Archive for novembro 9th, 2017

Grande critica ao pensamento filosofico materialista ( vulgo cientista)

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

(Obtido num debate no YouTube, video “Origens da Vida…”

Annoyingly fallacious mentality. Obviously you don’t know any scientists. If you did, you’d know these statements that you made about ridicule are stupid. You see pop culture scientists do it, scrubs like Tyson so, you think all scientists are cocky, rock-star wannabes. Also. this isn’t a science journal. However, lets use your obvious attempt to pigeon hole normal people who want to discuss these barely intelligible theories.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein can all be discounted because of a total lack of “impact factor.” They were reviewed by their peers.

And it was strong across the board that their contemporaries thought some of their ideas were absurd. So, there’s that to deal with. Any impact factor generated by circulating their works posthumously doesn’t count, those aren’t peers.

As usual a BS double standard in order to co-opt a discussion and kill it. Which, is exactly what you did.

Here’s how the two main paradigms work:

S v R

Religion makes you a sinner if you DO believe. What else would we need Baby Jesus for?

Science makes you ignorant, stupid or insane if you DON’T believe. (Yes. I’m quoting the R-tard Dawkins).

Not hard to see why so many choose science.

Go along to get along. In fact, Christians by the hordes accept evolution. I am not Religious. Don’t believe in any form of God(s), I have ever heard of. Just to be clear. If science was as absolute, as you claim it is, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It would be an actual fact, not one by default. (This video is proof of how much evidence you don’t need to have. It was disingenuous on many accounts.) Fact by default? Gravity, Heliocentric model and Evolution (to name a few) are only taken as fact because they feel it’s tested enough and won’t be proven false. That’s it. That’s the only reason scientific theories are “fact.” But that’s what happens when you stray from actual science to Empiricism and Inductive reasoning. Empiricism – Sensory Data. Inductive Reasoning – Probability (in many theories massively low probability) Interesting FACT. Look up Empiricism. It’s also a theory. either way, right off the bat, this is a formula for horrible and erroneous so-called science. Remember Aquatic Ape Theory, Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryology? Walking whale fossils (rodhocetus), that was a fun one. Many people don’t even know that these were fake or erroneous to this day. You’re using this peer review crap to trap people and quoting crap verbatim that you clearly don’t understand yourself. Obviously, most, if not all pop culture scientists will agree with each other If not, you can just be dismissive, right? Like Krauss, when real scientists blasted his BS about Quantum Religion. Dawkins and Krauss write and argue like philosophers because they are. Doesn’t matter how much they paid for their education and what it is in. Recognize this, there are two types of science. Science you actually use (at your job for example), and science you can only talk about, because it doesn’t exist anywhere in real life.

Teorias Cientificas: Todas Contem Algum Absurdo

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

Para quando criticarem minha teoria:

Divagações noturnas sobre conhecimento científico

Por melhor que seja uma teoria, se bem analisada, veremos que ela sempre incorre a algum absurdo…

Para a Dinâmica de Newton funcionar, é necessário admitir que a velocidade da gravidade é infinita. Isto é um absurdo.

Para a Dinâmica de Einstein funcionar, é necessário reconhecer que o tempo é relativo. Isto também é um absurdo.

A vitoriosa física quântica que não é de Freud, mas explica tudo, aceita pacificamente que um corpo pode estar em dois lugares ao mesmo tempo. Idem, absurdo.

A maravilhosa e exata matemática admite um infinito maior que outro. Idem, ibidem, absurdo.

No campo religioso, o absurdo tem um significado muito simples: é apenas um milagre

Diferencas nos cerebros de astronautas: A Gravidade exorciza o animalismo?

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

Here’s How Space Travel Changes the Brain

https://www.livescience.com/60840-space-travel-brain.html

Um MRI do cerebro de um astronauta antes (figura A) e depois (figura B) de uma viagem especial de longa duracao. (An MRI of an astronaut’s brain before (panel A) and after (panel B) a long-duration spacefight. Credit: The New England Journal of Medicine ©2017

 

Astrocytes: elementos do cerebro ainda envoltos em misterio

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

(Neurologia, cerebro: precisamos pesquisar mais o que se sabe sobre astrocytes para consultar na formula da Matrix/DNA de onde elas vieram, qual sua funcao sistemica, etc. Digitando “astrocyste” na busca deste meu website aparece outros artigos mencionando-a.)

Astrocytes Orchestrate Neural Connections

http://neurosciencenews.com/astrocytes-neural-connections-7899/

astrocytes are shown

An astrocyte (blue) grown in a dish with neurons forms an intricate, star-shaped structure. The locations of neurons’ synaptic proteins are marked in green and purple (neurons themselves are not visible). Overlapping green and purple proteins represent the locations of a synapses. NeuroscienceNews.com image is credited toJeff Stogsdill, Duke University

Brains are made of more than a tangled net of neurons. Star-like cells called astrocytes diligently fill in the gaps between neural nets, each wrapping itself around thousands of neuronal connections called synapses. This arrangement gives each individual astrocyte an intricate, sponge-like structure

xxxx

“It didn’t matter if the neurons were dead or alive ” either way, contact between astrocytes and neurons allowed the astrocyte to become complex, Stogsdill said. “That told us that there are interactions between the cell surfaces that are regulating the process.”

Evolucao exige `a mente humana ultrapassar os limites do imediato

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

A maior capacidade de algumas pessoas detectarem mias que outras os detalhe visuais do ambiente imediato nao significa que tais pessoas sao mais inteligentes e possuam maior IQ – este estudo comprova. Eu acho que isto e’ obvio, tenho ha’ muito percebido isto. Pessoas que reparam em tudo – como a roupa, o cabelo, de outros, e pessoas que cheiram tudo, se incomodando e se concentrando em cheiros, significa que investem todo seu tempo na vida imediata e nada investem na busca do conhecimento dos ambientes alem do imediato, cujas coisas estao invisiveis e nao emitem cheiros, como as dimensoes do macro e do microcosmos, a macroeconomia, ou macropolitica,etc. Mas e’ justamente o esforco dobrado intellectual na manutencao destas coisas de horizontes mais amplos que puxam a inteligencia obrigando-a se ampliar tambem. Os animais sao mestres em captar os detalhes imediatos, nao tem humanos melhores que eles, no entanto, nunca voltam seus olhos nem para admirar as coisas visiveis do ceu, por isso tem inteligencia zero.

Visual Intelligence Not the Same as IQ

http://neurosciencenews.com/iq-visual-intelligence-7897/