Fuses that matter.

Bryon, you seem to have something against sophistry.

From Wikipedia/Sophistry:

In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others: "Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience."

I think that the selling of ideas is just as important as the ideas sometimes, don't you? If you can't sell the idea the idea will be lost. So chalk one up for the sophists.

"[1] A few sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs."

That I can certainly understand, that it's difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

"Many of them taught their skills for a price."

I think that's what any reasonable person would do.

"Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them."

Again, the popular reaction is quite understandable. Why not question the existence and roles of traditional deities and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the Earth, indeed? Chalk another one up for the sophists.

"The attacks of some of their followers against Socrates prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist.[2] Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism."

The resentment and vigorous attacking sound so familiar, I can't quite place where I've seen this sort of behavior before.....lol. You can't tell the Sophists from the Realists without a scorecard. Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right

This thread has become "weirder than a bucket of hair". So that means I am cutting out. Tom

Geoff - Your defense of Sophistry was neat. Regrettably, it was also an act of Sophistry.

A Sophist has no allegiance to the truth. A Sophist teaches people how to manipulate, how to evade, how to deceive. And he charges them for it.

I propose we euthanize this thread and donate its body to Science. It will be our gift to Posterity.

Scratch that. We should charge them for it.

Bryon

Geoff,
You wrote:

I am not from the future or another planet, but I am sufficiently educated and have the necessary experience for this hobby. "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Certainly one of the preeminent thinkers of our time. Yes, Clarke is right. Nano this and that, particle accelerators, computers, nuclear energy and innumerable other advances I know nothing of are like magic. But every single one was arrived at through sound scientific investigation. All being reproducible with known verifiable results.

Being sufficiently educated, as evidenced by your credentials, I wonder why a scientific mind as yours would not want to clearly in laymens terms explain how and why your products work? And offer proof through verifiable, repeatable, method? I am especially interested in "Mind over matter" science and it's discovery and development.

I have visited your site and tried to read and digest your paper on the "Intelligent Chip." Quite frankly you lost me. One of the most difficult and confounding pieces I've ever tried to read. Couldn't finish it. After visiting your site I really wanted to give claims as to why these things work a fair shake in fairness to you. You've got some pretty vague far out explanations. Hard for me to believe.

So I began to look around and it seems controversy follows where ever you go. That's fine, to each his own.

Then I began thinking about your statement labeling yourself a troll, later claiming it to be all in good fun; however oft' times the truth be told in jest!
Then remembered all the old sci-fi comic book covers adorning your sight. And it struck me, Geoff has us all fooled! He really is the troll, telling us at the top of each page how far fetched and ridiculous he really believes these claims are! And he is getting people to buy them! Laughing all the way to the bank! Good for you Geoff.

For the record I do believe sound can be effected by different variables. But mind over matter Geoff? Really..?

Don't normally get involved in discussions like these but this one is the exception.

Apologies if this has been stated in this thread before but I wasn't going to read it again to see if it was.

Best,

Dave

Corazon wrote,

"Then remembered all the old sci-fi comic book covers adorning your sight. And it struck me, Geoff has us all fooled! He really is the troll, telling us at the top of each page how far fetched and ridiculous he really believes these claims are! And he is getting people to buy them! Laughing all the way to the bank! Good for you Geoff."

Well, if you think about it a little bit more, Dave, I could be telling you at the top of each page how far fetched and ridiculuous *you* really believe these claims are. And don't you think that's more to the point?

Corazon also wrote,

"I have visited your site and tried to read and digest your paper on the "Intelligent Chip." Quite frankly you lost me. One of the most difficult and confounding pieces I've ever tried to read. Couldn't finish it. After visiting your site I really wanted to give claims as to why these things work a fair shake in fairness to you. You've got some pretty vague far out explanations. Hard for me to believe."

I never claimed the paper on the IC would be an easy read or understand, you know, what with artificial atoms, quantum confinement, quantum superposition and all. You should have finished the paper, BTW, all is revealed at the end. :-;

Corazon also wrote,

"Being sufficiently educated, as evidenced by your credentials, I wonder why a scientific mind as yours would not want to clearly in laymens terms explain how and why your products work? And offer proof through verifiable, repeatable, method? I am especially interested in "Mind over matter" science and it's discovery and development."

Huh? I thought I did explain my products in laymans terms. I don't think there is necessarily an easy way, one easily digestible by everyone, to explain some of these things, like quantum superposition or De Broglie wavelength. There is plenty of info around on mind matter interaction, especially work by Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR), the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL) which has a new book out on the subject, available at Amazon. There is also Rupert Sheldrake and his morphic resonance theories that involve mind matter interaction, among other things, especially his landmark book, Presence of the Past. And you might not have picked up on the Mind Lamp on my web page, the device from ICRL that demonstrates mind matter interaction.

Corazon also wrote,

"Certainly one of the preeminent thinkers of our time. Yes, Clarke is right. Nano this and that, particle accelerators, computers, nuclear energy and innumerable other advances I know nothing of are like magic. But every single one was arrived at through sound scientific investigation. All being reproducible with known verifiable results."

Huh?! So what are saying, that my products are not arrived at through sound scientific investigation and reproducible with known verifiable results? That's a pretty big assumption, I'll write that off as wishful thinking on your part.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right