Area54

You don't state which country you are in. That may be significant. You could call up a software company HR department and ask them directly what their position would be. Keep in mind that in some countries it would be illegal for them not to hire you on the basis of your record (if any), so they may be economical with the truth. Alternatively, seek out some software developers and ask them what they think the impact of your history might be. (I have a stereotyped view of software developers that pictures half of them as being regular users of cannabis.) Where do you find software developers? The same place you are thinking of getting your qualifcations at.

Mike, since you are happier talking with someone who is less critical of your ideas and doesn't seek to help you formalise them, then I'm out again. I'll try to stay out this time and avoid the temptation to return. Perhaps, each time your repost the same unevidenced assertions you can just imagine me providing my objections and dismay. Good luck.

Correct. And Gees made an unwarranted assumption regarding the nature of human consciousness, asserting that it represented the pinnacle of consciousness. Perhaps Gees meant this only in relation to the Earth, but when iNow broadened it to include the Universe Gees repeated the assumption for the Universe. I repeat, that assumption is wholly unwarranted. Precisely so. We cannot prove that human consciousness is at the pinnacle. We cannot prove it is not. Therefore, to make either claim is to make an unwarranted assumption. This isn't difficult thinking, Tar. I am unable to see any way in which this is relevant to the point I was making. The same goes for the remainder of your post, until this Which is precisely why I stated

My apologies. I misunderstood your request. I am not sure how to help you, as the questions seem to be stated at least as clearly as I could put them myself, although I found your associated comments were confusing. But I'll see what I can do. Let's tackle one question at a time. You have been given three chemicals and three characteristics. Which chemical matches which characteristic? What is your difficulty with that question?

I was close to giving dimreepr a negative mark for his dismissal of philosophy in this thread and his initial failure to acknowledge your excellent points. I am glad I did not, for he subsequently gave a full, unqualified and gracious apology. It is unfortunate you did not feel able to respond with the same magnaminity.

It is an interesting idea and if you had come up with it sixty or seventy years ago you could perhaps have made a lot of money out of it, as Erik von Daniken did in his book "Chariot of the Gods" and its sequels. Several other "researchers" into UFOs and the like have noted the same passages. However, the general view is that it is weak evidence for aliens. I share this view.

Did you intend to make some effort to answer these questions, or did you wish us to do all your work for you? Hint: if you won't even make a small effort to succeed, why should we help you? Suggestion: give your best thoughts as to the answers, so far.

In much the same way that, in a discussion on evolution, I might wish to distinguish between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

I am happy to wait, though I am doubtful you will find anything to convince me of your view.

And the only justification you have for asserting that your religion's truth is valid is that your religion asserts that it is. Just as Islam does. Just as other religions do. You have a circular argument that stands on all the solidity of a flatulent extrusion.

If you moved from Kelvinside, a suburb of Glasgow, to Govan, a suburb of Glasgow you would be in for an equally big culture shock.

The original paper is available for download here.

I fail to see any emotion in iNow's post. I'm having almost equal difficulty in discerning any nonsense. Let's dissect it. Is consciousness complex? I don't believe you can disagree with that as you have stated in this thread, in the same post as the reply to iNow: " Consciousness is a vast and complex subject." So, either you agree with that statement, or you consider your own statements to be nonsense. iNow continues "It is a mistake to assume humans have the most advanced form [of consciousness]". The general consensus among exobiologists is that life probably exists elswhere. The more rambunctious of them envisage millions of civilisations in our galaxy alone. My own views are more measured, but I believe the majority of then, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum, would view it as foolish to assume that there are no entities that have achieved a higher level of consciousness than humans. Forget the exobiologists and rope in all scientists. Your view harks back to the geocentrism that bedevilled science centuries ago and replaces it with an anthropocentrism. I think you'll find that "known, accepted, accredited information" is on the side of iNow here, not you. iNow finishes with "as if [our consciousness was] some pinnacle against which all others must be measured." Here you may have a small point in your favour, although context might eliminate that. In practical terms it is useful to measure the consciousness of other organisms against human consciousness. I thought this was very amusing, for obvious reasons, but my all means provide citations to papers that assert we are the pinnacle of consciousness in the entire universe.

Just throwing in a bit of Cicero and Marx for contrast. You may be right, but I perceive multiculturalism as referencing things like the mix, in the UK, of Afro-Caribean, Indian sub-continent and traditional "British" cultures. Diversity would be the variations present in each of these. I suspect the OP has yet another take on it.

It would certainly be an excellent way of losing forever any claim to be a world leader positioned on the moral high ground.

So, even if your cultural situation allowed to shave daily you would still be a subjugated wage slave? Interesting position to take.

Pretty well all of which I was agreeing with. However, without an explicit recognition that different definitions of philosophy were being used, there seemed a severe risk that the discussion would get nowhere. Hence my post to remind everyone to pay attention to what they already know concerning definitions on a discussion forum. (It probably still won't get anywhere, but now it shall do so with clarity.)

Surely multiculturalism implies a measure of separation between cultures and therefore a limitation to the degree of intermixing, therey preserving diversity. Even if this is not the case humans will, it seems, always find ways of distinguishing themselves from others. We may choose to call these subcultures, but in some cases I suggest they are more distinct from the culture they have arisen from than supposedly distinct cultures are from it. Example: I suspect I have much more in common with Mr. Average from Trinidad than I do with a Hell's Angel.

Not necessarily. See this interesting overview.

This forum is turning me into a pedant, of the worst kind. There is certainly a colloquial use of philosophy that would aim for enlightenment and inner peace. (I've seen well argued cases that Bhuddism is a philosophy and not a religion. As I understand it, its goals include enlightenment and inner peace.) dimreepr seems to be talking about this definition of philosophy. Also, Enlightenment, rather than enlightenment, was certainly a consequence of philosophy, if not its actual goal.

It is another marvellous chapter in the history of British eccentrics. God bless them, every one!

I thought my version was more concise.

@The majority of the participants in this thread other than ProgrammingGodJordan. Your objective appears to be much more to criticise PGJ's writing skills (which I agree are in much need of criticism) rather than to understand what he is saying. I'm sure that is emotionally very rewarding, but it doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

Thank you for the information. I was unaware of that. I was suspicious of the item because I tend to associate copper, as a remedial substance, with New Age hippies and copper bracelets to ward off all manner of illnesses.

No. You claimed this: " A version of modern physics (which conforms to all experiments) can be directly deduced in its entirety." If you have done this you have not presented your findings, you have simply insisted it can be done. Please either shit or get off the pot.