Light created Life [Archive] - Page 11

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th February 2007, 09:45 AM

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.
Wow, I'm a study.

I guess my vote doesn't count though because I think you are joke?
You wish that was the reason, even while you know it is not. Everyone thinks I am a joke, and I gave them the vote. Your vote doesn't count because while you say I am making you laugh, you have done all you can to stop it. That and the fact that you have not posted anything about the subject here. You have asked about me, but nothing else.

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.
I am sure you will pick the best pieces. Although, considering what you have been doing and what you are saying now, I have enough material for a piece of my own on you. I am not ashamed of me. I am a person who was wrong about some things, maybe right about others, and willing to research to prove my case. Either way, the process will improve me. It is "no lose" situation. If you include that in anything you write and I will look just fine.

Tanstaafl

5th February 2007, 10:40 AM

Good grief, is this thread really still going???

I think if we hooked up a generator to lightcreatedlife we might finally have a viable perpetual motion machine.

Belz...

5th February 2007, 12:14 PM

I am not ashamed of me. I am a person who was wrong about some things, maybe right about others, and willing to research to prove my case. Either way, the process will improve me. It is "no lose" situation. If you include that in anything you write and I will look just fine.

You should. Very wrong and certainly not about others, willfully ignorant. The process will never change you. You've already lost. It doesn't matter what you look like.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th February 2007, 08:22 PM

You should. Very wrong and certainly not about others, willfully ignorant. The process will never change you. You've already lost. It doesn't matter what you look like.
It does to me. I said that if my ego forced me into making a fool of myself, that I would drag it through the painful aftermath. As it turns out though, after all this, I have found that I was just under prepared.
I can, and will fix that.
The diagram stands as it is, not because of what I knew/know, but because of the relationship the words have with each other. Put life at one end, and you have to put its opposite at the other. They arranged themselves, and they are the words used in those places. I can get to easy street with that alone, but I am seeing nothing in what I am reading that is stopping me from thinking that I can make a much stronger approach.

Cosmo

5th February 2007, 08:44 PM

If LCL gets more total posts than me from this single thread, I'll be a sad trefoil indeed. :(

Loss Leader

5th February 2007, 08:45 PM

Put life at one end, and you have to put its opposite at the other

There is no opposite of life. The lack of life is not the opposite, it's just the lack of life. It would be like saying the opposite of dog is not having a dog.

Death is the extinction of life. It, too, is not the opposite of life. It is just a process life goes through.

You may say that birth and death are opposites but that is not true, either. Consider a baby. He is alive before he is born. He is alive when he is one cell. And before he is a single cell, he is an egg and a sperm which were both alive. Before the sperm was a sperm, it wa protions of other cells that make sperm. Those portions were all alive. And those sperm-making cells were split off from other similar cells which were also alive. Birth is not the start of life, so death is not its opposite.

The opposite of life would be something which, when added to life, cancels both things out and leaves nothing. 4 and -4 cancel each other out and leave nothing. Up and down cancel each other out and leave nothing. Life has, as far as I can see, no such opposite.

But you go on just making up whatever meanings you want for words and then marveling at what wonderful relationships you've uncovered in the stuff you just made up. You're doing great and I'm sure your Nobel Prize is in the mail right now.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th February 2007, 08:50 PM

If LCL gets more total posts than me from this single thread, I'll be a sad trefoil indeed. :(
Why?

SezMe

5th February 2007, 09:10 PM

I think if we hooked up a generator to lightcreatedlife we might finally have a viable perpetual motion machine.
Imagine hooking him up with Christophera? A Type II supernovea for sure.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th February 2007, 09:19 PM

There is no opposite of life.
What would you have me put opposite life?

Death is the extinction of life. It, too, is not the opposite of life.
Life is living, and death is to stop.

It is just a process life goes through.
That is just fine with me. The diagram is showing the process that life came from, and goes through.

You may say that birth and death are opposites but that is not true, either. Consider a baby. He is alive before he is born. He is alive when he is one cell. And before he is a single cell, he is an egg and a sperm which were both alive. Before the sperm was a sperm, it wa protions of other cells that make sperm. Those portions were all alive. And those sperm-making cells were split off from other similar cells which were also alive. Birth is not the start of life, so death is not its opposite.
There are gray areas for everything. When is life, what is life, and the same for death. The words and their meaning are what we came up with to describe things, not perfectly, but yeah. I arranged them as they are thought to be. The diagram is saying "funny how they fit." The disorganized way those words came to be, and are related to each other, fit like this.

But you go on just making up whatever meanings you want for words and then marveling at what wonderful relationships you've uncovered in the stuff you just made up. You're doing great and I'm sure your Nobel Prize is in the mail right now.
I didn't make any of it up, that is the way those things turned out. I don't think I will get a Nobel, but there are greener rewards.

wollery

5th February 2007, 10:01 PM

The lack of life is not the opposite, it's just the lack of life. It would be like saying the opposite of dog is not having a dog. You didn't address this sentence LCL.

I wonder why?

Belz...

6th February 2007, 04:41 AM

It does to me.

We know. All that matters to you is how you look here. The fact that you ARE wrong doesn't matter to you as long as you can pretend that you're not.

I said that if my ego forced me into making a fool of myself, that I would drag it through the painful aftermath.

Then I say it.

As it turns out though, after all this, I have found that I was just under prepared.

You were not under prepared. You were and still are ignorant of everything you profess to know.

The diagram stands as it is, not because of what I knew/know, but because of the relationship the words have with each other. Put life at one end, and you have to put its opposite at the other.

If you can say this, then you truly have learned NOTHING from this thread. You are unable to learn and adapt. You, sir, are an idiot.

Belz...

6th February 2007, 04:42 AM

There is no opposite of life.

What would you have me put opposite life?

Gold. Sheer gold.

Loss Leader

6th February 2007, 04:56 AM

Gold. Sheer gold.

You're right. It's almost, but not quite, a signature-quality post.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th February 2007, 06:07 PM

There is no opposite of life. The lack of life is not the opposite, it's just the lack of life. It would be like saying the opposite of dog is not having a dog.

Okay, the dog is not dead, its just is not alive. Lets call that death. Since a name has to be given that particular something, like everything else.

Death is the extinction of life. It, too, is not the opposite of life. It is just a process life goes through.
Life (right now) is in reference to someting biological, with an active internal, and hopefully external, actions. Death is that something with no action. That seems pretty opposite to me.

If you are saying that only the opposing mirror image of something is the definition of opposite, then opposite can be said of very few things. It also goes against all that stuff about different types of opposites talked about earlier. Death/dead is a word used to represent the opposite of life, not something I made up. Okay, the absence of life is not death, but since the diagram is applying to the ending of life, it fits there.

You didn't address this sentence LCL.

I wonder why?
I thought I had.

wollery

6th February 2007, 06:37 PM

bruto

6th February 2007, 07:09 PM

Okay, the dog is not dead, its just is not alive. Lets call that death. Since a name has to be given that particular something, like everything else. That is one of the most bizarre bits of word munching I've seen yet. It isn't death but we'll call it that anyway because I can't think of a better word. I'm reminded of something Abraham Lincoln said:

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg. edited to add....I'd better put something in between this and the next LCL quote, so we don't confuse him with Mr. Lincoln!....

Life (right now) is in reference to someting biological, with an active internal, and hopefully external, actions. Death is that something with no action. That seems pretty opposite to me. How can you say death has no action? Death happens.

If you are saying that only the opposing mirror image of something is the definition of opposite, then opposite can be said of very few things. It also goes against all that stuff about different types of opposites talked about earlier. Just because a word can have different meanings in different context doesn't mean that there can be no wrong usage.Death/dead is a word used to represent the opposite of life, not something I made up. Okay, the absence of life is not death, but since the diagram is applying to the ending of life, it fits there.

But the ending of a thing is not its opposite, is it? When you reach your destination it is not the opposite of the trip you took. Nor is it the opposite of the beginning. But who cares as long as it fits the diagram. This has to be one of the stupidest in a long long succession of stupid posts!

