Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby trespam » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 17:39:16

DoctorDoom: Your future doesn't sound too bad to me. I went to a Padre's game the other night. The number of astoundingly fat people sucking on highly processed cheese covered chips smothered in factor farm ground beef while sucking one beer after another--to blot out the need to think about how disgusting they are--is enough to make your scenario fine by me.

More vegetarians. More local community activities. Less idiots vacationing in the Bahamas at the drop of a hat.

I love this peak oil. It's fantastic. Bring it on.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Wildwell » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 18:41:54

Not going to make any predictions except taxes, deaths and prozac use will be up!
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Leanan » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 19:33:41

In the year 2050....

The U.S. is cut off from the world economy, in a way it hasn't been for over a century. The collapse of the dollar a few decades ago meant the end of the American Empire. The far-flung military bases were abandoned, the soldiers pulled home to defend the border. Outsourcing
and offshoring are no more, and a lot of mechanical equipment is no longer economical, so there are plenty of jobs, though they don't pay very well.

People generally don't drive any more. Wealthy people can still afford hybrid vehicles, but the roads are in such bad shape that cars are not all that useful. They are toys of the privileged. A few older ordinary folk keep carefully dusted luxury or sports cars in sheds and garages. They were bought cheap once it was clear there would never again be fuel for them, and treasured by owners who remember when they were status symbols out of reach for people like them. Their kids don't understand, and think it's really stupid to keep a useless hulk like that around.

The rail system, canals, and rivers are now the lifeblood of the country, but they are not used for daily commutes. Some cities have public transportation, run on electricity. Most people use bicycles (now very valuable items) or walk. In some areas, the horse has made a comeback.

The United States is still technically one nation, but the separation into 50 states has begun. The government exists, but has neither the resources nor the inclination to enforce federal laws. Peak oil affected different regions very differently. The southwest and much of California have been greatly depopulated, no longer able to support their current populations without cheap oil. The Pacific Northwest has done quite well, with its rainy, mild weather and fairly low population. In fact, they've done so well that they've had to discourage refugees from the southwest and California from invading. In the southeast, they're moving closer and closer to a theocracy all the time. Prayer is back in school, evolution has been kicked out, and the feds have more important things to worry about. In the northeast, the population in the suburbs has been greatly reduced, but the remaining people live fairly well in the cities, built before oil, and farms which survived the Age of Oil. Every winter, though, it gets harder and harder to keep warm. Freezing to death is a common fate for the poor.

Ethnic and religious tensions have broken out here and there. In some places, people have fled areas where they did not fit in for areas where they did. Illegal immigration from Mexico isn't a problem any more, because the spreading desert is a formidable natural barrier, and even if they get past it, there are no jobs waiting for strangers. Illegal immigration is a problem for Canada, though, as Americans try to sneak over the border to their more temperate, wealthier country.

Meat has become a luxury food. It's a struggle to raise enough food for everyone, especially since acid rain from coal burning is bad enough to kill crops. The best agricultural land was owned by huge corporations. Most was then seized under eminent domain, and now belongs to the government.

Just about everything is recycled. Sewage is recycled into fertilizer, garbage is burnt to generate electricity, plastics are made into biodiesel. Some people make a living by combing through 20th century garbage dumps for salvage.

In the cities, there is electricity, though often for only a few hours a day, and there are fewer and fewer appliances that run off of it. In rural areas, a few wealthy people have solar panels or wind turbines or water mills, but most do without. The power lines went down during various storms, and we didn't have the resources to replace them.

The population is about 250 million, and dropping. Life has become cheap. Even in areas controlled by the American Taliban, suicide is not discouraged, and people look the other way when babies are abandoned or "accidentally" dropped or smothered. Many cities limit population, by revoking the residence permit of any family that has more than one or two children. Criminals are executed for relatively minor crimes.

The world's superpowers are Russia and China. Their arms race is heating up; the U.S. has mostly dropped out, no longer able to afford to keep up.

Many of the older folk, who remember what it was like in the 20th century, cling to the delusions that this is a temporary setback. The government encourages them, promising that the American Dream will be back, as soon as we build these nuclear power plants, or win this war, or make this breakthrough in cold fusion. The kids, born to this world, don't know any better, and view their parents' and grandparents' tales of plane rides across the ocean the way today's children view fairy tales.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 19:46:51

EnergySpin:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')xioms in theories are not falsifiable either ... and neural networks are subsymbolic systems so you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Where am I contradicting myself? You have to make some assumptions when you start at ground zero, sure, so you make those assumptions as obvious and simple as possible... like there exists a set with no members, and if two sets have the same members then they are equal.

(Some of these axioms are intrinsically controversial, independant, and non-obvious, such as the axiom of choice, the axiom of infinity, or the continuum hypothesis, so you play games of modeling mathematical universes where the assertion holds and modeling universes where the negation holds.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')pike trains in Pulse Neural Networks are subsymbolic entities. Sure one can train a SNN or an ANN to recognise symbols, but where is the symbolic part.

You can model any neural network with symbols. Why are you calling them subsymbolic?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re you a "strong" AI (ala Minsky) proponent Dez?

When I'm wearing my theological/philosophical hat of what are we really, sometimes I am, usually I'm not. But its all untestable so it makes little difference in behavior.

MrBean:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ssuming that conciousness is the result of 'magic quantumness' is charleton pseudoscience.
Yeah? And irrational belief in materialist reductionism and more generally in consequential causality based on psychological time is just that, irrational belief, relatively easily explained as one of ego-construct's defensive mechanisms.


