PDA

View Full Version : Light created Life


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14

bruto
14th December 2006, 10:03 PM
What are you talking about? Why would all those different opposites have to be consistent with each other? They deal with different things. Life is crazy like that-but it works. The same, different, conflicting, opposite and whatever else, blended to work.

Why indeed should it matter that the graph is made up of "opposites" that are so diverse that the word "opposite" cannot be reasonably said to mean the same thing each time? It's not that the things are different, it's that the idea represented by the word "opposite" is different.

I see an ontological relationship between the space shuttle, Juliet Binoche's latest movie, my bicycle and paint thinner. They're all vehicles. They must be related, right?

wollery
14th December 2006, 11:45 PM
Differences of opinion are not lies.
Some of those things looked that way from my angle. I later said I changed my mind. I think you are stretching the definition of lying. And you had to reach really far back for that point didn't you?So saying that people have an agenda, then denying that you think that, then accusing people of having an agenda, then agreeing that they don't, then accusing them of having an agenda, then saying that you don't believe they do, doesn't include a lie at any point? If that's the case then you must have multiple personality disorder.

But about that "higher" lifeform thing: Dr. Harrison in his book Conquest of Energy says: "The higher forms of life now on earth have required several billions of years of the trials..." p. 257
"The body of one of the higher animals far surpasses any plant... " p. 255
'In higer animals, this heating unit is provided...." p. 255

Sense I used the same word that others have used in that same context, and you say that I meant "better," doesn't that mean they meant better too? Or does it simply mean you are a liar, and a coward, because you will ado anything to appear right? How do you live with yourself? You're the one who said that humans were better, you argued about it for several pages. But let's look at those quotes a bit closer.

"The higher forms of life now on earth have required several billions of years of the trials..." p. 257 How do you know that Dr. Harrison means "better" in this use of higher? Which trials is he about to talk about? We can't tell because you cut the quote off at that point. The quote is out of context.

"The body of one of the higher animals far surpasses any plant... " p. 255Again you cut off the quote just before the context that explains it. If that sentence ends, "in mobility", or, "in heat production", or, "in Oxygen consumption", then there's absolutely no surprise. Does higher mean better in this context?

"In higher animals, this heating unit is provided...." p. 255Does this use of higher mean better? Certainly doesn't look like it to me. It looks like it's referring to vertebrates, which implies that in this context higher means more complex, not better.

I repeat, you argued several times that higher did mean better.

These quotes do not support that contention. You again fail to recognize the importance of context in the meaning of a word. So I again ask, is the word "cleave" a synonym or an antonym of the word "stick"? This question, once you understand it, may well help you to understand where you're going wrong.

Oh, and by the way, he also said:
"Since all the manifestations of life we know occur in a world composed of molecules. the energy reactions of living creatures are quantized. Whether quantum physics and chemistry alone will eventually be found adequate to explain all the phenomena of life need not concern us here. It is enough that many biological phenomena which were previously mysterious can now be understood readily as resulting from quantization of energy on the atomic level."What does this have to do with the price of fish? Chemical interactions occur due to energy differences between molecules. These differences are quantized. This means that energy interactions in any chemical system are quantized. This includes biochemistry. Big woop-de-doo. What does this show?

I am finding nothing that disputes what I have been saying here. You're finding nothing that supports it either.

I like this guy:

"Furthermore, it appears that living matter can be evolved from inanimate molecules more readily than was previously believed possible. Electrical discharges, sent through rich, soupy, inorganic solutions such as existed on earth when life first appeared here, can produce molecules sufficiently complex to gather together into the building blocks of which living organisms are made."The Urey-Miller experiment. I seriously doubt that anyone here isn't pretty familiar with it. It really isn't that surprising. Chemical reactions depend on energy interaction. Some chemical reactions require an energy input to get them started. What do you think this means?

Belz...
15th December 2006, 05:34 AM
Differences of opinion are not lies.

Still lying, I see.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2175677&postcount=2241

Those aren't differences of opinions, Light. They are ALL statements made BY YOU about the SAME thing, namely, that you claimed you didn't think we were disagreeing with you on purpose, and then claiming that we were, almost in the same posts. Those are LIES, Light, because you claimed to think one thing when that was clearly not true. Saying something you KNOW is false is a LIE, Light. Didn't you mother teach you that ?

Some of those things looked that way from my angle. I later said I changed my mind.

And back and forth and back and forth and back and forth ? I don't think so.

I think you are stretching the definition of lying.

And by what definition do YOU operate ? "Lying is impossible for me" ?

And you had to reach really far back for that point didn't you?

The search function didn't work. It took me an hour to find all that stuff. You shouldn't have asked if you didn't want to be shown how dishonest you are.

But about that "higher" lifeform thing: Dr. Harrison in his book Conquest of Energy says: "The higher forms of life now on earth have required several billions of years of the trials..." p. 257

And what does he mean by "higher" ? What does "higher" mean in this out-of-context sentence, and to which lifeforms is he refering ?

Sense I used the same word that others have used in that same context, and you say that I meant "better," doesn't that mean they meant better too?

I don't know. You haven't provided any context, and I don't own the book. As usual you're trying to cover your own fault by blaming others and shifting the focus of the discussion.

Or does it simply mean you are a liar, and a coward, because you will ado anything to appear right? How do you live with yourself?

I'm still waiting for YOU to find examples of me lying. You can't, of course, because I don't lie. Ergo, the only thing you can do is CALL me a liar, but without providing evidence, as I've done.

Oh, and by the way, he also said:
"Since all the manifestations of life we know occur in a world composed of molecules. the energy reactions of living creatures are quantized. Whether quantum physics and chemistry alone will eventually be found adequate to explain all the phenomena of life need not concern us here. It is enough that many biological phenomena which were previously mysterious can now be understood readily as resulting from quantization of energy on the atomic level."

How does that help you ?

I am finding nothing that disputes what I have been saying here.

That's because he's saying nothing that pertains to what you claim. Like this:

"Below is the Online Motorcycle Repair Course. I will try to take you from knowing nothing about Motorcycle Repair to being able repair your own and others Motorcycles. How much you learn and how well you repair your motorcycle will depend on you."

From

http://www.dansmc.com/MC_repaircourse.htm

Doesn't dispute MY claims.

"Furthermore, it appears that living matter can be evolved from inanimate molecules more readily than was previously believed possible. Electrical discharges, sent through rich, soupy, inorganic solutions such as existed on earth when life first appeared here, can produce molecules sufficiently complex to gather together into the building blocks of which living organisms are made."

Again, this doesn't help you. Please tell me why you think it is so.

Belz...
15th December 2006, 05:41 AM
You didn't convince me, what can I say... good try?

That he didn't convince you doesn't mean he was wrong.

I told you why. I changed my mind.

Exactly. You decided not to learn and actually told us that you wouldn't.

Hey look. If that is what you want fine. Whatever I say you will find a reason to fit it into whatever you want.

Guess I could add THAT to my list of examples...

How did you like how easily that graph handled your opposites thing?

"Handled" ? You didn't even change it. And it's also nonsensical, like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

I said no such thing. Mirrors? I said the actions of macro level is based on those micro level. And your example doesn't fit. Your house does not have to maintain its wood level. Life though, acts in ways to maintain the energy/energies that makes it who it is.

The house also has to maintain its energy, otherwise it collapses.

What are you talking about? Why would all those different opposites have to be consistent with each other?

Because if they're NOT, you can't group them all in the same category, like you tried to do without us noticing.

Loss Leader
15th December 2006, 08:36 AM
I said no such thing. Mirrors? I said the actions of macro level is based on those micro level.

What does that mean? What does it mean when you say the actions of life are based on energy?

Previously, I understood you to say that humans behave like electromagnetic energy. You said that the way we drive to work is like the way electricty travels in a circuit. You said the way humans are attracted to each other is like the way magnets are attracted to each other. You said that the division between women and men is like the division between electricity and magnetism.

Don't you mean that humans behave the way energy behaves?

If not, then what exactly are you saying? What do you mean when you say that life is based on energy?

If all you are saying is that energy is necessary for life, I think we will all happily agree with you and go our separate ways. If you are saying more than this, then what is your point exactly?

Loss Leader
15th December 2006, 08:41 AM
What are you talking about? Why would all those different opposites have to be consistent with each other? They deal with different things. Life is crazy like that-but it works. The same, different, conflicting, opposite and whatever else, blended to work.

So, basically, your picture just has a bunch of words that may or may not be related to each other as opposites or composite parts or nothing at all.

If you have a word whose meaning changes within your very own proof, you have created an equivocation and it is no longer logically consistent. Imagine if I could write a sentence where one word had multiple meanings and none of them were clear to the reader:

"Some people hate their mothers, but I have hated my mother for years; even so, I find myself hating her more and more and I believe there will come a time when I hate her."

wollery
15th December 2006, 08:54 AM
Hmm, interesting choice of sentence to use as an example Loss Leader. I'm sure Freud would have had quite a bit to say about it! :p

lightcreatedlife@hom
15th December 2006, 03:48 PM
Why indeed should it matter that the graph is made up of "opposites" that are so diverse that the word "opposite" cannot be reasonably said to mean the same thing each time?
Because life is made up of them. Isn't it? The graph puts them in a logical relationship that works to tell the story.

It's not that the things are different, it's that the idea represented by the word "opposite" is different.
The things are different, And you seem to agree that they are opposites, even as you say the meaning slide. That means that you understand. You don't like it, but you understand. Life is like that, even if somehow you didn't understand.
The graph recognizes the differences of the opposites there by putting them at different angles.

zizzybaluba
15th December 2006, 04:20 PM
The graph recognizes the differences of the opposites there by putting them at different angles.

Can you please, oh please, stop abusing the word "graph"?

Your pictogram is, at best, art; at worst, its a jumbled arrangement of words around a square.

lightcreatedlife@hom
15th December 2006, 04:39 PM
So saying that people have an agenda, then denying that you think that, then accusing people of having an agenda, then agreeing that they don't, then accusing them of having an agenda, then saying that you don't believe they do, doesn't include a lie at any point? If that's the case then you must have multiple personality disorder.
Later I said it can seem that way by the way you all latch on to things. For instance, you just joined in to support your pal. I can't see how bringing something up that happened so long ago, and that I even said sorry for, is being used here-except that you really needed something to change the subject. It also shows that if you need to dwell there, that you can't find a lot of anything else. Personality disorder? Have you ever heard the term "get over it?" It's not healthy to pout and whine about the past.


You're the one who said that humans were better, you argued about it for several pages. But let's look at those quotes a bit closer.
No I didn't. That is the point. Someone wanted "higher" to mean the same as "better," and I said it didn't. Does saying I said something I didn't count as lying? That is since you have joined in on that kick. For myself, I think you are just mistaken. You see? There is a difference. But of course you already know that.


How do you know that Dr. Harrison means "better" in this use of higher? Which trials is he about to talk about? We can't tell because you cut the quote off at that point. The quote is out of context.
I think you might be slipping. I never said he meant "better." The doctor meant higher on the evolutionary scale, not better. You know, like I did.


Again you cut off the quote just before the context that explains it. If that sentence ends, "in mobility", or, "in heat production", or, "in Oxygen consumption", then there's absolutely no surprise. Does higher mean better in this context?
The question wasn't whether higher meant better in that context, it was that he referred to them as "higher" lifeforms, not "better" lifeforms.


Does this use of higher mean better? Certainly doesn't look like it to me. It looks like it's referring to vertebrates, which implies that in this context higher means more complex, not better.
I think you are still under the impression that I am arguing for better-I am not. And remember, all this about "better" started with someone wanting to put that word in my mouth. Even though I said I didn't say it, he insisted that is what I meant. Here you are arguing with me thinking that I did in fact say "better," and your statement about "higher" meaning more "complex" is the right one. The person in question choose to use "better," instead of "complex," because he wanted to make me seem wrong.


I repeat, you argued several times that higher did mean better.
See.

These quotes do not support that contention. You again fail to recognize the importance of context in the meaning of a word. So I again ask, is the word "cleave" a synonym or an antonym of the word "stick"? This question, once you understand it, may well help you to understand where you're going wrong.
Wow. Talk about willful. We are back to that. You gave me a choose of two words, one of which someone gave the meaning. Doesn't that only leave one?


What does this have to do with the price of fish? Chemical interactions occur due to energy differences between molecules. These differences are quantized. This means that energy interactions in any chemical system are quantized. This includes biochemistry. Big woop-de-doo. What does this show?
I said energy was at the base and life and the conditions for life.

You're finding nothing that supports it either.
It does support me.


The Urey-Miller experiment. I seriously doubt that anyone here isn't pretty familiar with it. It really isn't that surprising. Chemical reactions depend on energy interaction. Some chemical reactions require an energy input to get them started. What do you think this means?
It is talking about life evolving from the conditions for life-inorganic matter.

nescafe
15th December 2006, 06:31 PM
I said the actions of macro level is based on those micro level.

Thank you for your stunning observation, Captain Obvious (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Captain_Obvious).
Your house does not have to maintain its wood level. Au contraire. If my house started losing wood, it would eventually collapse , and hence not be a house anymore.

Life though, acts in ways to maintain the energy/energies that makes it who it is.

First, life is not a who, it is a what (and a verby one at that).

Second, so what? The thermonuclear furnace that powers the Sundoes the same thing. If it gets to hot, the Sun expands and it cools down. If it gets too cold, the Sun contracts and heats up.

Like the thermonuclear furnace at the heart of the Sun, life is a process (not an object) that is critically dependent on the nature of the physical laws, just like nearly everything else in the Universe. Life is only special because we think it is. The Universe (as far as we can tell) does not care at all. One stray gamma ray burster, supernova, or largish rock in the wrong place could erase virtually all traces of our existence. Heck, if we don't get smarter, we could easily end up autodarwinating.

Loss Leader
15th December 2006, 07:25 PM
I said energy was at the base and life and the conditions for life.

What in the world does this mean?

Obviously, life requires energy. If that is all you are saying, I will gladly agree and we can disband. However, you previously have said that life behaves like energy - that humans going to work are like eolectrons in a circuit, that male and female are like positive and negative charges. Are you withdrawing all that? If not, what do you mean when you say energy is at the base of life and the conditions for life?

Please explain yourself.

bruto
15th December 2006, 08:03 PM
Because life is made up of them. Isn't it?No. That's the whole point. It isn't. Life is not, for example, made up of the pairing of supposed opposites, life and death. A thing cannot be made of its opposite. It is still arguable whether death and life are opposite in any meaningful way anyway, but whether or not that is true, to say that a component or characteristic of anything is its own opposite is not logically possible. The graph puts them in a logical relationship that works to tell the story. The "graph" puts nothing in a logical relationship, because all it can do is illustrate, if even that. It is not an argument. You can draw any picture you like, but it proves, substantiates, and corroborates nothing. And the relationship it purports to illustrate is, as I have continually emphasized, not logical. It is illogical. It is anti-logical. It is nonsense.
The things are different, And you seem to agree that they are opposites, even as you say the meaning slide. You must have problems with reading comprehension. As I said, the point is not that the things are different, but that the use of the word "opposite" is so broad and equivocal as to make it meaningless, and to make the grouping of the various opposites nonsensical and arbitrary. That means that you understand. You don't like it, but you understand. Life is like that, even if somehow you didn't understand. If what you mean is that I understand that what you're saying is nonsensical, yes, I do understand that. Beyond that, I'm afraid there really is little in your statements that can be understood.
The graph recognizes the differences of the opposites there by putting them at different angles.The diagram you insist on calling a graph "recognizes" nothing. It illustrates what you consider to be a set of relationships. It does nothing else. If, as I contend, the relationships are not what you believe they are, then all the diagram does is further to illustrate your error.

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th December 2006, 12:14 PM
In what sense are you talking about here?

Do you mean that in the sense of "life sucks, then you die"? If so, you run into problems of induction, just because (as far as we know) every human life has ended in death does not mean that every human life for all time will.

If you mean the sense that "the cells that compose you die", things get a bit more complicated. Every cell in my body (excluding various non-me flora and fauna along for the ride) either:

Is descended from a cell that divided in half, in which case one can meaningfully make a distinction between the parent cell and the two offspring cells, but the parent cell cannot be said to have died in the sense that my great grandfather did. If it was living, and stopped in a function that serves the rest of the body, that is what I am talking about when I say "death being necessary to a lifeform."

If you mean the sense that "everything DIES!!!", that is just not true. Every living cell on the planet is descended from either a singe parent cell that divided (but did not die), or from two cells that combined/swapped genetic material.
So, if the cell that started life rode here on a comet, do you think it possible for that comet to have once been part of another planet?

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th December 2006, 12:49 PM
The "graph" puts nothing in a logical relationship, because all it can do is illustrate, if even that. It is not an argument. You can draw any picture you like, but it proves, substantiates, and corroborates nothing. And the relationship it purports to illustrate is, as I have continually emphasized, not logical. It is illogical. It is anti-logical. It is nonsense.

Take it easy. I understand you. I am building an argument built on it. Actually, I already have one. I am just going to add detail to it. That is if you don't mind.

You must have problems with reading comprehension. As I said, the point is not that the things are different, but that the use of the word "opposite" is so broad and equivocal as to make it meaningless, and to make the grouping of the various opposites nonsensical and arbitrary.
You must have the same problem because as I said, we deal with them just fine. If I asked most people the opposite of good, life, negative, etc, they would say what I said. We deal with them just fine, and have no problem with a logical arrangement of them, especially sense they are represented by different angles.
You on the other hand can't see them as opposites, so you can't arrange them, or see an arrangment of them. I'm fine with that.

bruto
16th December 2006, 02:46 PM
Take it easy. I understand you. I am building an argument built on it. Actually, I already have one. I am just going to add detail to it. That is if you don't mind.You can do what you like, but if what you're building your argument on is itself illogical nonsense, then your argument will never transcend that.

You must have the same problem because as I said, we deal with them just fine. If I asked most people the opposite of good, life, negative, etc, they would say what I said. We deal with them just fine, and have no problem with a logical arrangement of them, especially sense they are represented by different angles. I understand you, but what difference does it make what most people will answer when you ask a question? The fact still remains that "opposite" is far too vague and variable a word to use as you do, and that the arrangement is not at all logical. I don't even know what you mean when you say "represented by different angles." It's gibberish. Sure, you can say, in one sense, that the opposite of life is death. You could also, just as reasonably, say that the opposite of life is lifelessness, a very very different idea. Both are correct, because "opposite" is a word whose meanings can vary considerably with context. What is my own opposite? In one context, you are my opposite, if we are, for example, speaking of the manner in which we approach ideas. In some other sense, my wife is my opposite, because she is female and I am male. In another sense, the image I see in the mirror is my opposite, because it faces me. One could go on and on. The point being that all the usages are correct in some limited sense, but all incompatible, and that confusing different universes of discourse results in a loss of useful meaning.
You on the other hand can't see them as opposites, so you can't arrange them, or see an arrangment of them. I'm fine with that. But as usual you miss the point.

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th December 2006, 03:44 PM
I don't post much on this thread anymore. I've come to understand that LCL will do anything to protect his pet theory.
I have conceded serval major points, how can you say that?

He will change the meaning of words. He will ignore logic. He will declare himself right for no reason other than that others think him wrong.

And this guy is saying this even when I say I am looking into it. Does it have anything to do with what I am finding?


Death and life are opposites because "death powes life"? "The death of a star could mean the birth of another"?
Death feeds/powers life, and cells die to maintain a lifeform, and stars are made from the remains of others, stuff like that.



1. Stars are not alive.
2. Things that are not alive do not die.
Because there is a grey area between what is considered alive and what is not, when the word is used in reference to cells or stars, it is closer to the actual meaning then if the same thing was said about a car, or a tv.


3. When we speak of the "death" of a star, we do so as an easy linguistic metaphor, not as a principle of science.
The word is used in reference to stars because it is the best one to describe what happened.


You cannot use a metaphor to create new knowledge.
Maybe. Sometimes metaphors luck up and be used in the right place. Afterall, it was the best word to describe what happen.

4. It's not even a good metaphor. Stars might be born from the remnants of older stars but they don't have to be.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not. What is wrong with that?

Certainly, all of the billions of first stars in the universe were not born from older stars.
The process had to start somewhere. If stars needed stars, wouldn't that mean that life is needs to make life?

5. I was born. My mother did not die giving birth to me. If you claim my mother ate dead things to give her energy to form me, I will remind you that this is NOT the same way you claim the "death" of one star creates the "life" of another.
Just because cells divide to create life is no reason for... hey, people do divide like cells do. That is one of the connections to the process I was looking for. It shows the connection and also shows that it does not have to be exactly the same, just related.

Loss Leader
16th December 2006, 08:32 PM
Just because cells divide to create life is no reason for... hey, people do divide like cells do. That is one of the connections to the process I was looking for. It shows the connection and also shows that it does not have to be exactly the same, just related.

We weren't talking about the difference between the way cells live/die and the way people do. We were talking about the difference between the way stars live/die and the way people do. You brought up cells pretty much out of nowhere. What you originally said was:

Death powers life. Even among the stars, the death of a star could mean the birth of another.

I stated that: 1) Not all stars that burn out lead to the creation of new stars; 2) Not all new stars are created from ones that burned out; 3) Stars do not get pregnant by other stars and reproduce themselves; 4) The word "death" is meaningless for stars because they are not alive.

You then claimed that the metaphor of star "death" is the best one we have. First of all, even if it were the best one we have, that does not mean that any valid knowledge can be gained from it. The Earth-centric view of the universe was the best model they had back in 900 A.D. but studying that model would allow no new correct information.

Second of all, star "death" is not the best metaphor we have. Astronomers and physicists know exactly what happens when a star finishes fusing its primary fuel and then tries to fuse larger atoms. They call it "death" only to help non-scientists relate to the subject but there is nothing about the concept of human bodies aging and dying that helps them understand stars.

I have told you over and over that metaphors and analogies cannot be used to create new information. I have given you links to web pages that explain the benefits and serious drawbacks of reasoning by analogy. You refuse to consider this. Instead, you responded:

Sometimes metaphors luck up and be used in the right place. Afterall, it was the best word to describe what happen. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. What is wrong with that?

You either do not understand me or you refuse to listen. Let me try again: Metaphors and analogies can only be drawn from old information. "Hand is to arm as foot is to leg." This is a good analogy. Hands are at the ends of arms like feet are at the ends of legs. However, the only reason we know it is a good analogy is because we already know all of the important aspects about hand, arms, feet and legs. We gain no new information from this analogy.

Consider another analogy: "Hand is to arm as cadolinium is to fromingalum." Is this a good analogy? The answer is that we have no idea. We don't know what cadolinium or fromingalum is and we certainly don't know how they relate to each other. The analogy tells us nothing useful.

You are making analogies based on nothing but your own personal preferences. No new information can be gotten from them. This is the main reason why your ideas are necessarily utterly and completely worthless.

Please actually study logic and reason.

wollery
16th December 2006, 09:58 PM
Death feeds/powers life, and cells die to maintain a lifeform, and stars are made from the remains of others, stuff like that.

Because there is a grey area between what is considered alive and what is not, when the word is used in reference to cells or stars, it is closer to the actual meaning then if the same thing was said about a car, or a tv.

The word is used in reference to stars because it is the best one to describe what happened.

The process had to start somewhere. If stars needed stars, wouldn't that mean that life is needs to make life?The best way to describe what happens when a star goes through the process sometimes referred to in the popular press as "death" would be "a phase change". Stars do not cease to exist, but the supply of hydrogen in their cores runs low, making it more and more difficult for hydrogen fusion to take place. What happens next depends on the size of the star. In theory small stars (which are fully convective) simply cease hydrogen fusion and shrink, becoming electron degenerate objects known as black dwarfs. I say in theory, because the Universe isn't actually old enough for this to have happened yet. Medium sized stars, like the Sun, go through a series of events including core helium fusion, and stages of shell hydrogen and helium fusion, before blowing away their outer layers, leaving a hot, electron degenerate object called a white dwarf. Larger stars go through a similar series of stages to the medium sized stars, but their central fusion reactions are more energetic and result in a core collapse which leaves a neutron degenerate object called a neutron star.

None of these processes result in a star ceasing to exist. None of them result in a star ceasing to emit EM radiation.

The first stars were not made from the remains of other stars, they were made from the primordial hydrogen, so no, stars do not need other stars to form. It makes the process easier, but it isn't necesarry.

lightcreatedlife@hom
17th December 2006, 11:22 AM
You can do what you like, but if what you're building your argument on is itself illogical nonsense, then your argument will never transcend that.
And you think it is nonsense to think that the chacteristics of life are based on the characteristics of the forces that makes it up?


I understand you, but what difference does it make what most people will answer when you ask a question? The fact still remains that "opposite" is far too vague and variable a word to use as you do,
You agree that opposite is the best word to use, even with all those variables. You also agree that "concepts" like those there are not easily, or neatly, defined or used. Okay. I do too. We still get by just fine using them. And if I had to logically arrange them, I would still have to put them opposite each other the way I did.


and that the arrangement is not at all logical.
It is a square. What would you have me use?

I don't even know what you mean when you say "represented by different angles." It's gibberish.
Different angles show that the opposites are different.

Sure, you can say, in one sense, that the opposite of life is death. You could also, just as reasonably, say that the opposite of life is lifelessness, a very very different idea.
Actullay lifelessness would work there better than death, especially since I am saying that the spirit survives.

Both are correct, because "opposite" is a word whose meanings can vary considerably with context.
Oh. Then I will leave it there.

The point being that all the usages are correct in some limited sense, but all incompatible, and that confusing different universes of discourse results in a loss of useful meaning. But as usual you miss the point.
You seem to miss the point. Life takes those things (as they are)and make them work. Putting those things at the opposite corners of a square leaves all kinds of room for them to do whatever they do together, you know, like they do.

lightcreatedlife@hom
17th December 2006, 11:48 AM
The best way to describe what happens when a star goes through the process sometimes referred to in the popular press as "death" would be "a phase change". Stars do not cease to exist, but the supply of hydrogen in their cores runs low, making it more and more difficult for hydrogen fusion to take place. What happens next depends on the size of the star. In theory small stars (which are fully convective) simply cease hydrogen fusion and shrink, becoming electron degenerate objects known as black dwarfs. I say in theory, because the Universe isn't actually old enough for this to have happened yet. Medium sized stars, like the Sun, go through a series of events including core helium fusion, and stages of shell hydrogen and helium fusion, before blowing away their outer layers, leaving a hot, electron degenerate object called a white dwarf. Larger stars go through a similar series of stages to the medium sized stars, but their central fusion reactions are more energetic and result in a core collapse which leaves a neutron degenerate object called a neutron star.
Someone said I shouldn't flatter you but I am so impressed by educational firepower, especially when it does not hurt me.


None of these processes result in a star ceasing to exist. None of them result in a star ceasing to emit EM radiation.
And that is the only thing that needs to survive my theory to equate it to life. I might need your bank account number too.


The first stars were not made from the remains of other stars, they were made from the primordial hydrogen, so no, stars do not need other stars to form. It makes the process easier, but it isn't necesarry.I knew it wasn't. Just as I know that life (as we know it) is not needed to create life.

nescafe
17th December 2006, 12:16 PM
Someone said I shouldn't flatter you but I am so impressed by educational firepower, especially when it does not hurt me.

This has to be the oddest thing about your entire posting saga here on the JREF -- the way in which you describe your ignorance and unwillingness to rectify it. You speak of education and facts about the world as of they were paintball pellets to be avoided in a paintball match.

Cosmo
17th December 2006, 07:17 PM
You seem to miss the point. Life takes those things (as they are)and make them work. Putting those things at the opposite corners of a square leaves all kinds of room for them to do whatever they do together, you know, like they do.

If there were ever a paragraph that deserved the title "LCL in a nutshell", this'd have to be it. :rolleyes:

wollery
17th December 2006, 07:34 PM
The process had to start somewhere. If stars needed stars, wouldn't that mean that life is needs to make life?

I knew it wasn't. Just as I know that life (as we know it) is not needed to create life.

Care to choose one and stick with it?

bruto
17th December 2006, 08:11 PM
LCL, if the very physics of stars is "life," and if stars are alive, then, since matter and energy are conserved, does it not follow that death is not possible at all?

