Write4U's complaints about being moderated

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Write4U, Apr 6, 2021.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You can begin by investigating the concept of a Mathematical Universe and not issuing penalty points for the mere mention of the name Tegmark after removing it from Alternate science into Pseudoscience sub-forum. I expect that the Cesspool will be the next destination of any mention of a Mathematical Universe.

    That is of course if you feel more qualified than Tegmark as a credentialed physicist. Obviously you feel that I am not

    You may want to heed your own advice.
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river


    Any mathematics is a consequence of the physical .

    What does a mathematical universe mean to you ?
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    The energy postulated to exist first and foremost by String Theory is so off the scale greater in magnitude than electromagnetism.... that it is difficult to imagine some sort of circuitry NOT FORMING in fundamental energy..... over something like infinite time before the most recent Big Bang event. We are all somewhat scared of the implications of what sort of life form / Intelligence would come into existence and evolve in that original fundamental energy that to some degree corresponds with Energy from Quantum Vacuum.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I already did. I told you what I think about Tegmark's ideas, previously.
    It's not a taboo topic. The problem is that keep inserting it into threads in which it is totally irrelevant. You seem to have a one track mind.
    Being credentialed doesn't mean you're always right about everything. That's one reason I don't go parading my own credentials about. Ideas ought to stand or fall on their merits, not on the authority of the person proposing them.

    It strikes me that Tegmark is like a cult leader for you, and you're willing to follow him wherever he leads, with very little questioning. Science isn't meant to be a religion, Write4U.

    This thread, by the way, is about near death experiences.
    Dennis Tate and exchemist like this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Did I steer this thread off-topic or did I respond to an off-topic post? How was I introduced to that thread? Do your homework James.

    Post #176 shows how I was introduced to the conversation to begin with.
    That is : post #176 in the thread Near Death Experiences, not this thread.

    It strikes me that you are engaging in the religious pursuit of a person who is interested in an alternative scientific hypothesis by a credentialed physicist.
    That you consider him a crackpot cult leader is your problem, but you are making it my problem. I always have the OP in mind in all of my post and you will find that I always come back to the topic, after a tangent has been explored.

    Yes I noticed. Are we playing "musical posts" now and I am the one always missing the empty post?

    You can switch it to any thread for all I care, just don't blame me for willfully inserting myself in threads with off-topic posts.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. I'm trying to stop you spamming every thread with off-topic repeats of the same stuff concerning your religious-like faith in Tegmark, microtubules and a couple of other pet topics. That's all.
    I said you act as if he is your cult leader. That is your problem, not mine or his.
    Your tangents are always the same - selected from one of three or four of your pet topics. They are an unnecessary distraction from the topics under discussion, particularly since they have been so thoroughly canvassed elsewhere on this forum.
    exchemist likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If they are off-topic it is in response to a post which I don't agree with because it does not meet the criteria necessary to prove the proposition.
    If I don't respond by stating a reason, I end up with the group that only ever responds with , "you're wrong, you ignorant fool" without ever explaining why. I hate be called wrong and uninformed without being shown why and how I am wrong. None of my post are in conflict with mainstream science, which themselves has been so thoroughly canvassed elsewhere on this forum..

    But that does not make for informational discussion, it makes for slinging ad hominem back and forth and that is a much more distracting than a rational discussion on the merits of the various interpretation of perspectives on any given OP. Clarification is always better than authoritative declarations accusing a poster of acting with a cult behavior. I can say the same for your behavior, clinging to the old schools with a cultish devotion, while advocating that science is always evolving.

    I post about newly evolving science, not the old school which I have absolutely no quarrel with. All I get is derision from people who are uninformed on the subject themselves.

    I find an ironic parallel in this little clip by Lewis Black
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. An off-topic interjection of one of your pet topics is never "in response to a post". If it was in response it would not be off topic.

    What you do is to try to draw out the most tenuous possible connections to your pet topics, in order to maintain the facade that they are somehow on topic.

    In a thread about bananas, you'd probably find a reason to post about how the shape of the banana is a consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe, as described by Max Tegmark, and you could probably also find a reason to talk about the importance of microtubules to banana consciousness while you were at it.
    Has conflict with mainstream science ever been mentioned as a problem with your posts?
    Please give me one example of my inappropriate clinging to the old schools with a cultish devotion (and without good justification, it goes without saying), if you can.
    No you don't. The idea that consciousness is to be found in microtubules was first floated in the 1980s, if I recall correctly, and little progress beyond the suggestion has been made in the following 30+ years. Tegmark's idea that the universe is mathematical is more of a philosophical idea of his rather than being actual science.

    What newly evolving science are you posting about? Where are these posts of yours?
    Got anybody specific in mind?
    exchemist likes this.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That's only your opinion unless you are a psychoanalyst, and becomes my problem when you act based on your opinion.
    If the question was off-topic, my response would be off-topic no. The difference is who introduces the off-topic issue.
    No it has not. AFAIK, none of my posts are in conflict with mainstream science. Do you have an example?

    Most of the "conflicts" are in the semantics. That's why I often accompany my posts with the definitions I am using. Not to instruct, but to explain.
    I try to be as transparent as possible and with great respect for concensus science. You'll never hear me say that mainstream science is wrong. I do get excited by new science that has not yet been included into mainstream science. And science is open to revision and/or modification.

    I do have a problem with mainstream science in that it has become fractured through focus on very narrow areas of inquiry.
    In my research on microtubules I have come across five different names used by different areas of inquiry involving microtubules, which are numerous as microtubules are involved in almost all areas of biology. Many papers refer to microtubule functions but not by that name.

    Eaxample: I use the term microtubules instead of neurons when discussing consciousness. This is not against the mainstream "consciousness is an emergent property of the neural network" which is true, but generalized.
    I identify the microtubules as the dynamic processors within the neural network, the organelles that processes sensory data and transports it from the organs and extremities to the microtubules in the brain which store memory and translate the EM data into conscious patterns
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Which is made up bullshit, as there is no evidence that microtubules do any "processing" of data.
    James R and Dennis Tate like this.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Uh . . . surely you are aware of his past eleven thousand posts where he assigns all good things - consciousness, reproduction, cognition, life itself - to microtubules? Now stop insulting his religion.
    exchemist likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I have proven all my claims. 97 pages of scientific proofs with links and references to scientific knowledge.
    Tell me why that does not qualify as science?

    Tell me where I am speculating or lying. If I am wrong, then all the scientist I have quoted or referenced are ALL wrong? I am not inventing or assigning any magic to any of this, that's what religion does.

    My belief is founded on and supported by demonstrable FACTS as is required by scientific standards. If you don't read what I post then you have no right to judge.

    We know consciousness emerges from the brain and microtubules are critically instrumental. The hard fact is that we already possess all the necessary ingredients for consciousness.

    Anybody that thinks we need some external magical ingredient is the religious one.

    The one remaining question is what specific neural brain pattern yields emergent consciousness (like we know what pattern of H2O yields water as an emergent liquid rather than solid ice).

    I only advance Tegmark's simple proposition that a specific neural pattern produces consciousness, which is entirely reasonable backed by hard facts.
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  16. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member


    If Super Strings are somewhat like rays of light it is conceivable that the lines that they follow .....
    assuming that many Super Strings follow the same path.... then the path might just become
    a "microtubule" for lack of a better word to describe it?????

    There is also the possibility of many subatomic particles following a path for a time in
    one of the dimensions and then appearing for a short amount of time in our four dimensional space - time continuum.

    Many subatomic particles may behave at least somewhat like a ray of light.

    Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

    Write4U likes this.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    remember the star trek episode where they are investigating a mining station
    & they find a particle that turns out to be a conscious life form
    and it lives in a water layer in the rock below the surface of the planet and is conscious and has done for thousands of years in a collective reality.

    personally i believe it is highly likely that some type of life exists on one of the moons or water planets in out solar system

    it seems probablistically logically probable given the nature f what i believe to be panspermia via comets

    but there is quite a jump

    to the electrical field theory of intelligent consciousness living inside a open field

    how we perceive 3d & 4D reality in such a manifestation is limited

    if you had a migrating random occurrence of energys that created intelligent consciousness on and off in a large field
    its effects would manifest as god like to an independent observer, even though it may be a random occurrence like chaos theory

    please move my post to the correct thread if applicable
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I agree. I believe all information requires a physical medium for expression.
    I the case of consciousness there is no reason not to accept the notion that the brain and in particular the organelles which process and transport information, is the medium which generates consciousness.

    We know that simple cellular organism possess memory and can learn (patterns). Bacteria communicate chemically (patterns) Many insects and plants communicate via pheromones (patterns) . Natural elements and laws tend to form self-assembling patterns, with emergent abilities over and above the abilities of the constituent parts. This is not a belief system, it is axiomatic and can be observed everywhere in nature.