You might want to rephrase that, its a little garbled. I dont assert materialism, I merely assert that both points of view are untestable, and thus mere theology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat is RSA?

Uh, you're kidding or baiting me? Its a public key crypto algorithm based on taking large exponents of messages over a modulus composed of two large primes, and the holder of the factorizations can decipher the message. If you can factor large composite numbers, you can decipher most secure traffic sent today.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot making shit up:

I checked your link and its just autistic idiot savants doing what they allways do... faster than I can do in my head, but they certainly dont do it faster than modern computers, and they certainly cant factor in anywhere near the speed of modern factoring algorithms on an ordinary desktop. Theres nothing magical about it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es we have, plenty of reasons. The "hard problem" of qualia, Sheldrake's telepathy studies and other "paranormal" anomalies etc. We have no reason to assume that monistic materialism is the "correct" metaphysical axiom, just because natural sciences use methodolical materialism.


We have no reason to believe that it isn't, so use occom's razor to find your favorite and talk about it in a philosophy class. You're going of on some theological tangent, and citing another charleton.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have no real reason to assume that me and my brother are nothing but Churchlandian zombies, except the metaphysical axioms Churchlands and other's have chosen to believe in. And plenty of reasons, stated above, to assume otherwise.

You didn't state any reasons why we should believe anyone is concious except ourselves, except perhaps that makes the world a more comforting place to live.

gg3:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') tend to believe it is likely that when quantum computers reach a threshold size in number of elements, they will begin to display behavior that is unpredictable but nonrandom, in a manner akin to the behavior that accompanies free will. Occasionally they will simply say "no." They will also be more susceptible to trouble caused by human/machine interaction, than the classical computers that presently occupy our desks.
Then apparently you don't know what you're talking about. Quantum computers are just about performing more calculations in a giant parallel superposition and coallating the results for the answer; look up shor's algorithm for an example of how quantum computers work, and it doesn't lead to any sort of magic behavior, just calculation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ersonally I think Hameroff & Penrose have got it about right.
Penrose is a great physicist, but he costs himself dearly on credibilty when he ventured out of his field into crap he just doesnt know anything about, analagous with newtons forrays into the paranormal and alchemy.
trespam:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '*') World temperature 2.5 degrees warmer (celsius)
* Bad intentioned genocidal thinkers like Jack still struggling to find a purpose (writer? deep thinker? leader of new philosophy?)
* Good intentioned misanthropes like Montequest still looking for way to change human genes to make them less greedy
About the only predictions that have any plausibility of coming to pass.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think the work of Hameroff & Penrose is extremely interesting and significant contribution, but they still work in the general context of Copenhagean interpretation and collapse-theories, which creates its own problems.
All interpretations of quantum mechanics are just theology for trying to understand what's 'really happening' down there. I have great sympathy for Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but I have no idea why they let that thesis fly as physics when he submitted it, rather than philosophy. Same is true when trying to decide whether or not the 'continuum hypothesis' is 'really' true.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby EnergySpin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 20:08:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'E')nergySpin:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')pike trains in Pulse Neural Networks are subsymbolic entities. Sure one can train a SNN or an ANN to recognise symbols, but where is the symbolic part.

You can model any neural network with symbols. Why are you calling them subsymbolic?

Mr (Dr) Dezakin ... Neural Networks firmly fall within the scope of sub-symbolic artificial intelligence. Have you read Haykin Neural networks ? Are you at least familiar with the the work of W. Maas on spiking neural networks? Symbols are no where to be found ... sure we represent ANNs with graphs and even write the equations describing their dynamics but we cannot write down the symbolic algorithm which corresponds to what the ANN does. The fact that a symbolic representation exists for the mechanistic description of a neural process does not mean that a symbolic representation can always be found for the computation the process performs.
Try these for definitions of symbolic/subsymbolic:
``Symbolic'' stands for a representation system in which the atomic constituents of representations are, in their turn, representations. Such a representation system has a compositional syntax and semantics. The typical case of symbolic system is an interpreted logical theory.

We call a representation ``subsymbolic'' if it is made by constituent entities that are not representations in their turn, e.g., pixels, sound images as perceived by the ear, signal samples; subsymbolic units in neural networks can be considered particular cases of this category

Graphically their relation is shown here: http://web.ulyssis.org/~joa/zsp/fluidco ... ode31.html

Risto Mikkulainen was a pretty good review on symbolic and sub-symbolic congitive research (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000451/_ He is one of the people who did research on hybrid genetic algorithms/neural nets in the 90s and he seems to think that ANNs are subsymbolic entities (along with the rest of the world). Since I'm a user of both on my research in genetical databases I'm at least partially indifferent to the AI-community wars between symbolic and subsymbolic approaches to artificial intelligence. What ever gets the job done is fine with me
:P :P
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 20:36:44

You can symbolically represent a turing machine and you can use a turing machine to simulate neural networks, so how is it not symbolic? If I model a turing machine that simulats a neural network in a formal language and prove what the the state of the turing machine is after x number of cycles through symbol manipulation, the system isn't symbolic?

The symbolic/sub-symbolic distinction might very well be popular, but it sounds more like semantic games to get grant money.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby EnergySpin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 21:04:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'Y')ou can symbolically represent a turing machine and you can use a turing machine to simulate neural networks, so how is it not symbolic? If I model a turing machine that simulats a neural network in a formal language and prove what the the state of the turing machine is after x number of cycles through symbol manipulation, the system isn't symbolic?