It seems to me all you've done here is to redefine the term "life" to mean something so broad and so far beyond what it has customarily meant that it means everything, and thus nothing useful. But do you really mean that there is no difference between the physics of stars and the biology of things we customarily refer to as "alive?" If you do not mean that, then you'll need to coin a new word to replace the commonly used word "life," which no longer means what it used to. What shall we now call the biological process applied to organisms on this earth, which once was called life, but now has been bundled with the physics of everything?

Loss Leader
17th December 2006, 09:56 PM
Life takes those things (as they are)and make them work. Putting those things at the opposite corners of a square leaves all kinds of room for them to do whatever they do together, you know, like they do.

I just can't stop thinking about the type of mind that believes in the logic and validity of these statements.

wollery
17th December 2006, 10:23 PM
Wow. Talk about willful. We are back to that. You gave me a choose of two words, one of which someone gave the meaning. Doesn't that only leave one?No, it doesn't. It's a straightforward question.

You seem to be saying that you think that the answer is that "cleave" is an antonym of "stick", although you apparently arrive at that conclusion not from knowledge but from an illogical process of elimination. Not only do you not know the answer, you don't even know how many possible responses there are to the question.

So I'll give you a helping hand. If two words are synonyms they have the same (or almost the same) meaning. If two words are antonyms the have opposite (or almost opposite) meanings.

For instance, "big" and "large" are synonyms, whilst "big" and "small" are antonyms.

So, with this new knowledge, is "cleave" a synonym or an antonym of "stick". I repeat, the answer(s) to this question are at the heart of your problem.

Belz...
18th December 2006, 05:37 AM
Because life is made up of them. Isn't it? The graph puts them in a logical relationship that works to tell the story.

"Story" ?

The things are different, And you seem to agree that they are opposites, even as you say the meaning slide.

And the fact that the MEANING is different doesn't strike you as creating problems for you when you group them together ?

Hell, why not simply group EVERYTHING together and say "hey! I've done it!" ?

That means that you understand. You don't like it, but you understand.

You're not a telepath, Light. Please stick to the issues, not other people's perceived thoughts.

The graph recognizes the differences of the opposites there by putting them at different angles.

Well, that sounds like a good methodology. [/sarcasm]

Later I said it can seem that way by the way you all latch on to things.

That changes NOTHING to the fact that you lied. Several times.

I can't see how bringing something up that happened so long ago, and that I even said sorry for, is being used here-except that you really needed something to change the subject.

If you had any memory at all, you might remember WHY I brought it up. But since you are incapable of remembering posts you made yesterday, let me help you.

I sais I called your credibility and honesty into question because you lied several times in the past. YOU'RE the one who asked me to show you where. I did. So, really, you're the one who brought up "something that happened so long ago".

It also shows that if you need to dwell there, that you can't find a lot of anything else.

There's that willful ignorance again. We've been throwing arguments at you for over 57 pages. So we DO find something else.

I think you might be slipping. I never said he meant "better." The doctor meant higher on the evolutionary scale, not better.

Uh-Huh. What does "higher" mean ?

The person in question choose to use "better," instead of "complex,"

Then you're doubly wrong again. When you used "higher" the first time around, it was quite clear that you didn't mean "more complex", since you ALSO used "more complex" in conjunction with it.

Section, humans aren't the most complex of life forms on earth, so that solves that problem right there.

because he wanted to make me seem wrong.

And in the SAME post you said this :

Later I said it can seem that way by the way you all latch on to things.

How can you say contradictory things like that in a single post, unless you're lying, eludes me.

You're finding nothing that supports it either.

It does support me.

No, it agrees with you. That doesn't prove anything. Especially in light of the fact that you MADE IT UP.

Belz...
18th December 2006, 05:52 AM
You must have the same problem because as I said, we deal with them just fine. If I asked most people the opposite of good, life, negative, etc, they would say what I said. We deal with them just fine, and have no problem with a logical arrangement of them, especially sense they are represented by different angles.

Are you STILL arguing from popularity ?

Here, let me repeat what Nescafe said:

Like the thermonuclear furnace at the heart of the Sun, life is a process (not an object) that is critically dependent on the nature of the physical laws, just like nearly everything else in the Universe. Life is only special because we think it is. The Universe (as far as we can tell) does not care at all. One stray gamma ray burster, supernova, or largish rock in the wrong place could erase virtually all traces of our existence.


Death feeds/powers life, and cells die to maintain a lifeform

Patently false.

The word is used in reference to stars because it is the best one to describe what happened.

No, it isn't. It's a metaphor. An allegory. The best word would be "ceases to function" or "fades out" or "expands and cools beyond the ability to sustain fusion reactions". "Dies" is quicker, but not better.

Maybe. Sometimes metaphors luck up and be used in the right place.

Well, that's your all-out card isn't it ? You keep claiming scientific insight, and when people show you that sciences doesn't support your ideas, you say science isn't everything. You use words and claim that they mean something, and when shown wrong, you say that, although the word didn't mean that, it "lucked up" ? Bah! Dishonest.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've lied, by the way.

And you think it is nonsense to think that the chacteristics of life are based on the characteristics of the forces that makes it up?

You're watered down your claims. In that form, it is so obviously tautological as to not be worth mentioning.

You agree that opposite is the best word to use, even with all those variables.

Only because "opposite" can have different meanings. You DO get that, right ?

Different angles show that the opposites are different.

Opposites are different. Brilliant, Einstein.

ctullay lifelessness would work there better than death, especially since I am saying that the spirit survives.

And what part of "the mind is a process of the brain" don't you understand ?

You seem to miss the point. Life takes those things (as they are)and make them work. Putting those things at the opposite corners of a square leaves all kinds of room for them to do whatever they do together, you know, like they do.

Amazing. I don't know how you make sense of your random thoughts. That paragraph means nothing at all. Could you clarify this ?

Someone said I shouldn't flatter you but I am so impressed by educational firepower, especially when it does not hurt me.

It should also be mentioned, then, that larger stars, when they age, begin to fuse heavier and heavier elements like oxygen, carbon, iron and silicium. When they blow, they throw those elements away. And when other supernovae compress those gases back into new stars, the heavier elements make planets like the Earth.

lightcreatedlife@hom
19th December 2006, 01:28 PM
This has to be the oddest thing about your entire posting saga here on the JREF -- the way in which you describe your ignorance and unwillingness to rectify it. You speak of education and facts about the world as of they were paintball pellets to be avoided in a paintball match.
How am I am avoiding it? And while a study path shows willingness, I already knew 70% of what he said. The EM thing I knew nothing about. Seeing it made me happy because something unaccount for could hurt.
That thing is a target.
And there is something to be said about the concise way he presented it, and the fact that he has it.

lightcreatedlife@hom
19th December 2006, 01:43 PM
No, it doesn't. It's a straightforward question.

You seem to be saying that you think that the answer is that "cleave" is an antonym of "stick", although you apparently arrive at that conclusion not from knowledge but from an illogical process of elimination. Not only do you not know the answer, you don't even know how many possible responses there are to the question.

So I'll give you a helping hand. If two words are synonyms they have the same (or almost the same) meaning. If two words are antonyms the have opposite (or almost opposite) meanings.

For instance, "big" and "large" are synonyms, whilst "big" and "small" are antonyms.

So, with this new knowledge, is "cleave" a synonym or an antonym of "stick". I repeat, the answer(s) to this question are at the heart of your problem.
I told you I have a policy that I was sticking to. I wasn't trying to pay attention to what was being said. Looking it up (as I said) was too easy. As it turns out though, I didn't know what an antonym was because I thought it had to do with the advectives of words.
Okay. How does me not knowing that change things?

lightcreatedlife@hom
19th December 2006, 01:56 PM
I just can't stop thinking about the type of mind that believes in the logic and validity of these statements.
From the logic I am hearing here, emotions barely exist, and because the concepts that life revolves around can't be put in a beaker, they can't be talked about. Science knows that it will find a "unity formula" that shows that the forces are connected because we are alive to think about stuff like that. Those things would still work though, whether we knew of them or not.

sackett
19th December 2006, 02:13 PM
...the advectives of words.
...

Light, you'll have to help me out here. I looked up "advective," buy I'll be double-dee damned if I can figure out how it applies to words.

Loss Leader
19th December 2006, 03:08 PM
From the logic I am hearing here, emotions barely exist,

Nobody has said anything like that. What has been said is that one cannot appeal to emotions to help prove the truth of any proposition.

and because the concepts that life revolves around can't be put in a beaker, they can't be talked about.

Nobody has said anything like that. What has been said is that the you have appealed to unmeasured and unmeasurable concepts and, without quantification, you cannot use such appeals to help prove the truth of any proposition.

Science knows that it will find a "unity formula"

"Science" does not know anything. Some scientists hope for an elegant grand unification theory because many other theories about the natural world have displayed an aesthetic elegance. None claim that elegance alone is sufficient reason to embrace any formula.

that shows that the forces are connected because we are alive to think about stuff like that.

Physicists are at work to show that at extremely high energies, all symmetries are really different manifestations of a single overarching gauge symmetry. I know of no scientists who are attempting to work on the idea that all actions in the universe including how people commute to work, how stars die, how light is a wave and particle and how men and women are attracted to each other are all really manifestations of a single overarching symmetry. I doubt that any working physicists even believe such a thing is useful, let alone possible.

Those things would still work though, whether we knew of them or not.

While our knowledge of a scientific principle does not change its effectiveness, you have not actually expressed a principle that anyone can apply to, well, anything. Ever.

lightcreatedlife@hom
19th December 2006, 03:37 PM
Light, you'll have to help me out here. I looked up "advective," buy I'll be double-dee damned if I can figure out how it applies to words.
It has something to do with an action related to a certain thing. Like "car" and "drive."

zizzybaluba
19th December 2006, 03:47 PM
It has something to do with an action related to a certain thing. Like "car" and "drive."

Nope.

lightcreatedlife@hom
19th December 2006, 04:47 PM
Nobody has said anything like that. What has been said is that one cannot appeal to emotions to help prove the truth of any proposition.

I thought someone was saying that when they said that emotions have no deep meaning, and that stuff about the soul?
Anyway. Looking for a complete picture by only using half your capabilities has to be limiting, even when it is necessary.


Nobody has said anything like that. What has been said is that the you have appealed to unmeasured and unmeasurable concepts and, without quantification, you cannot use such appeals to help prove the truth of any proposition.
I didn't appeal to them, I traced their connection to each other. It may turn out that I read things wrong and all those things are just a coincidence, it would still be a good one.
The coincidences leading up to life are one thing. But, if life continues the pattern, (even though he is free to do whatever he wants) isn't he showing a connection to base influences?
I am talking about the natural drive towards more and more complex ways of energy/matter manipulation, and the human drive for knowledge that produces the same thing.


"Science" does not know anything. Some scientists hope for an elegant grand unification theory because many other theories about the natural world have displayed an aesthetic elegance. None claim that elegance alone is sufficient reason to embrace any formula.
But they expect elegance. I think that that is as close to emotions that science could afford.

Physicists are at work to show that at extremely high energies, all symmetries are really different manifestations of a single overarching gauge symmetry.
String theory?



I know of no scientists who are attempting to work on the idea that all actions in the universe including how people commute to work, how stars die, how light is a wave and particle and how men and women are attracted to each other are all really manifestations of a single overarching symmetry. I doubt that any working physicists even believe such a thing is useful, let alone possible.
It only takes one, at first.

"In the intermediate stages of life on earth, there came a time when the cell was invented, certain molecules finding that they could usefully cling together in group, both in defense against the dangers of their envitronment, and because, together they could direct energy and matter in ways impossible to them individually." Says the doctor. The last part could easily apply to humans.


While our knowledge of a scientific principle does not change its effectiveness, you have not actually expressed a principle that anyone can apply to, well, anything. Ever.
I like what the doctor said.
I would add that the most complex energy arrangement, and the one most capable of creating more complex forms of energy and matter, is "conscious energy." After all it took to create it, all that is needed for the "grand next step" is for it to stay together.

Loss Leader
19th December 2006, 08:30 PM
But they expect elegance. I think that that is as close to emotions that science could afford.


LCL, I have to pay you respect. After 58 pages and 695 posts, you have finally said something both true and poetic. Not only do I agree with you completely but I could not have phrased the sentiment any better myself. I have actually nominated it and I hope you win.

However: 1) This sentiment in no way supports any of the arguments you have made on this page; and 2) every other word in your entire last post was either wrong or pure gibberish.

trvlr2
19th December 2006, 10:10 PM
Loss leader- That you are in agreement with LCL may lend credence to the 'advective'*,"Even blind pigs find an acorn, occasionally'.:)
Or, you are just burned as badly as he. I suspect about 50KV of microwave radiation at 50 feet would do it, duration, 12 minutes.


*Translated to "adage".

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th December 2006, 07:51 AM
Nope.
Damn.

sackett
20th December 2006, 08:21 AM
Damn.

Language, young man.

But listen: Google "advective" and see what comes up. Really, it's easy.

wollery
20th December 2006, 09:02 AM
I think he probably meant "adjective".

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th December 2006, 09:02 AM
Care to choose one and stick with it?
There is a problem with imagining what the life of a universe creating being would look like. That is, without the flawed human model. Or us somehow being at the micro level of beings with the power to "engineer" life.

If I had to choose, I think life is the wrong word.
The design says the designer is conscious, though not necessarily alive.



But do you really mean that there is no difference between the physics of stars and the biology of things we customarily refer to as "alive?"
I am not saying that there is no difference. Organic is a step up from inorganic. Related, but not the same. I think using the same words in describing to things inorganic is tact recognition of a relationship.


Loss leader- That you are in agreement with LCL may lend credence to the 'advective'*,"Even blind pigs find an acorn, occasionally'.:)
I'm not mad at you. I stumbled on to that thing. I thought that the things presented there should be linked to a geometric shape that told their story from all angles.

sackett
20th December 2006, 09:25 AM
If you ask me (nobody did? oh well, it's a public forum), Light did damn well to fumble onto a word, advective, that actually exists. I was only disappointed to learn that it's used in meteorology and not much anyplace else.

Loss Leader
20th December 2006, 09:52 AM
I am not saying that there is no difference. Organic is a step up from inorganic. Related, but not the same. I think using the same words in describing to things inorganic is tacit (fixed) recognition of a relationship.

How do they demonstrate that they are related? Exactly what carries over in this relationship? How do we predict what aspects of the inorganic star will carry over to the organic person? How do we measure the degree of relationship?

Since those who talk about a star's "life" and "death" are only doing so to simplify it for lay people ... Since they know that a star neither lives nor dies in any sense whatsoever ... why should we assume that there is a tacit recognition of a relationship? Isn't it more likely that it is a tacit recognition that lay people don't have the time or interest to listen to a long explanation?

Since words are first used as a matter of convenience before a concept is fully understood, since words are drafted into service of concepts that they do not fit, and since words are frequently coined accidentally, by teenagers, or by people who do not know or care about deep meanings, why is the use of "life" or "death" of a star tacit recognition of anything? Isn't it more likely that all that we have proven is that language is an imperfect vehicle.

After all, there is nothing about the past that is "behind" us. 'Behind" has to do with a location in space that cannot be seen because it is at our backs. The past is seen more clearly than the future and has no physical location a all. Did the first person to say the past was "behind" him have some great insight into a relationship between something he couldn't see and something that just happened, or did he just pick the word "behind" because it was convenient?

Even if whomever started using the words "life" and "death" for stars had tacitly recognized a similarity, why should we believe he was right? There is no indication of any research done before the words were drafted into that use. Shouldn't we start from scratch to first see if that guy was right? Otherwise, aren't we just relying on an authority whose actual qualifications we know nothing about?

I'm not mad at you. I stumbled on to that thing. I thought that the things presented there should be linked to a geometric shape that told their story from all angles.

And down the rabbit hole we go.

RandFan
20th December 2006, 10:02 AM
How do they demonstrate that they are related? Exactly what carries over in this relationship? How do we predict what aspects of the inorganic star will carry over to the organic person? How do we measure the degree of relationship?

Since those who talk about a star's "life" and "death" are only doing so to simplify it for lay people ... Since they know that a star neither lives nor dies in any sense whatsoever ... why should we assume that there is a tacit recognition of a relationship? Isn't it more likely that it is a tacit recognition that lay people don't have the time or interest to listen to a long explanation?

Since words are first used as a matter of convenience before a concept is fully understood, since words are drafted into service of concepts that they do not fit, and since words are frequently coined accidentally, by teenagers, or by people who do not know or care about deep meanings, why is the use of "life" or "death" of a star tacit recognition of anything? Isn't it more likely that all that we have proven is that language is an imperfect vehicle.

After all, there is nothing about the past that is "behind" us. 'Behind" has to do with a location in space that cannot be seen because it is at our backs. The past is seen more clearly than the future and has no physical location a all. Did the first person to say the past was "behind" him have some great insight into a relationship between something he couldn't see and something that just happened, or did he just pick the word "behind" because it was convenient?

Even if whomever started using the words "life" and "death" for stars had tacitly recognized a similarity, why should we believe he was right? There is no indication of any research done before the words were drafted into that use. Shouldn't we start from scratch to first see if that guy was right? Otherwise, aren't we just relying on an authority whose actual qualifications we know nothing about?



And down the rabbit hole we go.Outstanding post.

This is very applicable to many situations and not just this misbegotten thread. Too often we get caught up in words while we ignore the message or we assume a message that was never there in the first place. This happens because we make assumptions about what was meant by focusing more on the words rather than the overall content of the message.

Belz...
20th December 2006, 10:13 AM
Hey, Light, are you going to step up and answer these (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2184557&postcount=2279) ?

Belz...
20th December 2006, 10:22 AM
From the logic I am hearing here, emotions barely exist, and because the concepts that life revolves around can't be put in a beaker, they can't be talked about. Science knows that it will find a "unity formula" that shows that the forces are connected because we are alive to think about stuff like that. Those things would still work though, whether we knew of them or not.

That's probably the largest and quickest-built army of strawmen I've ever seen.

Planning to invade anyone with them ?

It has something to do with an action related to a certain thing. Like "car" and "drive."

No wonder you're having communications problems.

I thought someone was saying that when they said that emotions have no deep meaning

That was me. So you're lying, again. Where did I say that emotions don't exist ? Or was that hyperbole ?

and that stuff about the soul?

Oh, you mean "energy" ?

Looking for a complete picture by only using half your capabilities has to be limiting, even when it is necessary.

Emotion is not a capability, it is a reflex action of the body to certain circumstances. It has no rationality, and is often ill-suited for even the simplest of real-life situations in a civilised context. How you can think it's necessary to understand anything, save for emotions themselves, is beyond me.

I didn't appeal to them, I traced their connection to each other. It may turn out that I read things wrong and all those things are just a coincidence, it would still be a good one.

You may be wrong but that would still be in your favour ? You're a real piece of work, Light.

The coincidences leading up to life are one thing.

What coincidences ? What exactly was coincidental about any of that ?

I am talking about the natural drive towards more and more complex ways of energy/matter manipulation

Sorry, the only tendency I know of about energy is entropy. And that doesn't tend to create anything useful. Ever.

But they expect elegance. I think that that is as close to emotions that science could afford.

As close to. So they DON'T use emotions, do they ?

It only takes one, at first.

It doesn't take one or a thousand. It takes evidence. Gosh, really you ought to learn about the scientific method, right away.

I like what the doctor said.

Obviously. You've shown quite a propensity for believing the things that you "like" rather than the things that are true, whether or not you like them.

Belz...
20th December 2006, 10:25 AM
The design says the designer is conscious, though not necessarily alive.

1) What design ?
2) How do you know what it says ?
3) How does it follow that a design has a designer ?
4) How does it say that it has to be conscious ?
5) How can you tell if it's necessarily alive or not ?

Organic is a step up from inorganic.

"Step up" which ladder ?

Loss Leader
20th December 2006, 12:18 PM
Sorry, the only tendency I know of about energy is entropy. And that doesn't tend to create anything useful. Ever.


Increased entropy in the overall system can allow dramaticly decreased entropy locally. Which you knew.

Solus
20th December 2006, 10:08 PM
LCL has serious issues in personifying EVERYTHING. If he could cut that out then maybe he could start to make some sense.

My mother does the same thing with the dog (ok). LCL is doing it with the nature of the universe (not ok).

Belz...
21st December 2006, 05:37 AM
Increased entropy in the overall system can allow dramaticly decreased entropy locally. Which you knew.

Details, details...

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st December 2006, 11:05 AM
No, it isn't. It's a metaphor. An allegory. The best word would be "ceases to function" or "fades out" or "expands and cools beyond the ability to sustain fusion reactions". "Dies" is quicker, but not better.
I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one. And why shouldn't there be? Life is part of a "patterned process" where organic came from inorganic. That means that certain inorganic things would show certain relationships to organic things.


Well, that's your all-out card isn't it ?
This is yours'.
Are you STILL arguing from popularity?
Heavens forbid if I say something that is widely knowned.

You keep claiming scientific insight, and when people show you that sciences doesn't support your ideas, you say science isn't everything.
Only the 4 basics thing didn't support me, and going with two basics did not hurt me. As for the rest, I know science isn't everything, so do you. Everything can't be explained with crystal clairity, or its methods, emotions and feelings are two of those things, yet they are a big part of life.

The puzzle can't be completed without dealing with all the parts.

You use words and claim that they mean something, and when shown wrong, you say that, although the word didn't mean that, it "lucked up" ? Bah! Dishonest.
I this whole statement is dishonest. I know what those words meant and how they were used-my point has been that they were used to show relationship.


I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've lied, by the way.
I ain't got the kind of time that you do, nor would I want to use it for that if I did. I misplaced one letter in the word "adjective" and look what someone has done with it. And remember, that started with something I did not say.
You went way back to dig something up that died more than 20 pages ago. If that stuff makes you happy, you are going to have to play by yourself.


You're watered down your claims. In that form, it is so obviously tautological as to not be worth mentioning.
My claim has always been that the characteristics of life, are based on the characteristics of the energies that makes it up. I used the word "forces" recently because it is proper, but electrical and magnetic energy are what I am talking about (most) in particular.


Only because "opposite" can have different meanings. You DO get that, right ?
I GET IT. We have learned to live with them. They are a part of life. As they are. To represent them, I have to put them opposite each other. Even though opposite has different meanings, they are still opposites.


Opposites are different. Brilliant, Einstein.
Well they are. I was answering a question.


And what part of "the mind is a process of the brain" don't you understand ?
I understand that. But, out of body experiences "may" show that it can survive the death of the body. Should I discount them out of hand?
If they are right, it would be the mind surviving.

Amazing. I don't know how you make sense of your random thoughts. That paragraph means nothing at all. Could you clarify this ?
It looks clear enough to me, but, the lines for those things cross in the center, right where a lifeform is represented to deal with them.


It should also be mentioned, then, that larger stars, when they age, begin to fuse heavier and heavier elements like oxygen, carbon, iron and silicium. When they blow, they throw those elements away. And when other supernovae compress those gases back into new stars, the heavier elements make planets like the Earth.
Wow. I read somewhere that the "cosmic soup" (my word) was blended over and over again unitl it reached a point where life could be made from it. If so, does that mean that the first star/planet systems could not make life even if they were in the right orbits?

I am not avoiding you, answering you involves a lot of time, and I have to find it.

zizzybaluba
21st December 2006, 11:26 AM
I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one. And why shouldn't there be? Life is part of a "patterned process" where organic came from inorganic. That means that certain inorganic things would show certain relationships to organic things.


They're words, light; only words.

bruto
21st December 2006, 01:16 PM
I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one. And why shouldn't there be?



It really doesn't matter what people expect, what they want, or what "should" or shouldn't be. It's a matter of what is and of what is known.

Scientists, like everyone else, use words metaphorically, and recycle words so that people can understand concepts without having to learn a new jargon. Using birth metaphors for stars is a useful way of imparting an understanding of a process. It is not a reference, it's a metaphor, and there's a huge difference. Way back at the very beginning of the thread, when we were arguing about logic, I brought up the basic, fundamental, inescapable and necessary issue of understanding what a "universe of discourse" is and means. It appears you have not yet accepted the idea, and it leads you believe that common use of words must imply a relationship between objects, whereas in truth, the common use of words is itself the only relationship. The relationship is only in the description, not in the things described.

When icebergs calve they are not revealing a hidden kinship to bovine midwifery.

You continue to cleave to things you should cleave from.

nescafe
21st December 2006, 05:51 PM
pedant mode on

I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one. Wrong. Using common terms as jargon or as a metaphor in no way implies there is any causal relationship worth considering. There are correlational similarities, to be sure, but the same is true of everything else. And why shouldn't there be? Wrong question. Try asking "why should there be?" instead. Life is part of a "patterned process" where organic came from inorganic. If you mean "organic" in any sort of chemical sense, well, there are tons of ways to make organic compounds that do not involve life, and it is in no way certain that any system in which organic compounds can form will eventually have something we could call "life". Take the clouds of Jupiter for example. There are cloud layers whose total volume is larger than the entire ecosystem of Earth which have detectable amounts of simple organic compounds (http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/jupiter/atmosphere.html), yet it is highly improbable that there is life in those cloud layers.

The other thing you must realize is that seeing a "patterned process" of the sort you see is because humans are really good at seeing patterns in things -- so good that we see them even when they do not exist -- an obvious example of which is the Gambler's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

That means that certain inorganic things would show certain relationships to organic things. Yes, like being made of atoms.

Heavens forbid if I say something that is widely knowned. So? It is widely known by third graders that people of the opposite sex have cooties, that Jesus will return in our lifetime by certain Christian fundamentalists, and that imbalanced humors cause disease by medieval doctors. You cannot deduce that because a belief is widely held that it is true because humans believe all sorts of wacky things for reasons that have little to do with critical thinking or logic.

The puzzle can't be completed without dealing with all the parts. Yes, but gluing random pieces together and then presenting that as your "solution" doesn't cut it.

My claim has always been that the characteristics of life, are based on the characteristics of the energies that makes it up. This is true, but does not have the meaning you import to it. Everything in the Universe interacts by virtue of the fundamental forces. That the processes of life are grounded in these laws is not special because everything else is too.
I used the word "forces" recently because it is proper, but electrical and magnetic energy are what I am talking about (most) in particular. As far as usefulness goes, describing the processes of life in terms of (for example) quantum electrodynamics, while in theory possible, is in practice infeasible. There is a reason why biology (or even chemistry, for that matter) is not simply applied particle physics.

I GET IT. We have learned to live with them. They are a part of life. As they are. To represent them, I have to put them opposite each other. Even though opposite has different meanings, they are still opposites. Ironically, you have just demonstrated even more that you do not, in fact, get it.

I understand that. But, out of body experiences "may" show that it can survive the death of the body.
It might. However, it is much more likely that out of body experiences show how good our brains are at making stuff up, especially when starved for oxygen.

Should I discount them out of hand?. No. However, you should not read too much into them, either -- Ockham's Razor and all that.
If they are right, it would be the mind surviving.Not until all the simpler explanations are discarded.
It looks clear enough to me, but, the lines for those things cross in the center, right where a lifeform is represented to deal with them.
Your diagram represents reality less accurately than this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Kircher_Tree_of_Life.png/180px-Kircher_Tree_of_Life.png
...and is less entertaining.

Loss Leader
21st December 2006, 07:39 PM
I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one. And why shouldn't there be? Life is part of a "patterned process" where organic came from inorganic. That means that certain inorganic things would show certain relationships to organic things.

How do they demonstrate that they are related? Exactly what carries over in this relationship? How do we predict what aspects of the inorganic star will carry over to the organic person? How do we measure the degree of relationship?

Since those who talk about a star's "life" and "death" are only doing so to simplify it for lay people ... Since they know that a star neither lives nor dies in any sense whatsoever ... why should we assume that there is a tacit recognition of a relationship? Isn't it more likely that it is a tacit recognition that lay people don't have the time or interest to listen to a long explanation?

Since words are first used as a matter of convenience before a concept is fully understood, since words are drafted into service of concepts that they do not fit, and since words are frequently coined accidentally, by teenagers, or by people who do not know or care about deep meanings, why is the use of "life" or "death" of a star tacit recognition of anything? Isn't it more likely that all that we have proven is that language is an imperfect vehicle.

After all, there is nothing about the past that is "behind" us. 'Behind" has to do with a location in space that cannot be seen because it is at our backs. The past is seen more clearly than the future and has no physical location a all. Did the first person to say the past was "behind" him have some great insight into a relationship between something he couldn't see and something that just happened, or did he just pick the word "behind" because it was convenient?

Even if whomever started using the words "life" and "death" for stars had tacitly recognized a similarity, why should we believe he was right? There is no indication of any research done before the words were drafted into that use. Shouldn't we start from scratch to first see if that guy was right? Otherwise, aren't we just relying on an authority whose actual qualifications we know nothing about?

Second time around for these questions. Zoltar says: He will never answer.

Belz...
22nd December 2006, 05:40 AM
I know that the life of a person and the life of a star is not the same, but science is not shy in making references like that: "stellar nursery" "born" "birth" "God particle" etc. It appears to me that either it expects a relationship, or wishes their was one.

So when you "kill" a computer process, you "expect" it to be alive ? That's ridiculous, light. Apparently, you're the only person I know who doesn't understand that words are used metaphorically, even in some of their common meanings.

And why shouldn't there be? Life is part of a "patterned process" where organic came from inorganic. That means that certain inorganic things would show certain relationships to organic things.

Of course. However, "certain relationships" doesn't mean that "birth" means anything in the biological sense when applied to inanimate objects. It's a non sequitur.

Well, that's your all-out card isn't it ?

This is yours'.

This is mine what ? My all-out card ? Where else did I use this expression in this thread ? I bet you can't find another post where I said that.

You seem to use the "mirror defense" very often, and mostly in an unsusbstantiated way. It's a form of tu quoque, but in your case it's false almost every time. So not only is it a fallacy, there's no reason for you to use it, because you know very well that I don't USE that as an all-out card.

Of course, I don't NEED an all-out card because MY claims aren't beign question. So the only conclusion that I can reach is that you're STILL arguing dishonestly.

Heavens forbid if I say something that is widely knowned.

I don't mind you saying it. I mind you trying to use the fact to mean that popularity = correctness.

Only the 4 basics thing didn't support me

No, everything else did not support you.

and going with two basics did not hurt me.

That's a euphemism. It didn't help you either, since subtraction is really a form of addition.

As for the rest, I know science isn't everything, so do you.

I know it's the best and only tool we have to explain the nature of the universe around us.

Everything can't be explained with crystal clairity, or its methods, emotions and feelings are two of those things, yet they are a big part of life.

Patently false. Sigh. Emotions CAN be explained by science and they HAVE. Are you really that behind on current scientific events ?

The puzzle can't be completed without dealing with all the parts.

So in order to understand murder one must commit one ? Is that your methodology ?

I this whole statement is dishonest. I know what those words meant and how they were used-my point has been that they were used to show relationship.

Well, then, you're wrong again. They're used to show a simile, not a relationship.

I ain't got the kind of time that you do, nor would I want to use it for that if I did.

You think I had one whole hour to point our YOUR lies ? I did it because you couldn't be bothered to admit it. If you're convinced that I lied, then prove it. Otherwise shut up about it.

I misplaced one letter in the word "adjective" and look what someone has done with it.

It wasn't me, and you still didn't know what it meant.

You went way back to dig something up that died more than 20 pages ago. If that stuff makes you happy, you are going to have to play by yourself.

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO ASKED ME TO, Light. YOU asked me to show where you lied. Was that a rhetorical demand ? Did you not expect me to wade through the last 40 pages of the thread to dig it up ? Did you think your lies were safe because I'd be lazy ?

My claim has always been that the characteristics of life, are based on the characteristics of the energies that makes it up.

But that's a tautology, Light. It's obviously true. It's also NOT what you claimed. You claimed very specific characteristics, like positive and negative vs male and female, were there. We showed you were wrong, and you've been dancing around all those subjects and words long enough that you think people have forgotten.

Only because "opposite" can have different meanings. You DO get that, right ?

I GET IT. We have learned to live with them. They are a part of life. As they are. To represent them, I have to put them opposite each other. Even though opposite has different meanings, they are still opposites.

Light, that only shows that you DON'T get it.

And what part of "the mind is a process of the brain" don't you understand ?
I understand that. But, out of body experiences "may" show that it can survive the death of the body. Should I discount them out of hand?
If they are right, it would be the mind surviving.

That also shows that you don't understand, Light. If it's a process of the brain, then it can't possibly survive the brain's death. You can only maintain that the mind survives death IF you hold that it is NOT merely a process of the brain, which you've admitted. You're going to have to be consistent.

It looks clear enough to me, but, the lines for those things cross in the center, right where a lifeform is represented to deal with them.

Then would you please explain this to me :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

Wow. I read somewhere that the "cosmic soup" (my word) was blended over and over again unitl it reached a point where life could be made from it. If so, does that mean that the first star/planet systems could not make life even if they were in the right orbits?

Yes, because first-generation stars didn't have planets, specifically due to the fact that no star had died yet, and the materials (iron, carbon, silicium, etc.) that make up planets wasn't there.

Loss Leader
22nd December 2006, 07:50 AM
Yes, because first-generation stars didn't have planets, specifically due to the fact that no star had died yet, and the materials (iron, carbon, silicium, etc.) that make up planets wasn't there.

Sadly, this is the only thing he's going to see. And he's going to latch on to it because it will seem to him that you are agreeing that the universe is evolving. And since the universe has become more complex and that complexity allowed life to arise, Light will believe that the universe was "designed" to become more complex. He'll see this as proof that the universe "wanted" to give rise to life.

And for the next twenty pages, he'll keep going on about how "Someone said the universe got more and more complex until it created life." He will, of course, be entirely wrong. But we'll never be able to convince him of that.

Light, if you are reading, just because something happened does not mean that it was supposed to happen or destined to happen. It does not mean that someone made it happen or that there was any purpose to it at all. It just means that the thing happened. It has no other meaning.

zizzybaluba
22nd December 2006, 09:39 AM
After all, there is nothing about the past that is "behind" us. 'Behind" has to do with a location in space that cannot be seen because it is at our backs. The past is seen more clearly than the future and has no physical location a all. Did the first person to say the past was "behind" him have some great insight into a relationship between something he couldn't see and something that just happened, or did he just pick the word "behind" because it was convenient?


This bit reminded me—I recently finished reading Deutscher’s The Unfolding Of Language, thanks to your referring to it in this thread. It’s a great book on a subject that I knew little about, but instantly found fascinating. I learned a lot from it; thanks LL.

Loss Leader
22nd December 2006, 09:53 AM
This bit reminded me—I recently finished reading Deutscher’s The Unfolding Of Language, thanks to your referring to it in this thread. It’s a great book on a subject that I knew little about, but instantly found fascinating. I learned a lot from it; thanks LL.

I'm glad I was able to turn people on to it. We don't stop to think about how we got to where we are. I like those books that show the reasons for the way the world is what it is. My favorite of all time, although it has nothing to do with this thread, is Mark Kurlansky's "Salt." That book blew my mind.

lightcreatedlife@hom
22nd December 2006, 04:09 PM
They're words, light; only` words.
"Sticks and stones.... but words can never hurt me." I can see now that while science is precise about most things, it is loose with how it describes things sometimes. But sometimes the best way to describe something, turns out to be right.

zizzybaluba
22nd December 2006, 04:19 PM
"Sticks and stones.... but words can never hurt me." I can see now that while science is precise about most things, it is loose with how it describes things sometimes. But sometimes the best way to describe something, turns out to be right.

Examples?

Loss Leader
22nd December 2006, 04:49 PM
But sometimes the best way to describe something, turns out to be right.

Light makes this claim so often that it deserves a special name. I'm thinking of Appeal to Blind Luck.

"It's possible that just out of sheer chance there is some small likelihood that I could be right. Thus, I am right."

lightcreatedlife@hom
22nd December 2006, 06:49 PM
Sadly, this is the only thing he's going to see. And he's going to latch on to it because it will seem to him that you are agreeing that the universe is evolving.

Evolving is the word being used, and that is how it looks.

Examples?
The universe revolving has a good chance.


And since the universe has become more complex and that complexity allowed life to arise, Light will believe that the universe was "designed" to become more complex. He'll see this as proof that the universe "wanted" to give rise to life.
The universe has a design, that is a fact. The designer though, is whatever is at the base of making it happen. Science says that the four forces are, and light is the one most connected to life.

"The form of energy most important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation."

"These same light waves are also the energizers of vision, the most wide-ranging and deep-probing of all the animal senses, which brings to most men more than nine-tenths of all awareness." Says doctor Harrison in the Conquest of Energy.

And for the next twenty pages, he'll keep going on about how "Someone said the universe got more and more complex until it created life." He will, of course, be entirely wrong. But we'll never be able to convince him of that.

Light, if you are reading, just because something happened does not mean that it was supposed to happen or destined to happen. It does not mean that someone made it happen or that there was any purpose to it at all. It just means that the thing happened. It has no other meaning.

It may have no other meaning.
A process started, and we know the four forces are responsible.
Life evolved from that process, and it is following the dictates of it; to create/manipulate more and more complex forms of matter and energy.

The universe did need to create life. It was the logical next step. Life can not only do the energy/matter thing, (faster, and potentially universe wide) live the experience, it may also release into the universe the next step in the evolution of energy.

Light makes this claim so often that it deserves a special name. I'm thinking of Appeal to Blind Luck.

"It's possible that just out of sheer chance there is some small likelihood that I could be right. Thus, I am right."
I'm not appealing to luck, but you know there is a place for it. A lot of good science has come out of luck.
I have more reason to support that graph than what you see. And while blind luck found it for me, it's holding.

wollery
22nd December 2006, 07:14 PM
Evolving is the word being used, and that is how it looks.

The universe revolving has a good chance.

The universe has a design, that is a fact. The designer though, is whatever is at the base of making it happen. Science says that the four forces are, and light is the one most connected to life.

"The form of energy most important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation."

"These same light waves are also the energizers of vision, the most wide-ranging and deep-probing of all the animal senses, which brings to most men more than nine-tenths of all awareness." Says doctor Harrison in the Conquest of Energy.

It may have no other meaning.
A process started, and we know the four forces are responsible.
Life evolved from that process, and it is following the dictates of it; to create/manipulate more and more complex forms of matter and energy.

The universe did need to create life. It was the logical next step. Life can not only do the energy/matter thing, (faster, and potentially universe wide) live the experience, it may also release into the universe the next step in the evolution of energy.

I'm not appealing to luck, but you know there is a place for it. A lot of good science has come out of luck.
I have more reason to support that graph than what you see. And while blind luck found it for me, it's holding.:nope:

Sad. Truly sad. After all this time, and all the effort that people have made to help you understand how badly wrong you are, you really haven't learned a single thing worth learning.

You're still making bald assertions, appeals to authority, using a single 40 year old text book as reference, making total non-sequitors, and generally being totally illogical. It's a real shame that you seem not to want to actually learn anything.

Your ideas are without merit, worthless and completely devoid of content. I told you that in the very first post, and you have only convinced me more and more of that fact.

I give up, you're a lost cause. I may read this thread from time to time for the amusement value, but I can see no longer see anything to be gained from participating.

Cosmo
22nd December 2006, 07:22 PM
The universe has a design, that is a fact.

Evidence?

bruto
22nd December 2006, 09:45 PM
"Sticks and stones.... but words can never hurt me." I can see now that while science is precise about most things, it is loose with how it describes things sometimes. But sometimes the best way to describe something, turns out to be right.

No sir. Science, or rather scientists, are usually pretty precise about how they describe things. It is you who rob those descriptions of their precision and their coherence by your refusal to acknowledge that words depend on their context for their meanings. Do not blame science, or scientists, for your obtuse refusal to understand the difference between analogy and reality, between resemblance and relationship.

lightcreatedlife@hom
25th December 2006, 01:10 PM
:nope:

Sad. Truly sad. After all this time, and all the effort that people have made to help you understand how badly wrong you are, you really haven't learned a single thing worth learning.
Yes, you have tried to show me how wrong I am, and in that you have failed. But how can you tell me what I have learned? Through the free flow of information Bel told me something about the universe I did not know. Someone else however thought that even though he was right, he gave me the wrong idea. And that is not the first time that that has happened. To me, that says that some are conveying information in a way that supports a particular view. I am not mad at them. I am biased towards my view as well. But as I said, I will not stand where I can't.

You're still making bald assertions, appeals to authority, using a single 40 year old text book as reference, making total non-sequitors, and generally being totally illogical. It's a real shame that you seem not to want to actually learn anything.
That book was one of five. I will get five more after they are due. I have been talking about intelliigence here, and while I have conceded that I am under armed against you all, I am not sad, or mad. I know that I have vast resources that I can call on. I think I am right, but even if I prove myself wrong, I still gain.

And somehow, you don't sound lke you had a good time.

Loss Leader
25th December 2006, 03:51 PM
Sadly, this is the only thing he's going to see. And he's going to latch on to it because it will seem to him that you are agreeing that the universe is evolving.

Through the free flow of information Bel told me something about the universe I did not know. Someone else however thought that even though he was right, he gave me the wrong idea.

Told you so.

Loss Leader
25th December 2006, 03:53 PM
I'm not appealing to luck, but you know there is a place for it. A lot of good science has come out of luck.
I have more reason to support that graph than what you see. And while blind luck found it for me, it's holding.

"I'm not appealing to luck, I'm just appealing to luck. Becuase luck is lucky and I got lucky because that's what happens when you trust in luck."

For the love of ...

Light, if you cannot see how ridiculous you sound, there is little that anyone else can do for you.

RandFan
25th December 2006, 06:21 PM
Some day this thread will end. When it does end nothing will have been accomplished. No minds will have been changed. Nothing will have been advanced. LCL will still believe that he has stumbled across something important and no one will be able to convince him otherwise.

lightcreatedlife@hom
25th December 2006, 06:31 PM
"I'm not appealing to luck, I'm just appealing to luck. Becuase luck is lucky and I got lucky because that's what happens when you trust in luck."

For the love of ...

Light, if you cannot see how ridiculous you sound, there is little that anyone else can do for you.

That dioes sound confusing. Okay...
1) I am not appealing to blind luck. I meant that I basically know what I am talking about. Dr Harrision (and now others) are saying the same thing that I have been saying. Not surprising to me, because when he wrote that book, I was studying that stuff. So, when I put those things in relationship to each other on that graph, I knew how they related to each other.

2) How blind luck found it for me? I am lucky to have found those things fitting together the way that that thing has them.

3) As for blind luck having a seat at some of the best tables, talk to Columbus, Graham Bell, the guy who first made plastic, the guy who made bubble wrap, and many many others.

RandFan
25th December 2006, 06:40 PM
That dioes sound confusing. Okay...
1) I am not appealing to blind luck. I meant that I basically know what I am talking about. Dr Harrision (and now others) are saying the same thing that I have been saying. Not surprising to me, because when he wrote that book, I was studying that stuff. So, when I put those things in relationship to each other on that graph, I knew how they related to each other.

2) How blind luck found it for me? I am lucky to have found those things fitting together the way that that thing has them.

3) As for blind luck having a seat at some of the best tables, talk to Columbus, Graham Bell, the guy who first made plastic, the guy who made bubble wrap, and many many others. Well thank goodness. Imagine what the world would be like without understanding the relationship between light and life. Now that we know this we can... uh, well, ahh, we can talk about it. Debate it. It's a conversation piece. Kind of like that art made by monkeys throwing thier feces at a canvas. Hey, it's something.

Cosmo
25th December 2006, 08:01 PM
hay oyou all know what? i'm stoneeee right now and i think that LCL is makign more esnense. i mean, light its shin y and maybe when its shines on me i t is creating life???? hay LCL you shousld patents your ieads and send st htem to mr novel prize, then maybes you can win enough moneys to serve as basis for research grants and you can o=work on uours ideas

Cosmo
25th December 2006, 10:21 PM
hay oyou all know what? i'm stoneeee right now and i think that LCL is makign more esnense. i mean, light its shin y and maybe when its shines on me i t is creating life???? hay LCL you shousld patents your ieads and send st htem to mr novel prize, then maybes you can win enough moneys to serve as basis for research grants and you can o=work on uours ideas

Eek! Sorry all (I'm feeling better now).

Sadly, any sense LCL may have made has now escaped me. :(

Belz...
26th December 2006, 10:22 AM
"Sticks and stones.... but words can never hurt me." I can see now that while science is precise about most things, it is loose with how it describes things sometimes. But sometimes the best way to describe something, turns out to be right.

That is not an argument.

The universe revolving has a good chance.

That's your example ? What the hell does it mean, anyway ?

The universe has a design, that is a fact.

A fact ? Prove it. I haven't seen it.

The designer though, is whatever is at the base of making it happen. Science says that the four forces are, and light is the one most connected to life.

Er... what connects those two sentences together ?

A process started, and we know the four forces are responsible.

A useless tautology, since the four forces are responsible for everything.

The universe did need to create life.

Need ? Why ? What's wrong with a lifeless universe ?

It was the logical next step.

Only if the conditions were right. But, okay.

Life can not only do the energy/matter thing, (faster, and potentially universe wide) live the experience, it may also release into the universe the next step in the evolution of energy.

Wizzaiwhattowhat ?? What in the blue HELL does that mean ? What's this evolution of energy that you just pulled out of your behind ?

I'm not appealing to luck, but you know there is a place for it.

Ergo, you ARE appealing to luck.

A lot of good science has come out of luck.

No.

I have more reason to support that graph than what you see.

No, you don't. You've thrown everything you had at me, and NOTHING you've said supports your graph, except the fact that it "looks" right to YOU.

And while blind luck found it for me, it's holding.

Gah. You're hopeless. You've learned NOTHING from the 58 pages+ of this thread. You refuse to learn. You are a complete idiot. I give up.

Belz...
26th December 2006, 10:26 AM
Yes, you have tried to show me how wrong I am, and in that you have failed.

No. No one has failed in that particular respect. YOU have, in fact, managed to prove yourself wrong, too. It is YOU who have failed to see it.

Someone else however thought that even though he was right, he gave me the wrong idea. And that is not the first time that that has happened. To me, that says that some are conveying information in a way that supports a particular view.

So someone's wrong about one thing and that means you're right. Talk about a convenient world-view.

I am not mad at them. I am biased towards my view as well.

Liar, liar.

That book was one of five.

Still 40 years old.

I think I am right, but even if I prove myself wrong, I still gain.

Pants on fire.

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th December 2006, 05:21 PM
A fact ? Prove it. I haven't seen it.
Evolution itself is a design, it is a predictable universal pattern.


Need ? Why ? What's wrong with a lifeless universe ?
It is the most potent way of manipulating matter and energy.


Wizzaiwhattowhat ?? What in the blue HELL does that mean ? What's this evolution of energy that you just pulled out of your behind ?
Look at the site, I have been saying that along.


Ergo, you ARE appealing to luck.
I am trying to prove it, so I am appealing to the truth.


No, you don't. You've thrown everything you had at me, and NOTHING you've said supports your graph, except the fact that it "looks" right to YOU.
How do you know I have no more? I have been on defense, and you have tried, but nothing you said has had impact on it. What you said about the evolution of stars helps me.


Gah. You're hopeless. You've learned NOTHING from the 58 pages+ of this thread. You refuse to learn. You are a complete idiot. I give up.So the definition of learning something has to do with adopting your view?

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th December 2006, 07:21 PM
No. No one has failed in that particular respect. YOU have, in fact, managed to prove yourself wrong, too. It is YOU who have failed to see it.
So I proved myself wrong, but can't see it? What I saw was:

Someone confirming that negative and positive are characteristics of energy (even though they were arbitrarily named) by showing that science thinks that they are reversed.

Being convinced that their are 2 basics of math, not 4, but in the process it showed me something that made the graph stronger.

That the graph accounts for the different types of opposites in its structure.

And you yourself have strengthen my view of evolution being part of a single process.


Still 40 years old.
It is just the beginning. And as someone has already said, things have not changed all that much in that area.
I noticed that no one challenged what the Dr had to say, and I said what he did. And this is what Felice Frankel said in his book On The Surface of Things: (c 1997)
"Light is the insubstantial foundation of our world. The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light, both the colors we see and the forms of electromagnetic radiation that we usually do not think of as "light" - radio waves, heat, unltraviolet light, and X rays. We see with light: it is the air perception breathes. We communicate and measure with light. We use light to talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter."





Pants on fire.
I think all that bull about wanting to help me learn makes you a liar.
I also noticed that you are departing at the same time as people who you claim not to work in concert with. As I said, you don't have to be a formal team to act in relationship with.

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th December 2006, 07:45 PM
Eek! Sorry all (I'm feeling better now).

Sadly, any sense LCL may have made has now escaped me. :(

I'm working on getting better. I'm thinking about putting references by everthing I have said here.


"The form of energy most important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation."

"These same light waves are also the energizers of vision, the most wide-ranging and deep-probing of all the animal senses, which brings to most men more than nine-tenths of all awareness." Says doctor Harrison in the Conquest of Energy.

I noticed that no one challenged what the Dr had to say, and I said what he did. And this is what Felice Frankel said in his book On The Surface of Things: (c 1997)
"Light is the insubstantial foundation of our world. The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light, both the colors we see and the forms of electromagnetic radiation that we usually do not think of as "light" - radio waves, heat, unltraviolet light, and X rays. We see with light: it is the air perception breathes. We communicate and measure with light. We use light to talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter."

Haven't I been saying this?

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th December 2006, 08:34 PM
Some day this thread will end. When it does end nothing will have been accomplished.
I have a study path, and I am gathering references to what I have been saying. I'm reading books. Isn't that the path you pretended to want for me? Somehow you don't sound happy, or encouraging.


No minds will have been changed.
I am not finished. You know, "Rome wasn't built in.."

Nothing will have been advanced.
I can't see how you can say that. It was you who led the attack that finally forced me from that 4 basics of math position. You should be happy.


LCL will still believe that he has stumbled across something important and no one will be able to convince him otherwise.
I do think it is important, but put yourself in my shoes, could you just throw it away?

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th December 2006, 08:53 PM
No sir. Science, or rather scientists, are usually pretty precise about how they describe things. It is you who rob those descriptions of their precision and their coherence by your refusal to acknowledge that words depend on their context for their meanings.
Of course it does. But I have not used them wrong. When words like weak, strong, capture, violates, bonding, and attraction are used, they describe pretty much the same type of things.

Do not blame science, or scientists, for your obtuse refusal to understand the difference between analogy and reality, between resemblance and relationship.
Resemblance often means a relationship. It might here also.

Tricky
26th December 2006, 09:03 PM
Of course it does. But I have not used them wrong. When words like weak, strong, capture, violates, bonding, and attraction are used, they describe pretty much the same type of things.
No they don't. It depends on context, as Bruto said. You are using the same word, but vastly changing context. It is amazing that this simple concept continues to evade you.

Resemblance often means a relationship. It might here also.
And it justs as likely might not. You need to examine the evidence to see if the resemblance is the result of a relationship, or simply mental association.

Study the difference in homologous versus analogous.

Solus
26th December 2006, 09:21 PM
Some day this thread will end. When it does end nothing will have been accomplished. No minds will have been changed. Nothing will have been advanced. LCL will still believe that he has stumbled across something important and no one will be able to convince him otherwise.

True but bob alone knows when that someday will be though.:covereyes
All can say is this thread does serve a purpose. The longer it exists, the more I'm amused; it's like watching a simulated trainwreck.

Solus
26th December 2006, 09:29 PM
Of course it does. But I have not used them wrong. When words like weak, strong, capture, violates, bonding, and attraction are used, they describe pretty much the same type of things.

Resemblance often means a relationship. It might here also.

LCL what do you like to do besides arguing in this thread? Do you have any hobbies, do you work, and what are your goals in life?

bruto
26th December 2006, 09:46 PM
Of course it does. But I have not used them wrong. Yes, you have. over and over. When words like weak, strong, capture, violates, bonding, and attraction are used, they describe pretty much the same type of things. No, they don't, not the way you use them to infer emotional and sexual characteristics in the inanimate world.

Resemblance often means a relationship. And as often not. And shared words are one step further away from relationship even than resemblance. Bats, bees, birds and airplanes resemble each other in that they have wings with which to fly, yet the three flying animals evloved their wings separately and independently, and the fourth object is no animal at all. The white house, the nuts holding the roof racks on my car, and the stage at the local theater also have wings, but nobody but an utter fool would think that this denotes a meaningful relationship. Yet this is not a misuse of the word. Many things that stick out bilaterally are called wings, because that is one characteristic of wings, and when a thing is described that way, our minds can grasp the sense of "wing-ness." Saying this, however, is not even remotely to say that some actual essential quality is shared by all things that have wings. The same principle applies to terms such as "birth and death" in astronomy, "repulsion and attraction" in magnetism, and so forth. The meaning and implication of words depends on their context. To assert that words carry with them connotations other than the meaning that is explicitly assigned to them by their context leads to spurious and erroneous assumptions of relationship such as those you continue to make. You simply cannot use the sharing of vocabulary as evidence that the inanimate world shares the emotional or intentional qualities of the animate. It is not, and to do so is to think backwards, as if language created the things it describes. It is, quite simply , preposterous. It might here also.Pigs might also fly. You might someday understand why your ideas are nonsense. But might just isn't good enough.

Belz...
27th December 2006, 05:38 AM
Evolution itself is a design, it is a predictable universal pattern.

Look up "design", then.

It is the most potent way of manipulating matter and energy.

"Potent" ? I would think that stars are far more potent than anything life can produce.

Look at the site, I have been saying that along.

Well, please explain how a photon can evolve.

I am trying to prove it, so I am appealing to the truth.

Ah, so you don't know what "appealing" means ?

How do you know I have no more?

Usually one PRESENTS his evidence to support his theory. Otherwise others can safely assume that the withheld evidence simply doesn't exist.

I have been on defense, and you have tried, but nothing you said has had impact on it.

Of course, since it's nonsensical. Nothing has an effect on the illogical.

What you said about the evolution of stars helps me.

No, it refutes you.

So the definition of learning something has to do with adopting your view?

Dishonest debating tactic again, Light: putting words in my mouth.

I have said no such thing. I said that you REFUSED to learn, as indicated by the fact that you still hold the same beliefs you did in page 1, even after you've been consistently shown to be wrong.

Someone confirming that negative and positive are characteristics of energy (even though they were arbitrarily named) by showing that science thinks that they are reversed.

Those are characteristics of magnetic fields, not "energy".

Being convinced that their are 2 basics of math, not 4

No, we said 1, not 2.

but in the process it showed me something that made the graph stronger.

Did it ? Well, that's interesting because you didn't upgrade your doodle. So how was it made stronger, again ?

And you yourself have strengthen my view of evolution being part of a single process.

Of course. Any and everything that anyone says is seen by you as supporting your views, which of course is illogical. One thing and it's opposite can't both be true.

I think all that bull about wanting to help me learn makes you a liar.

I'm sorry, when exactly did you decide that it was bull ? I'm still waiting for you to show evidence that I've lied, a single time, ever, on these forums. You're yet to step up. In fact you've squirmed your way out of it. And now you expect people to believe that I've lied on your word ? Let's see how that turns out.

I also noticed that you are departing at the same time as people who you claim not to work in concert with.

Departing ? What the hell are you talking about ? I work from 8 to 12, eastern time, and from 13 to 16:30. I have a 15 minute break at 10 and 15. If other people chow between 12 and 13, it isn't my problem.

As I said, you don't have to be a formal team to act in relationship with.

You're a liar, Light. You keep lying. From this moment on I'll continue with the assumption that you believe we all have some form of agenda to discredit your views, and nothing you say now will change my mind. You are a delusional man, Light. Get help.

Loss Leader
27th December 2006, 06:34 AM
Evolution itself is a design, it is a predictable universal pattern.

Evolution is not predictable. It is not universal. And it is not a pattern.

bruto
27th December 2006, 07:33 AM
Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom...
Evolution itself is a design, it is a predictable universal pattern.


Evolution is not predictable. It is not universal. And it is not a pattern.

Picky picky picky!

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th December 2006, 12:14 PM
True but bob alone knows when that someday will be though.:covereyes
This is a forum, people debate here. Why do I get the feeling that I am keeping people from something by forcing them to come here?

All can say is this thread does serve a purpose. The longer it exists, the more I'm amused; it's like watching a simulated trainwreck.
If you are being amused, sit back and enjoy it.

LCL what do you like to do besides arguing in this thread? Do you have any hobbies, do you work, and what are your goals in life?
Why the interest in me? I already got someone here looking up my address for whatever reason. It should be obvious that I am studying this topic, and I do believe that it has commercial value. I am sharpening my view.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th December 2006, 01:56 PM
Evolution is not predictable.
I saw this program on TV that showed the future evolution of life. But I understand that what they said was based on what they thought future conditions would be. Still...

