Posts by shepherdless

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

i just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.

they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.

god failed to prove his right to rule.

shepherdless

SBF, and Brokeback, I will respond when I can. It might be a couple of days before I can.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

i just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.

they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.

god failed to prove his right to rule.

Hoffman's academic credentials and experience initially look impressive. However, take a closer look. He does not seem to hold any qualifications or academic position in the hard sciences, apart from computer science. He is described as a "quantitative psychologist". His Bachelor's degree is a Bachelor of Arts.

There is nothing there to suggest he has any academic qualifications or experience whatsoever in relativistic mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc. And that is important, because Hoffman's conjecture (and it is just a conjecture) has fundamental implications for these very specialised areas of Physics.

Are you really confident you understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does?

That is a red herring; I didn't claim to. (In fact I don't understand "string theory" at all.) Hoffman tossed those terms out very flippantly in the first video. Hence I wondered.

No I don’t think Donald Hoffman thinks the material universe exists independently of consciousness.

Yes, it it clear from the second (8 min) video that Hoffman's conjecture is that the universe does not independently of conscious.

Intriguingly, in that video, there were a couple of references to "data" and "evidence", but we are not given any info on what that comprised.

Hoffman made detailed reference to the "observer" in quantum mechanics, towards the end of the second video. He appears to make the link between "observer" (a shorthand expression used to try to explain relativistic mechanics to a student) and consciousness. I can sort of see how he arrived at his conjecture. In essence, he has mixed a term used to try to explain a phenomena in Physics, with a concept that that term also needs to be present for that phenomena to occur.

The simplest analogy I can think of is as follows. It would be like somebody asserting that: 1. We need a microscope to view bacteria. 2. Therefore bacteria can not exist without a microscope being present.

PS: I didn't watch the third video. I saw it was 25 mins long.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

i just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.

they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.

god failed to prove his right to rule.

shepherdless

I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere. I am sympathetic to this idea.
- SBF

In Donald Hoffman' s Ph.D. video, at about the 3.22 to 3.30 mark, he admits that the universe exists irrespective of individual or collective conscious.

Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.

The video is formulaic. He starts with concepts that we can all agree with, is careful to sound reasonable, uses appropriate scientific jargon, gradually increases the jargon so that it becomes a little harder to follow, and while he still has your trust, introduces he nonsense concepts.

It is certainly not a theory. I don't think it even fits the technical definition of a hypothesis. It is just an abstract concept presented without any basis in support. There is no more support for this concept than, for example, Brokeback's earlier "are we all just a part of a computer simulation ?" concept, or the Matrix concept.

I doubt there is "growing support" for this idea. If there is, then I despair.

By the way, nobody is saying "consciousness... just arise[s] magically in the brain from nowhere...".

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

shepherdless

Hi lastmanstanding and Fay Dehr,

i don’t live in the UK. I am not the right person to take this on. It does seem to me that the charity status of Watchtower is dubious. There must be plenty of people here that could look more closely into it, etc.

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

shepherdless

That is interesting, lastmanstanding. Here is IBSA’s basis for remaining a charity, according to their own financial statements:

Public benefit
In addition to being a religious entity, the Trustees confirm that they have taken into consideration Charity Commission guidance on public benefit in exercising their powers and duties. This is amply demonstrated in this report and in particular the following:
1.Bible literature we have supplied without charge to congregations ofJehovah's Witnesses in the UK, has been distributed gratis, by those congregations, to interested members ofthe public in their local communities, in the following quantities: 14,836,474 copies of The Watchtower and Awake! and 23,805,463 other publications including, Bibles and Bible study aids, brochures, tracts and invitations to meetings.
2. Our conventions for Bible education are widely advertised by personal invitations delivered by individual Jehovah's Witnesses to the public nationwide. Admission is free.

Hardly any better than Scientology.

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

shepherdless

IBSA accounts are here:

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/DocumentList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=216647&SubsidiaryNumber=0&DocType=AccountList

IBSA has included the £32 million already spent, in its assets. It has also allowed for the additional £75 million.

Both sets of accounts state or presume the works are on program, and on budget. It will be interesting to see if it stays that way.

21

Australians deadlest animals just for our American friends

by MightyV8 in

.

australians deadlest animals.

https://youtu.be/mrrao_vg_k4.

shepherdless

Listener, good that you were able to get rid of it. As you probably know, the PC brigade has introduced silly laws that you can’t kill a snake unless it presents an immediate danger. I wouldn’t have hesitated to kill any snake that came into my house, however.

I doubt it was a Dugite, although Dugites are native to your area. A Dugite is a large light brown snake. I have only twice seen them, and both were at least 2 m. They were phenomenally fast. They bolt at the sight of a human, which is probably why there are virtually no recorded deaths, even though they are extremely venomous.

There are plenty of other types of snake that could have got into your house. I think the small snake I referred to may be officially called a half girdled snake, but I don’t think that is what we called them.

21

Australians deadlest animals just for our American friends

by MightyV8 in

.

australians deadlest animals.

https://youtu.be/mrrao_vg_k4.

shepherdless

Hi Listener,

the bad news is that all snakes in Australia, except for some breeds of python found in the north, are venomous enough to kill humans. In WA there are some little worm-like ones (I can't recall their name) that are less than a foot, and even they can potentially kill.

I think statistically, the biggest killer is a type known as the Common Brown Snake. It is a drab snake, and the reason it is the biggest killer is it is, well, so common. Next on the list is the Tiger Snake. It is dangerous as it is (as far as I know) the only snake that might actually attack and chase you.

The good news is that deaths from snake bites in Australia are rare. Far, far more people are killed in other parts of the world by supposedly less venomous snakes, such as Russell's Viper in South Asia. There are a variety of reasons so few deaths occur. Snakes rarely venture into urban areas, people know how to avoid them, good anti-venom is widely available, and most snakes won't attack unless trapped or cornered. Also, despite their venom being extremely poisonous, Australian snakes usually don't inject much into a victim. My brother got bitten by (most likely) a tiger snake and survived.

Here is a true story; my dad was walking along a track through native bush, and suddenly found a tiger snake in his path right in front of him. He kept still and his eyes directly on the snake, and slowly crouched down, to pick up a stick that he could see in his peripheral vision. But as he put out his hand for the stick, the stick slid off into the bush.

For the benefit of anyone thinking of coming to Australia, I should add that it is not in any way as dangerous as it may sound. In fact, it has all been overblown. If staying in the major cities, you are safe from pretty much any of the venomous or poisonous animals, and even in remote country, you are safe provided you take a few basic precautions; eg don't swim in a waterhole where there are crocodiles, don't walk through long grass unless wearing closed shoes and long pants, etc.

21

Australians deadlest animals just for our American friends

by MightyV8 in

.

australians deadlest animals.

https://youtu.be/mrrao_vg_k4.

shepherdless

Yes, Smiddy, it always pays to keep a careful look out above you, whenever you walk through a wooded area.

21

Australians deadlest animals just for our American friends

by MightyV8 in

.

australians deadlest animals.

https://youtu.be/mrrao_vg_k4.

shepherdless

No mention of drop bears?