Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

[Guest guest]

Um, wouldn't all those space craft thingies (with all their scientific

thingies) orbiting the earth and taking fotos of it, and google earth,

sort of prove that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

Sam

[snipage]

> So, again, nothing is ever scientifically proved; not even such a

simple

> theory as that the earth is spherical rather than flat. There is

> immense evidence to support the theory, and no counter evidence to my

> knowledge, but it still just remains [like all good theories] a well

> supported theory; not a proved fact.

[Guest guest]

No; because I can provide an argument that would invalidate all such

evidence.

Remember, I'm speaking of absolute scientific proof. Theories are not

proved; they are supported. Or not.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35771;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdm1lZm5\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU3NzEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTEyNzQ5Mw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:32 pm (PST)

>

> Um, wouldn't all those space craft thingies (with all their scientific

> thingies) orbiting the earth and taking fotos of it, and google earth,

> sort of prove that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

>

> Sam

>

>

> [snipage]

> > So, again, nothing is ever scientifically proved; not even such a

> simple

> > theory as that the earth is spherical rather than flat. There is

> > immense evidence to support the theory, and no counter evidence to my

> > knowledge, but it still just remains [like all good theories] a well

> > supported theory; not a proved fact

[Guest guest]

Are you Duhem-Quine'ing me? <grin>

Sam

> > [snipage]

> > > So, again, nothing is ever scientifically proved; not even such

a

> > simple

> > > theory as that the earth is spherical rather than flat. There is

> > > immense evidence to support the theory, and no counter evidence

to my

> > > knowledge, but it still just remains [like all good theories] a

well

> > > supported theory; not a proved fact

>

[Guest guest]

That is because you do not understand [or accept] the rigor of absolute

proof. Every belief system [including science] is based upon a core

group of ASSUMPTIONS. These assumptions are accepted without proof; and

cannot be proved. Science reduces these assumptions as much as

possible; much more than any other belief system, but cannot eliminate

them.

For example, you cannot prove that a universe external to yourself

exists if you follow the formal rules. As a matter of fact there is a

whole field of philosophical argument based upon that presumption.

Since there is at least one [admittedly very far fetched] argument that

can invalidate the reports of astronauts it is not absolutely proved.

Scientific theories are not proved; they are supported by the evidence;

or not. Those as well supported as earth being spherical or that

evolution exists [in some form] are accepted as " facts " by virtually all

intelligent and educated people; and IMHO rightly so.

This subject probably is of no interest to the list. However, it makes

those who say " Evolution is only a theory. It has not been proved " sound

rather uneducated; because no scientific theory is proved.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35781;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWtycm0\

4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU3ODEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTE1NzIzNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:56 pm (PST)

>

> Uh, I would consider all those astronauts that actually saw the earth

> from outer space

> as proof. I don't need any other theories.

>

> Roni

>

> Sam <k9gang@... <mailto:k9gang%40openaccess.org>> wrote:

> Um, wouldn't all those space craft thingies (with all their scientific

> thingies) orbiting the earth and taking fotos of it, and google earth,

> sort of prove that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

>

> Sam

>

>

> [snipage]

> > So, again, nothing is ever scientifically proved; not even such a

> simple

> > theory as that the earth is spherical rather than flat. There is

> > immense evidence to support the theory, and no counter evidence to my

> > knowledge, but it still just remains [like all good theories] a well

> > supported theory; not a proved fact.

[Guest guest]

Precisely.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35792;_ylc=X3oDMTJxM2NyNjN\

tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU3OTIEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTE1NzIzNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

>

> Are you Duhem-Quine'

> ing me? <grin>

>

> Sam

>

>

> >

> > No; because I can provide an argument that would invalidate all

> such

> > evidence.

> >

> > Remember, I'm speaking of absolute scientific proof. Theories are

> not

> > proved; they are supported. Or not.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> > >

> <hypothyroidism/message/35771;_ylc=X3oDM

> <hypothyroidism/message/35771;_ylc=X3oDM>

> TJxdm1lZm5xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODI

> EbXNnSWQDMzU3NzEEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTEyNzQ5Mw-->

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

> > > <mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%

> 20Was%3A%20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> > > stealthwind <stealthwind

> <stealthwind>>

> > >

> > >

> > > Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:32 pm (PST)

> > >

> > > Um, wouldn't all those space craft thingies (with all their

> scientific

> > > thingies) orbiting the earth and taking fotos of it, and google

> earth,

> > > sort of prove that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

> > >

> > > Sam

[Guest guest]

....heh heh heh, you brat...

My favorite bratty physics professor (Dr Louis Barrett)

did that to me " once " and I learned my lesson.

Sam :-D

>

> Precisely.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

> > <mailto:k9gang

> > stealthwind <stealthwind>

> >

> >

> > Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

> >

> > Are you Duhem-Quine'ing me? <grin>

> >

> > Sam

[Guest guest]

The Barretts do get around, don't they? Is Louis any kin of ?

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35815;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbWs4a2p\

yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4MTUEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIxMDY0NQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:13 am (PST)

>

> ...heh heh heh, you brat...

> My favorite bratty physics professor (Dr Louis Barrett)

> did that to me " once " and I learned my lesson.

>

> Sam :-D

>

>

> >

> > Precisely.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

> > > <mailto:k9gang

> > > stealthwind <stealthwind

> <stealthwind>>

> > >

> > >

> > > Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

> > >

> > > Are you Duhem-Quine'ing me? <grin>

> > >

> > > Sam

[Guest guest]

I have no idea. He was my physics prof, but he

had/has a great sense of humor and likes inquisitive

minds. He did like to swing around his foto album, tho.

Sam

> > >

> > > Precisely.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@

> > > > <mailto:k9gang

> > > > stealthwind <stealthwind

> > <stealthwind>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

> > > >

> > > > Are you Duhem-Quine'ing me? <grin>

> > > >

> > > > Sam

>

[Guest guest]

It is a little involved, and probably of no interest to most of the

list; who for the most part do not care or understand much about

science. The concepts are far removed from our everyday lives, and

given your recent statement [MOL] that a certain bit of evidence " is

proof enough for me " I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to present a

formal explanation. It's quite possible you will not accept the

validity of the concept even if you do understand it; and actually

understanding it is a leap for most of us [it may take a while; and a

lot of thought]. As I mentioned before, at one time I debated a number

of matters with someone who had no less than three PhD's, and certainly

considered himself a scientist; but he was unable to grasp such concepts.

But for now let me just say that [as I posted in another message] by

rigorous rules of logic and science you cannot prove that there is an

objective universe external to yourself. The existence of a universe

external to ourselves [note logic error there] that can be detected by

our physical senses and that conforms within the limitations of those

senses to what we observe is among the limited assumptions of science.

In a rigorous proof there can be no steps unproved. As long as there is

even ONE assumption in the attempt an absolute proof must fail.

The specific argument to which I referred is know as the BIJ [brain In a

Jar] thought experiment. Here is one discussion of the concept [see

page 97]:

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0eEbR2-Xt4C & pg=RA1-PA97 & lpg=RA1-PA97 & dq=bij+br\

ain+in+a+jar+thought+experiment & source=web & ots=uSxaSAUWBw & sig=TCnP_7rwMIsFuo8hUb\

aho9QJFp0#PRA1-PA97,M1

Or check out Philosophy: The Basics By Nigel Warburton; that is the

reference in the link above [page 97].

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35822;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaHZkdnV\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4MjIEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIxMDY0NQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:37 pm (PST)

>

> O.K. provide it.

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> No; because I can provide an argument that would invalidate all such

> evidence.

