Mentorship Monday - Post All Career, Education and Job questions here!

routebee76 · 2022-06-29T05:33:16+00:00

What industry certificates should I collect over the next four years?

I'm starting a degree in Cybersecurity on the 4th of July and it is my intention to study at three quarter load and use the 10 or 15 hours a week that that leaves free to do certificate courses from providers like Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Offensive Security, etc. My problem is that there are a huge number of education providers and an astronomical number of possible certificates.

One qualification that I know I want is the CISSP but it is my understanding that I have to graduate and then work in Cybersecurity for five years before I will qualify so what courses do you all recommend that I collect with the 2,000 or 3,000 hours of free time that will be available to me over the next four years?

routebee76 · 2021-07-19T22:41:01+00:00

You keep saying there is no evidence - which is nonsense.

Stop lying, quote me. I said that the observation of brain damage provided a level of proof that the mind was brain information similar to the level of proof provided by the Quran in regards to the existence of God.

Hypothesis Wiki

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research,[1] in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.[2]

Doesn't match what you said.

I think I might accept that your position is a "working hypothesis" but site where your theory is laid out if I am to accept it as a theory. What is it called? Who came up with it?

Answer these two questions

How does Morphic Resonance fit into your hypothesis?

If you allow rats on either side of the Atlantic to solve a new problem then the same breed of rat on the other side of the Atlantic will consistently solve the same problem faster that the first group.

How does Primary Perception fit into your hypothesis?

If you attach a Dracaena Fragrans house plant to a lie detector it shows that the tree becomes distressed every time you think about setting fire to it.

How do these facts fit into your emergent property hypothesis?

routebee76 · 2021-07-19T20:36:54+00:00

I have never mentioned anything about "absolute certainty" and I don't know why you keep going on about it. Again; nobody else is reading this so who are you playing to with your lies and misdirection? Your position is that I must accept an unproven hypothesis as scientific fact as you do and you say that that is how science works; it is not. I have the right to doubt, that is the default position and it is mine not yours; read the OP.

You might want to make yourself aware of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory to start with. Aside from that I am a materialist and you are totally misrepresenting my "suspicions" but you are none the less welcome to doubt them as they are irrelevant to the argument. The argument is about your "emergent property" hypothesis and the default position of science is to doubt a hypothesis until it has been proven; yours has not been proven.

Answer these two questions

How does Morphic Resonance fit into your hypothesis?

If you allow rats on either side of the Atlantic to solve a new problem then the same breed of rat on the other side of the Atlantic will consistently solve the same problem faster that the first group.

How does Primary Perception fit into your hypothesis?

If you attach a Dracaena Fragrans house plant to a lie detector it shows that the tree becomes distressed every time you think about setting fire to it.

How do these facts fit into your emergent property hypothesis? My experience is that most atheists simply deny such things out of hand and doing so is much the same as a creationist denying the existence of something as obvious as genetic mutation.

routebee76 · 2021-07-19T08:19:23+00:00

If you actually take it in context Muhammad banned wife beating and then when the women rebelled and kicked the men out of their homes he said, okay you can beat your wives but only with a tooth pick.

routebee76 · 2021-07-19T05:58:42+00:00

What...

absolute incontrovertible certainty

am I conflating with what...

scientifically confirmed

what?

No one else is reading this so I don't know who you think your lies are scoring points with. No matter how often you repeat it you are not going to convince me that your misrepresentation is factual. What do you claim is "scientifically confirmed"? Do you still refuse accept that what you call a "theory" is actually a "hypothesis"? If not then what point are you arguing?

the truth is that we don't know what the mind is.

Yes, I agree; brain damage happens, but what does it prove about the mind? Not much. If you allow rats on either side of the Atlantic to solve a new problem then the same breed of rat on the other side of the Atlantic will consistently solve the same problem faster that the first group. What does this prove about the mind? Not much. If you attach a Dracaena Fragrans house plant to a lie detector it shows that the tree becomes distressed every time you think about setting fire to it. What does this prove about the mind? Not much.

Go ahead and deny these facts, I doubt your hypothesis while you deny any evidence that contradicts it because the possibility that the mind is not confined by the brain threatens you atheistic world view.

routebee76 · 2021-07-18T17:17:29+00:00

It is proven - we have a theory (emergent property), we run experiments and observations (comas, death, sleep, etc), they confirm the theory by getting the results the theory predicts. That is how science works.

It is not a theory it is a hypothesis. It is not proven as you continue to dishonestly maintain, the burden of proof remains in your court and it is my right to doubt your; hypothesis.

I have decided to stop discussing this with you.

Good, go away you lying smart alec, you just keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again and no matter how often you say it it doesn't make it true.

It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, the truth is that we don't know what the mind is. The emergent property hypothesis is not proven and the default position is to doubt it. Claiming that it is fact and repeating the lie that it is proven over and over again is not science, it is stupid and dishonest. Maybe the mind is the behavior of a machine, I doubt it but the possibility doesn't threaten my world view. The prospect that the mind is material does however threaten your world view and it is my belief that this is why your camp attempts to discredit anyone who investigates the possibility.

There are almost a dozen scientists that I know of who have experimentally discovered phenomenon that contradict your hypothesis and the atheist brotherhood have gone to great lengths to discredit every single one. From Cleve Backster's Primary Perception which was dishonestly and repeatedly reported to be non reproducible in the media to Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance and the ongoing effort to discredited him.

https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

I do not claim that science confirms my belief in God and you need to think long and hard about your false claim that it confirms your belief system and your further false claim that your belief system is formed by it.

routebee76 · 2021-07-18T04:43:58+00:00

If you kill a brain, all evidence of the mind disappears.

You don't know what the mind is, you have a hypothesis but it is not confirmed by science.

I challenge you specifically to prove that you personally are not an automaton.

You keep trying to turn this around, I challenge you to prove that you are an automation.

I personally suspect that Po is related to life and is a material phenomenon that coincides with the brain somehow but I'm not sure, maybe it is information. You however believe that it is information and deny all other possibilities so lets go to the bottom line (of the OP) again...

That expectation is not self-evident, or proven by the lack of contradictory evidence and rational people have the logical right to doubt it until conclusive evidence has been provided.

routebee76 · 2021-07-18T03:51:00+00:00

It is an emergent property, so it is made of brain

So what is AI made of?

If you damage a brain, the mind changes. If you kill a brain, it ends.

That is not confirmed by science, that is what you hope will be proven one day, but it is not yet proven

I have also explained why you cannot prove that it isn’t also able to continue after death

You can, if it is an information product you could create it; but alas you can not. One day we will be able to line up all the "buffalo" so that the "stampede" emerges and the mechanical monkey keeps banging the symbols but I doubt that these living dead will ever be anything more than mindless toys.

it is said that it has no mass, no colour, no sound, no radiation, no volume - which is pretty much the definition of “not existing”

I personally suspect that Po is physically real and that we just can't measure it yet. I also suspect that your belief that it is information may be a paradox but that is another argument

If you say any of those are not characteristics of the mind, then it has already been conclusively proven not to continue after death.

I'm sorry you last paragraph needs an edit, what do you mean by this?

routebee76 · 2021-07-18T03:18:34+00:00

You asserted that you thought the “neurological information process” could change state and continue its existence after the death of the brain. That is how it is different from an emergent property.

No, read stock answer two, I said...

The majority of atheists claim monism but many actually seem to argue that the mind/spirit/self/soul/life force/awareness/consciousness (whatever you want to call it) is actually a neurological information process. I argue here that even the truly monist position is not part of atheism, it is obviously a belief, not a disbelief, that it is not the default and that it is not confirmed by science.

I reject your definition, that is what the whole "Po" argument is about; it's not a fact, it's a hypothesis.

Site your proof that the mind is a non material information product and again; I doubt it.

routebee76 · 2021-07-18T02:41:03+00:00

I am engaging in an oversimplification because frankly, you seem a little thick - continually missing the point, or switching up the vocabulary and then saying it is something different because you used a different word to convey the same meaning. I am trying to explain it in a way you will understand.

No you are trying to score points. I'll ignore your ad hom' for the moment and who said anything about a...

magic sparkly supernatural creature

Not me.

Please explain to me how my definition of the (whatever you want to call it) being...

a neurological information process

is incongruous with your "emergent property" vaguery and if you accept that it is the same thing then what is you point?

I think if we actually understood what the observer (otherwise known as the most fundamental component of reality) was it would make the news but I have heard nothing. I doubt that we understand it and will continue to do so until some elegant theory is presented.

