Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Reiku, Dec 5, 2011.
A genuine question. Why can't the subject of consciousness be discussed there?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
At least, if one of the mods is going to disagree with it there, why not put it in speculations???
I mean, saying it is cesspool otherwise is simply biased me thinks. Not everyone, not every scientist does think it's a non-worthy question.
I completely agree! Sciforums seems to have no problems keeping debates about "What makes fart sounds" open for months, but when a discussion that comes up that has merit scientifically it is shut down?
Are we supposed to imply from this that the moderator Prometheus prefers one choice over the other? Is Prometheus shoving his WRONG opinions down our throughts.
Wow! There are already 3 complaints about this Prometheus moderator shutting down this topic and it only happened 10 minutes ago.
No offense to prom, he did say to me in a PM that I could repost this under psuedoscience. But I think that is still a bit harsh. Why not speculations, surely there is not much of line between the two?
Anyone who comes here and see's it in psuedoscience might automatically think the question of consciousness is not a matter of science, which many scientists would argue with today...
This forum is for formal debates. Unless you want to take this on to a formal debate this thread belongs in Open Govt.
YES! Many MANY scientists
it is a known debate. Read that link.
Please offend Prom. I'd like to.
It is bad enough we have to put up with Bias from members, without the damn mods shoving their bs down our throats
Yes lets bring it to ANOTHER THREAD
I didnt start this thread.. I sure as hell agree with it
sorry! The above link was wrong.
This is the debate as it stands on wikipedia.
The consciousness causes collapse interpretation was Wigner's motivation for introducing the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, although you'd have to read a friggin book to know that.
The WORST place this should have ended up was philosophy, but I also think that is biased. So if a moderator is a moron, then we don't get to discuss things and all become morons?
Unless speaking of it in a purely scientific sense, Consciousness can pose a bind for scientists who try to maintain a sense of correct thinking, based on evidence. Most scientists probably either have or have had a notion or belief concerning consciousness, but may not want to cross out of the safety zone of evidence and known truth.
Is the consciousness seated deep in the brain? Lower animals have it, to some extent. This is a starter question, fairly objective.
The subjective area comes in when you ask what is the cause of consciousness. This will likely stir debate, with almost every cause and effect being the exclusive domain of science.
I can propose that it may be possible to speculate and offer hypotheses, and suggest thought experiments and so on, or to discuss the philosophy or history of thinking on this subject.
Of interest to me is the apparent connection between synapses and consciousness, while much of the brain is dedicated to purely machine-like tasks.
Oh indeed, many scientists for sure. I have an arm's length and maybe more depending upon the man whose arm is measured on how many scientists have discussed this subject.
Why then did this place give me the option to have it as a discussion?
I am truely getting buzzed now. I love this talk.
I would appreciate complete accordance to science so that we can show this subject is not outside the realm of physics, whether classical or not.
I also wondered if philosophy would have been another subforum for this discussion. I think, essentially, this discussion will always frighten anyone who is scientifically qualified; the reason why anyone with qualifications in physics will already know the massive contribution from physics.
Let us not resort to name calling. Let us be better than this. Let us gather as much evidence for, than resorting to that path, otherwise we are no better than half the members here who claim to work in the flux of science.
:def flux, ''passage''
People. the efforts should be put here, this debate in this thread will be lost to other squabbling debates, does not serve the purpose at hand...
It's fine to have polls in physics over retarded things like
"is a star trek teleporter possible"?, but don't try to bring a conversation there that is contrary to the belief of a moron moderator.
Are we that desperate for mods?
Well, I won't argue. I certainly believe there is a massive bias to such things. Prom is certainly not targeted here. If any mod here had the question brought up to them, it is for sure that they would all agree along the same lines.
Doesn't make them right AFAIK.
Has one perused any of the popular books or scientific articles written by Roger Penrose on the subject of mind?
His 1990 tome, for instance, "The Emperor's New Mind" in which he discusses the problem of artificial intelligence, and argues that machines will never be conscious. We will never be able to download our minds into a machine because minds aren't machines. Or at least, that's his argument.
Consciousness is not a question that is currently studied in physics or maths, and where people have attempted it they have ended up in the great land of woo. As such, it's not suitable for the physics and maths forum. Calling me a moron is not doing anyone any favours, especially as this thread has been recreated in alt theories which all respondents to this thread well know.
I know it is studied.
Due respects though, Prom. You gave me pardon to post it there. I've asked everyone, no one specifically to keep name-calling, not to a minimum, but none at all.
Equally however, I cannot influence those who were as initially angry at your decision to move it to the cesspool. Even psuedo would have been shunned upon.
Science on a daily basis asks the question of physics, even if your textbook evaluation does not cover it.
I think this was a record for a Sciforums mod. Within 10 minutes of moving a topic 2 posts by senior users had already complained in this thread that was started to say the moderator was wrong in their opinions.
I'd like to note that I did not start this thread. Mister did.
That was only because he beat me to the punch. I have NEVER complained about a moderator on Sciforums. But when a know it all self serving moderator puts a topic in the cesspool while it is still a matter of debate amongst many well known and reputed scientists of our age, it is a slap in the face to them all. How ignorant!
The worst place this topic should have ended up was philosophy!
But it appears that a biased
(Definition for any slow moderators: Bias - Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.)
moderator can move any topic that doesnt't fit with their own sensibilities.
Some thought experiments are taught in grade school. Maybe Prometheus missed those classes (did you attend school prometheus?)
Prometheus have you heard of Space-Time According to Einstein, Folded Space, Observational Theories, Implicate order, Unified field theory.
Is the Idea of PSI so repulsive to you that you need to shut down any discussion of it because someone made the mistake of making you a moderator.
Separate names with a comma.