cladking

What people think is irrelevant. People are looking more at technology than at theory and these are very different. Good theory often gives rise to new technology but technology also springs from many forces that have little to do with new knowledge or new understanding of nature. They value science because they conflate it with technology which provides us wealth and new creature comforts. Meanwhile we see most social things degrading and disintegrating so we tend to discount the value of new "theory" in the social sciences. We live in a time that most of our fundamental beliefs are probably wrong but they still derive from fields that are believed to be "science" and are often founded on assumptions that have never been subjected to any sort of science, much less rigorous testing. This especially applies to linguistics. In many cases this testing is impossible with the current state of human knowledge. If we can ever unjump the shark then people will begin accepting soft sciences as being true science but it still won't necessarily be true.

Real science has a very specific metaphysics. Scientific knowledge must derive from observation and experiment. While there may be some latitude on how you define "experiment" it certainly does not encompass the assumptions necessary to linguistics. Indeed, most of the soft sciences where statistics are not firmly rooted in definitions and void of assumptions are likely not to even return results reflective of reality. Much of what is considered "science" is not and probably not real. "Linguistics" has attributes of real science but there are far too many assumptions to make some of the results of any value at all.

I do not want to get bogged down in semantics here. "Ontology" is philosophical anyway and I'm talking about science. The first definition of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science" and this is the concept to which I am referring. The "ability to have more off spring" is a concept that refers principally to non-human animal. Having more off-spring has not been shown to change species. Rather it results in stronger, faster, and smarter individuals (usually). The weak and sick die out anyway without changing the species, either. Breeding works only by the artificial imposition of artificial bottlenecks and it is these bottlenecks that change species in the lab and in nature.

Change in species is real. This has no bearing on whether or not we understand the forces that cause the change. I believe we do not. "Breeding" simply means we can intentionally cause specific changes in species. It does not show "survival of the fittest" or most adaptable. No! I said exactly what I meant. "Science" has validity only within its metaphysics. Anything outside experiment > observation is not science. " "Evolution" as it is currently understood underlies most peoples beliefs. "Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. If our understanding reflects reality then it is still dangerous but whether or not it is dangerous has no bearing on whether or not it's real. Darwin excused himself from being right when he simply wrote off the primary cause of change in species in the 2nd edition of his book. He stated that populations of species "never" dip to a very low number. He said they stay relatively constant and this is apparently wrong and apparently the cause of change in species. This is what is observed when we select individuals for breeding: This selection process itself is an artificial population bottleneck.

What s been proven is that species change. Humans have not been "experimenting" with "evolution" for thousands of years because experimental science is not that old. What you are describing is outside of metaphysics so has no meaning at all in real science. The "theory of evolution" is dangerous but this is irrelevant to whether or not species change as a result of what must be described as "darwinian forces".

I've missed you and this place as well. I've got a few sites I can talk "science" but there are few good sites for philosophy and fewer good posters about consciousness. I'm still dealing with it. Of course the only thing I normally do is ignore them altogether. This is the first time I've posted anything at all about the situation. It's curious how studying the pyramids is leading me straight to the nature of consciousness and machine intelligence. I suppose everything ultimately leads to the nature of consciousness and any understanding of consciousness in the days of silicon implies things about programming. I had thought my unique perspective was founded in reality but since 2006 I've found even my most cherished beliefs are false or only true from specific perspectives. I fear I may not be talking much philosophy here however. My presence here is important to me to protect a thread and to prevent the dissemination of falsities I'm expecting to come out of Egypt for the next couple years. The less I post the less I'll wear my welcome thin. Noted. I don't mind being contacted to discuss anything I post about. I believe my eMail is visible. I'll PM you later.

You were one of the last people I expected to welcome me back so I'm going to take that as a good 'omen". ...Congratulations on your promotion.

I have been hounded by a couple of characters who follow me around the net and are quite obnoxious. Some of the PM's and posts they've put on sites I visit are remarkable. It wasn't noticed when they signed up just to taunt me and caused a perfectly good thread to be trashed. It wasn't noticed they signed up on 11-4 of last year and haven't been seen since 11-7. I'd like to start posting here again in a much reduced manner. There are going to be a lot of news stories coming out of Egypt in the near future and I'd like to just interject some facts ands logic in the maelstrom of interpretation. I hope there are no objections.

