Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[marduk]

Young's slit experiment debunked! Includes a practical demonstration using a needle and a laser.

I love it, but the only thing this debunks is the idea that wave-particle duality is false.

 

[marduk]

We are ALL here to wave hands Sir. If you don't understand that, you do not understand the most basic premise in psychology possible. See, I'm waving at you and smiling.

OK, and I'm positing that there's a magical herd of microscopic unicorns with skittles coming out of their butts that create consciousness.

Prove that I'm wrong.

 

[marduk]

Discoclosureproject is a way in which we can pressurise the CIA, NSA, AA, UPS, build-a-bearers into telling us stuff or else " I start dancing" and you don't want me to do that.

I don't agree.

Either they have stuff that makes them "in the know" or they don't.

If they do, your government can't even make them act in any constitutional sense. The CIA has routinely been busted spying on it's own citizens. Your secrecy apparatus is completely out of your own control, and simply because your citizens tolerate it in the name of "safety."
Feinstein says CIA spied on Senate computers - CNN.com

How insane do we think you are? Very.
The CIA shows its fangs at home: Neil Macdonald - World - CBC News

So, the fact of the matter is, if you can't pressure the CIA with your own damn government about relatively routine matters, what hope do you have in hell that you could pressure it about something exotic? No hope at all.

If the don't have stuff that makes them "in the know" then you're peeing in the wind.

My guess is they have multiple contradictory data points just like we do, and they gave up on trying to make heads or tails of it long ago.

 

[trainedobserver]

I love it, but the only thing this debunks is the idea that wave-particle duality is false.

It debunks the need for the slit to begin with.

 

[trainedobserver]

The fundamental error behind the notion that consciousness can be transferred into technology explained:

 

[marduk]

It debunks the need for the slit to begin with.

Ah, I'm with you there!

Now where things get weird is when you do the double slit experiment with a photon or electron gun.

You shoot single photons out (they're a discrete quanta of energy) and they can either go through one slit or the other right?

And so they do. Except something odd happens over time:

Somehow individual photons are interfering with themselves. Either they interfere with themselves abstracted over time, or they pass through both slits at once, or they interfere with themselves in the multiverse.
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trainedobserver]

You shoot single photons out (they're a discrete quanta of energy) and they can either go through one slit or the other right?

Billy says, "Nah."

 

[Jeff Davis]

OK, and I'm positing that there's a magical herd of microscopic unicorns with skittles coming out of their butts that create consciousness.

Prove that I'm wrong.

Sure, just as soon as you can cite 3 books that support the anal unicorn notion. How about just one empirical paper's submission? There are are literally hundreds supporting what I am stating. So unicorns coming out of someone's butt just don't cut it. This isn't pretend. No matter how much the uneducated claim it to be in an effort to bolster their own increasingly weak grasp of the matter.

 

[marduk]

Sure, just as soon as you can cite 3 books that support the anal unicorn notion. How about just one empirical paper's submission? There are are literally hundreds supporting what I am stating. So unicorns coming out of someone's butt just don't cut it. This isn't pretend. No matter how much the uneducated claim it to be in an effort to bolster their own increasingly weak grasp of the matter.

OK, now we're cooking.

Show me one experiment that verified the need for a conscious observer that influenced the outcome.

 

[marduk]

Billy says, "Nah."

That was exactly my point. That they're both a wave and a particle.

 

[trainedobserver]

That was exactly my point. That they're both a wave and a particle.

You watched the video and got that Bill proposes that?

They can't be both a wave and a particle. They appear at different times to behave as such, but as Bill states, the only model that provides for that is the rope theory, where light is the perception of the excitation of the electromagnetic ropes through torsion.

 

[Jeff Davis]

OK, now we're cooking.

Show me one experiment that verified the need for a conscious observer that influenced the outcome.

Man, you are really hung up on that individual observer thing. Check out the EPR and Bell's theorem. You'll find more than enough to influence your own individual outcome.

 

[nameless]

I don't agree.

Either they have stuff that makes them "in the know" or they don't.

If they do, your government can't even make them act in any constitutional sense. The CIA has routinely been busted spying on it's own citizens. Your secrecy apparatus is completely out of your own control, and simply because your citizens tolerate it in the name of "safety."
Feinstein says CIA spied on Senate computers - CNN.com

How insane do we think you are? Very.
The CIA shows its fangs at home: Neil Macdonald - World - CBC News

So, the fact of the matter is, if you can't pressure the CIA with your own damn government about relatively routine matters, what hope do you have in hell that you could pressure it about something exotic? No hope at all.

