# Why is the question of consciousness shunned upon in the physics forum?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Reiku, Dec 5, 2011.

1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I am sure he has wrote a physics text book.

3. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Besides captain, even if you have your own quibbles with Amit, Fred A Wolf pioneered the early developement of quantum entanglement, and the other scientists qouted have pioneered many other developments, which is a fair game more than you have ever provided.

Consciousness is indeed a subject for physics. It never was outside the question of physics and never will be, even if the moderators here, the small group of cliques hate the question of it.

5. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,784
If he wrote a book, which universities use it as a popular source for teaching? What demonstrable contributions has he made to mainstream science other than attempting to rehash things we already know?

What contribution has Dr. Wolf made to the mainstream understanding of quantum entanglement? I think most of those details were sorted out before he was even born.

I would take that claim slightly more seriously if it came from someone who could actually demonstrate a decent understanding of physics.

7. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
Magneto has written a 'textbook' about vector calculus and he doesn't know the difference between a vector and a scalar for **** sake!

Authoring a textbook book is a bit like having PhD after your name, in many cases it's short hand for "I'm sufficiently competant that others have evaluated my work and found it meets a necessary standard". However, as with anything which confers good things on people, others will want it for no work, hence self published textbooks *cough* Farsight *cough* and degree mills *cough* Magneto's ex-employer the University of Phoenix *cough*.

Paying someone to publish a book or give you a bit of paper with 'PhD' on it doesn't make someone competant at science, just like putting on a white coat or posting algebra you don't understand doesn't make you a scientist.

I don't know who that PhD is but if he's been in 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' then unless he's the one scientist who got conned by the producers and edited to say the exact opposite of what he actually said (and Cpt's comments imply it isn't) then he's a nut. All but one person in WTBDWK is a nut. The main person is either a massive con artist or full on, no holes barred psychotic. Almost everyone else has no understanding of science either. What few degree level educated they have are all in areas outside of physics. Seriously if that's who you're bringing to the table then you really are struggling!

There are many deep and interesting philosophical questions about what exactly is conciousness, what about the bioelectric patterns in our brains makes us 'special' compared to a mouse or a jellyfish. On a neural level the work is in the area of biochemistry/medicine. On a brain level it's almost a matter for quite abstract mathematics, modelling highly coupled non-linear dynamical systems, as altering neural properties on one part of the brain cascades through our neurons. That's almost not even about conciousness but for vast complex systems. Dynamical systems with lots of interacting complicated subcomponents are very poorly understood, just look how ****ed everything goes when the banking system goes nuts. Humans can now build systems so complicated we cannot understand them on an intuitive level, even with years of work. Addressing these problems will be something a lot of 21st century science will be devoted to (stock markets, neural constructs, the internet, company supply chains, complex machine design like new air or space craft etc).

All of that is valid science. Hell, some of that I work on. But this "the conciousness is something more" stuff is not science. In fact it's almost tautologically not science because it's often presented as something science can't explain, ie it's outside of the natural laws (especially by nuts like those from WTBDWK). Any attempt to present our minds as something beyond the emergent property of extremely complicated bioelectric systems is going to have to give something more than "We don't understand it". We don't understand the stock market but it's very much bound within the laws of nature.

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Have you ever heard of the fysiks group captain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Fysiks_Group

Once you have, I will discuss Amit.

9. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Why do you do this alphanumeric, always bring other people names irrelevently into a discussion?

It is beyond obvious you are bullying them.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
And captain, for your derogatory remark, I assure you all these years you have wasted money on your education, I bet I could talk about subjects with much more ease to a group than you could. I might be a layman in your eyes, most of my friends consider me very intelligent.

11. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
I afraid that says more about the circles you move in than anything else...

12. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Well, put it this way prom. I am happier to be my own person, than follow a bunch of sheep! Also known as, cliques.

I am not afraid to present a hazardous theory and I know that the whole of QM's is built from such fails.

I would be a failure myself if I could not be my own person, appreciate that subjects like consciousness should be outside of physics. You have demonstrated with military precision on such subjects of how you feel when tackling consciousness in physics.

If I have any advice for you, stop being closed minded and parallel to the norm of thinking. Expire that old belief system in which you confidently believe you know physics.

13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
And prom, don't limit your group of friends on me. Alone, I am 27, and I bet I have met more people and became friends with a great deal more than you. I assure you, this is no competition. I only say what I say, because of your rude remark, which is justified in your eyes, since both of you are part of the ugly sciforums clique. No doubt you'd run in and save your friend. I would do the same

14. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
If by "ugly sciforums clique" you mean "people that make a living by doing science," then, yes, I am more than happy to be part of that group. It's just sour grapes from you because you're not in "the clique." As for your remarks about my friends, I'm not presumptuous enough to make proclamations on that subject. Suffice it to say that I have a very good work / life balance with plenty of good friends and acquaintances - thank you for your concern.

15. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
No, you fool!

By ugly sciforums cliques, I mean those who [prance] about in the name of science just to bully other individuals. Not only that, but prance about thinking they know physics.

You know nothing. Your over-priced education will not make you any wiser to the fact you a pompous individual, a know-it-all, and closely following the kind of attitude of alphanumeric, which I am sure you will be pleased about.

Did you know Everette the III left quantum mechanics as soon as his dissitation on a universal wave function was suggested? He did so because of people like you.

16. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I am so happy for you.

I am a very happy person, experienced the joy with many friends, from all varies of science. I love my friends, and they are loyal to me.

As for cliques, I have mentioned, I am glad I am my own person. My spoil is not that I am part of it.

I hope you can realize this,

regards

17. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Look am gonna be honest. None of you here can argue a case against consciousness. If a mod in my favour existed, they would close this thread, remove all your posts for spam, an elite this thread to the highest standards.

None of you have any grounds to say consciousness is not a physics subject, and I'll be damned if I leave it like a good bitch!

18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
I've engaged in numerous 'discussions' with Magneto and found him to be a hack. I've demonstrated him to be a hack. He's had plenty of opportunity to defend himself in said discussions so its not like I'm just saying it without recourse.

Besides, in the case of Magneto when he and I discussed his work (I started a discuss with him expressly so he could explain to us all his claims and their derivations) he went onto Reddit and made a post (or whatever they are on Reddit) linking to the thread, used my real name and essentially said "Watch Magneto mop the floor with this AlphaNumeric!". He didn't even have the honesty to say "By the way, I'm Magneto" (just like how he writes some of his own book reviews and slash dotted himself anonymously). Fortunately everyone replied with "Errr... Magneto just embarrassed himself!".

I thus use Magneto as an example for various things, like self publishing, delusional about work credentials, complete lack of published research, incompetent mathematician/physicist. If anyone wishes me to justify those with evidence I'll do so.

Besides, you slatted QH several times when he wasn't posting here. Someone else had to contact him, which you then accused me of, despite you having no evidence and it not being me anyway. What were you saying about people being hypocrites?

Wasted? Cpt is a professional physicist with some serious financial backing for his research (practical quantum experiments can use equipments easily running into the millions of dollars!). How is that a waste? He's doing what you keep saying you're going to do, gaining a doctorate and being paid to do what he loves, physics. And you have no idea of people's presentation giving abilities from their forum posts. I've seen some brilliant papers be presented horrifically and vice versa. Personally I like standing up and presenting work. I like people interacting during a presentation, challenging me and having to make me think in my feet. It's the thrill of testing yourself, a trial by fire. Not everyone is like that but you can't make suppositions based on nothing, which is what you're complaining we're doing.

There people easily to fool are yourself and ignorant people. I could just make up nonsense and provided I throw in some buzzwords people unfamiliar with physics will think I'm saying meaningful stuff.

For example, which of the following three are nonsense and which is accurate?

1. The tangent bundles' non-trivialisation corresponds to brane charges under non-perturbative inversion maps corresponding to the crystallographic preserving subgroup of $GL(N,\mathbb{Z})$ also contained within the maximal discrete action preserving subgroup of the exceptional Lie algebra $E_{8}$.

2. By complexifying gauge potential flow in the $Re \to 1$ limit of the Navier-Stokes equations we can use homomorphic functions to construct solutions with bounded differentiability under irrotational translations, corresponding to bi-Laplacian eigenfunctions of the first kind.

3. The second fundamental form provides a time-like hypersurface through space-time with an induced inner product, via a push-forward vierbein constructed using Penrose twistors, coupling the transverse oscillations (ie gravitational waves) with scalar fields in the metric.

I could show those to some of the maths PhDs I work with and they'd have no idea which is true and which is not. Even given access to Google you might struggle, all the terms I use in each can be found somewhere, they are (almost) all roughly related to one another. I could certainly fool a lay person in conversation. Just like I'm sure you can. You've been doing this long enough to know plenty of buzzwords and which ones crop up with which in books or articles. That's a long way from having a working understanding.

The test of understanding is not whether you can bamboozle lay persons but whether you can hold a rational discussion with people who do understand the material. It doesn't have to be a balls to the wall, no holes barred algebra-athon, people who understand the stuff and are comfortable with their understanding know how to dial up the technical stuff when its needed and when and where to be less precise if detail is unnecessary. It's something you learn over time when discussing anything technical, be it physics or coding or medicine or anything. Those who always go for the overly technical bits and spout buzzwords as much as they can usually are trying to compensate for something, they feel the need to stress "I've heard of that!" by throwing in little pointless factoids they half remember but which don't contribute to an understanding.

You can see it in how people like Prom and I post. Typically we actually post pretty low level stuff, just words and comments. But when pushed or its necessary we can dial it up. You accuse us of showing off when we do it with you but you again only show how little you realise you don't know. But none of us dial it up to full on because it'd be a waste of our time to write it and a waste of peoples' time to read it. I can't really help Prom with whatever calculations he's doing day to day, nor him me and we don't feel the need to post reams of algebra.

Of course if you want to see what happens if we did then you can read our papers. You know my name, my PhD is available online for all to read freely.

And yet you are clearly desperate to be seen as well read, else you'd not be posting what you post. If you didn't care what people thought about you you'd not get in the huffs you do when people don't say what you want to hear.

Yes, modern science is build on a foundation of falsified ideas but what you present is nothing close to even them, don't kid yourself. The things you present, when they aren't just trivial (but mistake riddled) bookwork or suspiciously similar to other people's ideas, are terrible. And short. And poorly developed. And poorly presented. They don't clearly state initial assumptions or viable final conclusions. They're just 2 or 3 A4 pages of rambling. I can spend more paper defining notation, which is another thing you rarely do (until someone points out an inconsistency and then it becomes a talking point).

I really don't think you're in any position to tell people how to broaden their minds, understanding and develop as people or physicists. In the 5-ish years I've 'known' you I don't think you've developed at all. If anything you've increased your levels of dishonesty.

What were you saying about me being a bully? You're now reduced to the level of "Well I'm sure I've got more friends than you!". Firstly you have no evidence of that and secondly it's completely irrelevant. Newton was an arrogant, manipulative bigoted sexist arse but he was a damn fine mathematician and physicist. Even if you had 10,000 friends and all of them thought you were Einstein, Dirac, Feynman and Jesus rolled into one that wouldn't matter a jot with regard to your actions on this (and other) forum.

I barely interact with the other posts here but via the publicly viewable forums, ie I rarely use PMs. I think I've exchanged more with you than with Prom or Rpenner! As such my interactions with the majority of the people you'd say at in this 'clique' are just my posts. Through that others have gauged what kind of person they think I am and I them. If a bunch of us reach the same conclusion about something it isn't because we've been PM'ing one another secretively, it's because we've each reached individual conclusions. The fact every physics/maths educated person here thinks little of you is not because of a clique but because our knowledge allows us to see through your nonsense and dishonesty with ease.

Hacks always have a hard time accepting multiple people can reach the same negative conclusion about them. Magneto and Kaneda used to accuse me of being many different accounts, up to 20 different ones in Magneto's case, despite having no evidence at all.! Just in the last fortnight you have accused me of conspiring with Rpenner via PM and contacting QH via email, despite having no evidence at all. None of you want to accept we all are short with you because you're dishonest.

Just this evening I wrote a lengthy post about the Higgs mechanism for a few people. It was an honestly asked question, genuine curiosity and so I replied. You think the way you are treated is somehow typical. It's not, you're atypically dishonest.

I thought you were planning on getting a physics degree and PhD? Are you not now? And while my education wasn't free (I didn't go to a Scottish university and I'm not Scottish) it was not 'over priced'. And remember, most PhD places are funded. You won't be rich but its still a wage (plus you can earn money teaching/marking). Personally, given the swiftness with which I got a job after finishing, especially in today's job market (well Spring 2010) I'd say my education was worth the money. And more generally over someone's life time most forms of higher education (especially the sciences) pay for themselves in increased earnings.

Again, you assume the way you're treated on a forum is how we treat everyone. Plenty of lay persons here I treat fine. Plenty of people in real life I treat fine. I'm generally a very polite and helpful person in real life. Heck, I volunteer for a charity a day a week! But I don't have much of a tolerance for intellectual laziness and dishonesty and you've shown you have them in spades.

I can't argue a case against the flying spaghetti monster but it wouldn't be allowed in the maths/physics forum. Philosophical, biomedical and electrochemical questions have places elsewhere on the forum. However, unless it can provide extraordinary justification for its extraordinary claims a discussion about a 'theory of conciousness' isn't going to pass any kind of reasonable condition for posting about in the physics/maths forum. The onus is on you to provide justification, it's the basis of the scientific method. As such you've got it backwards.

19. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
I mention that I have never seen an instance where a moderator deserved complaints. I have been on Sciforums for 5+ years and think they have done a good job. It is not only Sciforums. I have not had an issue with any moderator in my life. This was mentioned because Sciforums moderators will recognize that this is true and should give me some credibility when I say Prometheus is a bad moderator.

@ Alphanumeric,
I think it is obvious why mister was banned despite your defence, and I am sure that this is a "known". I am just posting what is obvious to all/most.

I said there should be a physics section dealing with stuff that has "no mainstream descriptions", but apparently if it is at all questionable it is not science.

For example: I have been looking at something called the Quantum Ring Theory. However if it is true then it would knock some Bohr/Schrödinger ideas off track. I think it would be impossible to discuss such a thing in the Physics forum for several reasons.
a) because it is not yet accepted it might be censored to the cesspool by prometheus.
b) I think it would just be trolled to death.

Despite all the "stupider than thou" comments about how opening a physics thread about debatable aspects of physics such as the QRT. It is a good idea. Here is another hint: Don't let prometheus moderate it.

So because there is no mainstream description they don't exist?

I am attempting to understand your reasoning. Isn't discussion a tool that allows people to theorize mainstream descriptions.

If Newton had Sciforums maybe he'd have thought up a gravity theory before an apple landed on his head, although he probably would have been discouraged from science altogether, and become an alchemist or something.

No. Most moderators I have seen on Sciforums seem to at least attempt to be fair and just. It is obvious how Prometheus performs as a moderator, so I think a few of us should speak up when we see things that are wrong.

I said my piece. I'm sure some people recognize prometheus for what he is. I do not plan on commenting further on it.

20. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
Prom has made a mistake here and there but he's not a 'bad' moderator.

I'm sure we can all say things we consider 'obvious' but which others might deny. Mister denies it when I say it is obvious he doesn't know jack about quantum field theory.

What do you think his level of understanding is? Give me the educational level you think he could pass the exams of. High school? Undergrad? Masters? What do you think? I'd say he'd struggle to get a good grade at aged 16. I'm certain he couldn't get into a decent university to do physics, never mind do stuff considered postgrad at a top university.

Well your 'apparently' is wrong. And given I'm the moderator it's my decision what gets into the maths/physics forum.

You've just said it would be extraordinary in its effect on the mainstream so you need to provide extraordinary evidence, not just "I've got some idea". If it's "I've got some idea" then its for the 'alternative theories' forum. If it's got evidence then you can discuss it in the main physics forum.

For example, the neutrino experiments recently could be HUGE if they need the Standard Model rewritten. Hell, it might kill special relativity! But it was fine in the main forum because the people presenting it provided evidence, tons of raw data and invited people to discuss it further. They also planned to evaluate it using a different method and help other experiments develop independent tests. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary approach.

Give me a link to a decent paper, one which has passed peer review at a reputable journal, on quantum ring theory and I'll have a read. I know a fair bit of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, the mathematics commonly called 'ring theory' and plenty besides. I'll use my own judgement.

Despite all the "stupider than thou" comments about how opening a physics thread about debatable aspects of physics such as the QRT. It is a good idea. Here is another hint: Don't let prometheus moderate it.

I didn't say that. I said that given there's nothing with any evidence to describe tachyons in a viable way any answer would be entirely supposition. As such Mister's post wasn't a brain teaser, it was impossible to give an actual solution to.

No, discussion is a tool which people can theorize hypotheses. A description is mainstream when it's been looked through with a fine tooth comb by many independent competent people, it's been checked for errors and any experimental data relevant has been compared and verified compatible.

I do research and everyday I pitch new ideas. I don't pitch theories, not in the scientific sense, I pitch ideas. Some of them pass first glance by my colleagues and my own error correcting methods. Perhaps after a few days in the back of my mind I come back and work on it some more. After months of further development, correction, blind allies and testing then it has reached the point where people outside of my immediate collogues can look at it as an hypothesis. And it's months of review and testing by others away from being mainstream.

So no, you can't theorize anything mainstream because becoming mainstream is a long long way down the line for any theorized idea, be it from the mind of a high school drop out or a professor with 300 publications.

Wow do you ever not understand academia! And Newton. Newton loved alchemy and bible codes! He was a nut about plenty of unscientific things. As for discussion here, none of the alternative ideas here provide viable input for research. The problem is that the hacks here are so far from having anything close to a viable understanding of even observed phenomena, never mind the mainstream models for them, they barely say anything relevant to them. Personally, speaking from experience, I've gotten more bouncing ideas off PhDs after 5 beers in a pub in a single evening than the near decade of reading hack ideas on line. In fact, one beer related idea helped me prove a result which became part of a paper. The person was duly acknowledged.

The level of discourse over lunch in maths departments (especially the one Newton was once a part of) vastly exceeds even the high level discussions in the main physics forum here. I'm sorry but you really don't know the size of the gap between these forums and research.

Do you think the number of threads Mister has made is appropriate? Or do you think you're all just dragging this out unnecessarily?

I happen to have met Prom several times in real life. The person you are attempting to portray him as is not who he is. And the vindictiveness you're claiming he is acting on simply doesn't exist.

Messages:
12,575

classic!

22. ### kwhilbornBannedBanned

Messages:
2,088
@Alphanumeric,
It is confusing because Mister opened too many complaint threads, but you are commenting on the wrong thread here.

You have taken the Newton-Alchemist thing from a thread entitled "Does anyone know the basics of black holes?" in the "Site Feedback" forum, as well as your other quotes.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111622 POST 25 the following quote was taken from,etc.

Easy enough mistake.

However; I will respond here to your post.

@ Alphanumeric,
Yes. Clarified this as a joke earlier. My statement would not make sense otherwise because alchemy has similar qualities to chemistry science. James R gave me the same speech. I thought it was an obvious joke, so I apologize for my poor attempt at humour. Why else would I have chosen Alchemy of all things?

Fair enough. Censoring, rudeness, and vengeance seemed like very negative qualities but could be temporary traits.

The consciousness thread in question (currently in the science forum after James R moved it from the Cesspool) was not inappropriate.

However; I disagree with the number of complaint threads mister opened in this matter and many times I have asked moderators to close the threads.

As far as dragging it out I will respond to why I felt Prometheus was wrong. Prometheus at one time in these threads called me a "dirty liar" because he said he did not censor/edit. It was then on me to find posts where he admitted to deleting and censoring topics in order to turn it around on him.

It was apparent he was lying and not me. I shall dig up all the posts (copied on my computer as well), if that is challenged again.

This is the same thing as what I said. Whether or not you are absorbing information, pitching IDEAS, or reading Grimms fairy tales. You are altering the way you think through education. Even a horrid idea or unrelated topic (apple landing on head, or snakes wrapping around a pole) can jog a hypothesis to theory episode.

I would be okay with this thread being closed as well, as apparently the main discussion has moved to the thread
and my last post was #59 (I think)

This above link was what you (Alphanumeric) were responding to.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
23. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
Actually, I called you a filthy liar.

I still do not accept that I changed the meaning of what mister was saying and as such I do not accept your charge that I edited posts. I deleted some posts of his because they were almost unreadable gibberish in which he claimed a lot of knowledge that it was patently obvious he didn't have. Deleting posts like this is a common practice in moderation - see for example this post from James R. You can't see the deleted posts, but there are 17 of them.