning of that word. I don't, and I guess it is clear.

Thank's for your answer Swansont, you're the best! But coincidently, the word coincidence has the same meaning to me whatever the use: a temporary interference between two events that did not have the same speed or the same direction before they met. I think that the important thing to remind is the number: the word evidence is subjective for individuals, but it becomes objective if it is used to describe the opinion many people may have at the same time of the same phenomenon.

OK strange, I acknowledge that calling somebody a crackpot to discredit him is not name calling to you (or to Swansont by the way), but you will have to acknowledge that it is precisely my definition of name calling, and I shall continue remembering it to you when you do (but not to Swansont, of course). It is interesting to note that scientists has taken as an evidence that the word evidence could be used to say the contrary it usually meant. For me, an evidence is about something that does not have to be proven, and for them, it is the contrary. What's the use of misdirecting us like that. Do they think the usual meaning the plebe is using will change to coincide with their meaning with time? Couldn't they have used the world "data" instead?

Do you have a web page that describes your theory Cladking? OK, good night everybody, I am getting tired!

OK, its about data then! Thank's! The Higgs data were what kind of evidence, as an example? Hey xyzt, I bet your keyboard keys corresponding to the five letters w r o n g are completely worn out!

Everybody talks about evidence. Does the name "evidence" mean "data" for a scientific? To me, the word evidence means that it does not have to be proven since it is so evident, like the idea that god is only an idea for instance.

This langage is exactly what I mean by name calling Strange! Maybe I should say "crackpot" calling?

You misinterpret my answers Strange, when I talk about fringe theories, I talk about theories that are not main stream. I do not believe in pushing gravity for instance, or in telepathy. You understand? PS. Tell Physica that my head is in the sand and that I am suffocating.

My reasoning have been qualified of "so limited". What would you say at my place? Do you have a scientific response to that kind of personal attack?

Evidence of what? You want me to give examples of theories that I find evidently wrong? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean! If you believe so, what can I do? Do you agree that we stop discussing and wish us good luck?