If the don't have stuff that makes them "in the know" then you're peeing in the wind.

My guess is they have multiple contradictory data points just like we do, and they gave up on trying to make heads or tails of it long ago.

I disagree we can through the medium of D.A.N.C.E. convince the FBI, ELP, WKRP and the PMRC to spill the beans on the alien scum that are syphoning off our sacred and beloved MAN JUICE.

Join me now in uncovering the truth about our overlord masters ;
Discoclosure project TM

 

[Jeff Davis]

I can ONLY, and I mean only...respond by offering up what is most likely one of history's greatest conspiratorial mysteries. The most deadly and effective of all CIA inspired subterfuge ever reprogrammed, and subsequently unleashed to psyoptically entrain and thereby influence the masses to utter and complete...bed spins???

 

[mike]

The fundamental error behind the notion that consciousness can be transferred into technology explained:

This guy ?
Really ?

Blogger: User Profile: Mike H

Some silly nerd living in someones basement (judging by the window in the vid)
And hes a better authority with his nonsensical "you cant move motion" what does that even mean ? than hawking or any of the other heavily credentialed people in the field.

Welcome! My name is Michael Huttner and I started The Integrated Post as a outlet to promote rigorous philosophy as the methodology for creating a better world. I want to focus on the psychology of metacognition, or thinking about "how to think", analysis of current issues, and most importantly to push an agenda of philosophical community activism so that we can push this conversation forward toward success! I currently work full time at a famously good ice cream parlor while I pay off the student loans I incurred paying for an education in philosophy. I like to spend time reading and studying all philosophical topics, questioning as many people on their views as I can, and working to achieve even greater personal integrity to virtue every day

You really think some nerd who works at an ice cream parlour trumps Hawking et al on this subject ?

Heres what he thinks of another scientist

Immediately after DeGrasshead Tyson tries to sell you his absurdist wares with high quality CGI, wonderous music, and the passion of a Born Again Christian, he's got you emotionally ready to accept anything

Of course he also says

It's so easy! When a person encounters arguments which contradict their cherished beliefs, they lash out at it instead of arguing against it. Critics who cannot actually address the substance of an argument rely on attacking the either the appearance of the argument, or the person making the argument instead. These childish, irrational attacks include sweeping general statements (usually including their FEELINGS about the argument)

Hilarious, isnt that what he just did to Degrasse Tyson.

Lets compare the two

Neils accomplishments

Awards[edit]

• 2001 Medal of Excellence, Columbia University, New York City
• 2004 NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal
• 2007 Klopsteg Memorial Award winner
• 2009 Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award from the Space Foundation for significant contributions to public awareness of space programs.[27]
• 2009 Isaac Asimov Award from the American Humanist Association [84]

Selected honorary doctorates[edit]

• 1997 York College, City University of New York
• 2000 Ramapo College, Mahwah, New Jersey
• 2000 Dominican College, Orangeburg, New York
• 2001 University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia
• 2002 Bloomfield College, Bloomfield, New Jersey
• 2003 Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
• 2004 College of Staten Island, City University of New York
• 2006 Pace University, New York City
• 2007 Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts
• 2007 Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts
• 2008 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama
• 2010 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
• 2010 Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, Connecticut
• 2011 Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
• 2012 Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts
• 2012 Western New England University, Springfield, Massachusetts

Honors[edit]

• 2000 Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive, People Magazine[85]
• 2001 asteroid named: 13123 Tyson, renamed from Asteroid 1994KA by the International Astronomical Union
• 2001 The Tech 100, voted by editors of Crain's Magazine to be among the 100 most influential technology leaders in New York
• 2004 Fifty Most Important African-Americans in Research Science[86]
• 2007 Harvard 100: Most Influential Harvard Alumni Magazine, Cambridge. Massachusetts
• 2007 The Time 100, voted by the editors of Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential persons in the world[87]
• 2008 Discover Magazine selected him one of the "50 Best Brains in Science".[88]

• 
  Vs some guy who works full time in an ice cream shop.......

• 
  Thanks for making me laugh hard

hawking on brain uploads - Bing

But some guy who works in an ice cream parlour knows better ?