Engineering knowledge. The reality is that pyramids exist and "science" tells us the builders lacked all engineering knowledge and used trial and error. This is an absurdity and it is state of the art today! I can function within these rules. The problem is that others don't and then I get the blame and my posts are deleted. My first threads were split and this spitting sometimes can't be done cleanly. Since when is stating facts off topic on a science forum. Since when can't orthodox beliefs be challenged with facts and logic? I believe most of my posts speak for themselves. I believe you've made a blunder and that it bite you going forward. If you change your mind just contact me since I'm not going to log in again otherwise. I just wanted to say good bye to the real students of science here rather than to comment further. Now this post will merge with my last and you can put it in the trash because I pointed out the truth about the absymal state of "science" in response to someone ELSE bringing it up. Staying on subject here is an impossibility unless you agree with EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BELIEF AND ASSUMPTION and this is what will wreck this site. Bye.

I kindda liked this site despite its shortcomings because there are some very knowledgeable people and a few real scientists. I don't have to say goodbye because of the incessant splitting of threads and disruption of conversations and, quite frankly, I wear my high negative rating like a badge of honor since so many of the negs came for my best posts. No, I'm leaving because I've essentially been banned for speaking the truth. It seems most people here only like to see truth when it agrees with their own understanding of science. Not even simple physics can be accepted when spoken by a "crackpot". Before I log out forever I do have one suggestion for the moderators. You've already succeeded in driving me out so you may as well delete my posts as well. I would especially suggest you delete those posts you put in the trash before other people see what you've done. PS; Lest I forget to mention it, it was adding insult to injury letting some ouija board scientist with but one post about ouija science influence the decision. Frankly I've always considered insults from soft sciences as a compliment. If a soft scientists says you're "unscientific" then you're doing something right. I'm sure the soft sciences are happy here. ...Anyone who cares about the actual facts nd logic about the pyramids can find me anywhere else on the net. I'll log out and won't be back when this thread sinks or gets put in the trash.

I'm sure that under specific conditions that just such a phenomenon could be duplicated in the lab. However these are hardly laboratory conditions and there are facts known that weigh heavily against such an hypothesis. Chiefly is the FACT that this condition persists throughout the day according to Hawass himself. Limestone and concrete have similar densities, specific heat, and heat conductance. This specific limestone and specific concrete also have similar color which should be the chief determinant of temperature. The fact that the stone is more recessed and more shaded by the pyramid itself should serve to make this region a little COOLER rather than much hotter as the infrared shows. The fact that one of the hot "stones" is actually concrete is simply irrelevant to the fact that in the real world this whole area is VERY hot. The BEST place to put a muon detector to determine the true shape o the new void is right about here anyway. Everything points to the east side. This is where all the structure is and the new void. This is where the thermal anomalies are and where the gravimetric scan says the building is lighter. The east side and north east corner is where everything is focused.

These are simply the facts; Dr. Hawass has said he believes the heat is caused by the fact that one of these "stones" is actually a concrete repair. I'm fully aware this statement is illogical and not consistent with known science to my knowledge. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/280853/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/Void-within-Great-Pyramid-of-Giza-not-a-new-discov.aspx The fact that an ancient path built before the pyramids leads directly to this point is irrelevant to the fact that these recessed stones back out of the sunlight are in actuality warmer than the surrounding stones in the sunlight. Dr Hawass put out a call for Egyptologists to come up with hypotheses for this anomaly when it was found two years ago and to my knowledge NO VIABLE hypotheses have been offered. To my knowledge the scientists believe it reflects a passage behind the anomaly and heat source of some nature. It seems obviously to be a link to a heat source. If the muon detectors were placed in this position looking toward the new void it should provide a third dimension to the shape of the void. Both views at this time see it from an end. This is because it apparently lies in the same plane as the queens chamber and main entrance where the detectors were placed. Yes. I predicted just this anomaly and that it would be readily visible in the infrared. Apparently this can't be discussed however. You can see it in the speculation forum's "Soft Science and the Evidence of Your Own Eyes" thread. Anyone interested in the actual science rather than opinion on this void can find it here; https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24647.epdf?referrer_access_token=Xmcj4nQNKzuaAcQIpc3IitRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NX_aQYa_sWR4tLmZ6xtEbxb6KJnXpeBv3CwFvwtqamZ3GadXj29Aet_a8-IlUN7svHJ6siuAcS4QdcfNeGEeiuIf9BhNE7-yl1OSZuOFPEjJ3qsXwaCU8whBQ1krFp_edtuh2dWfEOHVGT6yifC3hwmH_lcUjJzfNzLdlrsVYjF6iXSa6DHpRYGXxsoKoZjeKCLErBU9r3d3Q4Qw5-udPzUINsrcbTYlrfiEWoJcgty0ZxzNW2T5G4OCpm94SVtWg%3D&tracking_referrer=www.telegraph.co.uk

The only crackpot theory I've heard is Zahi Hawass who recently said the anomaly is caused the fact that the this vertical piece near the center of the photo is cement and this is causing the heat. Just about everyone else in the world knows this is a passage to an internal heat sink. Curiously the Egyptologists are no longer the sole voice in determining what work gets done here. We should start getting data and answers pretty fast now. http://www.egyptindependent.com/khufu-pyramid-void-draws-world-attention-egypt-minister/

I've been screaming for years to have infrared scanning of the pyramid done (as well as several other tests). They finally agreed to allow infrared after Jean Paul Houdin agree to do the work for free under the auspices of Dassault Systems beginning the third week of October of 2015. Early results were startling but they released none of them at all except for mentioning the locations and providing this picture of the east side 160' south of the NE corner where my theory predicted a passage connected to a hot interior. They found this so impossible that they published it and asked Egyptologists to propose hypotheses for the cause of its existence. Unsurprisingly no Egyptologist has a guess yet. The muon scanning has been used before as early as the 1960's but modern detectors are more sensitive and the data is more manageable with computers. There are no viable hypotheses as to the reason this void might be here yet to my knowledge and it fits no existing theory. There is every indication that science will finally be brought to bear on the nature of the great pyramids. This will go very fast from this time because modern knowledge and technology has been up to solving this for decades but they would not systemtically apply science.

There's a massive thermal anomaly on the east side 160' south of the NE corner. There's plenty that can be done here from using a boroscope to muon detection. This has been known about for over two years now nd nothing appears to have been done.

I'm not sure it's really "pessimism" but I am sure it's not natural. Other species aren't growing apart with each having an increasingly unique consciousness. Every rabbit is unique but they each think very similarly. We each have different beliefs and experiences. Certainly you're right that familiarity is a big part of understanding our senses but "confirmation" bias goes well beyond merely allowing us to make sense of them to selectively reinforcing beliefs. Just as wide diversity in genes gives a species sufficient robustness to survive bottlenecks, diversity of thought may well confer the same benefit to humans. However, it is certainly causing obvious problems in day to day communication and operations.

All is confirmation bias but we don't see it because we preferentially see what agrees with our beliefs and models. The brain does what it does because that's what the brain does with the programming we have. One person experiences "feelings" (probably originating in the amygdala), and another dredges up the id, ego, and superego from the darkest recesses of the cerebral cortex. We then become our beliefs. We create a model of reality in our minds but much of it isn't real at all, or more commonly, is only real from the individual's unique perspective. We are each looking at the results of the programming and are unable to see or study the program itself. We delude ourselves into believing we each share a reality when obviously we each have a unique reality. Rather than change leading to a shared reality all the forces are leading to a further splintering (splittering?) of the perception of reality. Certainly scientific modeling appears to be converging on a point but this point is probably inaccessible and current understanding is too far removed from reality to be considered.

This is incredibly simple! We just can't see it because we don't think "right" because we use symbolic language. Things want to live and consciousness is the means to do it. Evolution is simple as well but plays out in a very complex world that is always changing and eradicating "wrong" behavior".