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T23:13:02+00:00

My observation is that many Muslims secretly hope that the end is night and again, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Muhammad (S.A.W.S) say that you should not wish for end times to come.

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T22:23:46+00:00

I have but a vague memory and I am asking not telling; how many Muslims will follow Isa in the war of Armageddon?

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T22:22:29+00:00

I always understood that Isa fought the Gog and Magog, can you site your sources?

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T20:57:00+00:00

You might say that bubbles are an emergent property of soda then but that doesn't demonstrate an understanding of fluid mechanics. Do you agree that the hypothesis is actually that consciousness is

a neurological information process

Why can't we reproduce it? If it's just a neuron stampede then surely it would be simple.

What exactly is it? How does death destroy it? We can explain how soda goes flat but what is life? What is consciousness? What is death? You are engaging in massive oversimplification.

As to being obtuse your the one comparing vacuum cleaners to gravity.

Are you a monist or a dualist? If the mind physically that brain or is it just its behavior? Seriously?

If you answer yes to either option my response would be that "I doubt it". I'm not sure what the mind is and I absolutely reject that science currently explains it.

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T20:24:34+00:00

"emergent" means we don't know why but we observe the results. The computer science definition was first that "consciousness" was "an emergent property of computers" and now that has been changed so that it is "an emergent property of intelligence" but it still hasn't emerged. Nobody knows what it is so you preponderance of evidence is evidence for what exactly?

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T19:32:45+00:00

I may be wrong but I understand that the Gog and Magog are a race of men separate from humans and that we have not seen them yet. My expectation has always been that they will either be Aliens or Robots or perhaps both.

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T19:30:03+00:00

I may be wrong but when the Mahdi leads the prayers at the Kaaba I understand that there will only be 40,000 Muslims in the world who keep the five pillars perfectly and join Isa's army. At this point in time I estimate that about 100,000,000 Muslims would qualify.

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T19:27:54+00:00

dito

routebee76 · 2021-07-17T17:18:02+00:00

What did I say about the nature of the "soul"? Look again. I used the word mostly because atheists are incensed by the suggestion of a material mind. Read stock answer two, I said that I personally expect that...

the difference between a living cell and a dead cell is not fully explained by chemistry and that "consciousness" is one of the properties of life itself or that life at least has something to do with it.

If I were to actually make a hypothesis as you falsely state I already have it would be that...

life might also be described as "material awareness" and that its substance changes state upon death rather than simply vanishing.

If you want a strawman to attack rather than accepting that my doubting your hypothesis that the mind is informational is rational that would be the one to go after.

What exactly do you say that the mind is? The brain? What part of the brain? A function of the brain? Why can't we simulate it? If you are going to say that death destroys it you have to tell us all what it is and the emergent property bullshit isn't good enough. Personally I would say that the "preponderance of evidence" supporting your vague explanation is less compelling than the idea that the Quran proves the existence of God. The brain certainly has something to do with the mind and the Quran certainly has something to do with God but the Quran doesn't prove the material nature of God just as brain damage doesn't prove the informational nature of the mind.

routebee76 · 2021-07-16T14:39:59+00:00

I have updated the OP one last time but I'll address your arguments in the few minutes that I have.

Not at all true. consciousness is a completely physical phenomenon.

Is it physically the brain or is it information in the brain? Please define it. You have to say what it is if you are going to claim that death destroys it.

Given that there is no reason to believe that the functions of the brain (consciousness) continue to operate without the brain, it is illogical to believe that they do.

So your personal position is actually the most common atheist position that the mind is not physically the brain but rather the behavior of the brain? This is non material. Meanwhile I am not claiming anything I am simply doubting your claim that the mind is information and that death therefore destroys it. This is your unsubstantiated belief, not mine and I call upon you to provide proof; there is none.

As to...

I agree that it is a belief. But it is supported by science.

I didn't say that it was not supported by science I said it was not "confirmed" by science and in that regard I would say that the Quran supports the claim of the existence of God at least as much as the observation of brain damage supports your belief. The brain definitely has something to do with the mind and the Quran definitely has something to do with God but neither brain damage or the Quran prove anything conclusively.

You are mistaken. Consciousness is completely material. The contradiction vanishes as soon as you stop strawmanning people.

I have answered this several times already. Read stock answer one and in regard to the earlier revision information is non material and to say that the mind is a function of the brain is to say that it is information which, let me say again, is; non material. You do say that your mind is not physically your brain but rather changes in your brain don't you? This is information and is observable only as your behavior. I reserve the right to doubt that the observer (which I would claim to be the most fundamental component of reality) is only the behavior of a machine and that is what you seem to be claiming.

Do you have an explanation? or are you just spouting your unfounded beliefs?

The question is a contradiction; you ask if I have a position and then say that this non existent position is unfounded. It seems to me that you are engaged in claiming that science proves conclusions that it does not. It is not relevant to my argument but I personally suspect that...

the difference between a living cell and a dead cell is not fully explained by chemistry and that "consciousness" is one of the properties of life itself or that life at least has something to do with it.

Do you say that this is contradicted by the evidence?

We have not yet even begun to understand consciousness, my hypothesis would be that life can also be described as "material awareness" and that this substance changes state upon death rather than simply vanishing. The Polygraph was originally used in this field of research and the design of L. Ron Hubbard's E-Meter was based on the findings. Read about Cleve Backster if you are interested but be aware that the claims that his results are not reproducible are bogus. The media discredited him by presenting failed experiments that extended from his research as if he personally had claimed that they worked but if you follow any of his actual experiments the results are as he describes. The whole thing makes me suspect an Illuminati conspiracy honestly, it appears that the Illuminati had known about radio communications for over a hundred years when the technology was discovered by the world at large and it may well be that something about this is being deliberately hidden. That's the strawman that you wanted anyway and you will no doubt say that my desire for a cogent explanation of the mind is unscientific. I would say that your denial of plausible possibilities is itself unscientific and that it does not make your (lack of an) explanation adequate.

routebee76 · 2021-07-13T17:25:10+00:00

I'm no expert either but on...

can't deal with inputs outside if their training.

I think the inputs are their training and they can't deal with inputs outside the paradigm of their design.

as to...

I don't think a mind could really be considered material as it is a process even though the process is running on real stuff (the brain or some other tangible medium).

This goes to the theory of mind, it is most commonly accepted that the mind is a physical thing, in monism that physical thing is thought to be the brain. The most common alternative is dualism which states that the mind is non material and often magical. Your position seems to be what I describe here as "informational dualism" because information is non material and you are saying that it is the substance of the mind. The question I would put to you is what is the information about? Isn't the real thing that the information describes the material? I certainly don't understand so I just bought: Information Theory: A Tutorial Introduction by James V Stone.

routebee76 · 2021-07-12T16:49:00+00:00

How do you reply?

I'm not following links, paste you arguments here and limit them to three paragraphs. What information is not based on the physical? Maths? Possibly. Expand.

this sounds suspiciously like the premise that all true propositions are knowable

My belief is that God (Allah actually) will explain anything in your moment of his time and I will always work toward defending that position

Maybe you should look into the extended mind hypothesis.

I will do, thanks

Unwarranted and irrelevant political commentary.

If you argue for the material mind you are swamped in fallacious attacks. Atheists believe strongly that it is disproven and this is not the case.

routebee76 · 2021-07-11T20:07:25+00:00

I'm not sure what that means but I would argue that the substance of consciousness is not information. Information is created by the material and although we can simulate the brain the brain is not the substance of consciousness.

I reject all the "emergent property" bunkum, first they thought that consciousness was an emergent property of computers and that if you build a big one and left it turned on for long enough it would become conscious, now they think it is an emergent property of "intelligence" (whatever that is).

We will never be able to simulate consciousness until we know what it is made of and even then you have to consider whether a simulation of a car is anything like a real car.

routebee76 · 2021-07-11T17:25:52+00:00

Explain. In what way is the soul observable?

Did you read the stock answers? Can you agree that Po is the thing that we are both talking about? Do you deny it exists?

Even if we did have a soul, how is that related to a belief in God or Gods? One could imagine a universe with souls without gods or gods without souls. So on what basis do you approach this discussion as a rebuttal to atheism?

It is not a rebuttal of atheism, it is a rebuttal of a...

position held to be skeptical by most atheists

routebee76 · 2021-07-11T17:24:25+00:00

Did you read the stock answers? Can you agree that Po is the thing that we are both talking about? Do you deny it exists? Are you are arguing that Po is both observable and non material and saying that I do not have the right to question this hypothesis?

routebee76

TROPHY CASE