Idol curiosity?

Bob guy: I didn't think I was being that abrasive; I merely invited you to bone up on what others have already said about "your" topic. But since you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, let me give you some advice. As the new guy at a party, you don't make yourself popular by insisting that everybody move to your corner of the room to let you lead a discussion which has already been going on across the room for four months. Do you want to join the discussion or hijack it?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />Bob guy: I didn't think I was being that abrasive; I merely invited you to bone up on what others have already said about "your" topic. But since you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, let me give you some advice. As the new guy at a party, you don't make yourself popular by insisting that everybody move to your corner of the room to let you lead a discussion which has already been going on across the room for four months. Do you want to join the discussion or hijack it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, you did not “merely invite” me you informed me that the subject matter had been discussed in depth on another thread and your message to me was not abrasive it was curt, it read; <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />We recently discussed this topic at length under Why do we need to know? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I am sorry. but that is not an invitation.

Next, it is not “my” topic but I’ll get to that later. I read the link long before you suggested it and it began; Why do we need to know; Posted on - 23 Sep 2005 : by Iaminexistence His question was; “Why would we wish to even know the origins?”

The thread then went to then went to the subject of; “The mass of an average human is about 75 kilograms.” Posted by Larry Burford, 10 Oct. 2005, Then another Post by Larry on the same date on to the subject of; “My business experience teaches me that as difficult as it is to manage a period of growth,...”

Then on to your Post of 11 Oct 2005, which read;<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i> <br />Compared to the exponential growth of computer technology, the population growth rate has always been puny. Try applying those prediction methods with computation speed and power doubling every 12 months. According to Hans Moravek a cheap computer may be smarter than a human in the 2020's. How long will it take for a computer to outsmart the entire human race? Will it keep some human pets around for its own amusement, or will it rid the planet of the infestation that created it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To which Peter Nielsen; made the remark; <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">PhilJ¡#773;s comment, 11 Oct 2005 is big, needs another topic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To which you responded on - 12 Oct 2005;
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'll be glad to start a new topic on this, but I don't see any appropriate board for it. For that matter, what does this topic have to do with metascience? Perhaps our beloved moderators could create a "Socio-science" board---caption: "What are the sociological implications of techno-scientific advances?". On the other hand, I'm not sure if the meta-moguls want their website to go there.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The entire link went for four pages and after four months I started a new link just as you suggested. So, it is not my topic, it was yours and I did not “hijack” anything I just picked up where you left off 4 months ago and started a new link. But, as a show of friendship allow me to give you some information;

Cosmology, the main topic here at metaresearch, is defined as;
“1 a: a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b: a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also: a theory dealing with these matters”

Metaphysics is defined as; “1 a (1): a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2): ONTOLOGY 2 b: abstract philosophical studies: a study of what is outside objective experience.”

With Ontology defined as; “1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.
2: a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents.” source http//www.merriam-webster.com

Now, I do not know if the “meta-moguls” here want this subject or not but Cosmology begets Metascience, so the subject is well on point. I hope this message helps clear the air.
Thank you for your time.
thebobgy, pronounced the-bob-gee.

thebobgy,

To me, Philj's original statement sounds exactly like a polite "if you are into this then you might want to look over there as well".

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />thebobgy,
Regards,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Larry, as long as we are off topic I was wondering what your survey results for your theory quiz. I've been looking and maybe missed it. And, did the person to whom it was originally posed ever respond?
Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

Answers and brief discussions were posted on Jan 16, 2006 in Astrophysics / Gravity & Relativity / Relativity problem.

I received two off-line attempts to answer the questions (yours and one other), and both were correct on both answers. (Thanks)

The person to whom you refer did not make an attempt.

LB

tvanflandern wrote, 26 Jan 2006: ". . . the subconscious . . . is programmed to send its "thoughts" to the monitor (our conscious minds). Do we have the ability to rewrite the program using Will alone? I doubt that. -|Tom|-"

No via Will alone, but Yes via particular Arts, serendipidous learning the powerful language of lucid dreams. I know this from what happened to me in Antarctica, 1973-75, when that illusory "replaying thought words in our conscious minds to maintain that illusion of control" by "the subconscious [my me2]" stopped, and a subconcious me2 opened a visionary dialog with an over-wintered usual me, me1, ultimately a good thing with survival value, consistent with its being an evolved human biological process.

Tom's "we" in ". . . we lack the ability to "turn [the me2 controller] off" is thus not necessarily true, probably only applicable to me1s in tyrannical relationships with me2s. "We" are all potentially me2s as much as me1s . . . Future experiments with humans and other social animals will show this.

My vision lasted as long as a very long film, with almost as many scene changes in an Alice-In-Wonderland, proto-WIMP environment. Me1 had the choice of continuing or Aborting every scene change. Me2 was thus always respectful of me1, importantly. I used the Abort icon the 2nd day, when the Sequel became scary, and when "Flashbacks" occurred upon RTA (Return To Australia).

That vision started with an anomalous "Sun" appearing at my clear window with a great view of the sea . . . an imaginary Sun, part of a remembered scene from my childhood. I intuited (from me2) that by gazing at this Sun, I could enter the memory, which I did.

How the vision developed was consistent with Tom's ". . . our mental screens are reconstructions by the brain based on sensory input and subconscious algorithms": Perceptions were reversed. "Faithful reproduction of the light images presented to [my] eyes" dimmed to Dim, while the remembered estuarine river valley scene brightened to replace it in intensity. This scene was changing! Now there was a child on the cliff top, frightened . . . And this child was me! . . . I intuited that I could become that child, which I did. My world and sense of size shrank to a remembered worldview. Amazing! . . . and so on.

My relationship with Me2 has since mellowed to a familiar entity on the other side of my dreams, many of them lucid and so on. My ebook, even this post, my best ideas and so on are done by both me1 and me2. That this understanding is realistic is confirmed every night by its not being contradicted in my dreams . . .

Me1s may be selected and reinforced by psycho-socialisation, while me2s may be framed, sequestered, hidden by same, consistent with how intra-communicative me2s "come out" only when socialising stops, as producer-directors of me1 dreams, or in the bigger way as visions. In my case, I had gone to find CNA pulsations at Australia's Davis station, only to find they were not happening there; a social downer for me1 . . . The opposite, a break, for me2:

For this and other reasons, Davis society (14 men without women) was, from me2's point of view, unobtrusive . . . I was the only physicist. I worked in the remotest hut, filled like a submarine with so much electronics it never needed heating was off-putting to others . . . atop a ridge with views, and antennae on its quiet, wild side, where I often . . . just kept walking. I gazed at aurorae filling the sky after midnight every night, also wild . . .