>

> Remember, I'm speaking of absolute scientific proof. Theories are not

> proved; they are supported. Or not.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35771;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdm1lZm5\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU3NzEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTEyNzQ5Mw--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35771;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdm1lZm5\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU3NzEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTEyNzQ5Mw-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@... <mailto:k9gang%40openaccess.org>

> > <mailto:k9gang@...

> <mailto:k9gang%40openaccess.org>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> > stealthwind <stealthwind

> <stealthwind>>

> >

> >

> > Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:32 pm (PST)

> >

> > Um, wouldn't all those space craft thingies (with all their scientific

> > thingies) orbiting the earth and taking fotos of it, and google earth,

> > sort of prove that the earth is spherical rather than flat?

> >

> > Sam

> >

> >

> > [snipage]

> > > So, again, nothing is ever scientifically proved; not even such a

> > simple

> > > theory as that the earth is spherical rather than flat. There is

> > > immense evidence to support the theory, and no counter evidence to my

> > > knowledge, but it still just remains [like all good theories] a well

> > > supported theory; not a proved fact

[Guest guest]

I'm in my own Matrix movie, eh?

haha

Sam

> > ... I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

> > explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to

present a

> > formal explanation....

>

> Let me try.

>

> Sam, you are really just a brain floating in a vat. All of your

reality

> is an illusion created by a massive computer program and input to

your

> lobes by electrodes. Thus, whatever you think is proved is but an

> ephemeral misunderstanding of a non-existent external reality. It's

all

> in your head. Q.E.D.

>

> Chuck

>

[Guest guest]

Hey, I found an article that mentions Dr Barrett and even has a foto.

It's from 2002, tho...the experiment thingy. <grin>

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/26_hemphills_minef

olk-m/

Sam :-D

>

> >

> > The Barretts do get around, don't they? Is Louis any kin of

> ?

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Could my reading glasses be considered electrodes? <grin>

Sam :-D

> > ... I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

> > explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to

present a

> > formal explanation....

>

> Let me try.

>

> Sam, you are really just a brain floating in a vat. All of your

reality

> is an illusion created by a massive computer program and input to

your

> lobes by electrodes. Thus, whatever you think is proved is but an

> ephemeral misunderstanding of a non-existent external reality. It's

all

> in your head. Q.E.D.

>

> Chuck

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wish I had awakened to an interest in science and physics while in

high school or when I took it in college. But there it was as dull as a

mud sandwich. I didn't really learn a lot to the basic concepts until

quite a few years later when I became interested in some of the weird

things in science I kept running into in some of the thousands of books

that I read. Later I learned a lot by participating in the science and

physics echoes of the old BBS Fidonet before Al Gore created the internet.

Possibly a teacher like Barrett would have piqued my interest much sooner.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35838;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaWw1ZGR\

2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4MzgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIyNDQ0MQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:05 pm (PST)

>

> I have no idea. He was my physics prof, but he

> had/has a great sense of humor and likes inquisitive

> minds. He did like to swing around his foto album, tho.

>

> Sam

>

>

> > > >

> > > > Precisely.

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

And the experiment is not as far fetched as it sounds at first. We know

a brain lives for several minutes after the heart stops; although

consciousness no doubt stops within a second or three. We also know we

can hook a person up to a heart/lung machine and keep them alive for

considerable time. If we don't manage to destroy ourselves then can you

imagine what we might be able to do in a hundred or in thousands of

years? A living brain in a vat or jar in the distant future is not so

implausible; at least as a possibility.

Some of this may be somewhat rudimentary to you [sam]; as you appear to

have much more education than most of us here, with a few notable

exceptions. But Roni also has asked about the concepts; and maybe one

or two more. So I'll plunge ahead and depend upon Chuck to correct my

most glaring errors! [ggg]

Now take it one step further: The ACTUAL date is not Jan. 24, 2008;

it's Jan. 24, 22008. You think it's 2008 because that's the data fed to

your brain from the computer. So, you see, you _could_ be a BIJ!

Now, here's another concept that will support that idea: You see, you

are in fact a brain totally isolated from data about the external

universe that we presume exists; except for one thing. And that thing

is sensory data input from you five senses. IOW, you are a brain in a

box called a _skull_; and the only thing that will ever get into your

awareness is the sensory data input plus your thoughts/emotions.

Now, what format does the sensory data that enters your brain take? In

all cases AFAIK it is tiny electrical [or electrochemical] signals that

travel the nerves from your eyes, ears, taste buds, *olfactory* [smell]

receptors and tactical [touch] receptors to your brain. [We will ignore

very sketchy speculation that other senses exist]. So the only thing

that goes into your brain as far as data is tiny electrical [or

electrochemical] impulses. These more than a little resemble electrical

impulses moving over a wire, except that there is a complicated process

that transfers each data bit across the synapses where one nerve cell

connects to the next.

So what does that boil down to? Well, if you read this you are looking

at a screen, right? Nope; wrong. What you're looking at is a visual

field that exists within your brain. And that visual field is 100%

totally CREATED by your brain; using the tiny data impulses to do so.

IOW, there is no tiny picture that goes from you eyes to your brain;

only electrochemical data signals. And it's the same with what you

experience as smell, taste, tactical or sound " images " . They are all

CREATED within your brain from the data input signals. So your brain

CREATES your entire experiential existence. Even the sublime pleasure

of the touch of a lover is self-created...

So the only thing you will ever see or experience is in fact created by

the brain itself.

Which means that if someone were clever or advanced enough to provide

sufficiently accurate and detailed data from a computer to your brain

you could be made to believe any kind of universe existed that that

person could conceive; and to experience it as real as you do this one.

As a matter of fact there's absolutely no way to prove that is not the case.

Clear as mud? [ggg]

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35846;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWUxNHV\

1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4NDYEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIyNDQ0MQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@...

>

<mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%20Lo\

w%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> gumbo482001 <gumbo482001>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:41 pm (PST)

>

> ,

>

> You wrote:

> > ... I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

> > explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to present a

> > formal explanation.

> ...

>

> Let me try.

>

> Sam, you are really just a brain floating in a vat. All of your reality

> is an illusion created by a massive computer program and input to your

> lobes by electrodes. Thus, whatever you think is proved is but an

> ephemeral misunderstanding of a non-existent external reality. It's all

> in your head. Q.E.D.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

I adored physics in high school...loved the weird things the most.

In college I got to learn the whys and hows. I wish I hadn't have

been so hypO the last 2 1/2 years of my degree, tho. I likely

wouldn't have hated calculus as much. Mmm, I probably would have gone

on to my Masters...but oh well. I didn't do too bad with all the

brain fog and hobbling around, but I am sure I would have been more

focused and would have sparkled had I been all there. Ya know?

Sam :-o

>

> I wish I had awakened to an interest in science and physics while

in

> high school or when I took it in college. But there it was as dull

as a

> mud sandwich. I didn't really learn a lot to the basic concepts

until

> quite a few years later when I became interested in some of the

weird

> things in science I kept running into in some of the thousands of

books

> that I read. Later I learned a lot by participating in the science

and

> physics echoes of the old BBS Fidonet before Al Gore created the

internet.

>

> Possibly a teacher like Barrett would have piqued my interest much

sooner.

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> >

<hypothyroidism/message/35838;_ylc=X3oDM

TJxaWw1ZGR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODI

EbXNnSWQDMzU4MzgEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIyNDQ0MQ-->

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

> > <mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%

20Was%3A%20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> > stealthwind <stealthwind>

> >

> >

> > Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:05 pm (PST)

> >

> > I have no idea. He was my physics prof, but he

> > had/has a great sense of humor and likes inquisitive

> > minds. He did like to swing around his foto album, tho.

> >

> > Sam

[Guest guest]

<giggle> Excellent, . Excellent!

