kimmy

How about "matter". Exempt? No, just at a scale far too large for quantum mechanic effects to be of any significance. It's like wondering if I should consult relativity to see how much heavier I will become while I am jogging. I should become heavier while in motion... but my speed relative to the speed of light makes the difference probably not really worth calculating. Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move sodium ions around in my brain is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might move a parked car. Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move sodium ions across cell membranes in my brain is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might push a parked car uphill. Suggesting that some sort of interaction with stray electrons from outside my body could move a sufficient quantity of sodium ions across cell membranes in my brain to cause a neuron to fire is like suggesting that the breeze from a butterfly's wings might push millions of parked cars uphill at once. If I seem quick to dismiss the idea that quantum mechanics could form the basis for some kind of mental telepathy, it's because the idea is utterly stupid. Could you explain to me what an 'idea' is, if there is no physical properties to it? Are you saying that ideas are supernatural in some way? I did not claim that there are no physical properties to an idea. I claimed that they are not fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas. Not through "quantum theory reality", or quantum mechanics, or electromagnetic signals, or radiation, or gravity, or kinetic energy, or any other means of interaction known to real science. I already justified that claim with my earlier argument involving Shannon's Law, which I think is very solid. What is the physical basis of an idea? That's difficult to say for sure, but the answer certainly requires an avalanche of millions of sodium ions flooding across a cell membrane. And you can't provide me a convincing means by which ideas from someone else's brain could move even one sodium ion inside my brain, let alone millions of them at once. It's a rather fundamental one, considering the topic. No, and no. However, that's completely irrelevant. While I can't put serial numbers on my ideas to claim they didn't come from elsewhere, I can claim with complete certainty that they were not planted in my head by means of electromagnetic waves, radiation, gravity, quantum mechanics. If there is an idea in my brain, it got there through one of two ways: either I thought of it myself, or I received it through my senses (saw it, heard it, touched it, etc.) Her contributions to this thread have been in claiming a scientific basis for "God". She talked about our thinking matter all being energy that is connected through "quantum theory reality" to other peoples' thinking matter by way of concluding that individual thought is an illusion. Same question to you: what did she write in this thread to support your assumption that she is actually talking about some kind of social sharing of ideas? -k

No. Referring to protons, neutrons, and electrons as "pure energy" is false, wave-particle duality notwithstanding. Your nervous system isn't a cloud of pure energy. Your nervous system, at the plumbing level, operates as ions, pumps, and barriers. The charges moving about in your brain aren't free electrons, they're ions. Your brain doesn't work at the "quantum theory reality" level, your brain requires those big chunky nuclei. perception - "awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation" So now, what are "sensations?" Well, the bottom line is that they are neuroelectric in nature right? Sensations are signals that are interpreted by the brain. This could be problematic, but I choose to see this statement in terms of an overall system governed by rules. I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time. She (he? it?) is arguing that your ideas are fundamentally connected to other peoples' ideas through "quantum theory reality". Your belief that she might be referring to a wealth of knowledge built up over time and shared through social means is not inherent in anything she wrote. You're basically looking at a Rorschach blot and seeing a bunny. Of course. We interact with the world around us. At a range of ... well, touch. It seems to me that physical location is a pretty good way of distinguishing the stuff that makes up "you" and the stuff that makes up "me" or "my coffee". c-r has been arguing that the "quantum theory reality" is more or less The Force as explained by Yoda. -k

I have been restricting my comments to the "quantum" portion because that is the part that some people seem to be clinging to as the pseudoscience behind their mythical ideas. However, I think the Shannon's Law argument I just presented is equally applicable to electromagnetisim, radiation, gravity, heat, or any other "real science" justification for some kind of spiritual bond between us and other humans. If you reread the message I responded to way back then, C-R's message #539, I think you will have to agree that you are being overly generous to C-R. You've taken a big pile of pseudoscience and extracted one sentence that seems semi-sorta-plausible. Here's the first paragraph of what she wrote: There is nothing more to you than pure energy - electrons, protons and neutrons. All of your thinking matter is energy. And so any interaction you may perceive is likely an idea - one that is not separate or private from the rest of the other energy beings - that is formed from the energy of other ideas. Your interaction with the universe is not real in the material sense, and so it is nothing more than a delusion. Individual thoughts are merely delusions in which we pretend we are smarter, or faster, or more cunning than every other individual we perceive out there. Quantum theory reality suggests that you are not interacting with the universe but the universe cannot be separated from "self" and therefore we are all part of the same electron soup. Therefore the concept of your self is delusional and ethereal. You don't exist apart from everything else. And all of that is either flat out wrong or is based on a completely unscientific interpretation of established scientific theories. We may made of the same stuff as everything else, but our stuff is separate. The existing laws that govern this interactive system don't support any claims of a spiritual bond between humans, or between humans and material objects around them. We're a self-contained unit, not a node in a network. And again, I think your interpretation of her post is extraordinarily generous. I don't know anything about Chaos Theory. However, I am pretty sure that "the Butterfly Effect" isn't the all-encompassing spiritual bond c-r is trying to express. I suspect that the odds of my farts in my present BC location causing ice storms in Ontario are governed by entropy and thermodynamics. -k

The same "quantum theory reality" that says there's no way of knowing exactly where my electrons are located also describes the probabilities of where they might be, and tells us to an almost infinite certainty that my electron soup and your electron soup have no probability of interacting no matter how physically close we might be. Or, if I were to concede that the probability of my "soup" interacting with your "soup" while incalculably small remains non-zero, then we can describe this supposed interaction between our "soup" as a communications channel with an infinitely small signal-to-noise ratio. At which point we invoke Shannon's Law and discover that an infinitely small signal-to-noise ratio would result in an infinitely low data transmission rate-- the message would take literally forever to transmit. If a message takes forever to transmit, then no information is ever successfully exchanged, which precludes the idea that such "interaction" could be the basis of any form of collective consciousness. -k

Of course not. I'm just a high-school graduate. I'm certainly no expert on quantum mechanics. But I do know enough about it to know that it does not support the claims charter-rights is making. Quantum mechanics tells me that I don't know where my electrons (and other fundamental particles) actually are. But quantum mechanics also tells me with almost total certainty that my "electron soup" and your "electron soup" are not interacting, whether we're across the country, across the room, or even nose-to-nose. She (he? she? it?) claims that quantum mechanics (or "quantum theory reality" as she calls it) shows we're all part of some interconnected field of energy. The truth is, quantum mechanics proves the opposite. Despite mentioning the word "quantum" in every message, nothing she has posted corresponds to the actual scientific usage of the term. It's pretty much the opposite. Basically, an attempt to use the Uncertainty Principle to claim that we can't actually know anything, that since God really does play dice with the universe, we can't prove or disprove anything. That's not actually true, as you pointed out this morning. The fact that c-r keeps using the word "quantum" doesn't actually mean that her theories have anything to do with the field of quantum mechanics. Or, as ToadBrother succinctly put it... ...to which I can only add "Amen." -k

Is Silence of the Lambs really a horror? I bet the voters were told that they were voting for a "taut psychological thriller." I think science fiction and fantasy films tend to get the shaft as well. The only one I can think of winning a major award is Return of the King. I like the description "classical-music-and-foreign-backdrop-important-film kind of nominations" ...it's pretty close to the truth. The "important film" and the "epic period drama" tend to get a lot of attention at these sorts of these sorts of thing. The voters seem terribly impressed by "serious" movies, and they just love films with special messages. People in period costumes strikes people as "serious" acting. -k

I don't think that is true in general, but I do think there are a lot of people who do fit that characterization. -k

As I read those explanations, they are social concepts and have nothing to do with the "electron soup" and "quantum theory reality" which charter.writes claims disproves the notion of individual thought. -k

I do realize that there are a lot of people who would go see (or rent) a movie because of an award nomination. However, I'm not sure how numerous those people are. I know that it used to be that nominated movies would get brought back to the theatres to reap the commercial benefits of an award nomination, but now I don't know if that happens. I can't recall it happening recently, anyway. well, I did go to see "Avatar" in some degree because of hype... just a different kind of hype. In my case, anonymous voters endorsing some flick they didn't pay to see and might not have even watched isn't very compelling to me, but the large number of people debating whether Avatar had changed the state of the art (and so forth) was something I was interested in finding out for myself. Just about anybody has buttons that can be pressed to get them interested in something. I gather your view is that in prior years they could only write "Best Picture Nominee!!!" on 5 DVD boxes, and now they'll be able to write "Best Picture Nominee!!!" on 10 DVD boxes. My view is not that much different... my view is that they've begun to realize that people are starting to look at a DVD box that says "Best Picture Nominee!!!" and say "who cares?" Or worse, they look at a DVD box that says "Best Picture Nominee!!!" and say "huh, arty crap" and put the box back on the shelf and find something else. It ceases to be an effective marketing tool if people no longer associate an Oscar nomination with something they're interested in seeing. I think they are starting to worry that the absence of commercially successful movies from their awards show (and the plunging ratings that have resulted) have undermined the value of their award. As a result, I think you'll see some of the extra 5 spaces given to big successful movies, just to try and get people to watch their crummy show again. -k

Is Morris gone for good? I hope he will return. -k

This picture was obviously taken from an angle that doesn't show the team of Secret Service men holding back a swarm of angry, Tea-Partying toddlers, irate that grandma will live or die at the mercy of "Death Squads", demanding to see his real birth-certificate, and chanting to have curling-irons rammed up people's behinds. That man-in-black looks worried, and he should be. This think could blow up any second! I do think it's kinda funny that he took his teleprompters to what appears to be a pre-school, though. -k

No. Canadians don't get "American Bacon" either. -k

A complaint I have heard a number of times is that the Academy Awards are of decreasing relevance across the board because there's such a disconnect between the movies that are nominated and the movies that the public actually watch. The last "Best Picture" nominees that I actually paid money to see were Juno (2007) and "Return of the King" (2003). I did watch the award shows when movies I was interested in were in the running. I may have caught bits and pieces of last year's show; I can't actually recall. I suspect that the idea here is that if more people's favorite movie received a nomination, more people might actually pay attention to the awards. I would anticipate some of the additional 5 spaces will be given to some movies that wouldn't normally get a sniff, but were well-reviewed and did brisk box-office. ("Blind Side", "Avatar", "Star Trek", and "Up" would fit the bill, I suspect. "Transformers II" wouldn't.) I put little stock in awards, particularly "The Oscars". I suspect that if I fire up the forum's search features, I could find some cynical stuff I have written about the Academy Awards over the past 4 or 5 years. I am always skeptical of what the voters are thinking. I am skeptical of whether their choices are motivated by actual quality, and how much is motivated by "buzz". And by stuff that happened in prior years ("Chucky got ripped last time. I'm voting for him this year to make up for it." or "Man, that guy just craps gold. Everything he does is awesome. I'm voting for him, and I didn't even see his movie.") And motivated by political considerations. Like, when they gave Tom Hanks the actor award for "Philadelphia", were they voting because of his performance, or were they voting in support of the movie's AIDS message? Was Halle Berry really the best actress the year she won? She usually can't act her way out of a wet paper bag. If Kathryn Bigelow wins best director this year, will it be on the strength of "The Hurt Locker", which I hear is terrific, or will it be because they've never had a female best director before? Based on their record, the Academy Awards just aren't very credible with me. Every year it seems like there's some weird choice that gets made for reasons that don't relate to the product on the screen. And more to the point, I don't pay much attention to the Academy Awards because they just don't relate to the films I'm interested in seeing. Am I going to see "Precious"? No. Am I going to see "Precious" if it wins a bunch of awards? Still no. -k

Perhaps William Ashley actually killed Marcil and placed him in the rubble. Not accusing anyone, but you have to admit it's certainly possible. -k

I think saying Harper looks like a zombie is at least as much of an attack as saying Layton looks like the Video Professor. -k

My suspicion: lone zealous Obama supporter. If this were part of some Orwellian master plan to shape public opinion, I think it would have been done a little more intelligently. -k

Didn't he do that before the presidential election? You types didn't believe it was really him then either. Password to what? His Facebook page? -k

This is really just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo dressed up to look scientific. Protons, electrons, and neutrons are not energy, they are matter. Matter and energy may be converted from one to the other, but are not the same thing. The human nervous system does work does work using electricity. Your brain is basically billions of tiny batteries charging and discharging in various patterns. My batteries are separate from your batteries. They don't influence each other. The human brain is an incredibly lousy transmitter, and an equally poor receiver, of radio signals. Those claiming scientific justification for telepathy based on the idea that moving electrical charges create electromagnetic waves are mistaken. If human brains are connected to each other, it's not through any mechanism known to science, so we're really back to notions of the paranormal and magic powers. -k

That's what Osama looks like now?! -k

The numbers from that survey are rather startling, to say the least. -k

He does look like he's suffering allergies in that photo, doesn't he. As a fellow cat enthusiast, I can relate. The lefties used to bristle with rage at unkind remarks about Jean Chretien's appearance and comparisons of Jack Layton to the Video Professor. But now attacking politicians based on their personal appearance is ok. -k

What in the blue hell was the point of that? -k

I once saw an episode of the program "Criminal Minds" where a psychopath had imprisoned 3 high school girls, members of a soccer team, I think, in a cellar. There was nothing in the cellar except for the girls themselves. Later, a hammer was dropped in, and they were informed that if one of them were killed, the surviving two could leave. For a long time they did not act on this opportunity. But eventually, as one of them became increasingly desperate, and another became increasingly ill, this started to look like a solution to the dilemna. The desperate girl argued with her still-rational friend that killing the one girl, who might die soon if she didn't receive medical care, was preferable to all three of them dying. The rational girl refused to entertain the notion. And while the two of them fought, the sick girl buried the hammer in the back of the desperate girl's head, believing that the desperate girl would kill her and determined to save herself. Argus poses an artificially constructed dilemma, like the one in the TV show. It's hard to imagine a situation where killing an innocent person is the only possible way to save a loved one. If there is magic medicine that only one person in the whole world has, and he won't share, I'd certainly look into theft or non-lethal force before I'd turn to murder, for instance. However, watching that episode of that TV show reminds me that while it's easy to say here in the comfort of my home on a Saturday morning "I'd never do such a thing!" people are capable of doing all kinds of things when they're desperate enough. Philosophically, I'd have a huge problem with killing an innocent person to save a loved one, or save myself even. However, I can't say with complete certainty that I wouldn't do it anyway if I were desperate enough. -k {has long since stopped watching "Criminal Minds".}

Even if we assume that a nuclear device detonated deep underground could have caused the earthquake... how would it have been delivered? Has President Obama enlisted The Mole People?? -k

I am of the belief that the late-night ratings are of minor importance compared to the damage NBC did to its prime-time ratings. There are a lot more viewers in prime-time than in late-night, and Jay Leno's show was being completely curb-stomped by the competition. Jay's show Thursday night had less than half as many viewers as "Private Practice" on ABC, and 1/3 as many viewers as "The Mentalist" on CBS, the two major-network shows it was competing against. That is, of roughly 27 million people estimated to be watching the 3 major networks at the time, 14 million were watching CBS, 9 million were watching ABC, and just 4 million were watching NBC. To put Jay's 4 million viewers in perspective, ABC debuted a new show Thursday, "The Deep End", which was considered a major flop because it only attracted 7 million viewers. Worse, for NBC, is that this is the hour leading up to local news, and people are often persuaded to stay on the same channel. Local NBC stations have complained that the audiences for their evening news have imploded compared to last year-- I believe I read a 40% drop in viewers in one story-- and the weak lead-in from the Jay Leno Show has been blamed. NBC knew beforehand that ratings for prime time talk would be lower, but thought it made economic sense. They essentially vacated the time-slot and left their local affiliates to fend for themselves. I don't agree that there's "lots of money to be had - win or lose". NBC isn't making a lot of money, and hasn't been, for quite some time, which is really how they got themselves into this situation in the first place. It was an ill-conceived plan to save production costs. However, the cost of paying to correct the mistake now appears to be far less than the cost of continuing it. -k