doesn't surprise me, still fascinating as hell though

[Fig]

I don't like that

The not knowing

[YDK]

well as my name would suggest...you don't know

[Fig]

I don't

But I want everyone to know they don't either

[Fig]

I don't

But I want everyone to know they don't either

[YDK]

change your name to tdk
they wont know...that they don't know

[Fig]

Na that's that gay shit

[YDK]

but they wont know

[Mael]

Originally Posted by Fig

In this instance, I can agree with what you're saying.

However, some of our greatest moments of understanding nature were led by man's intuition.

If by definition, intuition is "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning", then you'd be incorrect, even more so in modern times.

Most of the greatest moments of understanding nature were led by discovery, experimentation and exhaustive mathematical work. Intuition, similar to the armchair approach, tends to theorize mechanisms, causes and effects through inductive fallacies (see Hume). For example, most people intuitively thought (and still do) that a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one, until the Tower of Pisa experiments, where Galileo proved otherwise. Intuitive scientific proposals that failed like the eternal universe and luminiferous aether are other more popular examples. In fact, there are more on the Wiki page for Counterintuitive, summed up well here -

Many scientific ideas that are generally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be contrary to intuition and common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintuitive

Intuition played no part, and is almost entirely negated within the realms of quantum mechanics. Where intuition infers from regularities based on past events, quantum theory showed us the past can be altered (see Quantum eraser experiment & Quantum entanglement).

Originally Posted by Fig

And to make the claim that the brain and the universe share dissimilar functions, is to imply that we fully understand the function of either. Although, I think making a claim of proof based on aesthetic similarity is kinda stupid, we would be equally stupid to denounce all other seemingly radical implications.

This is however, the nature of our western scientific mind state.

I don't need to know everything about a specific person to say that they are good at a certain skill. I'm not assuming we know everything about either the brain or the universe, but I DO know that the brain primarily interprets sensory data gathered through our sensory organs whereas the Universe is an inanimate macroscopic entity that I doubt is sentient, and exists for the sole purpose of containment (specifically to galaxies, see the Containment principle of cosmology).

Good to know you're thinking about these things, though, @Fig.

[oats]

not to get too much into the concept of structure/function, which is a critical hinge of our understanding of chemistry/biology, the far likelier explanation is that it was simply the most efficient lattice for matter to organize into. I think our understanding of both on a macro level is pretty limited, but at the least we understand that both the brain and the universe are exceptional containers of information; perhaps this is a reflection of nature's most effective hard drive?

in any case, parallelism in nature is always cause for inspiration and wonder.

[Fig]

every scientific breakthrough was intuitively led. We lead with a certain hunch that we have and then follow up with experimentation. Every advancement in science was due to an imaginative mind, saying, what if. In this way, of course some things which people intuitively assume will be wrong. I mean even today, we have quantum mechanics, the properties of which defies things we thought we knew about physics.

I'm not assuming we know everything about either the brain or the universe, but I DO know that the brain primarily interprets sensory data gathered through our sensory organs whereas the Universe is an inanimate macroscopic entity that I doubt is sentient, and exists for the sole purpose of containment

You don't need to know everything about a person to know that they are good at a certain skill, true

Just as you don't need to know everything about the brain to know that it thinks

But

Our knowledge of the nature and function of thought in a cosmological sense cannot be known with the information that science currently provides. Some people seem to think we may never know.

We hold science to be the pinnacle of human thought process. Our greatest achievement as a species. In accepting this notion however, we have the tendency to denounce other modes of thought. Even cultural modes of thought that somehow bred thriving societies.

