Three Things You Would Solve

Add a Comment

Comment by Asa Jomard on January 13, 2013 at 8:55

Thanks Dennis, for finding this old thread. And your wishlist. Lucky boy to have had pomegranates. I suppose lack of exotic things made me have to resort to imaging them and pocket money, what is that?

I now want to solve why I once upon a time thought that three things would be better than one, ten or a billion. The benefits of this would b enormous since I would understand how to created the same thoughts. . .

Comment by Franis on December 17, 2011 at 22:37

I'd like to solve the "unknowns" of...
1. communication - with other people, with other animals, with plants, with the planet, with oneself.
2. It would be nice to know what happens after we die - which ties in with consciousness in general. But I guess each of us will find that out for ourselves, after we die.
3. How all can humans work together to quit fouling their nest - an application of the communication problem. (actually, it may already be too late for this question to be answered successfully, given the methane releasing in Siberia that is going on right now, escalating global warming on a runaway scale...that will take around 10,000 years to re-calibrate.)

Comment by Asa Jomard on December 16, 2011 at 18:52

Oh, yes. This is the second problem I would solve.

Better late than never. But much more to be done!

http://www.livescience.com/17513-chimpanzee-research-limited.html?u...

Comment by Phil Bachmann on December 10, 2011 at 4:16

I want to retract my wish for an eternal youth potion instead I would like to invent a Magic Pudding to give to my socialist friends.

Comment by Bruno Marchal on December 7, 2011 at 16:38

Consciousness here and now is the only thing we can know for sure. This does not explain it, and it remains rather mysterious. It is true and undoubtable. All other content of consciousness might be delusion, dreams, or other realities.
Kim, we can never prove axioms, by definition. We always assume them, for the sake of the argument, or because we might believe them true about what we want to talk about. Axioms means basically the same as hypothesis. You might, as I do, relate consciousness and Gödel's theorem. Gödel's theorem show that some collection of truth, like the set of true arithmetical propositions, cannot be axiomatized by *any* theory (finite or mechanically generable set of axioms). This entails already that we cannot make a complete theory of numbers and machines. And machine can know that, in some sense. In fact Gödel's theorem shows that machines are limited (but we are too), and that machines can be aware of their own limitations, and that can be used as evidence that thy can develop consciousness like us. Self-consistency (of machine) is also of the type true but non provable, by any consistent machine. I think consciousness is a sort of logical descendant of self-consistency. That can explain some role for consciousness in the development of life.
I agree also that drug, consciousness and education are related. That's a vast subject. There are many different links. One link is that if education was successful, the word "drug" would not even exist. The term has been created by bandits and special interest to make money with fear, like when making you buy expensive inefficacious and harmful medication instead of using cheap non toxic plants. Some 'drug" can expand consciousness or make you realize that reality might be different from what nature and humans makes us thinking. Unfortunately, in part due to prohibition, the bandits got the power, and since one century education has become more a brainwashing tool than a freeing mind tool. Since the closure of Plato academy, the human science are just variants of that old animal doctrine : "the boss is right", and that is a mind killing theory. I think, like the greeks, that theology is a science, even the most fundamental one. But by science, I mean mainly modesty, and not the (pseudo) religion it becomes when we have abandon (unwillingly) theology to the politics (since about the year 500). In science we just know that all theories are hypothetical, and that we never know anything for sure. We progress only by being shown wrong. Science is only beliefs made clear. When something is subtracted from science, it means authoritative arguments will be used, against you.
I might add comments later. Thanks for the invitation.

Comment by Asa Jomard on December 7, 2011 at 7:41

It is hard to memorise because of the way the statements are often written, which makes it a logical conflict. If you can tell a logical negative statement from a statment about a broad overview it does not matter if you have memorised it or not. You hestiate and think that you have made a mistake. . . i.e. that your memory has failed you. You blame yourself.

Comment by Asa Jomard on December 6, 2011 at 14:13

Thanks for all the wondrous replies!

1. How did life form from stardust?

This would help us understand how life was formed and it could help us explore new life forms and develop life forms.
Help us understand what goes on inside a star, which could be useful if we want to explore the possibility of building space stations.
Help us to narrow down the search for life forms to more specific areas and this could improve our changes of being bored on Earth talking to human beings all the time.
Help us solve medical problems and eliminate the need for medicines since we could use our body’s' skills to heal itself.
Help us solve all the issues with consciousness and memory, which would free up many thinkers time that could be used to matters that are more urgent such as. . .

Comment by Asa Jomard on December 6, 2011 at 13:01

But then again should not the statements as such we clearly identified in the specific context as either Black, Blue or Green;-)

Comment by Asa Jomard on December 6, 2011 at 12:51

Lets face it it is better to write Blue or Black;-) The word hat could be assumed;-)

Comment by LoL on December 6, 2011 at 12:46

Sorry ... hB, not bH

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page