MovieChat Forums > SLukyanenko
SLukyanenko (74)
Posts
Replies
<blockquote>"serious theory of consciousness" gets into the biases I've been mentioning within the scientific community. Obviously, you have the same biases. Nonlocality exists in quantum physics.</blockquote>
Nonlocality certainly exists, but it has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness and the fact that you think it does shows me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are the one with a bias--towards crackpot pseudo-science.
<blockquote>Denying that some people have premonitions doesn't change the fact that they do. </blockquote>
People who claim to have psychic powers have consistently and universally failed to demonstrate that those powers exist when tested under tightly controlled experimental conditions. Science isn't about anecdotal examples.
<blockquote>You would deny the incident because it conflicts with your biases. I would want research to learn the cause. </blockquote>
The research has been done, over and over. Psychic powers do not exist.
<blockquote>There is literally no evidence. Scientists have never observed a brain creating consciousness nor has it ever been seen or observed under a microscope. If you have evidence that contradicts this, then provide a link.</blockquote>
We can use brain scans to tell whether you a thinking or perceiving a face or an object. We can tell which of two choices you are going to make as much as ten seconds before you are aware of making it. You'll make excuses to dismiss all of this, because you are biased as f**k against objective reality.
Here is what the consensus model of how the brain creates consciousness looks like. You'll ignore it. You probably won't even read the article, and if you do, I'm betting you won't understand the issues.
https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/cognition.fin.htm
Sorry, you lose. It was never divisive in anything like the way mother! was. Ever. You are just making things up left and right.
I'm done with you as I have little patience for idiot losers, and you are one of the biggest morons I've encountered here. Welcome to the ignore function of this site.
<blockquote>if you did then id like the name of the proffesors because "its art!' and "its divisive!" is not film terms often used when arguing the quality of a film.</quote>
You love hallucinating what other people are actually saying, don't you? I guess that's the only way you can ever "win" an argument. . .by playing with yourself.
<blockquote>Also the fact you dont know that Hitchcocks psycho was more divisive than Mother! is truly astounding.</blockquote>
It wasn't. You're conflating controversy among the plebs with divisiveness among critics, who largely welcomed what Hitchcock was doing with the film.
I know, reality is a difficult thing for you. So sad, so pathetic.
<blockquote>29 and while I didn't major in it is actually studied film in university. unlike you.</blockquote>
Actually, sweetiepie, I took several courses in film studies at the university level. And I'm sure I learned a lot more than you ever did. You just don't seem that bright.
<blockquote>And if its divisive its automatically good!!! </blockquote>
I never said that. My, logic really is difficult for you, isn't it? Go back and find the context and see if that pea sized brain of yours can tease out the point I was making. It might hurt to use your brain, but you clearly need the exercise in order to, um, stop "embracing" yourself in a public space.
<blockquote>In other words. destroyed. nice debate you delusional rat. Go hide now. Also seek help.</blockquote>
Let me guess. . .you're nine years old? Maybe 11 at best?
<blockquote>I hate how real art directors never get recognized only by a few smart elite like yourself right? of course Anderson, Tarantino, Kubrick, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Francis Ford coppala, David Lynch, Hitchcock never got recognition!</blockquote>
Excuse me, sweetiepie, but none those folks ever made a film as deliberately divisive as mother!, not even Lynch. So please put your thinking cap on and compare apples to apples.
And since you included Scorsese on the list, let me remind you again that he had nothing but high praise for the film and had this reminder for naive, uninformed nitwits like you: "And as anyone familiar with the history of movies knows all too well, there is a very long list of titles that were rejected on first release and went on to become classics."
(I don't think mother! will ever be a classic, but I have no doubt that as time passes it will gradually become recognized as a masterpiece, very much like Aronofsky's The Fountain is coming to be regarded today.)
She's one of the most successful actors in the modern age, and nothing you can ever do will ever change this fact.
Grow up and deal with it.
<blockquote>In quantum physics, the double slit experiment has stupefied physicists for a century. They have been trying to disprove it with more complex research, but they failed.</blockquote>
Uh, no. That's not how it works. You can't "disprove" an experiment, you can only "disprove" a theory. . .and most scientists don't like the term being used even in that context.
What they've been trying to do is understand the experiment and what it says about realism in science. The experimental evidence throws traditional understanding of realism into disarray, and they've been desperately trying to find an interpretation of the data, or new data, which would preserve that traditional understanding. No luck so far.
<blockquote>This experiment leads to the question about the role of consciousness in reality. Is a new paradigm needed? Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that the brain creates consciousness. Nonlocality has been proven in quantum physics and also plays an important role in consciousness theories for scientists who believe in something other than materialism.</blockquote>
Literally everything--EVERYTHING!--in this paragraph is utterly bogus, rank nonsense on stilts. You claim to have "studied" the science of this subject, but obviously you've been getting your information from New Age crackpots and not real, mainstream scientists who actually know what they are talking about.
1. Quantum physics says absolutely nothing about consciousness. Nothing. This is a nonsensical New Age myth, nothing more.
2. Nonlocality has no role whatsoever to play in any serious theory of consciousness, never has, and never will.
3. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that the brain creates consciousness. That the brain creates consciousness is not even a controversial assertion and is the mainstream view of all cognitive neuroscientists on Earth, just as evolution by natural selection is the mainstream view of all biologists on Earth.
<blockquote>YOU live in how things should be or how you wish them to be. I live in reality.</blockquote>
I care about art. You care about superficialities.
<blockquote>MOther! has a 6.6 on imdv and 68% on RT. Hardly a cinematic artistic success appreciated by those who love high art while hated by the casual rabble.</blockquote>
Yes, pumpkin, difficult, challenging films tend to alienate a large portion of the population and are recognized as masterpieces by an elite few with the capacity to perceive what was really there.
<blockquote>Also take out the hunger games and and Xmen . . .</blockquote>
Stop right there. You aren't allowed to take out the bits of reality which make your thesis a joke.
<blockquote>Paolo SOrrentino's is known for quality?!?! really? 90% of his career is TV movies and shorts.</blockquote>
I hate to break it to you, pumpkin, but in the modern age, TV and shorts do not exclude one from making quality art. I advise that you mentally move yourself into the reality of the 21st century. It's great here!
<blockquote>60% of Adams career is Will ferrel movies and you are acting like he is Hitchcock. </blockquote>
And his recent and future output consists of intelligent, funny, and very timely political cinema. It's almost as if you crave being completely out of touch.
Anyway: she's on the way back. Whine all you want, you'll just look increasingly pathetic.
Oh, so you jerk off to pictures stolen from women without their consent, and apparently think you're just fine, but they are the immoral ones for taking sexy pictures for their boyfriends.
You're both an idiot and a maggot.
You'll have a point, little snowflake, when the sane people who actually need to worry about real terrorists feel the need to label BLM as a terrorist organization.
Until that time, you're just a crazy, racist right wing nut and nothing more.
View all replies >