It is not universal. And it is not a pattern.
The set characteristics of the forces can't help but create a universal pattern of energy and matter. So when certain predictable conditions are met, certain things have to happen.

Loss Leader
27th December 2006, 02:02 PM
The set characteristics of the forces can't help but create a universal pattern of energy and matter. So when certain predictable conditions are met, certain things have to happen.

Then make a prediction, genius. Predict me one of your big, fancy predictions right now.

What next thing has to happen? What will happen next based on the conditions that now exist? Give me your predictions and then, at least, we can start to test whether your pictogram actually produces a lick of useful information.

P.S. I'm guessing it doesn't.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th December 2006, 02:23 PM
Then make a prediction, genius. Predict me one of your big, fancy predictions right now.

What next thing has to happen? What will happen next based on the conditions that now exist? Give me your predictions and then, at least, we can start to test whether your pictogram actually produces a lick of useful information.

P.S. I'm guessing it doesn't.

Like someone said earlier, science is looking for life in space in places where it is most likely to be. They are following a pattern. They know certain conditions, (arrived at through processes they understand) will produce certain results. Ask Bel whether or not the first stars had planets, and he will tell you that the conditions were not right for them.

Loss Leader
27th December 2006, 02:48 PM
Like someone said earlier, science is

"Science" is doing nothing. Some scientists are.

looking for life in space in places where it is most likely to be.

No, they're not. They're looking for life in the entire sky, focusing on nowhere in particular. They are also looking an an area of the spectrum not chosen because they think intelligent life would transmit there but because that is the area easiest to detect from earth using our current resources.

They are following a pattern.

No, they're pretty much looking everywhere.

They know

If they knew, it wouldn't be called the "Search for Extra-terestrial Intelligence", it would be called the "Point the Telescope and Find in One Afternoon for Extraterestrial Intelligence".

certain conditions, (arrived at through processes they understand)

Although many believe that liquid water, a magnetic core and medium atmosphere are necessary for life, we have NO WAY OF FINDING planets that fit that criteria. We can barely find planets of any kind and only today did the European Space Agency launch a satellite to help discover rocky planets instead of huge gas giants.

will produce certain results.

Since we have exactly one example of a planet whose conditions gave rise to life, we have exactly no information about which of those conditions are necessary for life, which are helpful and which don't matter at all.

Ask Bel whether or not the first stars had planets, and he will tell you that the conditions were not right for them.

I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything.

And your entire post was in response to my asking for a prediction. You still have not done so. You have used your picture to make zero predictions about the future. That's an impressive record. At least if you don't guess, you can't be wrong.

zizzybaluba
27th December 2006, 03:10 PM
Why the interest in me? I already got someone here looking up my address for whatever reason. It should be obvious that I am studying this topic, and I do believe that it has commercial value. I am sharpening my view.

No one ever went broke banking on human stupitity.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th December 2006, 03:55 PM
"Potent" ? I would think that stars are far more potent than anything life can produce.

When science is able to make fusion reactors and starships, it will be able to spead life far and wide. It may be able to one day harness the energy of one, or even destroy it. On wait. That is still science fiction. Still, the potential is enormous. I'm thinking that it would be easier to "seed" the universe with our genetic code. Or even one "designed" to work under the conditions of the place it is aimed at.


Well, please explain how a photon can evolve.
Why would it need too?

Usually one PRESENTS his evidence to support his theory.
This part of it is doing fine, the rest has commercial value. Making money from it is the American way.

Otherwise others can safely assume that the withheld evidence simply doesn't exist.
You can do that, but you would be wrong.


Of course, since it's nonsensical. Nothing has an effect on the illogical.
You knew what it was from page one, yet you are here on page 59. You sure gave it "the old college try," and came up short. I do believe it is stronger now.


No, it refutes you.
Oh? Talk to the guy who responded after you posted it.

I have said no such thing. I said that you REFUSED to learn, as indicated by the fact that you still hold the same beliefs you did in page 1, even after you've been consistently shown to be wrong.
I have been challenged on everything, but not smashed, and I have found people in books who have no problem with the term "higher form of life," or light being "most important," to life. I am also still looking.

Those are characteristics of magnetic fields, not "energy".
Would I be right if I said "electrical energy flows from negative to positive?" Or the reverse, since someone said science is going to revise that.


No, we said 1, not 2.
Ultimately everything is one, but than it loses its meaning. Two basic operations of math, with two coming from them is required to do math as is done now.
Just because the four forces were/are one, takes nothing away from the universe operating on four at this level/time.


Did it ? Well, that's interesting because you didn't upgrade your doodle. So how was it made stronger, again ?
[/qoute]The strength is in the doodle staying the same, based on what I stated.


[quote]I'm sorry, when exactly did you decide that it was bull ?
The part about wanting to help me, everything being wrong, etc.



I'm still waiting for you to show evidence that I've lied, a single time, ever, on these forums. You're yet to step up. In fact you've squirmed your way out of it. And now you expect people to believe that I've lied on your word ? Let's see how that turns out.
When you called me a liar, you lied. You see, you just recently posted that you gave up.

Gah. You're hopeless. You've learned NOTHING from the 58 pages+ of this thread. You refuse to learn. You are a complete idiot. I give up.
Pardoned me, but it sounds like you were leaving.
Either way, since you are still here pitching, doesn't that mean you lied? Because when I changed my mind about the "team thing," that is why you called me a liar. You just multiplied it to make it look like a lot.

Let's see you dance out of that.



You're a liar, Light. You keep lying. From this moment on I'll continue with the assumption that you believe we all have some form of agenda to discredit your views, and nothing you say now will change my mind. You are a delusional man, Light. Get help.
This statement makes you sound delusional. You seem to have something stuck in your head, and willfully need to hold on to it. I knew that when you had to reach back so far to find something you liked. People can disagree without there being an agenda either way, it happens. Doesn't that sound rational to you? If not, maybe you need the help.

bruto
27th December 2006, 10:09 PM
I saw this program on TV that showed the future evolution of life. But I understand that what they said was based on what they thought future conditions would be. Still...Still what? So their guess is similar to your guess. That is not what is meant by "predictable."

The set characteristics of the forces can't help but create a universal pattern of energy and matter. So when certain predictable conditions are met, certain things have to happen.

So are you saying that even though it is not predictable it is predictable? What are these "certain things?" How shall we test for them?

ETA apologies to Loss Leader for repeating much of what he said before I read his posts.

bruto
27th December 2006, 11:09 PM
It seems LCL is not alone!

http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.f.dezwart/Frame-engels.html

It looks as if this guy is a good deal loonier, certainly wordier, but some of the similarities are striking. His English is better.

Solus
28th December 2006, 12:06 PM
It seems LCL is not alone!

http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.f.dezwart/Frame-engels.html

It looks as if this guy is a good deal loonier, certainly wordier, but some of the similarities are striking. His English is better.

Similar to that time cube guy: http://www.timecube.com/

It's interesting to notice how they both use different colors for the text and that both make no sense, It's obviously from some kind of severe mental illness. For the link you posted he's probably either bipolar or schizophrenic I would bet. As for LCL I don't think so because so his writing here is too coherent. LCL is just playing a game here I think and some posters here are too eager to play with him.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th December 2006, 12:11 PM
Similar to that time cube guy: http://www.timecube.com/

It's interesting to notice how they both use different colors for the text and that both make no sense, It's obviously from some kind of severe mental illness. For the link you posted he's probably either bipolar or schizophrenic I would bet. As for LCL I don't think so because so his writing here is too coherent. LCL is just playing a game here I think and some posters here are too eager to play with him.
Its no game. I believe that thing, and I'm looking for why I shouldn't. I am playing fair, no games, lies, or insults. I wanted to test the thing-as I said, insults, cats and ******** would get in the way. Ideas need to be tested.
Sometimes the left part of the brain, needs the right side.

Loss Leader
29th December 2006, 12:49 PM
I wanted to test the thing-as I said, insults, cats and ******** would get in the way. Ideas need to be tested.


Except you won't let anyone test your ideas, will you?

1. Despite the fact that you claim that life behaves the way electromagnetism behaves, you also claim that life can choose not to because it is "more evolved." So, we cannot look at anything that humans do as proof or disproof of your ideas. If humans behave like light, you say that's proof. If they don't behave like light, you say that it is not disproof.

2. Despite the fact that you claim that your picture predicts behavior and evolution, you refuse to make a prediction.

3. Despite the fact that you acknowledge that understanding of certain words and concepts were faulty when you made your picture, you refuse to change it in any way. When you were informed that there is no set definition of "opposite" and that the things you listed as "opposites" actually stradled several contradictory definitions, you claimed that the angles in your picture somehow accounted for these different meanings. Once again, these were differences in meaning that you did not know when you made the graph.

4. Despite the fact that people have repeatedly told you that you have not shown your conclusions to necessarily follow from your premises, you have refused to restate your conclusions or your premises. Instead, you have claimed that "luck" plays a part in great discoveries and, so far, your ideas are holding together due to luck.

5. At no time since you started this thread have you refined or changed your picture one way or another.

6. Despite being asked to design a test for your ideas, you have refused to do so. Instead, you have claimed that the only way you can think to test your ideas is to die and experience the afterlife.

7. Despite being informed that the only valid conclusions are those that follow rigorous logical thought, you have refused to learn the first thing about logic. Instead, you stated that you would not study logic at all.

So, explain to me again how you're "testing" your ideas?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th December 2006, 01:12 PM
So are you saying that even though it is not predictable it is predictable?
Something are, and some not. How certain the stars form, how they work, etc is. How a certain lifeform is going to evolve, is not.

bruto
29th December 2006, 03:32 PM
Something are, and some not. How certain the stars form, how they work, etc is. How a certain lifeform is going to evolve, is not.So after having said evolution was predictable, are you now actually conceding that it is not?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th December 2006, 04:40 PM
So after having said evolution was predictable, are you now actually conceding that it is not?
As I just said, yes and no. The organic part isn't, but the organic part is. Knowing what conditions support life, science can predict that similar conditions will too.

I less than three logic
29th December 2006, 05:25 PM
As I just said, yes and no. The organic part isn't, but the organic part is.
WT... :confused:

bruto
29th December 2006, 09:15 PM
As I just said, yes and no. The organic part isn't, but the organic part is. Knowing what conditions support life, science can predict that similar conditions will too.

Forgetting whether there's a significant difference between organic and organic, and assuming a misprint, we continue.....

Are you sure of this? Has any scientist successfully predicted the creation of life from the conditions thought to be necessary for it? Has anybody found life outside the earth? Has anybody successfully predicted how such life, should it be found, would evolve?

Of course I guess we forgot to establish whether your use of the word "evolution" matches in any significant way the sense in which it's usually used. Let us try again:

The evolution of living things - not the origin of life itself, not the way stars change, planets change, atoms change, proteins change, but the way that living things evolve into other kinds of living things through the process commonly called "natural selection." Predictable or not?

Belz...
30th December 2006, 07:30 AM
I saw this program on TV that showed the future evolution of life. But I understand that.

No, somehow I feel you'll come back with that argument sooner or later.

When science is able to make fusion reactors and starships, it will be able to spead life far and wide.

When ? IF.

And I don't see the point. You talked about potency, not numbers. No wonder you don't know what you're talking about: you keep changing the subject.

I'm thinking that it would be easier to "seed" the universe with our genetic code.

Seed ? How ?

Well, please explain how a photon can evolve.

Why would it need too?

Because, genius, otherwise your assertion that "energy evolves" is unfounded.

Usually one PRESENTS his evidence to support his theory.

This part of it is doing fine, the rest has commercial value. Making money from it is the American way.

Oh, so the reason why you've made this graph is not to discover the truth, but to swindle the gullible ?

Otherwise others can safely assume that the withheld evidence simply doesn't exist.

You can do that, but you would be wrong.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I'm right until you PROVE me wrong, because you have presented ZERO evidence for your claims. And since you never talked about evidence until very recently, I think your claim of evidence is a desperate attempt at trying to sound legitimate.

You knew what it was from page one, yet you are here on page 59. You sure gave it "the old college try,"

So you think I'm still arguing with you because there's value to your graph ? Why the hell would I ARGUE about it, then ? You live in a fantasy world where people argue against what they agree with.

and came up short.

Evidence ?

I do believe it is stronger now.

That would be difficult, since you didn't change it at all.

I have been challenged on everything, but not smashed

Not admitting defeat doesn't mean you win. Look up "black knight" and "monty python".

and I have found people in books who have no problem with the term "higher form of life," or light being "most important," to life.

Light ? Please explain those nasty fishes that live in complete darkness.

Would I be right if I said "electrical energy flows from negative to positive?" Or the reverse, since someone said science is going to revise that.

Electrical current, you mean ?

Ultimately everything is one, but than it loses its meaning.

How does something lose meaning when you get to understand it ?

Two basic operations of math, with two coming from them is required to do math as is done now.

No, it's not. It's been explained to you, many times. Addition is the only one of the four that's not composed of one of the others.

The strength is in the doodle staying the same, based on what I stated.

Oh, I see. So all you have to do is claim that the graph doesn't need to change and you win, no matter what people say, no matter the evidence, no matter anything. Dogmatic nonsense.

Belz...
30th December 2006, 07:39 AM
The part about wanting to help me, everything being wrong, etc.

I didn't ask you what you THOUGHT was bull, I asked you WHEN you DECIDED that it WAS bull. Please learn to read.

When you called me a liar, you lied.

No, I didn't. I provided SEVERAL examples of when and how you lied, Light. Everyone here has seen it. I provided EVIDENCE that you lied, something you are yet to do for me.

Pardoned me, but it sounds like you were leaving.

I said I gave up, not that I was leaving. Your reading comprehension is more than abysmal, it is non-existent. I give up because there is no way that you will ever change your views. Logic cannot convince you because logic isn't what brought you to your current conclusion in the first place.

The fact that you think that not changing your views means you're right proves that you have no intention of learning. It's a very good thing that science evolves over time, as scientists realise that their previous ideas were wrong. Otherwise, if those people were like you, we'd still be in the stone age, making doodles in caves.

Either way, since you are still here pitching, doesn't that mean you lied?

Gosh, you don't even know what "lying" means. That's pathetic.

Because when I changed my mind about the "team thing," that is why you called me a liar. You just multiplied it to make it look like a lot.

You didn't change your mind at all. You CLAIMED that you didn't think it, and then proved that you DID. Several times, back and forth. That's more than one lie, by the way.

Let's see you dance out of that.

Don't need to. You haven't shown that I've lied. Ever. Which is of course impossible, because I don't lie. It'd be like trying to catch me flying.

This statement makes you sound delusional. You seem to have something stuck in your head, and willfully need to hold on to it.

I would like nothing less than to be wrong about many of the things I "believe" about the universe, not the least of which is the survival of the mind. But what I'd WANT is irrelevant. That's the difference between you and me. I don't reinvent reality to suit my needs.

I knew that when you had to reach back so far to find something you liked.

I didn't even search the whole thread. The search function was disabled. I just waded through until I found a few... and I kept finding and finding and finding. You just don't stop lying, that's all.

People can disagree without there being an agenda either way, it happens.

Liar. You know quite well that I'm aware that you don't believe that.

Doesn't that sound rational to you?

Yes. It sounds very much like an attempt to appease someone. Of course, the insults mixed in don't help your case.

If not, maybe you need the help.

I'm not the one who draw a picture and claims it represents all of reality. Try this one :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

lightcreatedlife@hom
30th December 2006, 06:02 PM
I didn't ask you what you THOUGHT was bull, I asked you WHEN you DECIDED that it WAS bull then.
Recently.


No, I didn't. I provided SEVERAL examples of when and how you lied, Light. Everyone here has seen it. I provided EVIDENCE that you lied, something you are yet to do for me.
An example of the same thing, something (you think happened) 20 pages ago. My guess is that you needed something...happy?


I said I gave up, not that I was leaving. Your reading comprehension is more than abysmal, it is non-existent. I give up because there is no way that you will ever change your views.
But you are still here trying, so you didn't give up, right? And since I changed my mind about the 4 basic thing, didn't you just lie when you said I don't ever change my view? As I said before, trying to make me a liar, is making you one.

The fact that you think that not changing your views means you're right proves that you have no intention of learning.
What about what you said about the first stars being unable to have planets? You see? You are making yourself a liar.


It's a very good thing that science evolves over time, as scientists realise that their previous ideas were wrong. Otherwise, if those people were like you, we'd still be in the stone age, making doodles in caves.
The negative/positive reversed thing, the opposites thing, and the two basic thing are right, the graph just accounts for them, unchanged. That is what is really bothering you


Gosh, you don't even know what "lying" means. That's pathetic.
If, as you just explained, that you "give up" trying to change my mind, and you are still here trying, wouldn't that mean... you were lying? Either that or you are lying about giving up?



Don't need to. You haven't shown that I've lied. Ever. Which is of course impossible, because I don't lie. It'd be like trying to catch me flying.
If you say so.


I would like nothing less than to be wrong about many of the things I "believe" about the universe, not the least of which is the survival of the mind. But what I'd WANT is irrelevant. That's the difference between you and me. I don't reinvent reality to suit my needs.
I'm starting to think it doesn't survive as well. OBEs' are not reliable enough.


I didn't even search the whole thread. The search function was disabled. I just waded through until I found a few... and I kept finding and finding and finding. You just don't stop lying, that's all.
If you say so it must be true, afterall, you don't lie.

Yes. It sounds very much like an attempt to appease someone. Of course, the insults mixed in don't help your case.
You're kidding right? What part of this thread tells you that I am interested in appeasing anyone? I say what I feel. If I like what you said, even if I don't agree, I'll say so. Some people see that as weak, I see it as honest. I won't hide from anything, and I will not stand where I can't.

RandFan
1st January 2007, 01:14 AM
...I will not stand where I can't.Sure, you bet.

beachnut
1st January 2007, 01:34 AM
Children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, so where did the characteristics of life come from? Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Life experiences them (at one level) as No, Yes, I like you (love) and I don't like you (hate). Together they form the bases of the mental/emotional nature of life, and math to boot because negative is related to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication and repulsion to division. If this does not fly for you, tell me what else would have the universal reach to do the job?

We are photons, looking for a boost back to light speed!?

Just dormat energy trying to make our way home; happy new year!

bruto
1st January 2007, 07:43 AM
.... and I will not stand where I can't.

It isn't where you stand that's at issue, but where you lie.

Belz...
2nd January 2007, 05:37 AM
An example of the same thing, something (you think happened) 20 pages ago. My guess is that you needed something...happy?

No, because I have no idea what you're blabbering about.

But you are still here trying, so you didn't give up, right?

When's the last time you saw me "trying" ? I've been doing almost nothing but beign condescending for the last 2 pages.

And since I changed my mind about the 4 basic thing, didn't you just lie when you said I don't ever change my view?

No, because you come back to the old view again and again, when you think you can get away with it. You also refused to learn about the 4 basic "thing" because you completely ignored what we said about there beign 1 and decided that there was 2.

As I said before, trying to make me a liar, is making you one.

Sticks and stones, Light. Find the evidence that I've lied, or shut up.

What about what you said about the first stars being unable to have planets? You see? You are making yourself a liar.

Beign able to parrot what I've said doesn't make you a learner. Besides, that particular fact has nothing to do with any of your claims, so it's not surprising that you didn't ignore it.

The negative/positive reversed thing, the opposites thing, and the two basic thing are right, the graph just accounts for them, unchanged. That is what is really bothering you

Your "graph" doesn't account for them. Ever. It didn't before, and it doesn't now. I also suspect it won't in the future.

The problem isn't the graph, it's you. You interpreted that nonsensical doodle in a particular way, and now that you've been shown wrong, you've changed your interpretation of it. The graph can mean anything you want, and that's one of the reasons why it's useless.

If, as you just explained, that you "give up" trying to change my mind, and you are still here trying, wouldn't that mean... you were lying? Either that or you are lying about giving up?

First off, I haven't been "trying" for a while, as I've said above. Second, changing your mind isn't lying. And before you start yapping about you changing your mind, I'll remind you that claiming to have an opinion while simultaneously showing that it's untrue is NOT changing your mind.

If you say so.

I do. I'm still waiting for that evidence.

Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to present your vaunted evidence that your graph is correct, as soon as possible.

I'm starting to think it doesn't survive as well. OBEs' are not reliable enough.

I'd be encouraged by this, if I didn't know the "soul" will come back sooner or later.

If you say so it must be true, afterall, you don't lie.

So you really don't know what "lying" means ? Just because you don't lie doesn't mean you can't be wrong. Of course, I'm not wrong about that particular claim of mine.

You're kidding right?

Didn't I ask you to stop saying that ? Or are you again assuming that I'm saying this just to disagree with you, liar ?

What part of this thread tells you that I am interested in appeasing anyone?

Well, for one, the parts where you keep telling people that they are smart.

I say what I feel.

Yes, I've noticed that feeling trumps thinking, in your case.

If I like what you said, even if I don't agree, I'll say so. Some people see that as weak, I see it as honest.

Nothing wrong with that.

I won't hide from anything, and I will not stand where I can't.

Well, about that...

Solus
2nd January 2007, 02:13 PM
Blez do ever get tired of aruging with LCL?

I await the day this thread is moved to the entertainment or abandon all hope section. That would bring me much amusement. There certainly isn't any philosophy here, expect of course the philosophy of willful ignorance. Every page is filled with it! :p

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 02:59 PM
Blez do ever get tired of aruging with LCL?

I await the day this thread is moved to the entertainment or abandon all hope section. That would bring me much amusement. There certainly isn't any philosophy here, expect of course the philosophy of willful ignorance. Every page is filled with it! :p
Talk about willful, why do you come if you don't like it?

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 03:36 PM
[quote]No, because you come back to the old view again and again, when you think you can get away with it. You also refused to learn about the 4 basic "thing" because you completely ignored what we said about there beign 1 and decided that there was 2.
RandFan said that there was 2 and you didn't say anything to him. Saying that there is one is like saying "everything is one." It is, but what can you do with it? Science knows that the four forces are part of one force, but to explain the universe as we know it, they use four. The same thing applies to doing math.


Sticks and stones, Light. Find the evidence that I've lied, or shut up.
I love the way you do this. You say "find the lie" right after doing it. You said you gave up, but you are still presenting a case for 1 basic math operation. Do you know what lying is?

Beign able to parrot what I've said doesn't make you a learner. Besides, that particular fact has nothing to do with any of your claims, so it's not surprising that you didn't ignore it.
You said I learned nothing, but when someone said I was using "allot" wrong, I from then on out used "a lot." Doesn't that make you a liar? And talking about logic, isn't it impossible for anyone to go 60 pages and not learn anything?



The problem isn't the graph, it's you. You interpreted that nonsensical doodle in a particular way, and now that you've been shown wrong, you've changed your interpretation of it. The graph can mean anything you want, and that's one of the reasons why it's useless.
That is also impossible. It can't mean anything I want, and the things there are in fact pairs. That is something I learned, so I changed my mind.


Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to present your vaunted evidence that your graph is correct, as soon as possible.
As soon as possible.


I'd be encouraged by this, if I didn't know the "soul" will come back sooner or later.
The soul never left. And you don't know how happy I am that you are encouraged by what I said. Afterall, it implies that you have not given up as you said you did.


So you really don't know what "lying" means ? Just because you don't lie doesn't mean you can't be wrong. Of course, I'm not wrong about that particular claim of mine.
It looks like you don't neither.
I am not here to play the "lie game" with you. I am gathering my forces so that I can answer (as best I can) the questions presented me, and I already have plenty. So, If you got nothing else to do...

Loss Leader
2nd January 2007, 05:08 PM
isn't it impossible for anyone to go 60 pages and not learn anything?

One would think.

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 06:45 PM
One would think.
One should know. So far I have found nothing that is causing me distress. Just a better way to express what I have been saying.

Intelligent life is the natural, logical, outcome of a "natural drive" for more and more complex patterns of energy, matter, and information. So humans are the results of a "patterned process" (a design) that does not have to have had a designer. However, if the term designer is assigned to the thing that is "most responsible" for the design, and for life, that something would be light.

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 07:55 PM
No sir. Science, or rather scientists, are usually pretty precise about how they describe things.
Thats' my point. They are using the best words possible. So when they say words like violates and captures, weak and strong, they are using them about the same way we do. The word "charmed" in reference to particles is used in reference to "luring." And before an example is given comparing a people and particles, I know particles don't use flowers and candy.

It is you who rob those descriptions of their precision and their coherence by your refusal to acknowledge that words depend on their context for their meanings.
I have provided a site, show me an example from there taken out of context.

Do not blame science, or scientists, for your obtuse refusal to understand the difference between analogy and reality, between resemblance and relationship.
The resemblance that I am talking about has to do with different stages of the same thing. Using the word "evil" in reference to a person, most of us would agree on what it looks like. Evil used in reference to an animal, maybe. In reference to insects and germs, it is their normal behavior. Once we move into the inorganic world, that is just what happens, but the use of the word there would say, "something like that."

bruto
2nd January 2007, 09:01 PM
Thats' my point. They are using the best words possible. So when they say words like violates and captures, weak and strong, they are using them about the same way we do. The word "charmed" in reference to particles is used in reference to "luring." And before an example is given comparing a people and particles, I know particles don't use flowers and candy.

I have provided a site, show me an example from there taken out of context.

The resemblance that I am talking about has to do with different stages of the same thing. Using the word "evil" in reference to a person, most of us would agree on what it looks like. Evil used in reference to an animal, maybe. In reference to insects and germs, it is their normal behavior. Once we move into the inorganic world, that is just what happens, but the use of the word there would say, "something like that."

It's hopeless. I must conclude that you really are simply incapable of understanding.

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 09:12 PM
That was me. So you're lying, again. Where did I say that emotions don't exist ? Or was that hyperbole ?
After seeing what you thought of them I knew you had a problem with them. Look at this stuff.

Emotion is not a capability,
So when someone says that "humans are capable of expressing emotions.." they are wrong?

it is a reflex action of the body to certain circumstances. It has no rationality, and is often ill-suited for even the simplest of real-life situations in a civilised context.
Certain energy related circumstances. Particles do what they do due to external and internal energy influences, we do what we do due to external and internal energy influences, we call the internal ones emotions.


How you can think it's necessary to understand anything, save for emotions themselves, is beyond me.
Religion got here first, created science (even while it suppressed knowledge) and is still here. Emotions are some powerful stuff.

Sorry, the only tendency I know of about energy is entropy. And that doesn't tend to create anything useful. Ever.
But life can make it one hell of a trip. And I do think that one of its missions is to keep it at bay.


As close to. So they DON'T use emotions, do they ?
That is just it, how can they get a complete picture? Life is mental/emotion, there is no getting around that.



Obviously. You've shown quite a propensity for believing the things that you "like" rather than the things that are true, whether or not you like them.

The negative positive thing, the 2 basic thing, the consciousness survival thing, are all things that I don't like. And sometimes the things I like are true.

Why do you think you know what is true?

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 10:27 PM
1) What design ?
Evolution. The pattern that has led us to seeing them.

2) How do you know what it says ?
Observation & science. Science says the whole drama has to do with the forces on a quest to develop complex patterns of matter, energy and information.
I like that information part of the energy/matter equation that that book is talking about. It looks to me like it is linked to intelligence.

3) How does it follow that a design has a designer ?
It doesn't, taken by itself. There is however those feelings, and the clear 50% chance. The feelings that have given us half our world. Reason has given us science, but emotions have given us society. It is the threat of "affecting someone emotionally" that runs society. Reason is of course a big part, but they are blended. "Justice and mercy" is the motto of the court system.




4) How does it say that it has to be conscious ?
It knows what it is doing. But even if it wasn't conscious before, didn't we make it conscious? The process became aware of itself, and finds itself very interesting. How could it make such an outstanding choice without working towards that?
You know, the graph shows that the process didn't start conscious, it became conscious where they all met. Where purposeful action started.


"Step up" which ladder ?
Evolutionary. I ran across someone talking about the biological part of evolution.

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 10:31 PM
It's hopeless. I must conclude that you really are simply incapable of understanding.
That showed me.

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 10:54 PM
Sure, you bet.
I didn't stay on the 4 basics thing. And there is no denying that I fought tooth and nail for it. You were about the fourth person to take a whack it. You drove me from one position into an even stronger one, showing me something I did not see. Teaching me is what you said you wanted to do.
You said that there are two basics, Bel says that there is one, and I assume that that one is addition. Wouldn't that be too limiting?

lightcreatedlife@hom
2nd January 2007, 11:10 PM
Nothing wrong with that.