    It is the basis for speculative religious beliefs that there is a hidden spacetime consciousness, an intelligent designer. But in reality it is all simple mathematical physics evolved into complex patterns that have specific emergent qualities.

    Orchid that produce pheromones

    In my book, natural selection is a mathematical function. Part of Probability.

    What is the probability?
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    part of the larger problem is a gambit of physicality
    on one side you have the human animal wild animal hell bent on killing & eating and being the only 1 left alive
    on another you have the human emotional psyche needing to be inside part of a collective liquid universe of connectivity
    on another side
    you have the individuation need to be an individual interacting moving back n forth through those boundarys

    thus most religion is lost in the absolute physical manifestation need to be the biggest baddest monkey drinking blood
    because it is driven by the cellular fear mechanism entirely comprised inside physical actuation

    it is the hurdle that religion will never clear in its current state
    so it continually destroys the species
    over and over wars on wars over thousands of years
    like an ocean wave on a sandy cliff

    most evangelical preachers & church leaders are narcissists in the usa
    no different to cult leaders
    they have hold & promote and endorse themselves as being above the law above reproach and having the word of god as absolute power & fact

    its a disease
    but it is the disease preventing the entire species(that culture) from becoming a mutant universe killing monster
    so its useful
    just like hitler on the dawn of developing nuclear weapons
    (covid could be the thing that saves the species from extinction)
    so finding moderators who comprehend that and can mediate that is not only difficult but highly improbable

    not to mention the difficulty in moderating content that may be well above & beyond the capacity & comprehension of the vast majority
    who see it as an affront to their ego
    a disease riddled ego festering in toxic waste(dressed up in a prom dress demanding civility)

    thats my opinion on the subject
    if my post(this &/or previous) is in the wrong thread and needs to be moved to write4us' thread where ever that has been moved to
    please do so freely and/or copy n paste reply etc as desired
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2021
  20. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    I didn't see that specific episode.....
    but I really do like that idea!!!!

    We could imagine a quark... buzzing around at incredible speeds perhaps saying something along the line of the line by Speedy Gonzales on
    the Bugs Bunny show......."Undale, undale..... ariba, ariba.... Yeehaw..... Yeehaw!!!!!!", (padon my terrible spelling of Spanish in spite of my wife being from Ecuador!!!)
  21. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member


    A buddy of mine who helped me to produce the video related to "Greening the Sahara" back in 2010 once told me that:
    "A film devoid of conflict is boring!" (R. W.)

    In my opinion.... Sciforums has the potential to be a place where a huge part of some of the most controversial topics on earth can be addressed in a way that has both artistic as well as diplomatic value???

    In my opinion.....
    to whatever degree you "James R" may not be one hundred percent free of bias.......
    (and we all are guilty of some bias due to what we did read vs what we did not read)...... your dealing with these conflicts
    has serious potential for the future! I personally could not accuse you of being more biased than myself......
    I admit that maybe... just maybe.... my own biases may be somewhat more like chains than your own biases might perhaps be?????

    Thank you for putting in an astonishing amount of time and effort to try your best to keep the standards here on the forum quite high and I personally like how even if a post seems inappropriate or somewhat "spammy" it may not be entirely deleted but instead.... may be moved over to a forum or to a discussion where you feel it fits in better. In my opinion that is a quite good judgment call. I am speaking in terms of my own posts.... not in terms of anybody else's posts! I personally have no complaints about how my posts tend to get moved...... that could inspire me to attempt to raise the bar for my own strange form of writing???
  22. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Sixteen thousand one hundred and eleven posts......
    Rabbi Alon Anava could tell you something about the gematria of that number....
    but I have almost no idea other than that it implies a new beginning of some sort?!
  23. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Does the brain generate "consciousness" or is a large part of the source in a higher invisible dimension of space - time somewhat like cloud computing vs having a computer that is not even connected to the internet?

    If the Ingo Swann research tapped into something valid..... then this would be evidence that the brain does not hold all of our human consciousness.

    The James Winnery research on generating NDE accounts through Extreme Gravity devices would be another form of relevant evidence on this topic.

    Several of the alternative ways of generating some sort of out of the body experience.... may be found to be "evidence".... (perhaps not proof but at least evidence), that our "consciousness" is not one hundred percent limited to our brains????

    If you do a search for the following phrase you will find a lot of information related to this possibility...
    "Triggers near death experience"

Share This Page