No Daniel, its not just you the guy is completeley full of crap

 

[Constance]

I originally wrote: There is no question that the entirety of UFO lore dwells in the forests of expanded natural context. It speaks to me as being consistent with a matter of facility, rather than a non integral event. The matter seems transitory with respect to human progress. It's in us. Not outside of us. Either by natural or artificial design. The question is, hypothetically, are we being taken there in a natural progression, or are we being influenced to go there by and within mechanisms of our own consciousness that we are yet to understand and develop a working context for?

Constance,
The word "context" for me is extremely important. Context is actually nothing more than human memory, and yet NOTHING is more perceptively critical than memory with respect to what is reality. All context is determined by memory. 100%. When something paranormal happens, it is always a matter of contextual interpretation. That's why when @Burnt State, @ufology, & @Jeff Davis have witnessed (observed) UFOs, we identify them the way we do. If we lived 500 years ago they would be determined, (whether interacting with the phenomenon in an experiential manner or not) as being whatever we had parked in our memories via talk at the local tavern. Fairies, Goblins, Trolls, Changling mysthos, whatever. We can back up from the phenomenal experience into a hindsight vantage point wherein it is obvious beyond reason where such influence originates. It ALWAYS originates within the natural context of our memories. All perceptions are assembled determinations.

... of what?

The word "facility" refers to our natural evolutionary interactive consciousness status within which our intellect performs cognitive determinations via memory. IMO, this is a status undergoing tremendous progressive change. In fact, the one aspect of measurable human evolution progressing at a notably remarkable rate is the human brain according to paleontologists monitoring such a cause. If you believe as I do that the human reality mold is shaped, experientially developed, and executed via this facility, it is most likely that the natural environmental fullness or completeness of our existence, for which we are presently at a loss for what is a true understanding, will continue to follow despite memory based interpretation of these natural integral processes.

So, if I follow you so far (doubtful), we exist in a natural environment, a portion of the physical universe, but we can only know it in terms of what we remember from past experience? Then how is it that we learn about anything we did not know about before (such as the scientific discovery of the quantum level of reality about a hundred years ago)?

In understanding this, it is best to view humanity's past physical evolutionary status as being one that exemplifies Julian Jaynes theories. I believe Jaynes workings and research point to the type of ongoing psychical developments that still include vivid hallucinatory experiences induced by facilitation within our interactive relationship to and with the environmental component of consciousness. Facilitation that has yet to be identified and studied within the workings of the human mind. Personally, it is my own speculation that our own DNA is encoded with humanity's evolutionary template. IMO, the AAP is triggered from within, rather than one that chooses the individual arbitrarily from an external perspective.

What (and where) is "the environmental component of consciousness"?

Thanks for posting a clarification, Jeff, but as you see I am likely not understanding you yet.

 

[nameless]

 

[trainedobserver]

"You really think some nerd who works at an ice cream parlour trumps Hawking et al on this subject ?"

Yes of course, a good old ad ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority. Wonderful. Those "rational science" boys (or whatever they call themselves) are prone to do the same. However, they do make some compelling arguments.

The crux of the argument is simply this. The biological brain is a machine and consciousness is that machine in motion. Consciousness is as the fellow suggests, the molecular activity within the brain. You aren't going to be able to "move" the molecular motion of one brain, into another. That brain will have it's own "molecular" activity. He uses the analogy of the fact that while one torch may light another, it is not transferring the "flame" from one torch to another.

Even if you had a magic machine that perfectly replicated your brain Mike, right down to the molecular level, what would move from your dieing brain into the new one?

If you replicated your brain perfectly and it operates on its own, perfectly replicating your mental processes to the point where it is convinced it is the original, it would still only be a copy and not the original. Should the original die and the copy live, the copy would not be a continuation of the original. There would be no continuation of conscious from your date of birth. You would be dead and someone (or some thing) thinking they were you would be living an artificial lie.

 

[manxman]

in the sense you are describing 'life' in your last paragraph, i dont agree, it would be the same consciousness in a new sandwich, you would still be you, if it was a perfect copy, all that would be left is a failing shell, that was dead the minute they transfer/store your consciousness elsewhere, the body dies when the consciousness leaves, as it is now, when the heart stops, in your scenario, i dont believe they will ever be able to replicate identical consciousness's, i doubt very much they will ever prove consciousness exist, as a seperate entity.

 

[mike]

"You really think some nerd who works at an ice cream parlour trumps Hawking et al on this subject ?"