Loss Leader

6th February 2007, 08:02 PM

If you are saying that only the opposing mirror image of something is the definition of opposite, then opposite can be said of very few things. It also goes against all that stuff about different types of opposites talked about earlier.

Yes, and what we talked about was that your definition of opposite was so variable and that you were mixing up so many different types of opposites that what you had created had no meaning.

Now you are saying that death is the opposite of life. But if life is a positive value of, say, +1, the lack of life is nothing, it's 0. Zero is not the opposite of one. Negative one is the opposite of life.

You are right, however, when you say that very few things have opposites. Very few things do. England has no opposite. Gold has no opposite. Running has no opposite. April has no opposite. Communication has no opposite. Love has no opposite.

That's just the way we roll here on ... earth.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th February 2007, 08:15 PM

We know. All that matters to you is how you look here.
You are quite a piece of work yourself. All that matters to me is how I look here? Considering the general view of me here how is that possible? I would had ran and hid by now, my world view ruined. lnstead, I am gathering my forces, learning, the third wave just got here two days ago. And as I said, I am not seeing a lot wrong with what I have been saying.
How can any rational person insist that education could do no good in anyones hand? Afterall, that is what I have been hearing that I should do, I starting to wonder if that is really the case. But of course that can't be.

The fact that you ARE wrong doesn't matter to you as long as you can pretend that you're not.
How can I pretend? I have shown much willingness to move away from what I can't stand by. Look back at the 4 basics of math thing. I was wrong, and it helped me.

Then I say it.
Actually, you saying it helps too. You put me on a study path, that if I continue it will give me the rich pockets of intelligence that I have seen here. I am not mad at you. I thought I was smart, and I am glad to see better. It gives me a reason to get better. Lucky for me the shape of the diagram, and the concepts there can't be touched. Like I said, I didn't plan it, I found it.

You were not under prepared. You were and still are ignorant of everything you profess to know.
Even if that was true, and it isn't, that stance can only cause you pain as I gather my forces. If you ride with me to the end of the line, you might not like where you find yourself. Take that as fair warning.

If you can say this, then you truly have learned NOTHING from this thread. You are unable to learn and adapt. You, sir, are an idiot.
And even if that were true, and it isn't, I can fix that too. Tell me, how can I be unwilling to learn or adapt and have a study path too? It appears to me that you think your view is the only one worth knowing. But of course that can't be true.

saizai

7th February 2007, 02:51 AM

Goddamn, this thread is still going? Wow. O.o

Belz...

7th February 2007, 04:38 AM

Life (right now) is in reference to someting biological, with an active internal, and hopefully external, actions. Death is that something with no action. That seems pretty opposite to me.

That's because you refuse to learn anything.

Death/dead is a word used to represent the opposite of life, not something I made up.

And again you prove that you don't learn squat. "I didn't make it up, someone else did" is no defense of a nonsensical theory.

Okay, the absence of life is not death, but since the diagram is applying to the ending of life, it fits there.

Can you say "non-falsifiable" ?

Belz...

7th February 2007, 04:45 AM

All that matters to me is how I look here? Considering the general view of me here how is that possible?

Gosh you are so dense. How can you possibly not understand a sentence that you, yourself, write ? All that matters TO YOU is the appearance of beign correct. Now you're saying that other people think you are a dolt ? Well, you're proving it by saying the above, but it still has NOTHING to do with the PREVIOUS sentence.

I would had ran and hid by now, my world view ruined. lnstead, I am gathering my forces, learning, the third wave just got here two days ago. And as I said, I am not seeing a lot wrong with what I have been saying.
How can any rational person insist that education could do no good in anyones hand? Afterall, that is what I have been hearing that I should do, I starting to wonder if that is really the case. But of course that can't be.

How can I pretend? I have shown much willingness to move away from what I can't stand by. Look back at the 4 basics of math thing. I was wrong, and it helped me.

Every time you come back to the "4 basics". Well, let me tell you a thing or two. First, if it's the only example you can come up with, every time, of you beign wrong, it means you still haven't understood how you're wrong about the rest. Second, I seriously doubt you understood why you were wrong about that, seeing as how you didn't modify your doodle accordingly, and keep refering it to 2 instead of 1.

I am not mad at you. I thought I was smart, and I am glad to see better. It gives me a reason to get better. Lucky for me the shape of the diagram, and the concepts there can't be touched. Like I said, I didn't plan it, I found it.

Words.

Even if that was true, and it isn't, that stance can only cause you pain as I gather my forces. If you ride with me to the end of the line, you might not like where you find yourself. Take that as fair warning.

There is no chance, whatsoever, of your theory beign right, ever, in any way. So I'll sleep soundly, if you don't mind.

Tell me, how can I be unwilling to learn or adapt and have a study path too?

That one's easy: you can pretend to.

It appears to me that you think your view is the only one worth knowing. But of course that can't be true.

I have no view. That's why I don't put my foot in my mouth the way you do.

wollery

7th February 2007, 05:07 AM

Tell me, how can I be unwilling to learn or adapt and have a study path too?By taking what you read and interpreting the bits you like to fit your own view, basing your arguments on linguistic similarity rather than the science that's available.

Davidjayjordan

7th February 2007, 06:34 PM

Actually light created life, light didn't create anything biblically as it was a creation.... and hardly a absolute at all, even its speed has been altered now so that new computers can use this alteration as a means of message exchange.

If you are talking just about visable light, there again it is just 69/70th of the electromagnetic field, as the invisable is more prominent than the invisable even though the atheists and blind scientists don;t want to admit their is an invisable world.

maatorc

7th February 2007, 06:53 PM

Actually light created life, light didn't create anything biblically as it was a creation.... and hardly a absolute at all, even its speed has been altered now so that new computers can use this alteration as a means of message exchange.

If you are talking just about visable light, there again it is just 69/70th of the electromagnetic field, as the invisable is more prominent than the invisable even though the atheists and blind scientists don;t want to admit their is an invisable world.
Could you say that again!

Davidjayjordan

7th February 2007, 07:04 PM

Actually light created life, light didn't create anything biblically as it was a creation.... and hardly a absolute at all, even its speed has been altered now so that new computers can use this alteration as a means of message exchange.

If you are talking just about visable light, there again it is just 69/70th of the electromagnetic field, as the invisable is more prominent than the invisable even though the atheists and blind scientists don;t want to admit their is an invisable world
IE... the elctromagnetic spectrum we can see just covers from Infrared to ultraviolet, other animals have different spectrums, but the whole spectrum is 70 times bigger.... simple science.

So if you say light you might just be meaning visable light, rather than all light frequencies.

wollery

7th February 2007, 07:37 PM

Actually light created life, light didn't create anything biblically as it was a creation.... and hardly a absolute at all, even its speed has been altered now so that new computers can use this alteration as a means of message exchange.Umm, have you got any evidence at all that the speed of light has been altered?

If you are talking just about visable light, there again it is just 69/70th of the electromagnetic field, as the invisable is more prominent than the invisable even though the atheists and blind scientists don;t want to admit their is an invisable world
IE... the elctromagnetic spectrum we can see just covers from Infrared to ultraviolet, other animals have different spectrums, but the whole spectrum is 70 times bigger.... simple science.I think you may mean that visible light is 1/70th of the spectrum, but I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. Theoretically the range of EM wavelengths is infinite, and thus impossible to split into any enumerable fraction. Also, as an agnostic (I suppose you'd lump me in with the atheists) and a scientist working in astronomy I can assure you that we are very well aware of the rest of the EM spectrum. I, and many of my colleagues, use other parts of the EM spectrum on a regular basis.

So if you say light you might just be meaning visable light, rather than all light frequencies.We've had this discussion on more than one occassion with LCL. He clarified that he was talking about the whole EM spectrum. (At least, I think he did, it's sometimes hard to understand what he means, due to his habit of writing in non-sequitors)

Belz...

8th February 2007, 04:27 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th February 2007, 10:03 AM

Yes, and what we talked about was that your definition of opposite was so variable and that you were mixing up so many different types of opposites that what you had created had no meaning.
I am not mixing anything. If a lifeform is not alive, it is dead. Death is the ending of a life. But I understand what is being said. If death is the ending, its opposite would be the beginning, but iisn't that life? It wouldn't be birth, because it was alive long before it came out.

You are right, however, when you say that very few things have opposites. Very few things do. England has no opposite. Gold has no opposite. Running has no opposite. April has no opposite. Communication has no opposite. Love has no opposite.
Positive is not the opposite of negative, gravity is not the opposite the EMF, the Strong force is not the opposite of the Weak force. The diagram is about related pairs. Positive at one end, puts negative at the other.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th February 2007, 01:17 PM

That's because you refuse to learn anything.

What is your definition of anything?

And again you prove that you don't learn squat. "I didn't make it up, someone else did" is no defense of a nonsensical theory.
Life being driven, guided and made up of energy is not a nonsensical theory.

Gosh you are so dense. How can you possibly not understand a sentence that you, yourself, write ? All that matters TO
YOU is the appearance of beign correct.
Are saying that I said that all that matters to me is I appear right? With that question mark, I was questioning what you said, not what I said. You think that, but then that it you, your opinion, which means something only to you. You saying it certainly does not make it true.

Every time you come back to the "4 basics". Well, let me tell you a thing or two. First, if it's the only example you can come up with, every time, of you beign wrong, it means you still haven't understood how you're wrong about the rest.
The things I said I was wrong about are there, lots of them. You require a list every time? If I didn't say I was wrong about something, more than likely I don't think I am. I still have a study path to complete.

Second, I seriously doubt you understood why you were wrong about that, seeing as how you didn't modify your doodle accordingly, and keep refering it to 2 instead of 1.
Rand Fan, and others said 2, I agree. Haven't we been over this? The other 2 operations came from them. Why would I have to change my doodle for that?
If you are taking the stance that addition is the only one (take it up with those who said two) to reduce what you added, you would need subtraction-or whatever you wanted to call doing that. And basically, everything can be traced to one, the way the universe evolved says so. Still, at this time/level in our development, science explains things with two long range forces, and two short range ones, giving a total of four. And math basically uses two operations, with two more derived from them.

There is no chance, whatsoever, of your theory beign right, ever, in any way. So I'll sleep soundly, if you don't mind.
Oddly enough, so do I, but then I can see more of this than you do.

That one's easy: you can pretend to.
Pretend how? Give me an example.

I have no view. That's why I don't put my foot in my mouth the way you do.
Some people got it easy, others have to risk tasting foot to support their view. I say it is worth it, otherwise why would I stay around and risk tasting it so much? And from what I am reading, I really did not taste all that much.

bruto

8th February 2007, 04:03 PM

I am not mixing anything. If a lifeform is not alive, it is dead. Death is the ending of a life. But I understand what is being said. If death is the ending, its opposite would be the beginning, but iisn't that life? It wouldn't be birth, because it was alive long before it came out. But if you define the opposite of death as the beginning of life, then it can't also be the continuation of life, which after all has a duration, a span. Does death continue after death? Is death the same as deadness? Is extinction the same as non-being? Is either a beginning or an end the same as the continuation of what occurs when it occurs? You can shuffle words around all sorts of ways, but it all comes down the a fundamental question that you cannot answer, and that is the basic one of whether the very idea of opposition in this case is a valid or useful one, or whether you're just playing around with words, and whether you have added any meaning, truth, wisdom or sense to the world around you when you do.

wollery

8th February 2007, 04:59 PM

I am not mixing anything. If a lifeform is not alive, it is dead. Death is the ending of a life. But I understand what is being said. If death is the ending, its opposite would be the beginning, but iisn't that life? It wouldn't be birth, because it was alive long before it came out. And thus you prove the point for us. :rolleyes:

Positive is not the opposite of negative,Umm, yes, it is. In the mathematical sense of the words, positive is precisely the opposite of negative, and vice versa. They are diametrically opposed. They couldn't be more opposite.

gravity is not the opposite the EMF,Correct, well done.

the Strong force is not the opposite of the Weak force. Again, well done, I think you're getting the hang of this.

The diagram is about related pairs. Positive at one end, puts negative at the other.Well, technically, the weak force is most closely related to EM since they are actually the same thing (the electroweak force, remember?)! But don't let that ruin a perfectly good line in bullplop.

So, your sketch is about related pairs, not opposites, lined up opposite each other, some of which aren't really related, most of the pairs being unrelated to any of the other pairs, based largely on linguistic similarities. And you think it's something deep and meaningful? :nope:

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th February 2007, 07:13 PM

But if you define the opposite of death as the beginning of life, then it can't also be the continuation of life, which after all has a duration, a span. Does death continue after death?
Actually what I am attempting to argue is that death does continue after death. If the spirit is not alive by our current standards, yet continues to "do anything," it is operating under the banner of death, which makes the term "afterlife" valid.
But don't go by me. Conception, or birth, are the words used for the beginning of life, death is the word used for its ending. So a lifeform can live a life without bothering the stuff you talked about above. Life starts, and at any point but the end of the life, if tested, the lifeform would be found to be still alive, living. I think that living, is in fact a life continuing.
But even if we were talking about the physical form of the now death lifeform, death does continue after death. It doesn't stop. You can get more dead. The body is just not as active, it is slowly decaying. The bones of some dinosaurs show that lifeform has been dead for hundreds of millions of years.

Is death the same as deadness? Is extinction the same as non-being? Is either a beginning or an end the same as the continuation of what occurs when it occurs? You can shuffle words around all sorts of ways, but it all comes down the a fundamental question that you cannot answer, and that is the basic one of whether the very idea of opposition in this case is a valid or useful one, or whether you're just playing around with words, and whether you have added any meaning, truth, wisdom or sense to the world around you when you do.
I think you are the one playing with words. I like it, but that is the case. I was talking about something that was alive, dying. With the diagram, I said nothing about whether or not something that was never alive, can be said to be dead. It can be, and is, but that is not the proper use of the term. As many here have said.

wollery

8th February 2007, 07:27 PM

You can get more dead.:bwall

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th February 2007, 08:06 PM

And thus you prove the point for us. :rolleyes:

[quote]Umm, yes, it is. In the mathematical sense of the words, positive is precisely the opposite of negative, and vice versa. They are diametrically opposed. They couldn't be more opposite.
I thought someone said they weren't?

Well, technically, the weak force is most closely related to EM since they are actually the same thing (the electroweak force, remember?)! But don't let that ruin a perfectly good line in bullplop.
But it is also known that the EMF is related to gravity in the fact that they are both long range forces. To me, it fits that one long range force would have a closer relationship with one of the short range forces than another. The Strong force being a binding force for the nucleus of atoms, and gravity holding larger bodies together, may show a relationship between them. Though of course, because I said it, it can't be.
I also know that science is only having trouble including gravity, a relationship has been found to the Strong force too

So, your sketch is about related pairs, not opposites, lined up opposite each other, some of which aren't really related, most of the pairs being unrelated to any of the other pairs, based largely on linguistic similarities. And you think it's something deep and meaningful? :nope:
Which pairs are not related to each other, life and death? And the words weak and strong are related to the characteristics of those forces, not simple words. Gravity a force of attraction, and the EMF, one of attraction and repulsion.
And yes, I think I have found something meaningful. The 14 words most used to describe it all, do describe it all when put in relationship to each other around five simple squares. What do they say? Alomst exactly what they were thought to say. Showing that their may be somthing behind the "feeling" of religion, and the proof of science.
Truth or coincidence, I have no choice but to give it my voice. If I don't have voice enough, I have no choice but to develop one. However things turn out, I will get three of the things I want most, an education, comfort, and to inspire new thought.

Solus

8th February 2007, 09:06 PM

If LCL gets more total posts than me from this single thread, I'll be a sad trefoil indeed. :(

I hate to ruin your day but I can almost completely assure you that's going to happen soon at the rate this going...