But you said that me saying people are smart is appeasement? What do I gain?

RandFan
2nd January 2007, 11:14 PM
I didn't stay on the 4 basics thing. And there is no denying that I fought tooth and nail for it. You were about the fourth person to take a whack it. You drove me from one position into an even stronger one, showing me something I did not see. Teaching me is what you said you wanted to do.
You said that there are two basics, Bel says that there is one, and I assume that that one is addition. Wouldn't that be too limiting?

Alice was puzzled. `In OUR country,' she remarked, `there's only one day at a time.'

The Red Queen said, `That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now HERE, we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together--for warmth, you know.'

`Are five nights warmer than one night, then?' Alice ventured to ask.

`Five times as warm, of course.'

`But they should be five times as COLD, by the same rule--'

`Just so!' cried the Red Queen. `Five times as warm, AND five times as cold--just as I'm five times as rich as you are, AND five times as clever!'

Alice sighed and gave it up. `It's exactly like a riddle with no answer!' she thought.

--Alice Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carrol

Belz...
3rd January 2007, 05:36 AM
RandFan said that there was 2 and you didn't say anything to him.

Fine. I disagree, RandFan. Sheesh, Light. You like seeing agreement where there isn't.

Saying that there is one is like saying "everything is one."

No, we're simply saying that those four operations of math happen to be the result of one of them, namely addition. Haven't you been reading ? Oh, sorry. Silly question.

Science knows that the four forces are part of one force, but to explain the universe as we know it, they use four. The same thing applies to doing math.

Uh-huh. Only, they understand that there IS really just one.

I love the way you do this. You say "find the lie" right after doing it. You said you gave up, but you are still presenting a case for 1 basic math operation. Do you know what lying is?

Obviously, you don't. I haven't "presented a case". I've just been telling you how willingly ignorant you've been. As I've said, I'm not trying anymore.

You said I learned nothing, but when someone said I was using "allot" wrong, I from then on out used "a lot." Doesn't that make you a liar?

Nope. You're really bad at this "language" thing, aren't you ? Because unless you think I was claiming you never learned anything, even, which is obviously false since you learned how to use a computer, at one point, then you have no case.

And talking about logic, isn't it impossible for anyone to go 60 pages and not learn anything?

Very possible. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426)

That is also impossible. It can't mean anything I want

Of course it can. Since it has no meaning at all, you can add any meaning to it you see fit, as you've done in the last few posts of yours.

and the things there are in fact pairs. That is something I learned, so I changed my mind.

No, Light. You haven't changed anything, least of all your "graph".

As soon as possible.

Still waiting.

The soul never left.

That's what I thought. It would have been surprising if you had changed your mind about this. See ? This is what I was talking about.

And you don't know how happy I am that you are encouraged by what I said. Afterall, it implies that you have not given up as you said you did.

I'm starting to wonder if you're some sort of automated word processor. No one could be so bad at understanding simple sentences. Tell me, Light. What part of "you're going to bring back the soul sooner or later" (paraphrasing) constitutes an attempt by me to reason with you ?

I am not here to play the "lie game" with you.

No, you're trying to engage in an elaborate "to quoque" where you invent new meaning to words so you can say that I've lied. Of course, only YOU are convinced by this meaningless babbling of yours, and the fact that you know this to be false makes it... ANOTHER lie on your part.

Don't you want to quit ? I wonder if they make nicorette-style tabs for that.

I am gathering my forces so that I can answer (as best I can) the questions presented me, and I already have plenty.

Gathering your forces ? Hilarious. You've done nothing but regurgigate the same bs since page 1. You have no forces to gather, and you wouldn't know how to use them if you had.

Belz...
3rd January 2007, 05:45 AM
One should know. So far I have found nothing that is causing me distress.

That's why we've been using the term "willful ignorance".

The resemblance that I am talking about has to do with different stages of the same thing. Using the word "evil" in reference to a person, most of us would agree on what it looks like. Evil used in reference to an animal, maybe. In reference to insects and germs, it is their normal behavior. Once we move into the inorganic world, that is just what happens, but the use of the word there would say, "something like that."

That made no sense, whatsoever.

After seeing what you thought of them I knew you had a problem with them.

I repeat: WHERE did I say emotions don't exist ? Provide evidence or retract your claim, liar.

Emotion is not a capability,

So when someone says that "humans are capable of expressing emotions.." they are wrong?

People can sweat. Is sweat a capability ?

Particles do what they do due to external and internal energy influences, we do what we do due to external and internal energy influences, we call the internal ones emotions.

Wrong again. What were the odds ?

Religion got here first, created science (even while it suppressed knowledge) and is still here.

Religion created science. Well, apparently history's not your forté either.

Sorry, the only tendency I know of about energy is entropy. And that doesn't tend to create anything useful. Ever.

But life can make it one hell of a trip. And I do think that one of its missions is to keep it at bay.

Keep what at bay ? Entropy ? The thing nothing but life cares about ? Isn't that a tad circular ?

Life is mental/emotion, there is no getting around that.

Here's that invalid premise, now.

The negative positive thing, the 2 basic thing, the consciousness survival thing, are all things that I don't like. And sometimes the things I like are true.

Your graph is nonsense. You don't like it, but it's true.

Evolution. The pattern that has led us to seeing them.

Evolution's a pattern, now ? I thought it was regulated by natural selection. Oh, don't mind me, I'm just pointing out your ignorance.

Science says the whole drama has to do with the forces on a quest to develop complex patterns of matter, energy and information.

"Science" says no such thing.

I like that information part of the energy/matter equation that that book is talking about. It looks to me like it is linked to intelligence.

Yes, you "like" it, therefore you adopt it. Typical.

3) How does it follow that a design has a designer ?

It doesn't, taken by itself.

That's not what you said a few pages ago.

There is however those feelings, and the clear 50% chance.

50% ? Based on what ?

The feelings that have given us half our world. Reason has given us science, but emotions have given us society.

Er... no.

It is the threat of "affecting someone emotionally" that runs society. Reason is of course a big part, but they are blended. "Justice and mercy" is the motto of the court system.

:jaw-dropp

Belz...
3rd January 2007, 05:48 AM
That showed me.

It should've.

How does it say that it has to be conscious ?

It knows what it is doing.

Okay, next question, genius: how do you know that it knows what it's doing ?

But even if it wasn't conscious before, didn't we make it conscious? The process became aware of itself, and finds itself very interesting. How could it make such an outstanding choice without working towards that?

Slow down, bucko. What in the blue hell are you talking about, now ? How did who make what conscious ?

You know, the graph shows that the process didn't start conscious, it became conscious where they all met.

That graph shows a whole lot of things when YOU interpret it, doesn't it ?

Maybe you should show it to your local university and see what happens.

But you said that me saying people are smart is appeasement?

That's not what I said. Read it again.

bruto
3rd January 2007, 08:40 AM
ONe last time, Light: there is a huge, significant, important, vital, essential difference between resemblance and relationship. Scientists, among others, use and coin words for things, based on resemblance alone. The resemblance can often be far-fetched, vague, and even humorous. It is an intelligent and economical use of language for a species such as mankind, which is demonstrably good at perceiving resemblances and at conveying understanding through metaphor, analogy, simile, parallel and parable. Most people are comfortable with this idea. But implicit in this, and quite explicit in most fields such as science, engineering, philosophy and logic, is the caveat that words mean only and exclusively what they are explicitly defined to mean in the context in which they are used, and that those words will not, can not, and must not be construed as carrying with them any of the implications, connotations, denotations or emotional baggage that accrue from their other uses. The word "charm" in physics, for example, truly and explicitly and absolutely does not in any way suggest that the particles do or have anything that relates to "charm" in human affairs. The selection of terms for quarks in physics was made arbitrarily, as a way of making the distinctions easier to understand and organize, and is entirely the construct of the physicists who discovered and described the properties of particles. The charm of a quark has absolutely nothing to do with anything but quarks, just as the words "flavor" and "color" are arbitrarily applied, without any implication that there is a relationship between the flavor of a quark and the flavor of anything else, or any connection between the meaning of the word "flavor" when applied to quarks and the meaning of the word "flavor" when applied to anything else, including when applied to the physics and chemistry of "flavor" when that word is used to describe the action of substances on the perception of organisms when they put something in their mouths. The words are as separate and as unrelated as if they were entirely different words. To believe or assert that these words are meaningful beyond the meaning that was intentionally, explicitly, consciously (and often facetiously) assigned to them for the limited purpose of describing quarks is simply, fundamentally, wrong. It is an invention, without basis in history, fact, physics, ontology or logic, and it is a guarantee that ideas based on it will be foolish, erroneous, invented ideas. When an engineer describes a plug and socket as male and female, for another example, it is explicitly and absolutely to be understood that the term applies exclusively to the rather obvious resemblance, that one object protrudes, and is inserted into a corresponding hole. To read anything else into the terminology would be utter stupidity.

You continue to say you understand this, and virtually in the same sentence to demonstrate that you do not. If you cannot grasp that language is used to denote resemblance without any implication of actual relationship, you really cannot grasp anything at all. Your continued insistence that the common language of resemblance implies relationships, or even in some way creates them, is an obstinate and foolish error that leads to bad ideas, wrong conclusions, nonsense and gibberish.

RandFan
3rd January 2007, 09:20 AM
Fine. I disagree, RandFan. Sheesh, Light. You like seeing agreement where there isn't.I'm not dogmatic about how many opertions there are. The entire argument is hyper silly. Mathmatical operations are not divine laws that bind the universe and align the planets. Mathmatical operations are human constructs. We could have done everything with a single operation. -1 + 2 = 2 - 1. We have simply found that it is easier to perform mathmatical equations with multiple operations.

There is no reason to find any deep meaning to math beyond math being a useful tool to perform logical operations and perhaps a useful metaphor.

wollery
3rd January 2007, 09:34 AM
Thats' my point. They are using the best words possible. So when they say words like violates and captures, weak and strong, they are using them about the same way we do. The word "charmed" in reference to particles is used in reference to "luring." And before an example is given comparing a people and particles, I know particles don't use flowers and candy.Oh for freaking crap's sake! :nope:

The only particle which uses the name "charm" is one of the six quarks. It's name has absolutely nothing to do with being charming or "luring". From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark);

The names of quark flavours (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top) were also chosen arbitrarily based on the need to name them something that could be easily remembered and used.

The name "charm" was chosen because it's easy to remember. That's it. No deep meaning. No association to "luring". No association to anything. Just a memorable word.

So when someone says that "humans are capable of expressing emotions.." they are wrong?The "expressing" is what they are capable of. The emotions are there whether or not they can express them.

The resemblance that I am talking about has to do with different stages of the same thing. Using the word "evil" in reference to a person, most of us would agree on what it looks like. Evil used in reference to an animal, maybe. In reference to insects and germs, it is their normal behavior. Once we move into the inorganic world, that is just what happens, but the use of the word there would say, "something like that."This fails the Turing test! :rolleyes:


Yet more evidence of your total inability to understand physics, and your pathetic understanding of the English language.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 09:47 AM
You continue to say you understand this, and virtually in the same sentence to demonstrate that you do not. If you cannot grasp that language is used to denote resemblance without any implication of actual relationship, you really cannot grasp anything at all. Your continued insistence that the common language of resemblance implies relationships, or even in some way creates them, is an obstinate and foolish error that leads to bad ideas, wrong conclusions, nonsense and gibberish.

I said nothing about "flavors." Words like captured and violates are types of actions. Just like strong and weak. Something is stronger or weaker, no matter what it is. "Attraction," is something coming together, no matter what it is.
A person dies. An insect dies. The term becomes clouded when it is applied to cells, stars and something like fire, it goes off the chart when applied to cars, or a tv, but you know to expect that the thing is not working. When the word is applied to cells, stars or fire hwever, it has more of a chance (as definitions change, new information found) to have been applied right.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 10:10 AM
Oh for freaking crap's sake! :nope:

The only particle which uses the name "charm" is one of the six quarks. It's name has absolutely nothing to do with being charming or "luring". From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark);

Damn, I knew I should have looked. I erased that word months ago at the site.

.
The "expressing" is what they are capable of. The emotions are there whether or not they can express them.
Thats' what I am talking about. Life expresses what is already there. Life expresses what it is based on.


Yet more evidence of your total inability to understand physics, and your pathetic understanding of the English language.
Hey, I'm working on it.

Loss Leader
3rd January 2007, 10:25 AM
This fails the Turing test! :rolleyes:


Wouldn't it be phenominal if this entire thread turned out to be an experiment by students at the University of Chicago to see how long it takes us to realize we're not arguing with a sentient being?

At least then our time in this thread won't have been completely wasted.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 10:31 AM
I'm not dogmatic about how many opertions there are. The entire argument is hyper silly. Mathmatical operations are not divine laws that bind the universe and align the planets. Mathmatical operations are human constructs.
The math of the universe would be there (for any life to discover) with or without humans.
Math seems a natural result of the organized way the forces weaved the universe. However which way advanced lifeforms expressed the speed of light, it would still be the speed of light. Its not called the "universal language" for nothing. I hope.

Belz...
3rd January 2007, 10:32 AM
Hey, I'm working on it.

No, no you're not.

Belz...
3rd January 2007, 10:35 AM
The math of the universe would be there (for any life to discover) with or without humans.
Math seems a natural result of the organized way the forces weaved the universe. However which way advanced lifeforms expressed the speed of light, it would still be the speed of light. Its not called the "universal language" for nothing. I hope.

Yet another glaring, blinding example of your inability to understand just about anything. For the benefit of OTHER readers that may actually be interested in knowing why I said that: Mathematics is a HUMAN INVENTION. Ergo, it wouldn't exist without humans.

Thank you.

bruto
3rd January 2007, 01:35 PM
I said nothing about "flavors." Words like captured and violates are types of actions. Just like strong and weak. Something is stronger or weaker, no matter what it is. "Attraction," is something coming together, no matter what it is.
A person dies. An insect dies. The term becomes clouded when it is applied to cells, stars and something like fire, it goes off the chart when applied to cars, or a tv, but you know to expect that the thing is not working. When the word is applied to cells, stars or fire hwever, it has more of a chance (as definitions change, new information found) to have been applied right.

As always, denial, misunderstanding, nonsense and gibberish.

The term "die" is not in the least clouded when it applies to cells, stars and fire. It simply....means....something....ELSE!

A living thing dies: it ceases to be living. Death is the end of being alive.

A star dies: it ceases to be a star. Death is the end of being what qualifies as a star. Before it died, the star was never alive. Not even a little bit. Using the term "death" does not in any way imply that it was. The fact that we can define death as the end of life in biology is totally irrelevant to the usage of the word in astronomy, or anywhere else. What ceased when it died is not life. It is something else entirely.

The word in both senses describes processes which superficially resemble each other: in each case a thing ceases to perform its basic, defining function, and thus is no longer what it once was. It does not imply, in any way or fashion, not in the slightest, tiniest jot, tittle or iota, even the remotest suggestion that stars possess or partake of what we call "life" when we speak of organisms and their biology. There is no clouding of meaning here, no confusion, no overlap, no ontological gray area. Two separate things are being described using the same word. Discourse, both ordinary and scientific, abounds with such instances, where one word is used to convey ideas that bear a resemblance without a relationship. Confusion of resemblance and relationship turns your ideas to rubbish.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 06:23 PM
Yet another glaring, blinding example of your inability to understand just about anything. For the benefit of OTHER readers that may actually be interested in knowing why I said that: Mathematics is a HUMAN INVENTION. Ergo, it wouldn't exist without humans.

Thank you.
I'm trying to understand. I think you are saying that while the universe would have the same dimesions, without humans to calculate them, there would be no math.
I'm saying that advanced life on other planets would calculate about the same way though. And that is what I think is meant by the term "universal language.

RandFan
3rd January 2007, 07:00 PM
The math of the universe would be there (for any life to discover) with or without humans.
Math seems a natural result of the organized way the forces weaved the universe. However which way advanced lifeforms expressed the speed of light, it would still be the speed of light. Its not called the "universal language" for nothing. I hope.There is order in the universe. There are ratios and logic can be employed by any entity to perform mathmatical calculations. It's still something that humans constructed as a useful tool.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 07:11 PM
No, no you're not.
What do you know? I'm starting to get the impression that when some say "you are not learning anything," they mean "nothing they wanted me too." I have found reference to the use of the word "higher" in the same context that I used it, and I found some saying what I did about light. Some people here are now saying that emotions are part of lifes' basic program, even if they are useless and unimportant.
I had intended to do my research after this thread ended, but I think I will do it here. Front and center. Part of me wants to drown you in references. I am also open to a cease fire. A deal to end this thing. If that is really what the majority wants.

lightcreatedlife@hom
3rd January 2007, 09:00 PM
There is order in the universe. There are ratios and logic can be employed by any entity to perform mathmatical calculations. It's still something that humans constructed as a useful tool.The order of the process, influenced the ordered thinking of the product, forcing it to see patterns. It had no choice. The church could not stop science, learning is a basic part of the process.

RandFan
3rd January 2007, 11:56 PM
The order of the process, influenced the ordered thinking of the product, forcing it to see patterns. It had no choice. The church could not stop science, learning is a basic part of the process.Assuming this is all true, so what?

Belz...
4th January 2007, 05:25 AM
I'm saying that advanced life on other planets would calculate about the same way though. And that is what I think is meant by the term "universal language.

You're probably right about that.


If that is really what the majority wants.

Truth isn't a popularity contest.

What do you know? I'm starting to get the impression that when some say "you are not learning anything," they mean "nothing they wanted me too."

And that is why you don't learn.

lightcreatedlife@hom
4th January 2007, 05:38 PM
Truth isn't a popularity contest.
Don't I know it, about popularity, I'm working on getting as close as I can get to the truth.

And that is why you don't learn.
You might be right, because I don't get it.
Away, I found a reference that said: "It is possible to describe a biological system in terms of various types of flux or flow in the living cell. The flow of matter, the flow of energy, and the flow of information."

I seen somewhere else that the arrangement of atoms themselves stored, or conveyed information. It seems to me that way before the biological stage, the drive towards more and more complex systems of matter and energy, was information driven. Either the actions of the first two produced the third, or it came to be for the same reason (and at the same time) they did.

What looks like conscious workings, are purposeful actions. Actions that best accommodates the three flows that are mentioned above.

lightcreatedlife@hom
4th January 2007, 06:20 PM
Assuming this is all true, so what?
I was saying that the math of the universe ties it to the forces. Math resulted from how the universe works.

lightcreatedlife@hom
4th January 2007, 07:42 PM
No, we're simply saying that those four operations of math happen to be the result of one of them, namely addition. Haven't you been reading ? Oh, sorry. Silly question.

Uh-huh. Only, they understand that there IS really just one.

While there is one force (the same number religion says) four are recognized, and needed, to explain the universe at this time.



Obviously, you don't. I haven't "presented a case". I've just been telling you how willingly ignorant you've been. As I've said, I'm not trying anymore.
Isn't trying to convince me that I am ignorant, trying to change my mind? No wonder you are saying I'm learning not learning anything, look what you are trying to show me. You are trying something though, judging by how much you post.
Oh I get it, you were using absolute terms to get into my head, "blow me out the water." How did that go?

Nope. You're really bad at this "language" thing, aren't you ? Because unless you think I was claiming you never learned anything, even, which is obviously false since you learned how to use a computer, at one point, then you have no case.
That was a twist. You know that I am talking about this thread. You would have a case, if the example I gave weren't about this thread.


No, Light. You haven't changed anything, least of all your "graph".
You are saying that because I have not changed the graph, I have changed nothing?

Still waiting.
I can't help that.



No, you're trying to engage in an elaborate "to quoque" where you invent new meaning to words so you can say that I've lied. Of course, only YOU are convinced by this meaningless babbling of yours, and the fact that you know this to be false makes it... ANOTHER lie on your part.
So you see a lie plot? You keep tossing that salad, no, I am not going to add the dressing.


Gathering your forces ? Hilarious. You've done nothing but regurgigate the same bs since page 1. You have no forces to gather, and you wouldn't know how to use them if you had.
Driven by you, (my own ego) and intelligence as the focus of my argument, I could take six more months of this thread and read 5 books a month. My choose is retreat or reinforce, I haven't got the problem Bush does. I know you seen the classic movie "March of the Wooden Soldiers." That is how I felt when I went to the library. My card was so old it had to be thrown out, but I still felt at home.

Belz...
5th January 2007, 08:09 AM
Don't I know it, about popularity

Do you, now ?

Away, I found a reference that said: "It is possible to describe a biological system in terms of various types of flux or flow in the living cell. The flow of matter, the flow of energy, and the flow of information."

I can find references that say the Earth really is flat. Just because you can find it doesn't mean anything in reality.

What looks like conscious workings, are purposeful actions. Actions that best accommodates the three flows that are mentioned above.

Gibberish.

While there is one force (the same number religion says) four are recognized, and needed, to explain the universe at this time.

Perhaps, but how does that help you ?

Isn't trying to convince me that I am ignorant, trying to change my mind?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just saying it.

You are trying something though, judging by how much you post.

One of your least endearing qualities, Light : your inability to understand that other people's reactions around you may not have anything to do with you.

Oh I get it, you were using absolute terms to get into my head, "blow me out the water." How did that go?

Poorly, as you did not learn anything of importance.

You would have a case, if the example I gave weren't about this thread.

Fine, then stop twisting my words and adding some that I did not utter.

You are saying that because I have not changed the graph, I have changed nothing?

Your entire theory rests on that doodle of yours, and you have litterally refused to change it, instead changing your interpretation of it (which is ALREADY an interpretation), as though not changing your mind, ever, means you're right.

So you see a lie plot? You keep tossing that salad, no, I am not going to add the dressing.

A lie plot ? What the hell is that ? I'm simply saying that now you'll do anything to not admit defeat, no matter how far-fetched, dishonest or ridiculous the tactic.

Driven by you, (my own ego) and intelligence as the focus of my argument, I could take six more months of this thread and read 5 books a month.

It's amazing you retain so little of what you read, then.

lightcreatedlife@hom
6th January 2007, 08:53 AM
I can find references that say the Earth really is flat. Just because you can find it doesn't mean anything in reality.
I thought the idea was that there was nothing to support what I was saying? Goggle was discounted, and I went to something else.

Perhaps, but how does that help you ?
I am talking about the shape of things now and how they connect to one.


One of your least endearing qualities, Light : your inability to understand that other people's reactions around you may not have anything to do with you.


Poorly, as you did not learn anything of importance.
In your view. One of your endearing qualities is your inability to see its not all about what you think.


Fine, then stop twisting my words and adding some that I did not utter.
You do the same.


Your entire theory rests on that doodle of yours, and you have litterally refused to change it, instead changing your interpretation of it (which is ALREADY an interpretation), as though not changing your mind, ever, means you're right.
I'm to better understand it. Rand Fan questioned the four basics thing, not the related pair thing. I looked and saw nothing was four there, no change needed.


A lie plot ? What the hell is that ? I'm simply saying that now you'll do anything to not admit defeat, no matter how far-fetched, dishonest or ridiculous the tactic.
That is what you wish I am doing.

RandFan
6th January 2007, 09:03 AM
I was saying that the math of the universe ties it to the forces.I have no idea what this means. Math isn't a physical thing like space, time and puppies.

Math resulted from how the universe works.So what? This is not saying anything. Water is wet because that is how the universe works. Gravity resulted from how the universe works. Your statement is a worthless truism (an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion).

lightcreatedlife@hom
6th January 2007, 06:07 PM
I have no idea what this means. Math isn't a physical thing like space, time and puppies.

So what? This is not saying anything. Water is wet because that is how the universe works. Gravity resulted from how the universe works. Your statement is a worthless truism (an assertion that is so obvious as to add nothing to a discussion).
I wasn't claiming to have discovered anything special about math. "When I said something about the "math of the universe," someone implied it was simply an invention of ours alone.

lightcreatedlife@hom
6th January 2007, 10:48 PM
Religion created science. Well, apparently history's not your forté either.
Wasn't it people who believed in things they could not see, people who knew/felt their was a "divine plan," that started the search for one?


Keep what at bay ? Entropy ? The thing nothing but life cares about ? Isn't that a tad circular ?
And I think all life seeks to continue living, or keep entropy/death at bay. Humans are just much more imaginative/determined.


Your graph is nonsense. You don't like it, but it's true.
Now come on. "IF" it is nonsense, it is obvious that I don't think so.


Evolution's a pattern, now ? I thought it was regulated by natural selection.
The atomic structure has a pattern, and life is tied to it. The pattern is more and more complex forms of energy and matter.

Oh, don't mind me, I'm just pointing out your ignorance.
That or showing your own.


"Science" says no such thing.
Okay, people in science say so.


Yes, you "like" it, there t as important asfore you adopt it. Typical.
I would still have to defend it against people who don't.


That's not what you said a few pages ago.
I changed my mind. A designer is possible, but properties of the forces, and their interaction, seems to me to be all that was required.


50% ? Based on what ?
Emotions seeming to be just as important as reason.

RandFan
7th January 2007, 12:12 AM
I wasn't claiming to have discovered anything special about math. "When I said something about the "math of the universe," someone implied it was simply an invention of ours alone.As far as we know it is. But so what? It really doesn't matter.

Loss Leader
7th January 2007, 03:36 PM
Now come on. "IF" it is nonsense, it is obvious that I don't think so.

Oh, there's no "if" about it.

1. Your picture is not a graph - A graph shows how one variable changes in relation to a second variable. Your pictures do not do that, but are boxes within boxes, a useless shape for a graph.

2. Your picture is not a graph becuase it has no units - A graph shows information in a quantifiable manner. Without units, a graph is meaningless because the magnitude of the change cannot be understood.

3. Your picture shows certain pairs, but the relationship between the two items in each pair is not fixed. For some pairs, one item is the absense of the other. For some pairs, one item is force going in a different direction than the other. Some pairs show nothing but two words which have no relationship.

And that's just three.

lightcreatedlife@hom
8th January 2007, 11:01 AM
Oh, there's no "if" about it.

1. Your picture is not a graph - A graph shows how one variable changes in relation to a second variable. Your pictures do not do that, but are boxes within boxes, a useless shape for a graph.

The graph shows energy changing from one form to another.

2. Your picture is not a graph becuase it has no units - A graph shows information in a quantifiable manner. Without units, a graph is meaningless because the magnitude of the change cannot be understood.
Planet and star creating life can be understood, and so can life converting energy.

Your picture shows certain pairs, but the relationship between the two items in each pair is not fixed.
They don't have to be fixed, the life experience makes them work.



Some pairs show nothing but two words which have no relationship.
No relationship, none? There is an experience behind each of those words, an experience important enough, and real enough to be named.

And there are numbers associated with that graph, I am still working on what they mean.

lightcreatedlife@hom
8th January 2007, 11:13 AM
As far as we know it is. But so what? It really doesn't matter.
This is what I meant.


There is order in the universe. There are ratios and logic can be employed by any entity to perform mathmatical calculations.
It is a basic part of the universe. The order is a part of, and is there for all. And the odds are, we are not alone.

lightcreatedlife@hom
8th January 2007, 03:50 PM
1. Despite the fact that you claim that life behaves the way electromagnetism behaves, you also claim that life can choose not to because it is "more evolved." So, we cannot look at anything that humans do as proof or disproof of your ideas. If humans behave like light, you say that's proof. If they don't behave like light, you say that it is not disproof.
The doctor was talking about "animate" energy, but he went on to say that: "Everything that is alive is fashioned from the same varieties of atoms that form the inanimate world, and uses the same kinds of energy. A living planet or animal, or even a living molecule, differs from such non-living forms as stones and clouds mainly in having greater complexity of organization, and greater intergration of, and control over, the flow of energy and the placement of matter."

bruto
8th January 2007, 08:44 PM
The doctor was talking about "animate" energy, but he went on to say that: "Everything that is alive is fashioned from the same varieties of atoms that form the inanimate world, and uses the same kinds of energy. A living planet or animal, or even a living molecule, differs from such non-living forms as stones and clouds mainly in having greater complexity of organization, and greater intergration of, and control over, the flow of energy and the placement of matter."

So all the stuff that exists is made out of stuff, and ....newsflash: it behaves like stuff. The laws of stuff are the laws of everything that is made out of stuff. You could erase all the diagrams and the rest, and just write "stuff happens." It would add up to the same thing.

zizzybaluba
9th January 2007, 07:32 AM
And there are numbers associated with that graph, I am still working on what they mean.

Numbers? What numbers?
Where are they? Where did they come from?
Why have you not presented them before?

Belz...
9th January 2007, 08:10 AM
I thought the idea was that there was nothing to support what I was saying? Goggle was discounted, and I went to something else.

Sigh. "Google" wasn't discounted. You just don't know how to use it.

I am talking about the shape of things now and how they connect to one.

Again, how does that help you ?

In your view. One of your endearing qualities is your inability to see its not all about what you think.

An interesting assertion, considering how I keep saying that what I think is irrelevant. Again, you aren't paying attention, and you aren't learning.

You do the same.

Your tu quoque is of no use. Again: stop twisting my words to fit your views.

I'm to better understand it. Rand Fan questioned the four basics thing, not the related pair thing. I looked and saw nothing was four there, no change needed.

You're trying to understand YOUR OWN GRAPH better ? That doesn't bode well.

That is what you wish I am doing.

No, I wish you would debate honestly and be genuine about your desire to know the truth. Instead, you're just another woo-woo who's trying to preach his own brand of nonsense.

Wasn't it people who believed in things they could not see, people who knew/felt their was a "divine plan," that started the search for one?

Science isn't about the divine. It's about knowing how things work.

And I think all life seeks to continue living, or keep entropy/death at bay. Humans are just much more imaginative/determined.

Life seeks to do what life does. It doesn't "seek" anything in relation to entropy. Perhaps you could explain your point a little better, but then you can't.

"IF" it is nonsense, it is obvious that I don't think so.

Indeed. Detached from reality, you are.

Oh, don't mind me, I'm just pointing out your ignorance.

That or showing your own.

Here's that tu quoque, again. Is there any defense you can mount that doesn't involve accusing other people of having your own failings ?

50% ? Based on what ?

Emotions seeming to be just as important as reason.

So you make a fact-like claim based on appearances ?

Belz...
9th January 2007, 08:11 AM
The graph shows energy changing from one form to another.

Planet and star creating life can be understood, and so can life converting energy.

They don't have to be fixed, the life experience makes them work.

No relationship, none? There is an experience behind each of those words, an experience important enough, and real enough to be named.

And there are numbers associated with that graph, I am still working on what they mean.

That's the biggest pile of non-answers I've seen this month.

Are you sure you're not an automated e-mail program ? Like the ones we get when we e-mail Microsoft ?

Loss Leader
9th January 2007, 08:33 AM
The graph shows energy changing from one form to another.

Planet and star creating life can be understood, and so can life converting energy.

They don't have to be fixed, the life experience makes them work.


No relationship, none? There is an experience behind each of those words, an experience important enough, and real enough to be named.

And there are numbers associated with that graph, I am still working on what they mean.

Utter nonsense and in no way an answer to my objections.

lightcreatedlife@hom
9th January 2007, 09:45 PM
So all the stuff that exists is made out of stuff, and ....newsflash: it behaves like stuff. The laws of stuff are the laws of everything that is made out of stuff. You could erase all the diagrams and the rest, and just write "stuff happens." It would add up to the same thing.
You are right. Only, what I have said with that diagram is that "this stuff happens."

Numbers? What numbers?
Where are they? Where did they come from?
There are numbers, and they are quite invincible. Not because I made them, (that would be stupid) but because I could not have made them. They are, in part, the reason why I still have a smile on my face. I have independant supporting sources.
At that site, I have always said I had them.

Why have you not presented them before?
I have not used them because the graph ( or can I say diagram?) is doing fine. That, and the timing is not right.

Sigh. "Google" wasn't discounted. You just don't know how to use it.
says you.

Again, how does that help you ?
The diagram connects them.

An interesting assertion, considering how I keep saying that what I think is irrelevant. Again, you aren't paying attention, and you aren't learning.
Oh I am learning, even if I can't always put it into words. I know eventually I will though. The lazy part of me does not like you. The part that cannot turn down a challenge, does.

No, I wish you would debate honestly and be genuine about your desire to know the truth. Instead, you're just another woo-woo who's trying to preach his own brand of nonsense.
I am honest to the point where it is a character flaw. But I would not have it any other way. Shake me if you can, that is why I am here. Commercially, I am going to do okay, I don't need lies for that. Personally, I am not going to stand by something I don't believe, and I am not going believe something I can't stand by.
Science is the man. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But religion (representing the emotional half of the equation) has a role. They are speaking from the heart, which is not a very reliable place, but feelings do have a place.


You're trying to understand YOUR OWN GRAPH better ? That doesn't bode well.
I stumbled onto it, and learned after. You heard me. I'm surprised any of it fits.
Pairs are what it is though, not fours. Somebody here has said that you can get an idea in a dream, it would just be hard to call up sources to support it. Someone said I picked words and concepts that are vague, but I picked nothing. I used the terms that were already used, and put them in the relationships they already had.

Science isn't about the divine. It's about knowing how things work.
Knowing/thinking that there was a plan, led the charge. Just like that priest who everyone kept calling to ward off death, actually learned how, some becoming doctors.

Life seeks to do what life does. It doesn't "seek" anything in relation to entropy.
Entropy, would occur sooner if humans, and animals, did not work against it. Sick animals, and humans, do things they don't normally do to get well. Those things work against nature taking its natural course.

Perhaps you could explain your point a little better, but then you can't.
Yeah, you're probably right. I think it means the natural tendency for things to deteriorate.

Indeed. Detached from reality, you are.
Sometimes another part of the puzzle we call reality is just beyond what is currently thought.


Here's that tu quoque, again. Is there any defense you can mount that doesn't involve accusing other people of having your own failings ?
We are all human-even though some sometimes think I am a machine. Sometimes it is easier to see the faults in others.


So you make a fact-like claim based on appearances ?
Have you ever considered that the solar system resembles the atomic structure because they are both working from the same plan? Appearances are, for the most part, a pretty good clue.

wollery
10th January 2007, 12:07 PM
Have you ever considered that the solar system resembles the atomic structure because they are both working from the same plan?Except that the Solar System only vaguely resembles the highly simplified non-realistic two-dimensional version of atomic structure that gets taught to 11 & 12 year olds as a starter. It doesn't actually resemble the true physical appearance of an atom in any way shape or form.

Yet again displaying why your attempts to draw linguist parrallels between things are so pathetic.

zizzybaluba
10th January 2007, 12:25 PM
There are numbers, and they are quite invincible. Not because I made them, (that would be stupid) but because I could not have made them. They are, in part, the reason why I still have a smile on my face. I have independant supporting sources.
At that site, I have always said I had them.


So, what you're trying to say is you pulled some magic numbers out of your butt?


I have not used them because the graph ( or can I say diagram?) is doing fine. That, and the timing is not right.

Afraid we'll pick apart your "independant [sic] supporting sources", are you?

Loss Leader
10th January 2007, 03:11 PM
Have you ever considered that the solar system resembles the atomic structure because they are both working from the same plan? Appearances are, for the most part, a pretty good clue.

If appearances are, for the most part, a pretty good clue, you should have no problem agreeing that the solar system and atoms have nothing to do with each other.

1. The nucleus of an atom is made up of distinct protons and neurtons, there are many units of two different types of particle. The center of the solar system is one giant sun, one whole thing.

2. The planets in the solar system follow plodding 2-dimensional orbits all in one plane around the sun. The electrons around an atom, despite the models you saw in grade school, do not follow 2-D orbits. They can, at any given time be found ANYWHERE. In fact, it is impossible to know the exact location of an electron without stopping it and looking for it. There is a cloud of potential places the electron could be which might resemble a balloon, bell, doughnut, cylinder or many other things.

3. The solar system has lots of junk besides planets in orbit around the sun - asteroids, comets, planetoids, etc. An atom has only electrons.

4. The solar system is held together with gravity and obeys the laws of gravity. The nucleus holds the electrons of an atom with electricity, obeying an entirely different set of laws.

5. The solar system is not interactive with other solar systems. Atoms are highly interactive with other atoms, seeking to share electrons in order to create a neutral charge.

Once again, Light, you have equated two things because they seem on the surface and without research to be similar. However, the smallest amount of research would have shown that they were not in any way related. You should have learned about the subject before creating your conclusions.

This is exactly the same mistake you have made in all of your theorizing so far.

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 06:01 PM
Except that the Solar System only vaguely resembles the highly simplified non-realistic two-dimensional version of atomic structure that gets taught to 11 & 12 year olds as a starter. It doesn't actually resemble the true physical appearance of an atom in any way shape or form.
Yet again displaying why your attempts to draw linguist parrallels between things are so pathetic.

First, science don't know what the atomic world really looks like, so the resemblance could be closer.
Second, how we see the solar system is an illusion. Objects out there seem to be standing still, while they are really traveling at great speeds. Those speeds at the atomic level would resemble the model of the "electron cloud" about an atom.
Third, we know for a fact that what is happenning out there is related to the atomic structure. Just as we know that chemistry and biology is.
Just as I know that the actions of life is based on the actions, and the energies, that makes it up. The soul/programming/purpose of life is built around, and carried out through, energy.

bruto
10th January 2007, 06:51 PM
First, science don't know what the atomic world really looks like,nor do you.... so the resemblance could be closer.or of course less close, but who cares. It's a resemblance, not a relationship, right?
Second, how we see the solar system is an illusion. Objects out there seem to be standing still, while they are really traveling at great speeds.Wow! That's one of the silliest things you've said yet! Those speeds at the atomic level would resemble the model of the "electron cloud" about an atom.No they wouldn't. The speed of light is the speed of light at any level. Scientists can measure the speed at which the planets revolve around the sun, which is nowhere near the speed of light, and they can know and accurately predict their trajectory and their expected paths, and their mass, and many other things about the planets which in no way resemble the characteristics and behavior of electrons. In any case, the fact that the planets appear at a glance to be standing still because they are so far away that their motion is not easily detectable does not mean that there is something illusory or mysterious or unknowable about their motion. It simply means that they are so far away that their motion is hard to detect without effort. Apparent speed diminishes with distance. It's no mystery! It's common knowledge! It means nothing special about the nature of the universe! If you point a telescope at a planet, and watch it without moving the telescope, you will quickly perceive the relative motion between that planet and earth.
Third, we know for a fact that what is happenning out there is related to the atomic structure. Just as we know that chemistry and biology is.Of course, everything made of atoms relates in some way to the atoms it's made of. That does not mean that it behaves like an atom, or looks like an atom, or is somehow an analogue of an atom. That's just silly.
Just as I know that the actions of life is based on the actions, and the energies, that makes it up. an empty truism.... The soul/programming/purpose of life is built around, and carried out through, energy. You have given no evidence and no reason to suspect that there is any purpose or program to life or to anything else in the universe. There may well be, but you have not come close to proving, illustrating, defining, or describing it.

wollery
10th January 2007, 07:06 PM
First, science don't know what the atomic world really looks like,Yes, they do. Look up "scanning tunnelling microscope", you'll be amazed.

so the resemblance could be closer.It isn't.

Second, how we see the solar system is an illusion. Objects out there seem to be standing still, while they are really traveling at great speeds.They don't seem to be standing still. The word "planet" is Greek, and it means "wanderer". This is because they don't stay in the same place. And in astronomical terms the planets really aren't travelling very fast at all. Compared to electrons in orbit around a nucleus they practically are standing still.

ps, I should probably reiterate that I have a PhD in Astrophysics and I specialise in stellar dynamics.

Those speeds at the atomic level would resemble the model of the "electron cloud" about an atom.No. The speeds that the planets travel at aren't even ofthe same order of magnitude as the speeds of electrons around a nucleus.

Your comparison fails on so many levels that I hardly know where to start. Do you think that an electron takes several years to "orbit" its parent nucleus? Do you even know what speeds planets orbit the Sun at? Do you know at what speed electrons travel around the nucleus? Do you think the planets ever leave their orbital plane? Do you think that you have to stop a planet to measure its position or speed? Do solar systems exchange planets without damage to either star or any of the planets? Do solar systems use their planets to form bonds? Are all planets identical? Do electrons have satellite particles?

Third, we know for a fact that what is happenning out there is related to the atomic structure. Just as we know that chemistry and biology is.Related to, in as much as everything is made of atoms. Umm, except dark matter. And dark energy. Which make up the vast majority of the Universe. Other than that........

The macroscopic world does not behave in the same way as the microscopic world. Quantum mechanics follows a different set of laws.

Just as I know that the actions of life is based on the actions, and the energies, that makes it up.Back to 'stuff does stuff' I see.

The soul/programming/purpose of life is built around, and carried out through, energy.:nope:

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 07:10 PM
If appearances are, for the most part, a pretty good clue, you should have no problem agreeing that the solar system and atoms have nothing to do with each other.

1. The nucleus of an atom is made up of distinct protons and neurtons, there are many units of two different types of particle. The center of the solar system is one giant sun, one whole thing.

That is as we see it. Lets say an electron was "fired" at our solar system, what would happen if it split the sun? Now "fired at" would imply speeds greater than anything yet seen. Wouldn't the elements coming out from the sun behave like particles?

2. The planets in the solar system follow plodding 2-dimensional orbits all in one plane around the sun.
That is this system, and even it has a planet moving outside the plane of the others.

The electrons around an atom, despite the models you saw in grade school, do not follow 2-D orbits.
the donut shape might look like that.

They can, at any given time be found ANYWHERE. In fact, it is impossible to know the exact location of an electron without stopping it and looking for it.
The same would apply to an atomic size planet.


There is a cloud of potential places the electron could be which might resemble a balloon, bell, doughnut, cylinder or many other things.
Models of different systems.

3. The solar system has lots of junk besides planets in orbit around the sun - asteroids, comets, planetoids, etc. An atom has only electrons.
I can't get around that.


4. The solar system is held together with gravity and obeys the laws of gravity. The nucleus holds the electrons of an atom with electricity, obeying an entirely different set of laws.
Ain't gravity a mass thing? I have read it felt at the atomic level, but not a lot. I figured that had to do with mass.


5. The solar system is not interactive with other solar systems.
How do you know?

Atoms are highly interactive with other atoms, seeking to share electrons in order to create a neutral charge.
What is the overall charge of the solar system?


Once again, Light, you have equated two things because they seem on the surface and without research to be similar. However, the smallest amount of research would have shown that they were not in any way related. You should have learned about the subject before creating your conclusions.

This is exactly the same mistake you have made in all of your theorizing so far.
I never said that they were exactly the same. That we were living on electrons. I said a related pattern, you know, a step or two removed.

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 07:47 PM
nor do you....or of course less close, but who cares. It's a resemblance, not a relationship, right?
I said working from the same plan.

No they wouldn't. The speed of light is the speed of light at any level.
Wouldn't the speed of light "seem" to differ with distance?


Yes, they do. Look up "scanning tunnelling microscope", you'll be amazed.

They don't seem to be standing still. The word "planet" is Greek, and it means "wanderer". This is because they don't stay in the same place. And in astronomical terms the planets really aren't travelling very fast at all. Compared to electrons in orbit around a nucleus they practically are standing still.

ps, I should probably reiterate that I have a PhD in Astrophysics and I specialise in stellar dynamics.
I am sorry for sounding like I knew as much as any of you, but you know what I mean. A planet moving acaross the face of a telescope says nothing about its true speed. That same speed, whatever it is would be unmeasureable at the atomic level.

No. The speeds that the planets travel at aren't even ofthe same order of magnitude as the speeds of electrons around a nucleus.
I know you are right.


Your comparison fails on so many levels that I hardly know where to start. Do you think that an electron takes several years to "orbit" its parent nucleus? Do you even know what speeds planets orbit the Sun at? Do you know at what speed electrons travel around the nucleus? Do you think the planets ever leave their orbital plane? Do you think that you have to stop a planet to measure its position or speed? Do solar systems exchange planets without damage to either star or any of the planets? Do solar systems use their planets to form bonds? Are all planets identical? Do electrons have satellite particles?
You know very well that I was not implying any of this.


Related to, in as much as everything is made of atoms. Umm, except dark matter. And dark energy. Which make up the vast majority of the Universe. Other than that........
I wonder how much more complex all that space within atoms would be if we could get that view? Just wondering.


The macroscopic world does not behave in the same way as the microscopic world. Quantum mechanics follows a different set of laws.

Foster Zygote
10th January 2007, 08:06 PM
Your comparison fails on so many levels that I hardly know where to start. Do you think that an electron takes several years to "orbit" its parent nucleus? Do you even know what speeds planets orbit the Sun at? Do you know at what speed electrons travel around the nucleus? Do you think the planets ever leave their orbital plane? Do you think that you have to stop a planet to measure its position or speed? Do solar systems exchange planets without damage to either star or any of the planets? Do solar systems use their planets to form bonds? Are all planets identical? Do electrons have satellite particles?

It would really suck for us if planets could jump from one energy state to another.:rolleyes:

bruto
10th January 2007, 08:59 PM
I said working from the same plan.Working from the same plan implies a relationship, and of course it presupposes a plan. No relationship is evident here. The plan is complete conjecture on your part with nothing to corroborate it. A resemblance, and a mighty poor one at that, is all you have pointed to.

Wouldn't the speed of light "seem" to differ with distance? So what? This does not in any way change the fact that the motion of planets around the sun constitutes a poor analogy to the motion of electrons around a nucleus and demonstrates no common plan. One is not the macro of the other's micro. There's more to the difference than scale. Since I'm certainly no astrophysicist, I will happily defer to Wollery as far as detailed explanations are concerned.

A planet moving acaross the face of a telescope says nothing about its true speed. That same speed, whatever it is would be unmeasureable at the atomic level. Your original statement was that the planets appear not to move at all. It is abundantly obvious that with very little effort and very little equipment they do, in fact, appear to move. The movement of a planet across a telescope does indeed say something about its true speed if other parameters are known. Without scale, nothing can be measured well, and I have no doubt that it would be difficult to get an accurate measurement by timing the movement of a planet across such a small field, but it could be at least estimated if one knew the distance and the magnification, just as one can measure the speed of a moving vehicle from varying distances, even though the apparent speed differs in proportion to its apparent size and the apparent distance across which it moves. If you know how far away the planet is, and how much magnification your telescope produces, you can compute the distance the planet traverses when it passes from one edge to the opposite edge of the field. If you know the distance, and measure the time it takes, you can compute the speed within the limits of that mode of measurement. The fact that distant objects seem to move slowly does not in any way mean that they actually move faster when they are close. If the planets do not move at the speed of light when we observe them from afar, they do not move at the speed of light when we stand on them either.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by its being unmeasurable at the atomic level. It might be so in a practical sense, since atoms are so hard to perceive and to measure, but are you suggesting that the atoms in the planet are not moving across our field of view at any speed other than that of the planet itself? Are you suggesting that if we reduced the solar system to the size of an atom, or stood so far from it that it appeared at the scale an atom appears to us now, it would speed up? At any scale it would still take the earth a year to circle the sun, or it would not be an accurate model of the solar system. You could of course imagine a fake solar system that behaves like an atom when it's shrunk, but it would just be foolishness.

ETA: you wouldn't even need a telescope, I think. You could set up a hula hoop (or any frame) on a stand, and stand behind it, aligning it so that a planet's trajectory crosses the hoop's or a measured dimension of the frame. Carefully computing the distance of the planet and the distance you are standing from the frame, you could observe the planet passing through the field created by the hoop. The rest is arithmetic and trigonometry. You'd have to be patient and stand still for a while, but if you did the math right, you should be able to compute the planet's speed relative to the earth by timing how long it takes to pass from one side of the hoop to the other, with the naked eye. You'd need to know a bit more about the earth's speed and orbit to calculate how fast the planet is moving relative to the sun, but I don't think it would be impossible.

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 09:38 PM
Working from the same plan implies a relationship, and of course it presupposes a plan. No relationship is evident here. The plan is complete conjecture on your part with nothing to corroborate it. A resemblance, and a mighty poor one at that, is all you have pointed to. So what?
I think I have to look to the forces for the plan. They work on both levels, and seem part of one plan/effort. A plan that does not have to have been designed, but aquired one, through the forces interacting to form more complex forms of energy and matter.

This does not in any way change the fact that the motion of planets around the sun constitutes a poor analogy to the motion of electrons around a nucleus and demonstrates no common plan. One is not the macro of the other's micro.
You are right, It can't be.

Are you suggesting that if we reduced the solar system to the size of an atom, or stood so far from it that it appeared at the scale an atom appears to us now, it would speed up? At any scale it would still take the earth a year to circle the sun, or it would not be an accurate model of the solar system.
Sorry. You are right. I never considered that.

ETA: you wouldn't even need a telescope, I think. You could set up a hula hoop (or any frame) on a stand, and stand behind it, aligning it so that a planet's trajectory crosses the hoop's or a measured dimension of the frame. Carefully computing the distance of the planet and the distance you are standing from the frame, you could observe the planet passing through the field created by the hoop. The rest is arithmetic and trigonometry. You'd have to be patient and stand still for a while, but if you did the math right, you should be able to compute the planet's speed relative to the earth by timing how long it takes to pass from one side of the hoop to the other, with the naked eye. You'd need to know a bit more about the earth's speed and orbit to calculate how fast the planet is moving relative to the sun, but I don't think it would be impossible.It sounds good to me. I read where someone measured the circumference earth using the angle of the sun, and distance.

Loss Leader
10th January 2007, 09:40 PM
You know, I was ready to abandon this thread because nothing new was happening, Then Light went and kicked everything up to Stupid Level 6.

Light, why don't you just admit you made a poor analogy without research? Your responses to me were nothing short of idiotic.

That is as we see it. Lets say an electron was "fired" at our solar system, what would happen if it split the sun? Now "fired at" would imply speeds greater than anything yet seen. Wouldn't the elements coming out from the sun behave like particles?

This is absolute nonsense. I cannot fathom what you could possibly even mean. Elements behave like particles? I'll see if Wollery can decipher that into anything at all astrophysical. I'm guessing that you cannot split a sun apart like the nucleus of an atom because the sun is ONE THING and the nucleus of an atom is composed of 4, 12, 80 or more distinct things.

That is this system, and even it has a planet moving outside the plane of the others.

Our system has many objects that are not on the same plane as eight of our planets. But an atom has NO plane on which all, most or even some electrons reside. They can be anywhere at any moment in a cloud of potentialities - close to the nucleus, far away, out of one plane, anywhere. The earth cannot leave its plane. Understand this - it CANNOT. It is held there by Newtonian gravitational physics, a set of laws that do not apply to electrons.

The same would apply to an atomic size planet.

What the hell is an atomic size planet?

Ain't gravity a mass thing? I have read it felt at the atomic level, but not a lot. I figured that had to do with mass.

You are 100% wrong. The rules of gravity do not apply to electrons. If they did, all electrons would hang limply from their nuclei like a yo-yo on a string. Instead, as their name implies, electrons are governed by the laws of electricity.

What is the overall charge of the solar system?

As insane a question as has ever been asked.

I never said that they were exactly the same. That we were living on electrons. I said a related pattern, you know, a step or two removed.

Yes, this is LCL dodge Number #6: To the extent things are similar, it proves they are related; to the extent they are dissimilar, it doesn't disprove that they are related. And you dance around like this because the word "related" has no meaning except what you choose to imbue it with at the time.

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 09:44 PM
So, what you're trying to say is you pulled some magic numbers out of your butt?


Afraid we'll pick apart your "independant [sic] supporting sources", are you?
What part of "invincible" gave me away?

lightcreatedlife@hom
10th January 2007, 10:05 PM
You know, I was ready to abandon this thread because nothing new was happening, Then Light went and kicked everything up to Stupid Level 6.

Light, why don't you just admit you made a poor analogy without research? Your responses to me were nothing short of idiotic.

Oh my God. You are right. I can't keep that stuff up. I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

Does the universe have limits as to how fast something physical can go?
I know light is fastest, but what would happen if it was twice as fast?

Cosmo
10th January 2007, 10:43 PM
Oh my God. You are right. I can't keep that stuff up. I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

Does the universe have limits as to how fast something physical can go?
I know light is fastest, but what would happen if it was twice as fast?

Quoted for groundbreaking work in self-contradiction.

Solus
11th January 2007, 01:44 AM
Is it just or me or is LCL making less and less sense as this thread contiunes?
Two words: Atomic Planets:covereyes

Solus
11th January 2007, 01:57 AM
Oh my God. You are right. I can't keep that stuff up. I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

Does the universe have limits as to how fast something physical can go?
I know light is fastest, but what would happen if it was twice as fast?

Damn it, I know almost NOTHING about physics or advanced science but even I know this. I learned this early in junior highschool maybe even earlier. I used to dream of traveling to the stars but that damn speed of light is the limit. How can you not know that? :covereyes Children know better LCL seriously. They might know the why's of it but they know the fact.
Nothing travels faster than light, period. No if and or buts and it has been proven. LCL really, take some community college classes or something. Get some education for the love of god! You are never to old to go to college.

What's next are you going to tell me Napoleon was Russian and wanted to conquer America, But Julius Caesar and the Latin alliance were able to stop him? :covereyes

zizzybaluba
11th January 2007, 09:36 AM
What part of "invincible" gave me away?

Your numbers are only "invincible" while you keep them hidden; and even then, they are only invincible to you.

Your magic beans aren't going to grow into a stalk to the clouds, and they're probably too stale for chili.

lightcreatedlife@hom
11th January 2007, 04:28 PM
Damn it, I know almost NOTHING about physics or advanced science but even I know this. I learned this early in junior highschool maybe even earlier. I used to dream of traveling to the stars but that damn speed of light is the limit. How can you not know that? :covereyes Children know better LCL seriously. They might know the why's of it but they know the fact.
Nothing travels faster than light, period. No if and or buts and it has been proven. LCL really, take some community college classes or something. Get some education for the love of god! You are never to old to go to college.

What's next are you going to tell me Napoleon was Russian and wanted to conquer America, But Julius Caesar and the Latin alliance were able to stop him? :covereyes
I am glad I made your day about the sun splitting stuff. But you are "barking up the wrong tree." I know light is the fastest, I was asking
if its speed was the limit, and if so, why? I read somewhere that there was a mass/speed limit. I also think I heard that some subatomic particles seem to move faster than light.

lightcreatedlife@hom
11th January 2007, 04:36 PM
Your numbers are only "invincible" while you keep them hidden; and even then, they are only invincible to you.
I'll agree that you all give me reason to worry, but I don't think the numbers can't be stopped. When the time is right, you will see them.

Your magic beans aren't going to grow into a stalk to the clouds, and they're probably too stale for chili.
I already know that I can get to candy land. I want to get there for the right reasons.

zizzybaluba
11th January 2007, 05:26 PM
I'll agree that you all give me reason to worry, but I don't think the numbers can't be stopped. When the time is right, you will see them.

I already know that I can get to candy land. I want to get there for the right reasons.

If your numbers are so invincible, why not show them now? What's with this "when the time is right" nonsense? Everything else you've presented so far has been utterly wrongheaded and meaningless, why should your numbers be any different.

I'm going to wager a guess that your "invincible numbers" are the physical constants. Call it a hunch.

lightcreatedlife@hom
11th January 2007, 07:55 PM
If your numbers are so invincible, why not show them now? What's with this "when the time is right" nonsense? Everything else you've presented so far has been utterly wrongheaded and meaningless, why should your numbers be any different.

Two wrongs might make a right.

I'm going to wager a guess that your "invincible numbers" are the physical constants. Call it a hunch.
Nope.

bruto
11th January 2007, 08:47 PM
Two wrongs might make a right.



The master of logic struts his stuff.

Loss Leader
11th January 2007, 09:10 PM
Two wrongs might make a right.


Argument from blind luck.

Although, if he really retracted his inane solar system/atom thing, I'm at least mildly impressed. Will he notice that there's no difference between his solar system/atom analogy and his interstate highway/electrical circuit? One can only hope.

Belz...
12th January 2007, 10:12 AM
says you.

That's your defense ?

The diagram connects them.

Like this ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

Oh I am learning, even if I can't always put it into words. I know eventually I will though. The lazy part of me does not like you. The part that cannot turn down a challenge, does.

I'm wondering what the part of you that can't WIN a challenge thinks, though.

I am honest to the point where it is a character flaw.

HA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH! That's the funniest thing you've ever said. You've lied countless times on this thread, and you have the GULL to say that you're honest to a fault, ala Belz... ?

Don't make me laugh.

Personally, I am not going to stand by something I don't believe, and I am not going believe something I can't stand by.

Sounds circular, in its own twisted way.

Science is the man.

That is one of your many misconceptions.

There is no doubt in my mind about that. But religion (representing the emotional half of the equation) has a role.

Religion doesn't "represent" the emotional half. But I suppose you already knew that. You just like putting things together for no reason.

They are speaking from the heart, which is not a very reliable place, but feelings do have a place.

I assume you meant metaphorical heart.

I stumbled onto it, and learned after. You heard me. I'm surprised any of it fits.

You shouldn't be surprised: it DOESN'T fit.

Someone said I picked words and concepts that are vague, but I picked nothing. I used the terms that were already used, and put them in the relationships they already had.

See, that's what I mean when I say you don't learn anything of value.

Knowing/thinking that there was a plan, led the charge. Just like that priest who everyone kept calling to ward off death, actually learned how, some becoming doctors.

You know nothing of history as well. How surprising.

Entropy, would occur sooner if humans, and animals, did not work against it.

That's what I was trying to tell you. THEY DON'T.

Sick animals, and humans, do things they don't normally do to get well. Those things work against nature taking its natural course.

That's not entropy.

Sometimes another part of the puzzle we call reality is just beyond what is currently thought.

That's a nice line in a philosophy course, but in science it is worth nothing.

We are all human-even though some sometimes think I am a machine. Sometimes it is easier to see the faults in others.

Again, THAT's your defense ? You explain your logical fallacies by saying that everybody has them ? Effectively, ANOTHER tu quoque ?

Have you ever considered that the solar system resembles the atomic structure because they are both working from the same plan? Appearances are, for the most part, a pretty good clue.

That's circular reasoning. If you can tell me why, you get a gold star.

Belz...
12th January 2007, 10:25 AM
First, science don't know what the atomic world really looks like, so the resemblance could be closer.

I could be a multi-millionaire.

Now all I have to do is wait for that check to come in...

Second, how we see the solar system is an illusion.

That's an unscientific assertion if there ever was one. Is that the emotional half talking, Light ?

The same would apply to an atomic size planet.

It's amazing that you actually learned to spell your own name.

I can't get around that.

What a useless bunch of convenient drivel. You keep bringing up analogies that don't work, you say it "could" be different when called on it, when you can't get around a problem you say it can't be helped, as though it doesn't affect your analogy, and when all else fails you summon more obscure versions of arguments from popularity or ignorance, appeals to emotion or false equivocation. Then you say you understand other people's points, then come right back with those arguments a few days later.

You're the most ignorant person I've met, here.

What is the overall charge of the solar system?

What's the specific charge of a planet ?

I never said that they were exactly the same. That we were living on electrons. I said a related pattern, you know, a step or two removed.

Or a thousand.

Wouldn't the speed of light "seem" to differ with distance?

Nope.

That same speed, whatever it is would be unmeasureable at the atomic level.

Ridiculous. Of course it is. You just have to NOT want to know anything else about the particle.

Belz...
12th January 2007, 10:52 AM
First, science don't know what the atomic world really looks like, so the resemblance could be closer.

I could be a multi-millionaire.

Now all I have to do is wait for that check to come in...

Second, how we see the solar system is an illusion.

That's an unscientific assertion if there ever was one. Is that the emotional half talking, Light ?

The same would apply to an atomic size planet.

It's amazing that you actually learned to spell your own name.

I can't get around that.

What a useless bunch of convenient drivel. You keep bringing up analogies that don't work, you say it "could" be different when called on it, when you can't get around a problem you say it can't be helped, as though it doesn't affect your analogy, and when all else fails you summon more obscure versions of arguments from popularity or ignorance, appeals to emotion or false equivocation. Then you say you understand other people's points, then come right back with those arguments a few days later.

You're the most ignorant person I've met, here.

What is the overall charge of the solar system?

What's the specific charge of a planet ?

I never said that they were exactly the same. That we were living on electrons. I said a related pattern, you know, a step or two removed.

Or a thousand.

Wouldn't the speed of light "seem" to differ with distance?

Nope.

That same speed, whatever it is would be unmeasureable at the atomic level.

Ridiculous. Of course it is. You just have to NOT want to know anything else about the particle.

Belz...
12th January 2007, 10:55 AM
I know light is fastest, but what would happen if it was twice as fast?

How do you do it ? How do you keep contradicting yourself within a single sentence ?

I don't think the numbers can't be stopped. When the time is right, you will see them.

Christians have also been talking "when the time is right", for the last two millenia. In both cases, I can safely assume that it will never happen.

Two wrongs might make a right.

I think psychologists might actually be interested to know that we've just discovered a new level of stupid, here.

zizzybaluba
12th January 2007, 12:35 PM
Two wrongs might make a right.
Are you really so divorced from reality that you think that makes any sense?

Nope.

Well, I've heard of other nut-jobs finding supposed significance in the constants. I'm not convinced you know what the physical constants are though, so I'm still thinking they may be your magic "invincible numbers".

lightcreatedlife@hom
12th January 2007, 05:08 PM
How do you do it ? How do you keep contradicting yourself within a single sentence ?
What about the question? Can the universe stand an object moving faster than light? If light is the limit, why?

lightcreatedlife@hom
12th January 2007, 05:11 PM
Are you really so divorced from reality that you think that makes any sense?
You wish.


Well, I've heard of other nut-jobs finding supposed significance in the constants. I'm not convinced you know what the physical constants are though, so I'm still thinking they may be your magic "invincible numbers".
I'm going to take a look.

lightcreatedlife@hom
12th January 2007, 08:50 PM
Argument from blind luck.
It was a joke for Gods sake, which one of us is suppose to be the machine here? Oh, wait. The machine bit is a joke too. Someone earlier mentioned I was a auto-something...

Although, if he really retracted his inane solar system/atom thing, I'm at least mildly impressed. Will he notice that there's no difference between his solar system/atom analogy and his interstate highway/electrical circuit? One can only hope.
Highways do resemble energy paths, connecting energy centers. People ride them to and from doing work. Don't they?

I think I have to look to the forces for the plan. They work on both levels, and seem part of one plan/effort. A plan that does not have to have been designed, but aquired one, through the forces interacting to form more complex forms of energy and matter.

You are right, It can't be.

Sorry. You are right. I never considered that.


[quote=lightcreatedlife@hom;2247928]Oh my God. You are right. I can't keep that stuff up. I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

[quote=Belz...;2252245]I could be a multi-millionaire.


What a useless bunch of convenient drivel. You keep bringing up analogies that don't work, you say it "could" be different when called on it, when you can't get around a problem you say it can't be helped, as though it doesn't affect your analogy, and when all else fails you summon more obscure versions of arguments from popularity or ignorance, appeals to emotion or false equivocation. Then you say you understand other people's points, then come right back with those arguments a few days later.

You're the most ignorant person I've met, here.



What's the specific charge of a planet ?



Or a thousand.



Nope.



Ridiculous. Of course it is. You just have to NOT want to know anything else about the particle.

Ever heard the phase "beating a dead horse?" Feel better now.

lightcreatedlife@hom
12th January 2007, 09:29 PM
I'm wondering what the part of you that can't WIN a challenge thinks, though.
What part is that? You think I am losing? I just got my second wave of books: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, The Stuff of Life, Biology for Dummies (I could have left that one out, considering the target it offers, but that seems dishonest) and I finally found that book Into The Cool."
How can I be losing?


HA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH! That's the funniest thing you've ever said. You've lied countless times on this thread, and you have the GULL to say that you're honest to a fault, ala Belz... ?

Don't make me laugh.
See example above.


Religion doesn't "represent" the emotional half. But I suppose you already knew that. You just like putting things together for no reason.
What do you think drives religion, logic? Love, caring, helping, giving,.. it seems sought of a feeling thing.


I assume you meant metaphorical heart.
What do you think?


You shouldn't be surprised: it DOESN'T fit.

Says you.

You know nothing of history as well. How surprising.
Where do you see history saying they came from?


That's what I was trying to tell you. THEY DON'T.

Now wait a minute. You said that you had given up trying to change my mind? Would that count as trying? For someone who claims to have a nose for lies, you seem unable to smell your own breath.

Again, THAT's your defense ? You explain your logical fallacies by saying that everybody has them ? Effectively, ANOTHER tu quoque ?
IT seems you can point, but it is a sin if I do it.


That's not entropy.
I'll take a look.

Loss Leader
12th January 2007, 10:13 PM
.it seems sought of a feeling thing.


I thought we'd gotten through this. It's sort of, not "sought of." You had it right for a while now. What happened?

lightcreatedlife@hom
14th January 2007, 04:34 PM
I thought we'd gotten through this. It's sort of, not "sought of." You had it right for a while now. What happened?
I made a mistake.


Working from the same plan implies a relationship, and of course it presupposes a plan. No relationship is evident here. The plan is complete conjecture on your part with nothing to corroborate it. A resemblance, and a mighty poor one at that, is all you have pointed to.
Reading the workings of biology, I am seeing the plan/design/whatever working around, and through, attraction, repulsion, negative and positive. I know it is more complex than that, but they seem to be a base. Something like how north, south, east and west are essential to describing how to get around.

wollery
14th January 2007, 05:30 PM
Something like how north, south, east and west are essential to describing how to get around.Except that they aren't. I can give perfectly good clear directions on how to get around without ever once referring to (or even necessarily being aware of) which compass point my directions are sending people. North, East, South and West are convenient, but nowhere near essential.

bruto
14th January 2007, 10:24 PM
I made a mistake.


Reading the workings of biology, I am seeing the plan/design/whatever working around, and through, attraction, repulsion, negative and positive. I know it is more complex than that, but they seem to be a base. Something like how north, south, east and west are essential to describing how to get around.

North, south, east and west are not at all essential to describing anything, except in the sense that things are described that way by longstanding convention, so the directions constitute a shared vocabulary. We speak conventionally of the sun rising and setting, too, but this does not mean that it does. There is nothing at all essential, or ontologically necessary, or cosmically significant about these things. They are an artifact of human description, a convention of order imposed on the world, not built into the world. We could as easily have decided on 5 cardinal directions, or three. The choice of four cardinal points is entirely arbitrary, suiting the natural tendency of a bilaterally symmetrical being to think in terms of four directions on a plane. It is indeed convenient and useful to organize spatial information this way, which is why the convention has become universal. Nonetheless, what that says it says about us, not the world. I doubt this would be a good place to start arguing the philosophical finer points of nominalism versus realism, but for the purposes of this discussion and this subject, the world presents itself without order. There may be order underneath it all, and if you're very wise and very diligent, perhaps you'll be the one to find and prove it, but you will not find it in the arbitrary organization of conventional language.

Belz...
15th January 2007, 10:35 AM
What about the question? Can the universe stand an object moving faster than light? If light is the limit, why?

Ask a physicist, though I suspect the answer won't do you much good.

Ever heard the phase "beating a dead horse?" Feel better now.

You're a dead horse ?

That explains a lot.

I'm wondering what the part of you that can't WIN a challenge thinks, though.

What part is that?

That was my question, yes.

You think I am losing?

No. I think you lost on page 1.

How can I be losing?

Because books don't help when you can't read.

See example above.

Example or no, you're still a liar.

What do you think drives religion, logic?

Ignorance.

You shouldn't be surprised: it DOESN'T fit.

Says you.

Prove me wrong.

Where do you see history saying they came from?

That's what I said. You know nothing of history.

Now wait a minute. You said that you had given up trying to change my mind? Would that count as trying?

Nope.

For someone who claims to have a nose for lies, you seem unable to smell your own breath.

Well, that's ok, because you obviously don't know what a lie is.

IT seems you can point, but it is a sin if I do it.

No, a tu quoque fallacy is trying to seem more right by pointing out the fact that someone else does the same thing. Whether or NOT it's true, has no bearing on the actual point.

Belz...
15th January 2007, 10:36 AM
The plan is complete conjecture on your part with nothing to corroborate it.

Reading the workings of biology, I am seeing the plan/design/whatever working around, and through, attraction, repulsion, negative and positive.

Yes. You "see". That's what he meant by "conjecture".

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th January 2007, 12:32 PM
Except that they aren't. I can give perfectly good clear directions on how to get around without ever once referring to (or even necessarily being aware of) which compass point my directions are sending people. North, East, South and West are convenient, but nowhere near essential.
Fine. Can I say that they are necessary for the current established system? Oh. You are saying that what they were compared to are essential, so the comparison does not work. Fine.

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th January 2007, 01:03 PM
You're a dead horse ?

That explains a lot.
The point was dead. You sure you don't have a problem with understanding what you read?



That was my question, yes.
That part has not had a chance, or a reason, to develop.


No. I think you lost on page 1.
Wouldn't that depend on what I was looking for?


Because books don't help when you can't read.
Now here is a gem. You have decided that I am wrong no matter what I do. I feel sorry for you because you are in for a bad time.
And isn't that statement obviously false? Since you knew it was false when you said it, isn't that a lie?


That's what I said. You know nothing of history.
Since there is no counter to what I said, it seems you don't either. You only hope that I am like you.



No, a tu quoque fallacy is trying to seem more right by pointing out the fact that someone else does the same thing. Whether or NOT it's true, has no bearing on the actual point.
Once I pointed out to a friend that he was doing the same thing he accused me of doing, he said "I know, I was talking about you." So you, like him, are more concerned about "fixing" me, then yourself.

lightcreatedlife@hom
16th January 2007, 01:12 PM
North, south, east and west are not at all essential to describing anything, except in the sense that things are described that way by longstanding convention, so the directions constitute a shared vocabulary. We speak conventionally of the sun rising and setting, too, but this does not mean that it does. There is nothing at all essential, or ontologically necessary, or cosmically significant about these things. They are an artifact of human description, a convention of order imposed on the world, not built into the world. We could as easily have decided on 5 cardinal directions, or three. The choice of four cardinal points is entirely arbitrary, suiting the natural tendency of a bilaterally symmetrical being to think in terms of four directions on a plane. It is indeed convenient and useful to organize spatial information this way, which is why the convention has become universal. Nonetheless, what that says it says about us, not the world. I doubt this would be a good place to start arguing the philosophical finer points of nominalism versus realism, but for the purposes of this discussion and this subject, the world presents itself without order. There may be order underneath it all, and if you're very wise and very diligent, perhaps you'll be the one to find and prove it, but you will not find it in the arbitrary organization of conventional language.
You point about directions are fine, and you are probably right about the arbitrary thing as well, but you don't see order in how nature works? I thought the obvious order of nature spurred the search for the order undernearth?

Loss Leader
16th January 2007, 04:34 PM
I thought the obvious order of nature spurred the search for the order undernearth?

I would say that apparent disorder spurs more scientific inquiry than order.

It was the fact that the planets seemed to wander around the night sky rather than proceed in an orderly march across the heavens that caused astronomers to look for an explanation in the heliocentric model.

It was the fact that iron, unlike almost everything else, gets heavier after burning rather than lighter that caused chemists to look for the substance that turned out to be oxygen.

It was the fact that spectrographic analysis of the sun showed it was made of lead (a ridiculous result) that caused scientists to look for the element hydrogen.

It was the fact that the earth's age could not be reconciled with any two sets of data that caused great advances in geology, evolutionary biology and even nuclear physics.

So, once again, LCL, you have spoken without first doing any research and managed to get even the simplest facts dead wrong.

bruto
16th January 2007, 05:16 PM
You point about directions are fine, and you are probably right about the arbitrary thing as well, but you don't see order in how nature works? I thought the obvious order of nature spurred the search for the order undernearth?

If the order itself were obvious we wouldn't have to search for it, would we? Do not confuse the maps, filing systems, categories, names and taxonomies that people make up in the effort to organize their experience with the underlying order of the world. Although the possibility of a design or a designer or an underlying order might exist, the appearance of order does not imply this. We're right back to page one or so of this thread, and your argument from a suppressed premise. Unless you can prove that order can never arise without design or prior order, the appearance of order cannot be used to infer these things.

The appearance of order spurs the search, but the quarry has proven quite elusive.

Belz...
17th January 2007, 05:35 AM
The point was dead. You sure you don't have a problem with understanding what you read?

I'm sure even you will agree that it's difficult to understand something that wasn't said.

That part has not had a chance, or a reason, to develop.

Unfortunately, it seems. Most of us have the ability to self-criticise and change when proven wrong. I'm sorry to hear that you don't have that.

Wouldn't that depend on what I was looking for?

Does that mean you adbicate on the OP and are now looking for something else ? That would mean that this thread is over, and that you need to start a new one.

Now here is a gem. You have decided that I am wrong no matter what I do.

Coward and liar.

I feel sorry for you because you are in for a bad time.

I don't think my world-view has anything to fear from someone who can't even formulate his own.

And isn't that statement obviously false?

No. Books don't help when you can't read. It's a true statement. If you can't read, the only use a book could have is as a blunt instrument.

Since you knew it was false when you said it, isn't that a lie?

You really are grasping at straws, aren't you ? You're so incapable of finding a lie from me that you're doing everything in your power to invent one (which, by the way, is also dishonest.) My previous point about you not knowing what a lie is is apparently true, as well, as you keep asking me if this or that is a lie.

Since there is no counter to what I said, it seems you don't either. You only hope that I am like you.

And yet another tu quoque. Boy this just doesn't stop, does it ?

All I have been saying is that emotions aren't the source of religion, per se. In fact, religion was very much the smart thing to do, as it allowed an elite of people with no relevant expertise to control the masses through their ignorance. Religion stems in lack of knowledge, not wealth of emotion.

Once I pointed out to a friend that he was doing the same thing he accused me of doing, he said "I know, I was talking about you." So you, like him, are more concerned about "fixing" me, then yourself.

Non sequitur.

Solus
19th January 2007, 10:59 AM
I wonder how long it will take for this become a 10,000 page thread? Don't give up LCL! if you keep banging your head into that steel wall something's going to break.
:dl:

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th January 2007, 11:20 AM
If the order itself were obvious we wouldn't have to search for it, would we?
The order of the universe is obvious. The search is for the underlying order. You know. The unity formula and stuff.

confuse the maps, filing systems, categories, names and taxonomies that people make up in the effort to organize their experience with the underlying order of the world.
I'm talking about the natural order.

Although the possibility of a design or a designer or an underlying order might exist, the appearance of order does not imply this.
Fine, but science believes it enough to be looking very hard.

We're right back to page one or so of this thread, and your argument from a suppressed premise. Unless you can prove that order can never arise without design or prior order, the appearance of order cannot be used to infer these things.
How can I prove that? How can anyone?

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th January 2007, 11:50 AM
I would say that apparent disorder spurs more scientific inquiry than order.
That is one way of looking at it. Not the only way, but a way.


It was the fact that the planets seemed to wander around the night sky rather than proceed in an orderly march across the heavens that caused astronomers to look for an explanation in the heliocentric model.

It was the fact that iron, unlike almost everything else, gets heavier after burning rather than lighter that caused chemists to look for the substance that turned out to be oxygen.

It was the fact that spectrographic analysis of the sun showed it was made of lead (a ridiculous result) that caused scientists to look for the element hydrogen.

It was the fact that the earth's age could not be reconciled with any two sets of data that caused great advances in geology, evolutionary biology and even nuclear physics.
All these examples are to complex for the natural order I was talking about. I meant things like the seasons, the motions of the sun and the moon, aging, etc.



So, once again, LCL, you have spoken without first doing any research and managed to get even the simplest facts dead wrong.
From your view, I guess I did.

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th January 2007, 01:21 PM
I'm sure even you will agree that it's difficult to understand something that wasn't said.
Does that mean that you are saying that you did not actually say it, you just implied it?


Unfortunately, it seems. Most of us have the ability to self-criticise and change when proven wrong. I'm sorry to hear that you don't have that.
Sure I do. I said I was wrong about that four basics of math thing. I fought for it, lost, and learned from it. Part of the problem with me changing that diagram (I will call it that because It has been proven not to be-for now) because of nature of what is there. I put those things in relation to each and the relationship fits a lot of what is commonly thought.

Does that mean you adbicate on the OP and are now looking for something else ?
Perhaps. I am looking at the constants as being part of the programming behind how the universe turned out.
That even if there was no programming to start, that the 4 forces developed a way to work together. A workings that could appear conscious, or the work of consciousness.
That their aim was creating more and more complex forms of energy, matter and information.
That light is the force most connected to the creation of life.
That conscious energy, or a spirit, is the best outcome of the aim to create the most complex form of energy, matter, and information.


[quote]That would mean that this thread is over, and that you need to start a new one.
That might be a good idea.

bruto
20th January 2007, 03:51 PM
How can I prove that? How can anyone? You can't. And because you can't, you can't make the logical leap that says the appearance of order implies a designer. You may still find your design and your designer somehow and somewhere, but you cannot find it by deducing it from the appearance of order. That is argument from a suppressed premise, a classic textbook example of it in fact, and it is logically permissible only if you can cough up the premise on demand, which, as you so rightly state, you, like all the rest of us, cannot.

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th January 2007, 06:18 PM
You can't. And because you can't, you can't make the logical leap that says the appearance of order implies a designer. You may still find your design and your designer somehow and somewhere, but you cannot find it by deducing it from the appearance of order.

Like I said, While I understand why science has to have the stance it does, there is another side. It seems reasonable that there is room for a "felt" connection. Afterall, we are connected. It fits that we feel more then we understand. That may always be the case. But when religion talked/talks about God, and the spirit world, they do look to be describing energy. And why not, to both science and religion it is, and was, "the unseen force" behind everything.

lightcreatedlife@hom
20th January 2007, 07:08 PM
You can't. And because you can't, you can't make the logical leap that says the appearance of order implies a designer. You may still find your design and your designer somehow and somewhere, but you cannot find it by deducing it from the appearance of order.

Like I said, While I understand why science has to have the stance it does, there is another side. It seems reasonable that there is room for a felt connection. Afterall, we are connected. It fits that we feel more then we understand. That may always be the case. But when religion talks about God, and the spirit world, they do look to be describing energy. To both science and religion energy is "the unseen force" behind everything.

bruto
20th January 2007, 08:14 PM
Like I said, While I understand why science has to have the stance it does, there is another side. It seems reasonable that there is room for a felt connection. Afterall, we are connected. It fits that we feel more then we understand. That may always be the case. But when religion talks about God, and the spirit world, they do look to be describing energy. To both science and religion energy is "the unseen force" behind everything.

If you can say that I think you mistake not only what energy means in science, but what God means in religion.

IN any case, if you concede that what you're talking about is "another side" from science, then it's not science. It's metaphysical speculation. Metaphysical speculation is fine, but it isn't science. It isn't even close.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st January 2007, 07:10 PM
If you can say that I think you mistake not only what energy means in science, but what God means in religion.
Religion is about a force, (or forces) that are responsible for all there is, and all there will ever be, so is science. Energy is the results of the interactions of those forces.
Religion talks about the beauty in the design of life, and science expects to find elegence in its unity formula.

case, if you concede that what you're talking about is "another side" from science, then it's not science. It's metaphysical speculation. Metaphysical speculation is fine, but it isn't science. It isn't even close.Someone here talked about how everything that could be studied was science. I understand that science has to protect itself from emotions, but in doing so, doesn't it limit itself to only part of the picture?

Belz...
22nd January 2007, 08:15 AM
The order of the universe is obvious.

Is it ?

All these examples are to complex for the natural order I was talking about. I meant things like the seasons, the motions of the sun and the moon, aging, etc.

Seasons... ?

Does that mean that you are saying that you did not actually say it, you just implied it?

We were talking about you, you dolt. Pay attention.

Unfortunately, it seems. Most of us have the ability to self-criticise and change when proven wrong. I'm sorry to hear that you don't have that.

Sure I do.

Well we have no evidence of that.

I said I was wrong about that four basics of math thing.

I don't call changing from one wrong belief system to another "self-criticism".

I put those things in relation to each and the relationship fits a lot of what is commonly thought.

It's a darn good thing that common thought doesn't have an effect on reality.

I am looking at the constants as being part of the programming behind how the universe turned out.

Preconceived conclusion.

That light is the force most connected to the creation of life.

Self-criticism.

Loss Leader
22nd January 2007, 08:23 AM
Energy is the results of the interactions of those forces.

I defy you to find one single physicist on the entire planet who agrees that this is the definition of energy.

After all this time, you still do not have even a basic understanding of what the word "energy" means.

Loss Leader
22nd January 2007, 08:46 AM
Perhaps. I am looking at the constants as being part of the programming behind how the universe turned out.

I can't disagree with you ... because your statement is a tautology. The physical laws of the universe are by definition elements of the manner in which the universe works.

That even if there was no programming to start, that the 4 forces developed a way to work together.

This makes no sense. Since physical forces have no brains, no desires, no conscious thoughts, they could not "develop" a way to work together any more than red paint and yellow paint can "agree" to be orange. They work in combination because that is the way they work when combined.

A workings that could appear conscious, or the work of consciousness.

Actually, it is quite apparant that physical forces have no conscious will. They cannot choose to work or decide not to. They always work in exactly the same way in each and every instance.

If you meant to say that their workings are so beneficial to life on earth that there is just no way they could have arisen accidentally, I would remind you that life formed under these laws and was always constrained to behavior that was consistent with them. It would be like wine marveling at the fact that the glass it sits in just happened to be formed in the perfect shape to hold the wine. The wine molded itself to the shape of the glass, not the other way around.


That their aim was creating more and more complex forms of energy, matter and information.

This statement lacks any validity whatsoever. If the underlying laws that govern the universe cannot have thoughts, they certainly cannot have goals and desires. There is zero evidence that "gravity" is alive. There is no mechanism by which it could be alive or could form thoughts. It's a rule like the speed limit, not a coherent thing like the cop who pulls you over.

That light is the force most connected to the creation of life.

This is a bizzare leap. Even if everything you have said before is true - even if the strong nuclear force is alive and has dreams and ambitions - there is no reason to single out light as "the most connected" to life. Light isn't even really a distinct force, it's just a small portion of possible values of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, there is no great consensus on where on the specturm "light" begins and ends. Some animals can see into the ultraviolet, and we can even see using x-rays.

That conscious energy, or a spirit, is the best outcome of the aim to create the most complex form of energy, matter, and information.

Utter gibberish. Even assuming that everything else you have said is true (a big assumption), there is no reason to believe that light is working to create a living spirit that does not exist until it comes into being in a physical person and then somehow continues after the physical death of the brain. Light's ultimate aim could be to get McDonald's to bring back the McRib sandwich. It could be to engineer a Friends reunion. What evidence do you have that, even if light created life, it is working to create an eternal soul?

Belz...
22nd January 2007, 10:02 AM
Like I said, While I understand why science has to have the stance it does, there is another side. It seems reasonable that there is room for a "felt" connection. Afterall, we are connected.

Only in the broadest, most useless definition of the word.

Religion is about a force, (or forces) that are responsible for all there is, and all there will ever be, so is science. Energy is the results of the interactions of those forces.

Gosh, you don't understand religion, either.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd January 2007, 03:04 PM
I defy you to find one single physicist on the entire planet who agrees that this is the definition of energy.
I thought energy was the ability to cause change? The forces interacting has to change something.

This makes no sense. Since physical forces have no brains, no desires, no conscious thoughts, they could not "develop" a way to work together any more than red paint and yellow paint can "agree" to be orange. They work in combination because that is the way they work when combined.
If how the forces work was programmed into them, they would not need brains. They would just work the way they were designed too.
What I was attempting to do was move away from the forces being developed by a consciousness. Otherwise, four forces resulted from the big bang that (lucky) had properties that allowed for all there is. But even that is fine with me. Whether or not the process was started by a consciousness, or whether it developed consciousness (or a method of working together) it became conscious (aware of it self) through life, humans in particular.

Actually, it is quite apparant that physical forces have no conscious will. They cannot choose to work or decide not to. They always work in exactly the same way in each and every instance.
So they are not conscious. Orderly workings is not enough because that does not show freewill.

If you meant to say that their workings are so beneficial to life on earth that there is just no way they could have arisen accidentally, I would remind you that life formed under these laws and was always constrained to behavior that was consistent with them. It would be like wine marveling at the fact that the glass it sits in just happened to be formed in the perfect shape to hold the wine. The wine molded itself to the shape of the glass, not the other way around.
I am saying that life is/was the next step in the process, however that process came about. And yes, the product of the process (life) is now able to ponder the glass that holds it.



This statement lacks any validity whatsoever. If the underlying laws that govern the universe cannot have thoughts, they certainly cannot have goals and desires. There is zero evidence that "gravity" is alive. There is no mechanism by which it could be alive or could form thoughts. It's a rule like the speed limit, not a coherent thing like the cop who pulls you over.
The process that they are involved in has a direction. There is room (I think) for the enitre process to be alive, with its individual parts not readily being reccognize as so, but there is no way I am saying anything like that. Light does not have to be alive, or conscious, to play the biggest role in creating life.

This is a bizzare leap. Even if everything you have said before is true - even if the strong nuclear force is alive and has dreams and ambitions - there is no reason to single out light as "the most connected" to life.
I have recently given references as to why I said that, I am saying the same thing, for the same reasons, that they are.

Light isn't even really a distinct force, it's just a small portion of possible values of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, there is no great consensus on where on the specturm "light" begins and ends. Some animals can see into the ultraviolet, and we can even see using x-rays.
The electromagnetic spectrum can just as easily be called the "light spectrum." Nowhere here have I been talking about light as just the visible part of the spectrum.


Utter gibberish. Even assuming that everything else you have said is true (a big assumption), there is no reason to believe that light is working to create a living spirit that does not exist until it comes into being in a physical person and then somehow continues after the physical death of the brain.
Even if it was not planned, a spirit would still be the best outcome. If the spirit survived, it would neatly complete the picture. The process would become conscious of itself, and in the process produce the best means for the most complex form of energy, matter and information. eneryg that "knows" would be much more potent than energy that doesn't.
How a spirit would survives is a problem. But among the first steps on the path to seeing/sensing one would be to realize that it would not have human form as often thought, and it would be very small.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd January 2007, 04:21 PM
I defy you to find one single physicist on the entire planet who agrees that this is the definition of energy.
I thought energy was the ability to cause change? The forces interacting has to change something.

This makes no sense. Since physical forces have no brains, no desires, no conscious thoughts, they could not "develop" a way to work together any more than red paint and yellow paint can "agree" to be orange. They work in combination because that is the way they work when combined.
If how the forces work was programmed into them, they would not need brains. They would just work the way they were designed too.
What I was attempting to do was move away from the forces being developed by a consciousness. Otherwise, four forces resulted from the big bang that (lucky) had properties that allowed for all there is. But even that is fine with me. Whether or not the process was started by a consciousness, or whether it developed consciousness (or a method of working together) it became conscious (aware of it self) through life, humans in particular.

Actually, it is quite apparant that physical forces have no conscious will. They cannot choose to work or decide not to. They always work in exactly the same way in each and every instance.
So they are not conscious. Orderly workings is not enough because that does not show freewill.

If you meant to say that their workings are so beneficial to life on earth that there is just no way they could have arisen accidentally, I would remind you that life formed under these laws and was always constrained to behavior that was consistent with them. It would be like wine marveling at the fact that the glass it sits in just happened to be formed in the perfect shape to hold the wine. The wine molded itself to the shape of the glass, not the other way around.
I am saying that life is/was the next step in the process, however that process came about. And yes, the product of the process (life) is now able to ponder the glass that holds it.



This statement lacks any validity whatsoever. If the underlying laws that govern the universe cannot have thoughts, they certainly cannot have goals and desires. There is zero evidence that "gravity" is alive. There is no mechanism by which it could be alive or could form thoughts. It's a rule like the speed limit, not a coherent thing like the cop who pulls you over.
The process that they are involved in has a direction. There is room (I think) for the enitre process to be alive, with its individual parts not readily being reccognize as so, but there is no way I am saying anything like that. Light does not have to be alive, or conscious, to play the biggest role in creating life.

This is a bizzare leap. Even if everything you have said before is true - even if the strong nuclear force is alive and has dreams and ambitions - there is no reason to single out light as "the most connected" to life.
I have recently given references as to why I said that, I am saying the same thing, for the same reasons, that they are.

Light isn't even really a distinct force, it's just a small portion of possible values of electromagnetic radiation. In fact, there is no great consensus on where on the specturm "light" begins and ends. Some animals can see into the ultraviolet, and we can even see using x-rays.
The electromagnetic spectrum can just as easily be called the "light sprectrum." Nowhere here have I been talking about light as just the visible part of the spectrum.


Utter gibberish. Even assuming that everything else you have said is true (a big assumption), there is no reason to believe that light is working to create a living spirit that does not exist until it comes into being in a physical person and then somehow continues after the physical death of the brain.
Even if it was not planned, a spirit would be the best outcome. If the spirit survived, it would neatly complete the picture. The process would become conscious of itself, and in the process produce the best means for the most complex form of energy, matter and information.
How a spirit would survives is a problem. But among the first steps on the path to seeing/sensing one would be to realize that it would not have human form as often thought, and it would be very small.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd January 2007, 05:04 PM
I defy you to find one single physicist on the entire planet who agrees that this is the definition of energy.
I got some here saying that "Energy is involved whenever something can be made to do work. Electricity can be made to do work, so it contains energy: so can the earth's gravitional attraction: so can light, or sound, or gasoline, or orange juice."

Cosmo
23rd January 2007, 05:06 PM
The electromagnetic spectrum can just as easily be called the "light sprectrum." Nowhere here have I been talking about light as just the visible part of the spectrum.

Completely incorrect. PLEASE go look up "electromagnetic spectrum" and "light".

Solus
23rd January 2007, 05:54 PM
The electromagnetic spectrum can just as easily be called the "light sprectrum." Nowhere here have I been talking about light as just the visible part of the spectrum.

Completely incorrect. PLEASE go look up "electromagnetic spectrum" and "light".

Don't you know by now LCL has own definitions for everything.:p It doesn't matter what one textbook or one hundred textbooks say. LCL's definition is the only correct one. UNLESS the information agrees with LCL's definition then and only then is the information correct.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd January 2007, 07:51 PM
Don't you know by now LCL has own definitions for everything.:p It doesn't matter what one textbook or one hundred textbooks say. LCL's definition is the only correct one. UNLESS the information agrees with LCL's definition then and only then is the information correct.
To you everything I do is wrong. References, or not, troll or not, crazy or not, in this section of this forum or not, and it seems likely, this thread or not. I'm okay with all of that-it makes me feel special.
As for what I said about light, how many references do I need to hold a position? The book "On the Surface of Things" says: "light is the substantial foundation of our world. The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light, both the colors we see and the forms of electromagnetic radiation that we usually do not think of as "light" -radiowaves, heat, ultraviolet light, and X-rays. We see with light; it is the air perception breathes. We communicate and measure with light, we use light to talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter."

I have seen plenty more references just like this one, that is where I got the idea. If I am as wrong as has been said, I owe it to myself to fix it.
I have offered to end this thread though, if that is the popular opinion. Of course you must understand, your vote don't count. As for my part, since I am on a real study path, I would be doing research anyway, and I am finding support for what I have been saying.
The author of Biology for Dummies says "Closer to home, bacteria and higher lifeforms-like humans-have forged a number of mutually benefical relationships." She was tallking biology and that "food chain thing" in the same way I was.

Cosmo
23rd January 2007, 08:23 PM
To you everything I do is wrong. References, or not, troll or not, crazy or not, in this section of this forum or not, and it seems likely, this thread or not. I'm okay with all of that-it makes me feel special.

Well, isn't that special? :rolleyes:

As for what I said about light, how many references do I need to hold a position?

Zero, as you have so well demonstrated in the past.

The book "On the Surface of Things" says: "light is the substantial foundation of our world. The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light, both the colors we see and the forms of electromagnetic radiation that we usually do not think of as "light"

Why is light in quotes here? That usually signifies an alternate meaning.

-radiowaves, heat, ultraviolet light, and X-rays. We see with light; it is the air perception breathes. We communicate and measure with light, we use light to talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter."

Anthropocentric fallacy.

I have offered to end this thread though, if that is the popular opinion. Of course you must understand, your vote don't count.

So you'll end the thread if that is the popular opinion, but at the same time you say that the popular opinion doesn't count. Two sentences, at least one self-contradiction. :rolleyes:

The author of Biology for Dummies says "Closer to home, bacteria and higher lifeforms-like humans-have forged a number of mutually benefical relationships." She was tallking biology and that "food chain thing" in the same way I was.

This is relevant to what, exactly?

Loss Leader
23rd January 2007, 08:37 PM
The book "On the Surface of Things" says: "light is the substantial foundation of our world. The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light, both the colors we see and the forms of electromagnetic radiation that we usually do not think of as "light" -radiowaves, heat, ultraviolet light, and X-rays. We see with light; it is the air perception breathes. We communicate and measure with light, we use light to talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter."

LCL, I shudder when I read this quote because at the same time as it is 100% correct, I know that you have 100% misunderstood it.

The author is, of course, right. The sun is the engine that drives the world and it does so by exporting a vast amount of light - plants literally turn light into physical calories which feed herbivores and, in turn, carnivores. The atmosphere turns light into heat which keeps water liquid and wind blowing. It is a very important substance.

However, you demand to go one, two, even ten steps further. You think that the way light behaves somehow is mirrored by the way matter behaves. That is absolutely not true. Cars moving on a highway have nothing to do with electricity moving through a circuit. Attraction and repulsion in magnetism have absolutely nothing to do with how men and women relate to each other. There is no mechanism by which magnetism could manifest itself in the animal world.

And, of course, light can be essential for life on earth without ever being alive. It does not think. It does not want. There is no mechanism by which it could think. There is no neural network. It just behaves according to fixed physical laws every time without fail. And, while it is lucky for us that those laws allow for our existence, it is nothing but luck. It did not have to be that way and the fact that it is that way is proof of nothing.

Your quote does not help your case at all. In the end, all you have is a bad analogy that does not work. Nothing in these books will ever change that.

wollery
23rd January 2007, 08:57 PM
Yep, he's still entirely missed the point of the anthropic principle. :oldroll:

Belz...
24th January 2007, 08:10 AM
There is room (I think) for the enitre process to be alive

Argument from bare possibility ?

The electromagnetic spectrum can just as easily be called the "light spectrum." Nowhere here have I been talking about light as just the visible part of the spectrum.

Now THAT's what I call redefining terms.

Even if it was not planned, a spirit would still be the best outcome.

Based on what ? The same biased set of criteria that you were using to say humans were "higher" than other life forms ?

If the spirit survived, it would neatly complete the picture.

Why ? How ?

The process would become conscious of itself, and in the process produce the best means for the most complex form of energy, matter and information.

I'll call that one a non sequitur, thought I'm not sure it's coherent enough for that.

eneryg that "knows" would be much more potent than energy that doesn't.

Why ? Energy can't do anything more, even if it knows anything. A photon couldn't turn a corner even if it wanted to, so what would be the advantage ?

How a spirit would survives is a problem.

Yes, and the first problem is: does the spirit exist.

Belz...
24th January 2007, 10:00 AM
To you everything I do is wrong.

There's a good reason for that.

References, or not, troll or not, crazy or not, in this section of this forum or not, and it seems likely, this thread or not. I'm okay with all of that-it makes me feel special.

Yes, indeed. Whether or not people agree with you or whether or not your ideas make sense seems to point in the same direction to you.

As for what I said about light, how many references do I need to hold a position? The book "On the Surface of Things" says: "light is the substantial foundation of our world.

Is there ANYONE besides that book that agrees with you on this ?

The energy from the sun that fuels life arrives as light

Patently false. Although a lot of light comes from the sun, there's a whole load of other forms of energy, too.

I have seen plenty more references just like this one, that is where I got the idea. If I am as wrong as has been said, I owe it to myself to fix it.

Noble words. But you have no intention of doing so because when you're beign shown wrong you interpret it as beign right.

I have offered to end this thread though, if that is the popular opinion. Of course you must understand, your vote don't count.

Then what's the point of an offer ?

As for my part, since I am on a real study path, I would be doing research anyway, and I am finding support for what I have been saying.

Cherry-picking will do that to you.

The author of Biology for Dummies says "Closer to home, bacteria and higher lifeforms-like humans-have forged a number of mutually benefical relationships." She was tallking biology and that "food chain thing" in the same way I was.

Your point ?

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th January 2007, 04:29 PM
Well, isn't that special? :rolleyes:
Sure, at least he cares.


Zero, as you have so well demonstrated in the past.
I love this. I am now referencing what I was saying and you rather talk about when I wasn't. The future here is not going to be kind to you.

Why is light in quotes here? That usually signifies an alternate meaning.
That is the way he wrote it. But someone here has already said it is right. He just don't think I know what it means. He is not in for a good time either.


So you'll end the thread if that is the popular opinion, but at the same time you say that the popular opinion doesn't count. Two sentences, at least one self-contradiction. :rolleyes:
Read it again, I was talking about everyone but that particular person. With the offer I was attempting to be nice, Spare you all my persistence, my references, and my eventual success.


This is relevant to what, exactly?
I was pointing out where I got the idea from. I used the word in the same context as it is used.

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th January 2007, 05:24 PM
LCL, I shudder when I read this quote because at the same time as it is 100% correct, I know that you have 100% misunderstood it.

The author is, of course, right. The sun is the engine that drives the world and it does so by exporting a vast amount of light - plants literally turn light into physical calories which feed herbivores and, in turn, carnivores. The atmosphere turns light into heat which keeps water liquid and wind blowing. It is a very important substance.

However, you demand to go one, two, even ten steps further. You think that the way light behaves somehow is mirrored by the way matter behaves. That is absolutely not true.

I am reading that the base actions of chemistry has to do with attraction, repulsion, negative and positive. Two types of charges, arbitrarilly named and measured, causing attraction, repulsion and neutrality. Elements/minerals outwardly showing internal order imposed by the order of at least three of the four forces.

Attraction and repulsion in magnetism have absolutely nothing to do with how men and women relate to each other. There is no mechanism by which magnetism could manifest itself in the animal world.
Sure it can, magnetism shapes the things they are made of, life cannot help but act in ways based on the energy influences that drives it. Negative, positive, attraction and repulsion are the base actions around which life, (and its conditions) revolve.

Cars moving on a highway have nothing to do with electricity moving through a circuit.
I said they looked similar, they do. I never said that one was a big version of the other.

And, of course, light can be essential for life on earth without ever being alive. It does not think. It does not want. There is no mechanism by which it could think. There is no neural network. It just behaves according to fixed physical laws every time without fail. And, while it is lucky for us that those laws allow for our existence, it is nothing but luck. It did not have to be that way and the fact that it is that way is proof of nothing.
I think life had to be because it is a natural result of the drive for more and more complex forms of energy, matter and information.
I think I am finding support for this view in the book Into The Cool, but I have to make sure.

Your quote does not help your case at all. In the end, all you have is a bad analogy that does not work. Nothing in these books will ever change that.
We'll see.

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th January 2007, 06:30 PM
Yep, he's still entirely missed the point of the anthropic principle. :oldroll:
As I understand it it means that we can't point to how we got here as evidence of design, because we are here. If we weren't, we wouldn't be able to say.

I like a statement I found in Into The Cool: "As Einstien pointed out, the most mysterious thing about the universe is that we can comprehend it at all. Part of the problem maybe that we are in the structure we are trying to observe and can thus only ever get a partial representation of it. If we understand it in one way, we have to forfeit understanding it in another way: we are not on the outside, but pieces in the very puzzle we are trying to assemble."

I think science can't get the full picture because some of it has to do with feelings. Though it is the best way to go about it, it has limits, and a prevailing viewpoint. That is why I like the book ITC, it is using an energy based view instead of a gene based one.

Loss Leader
26th January 2007, 09:25 PM
I think science can't get the full picture because some of it has to do with feelings. Though it is the best way to go about it, it has limits, and a prevailing viewpoint. That is why I like the book ITC, it is using an energy based view instead of a gene based one.

:bwall

lightcreatedlife@hom
26th January 2007, 10:59 PM
:bwall
What's the problem now?

Aren't emotions/feelings as important to life as reason is?

Can science provide the full picture without looking in all directions?

Right now Darwin is the darling of evolution, history says that that can change.

And thermodynamics are well established science. While the authors of that book are saying it better, I have been saying the same thing. It says:
"The open system reflects not just itself, but the environment to which it is connected. In the case of computers, that environment includes, in history, great minds such as those of Szilard and Maxwell.
Intelligence, in unaware computers or aware animals, has to do with processing data in areas of energy flow. Reduced to its essence, perhaps mind is not brain-based so much as brain-enabled. It is contextual. Mind and matter inhabit a single realm."

Loss Leader
26th January 2007, 11:34 PM
Aren't emotions/feelings as important to life as reason is?

No, they are not.

Let me elaborate. I guess you could jigger with the definitions of "emotions" and "important" sufficiently to make some reading of that statement true. Emotions are generally important to the person feeling them. Emotions may dictate certain of our decisions and so may be important to the way we live our lives.

However, that is NOT the way you have been using the word "important." You have been arguing that emotions can help uncover universal truths about the universe. You argue that somehow your "feeling" that there just has to be a greater purpose to the universe has some actual truthful content just by virtue of the fact that it is sincerely felt.

Let me be clear: Emotions/feelings can NEVER be evidence of the truthfulness of a proposition. Emotions can NEVER make a proposition more or less true. Emotions are of zero value in constructing a proof of any statement.*

Your argument gains NOTHING by being deeply felt.
_____________
*Except uselessly self-referential statements about the emotion itself.

lightcreatedlife@hom
28th January 2007, 04:36 PM
No, they are not.

Let me elaborate. I guess you could jigger with the definitions of "emotions" and "important" sufficiently to make some reading of that statement true. Emotions are generally important to the person feeling them.
Emotions are important to all of us, and I dare say most mammals. They are how we interact. People who don't have, or show them, are out of place.

Emotions may dictate certain of our decisions and so may be important to the way we live our lives.
Not may, are.


However, that is NOT the way you have been using the word "important." You have been arguing that emotions can help uncover universal truths about the universe.
Through them we get a felt connection to it all, and we do have a connection to it all. Something that was felt long before science proved it.

You argue that somehow your "feeling" that there just has to be a greater purpose to the universe has some actual truthful content just by virtue of the fact that it is sincerely felt.
The felt connection is not just mine. It has been felt worldwide for as long as humans could feel. I think relgion is wrong about what and why, but not about there being something.

The greater content to it all has to do with the fact that we are part of a process that created life. A process that had to create life because of its drive for more complex forms of energy, matter and information. So the feeling that some have, that humans were the goal, have a felt reason. I think that complex life (whatever the form) was the natural results of the process.

Let me be clear: Emotions/feelings can NEVER be evidence of the truthfulness of a proposition. Emotions can NEVER make a proposition more or less true. Emotions are of zero value in constructing a proof of any statement.*
I think you are right, and a good thing for it.

Your argument gains NOTHING by being deeply felt.
Not true. That is where my drive comes from, and I suspect that is true for a lot of people. What is felt however, has to be backed by reason.

Belz...
29th January 2007, 10:31 AM
Emotions/feelings can NEVER be evidence of the truthfulness of a proposition.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Belz...
29th January 2007, 10:34 AM
Emotions are important to all of us,

Not to those who don't have them, and moreso for people who have lots.

They are how we interact.

No, they are how we feel. We interact with language, which is decidedly NOT an emotion.

People who don't have, or show them, are out of place.

Convenient. Emotions are important to everyone, but those for whom they aren't aren't normal. Right.

Through them we get a felt connection to it all

Key word: felt.

and we do have a connection to it all.

Non sequitur.

Something that was felt long before science proved it.

Proved what ? That everything is non-mystically "connected" Wasn't that just obvious ?

The felt connection is not just mine. It has been felt worldwide for as long as humans could feel.

No, no it wasn't. The "connection" was not a feeling, it was a guess.

The greater content to it all has to do with the fact that we are part of a process that created life.

No, it doesn't have to.

A process that had to create life because of its drive for more complex forms of energy, matter and information.

Speculation.

Not true. That is where my drive comes from, and I suspect that is true for a lot of people. What is felt however, has to be backed by reason.

In that case that kills your case, right here.

lightcreatedlife@hom
31st January 2007, 07:06 PM
Not to those who don't have them, and moreso for people who have lots.
Just because some don't have them, or some too much, does not make them any less important.



No, they are how we feel. We interact with language, which is decidedly NOT an emotion.
Language requires an emotional respond in the right places. And a smile, or any other emotion "spoken" through body language, can speak volumes.


Convenient. Emotions are important to everyone, but those for whom they aren't aren't normal. Right.
I said they are not seen as normal.


No, no it wasn't. The "connection" was not a feeling, it was a guess.
Good guess, but it would still be based on the feeling.


No, it doesn't have to.
It doesn't, but it is.


Speculation.
Based in reason. The hands had to be freed from the task of walking to have the oppurtunity to do anything else.


In that case that kills your case, right here.
No it doesn't. The process of discovery is not always neat, or well directed (at least not at first) ask Columbus.

Belz...
1st February 2007, 05:35 AM
Just because some don't have them, or some too much, does not make them any less important.

Well OF COURSE it does, you dolt.

Language requires an emotional respond in the right places. And a smile, or any other emotion "spoken" through body language, can speak volumes.

Now you're moving the goalpost to "body" language, which is common in human and, say, apes. Let's stick with spoken languages, which have little to do with either logic or emotions. They are quite arbitrary.

I said they are not seen as normal.

Ah, then your comment was irrelevant. Got it.

Good guess, but it would still be based on the feeling.

That's where you fail, every time. You assume that one lucky or correct guess based on something otherwise useless in reasoning means that, suddenly, that something becomes legitimate. That is NOT the case.

It doesn't, but it is.

Okay, you obviously didn't read what I said or didn't remember what I was answering to, as usual.

Based in reason. The hands had to be freed from the task of walking to have the oppurtunity to do anything else.

You're using the "bad" anthropic principle, again. Namely, that the result was something that was planned. And again you show your abysmal understanding of evolution.

No it doesn't. The process of discovery is not always neat, or well directed (at least not at first) ask Columbus.

It's amazing you can even write with that reading ability. You said:

That is where my drive comes from, and I suspect that is true for a lot of people. What is felt however, has to be backed by reason.

Which is why I said your case was killed, because what you "feel" is not backed by reason. Learn to read. It does wonders.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st February 2007, 04:33 PM
Well OF COURSE it does, you dolt.
I see statements about how groups can be predicted, but not individuals. Are you taking the stance that because one don't, that there is no way that I can't say that the majority does? Or that it is the normal?


Now you're moving the goalpost to "body" language, which is common in human and, say, apes.
Emotons are conveyed through body language. And I suspect that even bacteria manages that.

Let's stick with spoken languages, which have little to do with either logic or emotions. They are quite arbitrary.
Emotions in spoken language has a lot to do with tone.


Ah, then your comment was irrelevant. Got it.
I suppose.


That's where you fail, every time. You assume that one lucky or correct guess based on something otherwise useless in reasoning means that, suddenly, that something becomes legitimate. That is NOT the case.
Sure it is. Luck counts. For instance, you see how I was blasted away from that thing about "electron planets," but am able to last 64 pages defending that graph/diagram? Every see the comedy "F Troop"? He was never meant to command, you know. Things just turned out that way. I didn't choose those words, I put them where they should be.
And not that I am saying that I am commanding, but I am surviving.


Okay, you obviously didn't read what I said or didn't remember what I was answering to, as usual.
I guess.


You're using the "bad" anthropic principle, again. Namely, that the result was something that was planned. And again you show your abysmal understanding of evolution.
That is what happenned. Dolphins are not equipped to do much more than think and bite. And I am seeing the word evolution in all the places I am saying it is.


It's amazing you can even write with that reading ability. You said:
I was talking about however you got there, when asked to defend it, you have to have (or be actively seeking) the reason behind it. Like I said, I won't stand where I can't.


Which is why I said your case was killed, because what you "feel" is not backed by reason. Learn to read. It does wonders.
I already know how to read, and it is doing wonders. Have you ever read the book Into The Cool? Look at me recommending? I like that smart stuff, and I can only get better. You sure you don't want to surrender now?

bruto
1st February 2007, 05:42 PM
Emotons are conveyed through body language. And I suspect that even bacteria manages that. suspect away, but please try to explain how on earth a bacterium might accomplish body language, and to whom or to what that bacterium might be communicating when it does! Do you ever really stop to think about these things?


Sure it is. Luck counts. For instance, you see how I was blasted away from that thing about "electron planets," but am able to last 64 pages defending that graph/diagram? You have gone for 64 pages defending the diagram, but have not actually answered any of the questions or objections. Obliviousness is not a victory.

I was talking about however you got there, when asked to defend it, you have to have (or be actively seeking) the reason behind it. Like I said, I won't stand where I can't.

I think you're confusing "the reason" for thinking something with the use of "reason," in other words, clear thought and logical discourse. A person may well have a reason for believing that bigfoot raided his bird feeder last night, but that does not translate into the ability to present a reasoned argument for the contention.


I already know how to read, and it is doing wonders. Have you ever read the book Into The Cool? Look at me recommending? I like that smart stuff, and I can only get better. You sure you don't want to surrender now?

It's customary to cite the author when you cite a title. Makes it easier to find. Anyway, that book sounds interesting, but so far the only review I've found of it is this one:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol25/191_iinto_the_cooli_by_eric_d_12_30_1899.asp

Which is not terribly encouraging. I have not read it myself, so cannot say whether or not that review is accurate, but if you are indeed reading that book, I advise that you do so with great care and not just mine it for catchphrases that seem to bolster your argument.

Solus
1st February 2007, 10:27 PM
I have offered to end this thread though, if that is the popular opinion. Of course you must understand, your vote don't count.

Oh, by all means I want you to continue this thread. :D You actually serve my purposes by continuing it. You are the perfect example of a certain type of person and this thread is the perfect illustration of that type of person brought to the extreme.

I guess my vote doesn't count though because I think you are joke? Well please do count mine as I would like you to continue this thread as long as possible. Someday I'll use it pieces of it in a paper I write. I'll be sure to cite my source though so don't worry you will get your screen name on it.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st February 2007, 10:31 PM
suspect away, but please try to explain how on earth a bacterium might accomplish body language, and to whom or to what that bacterium might be communicating when it does! Do you ever really stop to think about these things?
Sure I do. I'm thinking that sight is how we read body language, but if something else is using touch, electrical current, or chemical exchange, that would work too. The book ITC is talking about plants sensing each other to maintain certain situations/conditions. Spreading in another direction from something else and such. And don't most life use their bodies to communicate?


You have gone for 64 pages defending the diagram, but have not actually answered any of the questions or objections. Obliviousness is not a victory.
I never said that it was. I am moving into the support it phase and whatever I don't understand now, I will later. How can I lose?


I think you're confusing "the reason" for thinking something with the use of "reason," in other words, clear thought and logical discourse. A person may well have a reason for believing that bigfoot raided his bird feeder last night, but that does not translate into the ability to present a reasoned argument for the contention.
If he believes in what he is saying, he is going to have to work at it.

It's customary to cite the author when you cite a title. Makes it easier to find. Anyway, that book sounds interesting, but so far the only review I've found of it is this one:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol25/191_iinto_the_cooli_by_eric_d_12_30_1899.asp

Which is not terribly encouraging. I have not read it myself, so cannot say whether or not that review is accurate, but if you are indeed reading that book, I advise that you do so with great care and not just mine it for catchphrases that seem to bolster your argument.
It encourages me, and I will take it care.

Belz...
2nd February 2007, 05:54 AM
I see statements about how groups can be predicted, but not individuals. Are you taking the stance that because one don't, that there is no way that I can't say that the majority does? Or that it is the normal?

That sentence makes no sense, whatsoever.

Emotons are conveyed through body language.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Just likew pheromones.

Emotions in spoken language has a lot to do with tone.

Troll, troll, troll. You know exactly what I mean, but you keep wiggling back and forth, trying to avoid having to admit it.

Sure it is. Luck counts.

Luck doesn't exist.

For instance, you see how I was blasted away from that thing about "electron planets," but am able to last 64 pages defending that graph/diagram?

You're not "defending" it, bloke. You're beign obtuse and silly, refusing to see the evidence against you. You're not beign good at defending your theory, you're beign obstinate.

That is what happenned. Dolphins are not equipped to do much more than think and bite.

Actually, they can communicate with one another, and they're one of the few species that actually does things for fun.

Like I said, I won't stand where I can't.

Which has been proven wrong.

I like that smart stuff, and I can only get better.

Of course. You couldn't get worse.