Yes of course, a good old ad ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority. Wonderful. Those "rational science" boys (or whatever they call themselves) are prone to do the same. However, they do make some compelling arguments.

The crux of the argument is simply this. The biological brain is a machine and consciousness is that machine in motion. Consciousness is as the fellow suggests, the molecular activity within the brain. You aren't going to be able to "move" the molecular motion of one brain, into another. That brain will have it's own "molecular" activity. He uses the analogy of the fact that while one torch may light another, it is not transferring the "flame" from one torch to another.

Even if you had a magic machine that perfectly replicated your brain Mike, right down to the molecular level, what would move from your dieing brain into the new one?

If you replicated your brain perfectly and it operates on its own, perfectly replicating your mental processes to the point where it is convinced it is the original, it would still only be a copy and not the original. Should the original die and the copy live, the copy would not be a continuation of the original. There would be no continuation of conscious from your date of birth. You would be dead and someone (or some thing) thinking they were you would be living an artificial lie.

I am well within my rights to toss an ad hominem his way, lets see what he has to say about it

On the contrary, it is NOT an ad hominem to make a specific argument against your opponent which demonstrates the irrationalities of their statement and THEN to tell them, "So you're an idiot/moron/retard/clown/liar/ect." These words are appropriate in a debate because they are DESCRIPTIVE. The term idiot, as Bill Gaede defines, is "someone lacking common sense". So if you explain how someone lacks common sense by making a nonsense argument, you are making a perfectly accurate description when you call them an idiot.

A word about ad hominems ~ The Integrated Post

My argument is this, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Hes just finished his philosophy course, and is now paying off his fees working full time in an ice cream parlour.
Way to go genius, why not study a real science or engineering or even a trade, something that will help get a real job.

No...... He made the smart move and took philosophy and now can look forward to a career serving ice cream.

When was the last time you saw an advert for a large multinational seeks philosopher, attractive salary and company car ?

Philosophy isnt even a science

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...-is-not-a-science/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

But he thinks he is in a position to discredit the likes of hawking and Tyson.

So yeah hes an idiot of many stripes.

Weve done this copy vs transfer stuff before, and you have a point but i say its irrelevant from the pov of the target.

Star treks transporter is a good if fictional example

By your criteria the very first time Jim Kirk used a transporter he was murdered, the rest of his starfleet career merely a chain of copys, the "real" kirk dies the very first time he underwent the process, but to these copys they "feel" real.

Imagine the following is true

I and my team of neuro engineers came into your home last night, we gased you while you were asleep and transfered your brain patterns to a replicant body so perfect as to be indistinguishable from the original, You woke up this morning none the wiser.
we destroyed the body you wore yesterday.
Having just found out the awful truth do you still feel like you ?

Were i to keep the original and walk it into the room you now sit in, neither of you would be able to prove to the other it was the "real" you

The copy would feel like and insist it was the original, the original would feel the exact same way.

We "lose" conciousness when we undergo major surgey, and we "regain" it afterwards.
Transfering the pattern between substrates during this process would feel identical to having your tonsils out.

While i take your point about a copy not being a transfer, thats only the case from the pov of the source, not the target.

And there are some scenarios where i think proper transfer is possible

for example

In addition, the researchers went on to show that if a prosthetic device and its associated electrodes were implanted in animals with a normal, functioning hippocampus, the device could actually strengthen the memory being generated internally in the brain and enhance the memory capability of normal rats.

Could we develop dual core processing for conciousness?

Could individual conciousness function simultaneously on both a biological and mechanical substrate ?

Would such a consciousness "still be you", and what if we switched off one of the parallel processors

What if we install a neural prosthetic that copys your existing memorys and starts storing all your new ones in a RAID format
RAID - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you continue on as you have for the next 20 years, until one day we tell you your biological substrate is no longer being used as a memory storage devive, its all in the cloud now, but you still feel "alive" and still feel like you .....

What if the process isnt a cut and paste, but rather a transitional migration.

Your native bioform wears out, you lose only the sensory input it provided, we either move "you" into a simulation that provides a simulation of sensory input, or link you up to a brand new replicant bioform and it provides the sensory input your native bioform provided before it wore out .

Would you still feel like you ?

What if it wasnt a cut/copy and paste, but a migration to parallel substrates, phasing out the biological system in such a way as you didnt even notice it

In the same way you dont notice neurogenisis
Neurogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in the early 1990s hippocampal neurogenesis was demonstrated in non-human primates and humans