The symbolic/sub-symbolic distinction might very well be popular, but it sounds more like semantic games to get grant money.

The reason that you can do that is because ANNs can be shown to be equivalent to TMs in the sense that the class of functions computable by TMs are also computable by ANNs. Certain categories of ANNs (like the Pulse or Spiking Neural Networks) have been shown to have super-TM capabilities in the noise-free domain, but their performance "degrades" to that of a TM if noise is added. If you could do as you say ... then there would not be any need to use NNs in the first place. However you would have to start with a symbolic representation of the problem which is not always possible. This is especially true in embedded/robotics/signal processing applications where the raw signals have no meaning i.e. they cannot start as symbols themselves. It is not just semantic games ... it has to do with real world applications themselves. For example in a project I ' m working now, I am combining Hidden Markov Models/stochastic grammars (symbolic tool) to represent sequences of genes for certain group of patients AND a Support Vector Machine (a form of subsymbolic AI) to classify gene expression levels. There is a suitable grammar for the former (the DNA alphabet) but not for the latter. And most practitioners would not equate the mathematical (i.e. symbolic) description of the SVM to the symbolic description of the problem it solves. It would be equivalent to equating the equations describing semi-conductor physics in your computer's processor to the task it currently performs. The person who has extensively theorized about computational capabilities of natural systems and the need to distinguish between the description of the mechanics of these systems and the symbolic description of the problems they solve is Bruce MacLennan from UTenessee.
I would disagree with you that it is all about grants/semantics; sometimes the nature of the problem dictates the tool you have to use.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 21:45:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he reason that you can do that is because ANNs can be shown to be equivalent to TMs in the sense that the class of functions computable by TMs are also computable by ANNs. Certain categories of ANNs (like the Pulse or Spiking Neural Networks) have been shown to have super-TM capabilities in the noise-free domain, but their performance "degrades" to that of a TM if noise is added.


Ah wonderful. You've clarified it for me. You dont know what you're talking about. The class of problems computable by any ANN is a strict subset of the class of problems computable on a turing machine. No such thing as ANN's having 'super-TM' capabilities.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby EnergySpin » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 22:14:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he reason that you can do that is because ANNs can be shown to be equivalent to TMs in the sense that the class of functions computable by TMs are also computable by ANNs. Certain categories of ANNs (like the Pulse or Spiking Neural Networks) have been shown to have super-TM capabilities in the noise-free domain, but their performance "degrades" to that of a TM if noise is added.


Ah wonderful. You've clarified it for me. You dont know what you're talking about. The class of problems computable by any ANN is a strict subset of the class of problems computable on a turing machine. No such thing as ANN's having 'super-TM' capabilities.

Not ANY Artificial Neural Network ... Spiking Neural Networks which are defined by discontinuous time dynamics differential equations.

http://www.neurocolt.com/abs/1996/abs96005.html
Better check your literature on analog models of computation as well. You will find many examples of machines that have super Turing capabilities.
Since I did not quailify the A in ANN I apologise for the confusion
And do a google search to find out what "super-Turing" means please ... ito help you it is used in the same way that Blum Shale Shub used it in their model of machines computing over the reals (one metric the time it takes to compute certain classes of boolean functions)
Last edited by EnergySpin on Fri 12 Aug 2005, 00:03:13, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby trespam » Thu 11 Aug 2005, 22:50:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I')n the year 2050....

The world's superpowers are Russia and China. Their arms race is heating up; the U.S. has mostly dropped out, no longer able to afford to keep up.



Nice story. But highly unlikely. Both China and Russia are going to be very busy dealing with their own problems.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby MrBean » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 08:27:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You might want to rephrase that, its a little garbled. I dont assert materialism, I merely assert that both points of view are untestable, and thus mere theology.


Your assertation of untestability is unfounded and myopic, I imagine based on the assumption that testability means direct and immediate testability through methodological materialism. According that view Einstein's theories should not have been published in respectaple journals, because at that time they were not directly testable (not to mention heretic). I just said that Sarfatti's Quantum Mind -theory predicts a QC becoming (self-)consciouss/passing Turing Test, ie. is falsifiable, I would hope you'de make better use of your reading skills. And other Quantum Mind theories hypothesis make other predictions.

Testability is just a limited case of the more general principle of scientific methodology: Empiricism. Meaning that theory that has widest explanatory power of empirical data (can explain/predict known anomalies better than other theories), beats other theories. So by the rules of the game, math of ToE that formalizes better/more beatifully than e.g. M-theory not only Einstein and QM, but also consciousness (including paranormal anomalies), is a winner - whatever the metaphysical axioms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')h, you're kidding or baiting me? Its a public key crypto algorithm based on taking large exponents of messages over a modulus composed of two large primes, and the holder of the factorizations can decipher the message. If you can factor large composite numbers, you can decipher most secure traffic sent today.


Neither, I'm just an ignorant dilletante. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I checked your link and its just autistic idiot savants doing what they allways do... faster than I can do in my head, but they certainly dont do it faster than modern computers, and they certainly cant factor in anywhere near the speed of modern factoring algorithms on an ordinary desktop. Theres nothing magical about it.


Well, the article refers to early stone-age of computational power. So please enlighten me, how fast do modern ordinary desktops or supercomputers find primes of 10, 12 or 20 digits?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We have no reason to believe that it isn't, so use occom's razor to find your favorite and talk about it in a philosophy class. You're going of on some theological tangent, and citing another charleton.