Solus

8th February 2007, 09:09 PM

Good grief, is this thread really still going???

I think if we hooked up a generator to lightcreatedlife we might finally have a viable perpetual motion machine.

Remember we enable him, if people would stop responding to his nonsense he would get bored and disappear (I hope).:boxedin: I understand though why others post it's just too amusing to pass up. I'm guilty too, I shouldn't be posting here but I do because it makes me laugh.

Solus

8th February 2007, 09:21 PM

Wow, I'm a study.

You wish that was the reason, even while you know it is not. Everyone thinks I am a joke, and I gave them the vote. Your vote doesn't count because while you say I am making you laugh, you have done all you can to stop it. That and the fact that you have not posted anything about the subject here. You have asked about me, but nothing else.

I am sure you will pick the best pieces. Although, considering what you have been doing and what you are saying now, I have enough material for a piece of my own on you. I am not ashamed of me. I am a person who was wrong about some things, maybe right about others, and willing to research to prove my case. Either way, the process will improve me. It is "no lose" situation. If you include that in anything you write and I will look just fine.

No, no LCL I haven’t remotely done all I COULD DO to stop this thread, not by a LONG SHOT. If you weren’t an amusing predictable little monkey. I’d find a way to kill the thread IF I WANTED TO…

However... :D I do not intend to do that by any means! Instead I like to come by this thread every now and then for a good laugh. So just keep it up! Just more material for a possible paper someday. Feel free to chose what parts to give me to put in the paper. Basically anything you write here will work fine even what you chose, in fact especially that. :p

maatorc

9th February 2007, 02:36 AM

No, no LCL I haven’t remotely done all I COULD DO to stop this thread, not by a LONG SHOT. If you weren’t an amusing predictable little monkey. I’d find a way to kill the thread IF I WANTED TO…

It is not necessary for you to be such an a*** h*** no matter how much you think you are the master of the universe.

Belz...

9th February 2007, 04:55 AM

I am not mixing anything. If a lifeform is not alive, it is dead. Death is the ending of a life.

A car crash is not the opposite of car.

If death is the ending, its opposite would be the beginning, but iisn't that life? It wouldn't be birth, because it was alive long before it came out.

That's because you're still assuming your conclusion. If you stop looking for nonsense opposites, you'll have made a step forward. Who cares about opposites ?

Positive is not the opposite of negative, gravity is not the opposite the EMF, the Strong force is not the opposite of the Weak force. The diagram is about related pairs. Positive at one end, puts negative at the other.

Related by you.

What is your definition of anything?

The dictionary one.

Life being driven, guided and made up of energy is not a nonsensical theory.

Of course not. But it's a useless tautology because EVERYTHING is also included in that definition. The equivalent of your theory is "everything is", which is useless and has been known for millenia. Dozens of them.

Are saying that I said that all that matters to me is I appear right?

No, I'm saying (and I have to spell it out for you, again) is that your behaviour indicates that it IS all that matters to you. I don't care what you said about it, your actions say otherwise.

You think that, but then that it you, your opinion, which means something only to you. You saying it certainly does not make it true.

You're right. My saying anything doesn't make it true. Sauce for the goose, however.

The things I said I was wrong about are there, lots of them. You require a list every time?

I would require some evidence that you learned anything about that.

Rand Fan, and others said 2, I agree. Haven't we been over this? The other 2 operations came from them.

It's cute that you decided to pick 2 instead of 1 because that makes a pair, but subtraction is the SAME as addition.

Why would I have to change my doodle for that?

Because, along with everything else we've said, it completely invalidates your theory. You should DELETE that ridiculous drawing of yours, nor correct it.

you would need subtraction-or whatever you wanted to call doing that. And basically, everything can be traced to one, the way the universe evolved says so.

Again, you're trying to have mathematics as an integral part of the universe, while it really is just a language. THIS you haven't learned.

but then I can see more of this than you do.

The only thing you see is your own fantasy. Feel free to join reality any time.

Pretend how? Give me an example.

Well, you haven't learned, but you PRETEND to be on a path to learning. You do it in every post, so you can just look up the thread.

But don't go by me. Conception, or birth, are the words used for the beginning of life, death is the word used for its ending.

You haven't learned THAT either.

Loss Leader

9th February 2007, 06:57 AM

Positive is not the opposite of negative, gravity is not the opposite the EMF, the Strong force is not the opposite of the Weak force. The diagram is about related pairs. Positive at one end, puts negative at the other.

You've got that right. Your picture just has words placed around wherever you happened to place them because, somehow, the words seemed to create a pattern to you. Since there is no absolute measure of any of this, it is not science but religion and it is personal to you. Enjoy it if it gives you comfort but it is objectively meaningless.

bruto

9th February 2007, 07:43 AM

Actually what I am attempting to argue is that death does continue after death. If the spirit is not alive by our current standards, yet continues to "do anything," it is operating under the banner of death, which makes the term "afterlife" valid. IF . That's a very big IF indeed. If that is true, then you may have a point. If not, though, then dead is dead. Death an event and not, properly speaking, a state of being.
But don't go by me. Conception, or birth, are the words used for the beginning of life, death is the word used for its ending. So a lifeform can live a life without bothering the stuff you talked about above. Life starts, and at any point but the end of the life, if tested, the lifeform would be found to be still alive, living. I think that living, is in fact a life continuing.
But even if we were talking about the physical form of the now death lifeform, death does continue after death. It doesn't stop. You can get more dead. The body is just not as active, it is slowly decaying. The bones of some dinosaurs show that lifeform has been dead for hundreds of millions of years. I disagree. Whether you believe death is a complete end to life, or whether you believe there is an afterlife, either way a being does not become "more dead" in any meaningful way when its body continues to decay. If the body is still active in the sense that something is still alive, then it is not dead at all. If it has died, it is dead. You don't get any deader unless you redefine the terms "life" and "death" to mean something new. You can say a dinosaur has "been dead" for millions of years, just as you can say something has "been gone" or "been extinct" for millions of years. But that's just a linguistic convention for saying an event happened that many years ago. It wasn't less gone yesterday than it is today. If I say the theory of phlogiston has been disproven for 223 years, mean that it was disproven 223 years ago, whereupon it ceased to be a useful theory, not that the theory has somehow had a state of disproven-ness layered upon its continuing existence.

I think you are the one playing with words. I like it, but that is the case. I was talking about something that was alive, dying. With the diagram, I said nothing about whether or not something that was never alive, can be said to be dead. It can be, and is, but that is not the proper use of the term. As many here have said. You're arguing again that being wrong somehow is the same as being right. If a thing that was never alive can actually be considered as dead, then that must be the proper use of the term, or the term is of no use in explaining or describing reality. If something that was never alive can not be dead, then you must redefine the term "death" or use it metaphorically, and when doing so you must be explicit in setting out what you do and do not mean when you so use it. Your mistake, as always, is to accept the added usages and metaphorical senses of a word as somehow having a reverse effect on reality. The fact that we can use words like "death" to describe events other than the biological event that is the cessation of biological life means only that people can use words broadly and metaphorically. It does not imply anything else about reality.

Belz...

9th February 2007, 09:03 AM

Too many big words for Light, Bruto.

Loss Leader

9th February 2007, 11:04 AM

Whether you believe death is a complete end to life, or whether you believe there is an afterlife, either way a being does not become "more dead" in any meaningful way when its body continues to decay. If the body is still active in the sense that something is still alive, then it is not dead at all.

Here's a question: How long after a person dies can it be said that every single cell composing that person's body is dead?

I mean, some of your cells that are used to seeing low bloodflow might make it for a few minutes, right?

bruto

9th February 2007, 11:41 AM

Here's a question: How long after a person dies can it be said that every single cell composing that person's body is dead?

I mean, some of your cells that are used to seeing low bloodflow might make it for a few minutes, right?

OK, point taken. Death is not an instantaneous event. But I don't think death is a candidate for the sorites paradox either. Although it may be hard to pinpoint the exact moment, there does, I think, come a point where one can say "this parrot really is dead." From that point on, though it may start to stink worse, it does not get any deader.

Loss Leader

9th February 2007, 12:14 PM

OK, point taken. Death is not an instantaneous event. But I don't think death is a candidate for the sorites paradox either. Although it may be hard to pinpoint the exact moment, there does, I think, come a point where one can say "this parrot really is dead." From that point on, though it may start to stink worse, it does not get any deader.

No, I was seriously asking. Does anybody know? Or should I go post it in the science section?

bruto

9th February 2007, 01:00 PM

No, I was seriously asking. Does anybody know? Or should I go post it in the science section?

Please do, because I don't know either.

Solus

9th February 2007, 04:12 PM

It is not necessary for you to be such an a*** h*** no matter how much you think you are the master of the universe.

Have you read this WHOLE thread friend? LCL is just beyond words look around the thread before you make a comment like that. I started out VERY NICE. That was 40 or 50 pages ago!!! :covereyes I don' think much of myself by the way.The only person here with the problem is LCL. Amusing though.

I'd have to dig for it but I can look up early in this thread and you can see I was nice at first...

Solus

9th February 2007, 04:15 PM

No, I was seriously asking. Does anybody know? Or should I go post it in the science section?

Interesting question to ask. I have no serious ideas as to what the answer might be though. I'd guess it would have to be under few hours though as once the body starts getting cold that means the cells are dying off since no energy is created.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th February 2007, 10:33 PM

Have you read this WHOLE thread friend? LCL is just beyond words look around the thread before you make a comment like that. I started out VERY NICE. That was 40 or 50 pages ago!!! :covereyes I don' think much of myself by the way.The only person here with the problem is LCL. Amusing though.

I'd have to dig for it but I can look up early in this thread and you can see I was nice at first...

At first? The first time I remember hearing from you is you telling me I needed mental help. And there is no way you can say that you really meant to help me, because when I directed those words back at you, you exploded. Something I would have done if I wasn't honestly standing where I say I am. That wild stuff in the beginning was what happens at a lot of forums, insults are fun to some people. You yourself seem well versed in it, yet somehow you think I have a problem.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th February 2007, 11:00 PM

You've got that right. Your picture just has words placed around wherever you happened to place them because, somehow, the words seemed to create a pattern to you.
This is what I don't get. To me, the thing makes itself. There is a procession to it, the Strong force is a binding force, and the Weak force is one of decay. Gravity and the EMF have to go down the middle, electromagnetism is the one most connected to life. Now that does not make it the grand plan to creation, but I simply cannot take that chance.

Since there is no absolute measure of any of this, it is not science but religion and it is personal to you. Enjoy it if it gives you comfort but it is objectively meaningless.
It is sought of ironic to me that light is the most will known absolute. With all that I have heard here I still feel comfortable standing by it, whatever it is.

maatorc

10th February 2007, 04:15 PM

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 05:23 PM

Solus

10th February 2007, 05:36 PM

What did you have in mind to "Kill the thread"?

I wasn't planning on it but if I wanted to, there are ways of doing it. How? I'll keep my secrets to myself, doesn't involve massive spam, or anything really special you just have to be clever about it.

Solus

10th February 2007, 05:45 PM

At first? The first time I remember hearing from you is you telling me I needed mental help. And there is no way you can say that you really meant to help me, because when I directed those words back at you, you exploded. Something I would have done if I wasn't honestly standing where I say I am. That wild stuff in the beginning was what happens at a lot of forums, insults are fun to some people. You yourself seem well versed in it, yet somehow you think I have a problem.

I'm not going to look up what I posted 40 pages ago. I don't "explode" when it comes to posting on internet forums though. If it took the internet seriously my eyes would burst open and my heart would stop. :p

I do recall writing you might want to see a doctor but I've been on this forum longer since then; I've changed my opinion and done some more study about mental health. Some people get weird ideas in their head and are just bloody stubborn about it and that's the end of it.

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 05:55 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th February 2007, 05:59 PM

By taking what you read and interpreting the bits you like to fit your own view, basing your arguments on linguistic similarity rather than the science that's available.
I knew some science (It was my favorite subject) and found the linguistic thing. I came here for someone to tell me why I shouldn't believe it. I have a basic idea about how things fit together, but a lot of the stuff that I heard here I never considered. But since those words basically represent, what we basically understand those things to be, I don't see the problem. I put those things together based on a basic understanding of them, and they do fit. Despite all the complexity of the things there, they simply fit. And I am seeking the opinon of the science available.

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 06:13 PM

I put those things together based on a basic understanding of them

What things?

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th February 2007, 06:28 PM

Deepak Chopra and Sylvia Brownewitch have taken it upon themselves to charge people, or have them buy books, on how you can live forever after your body dies. Aren't you glad the masses agree with them just for being smart enought to come up with enough "original" material to sell them on it?
Orignality has merit, some ideas do need to be thrown into the "stew." Would I say something just for the sake of money? No.

No need to show us where all these "spirits" are hanging out. It's all invisible! We in our human bodies can't possibly perceive this invisible hooey!
Where does all the other energy was can't see hang out?

I mean, we can perceive invisible wind and stuff, but not this invisible spirit world stuff!
I think that the spirit world is just the "invisible" world all around us. IF the spirit survives, the world don't change, you do.

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 06:40 PM

Orignality has merit, some ideas do need to be thrown into the "stew." Would I say something just for the sake of money? No.

I'd like to hear just what is at all original about Brownewitch or Chopra. They both recycled stuff.

Where does all the other energy was can't see hang out?

Where does all the energy was huhhhh??? What energy? Our mitochondria catalizes stuff, and the ER builds it up. When we die, the process stops, and nothing is made or broken down anymore. We can measure the heat our body makes. Heat is easy. Look at the sun. It radiates. Yep, RADIATES. Cool huh. When we die, we stop making making this cool heat, and what is just hanging out when we die just disperses, like the heat from your fire or stove. Cool, huh.

Oh, and in the same kind of processes we made neat signals that also involved chemicals that we made and processed, that involved nerves. When we die, they stop doing that. It just stops. No magic. Nothing goes anywhere, it just dies and then decomposes. Boring, but at least peceivable.

I think that the spirit world is just the "invisible" world all around us. IF the spirit survives, the world don't change, you do

I don't believe in invisible worlds. No "spirit" survives, and our real world just goes on. We don't need an invisible one. Well, I don't need an invisible one. I quite like the fact that when I die I don't have to worry about anything ever again. Just like before I was born. No problemo.

maatorc

10th February 2007, 06:53 PM

I don't believe in invisible worlds. No "spirit" survives, and our real world just goes on. We don't need an invisible one. Well, I don't need an invisible one. I quite like the fact that when I die I don't have to worry about anything ever again. Just like before I was born. No problemo.
What do you mean by "...our real world..."?

bruto

10th February 2007, 07:09 PM

....And I am seeking the opinon of the science available.

No, you're not. Every time someone brings up something that contradicts what you've already decided for non-scientific reasons must be so, you say that science isn't enough, and either reject it, misunderstand it, or modify it beyond all recognition.

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 07:31 PM

What do you mean by "...our real world..."?

real world=not imaginary (no flying pigs, and no purple t-rex dinos back from the dead)

maatorc

10th February 2007, 08:31 PM

real world=not imaginary (no flying pigs, and no purple t-rex dinos back from the dead)
Ignoring (no flying pigs, and no purple t-rex dinos back from the dead) as a given, how do we know that the real world, that is the world we realise and know only as a perception of our sensory mechanisms, and we have no other way, is the actual world as it actually is in itself?
It is very simple to see the meaning of the question, and it is not really 'deep and meaningfull', if we take the example of an action in nature we ordinarily would call a "sound' taking place but there is no-one there to "hear" it: Hence, what is this action in nature in itself when there is no perception of it as distinct from what we call "sound" if we happen to "hear" it?

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 08:49 PM

We can measure sounds we cannot hear. We can measure air we cannot see. We don't just rely on human perception. We know red rocks are still red in the dark, since their properties make them so, even though we cannot see it. We aren't folly enough to simply rely on human perceptions.

So, when sylvia brownewitch says she CAN just rely on her own simple human perceptions, I get skeptical. Good reasons to be skeptical too, since she cannot verify her own 'perceptions' and comes up wrong more than right. Go figure.

maatorc

10th February 2007, 09:07 PM

We can measure sounds we cannot hear. We can measure air we cannot see. We don't just rely on human perception. We know red rocks are still red in the dark, since their properties make them so, even though we cannot see it. We aren't folly enough to simply rely on human perceptions.
Please read the post again as your comments are not speaking to its theme.
Measurement is material perception.
We cannot know anything that is not human perception.
Knowing rocks are red without seeing them is perception of our own thoughts.
Everything we rely on is based on one or another form of human perception: No perception to humans means no anything.

Eos of the Eons

10th February 2007, 09:14 PM

Please read the post again as your comments are not speaking to its theme.
Measurement is material perception.
We cannot know anything that is not human perception.
Knowing rocks are red without seeing them is perception of our own thoughts.
Everything we rely on is based on one or another form of human perception: No perception to humans means no anything.
We already know a ton of things beyond our own perceptions. Knowing rocks are red in the dark has nothing to do with us. They still have the properties that make them "red" no matter if a human is there to see it or just know it.

The sun is still there whether or not any human is there to see it or feel it. The moon still exists even when no human is around to perceive it. Some day it will cease to exist, no matter if a human is around to see its demise.

None of these things need our human perception or measurement. That is reality.

We can make up tons of things that aren't real. It's kind of cool, but weird at the same time.

maatorc

10th February 2007, 10:01 PM

We already know a ton of things beyond our own perceptions. Knowing rocks are red in the dark has nothing to do with us. They still have the properties that make them "red" no matter if a human is there to see it or just know it.The sun is still there whether or not any human is there to see it or feel it. The moon still exists even when no human is around to perceive it. Some day it will cease to exist, no matter if a human is around to see its demise. None of these things need our human perception or measurement. That is reality.We can make up tons of things that aren't real. It's kind of cool, but weird at the same time.
I disagree fundamentally with some things you say.
The ideas I put about 'real', 'actual', and 'perception' are quite elementary.
Your grasp of their essential content is so far from mine as to render it impossible for a discussion to develop.
We are not on the same wavelength, so I will leave it that.

wollery

11th February 2007, 12:44 AM

I knew some science (It was my favorite subject) and found the linguistic thing. I came here for someone to tell me why I shouldn't believe it. I have a basic idea about how things fit together, but a lot of the stuff that I heard here I never considered. But since those words basically represent, what we basically understand those things to be, I don't see the problem. I put those things together based on a basic understanding of them, and they do fit. Despite all the complexity of the things there, they simply fit. And I am seeking the opinon of the science available.Bolding mine. The word that perfectly sums up your knowledge and ideas.

Eos of the Eons

11th February 2007, 03:49 PM

I disagree fundamentally with some things you say.
The ideas I put about 'real', 'actual', and 'perception' are quite elementary.
Your grasp of their essential content is so far from mine as to render it impossible for a discussion to develop.
We are not on the same wavelength, so I will leave it that.
Elementary my @ss. Realistic is more like it. Unless you can PROVE your assertions. Didn't think so.

maatorc

11th February 2007, 05:07 PM

Elementary my @ss. Realistic is more like it. Unless you can PROVE your assertions. Didn't think so.
I agree with you that you do not understand the meaning of what I said about real, actual, and perception.
But now you have slipped into the personality based demonising which is so typical of many on this site whenever someone disagrees with them.

Eos of the Eons

11th February 2007, 05:19 PM

I agree with you that you do not understand the meaning of what I said about real, actual, and perception.
But now you have slipped into the personality based demonising which is so typical of many on this site whenever someone disagrees with them.
Hilarious. Twisted.

Fine, duck under your sand and refuse to prove any of your assertions. Your choice. Just farting out claims out of the remaining end that nobody can understand your self proposed genius is hardly going to earn you any respect around here, but that's up to you.

All I've said is that bodies like the sun and moon don't need humans to perceive them to exist. If that's so far out of your grasp to realize, then telling me that I don't "get you" doesn't mean I'm the one who can't grasp concepts.

Do you not understand that humans don't just rely on their perceptions to get a big picture of what is going on around them?

Just because you figure we just haven't figured out a way to find the "supernatural" does not mean we have to say that the supernatural world "might exist". If that's the case, then you must believe me when I say I've eaten pink baby T-rexes for lunch. You can't prove that I didn't.

We can bottle gasses we can't see, and we can measure sounds we can't hear. We can find a lot of "invisible" "things".

You can cling to your weak straw argument that maybe we just haven't figured out how to "find" the afterlife, but I in no way have to agree with you. That also in no way means that "I don't get it".

Arrogance does not win you the argument.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th February 2007, 07:07 PM

:bwall
Yeah. Paramedics want to know how long the person has benn that way. I think someone was even "brought back" after 30 minutes. The advance of science can only get better at that.
And since death is in reference to life, someone would be correct if they said that a particular person was dead for "at least a week." Of course they could be wrong, the person could have been dead a month.

maatorc

11th February 2007, 07:27 PM

1... refuse to prove any of your assertions....
2... All I've said is that bodies like the sun and moon don't need humans to perceive them to exist.
3... Just because you figure we just haven't figured out a way to find the "supernatural" .

1... What specific assertions would you like me to prove? Please spell them out clearly and exactly.
2... All I have said is that our perception of such bodies does not necessarily agree with what they actually are in nature.
3... What do you mean by 'supernatural' when it is impossible in nature for anything to be supernatural?

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th February 2007, 10:56 PM

Hm. Dead is dead. Decomposing may take longer, but DEAD is DEAD. Without your brain you can no longer perceive. You cannot see, hear, smell, touch, nor taste. You no longer have a body to move in. You are DEAD. Gone. That's it. Nothing left, except decomposing parts, or whatever genes you passed to your children.
So the body was you from the time you were conceived, but ceases to be you when you die? The tombstone says that it is still you under there. After all this time that is still the body of King TUt. Are you saying that without the energy that made the body what it was, that it is no longer that person? Actually, isn't the dead body all that person is ever going to be? Then again, king Tut is more famous now than he was than. If we cloned king Tut, wouldn't the treasure he "took with him" be his?

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th February 2007, 11:01 PM

Bolding mine. The word that perfectly sums up your knowledge and ideas.
Well the words are mind. That is well I start.

wollery

12th February 2007, 02:44 AM

Yeah. Paramedics want to know how long the person has benn that way. I think someone was even "brought back" after 30 minutes. The advance of science can only get better at that.
And since death is in reference to life, someone would be correct if they said that a particular person was dead for "at least a week." Of course they could be wrong, the person could have been dead a month.:rolleyes:

Light, when you read in the newspaper that someone was brought back after being "dead for 30 minutes" what that actually means is that their heart wasn't pumping on it's own. That's what CPR is for. You keep the heart pumping blood round the body by compressing the heart, and pushing air into their lungs, either with a hand pump or by blowing into their mouth while holding their nostrils shut. That way their body is still receiving oxygenated blood, and technically, until it's called by a doctor (in a hospital), or the person giving CPR gives up, they are still alive. If someone has gone for 30 minutes without their heart pumping, and they haven't recieved CPR the paramedics won't even try, they'll just call the coroner, because there's absolutely no hope at all of bringing them back.

Belz...

12th February 2007, 04:52 AM

This is what I don't get. To me, the thing makes itself.

Well you're forgetting a very important factor. Take this doodle, for example:

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

It DOES fit, doesn't it ?

There is a procession to it, the Strong force is a binding force, and the Weak force is one of decay.

Not quite. But close.

Gravity and the EMF have to go down the middle

"Have to" ? Why ?

electromagnetism is the one most connected to life.

So you keep saying, without evidence.

Now that does not make it the grand plan to creation, but I simply cannot take that chance.

Science isn't about chance.

With all that I have heard here I still feel comfortable standing by it, whatever it is.

Ivory towers ARE comfortable.

Orignality has merit, some ideas do need to be thrown into the "stew."

Not if they're wrong.

bruto

12th February 2007, 06:35 AM

Well the words are mind. That is well I start.

?????

Could you translate that into English?

Loss Leader

12th February 2007, 06:39 AM

So the body was you from the time you were conceived, but ceases to be you when you die?

Yes and no. The dead body is whatever is left of you, but that is just a dead body. The organ that produced thought is no longer working. To the extent that you are your working brain, you no longer exist after the brain dies. Mark my words - just because it is not "you" in the coffin does NOT mean you are somewhere else. It means "you" as a thinking being no longer exists. The rest of you is buried in the ground.

The tombstone says that it is still you under there.

Since when are tombstones scientific? Are tombstones peer reviewed? Of course, it doesn't matter what's on a tombstone. The tombstone for my great uncle calls him a "loving father." He was a bastard of a father.

Are you saying that without the energy that made the body what it was, that it is no longer that person?

Let's get this absolutely straight: a dead body has PLENTY of energy. It is full to the brim with energy. It will produce caloric energy that will feed all manner of creatures for decades (centuries in a good casket). In fact, a person who has just died has almost exactly the same amount of potential energy as he did just before he died.

The only difference is that the body's cells are no longer USING energy. Energy (in the form of sugar and oxygen) are no longer being provided to the cells for their use.

Actually, isn't the dead body all that person is ever going to be? Then again, king Tut is more famous now than he was than.

So what? The man still can't deliver a pizza in under 30 minutes. He's dead. Your point about gaining fame after death is meaningless.

If we cloned king Tut, wouldn't the treasure he "took with him" be his?

Of course NOT. You have shown a complete misunderstanding of so many scientific principles it is staggering. If we cloned King Tut, all we would get is a person with his same genes. We wouldn't get King Tut. If we cloned you, would the new baby be able to access your bank account and drive with your driver's license.

Identical twins have exactly the same DNA. They are, literally, clones of each other. But they are each separate people. They have different experiences, opinions, desires, clothing, taste in music ... everything.

Seriously, instead of just talking about how things seem to you, why don't you ever do any research or study? Quickly read an article about cloning and then form an opinion. It is exactly what is wrong with everything you produce: You just state how things seem to your uneducated mind as though they were true. Then you have to defend your foolish positions.

Belz...

12th February 2007, 07:12 AM

Actually, isn't the dead body all that person is ever going to be? Then again, king Tut is more famous now than he was than.

Relevance ?

Belz...

12th February 2007, 07:13 AM

Seriously, instead of just talking about how things seem to you, why don't you ever do any research or study?

That would actually require effort, Loss. Something that our friend Light can't possibly spare.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th February 2007, 08:22 PM

No, you're not. Every time someone brings up something that contradicts what you've already decided for non-scientific reasons must be so, you say that science isn't enough, and either reject it, misunderstand it, or modify it beyond all recognition.
Non scientific reasons were used, but the diagram stands up to what science, and religion, have been saying.
Light is the force most responsible for life. The strong force is a binding force, and the weak one is one of decay. Like the other two forces, the nuclear forces may have a certain influence on life.
Negative, positive, attraction and repulsion are the base actions/reactions of the things that make the universe what it is, and they govern the base actions/reactions of life.
Math is the result of the ordered pattern that the universe has.
Intelligence is the results of all those things combined, bringing to a head the quest for more complex forms of matter, energy, and information.
Consciousness may not survive death, but the energy is recycled.

Loss Leader

12th February 2007, 08:33 PM

Consciousness may not survive death, but the energy is recycled.

Actually, no. The energy is going to eventually end up as heat which will disperse evenly across the planet (and beyond) until its effects are so slight as to be unmeasurable.

Eventually, the entire universe will be nothing but a great blackness full of evenly-distributed particles all moving at the same speed.

It should take no more than another hundred years ... hundred and fifty tops.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th February 2007, 09:31 PM

Elementary my @ss. Realistic is more like it. Unless you can PROVE your assertions. Didn't think so.
Realistic (used here) sounds like a perception that if I can't sense it, it can't be there. There are things in life that can't be proven (at least not then and there) but are very real. Somethings can only be pursued through thought, and are important enough to be thought about.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th February 2007, 09:35 PM

?????

Could you translate that into English?
Damn, I'm sorry. I meant the words were mine, and its a start.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th February 2007, 10:24 PM

Yes and no. The dead body is whatever is left of you, but that is just a dead body. The organ that produced thought is no longer working. To the extent that you are your working brain, you no longer exist after the brain dies. Mark my words - just because it is not "you" in the coffin does NOT mean you are somewhere else. It means "you" as a thinking being no longer exists. The rest of you is buried in the ground.
The same for a person who loses their memory, that is them walking around, but it isn't.

Since when are tombstones scientific? Are tombstones peer reviewed? Of course, it doesn't matter what's on a tombstone.
He is buired there, but he stopped functioning as himself (which made it not him) before then.

Let's get this absolutely straight: a dead body has PLENTY of energy. It is full to the brim with energy. It will produce caloric energy that will feed all manner of creatures for decades (centuries in a good casket). In fact, a person who has just died has almost exactly the same amount of potential energy as he did just before he died.
You know the kind I was talking about. The mental/emotional driven energy (or is a force) that is considered who that person is-even more then their physical body.

The only difference is that the body's cells are no longer USING energy. Energy (in the form of sugar and oxygen) are no longer being provided to the cells for their use.
Causing the mental/emotional thing to stop functioning, but not necessarilly leave the body as a spirit. Got it.

Of course NOT. You have shown a complete misunderstanding of so many scientific principles it is staggering. If we cloned King Tut, all we would get is a person with his same genes. We wouldn't get King Tut. If we cloned you, would the new baby be able to access your bank account and drive with your driver's license.
If king Tut was cloned, that would be king Tut. He would know he is king Tut, we would know. He could seek to get his stuff. And if you cloned two, they both could.

Identical twins have exactly the same DNA. They are, literally, clones of each other. But they are each separate people. They have different experiences, opinions, desires, clothing, taste in music ... everything.
I was speaking to the DNA thing being considered who that person is, just like their mental/emotional nature.

Seriously, instead of just talking about how things seem to you, why don't you ever do any research or study? Quickly read an article about cloning and then form an opinion. It is exactly what is wrong with everything you produce: You just state how things seem to your uneducated mind as though they were true. Then you have to defend your foolish positions.
I thought I had. Why on earth would you think, that I think, king Tut would emotionally and mentally be king Tut? Genetically, he would be the person once known as king Tut.

Cosmo

12th February 2007, 11:09 PM

If king Tut was cloned, that would be king Tut. He would know he is king Tut, we would know. He could seek to get his stuff. And if you cloned two, they both could.

I thought I had. Why on earth would you think, that I think, king Tut would emotionally and mentally be king Tut? Genetically, he would be the person once known as king Tut.

Once again (anyone keeping count?), LCL manages to contradict himself in the space of just a few sentences. :rolleyes:

Belz...

13th February 2007, 04:38 AM

Non scientific reasons were used, but the diagram stands up to what science, and religion, have been saying.

"Stands up" ? What definition of this phrase are you using ?

Light is the force most responsible for life.

...Because ?

Math is the result of the ordered pattern that the universe has.

Again: you haven't learned anything.

Intelligence is the results of all those things combined, bringing to a head the quest for more complex forms of matter, energy, and information.

Information doesn't exist without intelligence, bloke.

Consciousness may not survive death, but the energy is recycled.

Another worthless tautology.

I meant the words were mine, and its a start.

So, when the words AREN'T yours, it's a good defense against arguments. And when they ARE yours, it is ALSO a good defense. Is there anything about logic that you understand ?

The same for a person who loses their memory, that is them walking around, but it isn't.

