|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
60 years of polluted air and about 50 of drug abuse can do that to ya
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
#21879672 - 06/30/15 07:14 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Khancious said: 60 years of polluted air and about 50 of drug abuse can do that to ya

OC was bozoic long before this. It gets worse with time as the narcissism and delusions of grandeur calcify along with the boiler scale pineal gland compliments of fluoride, MSG, and massive doses of GMO.
"He loves those Nacho Cheese Doritos".
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
And diet pepsi, I heard he lost a pound in brain matter!
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
They're organic!
--------------------
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
So is hemlock
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
#21879890 - 06/30/15 07:54 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hemlock this thread!
--------------------
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21881508 - 07/01/15 03:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"Here is an example: Prove that consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death. Can't do it? Ok, now prove that consciousness does not exist outside of the body and continue after death. Can't do that either? I'm sure you get the idea."
Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matter
Consciousness without matter is rationally impossible. A square circle is also rationally impossible.
That which is rationally impossible can be rationally denied as it is not rationally possible.
A square circle does not exist, consciousness without matter does not exist. It's up to the person who claims the rationally impossible to produce the evidence in support of the claim, otherwise it can be easily denied as it is rationally impossible.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21881517 - 07/01/15 03:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matterQuote:
sudly said: "Here is an example: Prove that consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death. Can't do it? Ok, now prove that consciousness does not exist outside of the body and continue after death. Can't do that either? I'm sure you get the idea."
Consciousness outside of the body = consciousness without matter
Consciousness without matter is rationally impossible.
hmmmmm...so there is no matter in the universe outside of the body? all matter conforms to what you consider rational? rationalize quantuum entanglement for me please.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21881523 - 07/01/15 03:24 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"so there is no matter in the universe outside of the body?" That's not what I said, I said something that is rationally impossible like a square circle or consciousness without matter can be denied until evidence proves otherwise.
Quantum entanglement currently isn't rational and won't be until evidence is produced to further the idea.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21881547 - 07/01/15 03:47 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle
Quote:
The transcendence of pi implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.
It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. If a rational number is used as an approximation of pi, then squaring the circle becomes possible, depending on the values chosen. However, this is only an approximation and does not meet the constraints of the ancient rules for solving the problem. Several mathematicians have demonstrated workable procedures based on a variety of approximations.
Bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can be in Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space.
Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1914 gave a ruler-and-compass construction which was equivalent to taking the approximate value for pi to be
\left(9^2 + \frac{19^2}{22}\right)^{1/4} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{2143}{22}} = 3.1415926525826461252\dots
giving a remarkable eight decimal places of pi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle
Quote:
A squircle is a mathematical shape with properties between those of a square and those of a circle. It is a special case of superellipse. The word "squircle" is a portmanteau of the words "square" and "circle".
Equation
In a Cartesian coordinate system, the squircle centered on the point (a, b) with axes parallel to the coordinate axes is described by the equation:
\left( x - a \right)^4 + \left( y - b \right)^4 = r^4
where r is the minor radius of the squircle (cf. equation of a circle).
The case that is centered on the origin (that is, with a = b = 0) is called Lamé's special quartic. Generalisation
The squircle is a specific case (found by setting n = 4) of the class of shapes known as "supercircles", which have the equation
\left| x - a \right|^n + \left| y - b \right|^n = |r|^n.\,
Unfortunately, the taxonomy is not consistent - some authors refer to the class as "supercircles" and the specific case as a squircle, while others adopt the opposite naming convention. Supercircles in turn are a subset of the even more general "superellipses", which have the equation
\left|\frac{x - a}{r_a}\right|^n\! + \left|\frac{y - b}{r_b}\right|^n\! = 1,\,
where ra and rb are the semi-major and semi-minor axes. Superellipses were extensively studied and popularized by the Danish mathematician Piet Hein.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21881577 - 07/01/15 04:07 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It's mathematically possible if you bend the rules, remove the parallel postulate and do the function of the circle in Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space.
So unless you do the equation within a new set of dimensions, a square circle is still impossible.
This then turns the question as to whether or not there is another 'dimension' were things such as square circles and consciousness without matter can exist.
As far as we know, a square circle and consciousness without matter are both rationally impossible within our dimension. Until there is evidence or reason to believe otherwise, they can both be denied.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21881582 - 07/01/15 04:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you are still making the assumption that consciousness outside the body requires consciousness without matter. i don't see why one follows the other necessarily...
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21881600 - 07/01/15 04:27 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Can you define what consciousness outside of the body is then? If it isn't without matter, what is it?
The only thing left for consciousness to be is energy which would mean you are assuming energy is conscious.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21881656 - 07/01/15 05:05 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Can you define what consciousness outside of the body is then? If it isn't without matter, what is it?
The only thing left for consciousness to be is energy which would mean you are assuming energy is conscious.
not really, but since i already mentioned quantuum entanglement, i'll try to construct something with that. here goes, what if all of a person's higher brain functions are actually the result of the particles in the brain being entangled with particles elsewhere in the universe. As long as the brain is alive and able to function, this entanglement allows for what we call consciousness. However, once brain life has ended, though the particles involved may still be entangled, they aren't arranged in a living brain, so nobody can tell. Meanwhile the particles elswhere in the universe(the hypothetically entangled ones)just go on doin their thing regardless of the state of the body whose particles they were entangled with a bajillion lightyears away.
thats just off the cuff or whatever. the point is to have some imagination man!
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21881696 - 07/01/15 05:35 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
As far any biologist can tell you, consciousness is a result of chemical neurotransmitters traveling through neural synapses to receptors in brain cells that create electric signals that are then processed into thought.
That's quite the assumption to say the brain is in a state of quantum entanglement with another part of the universe. That idea makes neurotransmitters rather redundant seeing as they are what allows for brain function, and so much for free will if consciousness is being controlled from across the universe.
It's fine to have and use your imagination but that doesn't give credibility to an idea.
E.g. The moon is kind of yellowish, using my imagination I could assume it's made of cheese. I like to limit what I believe based on the evidence I see because sadly imagination isn't evidence.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] 1
#21882431 - 07/01/15 11:01 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
its a good thing everyone doesn't think like you do, or humans would never have done something so rationally impossible as fly to the moon and find out its not made of stinky cheese.
anyway, my imaginary example doesn't render neurotransmitters redundant, it simply allows for the production and use of said neurotransmitters to be influenced at a distance, which also does nothing to preclude free will, it simply allows for will to be housed externally from the body. in any event, i don't actually believe that consciousness is a result of quantuum entanglement, i am just willing to admit that it isn't impossible.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21884553 - 07/01/15 07:20 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.
I'll try to explain it, It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.
The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.
Flying to the moon is rationally possible.
I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21884979 - 07/01/15 08:45 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The chance of me getting laid tonight is rationally possible or rationally impossible?
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
|
It's rationally possible that you get laid tonight, it's not impossible.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|