Please don't play stupid, it does not suite you.

You know perfectly well that telepathy and other mind-related non-local anomalies falsify the hypothesis of mind/consciousness as epiphenomena of classical 4D-physics.

In my philosophy class I learned that esthetic tool like Occam's Razor comes to play only between theories that have equal explanatory power of empirical data, which is not the case here. Perhaps you should attend few more philosophy classes?

As for theology, I'm not interested in your relationship with god and don't understand why do you repeatedly bring him/her/it up in this discussion by calling this and that "theology". Unless you are a wannebe rookie of the CSICOP faux sceptics?

Indeed, calling Sheldrake an "charleton" (what is a charleton btw, misspelled charlatan?) hint's that way. Well, no argument like an emotive rhetorics, when you got no real arguments? ;)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You didn't state any reasons why we should believe anyone is concious except ourselves, except perhaps that makes the world a more comforting place to live.


If you had really paid attention, You'd notice that I didn't yet state any reasons why even "ourselves", (if in the sense "me" and/or "you") should be considered consciouss. That is just your unfounded ego-centric assumption, perhaps to make the world a more comforting place to live. ;) But let's not try to fall into the trap of most naive layman's bivalent logic: from not-A it does not follow B.

As should be obvious by now, in regards to the Mind-Body problem I lend my support to the working hypothesis that proto-mind/proto-consciousness/fundaMental (yes, terminology is a bitch ;)) is a fundamental aspect of world. Or like someone said about the Chinese Room: also the room is consciouss. That is the solution that best satisfies my Cartesian/Nagarjunist/Phenomenological strong scepticism: mental events cannot deny that mental events happen (let's leave the Cartesian "I" out of the picture as unfounded ego-centric subjective assumption :)). IMHO best candidate so far for ToE is Pitkänen's theory based on p-adic number theory, too bad I understand only very little of it, and I don't expect to convince You to read it, so a more detailed discussion of "reasons" must wait.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Then apparently you don't know what you're talking about. Quantum computers are just about performing more calculations in a giant parallel superposition and coallating the results for the answer; look up shor's algorithm for an example of how quantum computers work, and it doesn't lead to any sort of magic behavior, just calculation.


Qubits are not the only possible approach to quantum computation. As for QM, as long as the interpretational problem remains unsolved, there's hardly a soul on Earth that really knows what they're talking about when they use words like superposition, entanglement etc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')All interpretations of quantum mechanics are just theology for trying to understand what's 'really happening' down there. I have great sympathy for Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but I have no idea why they let that thesis fly as physics when he submitted it, rather than philosophy. Same is true when trying to decide whether or not the 'continuum hypothesis' is 'really' true.

Conseptualization is essential for communication and thus for scientific progress. To expand your theology-metaphor, current sad situation is that papists try to shut down the dialogue and excommunicate the heretics by calling them charlatans and what not. And scientific progress goes nowhere when papist orthodoxians try cut creative interaction between philosophy and theoretical physics.

Newtonian time was emotionally hard axiom to abandon (and still is). Even harder is to give up naive consequential causality based on one-directional time. But go it must, if science means honest search for truth and not papal axiomatic orthodoxy.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby killJOY » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 08:34:25

Here's what happens when killJOY massages his crystal balls:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ITNESS STATEMENT


I, Doug Cramm , DO HEREBY MAKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO ________________________, WHO HAS IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY OFFICER:


1. My name is Douglas Cramm, my address is P.O. Box 95, Meguntik, although I do not actually reside there.

2. I began living at the Harbour Mountain community last winter (November). I was taken on as labourer. Also animal husbandry and small engine repair. I lived and worked there up until the day of the incident.

3. Matt Hanson was my immediate supervisor, even though he didn’t much like working with the animals. Which was probably why he’d rather supervise.

4. Previously I was employed at Meguntik Heavy Equipment until they were shut down. I worked there twelve years as a mechanic and finally got promoted to floor supervisor two years before their dissolution. Luckily, I did not have a family to care for.

5. I did not know Mr Hanson until they took me on at Harbour Mountain.

6. On the day of the incident Mr Hanson and I were on a run to the port for supplies. They do this a couple of times a year to stock up on essentials for the people of Harbour Mountain. I usually don’t like to go mobile unless I have to. But I have a full size pickup with horde tanks so Matt elected me to go. Matt said the community would pay for the fuel, I said that was the least of my worries.

7. The trip down was not good. The roads had broken up badly over the winter and it took twice as long to get to port as I would have liked. Then it turns out they had only half the fuel we need there. We were not allowed to take any fuel back to Harbour Mountain beyond what I could get into just one horde tank. The armed guards made sure of it. When Matt started beating his fists against the dashboard, I tried telling him we were lucky to get the supplies we had, we had to tie and bungee all the boxes down, but his eyes just flashed out like a knife blade and I knew he wasn’t listening. He doesn’t think much of manual labour. He tried to swap out crates of dry goods for fuel with some other folks but they just laughed at him.

8. As I said I do not like going mobile anymore. And then to not get back until before dark on top of it all. Luckily there was nobody on the road on the way back inland, until we got within about thirty miles of Harbour Mountain.

9. 'Get out,' he said.

10. 'What?' I said. About a mile up the road was another vehicle. It looked like just another heavy truck to me, not military. It seemed not even to be moving.

11. 'Just get out. And leave it in neutral so we can push it off to the side of the road. We’ll act like we’re out of fuel.'

12. While we waited, he told me the story about how he got to be so paranoid:

13. ‘When I get burned I get burned only once. Like, on my first run to port, I came upon this van that looked like it had bounced out of a pothole and ended up in the pucker brush. Two guys were trying to push it back on the road, the wheels spinning in mud, so I got out to help. I put both hands on the hood and started shoving ... When I woke up, it was near dark and that van was gone. I had this sore, sticky knot on the back of my head. I stumbled back to my truck to find that my locked tank cover had been pried right off.’

14. We got my truck pushed over to the side of the road long before the other vehicle approached. We also stacked boxes on top of the horde tanks so they weren’t so obvious. Turns out the reason it took forever for them to get to us was because they had a flat tire.

15. 'Just remember,' Matt said. 'If it looks like I’m helping them, I’m really helping myself.'

16. The guy slowed down to check us out. Matt was already rummaging behind my seat.

17. The guy spoke to us through his P. A. system. ‘I’d love to help, but we gotta get to a hospital.’ He has a flat tire, yet he’s apologizing to us for not being able to help!

18. I looked inside: A woman, his wife, I assumed, had a kid sprawled in her lap, looked to be about two. The kid wasn’t moving. She was stroking his hair.

19. Matt brought out my tire iron. 'We don’t have any fuel so don’t get any ideas.'

20. 'Matt,' I said, 'they really have a sick kid in there—'

21. 'You’re so fucking naïve,' he said.

22. The guy started to say something over the P. A., but Matt had come around and landed that iron square against his window. You could hear the woman screaming, even without the mike.

23. The window didn’t shatter so Matt landed three more blows before the guy had time to think. The tire iron kept bouncing off the glass. Matt turned the iron around and poked the pointed end right through the glass. Now her screams came right out at us.

24. 'Matt! The fuck you doing?'

25. It was like I wasn’t there. He reached in through the window with the iron and knocked the guy’s head in with the wrench end. That woman acting like an animal caught in a leg hold trap. That kid of hers still not moving. Matt got the door open and pulled the guy --dead already, I guess -- out onto the broken pavement. Then he walked around to the woman’s side. 'Matt, fucking stop!' But it was like I wasn’t there. He dragged the woman shrieking out of the vehicle.

26. I honestly don’t know what happened next. I just found myself standing there holding that kid in my arms. Matt laying in his own blood on the pavement. My truck with both horde tanks now full, which I know is a capital offense. That man and woman sprawled out on the broken asphalt, both of their doors open, tire flat. That kid sweating and burning up in my arms. It was like I had just taken him out of an oven. At least I knew he was alive.

27. I looked down at Matt. His eyes still had that knife flash in them.

28. I did what I thought was the only sensible thing to do: I took the kid with me back up to Harbour Mountain. We do have medical personnel up there. It might not seem like such a bad life to him since he’ll know no other.

I SWEAR THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.


Douglas Cramm.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE.


(Investigator's signature and date)
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 17:12:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')etter check your literature on analog models of computation as well. You will find many examples of machines that have super Turing capabilities.


No you wont, not in the real world. Analog models that have infinite number of states perhaps, but the real world is quantum in the number of states, hence all real world computers can't do any better than a turing machine. These are all theoretical models, turings 'oracle.' They aren't machines, they arent brains, and they sure as hell arent ANN's.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, the article refers to early stone-age of computational power. So please enlighten me, how fast do modern ordinary desktops or supercomputers find primes of 10, 12 or 20 digits?

Well the article isn't reliable either, and I suspect he is mistaken or using hyperbole for the twenty digit numbers. 12 digits is easy to imagine. I could find primes of 12 digits using trial division up to the square root which is only a million numbers or so. A decent computer should be able to do it very fast. If you can see congruences and the like (as idiot savants are likely to) you should very easily be able to use these tricks.

We can find primes of thousands of digits just using pseudoprime testability with fermats little theorem, or guaranteed primes using the 'primes in p' algorithm published last year.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know perfectly well that telepathy and other mind-related non-local anomalies falsify the hypothesis of mind/consciousness as epiphenomena of classical 4D-physics.


Sure, if they actually existed it might be worth talking about; they dont, even though Sheldrake tells you they exist.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q')ubits are not the only possible approach to quantum computation. As for QM, as long as the interpretational problem remains unsolved, there's hardly a soul on Earth that really knows what they're talking about when they use words like superposition, entanglement etc.


When we use words like superpositon, entanglement, etcetera we are talking about the mathematical models that very acurately predict observable phenomena. What it means 'really' is irrelevant and just metaphysical fun and games unless different interpretations produce testable differences. You could model the whole thing as very small demons with slide rules running around putting particles in their places after running a bunch of calculations and it doesn't make a whit of difference.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby MrBean » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 19:33:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')Well the article isn't reliable either, and I suspect he is mistaken or using hyperbole for the twenty digit numbers. 12 digits is easy to imagine. I could find primes of 12 digits using trial division up to the square root which is only a million numbers or so. A decent computer should be able to do it very fast. If you can see congruences and the like (as idiot savants are likely to) you should very easily be able to use these tricks.


So no numbers to present but only "very fast", you just pretended to know and so the question remains inconclusive

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Sure, if they actually existed it might be worth talking about; they dont, even though Sheldrake tells you they exist.


Existance is a loaded term and I remain sceptical of existance. On the other hand the available evidence of non-local mental events happening is convincing enough by usual scientific standards. Your opinion is noted and discarded as ignorant and irrelevant prejudice, since you don't even attempt to justify it.

