Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (23524)	5/13/2006 9:16:43 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<There is nothing to indicate that. The laws of motion and gravity are Universal so far as we know. > The first sentence is opinion and not 'proven' by the second... a new broader understanding can encompass the previous paradigm without negating it. See below about the "new physics": ""unified field theory, sometimes referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short)"" I think the theory of everything will pretty much 'encompass" Newtonian physics, no? Therefore your opinion above seem hard to hold on to.. that's JMO. <There is no evidence that research in quantum mechanics will lead to a unified field law.> 1.) So? 2.) That's a matter of opinion... and therefore 3.) we get this from google... I highly recommend it (google): ""unified field theory, sometimes referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter. In physics, the forces between objects can be described as mediated by fields. Current theory says that at subatomic distances, these fields are replaced by quantum fields interacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics."" So you're statement that there is no "evidence" is simply opinion, and a lot of people disagree or it wouldn't be such a hot area of study in physics... unless you just like "grails" cause they're pretty. < The point was to demonstrate the range of scientific papers in the study of consciousness.> No one disputed that, in FACT you disputed that when I brought up how consciousness was very interesting to physicists these days... you practically abused my!! LOL... My point was historical, and stands. Yea, thanks for the Chalmers link, as I said before (disputed on the tread as you may remember), there are LOTS of smart people talking about consciousness and how it relates to physics.... Hey, did you read the Chalmers book?? From what I can see, there is no proof either way to this issue....... yet. Science will get to the bottom of it one way of the other however. dAK

To: Solon who wrote (23524)	5/14/2006 12:47:38 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<The point was to demonstrate the range of scientific papers in the study of consciousness. There is no intention to assert that all such studies are equally "scientific" or solid.> BTW... nice to see you diving head first into the realm of what you used to call "pseudo science". Notice you're using philosophers lists and studies: <Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT> consc.net It is impressive how 'scientific' these people are looking into all this non-scientific stuff isn't it??? DAK