Sayonara

The moderator log for this thread shows that it was moved into the P&S forum by a member of staff. This typically happens when a theory is posted which clearly is not the result of following the scientific method. Hopefully Ges will read the links I posted and glean some idea of how he needs to alter his approach.

This image is/was on the front page of the BBC news website, linked to an article about Gaza. What is the explodey cloudy thingy? Is it something which a bunch of projectiles have converged on, or did it shoot out a load of missiles before going "poof"? Slightly off-topic I know, but I for one would like to know what is being deployed in this round.

Numerology it may well be, but I'm still glad I am a number one and not a number two.

Staff are now "tagged" with ranks under their avatars, so we might as well get rid of the colours for usernames on posts. Or will that also remove the colours at the bottom of the forum overview page?

Yes; it just appends BB code to your post before the merge is carried out.

You all probably know about the consecutive post merger already, which combines consecutive posts in a thread if they come from the same member. Sometimes knowing where one post ends and another begins would be helpful. So is this better? Wait for it... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's my second post in this thread Previously, there was no indication in the merged post as to where the original post ended and the subsequent post began.

In the article, Spencer and Paul are quoted as saying that the defect risks are equivalent for cousins and women over 40. I would like clarification of that term, especially seeing as they wrote it in an editorial. Bennett appears to have conducted a study but not on the latter group.

Despite the thread title, I think the OP's question is more specific. He asks if a computer simulating itself could be said to be self aware. My instinctive response to this one is to say "no", but as you say Lance it is difficult to pin down a clear meaning of consciousness, even if we par it down to the bare minimum of self-awareness. I suppose you could look at it backwards: humans are self aware, so is this because we simulate ourselves? Again, my gut says "no".

Welcome to the site Trumpetmeister!

In other words, it flies in the face of established facts. Scientific theories do this by making falsifiable, empirically testable mathematical predictions. Again, I strongly recommend that you read both links I posted. This is the third time that opportunity has been suggested.

Off-topic posts about computer consciousness moved to a new thread: Can a computer be "conscious"? There is a difference between forgetting and "not recalling". One of the problems with assessing memory reliability is that it is difficult to establish the difference between the effects of an item not being learned, and the effects of an obstacle to an item being recalled. Word salad. Once again, you don't appear to have any interest in addressing the OP. Reported for spamming infraction.

Off-topic posts split from this thread.

And if you look at what makes a theory a theory, you will see that your idea runs counter to observed effects, and makes no predictions which the existing theories do not already account for in a manner which is compatible with the explanations for all the affected mechanisms. Read the links I posted for greater clarity as to the obligations of a theory's author.

It seems like you are describing things we already know about using your own terms and whatever reasoning seems intuitive to you. You are far from having a scientific theory. I think this thread might be of interest: Do you have a new theory? Also see this thread: So you've got a new theory...

You have already been told how to find these articles in your previous thread. Don't post this topic again.

So you answer my question by stating something unrelated which requires a separate and even more extraordinary explanation of its own. You are not onto a winner here.

Here: I just sort of ignored all the other bits of the post which fly in the face of observable reality, or those 'explanations' you provide which are already sufficiently accounted for by actual physics.

Does that mean you left it outside and it disappeared?

Shouldn't the balloon, according to what you just said, become a liquid?

The forum FAQ is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/faq.php The list of BB code we use is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

Massive necromancy I know... YT, did anything ever come of all this?

Sisyphus and Lucaspa have also joined the burgeoning ranks. HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

That was basically the idea. You have to wonder what sort of a web user would come to a forum like this and think "oh my god; these monsters ban people!!!!!!!!11112"

Whenever I visit a building or complex for the first time I always, without fail, assess it for zombie horde defensive potential. One day... one day...

Maybe it simply appeared that he did not move backwards. Depends what you are comparing his size and position with.