wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > NKS Way of Thinking > NKS one factor in upcoming scientific revolution
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

I never called it a theory.

I called it an inventive approach to making a hypothesis that combines information science and neuroscience to derive the complexity of a quantum and relativistic world.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-03-2008 09:33 PM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Mike your reaching now:
"I never called it a theory."
Is this the best you can do? Well we know the answer it is, you simply have failed to answer any of my arguments and now are reaching for any feeble statement to cling to, that may you think somehow discredit me. Sorry Mike your wrong theory or no theory.

"I called it an inventive approach to making a hypothesis that combines information science and neuroscience to derive the complexity of a quantum and relativistic world."

And yet it is still wrong and still lousy. And by the way the atomic/ quantum world is in way dependent on our minds. In fact our brains are built of atoms and thus atoms then brain so combining information theory and neuroscience (wrong term) gets you AI and other such things not QM or GR.

Mike find yourself a new idea... this is one dead horse that love to beat. But its dead Mike I'm sure you'll recover even as small a mind as your can recover.

Thanks

Last edited by on 01-03-2008 at 09:48 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-03-2008 09:40 PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain.

The mind is made of "metaphysical" matter. Something Leibniz would call monads.

That might be too speculative for most people.

But these are the ideas that inspired the creation of science in the first place.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-03-2008 11:30 PM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Mike your never failing ability to think about something and come to the wrong conclusion is quite astonishing.

I am seeing clear picture of Mike Helland, you read that which agrees with you only, and it must be wikipedia since books are too difficult.

I know your idea and its not science its speculation unproven and considered by many to be fallacious.

Speculative, ok, Mike's speculative, what am I supposed to do with that.

You don't know you head from your elbow in science, why should anyone give your speculations any value whatsoever?

Anyways mike you change your tune every-time the wind blows, then as soon as the wind stops you back to you normal con-artist routine. The only reason you always think you are right is because you change your ideas around or ignore large swaths, or all of your opponents.

On the issue of Lanza, he has credentials and is intelligent, he can say these things with a straight face. You have neither, and thus are nothing but a fool, con-artist and class clown, selling his cheap hollow ideas to anyone who will listen.

Not to mention mike none of your ideas are anything close to Lanza's. to put yourself in the same sentence is a disgrace to you and to Robert Lanza.


Thanks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-03-2008 11:51 PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Mike why don't you go back to google groups where you'll be appreciated. That way you can disgrace and group of your making rather then some perfectly decent forum like this one.

And if you like I can continue to use you as an intellectual punching bag...

Or just stop being a disgrace to mankind, intelligence, philosophy and science.

Thanks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-03-2008 11:59 PM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage.

What is that compelling criticism again?

Oh yes:

My ideas haven't made it to the status of a fully working hypothesis that passes experimental tests.

I never claimed they did.

But does that criticism alone mean the conjecture has no value?

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 12:39 AM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

Mike, just how thick is the wood? How incredibly dense are you?

You haven't read a single thing I've written, have you?

You're like talking to a wall... no effect whatsoever...

Read my post that starts "Mike I must confess you almost had me suckered in, I for a moment thought that you were restating well known philosophy..."

look at the examples, re-read others comments like Jason's of your ideas. Thats your criticism, the general idea

Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient

No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong

Failing to answer questions when asked

Failing to provide a conclusion that follows from the premises (idea or not logic still applies)

Mistaking philosophy as science

Misunderstanding for example Robert Lanza's idea and thinking it supports you...

Thinking you can revolutionize science with no apparent understanding of math

Considering your ideas to be new because you fail to do proper research

And so on...

Yes mike your ideas are utter garbage... now with that bitter taste in your mouth, that spark of self realization (hopefully sincere), go hit the books learn about the stuff ask insightful question and then in a few years come back and maybe you'll have something to teach us.

Mike you should leave now the scene of the battle since its only a matter of time before I break you, and its already begun with your statement:

"So my ideas have been trounced and exposed as utter garbage."

and if we continue, I can finish you off...

Thanks, Enjoy, Bottoms up...

Last edited by on 01-04-2008 at 01:04 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 12:58 AM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

Originally posted by tomjones

Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient


Both untrue.

I have a knowledge about the things I'm talking about.

Basically what I'm saying is mathematics is nearly to the point of making the same expression that philosophy from Plato and the Buddha to Spinoza and Leibniz has.



No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong


For example?



Failing to answer questions when asked


For example?

You wanted cites about Leibniz?

Introductory:

* Jolley, Nicholas, 2005. Leibniz. Routledge.
* MacDonald Ross, George, 1984. Leibniz. Oxford Univ. Press.
* W. W. Rouse Ball, 1908. A Short Account of the History of Mathematics, 4th ed. (see Discussion)

Intermediate:

* Aiton, Eric J., 1985. Leibniz: A Biography. Hilger (UK).
* Brown, Gregory, 2004, "Leibniz's Endgame and the Ladies of the Courts," Journal of the History of Ideas 65: 75–100.
* Hall, A. R., 1980. Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Hostler, J., 1975. Leibniz's Moral Philosophy. UK: Duckworth.
* Jolley, Nicholas, ed., 1995. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* LeClerc, Ivor, ed., 1973. The Philosophy of Leibniz and the Modern World. Vanderbilt Univ. Press.
* Loemker, Leroy, 1969a, "Introduction" to his Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Reidel: 1–62.
* Luchte, James, 2006, 'Mathesis and Analysis: Finitude and the Infinite in the Monadology of Leibniz,' London: Heythrop Journal.
* Arthur O. Lovejoy, 1957 (1936). "Plenitude and Sufficient Reason in Leibniz and Spinoza" in his The Great Chain of Being. Harvard Uni. Press: 144–82. Reprinted in Frankfurt, H. G., ed., 1972. Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays. Anchor Books.
* MacDonald Ross, George, 1999, "Leibniz and Sophie-Charlotte" in Herz, S., Vogtherr, C.M., Windt, F., eds., Sophie Charlotte und ihr Schloß. München: Prestel: 95–105. English translation.
* Perkins, Franklin, 2004. Leibniz and China: A Commerce of Light. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Riley, Patrick, 1996. Leibniz's Universal Jurisprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise. Harvard Univ. Press.
* Strickland, Lloyd, 2006. Leibniz Reinterpreted. Continuum: London and New York

Advanced

* Adams, Robert M., 1994. Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. Oxford Uni. Press.
* Bueno, Gustavo, 1981. Introducción a la Monadolog_a de Leibniz. Oviedo: Pentalfa.
* Louis Couturat, 1901. La Logique de Leibniz. Paris: Felix Alcan. Donald Rutherford's English translation in progress.
* Ishiguro, Hide, 1990 (1972). Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Lenzen, Wolfgang, 2004. "Leibniz's Logic," in Gabbay, D., and Woods, J., eds., Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 3. North Holland: 1–84.
* Mates, Benson, 1986. The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language. Oxford Univ. Press.
* Mercer, Christia, 2001. Leibniz's metaphysics: Its Origins and Development. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Robinet, André, 2000. Architectonique disjonctive, automates systémiques et idéalité transcendantale dans l'oeuvre de G.W. Leibniz: Nombreux textes inédits. Vrin
* Rutherford, Donald, 1998. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Wilson, Catherine, 1989. Leibniz's Metaphysics. Princeton Univ. Press.
* Woolhouse, R. S., ed., 1993. G. W. Leibniz: Critical Assessments, 4 vols. Routledge. A remarkable one-stop collection of many valuable articles.

I just took that from the wikipedia, a direction I've pointed you before.




Failing to provide a conclusion that follows from the premises (idea or not logic still applies)


You're talking about induction or deduction.

That's not how science works.

Science works through falsification.

I mentioned that to you in another thread, but it was of no interest to you then.

Philosophy solely relies on deduction and induction.

Science doesn't rely on them solely.



Mistaking philosophy as science


Irony.


You have many insulting things to say, but no compelling criticisms.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 01:16 AM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

"Conjectural without knowledge

Backwards, and unnecessarily inefficient


Both untrue.

I have a knowledge about the things I'm talking about.

Basically what I'm saying is mathematics is nearly to the point of making the same expression that philosophy from Plato and the Buddha to Spinoza and Leibniz has."

Prove it.

So what, how would you know, is this from stated anywhere besides you, or do you know mathematics well enough?

I doubt it...

"No prior understanding of previous work that directly relates

Changing your tune, just to avoid being wrong


For example?"

Let see I refer you to your statements about neural networks, or about all hidden variable theories.

Changing tune:
"I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain."

Go from computational model to biology based

"You wanted cites about Leibniz?"
Yes that you read not off wikipedia, do I really need to specify?

Have you read a single one of those sources?

Just for good measure let me illuminate some of mine that I have read:

Blatt, John Markus, and Victor Frederick Weisskopf. 1991. Theoretical nuclear physics. New York: Dover Publications.

Bohm, David. 1989. Quantum theory. New York: Dover Publications.

Cooper, Jack R., Floyd E. Bloom, and Robert H. Roth. 2003. The biochemical basis of neuropharmacology. 8th ed. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Fain, Gordon L. 1999. Molecular and cellular physiology of neurons. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Greiner, Walter, and Andreas Schäfer. 1994. Quantum chromodynamics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Milne-Thomson, L. M. 1996. Theoretical hydrodynamics. Dover ed. New York: Dover Publications.

Patterson, David A., and John L. Hennessy. 2005. Computer organization and design : the hardware/software interface. 3rd ed. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.

Petrovskii, I. G., and Abe Shenitzer. 1991. Lectures on partial differential equations. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Weinstock, Robert. 1974. Calculus of variations, with applications to physics and engineering. New York: Dover Publications.

C.H. Edwards, Jr. 1994. Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. 1994 Edition ed. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Original edition, "Advanced Calculus of Several Variables", Academic Press Inc, New York, 1973.

the list goes on

"You're talking about induction or deduction.

That's not how science works.

Science works through falsification.

I mentioned that to you in another thread, but it was of no interest to you then.

Philosophy solely relies on deduction and induction.

Science doesn't rely on them solely."

Since according to you these are just ideas and garbage at that, then what do you care about science . You certainly don't show a keen grasp of it. ie statements made of computer simulations, physics, neuroscience...
Why can I say this, well having designed computer processors, VR and AI simulations... and spending the last 6 years of my life studying neuroscience... I think I can say your wrong.
Not to mention contracting work I have done or the company I am starting... all these things give me the right to say you haven't got a clue.

"Mistaking philosophy as science


Irony."

Only if you were right about philosophy...


"You have many insulting things to say, but no compelling criticisms."
Don't kid yourself, I haven't even tried yet, and as to the second, failure to read opponents arguments, or failing to understand them is not the same as no compelling criticisms.

Though I am insulted that you thought this was a serious intellectual endeavor, not even close.

Due to an overwhelming body of evidence the court finds Mike Helland guilty of self deception and psychological projection.

This hearing is adjourned due to lack of brain voltage from Mike Helland.

Thanks Mike this was fun... but all fun things even making fun of you must come to an end sad but true. I can imagine that your intensely disappointed but hey whatever, I personally could not care less.

Oh an just by way of further note, the other aspect here is relative intelligence as I have spoken of, you can read this any way you want, but since I don't really use this forum except to have fun at your expense I'll bring it up.

My IQ is 180 sorry pal... i think I got you beat on the scale of measured intelligence... oh yes and the fact that I taught my self calculus and and differential equations by the age of 18.

Thanks, goodbye, go think of some more theories so others can poke fun at them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 02:27 AM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

Originally posted by tomjones

Changing tune:
"I'm not alone. Robert Lanza has been talking about a bio-centric view of the universe.

The idea here is all physical matter is an invention of the mind, whether it is a single electron or atom or an entire brain."

Go from computational model to biology based



My abstract says "neuroscience" and "computing" play a role in the new model.

I've claimed both are important all along.



My IQ is 180 sorry pal... i think I got you beat on the scale of measured intelligence... oh yes and the fact that I taught my self calculus and and differential equations by the age of 18.


Whereas at 18 I only had a career that lead to an early retirement.

I feel so stupid.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 02:38 AM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
tomjones


Registered: Not Yet
Posts: N/A

I know the other post I said would be my last but this last horror of yours is just what I had hoped for. This is what I was gunning for and thanks to you, I have what I wanted.. you walking right into the ideal ending to this conversation/ time waster/ best fun you'll ever have...

"My abstract says "neuroscience" and "computing" play a role in the new model.

I've claimed both are important all along."

You think neuroscience and neural networks in computers are one in the same... hahaha

"Whereas at 18 I only had a career that lead to an early retirement."

Yeah making cash register software, and store software... oooh...

where as I developed an external parallel graphics processing system that was marketed to the DOD

or the company I am starting at 22 to make body armor for the US Military

"I feel so stupid."

Well don't say that your great the way you are....

but hey, enough of this...

you're now a retired... pseudo software designer, who does amateur thinking. Where as my career is just getting started... and retirement isn't really in the plan, running my companies and research is (payed research.

Wow that was a fitting magnum opus to this wonderful opportunity to show mike's true colors.

Thank you for you assistance Mike, and to all our readers out there I hope you enjoyed this program. Stay tuned for more ideas from mike helland (amateur thinker).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 03:07 AM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

Originally posted by tomjones

You think neuroscience and neural networks in computers are one in the same... hahaha



Not quite.

I think that a multi-disciplinary approach can create a type of complexity we have yet to observe in a computer program.

That seems to me to be the sort of topic we should discuss on Wolfram's message board.

Whether we adhere to conventional thinking or not, as far as I know, isn't the focus of this messageboard.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 01-04-2008 03:18 AM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives