For that matter, evolution on this planet could have taken a different turn, so that no complicated nervous systems developed — ajar

Matter can't evolve at all without electric or color charge. It would be a massless existence without interaction.

It's a fact. If matter didn't contain charge, consciousness would not exist.

But in this context the point is whether one can be rational or scientific about this ghost of private conscious experience — ajar

One can. Every form of matter contains a pattern of charge, electric or color. It's this charge that lays at the base of consciousness.

I think that is fair to the majority of BigPharma, however not to the researchers behind their medicines — KantDane21

People behind the leach, giving it the means to be a leach are even bigger leaches. Or are they truly that naive?

Kind of like how business people that aren't mechanics can screw up the car industries. — TiredThinker

But with cars, no people get screwed.

Objective sciences' sounds redundant to me. "Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." — ajar

Facts are an interpretation.

The odd thing is asserting there's something 'logically' hidden (so no yet-to-be-invented machine will find it either) and yet insisting that the existence of such an entity is beyond question. (If philosophers do question it, they are monsters who can't be serious.) — ajar

What machines miss and organisms possess is a straight connection to the big bang. Machines have a connection to human hands only, even if these hands have a connection to the big bang. What is hidden is physical charge. It exists, but it's hidden.

As I noted before, I'm reading Collingwood's "Principles of Art" — T Clark

Now that sounds dogmatic: "THE principles of art".

All stuff created by men is art(ificial). What is considered art as art is quite arbitrary. A packet of cigarettes can be art just like Duchamps' piss pot, a knife, a painting, or a Dada manifest. The statues on Easter Island or the equipment on CERN. Library books, computers, a Renoir, a first twitter message, a wig, artificial organs, or artificial intelligence, a mathematical expression, TV, a house, a bridge, a plane, a car, and in fact all technological products, which is the kind of art present in all corners of the globe. In principle you can put all of these forms of art in a museum.

That is the background to many of those questions about how 'matter' can produce 'conscious states'. In those expressions, both 'matter' and 'conscious state' are abstractions, theoretical models which inherit all of these intractable problems - intractable, because of the way the model is set up. But that model dictates how sensible, scientific folk are supposed to think about the world. That is the deep contradiction inherent in the secular-scientific mindset. — Wayfarer

Well put! What if we give matter a mental load, like is done by materialists without even knowing it: the description of the interaction of two particles by means of a charge they possess. What if this charge, be it electrical or colored, is in fact the core base of consciousness? In the food we eat are loads of it, which means that somehow this dead stuff becomes transformed into living mind, leading to the logical conclusion that mind is ssociated with that what's inside. Charge.

DIMentionless Particle or Point — universeness

Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?

It is precisely this dogmatic attitude towards intrinsic curvature of space that blinds most physicists. Einstein said the curvature is intrinsic, so... The problem with an extra dimension is how to keep matter in 3d. But if this can be done in string theory (gravity leaking in a fourth dimension while matter stays on three, it's no problem. Particles themselves can be a kind of torus too. The product space of three circles, SxSxS.

In four dimensions, yes — jgill

That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently. Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in. Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth. If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening.

On the contrary, I want to celebrate all true seekers. Surely it's the participation that matters not who gets the plaudits — universeness

It would be great to get the plaudits, but that's not why I look for it. The thing that feels shitty though: okay, now what?

From the urban dictionary:

"Dimp is used when an idea, so dumb, that you just don't want to bother replying.

Jack: Hey do you think the world is flat

Joe: You and your dimp ideas, just shut up."

By the way, curvature only arises because the speed of light is finite, as it should be. What would happen if not? Then space and time would be absolute. Space would loose its relative nature and everything would happen at once. All matter would feel each other at the same time, no cause, no effect, no time no space, no interaction.

DIMentionless Particle or Point — universeness

There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact.

No, rivers are dead (but they contain a part necessary for consciousness, as we drink water). Only a brain structure that is able to "resonate" with a river sees the river. The river projects into the eye and induces a process of collective currents of sodium ion motions, which propagate on the axons paths and meet resistances at the synapses, which can be strengthened by widening. These motions (unlike the electrical currents in computers) are not pulled or pushed by an external voltage at the neuron bodies, which serve mainly as transit stations for the incoming currents.

It would be good if I could try to find their main jist's again and post them here for you to look at. — universeness

I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack...

Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation.

n my scenario there are no curves! and my clocks will show the same as the ones in your scenario. It is the velocity/motion of the accelerated clock that is causing the different time rates, not the curvature of the space they are traversing. What am I missing? — universeness

Sorry! I hadn't seen that you meant this experiment. You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved. Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space. This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects. If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time.

Sounds a lot like computationalism. If computers can be conscious, how will we verify that? Which computers, exactly, are conscious? Are some computers already conscious? Why are brains conscious? Because they compute? Is anything that computes conscious? — RogueAI

Brains don't compute, like computers. All processes in the brain run just like processes in the physical world. Without a program directing them, as in the computer. Just like processes in the physical world follow a path of least resistance, so do brain processes. The path is determined by connection strengths (corresponding to the width of synapses) between neurons, which are determined by parallel activation by the senses. Different collectives running on the neural substrate correspond to different aspects of consciousness. These aspects can run in resonance with the physical world. Creating a consciousness of space and together with memory (strength structures) create the experience of time.

What I mean is that (like anyone) artists start from a point of view. The one you mentioned sounds perfectly fine. An artist's personality or motivations or background have no impact on whether or not they make great things. Some great art is made by despicable people. And sometimes great art is made from despicable subjects. — Tom Storm

Ah yes. Making art and getting money for it is very nice actually. And creating it at the wishes of people is great too. You can give an artistic form to their vision. When I look at art it doesn't really matter to me what character the artists has or had. If their story is well told, who cares? You can question what well told is or if you like the story or not, but for me the story is what counts. You can even ask if there is a real story told. A cartoon strip tells a story too. Are there more and less artistic strips? Dunno. I think every attempt to tell a story is already art. Not all attempts succeed though. I like the story of Dick Lundy's Donald Fauntleroy better than the Nachtwacht cartoon. They are both succeeded attempts. So it boils down eventually to: has the attempt succeeded and do I like the story told?

When I hear the word dogma the first thing that springs to my mind is the mother of a dog, then the movie, and then religion. It gives a feeling of something that is unmovable and thus unshakable. You can shake me! I just state what I think art is. Not how it should be.

What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks.

Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail. A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back. I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there. I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them.

About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones) are not there. This means the universe was and is closed.

I provide these as evidence that I've tried, and I think mostly succeeded, to be clear that my judgements are based on my personal experience of art. You, on the other hand, present your judgements as dogmatic truth — T Clark

Ah. It's about my presentation. Why shouldn't I present them as dogmatic truth. I don't force anyone to follow my dogma. If people lay value in other dogmas it's up to them. You present your dogma as personal experience.

Nonsense! and hell is not scary as it does not exist — universeness

"Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"

Oppenheimer about his toy. Russia is mad enough to use it. As America and NATO generals. Ain't that hell on Earth? I prefer hell below.

Nonsense! and hell is not scary as it does not exist. Don't try to pass on the fear you obviously feel yourself in the dark places. These are just indoctrinations forced upon. you in your more vulnerable years — universeness

What on Earth are you talking about? You think I have fear of the gods? Absolutely not. I just care about their creation.

Yeah, in almost every case this was done 'in the name of god'. It has been ever thus! — universeness

Without the aids of science this couldn't be done! Science is just a modern day story of creation. And just as in the old days of God, it's obligatory to learn globally and forbids other means of living because it has joined with the state.

Since retirement, — universeness

You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!

Why is it imaginary? Time is either linear (past, present, future) or its not, it's curved (time travel then would be possible if you can access/traverse the 'inner sphere/hyperbolic' of time), or its multidimensional and the wormhole aliens of Deep Space Nine become more plausible — universeness

Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary.

I wouldn't mess with big Clint, he is liable to give you a new opportunity for espousing multiple opinions at the same time by 'tearing you a new one.' — universeness

I won't mess again with the big C! As long as he keeps his ass shut!

So why the stupid comment, that you believe in Thanatos and Hypnos. I like humour but I have enough hassle dealing with the irrational theists and other fantasists, without having to waste my time answering, windup comments from those who seem completely rational. Unless you really do have some disfunctional cogs in your head. — universeness

I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!

depends on who you mean with me. I know though..." — universeness

My fault! I meant we...

Because everytime himans declare theyve discovered the fundamental level of reality we find there are even smaller things, like atoms to protons to quarks. — Harry Hindu

That is no guarantee a fundamental won't be found.

Besides, how do you reconcile the concept of particles with the concept of the mind (the hard problem)‽ We can refer to the mind with words. Is the mind a thing or particle — Harry Hindu

The mind is for the brain as charge for particles.

I can use whatever term you like. Property is a type of information. When you use the terms property, interaction, relationship or process, you are referring to a type if information. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's why charge and mind are not information.

How do you know there is no fundamental level? There is one more level below quarks and leptons. Two basic particles is the absolute minimum. Elementary particles can't be divided. Charge is not information. That's a property of particles in cooperation.

Most people living in indigenous communities. The communities were simply wiped off from the face of the Earth. Children taken away from them to teach them the western way.

What are particles? Isn't any particle really just an interaction of smaller "particles" — Harry Hindu

The process stops at a fundamental level. The fundamentals are massless. They interact and form the massive structures of quarks and leptons. They interact because they contain a charge, which is not a material like we see around us. Not a thing. So the word "charge", in relation to elementary particles, is an example of a word not referring to a thing. It's a non-thing in a thing.

The threat of hell and damnation if you did not comply with invented religious directives — universeness

Don't forget the actual occurrence of hell on Earth for people who don't and didn't comply with the invented directives of science. Actual hell seems a lot scarier than an imaginary.

Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet
— universeness"

Still seems pretty accurate to me. — universeness

It depends on who you mean with we. I know though...

To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got — universeness

That's his asshole talking... :wink:

So if time is curved, then based on Euclidean geometry, you can create a straight line, which connects two adequately distanced points on the curvature. Do you therefore posit that time travel may be possible? — universeness

Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic.

A 'timeline' by definition of 'line' would be linear, 1 dimension. So a line of past, future and present time. Such a line would therefore BE time. It makes no sense to put clocks on it. You can simply read the time from the line. It cannot be a timeline if it does not already contain that information — universeness

The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary.

flat, like space is" — universeness

You pulled something out of context here. Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite. Measurements show that global space is closed.

Should be able to obtain this metric by just reading the data from your imaginary timeline at regular intervals or perhaps we can call them 'past intervals' and/or 'future intervals' depending where 'the present' is established on your timeline......perhaps time is not linear. — universeness

Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space. The time curvature is imaginary though.

Is this still valid if string theories extra spatial dimensions exist? — universeness

Yes. The matrix will be larger then, like the 5x5 metric in Kaluza Klein theory. KK offers room for U(1) only. String theory offers room for the two other gauge symmetries (on the Calabi-Yau manifold).

Is 'curves' the same as 'warps — universeness

Yes.

If it's obvious to you then please publish your paper containing your equations and proofs, so that it can be peer-reviewed, before Thanatos and Hypnos do you any mischief from their faraway hiding place. — universeness

I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.

I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense.

The piece shown cannot be defaced because there is no face visible. If the shopping mallers took the brushes and added new strokes, blobs, splashes, colors, in the style of the artist, it wouldn't be noticeable that they added anything. Where are the strokes and colors they added? I'm curious if I can see the difference. "A child can do that too", is often heard. They can't and the people saying that can't either. They think painting is about the mastery of representing a scene. That the mastery to do so is art. In fact, visual realism is the most abstract form of painting. If the mallers had continued it would certainly have been visible, and the work would have been messed up completely.

