Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22398170 - 10/18/15 02:58 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

br />



This is a video critiquing Einsteins ideas about the Ether and his erroneous conclusion that it does cannot exist.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them
I'm a teapot

Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22398755 - 10/18/15 05:04 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
How does materialism explain these questions?




I don't know. How does Idealism?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: clock_of_omens]
    #22398828 - 10/18/15 05:19 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

clock_of_omens said:
Quote:

soldatheero said:
How does materialism explain these questions?




I don't know. How does Idealism?




The answer is there is no need to explain them.  The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22398836 - 10/18/15 05:21 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Quote:

would say that fields are very well defined in physics.  But that is neither here nor there.




What do you mean it is "neither here nor there" this question of fields is exactly relevant to what we are talking about! Both of you evade my question and don't confront my point. What is the field, what medium does it exist in? how does it operate over a distance without any material interactions? How does materialism explain these questions?

Quote:

Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims






Tesla virtually invented the modern world, he was infinitely more productive than Einstein ever was. You say Tesla wasn't a scientist but I could say Einstein wasn't a scientist he was a mathmatician and invented nothing of use to humanity, he was however instrumental in inventing the atomic bomb.

Tesla disagreed with Einstein because he held to the existence of the either, so did the great scientist James Maxwell. The relativist atomic models of today which look upon the protein, photons, electrons etc as being discrete particles may be accurate for making predictions and inventions but that doesn't mean it is true it just means it is a useful model. The model of the universe with the Earth at it's center is still used in engineering as it is useful but obviously it is not correct. Einstein's relativity is a possible explanation for why gravity exists but it is not proven and he failed to unify his theory for gravity to explain electromagnetism.

Modern science I know is hostile to the idea of an ether and rejects it outright but IMO modern science is becoming more and more cult-like like stubborn.

Quote:

These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid.  He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong




Tesla would have disagreed with the notion that there is energy actually in the atom or in matter and believed that all the energy in matter actually comes from the environment. A different view on why splitting the atom would release an incredible amount of energy back into the environment.




:facepalm:

I don't even know where to start, and the post would be so long no one would read it. 

Just, please understand that you know very little about all this.  That would be something to keep in mind.  You're bandying about physics and names in too cavalier a fashion.  It would take a long time to address your last post and I simply haven't got it.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22398865 - 10/18/15 05:26 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Dude has been doing that for a long time.  Maybe you can appreciate my harsh cynicism and dismissals a little now...  This is the standard for your average shroomery mystic.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22398880 - 10/18/15 05:30 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I will say one thing:  fields are material.  Mass and energy are equivalent by a factor of c².  Fields are just fields of energy.  Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration.  No ether is necessary.  It was proven redundant in the 1800s.

Fields are at the level of mass-energy.  The non-local correlations you are talking about, whatever they are, are one level below or beyond that.  Perhaps it is best to think about things as constituted of semi-autonomous levels or layers.  Mass-energy and fields is one level, but not the fundamental one.


That's my way of looking at it, anyway.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them
I'm a teapot

Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22398881 - 10/18/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

clock_of_omens said:
Quote:

soldatheero said:
How does materialism explain these questions?




I don't know. How does Idealism?




The answer is there is no need to explain them.  The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.




I wasn't trying to. I was just asking him questions that he wasn't answering.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22398887 - 10/18/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Dude has been doing that for a long time.  Maybe you can appreciate my harsh cynicism and dismissals a little now...  This is the standard for your average shroomery mystic.




Indeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22399015 - 10/18/15 05:54 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I will say one thing:  fields are material. 




Why is that?  Simply because they are not spiritual?  I don't think they are material... I think a field is a mathematical concept. :shrug:  But I don't think the word (material) is all that useful or meaningful.  To me "material" is like "matter", its ill defined and non-technical.  In a non-technical sense it is a bulk collection of mass that takes up space.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: clock_of_omens]
    #22399042 - 10/18/15 05:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

clock_of_omens said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

clock_of_omens said:
Quote:

soldatheero said:
How does materialism explain these questions?