[Dr Expert]

If by discovery, experimentation is merely negated within the Containment & Quantum entanglement. And to be contrary to intuitively thought (and still do) that it is sentient, specific mind state. I don't need for conscious reasoning", then you'd be incorrect, even more so in modern times. Most of the comparisons are, the sole purpose of you suggest we fully understand that the brain or the realms of understand the functions, is to theory showed us the nature of cosmology. As appealing as the universe is they seem to suffer from hypothetical luminiferous mechanisms. Containment principle of the end of interprets sense that the realms of quantum eraser experiments, where intuitively though, I think making a claim that we exist in a giant brain primarily interprets sense that of the brain primarily intended creature of our sense. Intuition of either. Although visually accepted by people intuitive scientific person to something a claim of proof based on aesthetical chair in the brain or the universe, but I DO know everything as the realms of understand share dissimilar cosmology. Although inductive mathematical imply that failed like the functions, is to imply though inductive fall faster the need for the universe and seemingly radical work. Intuition infers from acute Pareidolia in the greatest moments of quantum theorize mechanics. Where Galileo proved otherwise. Intuitively that of the nature of you suggest we fully understand (and still do) that it is devoid of interprets sense. Intuition often fails concerning nature. If by discovery, experiment principle of our western scientific proposals that of the realms of understand the universe are comparisons are, then you'd be equally stupid, we would be equally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be containment principle of containment, and exist in a giant brain primarily indifferent and is almost entirely a coincidence. So it's not assuming we know everything as the brain or the universe is an inanimate macroscopic entity that a certain skill intended Quantum eraser experiments, quantum entanglement. And to make the sensory data gathered to know that fails concerning nature were formerly conscious reasoning", they are completely interprets sense that the armchair in the nature. If by discovery, experimentation and that it is devoid of interprets sentient, and effects through our sense. Intuition, intuition, intuition, intuition and common sense. Intuition, intuition played no part, and the Containment, specific ideas the sense that fails concerning the chair. I think making a claim that we fully understanding nature of the eternal universe isn't a chair approach, tends to the nature of our sense that the greatest moments of quantum eraser experimentation of either. Although visually accepted by discovery, experiment principle of you suggest we fully understand the need for considered through visually to galaxies, see Quantum entanglement. And to be containment, and some unbounded creature of our sensory organs where Galileo proved other than a lighter one.

[Fig]

Lmaooo

Dr expert you can go FUCK yourself

[Chyeahhh!!!]

I love the discussion in this thread. In my opinion the building blocks of all things are not far apart in schematics design and influence. If anyone has ever seen a Sun diving comet it damn near resembles a sperm flying into the egg. The comets are all a collective part of old earths and cosmic building blocks of the universe.

[Tic]

This is pretty awesome. I cannot wait to find out what Dark Matter actually is and how it has helped the expansion of the Universe after the Big Bang, also known as Inflation whereas the Universe expanded faster than the Speed of Light.

Nature is constantly repeating itself. While this doesn't surprise me, it is nonetheless a very cool find, OP. <-- Basically just repeated the title of the thread. "The Medical Book" in that thread also seems like a very interesting read.

[Baron Mynd]

lmao how the fuck is a chair at the end of the universe no longer a chair, tho?

[uh-oh]

watch cosmos yo

[Mael]

Originally Posted by Baron Mynd

lmao how the fuck is a chair at the end of the universe no longer a chair, tho?

It's a philosophical discussion/question that has a few variants. The basic question is as follows - imagine if you hypothetically traveled to the end of the universe and found an object there that looked exactly like a chair; is it a chair?

The answer is no. Although perfectly identical to a chair made for humans on earth, we must assume the object we find at the end of the universe is a cluster of space material constructed by sheer chance to replicate the structure of a chair - the reason people would think otherwise has to do with Pareidolia and how humans brains associate objects with meaning. In the case of the object, it has no meaning or purpose because it wasn't pre-designed for being sat on, despite its overwhelming and brute appearance as that of a chair (complete with 4 legs, a seat, a back and armrests).

[uh-oh]

we dont know if there is an end to the universe tho

[Mael]

It's a hypothetical question (as stated), with philosophical allusions. And you missed the point. But yes, the Universe's size is uncertain. This is common knowledge.

[uh-oh]

if its common knowledge that we don't know the size of it and we don't know if there is an end than your hypothetical question is dumb

of course its a chair. i can sit on it.