At the town square, something similar happened lately. There was a public painting happening. Part of a town fair. It was meant for children only. So it appeared after I joined. I was friendly but urgently asked to put my brush down. I thought this to be ridiculous. The children and me were having fun. Even the police was called, to escort me safely home, for who knows what bad influence I could have.

Even if this is correct, I can't think of a better approach or theme for an artist. — Tom Storm

I am not sure what you mean.
The approach and theme being money and ego? Money is nice and in the modern world about the only way to free yourself from the system. So selling what you create is nice. You could make money the story. Nail a couple of 100 notes, jam a few dimes, a few burnt bucks, cut Washington (or is it Lincoln) free from his bill, and make a nice collage of them. "Ceçi, n'est pas de l'argent". I'm not sure people wanna stare at a self portrait of the ego, especially mine (though women might like it, as some men do).
What approach or theme do you have in mind?

I don't think an interpretation of an artist's or subject's motivations tell us anything about whether the work is any good or not. :gasp: Some of my favourite artists were probably arseholes — Tom Storm

I can't really tell if R was an AH or not. He just floated along in the age of gold. He loved money and fame and would probably get off in his tomb when seeing the masses walking past the Nightwatch in awe, at a safe distance, to prevent them stabbing knives or throwing acid, as has happened before. Rembrandt could paint realistically and add dramatic light. There is a painting where he depicts a breathtaking scene along the Amstel river. Seems it were these scenes he put his heart into. He enjoyed walking along the river and it's in t
hese paintings he knows how to convey a story. At least, the story I like. He knows to tell the story of the nightwatchers too, that's clear. But the story is frozen in time. So are his views on nature and other paintings he made for himself (not ordered for). Here he depicts his feeling of wonder. Dark skies with bright sun. But is your ability to reproduce the visual and emotional art? Don't think so. That's only art in the sense of being able too. The ordered paintings also told a story. A frozen story with a personal touch.

I once saw the Nightwatch photographed with real people and another photograph showing "the other side", i.e, that what the nightwatch tries to keep out. That's a telling tale. How would R be valued if the camera was already there? He no doubt had a great technique. Does this qualify you as an artist? Don't know. Everybody can acquire technique. The myth of the gifted artists ìs alive still though. It's necessary maybe, though it's probably more difficult to paint like a child when are no child anymore, which is what is done or attempted manifold, and which can be very funny, tragic, or confronting when the scene is about grown up affairs.

Anyhow, the story told by R is a static one. One can learn of it. How people dressed, especially the elite. But nothing essential. Tell your own stories about it. R had the technique necessary but so had van Gogh (for his story). VG died poor but it feels he had a true madness towards the story of life. Both the stories of RHvR and vG are well. So both are artists and their work art. What if a drawing of the scene that R painted was discovered and it appeared to be drawn by a bastard son of his, hiding under a table? Would it become valued? Probably yes. Why is an aquarel by Hitler (and again he pops up) sold for 130 000 dollar but considered bad art? Would WW2 not have broken out had he been admitted to Good art has to be part of society (not isolated in musea), either by criticizing it, by expressing the ideas a society is based on, or just by throwing new stories in. Like the art of science and technology is nowadays an overrated part of it. Science can be considered an art just as well. Technology is the paint, and it's the most dominant form of art present, expressing the story of science.

-2 and 2 are not symmetric. They are antisymmetric.

I think that is a good example of a mistaken conclusion derived from this misunderstanding of symmetry which I am talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean you actually have to see the symmetry? Can't the metric of space have a symmetry? All points on a cylinder around the hole, perpendicular to the plane of rotation, show symmetrically related metrics.

Haha! Guess we share a secret diary... Like all of us. :smile: