studiot

Any method is on topic is it not?

A responder to a previous thread, quoted as an example by the OP here, may well have offered a strictly homeopathic connotation. But the OP here specifically generalised it for this thread.

I agree that the subject has wider implications. +1 apiece, though itoero may be off topic as the OP asked about brain hacks. Though where the 'brain' ends and the rest oft he nervous system, including the control wiring for the heart begins is blurred to say the least. Alos, as iNow says What is a hack? Can it be chemical as in the introduction of scopolamine or GDNF ? How about putting rohipnol in someone's drink?

Can't see how anyone can determine that since no one has been specific about what memory as applied to molecules means.

Sorry I meant numerical equivalence. Thank you for the correction. You might be suprised at my idea of the difference of the three nuts and bolts example, but I am trying to avoid predjudging the issue in other peoples' eyes.

If I sent you down to the shop to buy a dozen oranges and you came back and said that I could only get 6 (4 or 8) oranges in the first shop so I went to another shop and got 6 (8 or 4) more. I think you or I could reasonable say that your purchases were all equivalent to the original mission objective. This is the philosophy section, remember. But if I asked for nuts and bolts and you came back with: 6 nuts and 6 bolts 4 nuts and 8 bolts 8 nuts and 4 bolts Would any of these situations be equivalent? (I think all three outcomes are different)

Anthropomorphism is not a myth, silly or otherwise, but a recognised and documented effect. https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=rcV7XLv7Btee1fAPhtWR0Ao&q=anthropomorphism&oq=anthropomorphism&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i131j0l8.2892.11124..11596...0.0..0.176.1338.13j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131i67.OvxW1cO6f0A The question of whether it is scientifically justifiable to do this for scientific purposes is obviously open to debate. I would agree with you here that it is not, except as clearly expressed analogies where it is definite that the human projection is only an analogy. It is used to great effect in the art world. Should we also debunk art as silly? Even that statement is blurred at the edges these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape-memory_polymer

I wasn't aware the the integers 4, 6 and 8 were octonions? No, I was thinking about the circumstances, not the integers themselves. In any case the threads I referred to were about other things such as relativity models and mathematical limits. No I was thinking about the common drawing of the conclusion 6 + 6 = 12 therefore 8 + 4, which also = 12, is the same thing in 'my' particular case.

There are at leat a couple of current threads where a muddle in the question of equivalence is causing difficulty. I have posted this example for discussion to show that purely mathematical equivalence can be too restrictive.

How does one collate a double limit with an infinitesimal?

Since one of the purposes of this forum is to help folks get things right it would be good to point out the correct spelling of this bloke's name. Berkeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley This might help those who do want to know more. :)

That would be good if I could find it. I looked but could only find extracts in pdf.

I don't know anything about you, but you are obviously bubbling over (not a criticism) with questions about personal faith and beliefs in general and christian opes in particular. Do you ever stop to consider the answers folks give you? Do you think this is the right place for all the questions? As BeeCee said So where is the Science in all this ? This is why some of us are querying the quantity.

I have ordered the two books you listed, thank you for the references. It will be interesting to see what they ahve to say. This book is hundreds of £ and out of my means, but I am pursuing a loan copy from our inter library loans system. Then would they also be infintessimals? I rather think it is the other way round. The limiting process can be usefully applied to Infinitesimals. However I think that the OP question can be answered as follows. Limits are the result of the limiting process. Infinitesimals are specially constructed abstract objects, ouside the normal number systems so no, they are not the same. The limiting process has wider applications than differentiation/integration but that is not the subject of the OP (for instance the relationship to asymptotes), so we should explore this in a new thread if you wish to take it further. There are huge and widespread applications in engineering and theoretical physics (relativity).

Irreducible complexity seems a self contradictory meaningless phrase to me. There are many examples of emergent phenomena in the inanimate world to study, but none (that I know of) are irreducibly complex.

Asymptotes can be limits.

I was going to give you a +1 for the last post, you definitely deserve one now. Is it summer with you now, in your new T shirt?

None needed. +1 ID is a proposition that does seem to invite the 'digging in' I speak of. Why is it not possible to have an ID kicking things off, then leaving them to run? Consider 'exploding kittens' , The designer (opinion is divided on the intelligent bit) created the game, rules and all, but I don't think has touched the pack since. Did we not do the same with Dolly the sheep?

Only part of it.

1) 30 years on a geological timescale? As compared to 3500 million years? 2) I refer to the original Uniformitarianism v Catastrophism conroversy. Not plate tectonics.

So the alternatives are twofold ? Behe or extended Darwin? Rather demonstrates my point doesn't it?

What does that have to do with the OP question? Why can we not apply Science to look into any proposition we choose?

I fail to understand why it always seems to be Darwin or nothing, with both sides digging in. And so bacetria failed to evolve into superbugs over a period of a geologically few weeks of favourable conditions. Just like the Stromatolites managed several thousand million years of stabilty. Uniformitarianism reuls OK? We have at last seen Geology coming out the the 'either or' phase of internecine arguments and allowing the possibility (probability) of multiple processes, either fully or partly concurrent. Oh and thank you for pointing out another crank to avoid.

In what way? What are you thinking about?

I didn't mention pythagoras, but I did mention oranges in a box. Furthermore the compartments form a prime example of the situation where area is a meaningless concept. It doesn't matter how big or small the compartments are (so long as they will contain an orange) and it doesn't mater what the area oft he box is. There are still 10 rows of 6 oranges making 10 x 6 = 60 oranges in all. Needless to say we are also considering 60 compartments in the box, whatever its dimnensions in metres.