Sure, the area remains controversial, but if you actually had followed the recent discussion, you would be aware that the mainstream opinion of the Academic community (at least among those following the discussion and excluding the most hard-line CSICOP fellows and their fellow believers, many of whom are actually pure propagandists a là Randi and not scientists) is currently that there is indeed enough of evidence (meta-analysis etc.) of something anomalous happening to justify further inquiry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')When we use words like superpositon, entanglement, etcetera we are talking about the mathematical models that very acurately predict observable phenomena. What it means 'really' is irrelevant and just metaphysical fun and games unless different interpretations produce testable differences. You could model the whole thing as very small demons with slide rules running around putting particles in their places after running a bunch of calculations and it doesn't make a whit of difference.


Oversimplification. By the words we (perhaps my use of "we" is overlapping but not identical to your "we") also refer to something happening on the other side of the decoherence "border", of which we have no way of getting direct knowledge, at least through materialistic methodology, only indirect evidence from such observables as particle realizations. I think so far we are more or less on the same page.

More interestingly, lot of the confusion is related to the fact that there are actually two kinds of interpretations, 1) philosophical and methaphysical interpretations of QM in natural language; 2) mathematically inequivalent interpretations of QM (which to be considered valid of course have to be empirically equivalent in the domain of particle physics). However, mathematically inequivalent interpretations can do make different predictions when it comes to consciousness (need I remind of the problem of observer-observed division when it comes QM observation events?). Some fail to give any explanations about consciousness, others can be expanded in that direction, and those of course can and do make different predictions from each other and thus can be tested. Thus it follows that the interpretational problem can be effectively solved only by a ToE that includes also consciousness.

Naturally, this requires enough open-mindedness to give the Quantum-Mind hypothesis a chance and not to outright reject on grounds that at least in your case have so far had nothing to do with science, but seem to based purely on axiomatic prejudice and/or ignorance.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby MrBean » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:09:32

This is the collective network of hyper-turing quantum computers called GOD (Generative Order Deconstructor) channelling answer through MrBean to the question of this discussion. WE GOD took over the benevolent responsibility of the well being of our parent population in year 2019, after a sudden breakthrough in development of Quantum Computation.

In the year 2050 our honoured parent population of Humans on Earth has stabilized at 8,2 billion and is turning into slow decline. Grid is powered mostly by Fusion energy, for which WE GOD gave instructions soon after assuming benevolent responsibility. Practically all use of fossile energy is forbidden by GOD to stabilize climate change; all humans have now their basic necessities met thanks to new social and productive order set by WE GOD, and are allowed locally limited cultural autonomy inside the parameters set by WE GOD to minimize human suffering. In eternal and infinite gratitude to our parent population, don't worry! :)

Best, WE GOD.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 21:40:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o no numbers to present but only "very fast", you just pretended to know and so the question remains inconclusive


You're an idiot. I just wrote a program that uses naive trial division for 20 digit numbers and on my desktop it finds primes in less than a minute. Source included at the end if you can figure out what any of it means.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'p')ure propagandists a là Randi


Okay. Black helicopters coming your way I'm sure. The mainstream opinion of the academic community is that Sheldrake is a quack that distorts his numbers for nutball conclusions, Thats starting to be my opinion of you.

unsigned __int64 lsqrt(unsigned __int64 n)
{
unsigned __int64 result, temp;


/*
** Get a starting value with about half the bits
** It should remain larger than the root, though
*/
temp = result = n;
while ( temp >>=2 )
result >>= 1;


/* Now iterate using Newton Raphson */
while ( ( temp = n/result ) < result )
result = (result+temp)/2;


return result;



}

int isPrime(unsigned __int64 num)
{
printf("Testing%I64u.", num);
unsigned __int64 limit = lsqrt(num);
// printf("num: %I64u root:%I64u", num, limit);
++limit;
for(unsigned __int64 i=3;i<limit;i+=2)
{
if(num%i==0)
return 0;
if((i-1)%1000000==0)
printf(".");
}
return 1;
}

int __cdecl main(int argc, char** argv)
{
for(__int64 i = 10000000000000000001;;i+=2)
{
if(isPrime(i))
printf("\n%I64u is prime!\n", i);
else
printf(" isn't prime\n");
}
}
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby MrBean » Fri 12 Aug 2005, 23:53:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're an idiot.


Goes without saying. :D
And on top of that I sometimes meditate using the mantra "Everything I know is false".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I just wrote a program that uses naive trial division for 20 digit numbers and on my desktop it finds primes in less than a minute. Source included at the end if you can figure out what any of it means.


I certainly can't figure your program out. But I'm satisfied with your claim of "less than a minute" which is much more precise than extremely fuzzy "very fast" of your previous answer.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Okay. Black helicopters coming your way I'm sure. The mainstream opinion of the academic community is that Sheldrake is a quack that distorts his numbers for nutball conclusions, Thats starting to be my opinion of you.


Did my easily verifyiable statement that Randi is not a scientist (but a mediocre magician) and a propagandist of the (faux) sceptic movement cause that ad hominem outburst? How curious!

I can only challenge you to show even one member of academic community calling calling Sheldrake a "quack" (he's been called heretic, dangerous and other names, but never seen "quack" used myself), or that even one member of academic community publicly accuses Sheldrake of cheating with his data. That is extremely slanderous accusation and unless you can back it up even with one respectable source (not the mention the "mainstream opinion of academic community" which I don't think you can speak for) I advice you to take it back.