Sam :-D

>

> And the experiment is not as far fetched as it sounds at first. We

know

> a brain lives for several minutes after the heart stops; although

> consciousness no doubt stops within a second or three. We also

know we

> can hook a person up to a heart/lung machine and keep them alive

for

> considerable time. If we don't manage to destroy ourselves then

can you

> imagine what we might be able to do in a hundred or in thousands of

> years? A living brain in a vat or jar in the distant future is not

so

> implausible; at least as a possibility.

>

> Some of this may be somewhat rudimentary to you [sam]; as you

appear to

> have much more education than most of us here, with a few notable

> exceptions. But Roni also has asked about the concepts; and maybe

one

> or two more. So I'll plunge ahead and depend upon Chuck to correct

my

> most glaring errors! [ggg]

>

> Now take it one step further: The ACTUAL date is not Jan. 24,

2008;

> it's Jan. 24, 22008. You think it's 2008 because that's the data

fed to

> your brain from the computer. So, you see, you _could_ be a BIJ!

>

> Now, here's another concept that will support that idea: You see,

you

> are in fact a brain totally isolated from data about the external

> universe that we presume exists; except for one thing. And that

thing

> is sensory data input from you five senses. IOW, you are a brain

in a

> box called a _skull_; and the only thing that will ever get into

your

> awareness is the sensory data input plus your thoughts/emotions.

>

> Now, what format does the sensory data that enters your brain

take? In

> all cases AFAIK it is tiny electrical [or electrochemical] signals

that

> travel the nerves from your eyes, ears, taste buds, *olfactory*

[smell]

> receptors and tactical [touch] receptors to your brain. [We will

ignore

> very sketchy speculation that other senses exist]. So the only

thing

> that goes into your brain as far as data is tiny electrical [or

> electrochemical] impulses. These more than a little resemble

electrical

> impulses moving over a wire, except that there is a complicated

process

> that transfers each data bit across the synapses where one nerve

cell

> connects to the next.

>

> So what does that boil down to? Well, if you read this you are

looking

> at a screen, right? Nope; wrong. What you're looking at is a

visual

> field that exists within your brain. And that visual field is 100%

> totally CREATED by your brain; using the tiny data impulses to do

so.

> IOW, there is no tiny picture that goes from you eyes to your

brain;

> only electrochemical data signals. And it's the same with what you

> experience as smell, taste, tactical or sound " images " . They are

all

> CREATED within your brain from the data input signals. So your

brain

> CREATES your entire experiential existence. Even the sublime

pleasure

> of the touch of a lover is self-created...

>

> So the only thing you will ever see or experience is in fact

created by

> the brain itself.

>

> Which means that if someone were clever or advanced enough to

provide

> sufficiently accurate and detailed data from a computer to your

brain

> you could be made to believe any kind of universe existed that that

> person could conceive; and to experience it as real as you do this

one.

> As a matter of fact there's absolutely no way to prove that is not

the case.

>

> Clear as mud? [ggg]

>

>

[Guest guest]

I totally missed that you gave the date of the article as 2002. I

believe the mass of the neutrino has been discovered from experiments.

Maybe since 1999. Or maybe they're still trying to tie down the

numbers; I haven't kept up with it.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35854;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbm84b2d\

hBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4NTQEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIzMjQ0MQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:31 pm (PST)

>

>

> Hey, I found an article that mentions Dr Barrett and even has a foto.

> It's from 2002, tho...the experiment thingy. <grin>

> http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/26_hemphills_minef

> <http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200207/26_hemphills_minef>

> olk-m/

>

> Sam :-D

>

> >

> > >

> > > The Barretts do get around, don't they? Is Louis any kin of

> > ?

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I don't think they have, unless it was done after 2006.

I'm not all that up on particle physics.

Sam

> > > >

> > > > The Barretts do get around, don't they? Is Louis any kin of

> > > ?

> > > >

> > > >

>

[Guest guest]

Ok, the Duhem-Quine thingy basically says that it is

impossible to conclusively disprove any scientific

hypothesis.

proposed that we could not scientifically prove the earth is an

orb, er spherical. And I saw it coming...he was Duhem-Quine'ing us.

<grin>

Sam

> >

> > Precisely.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@

> > > <mailto:k9gang

> > > stealthwind <stealthwind>

> > >

> > >

> > > Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:25 pm (PST)

> > >

> > > Are you Duhem-Quine'ing me? <grin>

> > >

> > > Sam

[Guest guest]

These concepts were provided in response to a direct request for a

scenario that could invalidate any fact that you/we presume to be

absolutely determined, or to show that no theory is ever proved. They

do that remarkably well for anyone who understands the concepts. They

are known as " thought experiments " .

And AFAIK thats _all_ they are; just a logical proof. They have no

bearing on the nature of the " real " world. While we obviously cannot

rule them out we also cannot establish any reason to assume they

represent reality. Given the massive assumptions that would have to be

made to support such a view such a position would appear to be the

opposite of good science. If you're looking at something with a

probability about the same as winning the megalottery every time you

play it then it would appear a good idea to not " bet " too much on it.

However, a number of statements you made below are in fact exactly

correct; but we have a great deal of trouble accepting them. See

response below...

..

..

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35888;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNWN1NGx\

iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4ODgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTI0MjkwNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:09 pm (PST)

>

> Obviosly, any data fed into any brain creates its own output. So if

> that is the case, and

> it very possibly is the case, why is it that you often put down the

> perceptions of others that don't agree with your own.

..

..

I assume we all live in a common universe that is, in some sense of the

word " real " ; and that there are MOL well established physical " facts "

that are common to us all. That is my world view, and AFAIK the

probability that it has some semblance to " reality " is extremely high.

IOW, if you and I were taught the skills and provided the equipment to

measure the physical constants of our universe we would agree on the

vast majority of them.

I guess I do not always " suffer fools gladly " [ggg]. I don't really

object to anyone having some off the wall belief system [believe in the

tooth fairy if it makes you happy! {ggg}]. When I generally get caught

up in a dispute is when someone uses a poorly thought out belief system

contrary to easily observed facts to advise others in matters that could

be extremely or fatally destructive to that other person. When I

_REALLY_ get tangled up in such a matter is when someone is an obvious

con artist who preys upon the sick, desperate, possibly poorly educated

and not overly intelligent person. That person IMHO should be HELPED by

any intervention; not used as a fool to make oneself rich. And I must

admit that to a lessor extent I have a real problem with those unwitting

enough to provide support for such con artists.

..

..

> If everything is perception from whatever data we've been fed, there

> is no way to tell what is correct and what is not.

..

..

Looking at it in an absolute manner that is logically correct. But we

live in a world of probabilities; not absolutes. So if the probability

of something is 10 e 100 you're pretty much safe accepting it as

absolute. To give an example: A sufficiently qualified

scientist/mathematician can prove to you that there is a possibility

that a new Turbo Porsche will materialize, basically out of nothing, in

your living room. However, the time frame for the probability is more

than likely much greater than the entire anticipated life of the

universe; so don't bet on it happening. And in case you're wondering,

it's not a joke...

..

..

> Therefore, anybody's perceptions are possibly correct or possibly

> wrong. Your beliefs are only the products of what data

> you have been fed and nothing more.

..

..

We have massive evidence that there is a lot of truth in that statement;

and much/all of our early data comes from our specific culture. Every

person [almost] to a great extent adopts and accepts the world

view/religious beliefs of his/her culture. But we all have a more or

less power of reasoning [intelligence] and if we didn't fall off the

bottom of the bell curve when we either through formal education or just

the education that life provides come into contact with [many] cultures

with world views/religious beliefs contrary to our own we will at some

point question our own. At that point we will probably decide that our

own is not 100% accurate. The probability that this will happen goes up

with both IQ and education; but IMHO greater with IQ than education.

..

..

Please let me point out yet once again that the far out concepts are

logical proofs; not intended to be a description of the " real " universe.

..

..

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> And the experiment is not as far fetched as it sounds at first. We know

> a brain lives for several minutes after the heart stops; although

> consciousness no doubt stops within a second or three. We also know we

> can hook a person up to a heart/lung machine and keep them alive for

> considerable time. If we don't manage to destroy ourselves then can you

> imagine what we might be able to do in a hundred or in thousands of

> years? A living brain in a vat or jar in the distant future is not so

> implausible; at least as a possibility.

>

> Some of this may be somewhat rudimentary to you [sam]; as you appear to

> have much more education than most of us here, with a few notable

> exceptions. But Roni also has asked about the concepts; and maybe one

> or two more. So I'll plunge ahead and depend upon Chuck to correct my

> most glaring errors! [ggg]

>

> Now take it one step further: The ACTUAL date is not Jan. 24, 2008;

> it's Jan. 24, 22008. You think it's 2008 because that's the data fed to

> your brain from the computer. So, you see, you _could_ be a BIJ!

>

> Now, here's another concept that will support that idea: You see, you

> are in fact a brain totally isolated from data about the external

> universe that we presume exists; except for one thing. And that thing

> is sensory data input from you five senses. IOW, you are a brain in a

> box called a _skull_; and the only thing that will ever get into your

> awareness is the sensory data input plus your thoughts/emotions.

>

> Now, what format does the sensory data that enters your brain take? In

> all cases AFAIK it is tiny electrical [or electrochemical] signals that

> travel the nerves from your eyes, ears, taste buds, *olfactory* [smell]

> receptors and tactical [touch] receptors to your brain. [We will ignore

> very sketchy speculation that other senses exist]. So the only thing

> that goes into your brain as far as data is tiny electrical [or

> electrochemical] impulses. These more than a little resemble electrical

> impulses moving over a wire, except that there is a complicated process

> that transfers each data bit across the synapses where one nerve cell

> connects to the next.

>

> So what does that boil down to? Well, if you read this you are looking

> at a screen, right? Nope; wrong. What you're looking at is a visual

> field that exists within your brain. And that visual field is 100%

> totally CREATED by your brain; using the tiny data impulses to do so.

> IOW, there is no tiny picture that goes from you eyes to your brain;

> only electrochemical data signals. And it's the same with what you

> experience as smell, taste, tactical or sound " images " . They are all

> CREATED within your brain from the data input signals. So your brain

> CREATES your entire experiential existence. Even the sublime pleasure

> of the touch of a lover is self-created.

> ..

>

> So the only thing you will ever see or experience is in fact created by

> the brain itself.

>

> Which means that if someone were clever or advanced enough to provide

> sufficiently accurate and detailed data from a computer to your brain

> you could be made to believe any kind of universe existed that that

> person could conceive; and to experience it as real as you do this one.

> As a matter of fact there's absolutely no way to prove that is not the

> case.

>

> Clear as mud? [ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> >

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35846;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWUxNHV\

1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4NDYEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIyNDQ0MQ--

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35846;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYWUxNHV\

1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4NDYEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTIyNDQ0MQ-->>

> >

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@... <mailto:gumboyaya%40cox.net>

> > <mailto:gumboyaya@...

>

<mailto:gumboyaya%40cox.net>?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%2\

0Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> > gumbo482001 <gumbo482001

> <gumbo482001>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:41 pm (PST)

> >

> > ,

> >

> > You wrote:

> > > ... I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

> > > explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to present a

> > > formal explanation.

> > ...

> >

> > Let me try.

> >

> > Sam, you are really just a brain floating in a vat. All of your reality

> > is an illusion created by a massive computer program and input to your

> > lobes by electrodes. Thus, whatever you think is proved is but an

> > ephemeral misunderstanding of a non-existent external reality. It's all

> > in your head. Q.E.D.

> >

> > Chuck

[Guest guest]

You have to take at least 100 mg/day of iodine to get it! [ggg}*

..

..

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35889;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbWUyOTY\

5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4ODkEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTI0MjkwNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Gracia " circe@...

>

<mailto:circe@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%20Low%20\

Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> graciabee <graciabee>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:14 pm (PST)

>

>

> I don't get it.

> ?

> Gracia

>

> ...heh heh heh, you brat...

> My favorite bratty physics professor (Dr Louis Barrett)

> did that to me " once " and I learned my lesson.

>

> Sam :-D

>

>

> >

> > Precisely.

> >

> >

> >

..

..

*That's a joke! PLEASE don't take more iodine. It really has nothing

to do with hypothyroidism...

[Guest guest]

I haven't kept up with it either; but I had heard/read that a massive

neutrino had been supported by experiment a few years back. A quick

look at Google suggests those results were first obtained in 1999.

Subsequent experiments have given ranges for the mass; but I don't know

if any are definitive.

I sure miss the old science and physics BBS groups. I could easily keep

up with the leading edge in many things. We had some world class

scientists there; Dave Knapp, for example. And one of the world's top

mathematicians. Who, incidentally, committed a faux pas WRT relativity

that a few of us called him on; and he never would admit the error.

Brilliant person, though. I can't remember his name...

..

..

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35891;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNjMxNGl\

rBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4OTEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTI0MjkwNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:27 pm (PST)

>

> I don't think they have, unless it was done after 2006.

> I'm not all that up on particle physics.

>

> Sam

>

>

> >

> > I totally missed that you gave the date of the article as 2002. I

> > believe the mass of the neutrino has been discovered from

> experiments.

> > Maybe since 1999. Or maybe they're still trying to tie down the

> > numbers; I haven't kept up with it.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Er, Sam, that should be " ...it is impossible to conclusively PROVE any

scientific hypothesis... " At least in the ordinary meaning of the

expression. I believe we would say that a hypothesis or theory had been

_falsified_. OTOH, if you're insisting on an ABSOLUTE statement then I

guess you're right too...! [ggg]

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35893;_ylc=X3oDMTJxcjRkNGF\

nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU4OTMEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTI0MjkwNg-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:51 pm (PST)

>

> Ok, the Duhem-Quine thingy basically says that it is

> impossible to conclusively disprove any scientific

> hypothesis.

>

> proposed that we could not scientifically prove the earth is an

> orb, er spherical. And I saw it coming...he was Duhem-Quine'

> ing us.

> <grin>

>

> Sam

>

>

> > >

> > > Precisely.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I can't recall, either, but if you realize " math is like drugs " , it

might explain the reluctance to admit the error.

Sam

(weekend with the fiance)

>

> I haven't kept up with it either; but I had heard/read that a

massive

> neutrino had been supported by experiment a few years back. A

quick

> look at Google suggests those results were first obtained in 1999.

> Subsequent experiments have given ranges for the mass; but I don't

know

> if any are definitive.

>

> I sure miss the old science and physics BBS groups. I could easily

keep

> up with the leading edge in many things. We had some world class

> scientists there; Dave Knapp, for example. And one of the world's

top

> mathematicians. Who, incidentally, committed a faux pas WRT

relativity

> that a few of us called him on; and he never would admit the

error.

> Brilliant person, though. I can't remember his name...

>

>

[Guest guest]

You know, , in a few short hours I will be partaking in a

scientific experiment of my own to find out 'how many hours of the day

does the love of my life spoil and pamper me'... hahaha

Sam :-D

>

> Er, Sam, that should be " ...it is impossible to conclusively PROVE

any

> scientific hypothesis... " At least in the ordinary meaning of the

> expression. I believe we would say that a hypothesis or theory had

been

> _falsified_. OTOH, if you're insisting on an ABSOLUTE statement then

I

> guess you're right too...! [ggg]

>

>