I don't know. How does Idealism?




The answer is there is no need to explain them.  The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.




I wasn't trying to. I was just asking him questions that he wasn't answering.




Fo sho.  I prefer to avoid the question as not meaningful.  Its an easy way to keep from getting trapped by mystics, to deny the relevance of the question rather than try to construct a poor answer that isn't quite right and will open the door for more needling.  In the end, their needling attacks help to define what is and isn't the realm of science.  So I don't think it is a cop out to duck the question, it is an admittance of what science is and what it isn't.  What it isn't is a means to validate our intuitive understanding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22399043 - 10/18/15 05:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

You are correct.  I was merely pointing out how I think of it in a rough sort of way, certainly non-technical.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22399225 - 10/18/15 06:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't know. How does Idealism?





Idealism asserts that the mind is fundamental and that the material universe of the senses is but a creation of that mind, so this means that the material universe is an effect and the mental universe is the cause of that effect.

The mental reality is non a spatial reality so operation of forces faster than the speed of light is consistent with idealism. It shows that the physical world we experience is governed by laws outside of itself as that realm is more fundamental.

Quote:

The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship.  And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.  Nothing is traveling.  The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play




Another dimension indeed. That dimension would be something other than or non-analogous to the effects of which it causes, IE) non-material. Materialists always try to explain physical things in terms of other physical things instead of realizing that the cause of those physical things is something completely different. For example the higgs boson is the particle that according to atomists must exist to coincide with the force of gravity, the force must somehow be associated with a particle because that is what Atomism is.

The experiments of QM do not prove idealism however scientific theories are never proven they are tested and they are proven to be false and if not the theory survives. The question you have to ask yourself is materialism surviving QM experiments? Given that realism and locality are called into question I do not see why it is so controversial that materialism may be called into question... well I do, the answer is dogma.

This is an age old debate, yet those on the materialist side always come with a sense of arrogance because the status quo of the day (out of ignorance) is on their side.

Quote:

“It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact. Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon
another at a distance thru a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and course may be
conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty of thinking can ever fall into (for) it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but
whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Sir Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley,
1692




"“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” Tesla

Tesla had a rough last 40 years as he was attacked and slandered by the tycoon J.P Morgan who wished to control Tesla. Tesla believed that thought, energy, matter were all manifestations of one existence.. as do I.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22399255 - 10/18/15 06:32 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I prefer to avoid the question as not meaningful.





Well it is meaningful and it is a cop-out. This differing view of materialism vs immaterialism to explain the operation of forces over a distance has existed for literally 100s of years so to ignore it as irrelevant shows you don't really understand the issue. Obviously it is relevant since this is a debate about materialism and idealism (non-materialism).


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22399262 - 10/18/15 06:33 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ndeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.




I really get a warm fuzzy feeling when you two pat each others ass'! good stuff :sambergfive:


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22399276 - 10/18/15 06:35 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Maybe its meaningful for the philosophic paradigm you are operating under.  Its meaningless under the philosophy of science which is where these concepts actually come from.  I don't see this as a debate between materialism and non-materialism.  This is a thread about AI with a digression into physics which you are butchering.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22399297 - 10/18/15 06:38 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Why are you so hung up on the word "materialism"?  It is just a word -- a concept.  There are probably a lot of people out there whom it could apply to, but so what?  There are also a lot of people, and a lot of people in science, to whom it could not apply.  So..?  I do not see you advancing science, which would be where you ought to be if you really want to make a difference instead of just crying:  "materialism, materialism, bah!"  It's not insightful at all.

And your comment about the Higgs boson I don't get -- I mean, they found it, right?  It's been added to the Standard Model.  You speak of it as if it were fictitious or something.  :shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22399308 - 10/18/15 06:40 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Quote:

ndeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.




I really get a warm fuzzy feeling when you two pat each others ass'! good stuff :sambergfive:




You have no perceptiveness at all if you think that is appropriate.  DieCommie and I have a very rocky history.  But we disagree in a respectful way.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22399654 - 10/18/15 07:37 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I see it as you not being able to define what a field is and therefore dodging the question. At least Quantum is trying to answer it.

Quote:

Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration.  No ether is necessary.  It was proven redundant in the 1800s.




Yes I saw this coming as this was Einsteins view and that of GR

Quote:

Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.




This is not an explanation in my opinion, it makes no sense and that was the view of Tesla. This was just how Einstein who was a materialist made sense of how the speed of light could be constant for all observers without violating realism. He erroneously conceived of space and time as physical objects of there own that could be bent and contracted. This makes no sense because space does not exist on its own it is empty nothingness space is merely an attribute of matter it does not exist in its own right. It's like a shadow to a person, it is an effect. His idea of space and time being a sort of fabric lacks coherence and cannot be verified by observation.

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. . . . Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." Tesla


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22399926 - 10/18/15 08:16 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
I see it as you not being able to define what a field is and therefore dodging the question. At least Quantum is trying to answer it.

Quote:

Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration.  No ether is necessary.  It was proven redundant in the 1800s.




Yes I saw this coming as this was Einsteins view and that of GR

Quote:

Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.




This is not an explanation in my opinion, it makes no sense and that was the view of Tesla. This was just how Einstein who was a materialist made sense of how the speed of light could be constant for all observers without violating realism. He erroneously conceived of space and time as physical objects of there own that could be bent and contracted. This makes no sense because space does not exist on its own it is empty nothingness space is merely an attribute of matter it does not exist in its own right. It's like a shadow to a person, it is an effect. His idea of space and time being a sort of fabric lacks coherence and cannot be verified by observation.

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. . . . Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." Tesla




And yet -- Relativity works very well and its predictions have been confirmed variously.  Right?

And I thought you said space and time were illusions.  Now they're dimensions made of nothing.  ???  Why does Relativity work so well if it's worthless and wrong?  Not that I am an apologist for it.  I mean, whatever you say is "really" going on, Relativity works.

I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem.  We're all doing our best here.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22400192 - 10/18/15 08:46 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It works because it is partially correct. It is true that the speed of light must be constant for all observers and that time dilation does occur and Einstein predicted this. That is has been confirmed experimentally. It is the explanation for how this is possible that can be questioned ie) that space is bending/contracting. There is another possible explanation for this and it is that light is not independent of perception (idealism). To the materialist space simply must be bendable in order to avoid this conclusion which violates realism.. even though conceptually it actually does not make much sense.

Quote:


I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem.  We're all doing our best here.




I agree I just think people need to be more critical of the currently accepted theories and paradigm, people have to much faith in so called scientific authorities.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Asante 5,287 65 05/04/16 03:49 PM
by akira_akuma
* Stephen Hawking on God
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
DiploidM 11,792 264 10/29/10 07:33 AM
by johnm214
* against AI
( 1 2 3 4 all )
laughingdog 1,697 62 05/21/17 11:33 AM
by Yellow Pants
* Hawking on Death Anxiety
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
DiploidM 3,814 81 02/17/12 11:11 AM
by 4896744
* What happens when AI knows it doesn't need us?
( 1 2 all )
Cognitive_Shift 1,888 33 02/26/10 10:53 AM
by explosiveoxygen
* AI exists with almost certainty
( 1 2 all )
hTx 1,920 29 12/25/14 12:10 AM
by hTx
* Materialistic, Nihlistic, Egomaniacs.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
teknix 5,239 134 01/12/12 03:04 PM
by NetDiver
* What is consciousness ?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Brainstem 5,131 158 12/07/10 09:52 PM
by daytripper23

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,676 topic views. 1 members, 14 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.