You must be a masochist, Rayn. Neither of us wants me to talk in terms of mathematics and yet you keep trying to pull me into using that kind of language, and I keep falling for it. Why do you keep insisting I try to talk in those terms if neither of us wants me to?
Since I was tired last time and missed a couple of things from your previous post, I'm going to mention them now:
You took this to your professor and she (miraculously) commented similar things to what you've commented before, ie that I'm not mathematically proving what I say. You're the one who cares about the mathematical expressions here, not me. So if you care about mathematical proofs, then that's what you need to provide, not me. I'm not going to because I don't care enough to even try. I don't want to talk in terms of mathematics; you do.
And on that note, that Pamela Gay person you quoted even said something about, and you even bolded it, "The next place they went wrong is they didnít do any math. They simply said here are a bunch of words. Well, you canít use words alone to prove a mathematical concept. I can say with words ďobjects fall towards the sunĒ." Maybe I just missed it, but did you do any actual number crunching to prove that your "here are a bunch of words" was mathematically calcuable such that we should/could talk about F&FW in terms of math? Even if you never showed it here, which would be perfectly fine, did you do the number crunching in your own personal life? Or are you just providing mathematical concepts without actually seeing if the math fits? For instance, measurements: we can measure height in different units, whether arbitrary (inches and feet) or not (meters and centimeters), but we can deduce real, standardized numbers from the measurements. I've asked a few times: How do you measure F&FW? What units do you use? What do the numbers that you measure mean? You've thrown the bifurcation graph at me a couple of times now, but what are your x,y,z axis? What's a value of -2x freedom or free will relate to in the real world (because proper math does relate to the real world, especially when the general topic at hand that you keep trying to drag into math is a real world topic before it's a mathematical topic. But then, oh wait, you're using that graph for experience aren't you? Doesn't matter, same questions: what are the axis and what do the numbers represent?)?
So for a very simplified instance: I can use 2x=y to denote how many eyes to bodies a person has, where x is the number of eyes a human has, and y is the number of bodies a human has. 3 bodies means there should be 6 eyes. I look at three random people, and sure enough I count 6 eyes between them. If I do this long enough, eventually I'll find people with fewer (or more) eyes than the norm, so then the obvious question becomes: do I modify the equation to fit the observations, or do I throw a degree of error into it? (I'm sure you know the answer to this question already, so if you're not interested in just a little bit more insight into my thought processes, I'd suggest skip to next paragraph) To modify the equation to fit the observations, I'd be pretty much modifying the equation every time I meet a new person who doesn't have 2 eyes, so to get a "perfect" equation I'd have to check every one of 7 billion people on the planet and relate the equation to that... except many people are born and die every single second across the globe so that would be next to impossible. Thus, I'm sure we'd both agree that explicitly mentioning a degree of error is the more appropriate (and definately the lazier) route.
So back to the Pamela Gay thing and the scientific method: Observations come first, then calculations. Have you observed F&FW enough that jumping into mathematical concepts (even before you've done calculations, I'd assume) is the correct way of doing this? You want to think about concepts in terms of mathematics, but aren't you going just a bit overboard in attempting to drag others into it as well?
To your current post:
I was trying to be nice and not drag the conversation here (that and I don't want to reveal too much about myself). All I will say is that you have made and are making a lot of assumptions about what I do with not that much information whereas you have made known what you do along with what educational institution you have attended.
Well, you have mentioned your degree a few times, so it's hardly an assumption. It's also entirely fair to make comments on what I do know (in other words what you
have said about yourself) rather than what I could speculate on.
You also keep making comments such as I am not doing science because I am not a scientists, but you don't know what I do(you do realize that people with my credentials can work under scientists right?). I was attempting to be nice and not drag the conversation down here, but this is kind of the second time you aimed a personal attack at me in terms of my career(that you know nothing of).
You almost say that as though you've never aimed a personal attack against me, for instance in terms of my intelligence... although, it seems you edited out the comment you made about me not being intelligent enough to understand what you're talking about. Aw, I'm gonna miss that little comment. Rest in peace, little buddy.
Science is not treated as so,e esoteric thing you have to be initiated into(you actually treat it as something analogous to religion or mystical orders), and there are people without Ph.D's doing amazing science. You have a weird idea of science in your head that is not actually what scientist is, and based on this, you are making assumptions about me that are not true(I have no desire to reveal anymore information about myself). In general, a person with my first degree with recommendations, referrals, and experience can work in labs under the direction of a scientist(they are pretty much your boss).
So first thing I think I need to do is remind you of what I actually said:
I said: "First, stop fooling yourself into thinking you're doing Science with regards to psi." I added emphasis this time. Does that make it more clear? I'm wondering whether I should go into the rant now or later about you not being a scientist just because you have a bachelor's degree. (I have one too. I know what they're worth, and I know what they're not worth)
Since you're the one keeping your qualifications secret, which is fine, I can only go on what you have
said, unless you want me to actually do what you're accusing me of and start making up random qualifications for you? You've brought up your bachelor's degree a few times as though that was all that mattered
(an exact quote was "In addition to the Genetics degree I already have, I am almost finished with an Engineering degree from one of the best schools around here. Trust me, I am familiar with this." Page 1), so I have to mention that a bachelor's degree alone does not make anyone a scientist. Well, any degree alone even all the way up to PhD doesn't make anyone a scientist. You expanded it a little more appropriately in your current thread with the comments about even people without PhDs doing amazing science; it's the people who are actually doing stuff that are scientists, not just people who have degrees and go into different fields (for instance, I didn't even bother looking for a job in my degree's related fields, not that my degree is scientific anyway). I knew the difference between holding a degree and actually doing science and being a scientist; I worded my statement the way I did because of that (I should also point out that I said you're not doing science with regards to psi. I did not say you're not doing science in general). You working with a scientist is much more qualification for saying that you're doing science than the degree itself.