I referred to the ancient language being a natural language because it existed in its rudimentary form before man had enough knowledge to create any sort of language and because this language reflected the logic inherent in the wiring of the human brain which has the same logic as mathematics. By extension you assumed that I believe the language we speak today is 'man made" which is not strictly true. Modern language was invented using the vocabulary of the ancient natural language in a format that was independent of logic and reality. Whether or not this is a "man made" language or not is a semantical question. But it is still central to the issue of the nature of "consciousness" because language provides the perspective from which consciousness is perceived and known. Like all things we experience it is primarily a belief and we "see" what we expect to see. The very basis of what we're talking about is as ephemeral to us as the shape of a passing cloud. It changes over time as new visceral knowledge and new beliefs are found. Language is the perspective of our perceptions and modern language provides a poor perspective from which to view things like "consciousness" or the nature of life, reality, and evolution. Your idea that an animal suddenly developed an ability to imagine isn't so far wrong but is very highly misleading to the reality. A bird doesn't imagine an afterlife because it has better things to do and because it lacks the knowledge accumulated over generations. It can't often predict weather or do many human activities for the same reason. It's not some magical or divine attribute that sets humans apart; it is merely the existence of complex language. When the mutation that gave rise to the human race appeared they had nothing to talk bout and the first individual had no one to talk to but they wouldn't have even known it. But there was improved communication and the mutation was highly adaptive so survived. These people were the homo sapiens who "founded" the human race and invented agriculture and cities which allowed us to live for the many centuries until modern science was invented. It was this ancient technology that allowed the survival of "homo omnisciencis" (we who know everything). "Consciousness" is simply the nature of life. The individual needn't be "fit" or "adaptive" to survive; the individual merely needs to be conscious such is painfully apparent as a cell phone user walks into the path of a freight train. In animals a very great amount of consciousness has far more to do with visceral knowledge and experience and in humans it has to do with beliefs as understood and arrived at through language. Indeed, humans are so different from animals since the ancient language failed we could even be considered a different life form.

I have no problem with the word and find it apt. But what individuals see varies from virtually 100% illusion to 0%. I'd even agree that for the main part most experience is far more illusion than it is reality. For the main part most individuals see their belief, expectations, and experience rather than the reality itself. I maintain though this is not in any way natural. It is the result of how we think. The root cause is our symbolic languages. Animals don't see their beliefs nor have a language like ours. Everything they experience is reality itself though, obviously, they have a fairly limited understanding of this reality because none have a sufficiently complex language to pass knowledge through the generations. It is language that sets humans apart but this separation has no bearing whatsoever on what we are calling "consciousness". All living things are conscious to some extent. At the risk of going off topic, humans haven't always had a symbolic language. We had a natural representative language until it became too complex for the average man ~4000 years ago. An individual will generally have a weak grasp of what the "moon" is but to the degree he understands it he can see it. Indeed, even the new moon can sometimes be seen bathed in the light from the Pacific and it can be seen during the day. While most have a weak grasp of "moon" and it is largely an "illusion" most have a better grasp of "wet" and it is (for most) less an illusion.

You make good points but it's only an illusion to the degree we don't understand it. Each individual sees his models, beliefs, or expectations but most individuals have some visceral knowledge of the "moon" and will see this as well. Perception/ consciousness is just as real as the moon. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the lack of agreement; consciousness is an individual experience now days. We each have different language and belief so we each have a different experience. Other animals have a shared experience and in most practical ways, a shared consciousness that we can't fathom.

Sure, once you have the sun and the earth orbiting it it's pretty safe to predict "sunrise". Try predicting that when the universe was new.

This is where you're running off the track. The future doesn't unfold and is always indeterminant and unknown. The present unfolds based on events that occurred in the past. There's no such thing as "infinity" in the real world but if there were it couldn't hold a candle to the real improbability of what actually exists. A new kind of scientific notation would have to be invented just to describe the odds against what is. Rather than 10 to a power, perhaps 10 to a power to a power(...). You'd need 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000 monkeys and typewriters to get War and Peace. Imagine how much less likely it would be to get the Library of Congress or a human to write any book in the first place!!! Reality is far more complex than the Library of Congress and has been going on for a very long time.

If your predictions are coming true then it's not because you are prescient or smart; it's because you're predicting easy things. Try predicting the shape of a cloud on the nearest earth-like planet in 2051. Reality unfolds in exactly one way that has nothing to do with "error bands". It does what it does against all odds.