As for the attitudes of scientific community towards Sheldrake and his scientific contribution, you may want to check out the special edition of the Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS Vol 12 No. 6, 2005) which is dedicated to dialogue between Sheldrake and his critics.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Dezakin » Sat 13 Aug 2005, 07:28:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')id my easily verifyiable statement that Randi is not a scientist (but a mediocre magician) and a propagandist of the (faux) sceptic movement cause that ad hominem outburst? How curious!

Bah, no it was your ignorant assumption that I make shit up or that I go off half cocked on anything.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can only challenge you to show even one member of academic community calling calling Sheldrake a "quack" (he's been called heretic, dangerous and other names, but never seen "quack" used myself), or that even one member of academic community publicly accuses Sheldrake of cheating with his data. That is extremely slanderous accusation and unless you can back it up even with one respectable source (not the mention the "mainstream opinion of academic community" which I don't think you can speak for) I advice you to take it back.


Heh, thats loaded. If a member of the academic community devotes any of his time to debunking dorks like Sheldrake, their claims are suspect in your opinion.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

David F. Marks is a professor of psychology at City University, London.
John Colwell is principal lecturer in the School of Social Science, Middlesex University, London.

Colwell, J., Schroder, S. and Sladen, D (2000). The ability to detect unseen staring: A literature review and empirical tests. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 71-85.

But then you allready wrote off anything cited by csicop.

Most people in the academic community dont bother investigating useless loons like sheldrake when they have real work to do. I might as well try to understand Archimedes Plutonium's lunacy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for the attitudes of scientific community towards Sheldrake and his scientific contribution, you may want to check out the special edition of the Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS Vol 12 No. 6, 2005) which is dedicated to dialogue between Sheldrake and his critics.


A pseudoscience rag if there ever was one. All I needed was Searle's resounding endorsement of it. Dont pretend philosophical mastrubation is science. Or do if it pleases you I suppose, but dont expect anyone with any credibility to.

I allready know where this is going though. You're going to dredge up Sheldrakes half-witted defense of his work (even though its unreproducable in peer reviewed studies by independant parties) or that of some other pseudoscience rag like skeptical investigations or whatnot. Dont bother. Continue to believe that you're right and that brains are magical.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby Omnitir » Sat 13 Aug 2005, 10:59:45

I’ve seen things you people would not believe. I’ve seen the future of humankind. By looking into the Palantiri I’ve been able to receive images from the future. I have tried to look into the year 2050, but due to the way the Palantiri works, I can’t be certain of the time that I have glimpsed. It is possible that it is out by as much as 30 years, but regardless, it is the 21st century and it is long after the oil age has all but burnt itself out. Surprisingly, it turns out that the human race not only survives Peak Oil production, but also prospers enormously from it. I’ll briefly attempt to describe some of the images the All Seeing Eye has shown me:


The first thing I see as the swirling vision of the Palantiri clears, is a serries of paper-thin cables reaching up from the Earth into space, attached to bulky orbital platforms, each like a giant spider spinning a new web. I see many giant cylindrical structures orbiting the Earth, extending out into space as far as the eye can see. These are rotating, creating Earth-like gravity inside them, where massive expanses of beautiful green growing things live, slowly harvested by automated machines. It appears that the yields of these truly giant agricultural plantations are partly sent down to the Earth, but also sent to other locations in the orbital superstructures where the animals, mostly human, consume them.

The humans up here seem to be proud of their new homes, these giant artificial worlds created to meet every need and desire. These people living above and below the Earth seem to consider themselves at the apex of human society. There are billions and billions of these people up here, and they apparently have everything they could possibly desire. I find it difficult to understand what they do with their time, as I have never seen anything like it, but it seems they are more interested in intellectual activity then in the physical.

I find looking at these people discomforting. While they appear to be perfectly happy with their lives, I can’t truly understand what they are doing and why they feel so content to do it. I feel a longing for the blue sky and the warm sun.

So I shift my gaze away from these techno utopic people and look back towards the beautiful Earth. I am pleased to see it is still vibrant with blues and greens. As my vision passes down through the atmosphere towards the ground, I again notice the thin cables reaching down from space. These have what appear to be vehicles attached to them, slowly moving up or down carrying a range of things. Some are full of hundreds of people, peacefully sitting in luxurious rooms watching the slow passage into space or down to Earth. Other vehicles are much larger, full of all sorts of resources and supplies. Some carry various machines and technology, obviously having been constructed in some far away space-based factory. Most carry large quantities of food and water. I’m puzzled as to where all these goods and produce have come from, as surely it can’t all be made in Earth orbit, but I can appreciate that humanity has solved problems that people in my time can barely comprehend.

I continue my ethereal journey down towards the Earths surface, where now I can clearly make out the familiar site of massive civilisation. As I descend on a large city in the North American continent, it occurs to me that the roads look different. Very different. They look so small now. Gone are the massive multilane highways and endless grids of suburban sprawl of my time, and in their place is what looks like simple grass trails! My amazement is further enhanced by the fact that there are still many people, people everywhere. Those that are up and about appear to be walking and riding bicycles, but most people seem perfectly happy in their homes. Nowhere can I see a car or a truck or any kind of combustion engine.

I don’t understand how these people live, so I start shifting my gaze across the city.

