Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weak attempt. The mind is what the brain does. The very same way your browser appears on your screen. Good philosophers, mostly eastern ones, tried very hard to establish a distinction between products of imagination and adequate representations of what is. The classic example is how the brain conditioned by hundreds of thousands of years by Mother Nature readily mistakes a rope for a snake. Notice, that there is not…
Don't change the subject. Explain how consciousness arises, and describe an experiment that replicates it.
A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
161–170 of 193 posts
Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#162> "If Newtonian physics can’t predict the fixed curves, perhaps we should fix Newton, instead of making up a whole new class of matter just to fit our measurements." I've always felt this way about dark matter, but as a lay person with no background in physics, it's an opinion I'm hesitant to express. if you have a model that predicts something, but the prediction is off by several orders of magnitude, the model is w…
If you choose to rather adjust Newtonian physics, we have to go all in and the new problem becomes not only how to "fix" it but also how to explain away the clumping of the Cosmic Microwave Background that is thought to be due to dark matter, the graviational lensing in the Bullet Cluster, the large-scale "web" structure of galaxies in the Universe. Structures and effects that actually fit a dark matter universe pretty well.
But yes, maybe there _is_ something else going on, and as a software developer sometimes working on the most terrible things of all: combinations of bugs interacting, and where you keep hunting down a futile rabbit hole assuming a single bug.
Maybe this is a combination of bugs in our theories interacting. It could be that this is part flaws in the Newtonian model, part about faults in some other model? That might explain why we've been bashing our heads on the dark matter wall for so long now.
Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't change the subject. Explain how consciousness arises, and describe an experiment that replicates it.
Every single morning one could see how it changes the states. For proper experimental evidences visit any hospital.
Nothing exist unless experimentally proven and replicated.
Describe the experiment that proves you are conscious.Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#164Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#165Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said Nothing exist unless experimentally proven and replicated. Describe the experiment that proves you are conscious.
I did.
Since you continue to evade the question, I will only ask once more time: Describe the experiment that demonstrates the existence of consciousness in a manner which is "experimentally proven and replicated".
I'm forced to interpret failure to describe the experiment as your admission that you don't actually require "experimentally proven and replicated" to believe things, or at least that you cherry pick some propositions to require that standard.
That's OK too, no one is demanding that you be intellectually honest or self-consistent. But you should not be surprised if people call you out on it though.
Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did.
What you subjectively experience in the morning is not proof of anything. Since you continue to evade the question, I will only ask once more time: Describe the experiment that demonstrates the existence of consciousness in a manner which is "experimentally proven and replicated". I'm forced to interpret failure to describe the experiment as your admission that you don't actually require "experimentally proven and re…
In every neurology department which deals with brain injures and pathology one could see the evidences that the states of consciousness and even its pretense or absence are bound by particular parts of the brain, which, in turn, is an artifact conditioned by the evolutionary forces and constraints of this particular universe and its physical laws.
The way medical science went from Phineas Gage to modern maps of the brain centers, insights into how the vision sub-system works, etc. constitutes the experimental proofs you are asked for.
The proof could be considered still incomplete (but nevertheless it is valid because there is not a single contradiction in what is experimentally confirmed), because there is no way to describe step-by-step the whole development from a single fertilized egg to you, but there is no doubt that there is nothing extra to that mere "mechanical" process, and that the mind is what the brain does and that conscious, which some people would call primordial awareness, is mere a product of the brain activity, which can be affected by chemical compounds and even switched on and off, which, BTW, happens every time you fall asleep (because it is not required) and wake up.
Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bullet Cluster isn’t the incontrovertible evidence for particle dark matter that you have been told it is http://backreaction.blogspot.nl/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-a...
I wouldn't agree with that post - the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect a bullet cluster. In fact, we observe other similar lower-mass systems. As an astronomer in the field of clusters, I don't know anyone who takes MOND-like theories seriously. Any non dark matter explanation for the bullet cluster would have to be extremely contrived.
the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect
a bullet cluster
Not according to the references in that article, which put the probability of seeing such a cluster at 10E-4 to 10E-6. And Sabine isn't one to conveniently forget to multiply that probability with the number of clusters: that's already factored in.Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you subjectively experience in the morning is not proof of anything. Since you continue to evade the question, I will only ask once more time: Describe the experiment that demonstrates the existence of consciousness in a manner which is "experimentally proven and replicated". I'm forced to interpret failure to describe the experiment as your admission that you don't actually require "experimentally proven and re…
Oh, please, cut this cosplay out. In every surgery room of the whole world you could see how chemical compounds administered to patients would turn them unconscious and back. This implies that the consciousness is a product of the brain, not some immaterial substance, divine presence or other kind of abstract crap. This also implies that it is not mere an abstract idea of so-called pure reason ("soul", "I" and "god"…
I asked you to describe the experiment which proves that consciousness exists.
Merely saying that consciousness is a product of the brain is like proving dark matter by saying it's a product of the universe. I hope you can understand why that is not a convincing argument.
Re: A Physicist Who Denies That Dark Matter Exists
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't agree with that post - the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect a bullet cluster. In fact, we observe other similar lower-mass systems. As an astronomer in the field of clusters, I don't know anyone who takes MOND-like theories seriously. Any non dark matter explanation for the bullet cluster would have to be extremely contrived.
the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect a bullet cluster Not according to the references in that article, which put the probability of seeing such a cluster at 10E-4 to 10E-6. And Sabine isn't one to conveniently forget to multiply that probability with the number of clusters: that's already factored in.
Hayashi & White 2006 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
Farrar & Rosen 2007 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM.
Nusser 2008 -- BC possibly not consistent with LCDM.
Angus & McGaugh 2008 -- BC is more consistent with MOND cosmology than LCDM.
Llinares et al. 2009 -- BC is more consistent with MOND cosmology than LCDM.
Lee & Komatsu 2010 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM.
Forero-Romano et al. 2010 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
Thompson & Nagamine 2012 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM.
Watson et al. 2014 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
Krajlic & Sarkar 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
Bouillot et al. 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
Thompson et al. 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM.
LCDM is Lambda CDM, the prevailing cosmological model. BC = Bullet Cluster. The blog post is very selective in the papers discussed.