Re: What you don't Understand. (lots)
- From: Erwin Moller <since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:24:49 +0100
~~NoMad~~ wrote:
> 1. Introduction
>
> I am always amazed how the knowledge contained in this document could have
> been overlooked by human society for so long.
Well, after reading some parts, I must admit I can imagine why.
It was not overlooked, it was dismissed.
Your MEST-approach is completely arbitrary.
Next person could come up with another clasification and wonder why his
documents were overlooked so long.
There are literally no books
> on the subject of Living Intelligent Systems but yet there are intelligent
> systems everywhere.
No books on intelligent systems?
Have you tried a libary?
Or the internet?
I think one of the missing components has been Data
> Physics because without this foundation of knowledge a complete
> understanding is not possible.
Without that foundation of knowledge a complete understanding of WHAT is not
possible?
And don't you think it is a bit arrogant to make such claims?
>
> Enjoy learning a new perspective on Life.
>
>
> 2. Raw Data
>
> To learn about life you must first learn about its raw data.
Raw data as in perception?
Inputinformation?
environment --(input)--> living thing?
Or do you mean something more abstract?
Oh well, I better read on.
This chapter
> presents a new way of categorizing and understanding the data that all
> living things process. This new way of looking at our universe may seem
> quite foreign to your current way of thinking and may require you to
> ponder its meaning for a while. It should be a good test for your
> open-mindedness in the area of science and technology. Eventually if
> others adopt this view of our universe we should have a more standardized
> language for discussing the raw data that we are all immersed in.
>
delete that paragraph. It is great way of irritating people who already HAVE
a language to discuss the universe. (like math and chemistry and physics)
> Data appears to us and other living things as shape, color, weight, size,
> sound, taste, etc. Our senses are the detectors of this raw data from our
> universe and our brain processes the data into knowledge.
Not completely true.
Our brain processes the data. Period.
If knowledge will arise from it depends on the fact if you are able to
adapt, or even have a brain.
Just before you stated this was concerning all living systems.
A procariot is not really generating knowledge from hearing Bach, does it?
I think you must stretch the meaning of learning very far to claim such a
thing.
Life forms are
> data processors just like computers. A tiny bacterium must process data to
> identify the difference between food and waste. It must also process data
> to understand when to multiply or when to die. All this data comes to it
> from the same universe that we all live in and it is important that we
> understand our universe of data.
OK.
>
> The first question we should ask about Our Universe is: What is it made
> of? If you ask different people what our universe is made of you will
> probably
> get a variety of different answers. A physicist may say our universe is
> made up of atoms with protons and neutrons. A chemist may talk about
> different elements and molecules. These answers are true to a point but to
> most living things atoms are irrelevant; we can't see them or sense them
> in our universe. What is important to understand, is what our 'sensible'
> universe is made of. We can find this out by looking at the raw data. Our
> sensible universe is simply made up of four things; Mass, Energy, Space,
> and Time (MEST). These are the four things that form the basis of all the
> raw data that living things can sense. The program uses the abbreviation
> MEST to indicate this field of raw data that all living things can process
> to make knowledge appear in our universe.
Which program?
Are you coding some intelligent system?
About your MEST: That means in Dutch: Dung.
You claim: "Our sensible universe is simply made up of four things; Mass,
Energy, Space, and Time (MEST)."
Erm....
Not very convincing to just sum some up, is it?
Why not one or two more? Or less? Or others?
Why not add magnetism? Or electric current?
Or are you maybe claiming that is both energy?
If so: Why not do something usefull with your time and start working on a
real area of investigation, like physiscs?
Our greatest minds of our time are trying to come up with a model of how and
what and everything, and he comes Nomad: It is just MEST.
I, for one, have never seen energy/mass/space as you describe it.
Oh yes: I can see electromagnetic waves with my photoreceptors, and with my
heatreceptors in my skin.
Wouldn't it be wiser to talk about sensory input in the same way as
biologists do for centuries?
I mean, you are reinventing and renaming a lot of stuff without any backup.
>
> If you try to precisely define Mass, Energy, Space, or Time you will find
> it difficult with our current language tools. But, we all know these four
> things intimately within ourselves. When we see a rock we know it has mass
> and takes up space. When we feel the warmth from a fire we are sensing
> pure energy. We also know that it takes time to do things. We know these
> things because we were born into this universe of MEST. Any other
> knowledge we have about our universe must come from information which is
> not raw data.
Bull.
I tell you how it works.
Pay attention because I will only share this arcane knowledge with you one
time. Are you ready?
(Just teasing you because you write in an arrogant style yourself.)
1) The universe we live in functions in a certain way.
If you are smart and lucky, you might learn a thing or two HOW it works.
Things that really help are scienceclasses/books/research.
Our current understanding of the whole shebang (life, universe and
everything) is just a snapshot.
Next year we know more, last year we knew less.
In general we are improving our understanding.
2) You are a living creature, and you are bred by Mother Nature because your
ancestors were succesfull in their environment, and could make children,
spreading their succesfull genes.
Your input consists of sensors that have been developed by means of natural
selection.
Your sensors have been optimized to pick up signals that are important for
you as a living being.
Some creatures have developed brains, and can make more sense of their
input, and even make theories, like we humans.
THAT is your input. Evolved inputdevices.
That is why scientists must build big machines to test for stuff they cannot
see themselfs directly, like electromagnetic waves out of the
sensor-interval of an organ called the eye.
Do you get it?
You can come up with your artificial MEST classification, but it is based on
your fantasies, not anything testable, thrustworthy, scientific, etc.
You better look at a living thing as a informationprocessor, with an open
mind, and stop putting MEST everywhere.
Ok, my current estimate: If I continue like this, I'll be finished in 48
hours with your posting.
So forgive me, I quit here.
(Sorry if my tone is harsh here and there, but you get what you deserve by
stating your claims in a way that would even make the Pope jalous.)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
.
- References:
- What you don't Understand. (lots)
- From: ~~NoMad~~
- What you don't Understand. (lots)
- Prev by Date: Re: Any Evidence for Doubting Thomas?
- Next by Date: Re: For Kim G. S. Øyhus
- Previous by thread: Re: What you don't Understand. (lots)
- Next by thread: Re: What you don't Understand. (lots)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