As for treating science as an esoteric thing: what?
And for the record, since you mentioned that not all bachelor degrees are worth the same, the description you provided for a research technician's bachelor degree is pretty much the same concept as the bachelor of technology (equivalent to "computer information systems" for americans), but merely in a different field. Book learning, instructional classes, work experience, and practical skills. Enough to propel you a level above applicants who don't have a degree, and get your foot in the door at a decent or good job in the related field. It's a start
to a career; it does not
allow you to dictate your wages or haggle over your job duties or direction of career, for instance, like someone with a higher degree or very strong reputation could do.
so for all you know, I could be or could have been a research technician
For all I know, you're purposefully keeping it a secret. So I go by what I have to work with. You know, like a scientist does *cough* >_> Oh wait, no.. scientists make assumptions too, at times, don't they? You're working in the field, you could answer that question
On the other hand, for all I've typed above, I really don't care that much about you. You keep talking yourself up, I'm going to feel like making a few comments. You don't talk yourself up, I'll mostly ignore you in favour of commenting on topics you are talking about.
I edited my response before this one to include a graph of an example using sine.
Yes, yes you did. I'm still not seeing how the number relate to the real world, nor labels for x and y. You talk about what the type of graph is... but not so much on how it relates to experience or F&FW or whatever you were using it for.
If you recall, I said that experience is integral and can be described as something like a vector field. You know what else falls into that category? Things like electric field lines.
And if you recall I'm trying to talk about F&FW, so talking about electrical field lines makes me think about faraday cages that can impose very definitive limitations on the freedom of the electric field line. Suddenly not so infinite and free.
From the start, I have been saying consciousness is a dynamical and bifurcated system, which makes sense
Even before you were born, lots of people were saying lots of things about consciousness that "made sense".
The property you spoke about in which decisions can impact future experiences is a chaotic property. This has been what I've been telling you. It is kind of absurd that you are telling me I am wrong about consciousness being chaotic(which involves a modeling of domain that goes to some sort of infinity in the case of bifurcation) by giving me a property of chaos!
I didn't use that example to talk about you being wrong about "consciousness being chaotic". I used it to say you were wrong about experience being independent of decision.
I'm not putting it to the side.
Well, enjoy your misery on these forums then
I am going to expect you to acknowledge basic scientific facts like biology is stochastic, dynamical, and bifurcated or that fundamental fields are pervasive.
So sorry that I'm not living up to your expectations. Oh wait, no I'm not. Also, it's not that I don't acknowledge that stochatic, dynamical, and bifurcated things exist, or that fundamental fields are pervasive. It's that I'm saying you're using them wrong, and for how intelligent you keep making yourself out to be (and how dumb you keep making me out to be) you're not really good at convincing me that you are using them appropriately, especially when you can't answer basic questions that I've been asking and keep getting side tracked by other stuff.
Seriously: F&FW is a complicated subject, but you're trying to talk about it in all sorts of terms that are just unnecessary, and then also making assumptions that things like randomness equates to freedom and whatnot. How can I take you seriously when you can't have a normal conversation about it and just keep trying to drag me somewhere I've been constantly telling you I don't want to go to?
I am also finding it kind of insane that you said a scientists is wrong about science by giving me a source that supports what that scientists said
Are you insane? The sources all said she was wrong about the first step of science. How do you get that they supported what she said about that? It's that very first step that's the most important because it directs everything else. You're a perfect example of this! Science is supposed to start with observation, and yet you seem to enjoy starting with assumptions and assertions that you then go on to try and prove and don't even seem to observe the real world at all. Out of all the various conversations I've had with you relating to science and the real world, the majority of times that you talk about science, you talk about it in a theoretical sense that seperates it from the real world.
This is from a source you posted:
Yes, congratulations, I noticed you quoted from Step 2
when I was talking about Step 1
. I'm glad your basic counting skill are not even adequate from a grade 1 child's class. Keep up the good science.
I should probably mention this part explicitly, as I've mentioned other problems you have such as with language. You keep jumping around, and this is a perfect example of it. You quoted a few things from Pamela, I noted that the first step was wrong and provided some sources, and you jumped in and said she was right because the sources still mentioned the same stuff but in Step 2. My point was her Step 1 was wrong; you assumed she was right because the things she said were still part of the scientific method, but just step 2 instead of step 1. But it wasn't about whether what she said was still part of the scientific method; it was what step 1 was.
This is part of the reason I can't take you seriously as a supposed scientist (and yes, I will state that. If you feel it's an attack, I don't care), because you don't seem to be capable of seeing or holding a simple straight line of thoughts. So many arguments I've posted have tested this. Even things I knew I was wrong about, I still posted to see if you could just think in a simple straight line. A to B to C. 1 to 2 to 3. I know that more advanced science is far more complex, but the more complex stuff builds upon the simple/basic stuff (you should know that, what with the demand for mathematical proofs).
EDIT 2: I guess I should also explicitly mention that I recognize your credentials and achievements as a scientist are not impacted one whit from my views of them or of you. You should learn to recognize this as well, and stop taking things I say about your credentials to heart. Your reputation as a scientist will be determined by the actual Scientists around you that you impress, not random people on esoteric forums.