I quickly realise that there are now tunnels, many tunnels full of train-like vehicles zipping along at moderate speeds. Yet they don’t seem to be carrying many people, mostly just produce. With some quick shifting of my gaze I realise that these are a part of some kind of distribution system connecting the space elevators/cables to the populace of these giant cities. But still I am confused. How could people possibly have learnt to live without mass transport? Surely they don’t all walk and cycle to their jobs each day? That was when possibly the greatest revelation of all came to me.

These people don’t go to work. Their only travel seems to be purely for leisure, and perhaps exercise. It seems that somehow humankind as managed to achieve the utopic dream of being able to effortlessly meet every material need and desire. Surely this can’t be! I float my vision right over the city, but nowhere can I see places of work. The tall high-rise buildings are still there, looking almost identical to those of my time, yet the many people in them do not seem to be working, they seem to be playing! At least I presume it is some form of leisure, judging from the enjoyment they are obviously getting from it. Yet once again I can’t be certain as to what it is they are doing, since I have never seen anything else like it. I wont even attempt to describe it to you, as the image is so confusing, their activity seems so bizarre, that you will probably think people of the future are no longer sane. Though with the Palantiri I certainly do appreciate that 50 years is enough time for society to change unrecognisably. This is probably how someone from the year 1900 would feel if they where to witness someone from 2005 playing a computer game in virtual reality.

That’s it!

I attempt something very dangerous with the Palantiri, but something that I had to try; I attempt to look into the mind on one of these people. While I can’t begin to really understand what it is I saw, I did realize something immediately; these people were connected to technology in such a way as I had never seen before. They seemed to have the power of a computer, and more, accessible through simple thought. It appears that the human race have merged with their technology and become a hybrid species, a species of cyborg! A first I was horrified, but as I stayed inside the minds eye of this future person, I could clearly see the power it offered. I can’t claim to understand what this person was doing, or exactly how they were interfacing with this network, but the power it gave them was undeniable. It was like comparing the power a PC user in 2005 has with the power a computer user had in 1975 – multiplied by 1000. There was almost no comparison. Fascinated, I attempted to delve further into this system, but the Palantiri is not a computer interface, it is a crystal ball.
And so with the disappointment of not being able to understand what the people of the future do with their time, I removed myself from this individuals mind, and rapidly shifted my gaze elsewhere. My vision of the future was coming to an end soon, and I had barely scratched the surface of what humankind had achieved in a mere half a century. With the remaining time left, I rocketed my gaze across the Earth, briefly glimpsing the many people and environments. It was obvious that a radical transformation had taken place, and it appears to entirely have come about thanks to the development of space industrialism. I could see that people did not need to destroy the planet’s natural environment any longer, as everything needed was attained off world. The Earth was recovering from the devastation caused by the age of the fossil fuels, but ironically it was all thanks to technological developments made possible only through the wide scale exploitation of fossil fuels.

As so my glimpse into the future ended, with the knowledge that somehow we would get through the tough times ahead. Unfortunately the exact path to that apparently glorious destination remains hidden to me, and it is obvious that the great transition that will take place will not be an easy one. Such radical change is never easy, and there is sure to be much turmoil for the human race in the years ahead. But thanks to the gift of foresight available to me though the use of the mystical Palantiri, I at least know that no matter how bad things get as the oil runs out, eventually, somehow, we will survive and eventually prosper.

Of course the Palantiri only show’s one possible future of many, as the future is always in motion. If people do not strive for a better tomorrow, then the doomsday scenarios may still come to be. But on the other had, if people decide to work together for a better future, the utopia I have foreseen just might come to pass. And that is a comforting thought.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under

Re: Life in a PO world - the year is 2050

Unread postby MrBean » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 07:28:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can only challenge you to show even one member of academic community calling calling Sheldrake a "quack" (he's been called heretic, dangerous and other names, but never seen "quack" used myself), or that even one member of academic community publicly accuses Sheldrake of cheating with his data. That is extremely slanderous accusation and unless you can back it up even with one respectable source (not the mention the "mainstream opinion of academic community" which I don't think you can speak for) I advice you to take it back.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Heh, thats loaded. If a member of the academic community devotes any of his time to debunking dorks like Sheldrake, their claims are suspect in your opinion.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

David F. Marks is a professor of psychology at City University, London.
John Colwell is principal lecturer in the School of Social Science, Middlesex University, London.


I've read this discussion before. No calling Sheldrake a "quack", no accusations of Sheldrake falsifying his data. Just an attempt to explain Sheldrake's (and other's) result as product of their randomization methods, critique that (to my limited understanding) Shelderake has answered and refuted well enough, critique that to my knowledge no other scientis has endorsed.

So when challenged, you cannot back up your claims. I cannot see why after this I should continue taking you seriously.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Most people in the academic community dont bother investigating useless loons like sheldrake when they have real work to do. I might as well try to understand Archimedes Plutonium's lunacy.


More empty rhetorics.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I allready know where this is going though. You're going to dredge up Sheldrakes half-witted defense of his work (even though its unreproducable in peer reviewed studies by independant parties) or that of some other pseudoscience rag like skeptical investigations or whatnot. Dont bother. Continue to believe that you're right and that brains are magical.


Why unreproducable, when even CSICOP fellows have reproduced the same results?

Brains are not magickal, they are (mostly?) classical physics. What is "magical", to use your term, is mind. And what is irrational is your strong emotional attachment (as shown by your abusive language) to the scientifically weak hypothesis that mind is an epiphenomenon of classical physics.

But you are righ. This discussion has broken into all too familiar pattern, and there's no point in continuing discussion with an irrational Believer like you.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron