|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th November 2015, 03:29 PM | #521 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
What's wrong with speculation? Why shouldn't we do that?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
6th November 2015, 03:31 PM | #522 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
As I and others have pointed out, Tegmark rather strongly contradicts your claims. I have read and understood Tegmark's paper. Not articles written about the paper, but the paper itself. His findings directly contradict your insinuation that something "else" must be eventually understood by science in order to reason about the nature of consciousness as he defines it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th November 2015, 03:42 PM | #523 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Asked and answered. When challenged, you claim it's only speculation. At other times you claim it's "speculation based on science," as if that were somehow a stronger thing. Speculation per se is not objectionable. Speculation intended to prove a farfetched claim is simply specious. Since the motivation for your speculation was to attempt to prove your interpretation of your dream is true, it is not the good kind of speculation.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th November 2015, 04:07 PM | #524 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I don't recall any specific insult from you but "knee jerk" doesn't necessarily refer to insulting responses. As far as this topic is concerned, I haven't seen any indication that you have a reason to reject what I'm saying.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
6th November 2015, 04:31 PM | #525 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
6th November 2015, 05:08 PM | #526 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
And this is more evidence for the gaming hypothesis, but I will follow JayUtah's lead and leave motivation out, at least for the moment.
Of everyone actively involved in this discussion JayUtah (to whom you are responding) is the one who has demonstrated absolutely the best understanding, so either you have not read his posts, have read them and not understood them, or understood them but are pretending. After JayUtah come a few others, myself included, who have shown a good layman's grasp. After that group, going strictly by the posts in this thread, is you. Your links contradict each other and your claim. You repeatedly talk about the math and how it supports you and/or you can use it as a launching pad, but everything you say indicates you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. That's where we are. I've read your posts and watched all but one of your videos. You haven't read our posts -- or at least show no indication of understanding them -- and haven't watched the one video Cosmic Yak put out there for you. You are where you were long ago, i.e., tossing your desired outcome around as if it is supported by something. It's not, even despite your attempts to compare your musings to those of Einstein. It was not his thought experiments that were proven later; it was the math that he had used the thought experiments to illustrate. Indirect self-comparisons to real geniuses do you no credit. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
6th November 2015, 05:10 PM | #527 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
6th November 2015, 06:08 PM | #528 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
And this clinches it. You toss around words and phrasse that you do not understand and do not support your claim.
Originally Posted by Jodie
Originally Posted by Jodie
Originally Posted by Jodie
Originally Posted by Jodie
Originally Posted by Jodie
Originally Posted by Jodie
Let's cut to the chase then and prevent all derails: 1. Regardless if it actually occurred to you or not, your hypothesis is that the consciousness of a deceased person (a) survives the person's death, (b) can invade the dream of a living person, and (c) convey accurate prophetic information via that dream 2. In support of your hypothesis you offer: a. A general reference to the work of Song, but the general reference does not in fact support the hypothesis b. A video by Bryanton on the 5th Dimension, but the video -- besides being quite silly -- says nothing that supports any part of your hypothesis c. A general reference to Christof Koch, but Koch's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis d. A general reference to Tegmark, but Tegmark's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis e. A claim that the math supports your hypothesis but a refusal to indicate whose math where Please let's not derail. We are in the meat of it now so now is your chance. Where is the math that supports your hypothesis? What exactly in Tegmark and Koch support your hypothesis and in what fashion?
Originally Posted by Jodie
But I could be wrong, seriously. It only needs demonstrating. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
6th November 2015, 06:10 PM | #529 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
6th November 2015, 06:13 PM | #530 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
6th November 2015, 06:15 PM | #531 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
6th November 2015, 06:16 PM | #532 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
Originally Posted by Mashuna
Einstein did not submit thought experiments to journals and then the thought experiments were experimentally verified years later. He submitted scientific papers complete with math supporting the thought experiments. The math held up, and it was the math that was empirically verified later. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
6th November 2015, 06:23 PM | #533 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
Einstein's theories also explained previously inexplicable observations - the Michelson Morley results in the case of Special Relativity, Mercury's orbit in the case of General Relativity.
'Superficial' is too kind a word to describe Jodie's understanding of the science she appeals to. 'Non-existent' is more accurate. |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
6th November 2015, 06:28 PM | #534 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
There is no science behind the statement Jodie. You don't understand science. You treat it like a magic spell to invoke, not the process with meaning and and standards that it is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
6th November 2015, 11:59 PM | #535 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
7th November 2015, 02:24 AM | #536 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
OK, so you grudgingly acknowledge that I haven't insulted you, so would you now like to withdraw the insult you levelled at me?
And for the record, I do reject what you're saying. My understanding of the scientific method is sufficient to reject it based on that alone. JayUtah and others, who are way more knowledgeable about physics that I, have shown in great depth how the sources you quote do not support your claims. Conversely, you have provided nothing but speculation to support what you say. Who wouldn't reject such claims? He is most definitely a fundamentalist. I suggest actually looking at the links before you reply, especially in light of what you've been saying about others not doing so. Nice try. I asked you this:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And here comes another dodge! I asked you
Quote:
Quote:
I didn't ask you if it revolutionised medicine. I asked you if it had destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results. Your response dodges that entirely. Care to try again? Then you go on to contradict yourself entirely. Having tried to claim as fact something that would totally overturn decades of scientific research, you then say So which is it? Is science built on evidence from previous research, or is it a series of unexpected, out-of-the-blue paradigm shifts in our thinking? You can't have it both ways. |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
7th November 2015, 09:12 PM | #537 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
This thread is about a guy's ghost story.
All of the things Jodie has thrown around has nothing to do with the phenomenon in anyway, shape, or form. The OP was a story about phantom footsteps approaching the poster on the top floor of an old school house. It freaked him out even though he was familiar with old buildings and the endless menagerie of sounds they are known to unleash. It would have freaked anyone else out too. But, the explanation is that those old floor boards and the supporting wood structure underneath was the cause of the sounds he heard. The problem is that he'd "heard rumors" about the old building and it got to him. Again, it happens to honest people all the time. Whether or not he accepts this or chooses to keep his ghost story a ghost story is up to him. Cool, maybe he gets a free bear out of it from time to time. If I were still investigating this kind of thing my explanation ends with old floor boards singing out. Why? Because that's what it was. More importantly, that's all it was. The OP even admits it's likely the floor boards, but seemed to kinda hope to stump us. That's because people want their ghosts to be real. Hell, I do, but there's just not enough evidence to seriously suggest ghosts are real in the context that most ghost hunters and believers advocate. The problem as I see it is the claim that ghosts are spirits of the dead, trapped in a specific location. Like I said earlier, the most common ghosts or apparitions are those of living people, so something else is going on. Something that doesn't involve other dimensions, dark matter, or a slew of physics concepts I don't pretend to understand. I think it has to do with the brain, and our five senses, and exposure to rare natural phenomenon that somehow tells our mind to see specific things, or hear specific things. I don't pretend to understand the brain or neurology either, but that's where I'd put my money. They're very real inside a person's head, and I'm interested in the whys of the phenomenon (Why did they see it?Why did they see it where they saw it? Why did they see it when they saw it? What was going on when they saw it? What was going on in their heads before they saw it, etc). My interested is not metaphysical satisfaction, if people are seeing stuff that isn't there it's no joke. What if the viewer is a big-rig truck driver or school bus driver? That's my concern. How often do people see things that aren't there but don't know it? That's my interest in ghosts, it's about the living, and I don't think the Woo crowd are helping in any way. Back to the discussion in progress... |
8th November 2015, 02:30 AM | #538 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
My understanding is that it's essentially all down to the fact that, whilst false positives and false negatives are both mistakes, false positives are less potentially dangerous mistakes than false negatives. Mistaking a shadow for a bear may cause you to spend the night in the open rather than in a warm dry cave, but mistaking a bear for a shadow gets you eaten. We're all descended from those who survived long enough to produce offspring, ie those whose mistakes were more likely to be false positives than false negatives. So our brains have evolved cognitive biases which make them more likely to see patterns in the noise, even when there is in fact only noise, than miss a real pattern. In order to be sure the pattern we think we see is really there we need to compensate for those biases, which is why we invented the scientific method.
ETA: For example there are noises going on around us all the time, our brains are constantly filtering most of them out as noise and picking out just a few to bring to the attention of our conscious awareness. The OP's brain picked out what sounded like footsteps and alerted his consciousness to them; the question is whether it was correct to do so, ie whether this was a true positive or a false positive. Likewise we dream all the time, we often dream about people we know/have known, and occasionally something we dream is bound to correspond with something that later happens (especially when our memories are sufficiently malleable to retrospectively alter the dream to match the event). When someone attributes significance to one such correspondence are they doing so correctly, or is it a false positive? The only reliable way to find out whether dreams can genuinely be precognitive is to collect thousands of such dreams, accurately estimate the expected chance hit rate, and measure the actual hit rate for comparison. ie to use the scientific method to compensate for our propensity to see patterns that aren't actually there. |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
8th November 2015, 10:49 AM | #539 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,217
|
|
8th November 2015, 11:23 AM | #540 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
8th November 2015, 05:23 PM | #541 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
8th November 2015, 05:29 PM | #542 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Exactly.
My first big evolution in my thinking came one day when I was driving in the rain through the woods. As I came to a stop sign I glanced to my left and at first saw an old man riding a bicycle wearing a yellow rain slick, but when I looked again it turned out to be a mail box. My brain, already on the lookout for jogger and little kids, took an incomplete image and made a picture. |
9th November 2015, 11:15 AM | #543 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It has exactly the relevance you gave it. You're telling your own ghost story in a thread clearly marked for ghost stories. You explicitly told us your pseudo-physics speculation was aimed at trying to justify or explain your belief that your mother actually appeared to you, rather than the more prosaic explanation that you merely dreamed about her.
If the alleged apparition was not factual, then there is no need to explore speculative physics to explain it. An embellished dream serves perfectly well as an explanation. And unfortunately for your argument, the scientific method does not simply ignore clearly-stated non-evidentiary motives for favoring one explanation over another. On the contrary it explicitly notes such motives and rejects any subjective portion of the explanation as biased. Einstein started out with a clearly demonstrated knowledge of the pertinent underlying sciences, something you have not done. For that and reasons expounded by others, you are not in the same class as Einstein. The argument, "Noteworthy Person did _____; I also do _____, therefore I am equivalent to Noteworthy Person" is specious on its face. Einsten sought to explain emergent discrepancies that were factually uncontested. You haven't yet shown that there is anything factual that requires explanation. Einstein didn't ask people to believe his speculation as an explanation for things only he had claimed to see and hear. So no, his speculation was not specious. Yours, in contrast, is.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Doubling-down on the babble is probably not a good idea amongst this crowd. Tegmark discussed his exceptions to the limiting properties I mentioned, and I cover them in a previous post.
Quote:
I wish I could say this is an unfamiliar pattern, but alas it is not. Comparing oneself favorably to eminent practitioners, dancing between speculation and advocacy, accusing one's critics of incompetence or narrow-mindedness when questioned -- yes, that's every amateur pseudo-physicist on the web, ever. |
10th November 2015, 12:04 AM | #544 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,175
|
A recent post from NeuroLogica seems relevant at this point.
The gist is that speculation leads to jumping to the wrong conclusions. whereas skepticism, being a more cautious approach, is generally borne out. The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.
Quote:
|
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
10th November 2015, 10:51 AM | #545 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Indeed. Of all the amateur web.physicists who compare themselves to a famous real physicist, most compare themselves to Einstein. I have yet to figure out whether this is because he's the only physicist they can name, or whether because there are so many things said about him that in addition to his body of genuine works there is now a lake of urban legends attributed to him.
The most famous quip relevant to your statement is the famous, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," which everyone rail-splits right there, even the T-shirts they sell at my local planetarium. It is almost universally accepted among web.physicists that this was meant to describe his approach to science. It wasn't. The full quote, which continues, "For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand," talks about the advancement of science. Similarly, Einstein's "though experiments" were not just rampant speculation. They generally fell into two categories, those meant to structure a non-empirical test of a hypothesis, and those meant to illustrate the problems he was trying to solve. They were not barren what-if scenarios of the kind web.physicists love so well. Einstein knew full well many of his hypotheses dealt with concepts that he could not prove empirically at the time. For example, they treated how things behaved at speeds approaching that of light, clearly not something easily obtained with equipment of his day. But he didn't just throw his hands up and say, "Well, we can't actually test this so I'll just keep proposing it as a fervent hope." Instead his "thought experiments" turned to mathematics for the proofs. There were proofs, just not empirical ones. Conversely he posed "thought experiments" the same way every teacher of physics does to help illustrate difficult concepts. The classic illustration of relativistic velocities is one of those: you're on a train going .75 c and you throw a baseball forward at .75 c -- what is the space-fixed velocity of the ball? It's not speculation per se, it's simply a way to formulate problems for later reasoning. The reasoning occurred, rest assured. The notion that scientific hypotheses are the product first of speculation, therefore speculation is appropriate to science, misses the point. That hypothesization is a constituent of the scientific process is not in debate. That speculation forms a substitute for scientific reasoning is not. Oven baking is a constituent step in both pottery and breadmaking. That doesn't make their products equivalent. Science is hypothesization followed by testing. Web.physicists typically excuse themselves from the testing phase by pointing out that it's impossible. Then they invoke Einstein et al. to validate that approach, pointing out that Einstein's theories of relativity weren't proven empirically until much later. They ignore that Einstein's theories were proven by a different means. Einstein didn't tell the world, "Sorry, I can't prove any of this so you'll just have to take my word for it and hope science eventually recognizes my genius." "Science is incomplete, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "My critics don't understand my genius, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "You guys have no imagination, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. |
10th November 2015, 07:28 PM | #546 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
YOU thought his description of the scientific method was accurate? That is just sad.
I don't compare myself to Einstein, I'm comparing the hypotheses that some of these scientists that I've cited to Einstein. The math involved remains to be verified but it starts with a thought experiment. As for the video, I'm just now getting to the links for Song's paper. |
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 08:08 PM | #547 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Explain in exactly what way it is sad.
Quote:
Quote:
Your claim is evidently in no way based upon mathematics. |
10th November 2015, 08:44 PM | #548 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts. You referred to my synopsis of physics, or the aspects that indicate that we live in a multidimensional universe as "weird stuff".......OK. There isn't anything else I can say to something like that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions. These are specific for string theory but the equations build one upon another to describe a whole concept. You can't separate out one sequence and say, " This is the equation that states other dimensions exist."
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 08:59 PM | #549 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Yep, just keep poisoning that well, Jodie.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From your critics' perspective, you have suggested you have a mathematical basis for your beliefs, but you simply handwave toward someone else's mathematical elaboration. You are being asked to supply your own now.
Quote:
Quote:
|
10th November 2015, 09:06 PM | #550 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I commented previously on why you were incorrect. If he doesn't understand the reason then that is sad.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 09:08 PM | #551 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics is. The inability to produce an automaton consisting of some particular vocabulary, that replicates quantum behavior, is not proof that such behavior must lie outside the ordinary expression of the physical world. The nature of quantum-governed systems is exactly that the progressive outcomes transcend the purview of A+B+C-do-this, yet conforms entirely to statistically knowable states of the system. Replace addition with Hamiltonians in your model and you have Tegmark's principal product, which he argues satisfies his definition of consciousness.
|
10th November 2015, 09:09 PM | #552 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 09:11 PM | #553 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 09:13 PM | #554 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Not an answer, Please try again.
Quote:
Quote:
None of what you've presented proves the ghost of your mother predicted the future. |
10th November 2015, 09:16 PM | #555 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You have at times assured us your idea is speculation. You have at other times identified it as "scientific" speculation, by which we apparently meant to see something more rigorous than mere speculation. You have at times stated that your speculation is based on the findings and conjectures of well-known scientists. You have at other times clarified that you contradict, disagree, or otherwise depart from them as you feel necessary and useful.
In other words, you seem to have deployed a chimeric argument that defies all critical evaluation by changing form as the occasion requires. |
10th November 2015, 09:18 PM | #556 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
10th November 2015, 09:22 PM | #557 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 09:28 PM | #558 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Get an appropriate degree and find out.
Quote:
You told me once that you doubted my expertise in artificial intelligence. I listed my qualifications and asked for yours. I never heard back from you. The expectation you express above requires some degree of expertise. Therefore I will repeat my question. What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in the field of artificial intelligence? |
10th November 2015, 09:28 PM | #559 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
You described the scientific method as a closed system with a start and finish when it is a fluid process that doesn't necessarily have a linear flow.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
10th November 2015, 09:34 PM | #560 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
That's hubris on your part. You don't know the answer because you didn't truly understand what you posted in the first place.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|