Hijack from Orch Or

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

I wish I could quote on my memory of the article of the Pope's qualification of how calculus and Newton's fame in the King's court was touched by the Pope to exclude biological sciences.

I will keep looking, but the information was found long ago... but hard to forget.  Another hard-to-forget article was one supporting the Catholic Church's commission by the Pope to the scientist-priest that penned the big bang theory.  

I looked long for the latter, and yet don't know if the information has been scrubbed from the web due to rising malcontent against superstitious 'science,' or is just buried under billions of search-engine hits.  Both were a shocking moment to read, and more shocking to see how sycophantic the scientific community has been to remain socially prudent and funded.

At least I can read about the great attractor and inside my head I don't have a wrestling match with common sense that says I should remain allegiant for no scientific reason to the big-bang theory, which is one silly piece of 'science' that is only accepted by scientists not because the scientists are religious (which isn't requiring converts to be even one bit spiritual) but because the scientists must needs have a clean resume in the opinion of all the other people that expect everyone should all always agree there is a superstition that makes scientific evidence.  That is a notch below Feynman's identification of a cargo-cult cult science in my surmise of scientific excellence.  

Scientists are driven by prudence to remain funded.  Prudence is driven by social limits. Religion yet sets these limits... some spoken... and many, many burned into the human culture.  The odor of burnt flesh wafted across countless villages visited by the Grand Inquisitor, and such demonic practice under sanction of a pope living in his own definition of hell as the grand demon of hate and torture.  Humans are superstitious and maintain such fear-based reckoning to ignore common sense over social acceptance. Humans believe our social limits are there by some present dynamic in the now.  That does not exist.  The dynamic was tortured into the destiny of mankind's self-delusions in the first millennia, and there hasn't been a general population inversion of spoken wisdom since.  Rather, we see the religious world acting out in ways so totally non-scientific.  And scientists suck up to the enduring dysfunction of human kind.  We are infected with the folly of our genetics attempting to be civilized by drawing limits and expressing animal hate in prudent ways.  We all host internal fears.

Those of us that may believe there is a higher intelligent sentience at work, other than state-sanctioned-religion, have no issue rejecting superstition.  But the professional scientist may be hide-bound and incapable of such socially unacceptable and imprudent attitudes of an ancient concept of cruel divinity loving only those who accept divine cruelty against others, but not themselves.  Superstition is pathetic, gentle people, yet humans wear the cloak of conformity to a pathetic culture that wonders why aliens don't contact us.

An academic institution could not legally stop a union-of-open-minds standing full-stop under legal credence of a union recognized by Federal law (in some countries like the U.S.)  

I'm not a trained scientist with practice at proper prudent prose.  So the above from the heart sounds naturally imprudent not because it hits on points ill-conceived, but because it hits on points that leave us unfulfilled on a life mission that cannot be fulfilled in Earth humanity at the present juncture of individuals searching for a group mind in a runaway society of animalisms and superstitions infecting the uppermost levels of science.

Please forgive my crude delivery, but I'm not saying this to be liked, but to embarrass the inner human mind of any reader that oppresses the curiosity of a hungry mind in favor of ill-prudence to support a sick society that has a fear of our own inner light that state religion has tried to extinguish since the moment is was endorsed by a king or emperor.

 

Sadly yours,

President of the Sick Puppy Club of Catcliffe (our retirement home), high over a horseshoe bend of Indian Creek

Survivor of the 1st Natural Philosophy Alliance --which accepted anyone who claimed to have scientific interest, and after several years had been populated by old scientists that were each bent on proving the Bible is the root of science.  Such pathetic levels for such trained humans to fall. Society is the strongest drug known to man.

 

 

OK, you seem to be in need of medical help, so I won't bother you further. 

[Don86326]

Such is the mind of imprudence in an inner panic that retorts to a slight against another.  

Thank you for sharing your opinion of me in public.  You made my case in point.  

 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Don86326 said:

I wish I could quote on my memory of the article of the Pope's qualification of how calculus and Newton's fame in the King's court was touched by the Pope to exclude biological sciences.

If you could leave your memory out of it, and stop making so many generalized statements you're not willing to support, and maybe focus on a point or two instead of posting these railing walls of text that jump from point to point aided only by the waving of your hands, it would add some much needed clarity to the discussion.

[Don86326]

Nope, I'd rather delete old posts to keep it simpler... too busy... not wanting to miff your fine-control of academia.  

 

Are you a frustrated professor?  

 

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

Nope, I'd rather delete old posts to keep it simpler... too busy...

Ah, good luck with that.

59 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

Are you a frustrated professor?  

Frustrated science discussion forum moderator, dealing with a member who wants to jump up on top of the table and rant rather than having a seat at a science discussion.

 

[Don86326]

Well I'm sorry man.  Have you thought of adjusting your approach? Try communicating nicely to avoid poking the wild sub-genius where it hurts the most.

You and many moderators maybe have been challenged by my loose cannon on deck approach.

So I can't delete these messages, huh?  Oh boy.

I'm not good for this place.  

Because of the hubristic remarks, I unloaded on this place... damn closed minds anyway.

You're the first touch of human here.

So I'm better now.

Moderating here has got to be a tough job! Chin up.  Let's have a beer.  

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

You and many moderators maybe have been challenged by my loose cannon on deck approach.

It's anathema to a meaningful science discussion. You seem to have abundant time to waste, and should probably start a blog somewhere else.

[Don86326]

On 12/3/2021 at 1:03 PM, TheVat said:

When people develop Alzheimer's, and amyloid plaques began to fill up the spaces between neurons with misfolded proteins which eventually choke and kill the neurons, the person's mind degenerates and fades away.  This suggests that the mind is a physical function, a process of interacting neurons.  If the mind had the option of simply going somewhere "outside of the brain" then it could convey the message "I'm still here, and still fully sentient," by stimulating surviving nerves in a person's writing hand or in the nerves controlling the mouth, lips, and larynx.  In earlier stages of Alzheimer's, this free-floating mind could engage in high-level cognition and then report on those excursions during the patient's lucid moments.  "I can't do basic math right now, but last night I floated away and calculated the answer to that square root you asked for yesterday.   Here it is."  Instead, the personality withers and fades, and the simplest mental tasks become impossible.

Similarly, when people have severe strokes, some lose the ability to recognize family members.  How does this happen if the intact mind is outside the brain attending to what is going on in the room?  These patients can usually speak and answer questions.  Why can't their free-floating mind recognize Mom and Uncle Bob and get that message across?  

While none of this really solves all the mysteries of consciousness and mind, it strongly suggests that what we call a mind is the operation of a physical brain.  

 

I can appreciate your suggestions, but I vary about the suggestion that physical dementia indicates mind-generator of brain is withering in the cranium.  It's an option.

Dementia can also clog the transceiver antenna, the nanotube transceivers of mind, should mind be generated somewhere else.  The signal coming from outside brain yet needs processing by a brain, with or without dementia.

But brain yet has a tremendous processing role of perceptive reality of mind, whether the out-of-brain function may only be the still small voice within. (pardon the religious quip). 

We don't know what component of mind is ported to brain from somewhere else if Orch OR is operating to port mind.

Memory and recall is very much a product of neuron structures.  Those neural structures are grown by mind in mammals after birth, born blind.

So say only our sentient passion and intent is the component of mind ported from outside.

Consider both camps are happy... the eternal portion of mind is ported through neural bio-quantum resonance, and the ontology of experience is accessible as adornments and add-ons to ported-mind.  Fancifully, a spirit experiencing Earth reality.

It doesn't have to be and it certainly is not an all or nothing inside or out call.

What portion of us might be a signal in the quantum foam, were Orch OR to explain it's coupling to perceptive envelope of mind?

 

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's anathema to a meaningful science discussion. You seem to have abundant time to waste, and should probably start a blog somewhere else.

You have an amazing ability to project things on people you don't like.  People that need to control things project their anxiety when that fails as hurtful remarks only justified in your frustration.

I am anathema to your style of moderation and call you as incompetent.

Make the call.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

You have an amazing ability to project things on people you don't like

I have no feelings towards you. We don't attack people here, but we do attack ideas, and yours are ill-formed, overly loquacious, and suffer from a lack of any kind of evidential support.

 

17 minutes ago, Don86326 said:

I am anathema to your style of moderation and call you as incompetent.

You're style is anathema to our rules, and a competent mod would give you a warning point for spamming.

[Don86326]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have no feelings towards you. We don't attack people here, but we do attack ideas, and yours are ill-formed, overly loquacious, and suffer from a lack of any kind of evidential support.

 

You're style is anathema to our rules, and a competent mod would give you a warning point for spamming.

Good job! I was hoping you would grow a pair and stop personal attacks.  But you yet had to levy more attacks before could make a decision.  Good job and you made it through, anyway. 

I will post and delineate each and every one of your hubristic remarks that are against the rules here beginning with the next one and inclusive from the beginning... if you do not pull yourself into order and act with respect.

I may start a thread on moderator psychology.  Or I may get banned.  

Make your next move.

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Don86326 said:

I was hoping you would grow a pair and stop personal attacks

!

Moderator Note

Attempts to get you to follow the rules do not fall into this category.

 

 

3 hours ago, Don86326 said:

I will post and delineate each and every one of your hubristic remarks that are against the rules here beginning with the next one and inclusive from the beginning... if you do not pull yourself into order and act with respect.

!

Moderator Note

You don’t get to dictate the conditions under which you will follow those rules.