That is the stupidest analogy you could possible come up with. Not only that, but it is also wrong, which I guess is a word you patented.

Of course, it doesn't matter what's on a tombstone.

He is buired there, but he stopped functioning as himself (which made it not him) before then.

Unrelated response of the month.

The mental/emotional driven energy (or is a force) that is considered who that person is-even more then their physical body.

Sorry, man. You don't pass GO. The "energy" is PART of the body.

If king Tut was cloned, that would be king Tut. He would know he is king Tut, we would know. He could seek to get his stuff. And if you cloned two, they both could.

I've honestly never seen someone so ignorant of everything. Do you even KNOW what a clone is ? Memories aren't part of DNA, you dolt. A cloned king tut would not even be physically identical to the original. He would not be the SAME person and therefore would have no right on any of the original's property.

Loss Leader

13th February 2007, 06:50 AM

You know the kind I was talking about. The mental/emotional driven energy (or is a force) that is considered who that person is-even more then their physical body.

No, I don't know what you were talking about. There is no "mental/emotional driven energy" that I have ever heard of. At least part of the process of thought involves electrochemical signals inside the brain. However, your memories, your preferences, your personality and more are stored physically as protein chains inside your brain. This is like a hard disk which holds information without using energy but which requires energy to read the information.

If king Tut was cloned, that would be king Tut. He would know he is king Tut, we would know. He could seek to get his stuff. And if you cloned two, they both could.

Absolutely wrong. A person's clone is not that person. Think of all the experiences you have had in your life that make you who you are: the time you wet yourself in front of the class in third grade; that girl in junior high that laughed at you; the death of your grandfather. The clone would have completely different experiences. Not only that, the clone would eat differently, be exposed to different environmental factors, grow up in a different society. The clone is not the person from whom he's cloned.

Twins have the same DNA. They are clones. But they are not each other.

But think of just how unworkable your statement is. All I would need to do is steal a glass Donald Trump drank out of, implant the DNA from his saliva into a willing host, wait six months and produce Donald Trump 2.0. Then I could go to court and sue for half of Donald Trump's stuff? That's just stupid.

A clone is not the person. It is, at best, his brother. I have a brother; he's an idiot.

Why on earth would you think, that I think, king Tut would emotionally and mentally be king Tut? Genetically, he would be the person once known as king Tut.

No, he would not. You are wrong on a scale never before witnessed in this thread. It's really breathtaking.

LawnOven

13th February 2007, 10:42 AM

So... sixty-five pages of this now huh?

Loss Leader

13th February 2007, 11:55 AM

implant the DNA from his saliva into a willing host, wait six months and produce Donald Trump 2.0.

Um ... did I really say that? I meant nine months.

I know where babies come from.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th February 2007, 02:08 PM

Actually, no. The energy is going to eventually end up as heat which will disperse evenly across the planet (and beyond) until its effects are so slight as to be unmeasurable.

Eventually, the entire universe will be nothing but a great blackness full of evenly-distributed particles all moving at the same speed.

It should take no more than another hundred years ... hundred and fifty tops.
That sounds so sad, even though that isn't due to happen for quite a bit of time. The only thing that makes the whole drama worthwhile (and may even have something to say about it) is intelligence/consciousness. And even if the consciousness does not survive the death of the body, future science might have something to say about making that possible. It is already working on prolonging life.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th February 2007, 02:13 PM

Once again (anyone keeping count?), LCL manages to contradict himself in the space of just a few sentences. :rolleyes:His DNA would make him king Tut, and he would know he is king Tut because the rest of the world would tell him. The knowledge would not come with the suit.

Loss Leader

13th February 2007, 04:25 PM

His DNA would make him king Tut, and he would know he is king Tut because the rest of the world would tell him. The knowledge would not come with the suit.

He would not be King Tut and nobody would tell him he was King Tut. They would tell him that he was cloned from King Tut, that he is genetically identical, but that everything that happened from that moment on made him his own, unique individual. And if the people raising him loved him at all, they would keep him as far away from crazy ding-dongs who think he is King Tut as possible.

Man, people have all sorts of psychological problems because they get their identities too wrapped up in who their parents are. Imagine the damage you could do to a child by trying to convince him he's an ancient pharoh.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th February 2007, 08:17 PM

He would not be King Tut and nobody would tell him he was King Tut. They would tell him that he was cloned from King Tut, that he is genetically identical,
I wasn't talking about everybody being cloned, I was talking about someone who is more famous now, then he was than. DNA, with a known, and deep mental/emotional past. And since he was cloned, because of his known famous past, that he might have a claim to the things "he" had put aside for himself.
Afterall, "I did expect to return, which is why I carefully prepared, and hid, what I thought would help the process." And that would be true whether or not his tresure was meant to be a bribe, or something that would make people in the future, (because he hid what he had from the people of his time, to the future, he is more valuable than his treasure) keep him alive, and possibly, bring him back. Sought of like how people want to be frozen until a cure for them is found today.

Man, people have all sorts of psychological problems because they get their identities too wrapped up in who their parents are. Imagine the damage you could do to a child by trying to convince him he's an ancient pharoh.
That depends on the kid, but I understand what you are saying. When people begin looking for thier African roots, the people they sent, usually came up with a king. The damage done to some of those who believed, might explain some things.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th February 2007, 09:08 PM

"Stands up" ? What definition of this phrase are you using ?

As I have said before, reilgion got the spirit/energy world right, that life is part of an overall universal plan, that invisible forces influence life, and they (supposely, now, maybe) represent that life is more than what we see, and even what is logical.
With the actual facts behind most relationships, they would never begin, let alone continue. Yet most believe/feel that life is better with someone."

...Because ?
Because light is the one most responsible for food, seeing, understanding, etc.

tion doesn't exist without intelligence, bloke.
What I am reading says that certain atomic arrangements convey information.

the stupidest analogy you could possible come up with. Not only that, but it is also wrong, which I guess is a word you patented.
I am starting to think I do have a patent on it.

nestly never seen someone so ignorant of everything. Do you even KNOW what a clone is ? Memories aren't part of DNA, you dolt. A cloned king tut would not even be physically identical to the original. He would not be the SAME person and therefore would have no right on any of the original's property.
Genetically he will. Se if he don't get convicted if too much of his is found in the wrong place. But the one place he would surely find it, is the body of the person known as king Tut.

Belz...

16th February 2007, 08:14 AM

Because light is the one most responsible for food, seeing, understanding, etc.

You're not answering the question. WHY is light "most responsible" for anything ?

What I am reading says that certain atomic arrangements convey information.

To us, Light. Read again.

I am starting to think I do have a patent on it.

You and your funny nonsensical assertions.

Loss Leader

16th February 2007, 10:24 AM

DNA, with a known, and deep mental/emotional past.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but this combination of words is meaningless. DNA has no "mental/emotional" anything. It's just DNA.

And since he was cloned, because of his known famous past, that he might have a claim to the things "he" had put aside for himself.

No, no he wouldn't.

Anacoluthon64

16th February 2007, 03:58 PM

I stand humbled: flagellation of deceased equines, it seems, makes no exceptions for the wooden rocking variety.

'Luthon64

RandFan

17th February 2007, 07:01 PM

Foster Zygote

17th February 2007, 07:04 PM

I'm just checking in to see if LCL has won any awards, changed any minds, said anything profound? In other words, has our collective view of the world changed as a result of the contributions of LCL? Has anything beyond an addition of 66 pages to JREF been affected?

Please, don't misunderstand, I'm not calling for an end to this but I think it worth noting that LCL's time seems to have been a big waste. JMHO.

Somebody let me know if there is ever a change.

Hey! Are you back or just stopping in to sneak out a fart and leave?

RandFan

17th February 2007, 08:50 PM

Hey! Are you back or just stopping in to sneak out a fart and leave? I submitted a major portion of the project I'm working on today. The head of IT (IS?) for my client gave me the thumbs up on it this afternoon {sigh of relief}.

This is, no exaggeration, the first evening or weekend I've taken off in three weeks. I've worked nearly every waking hour since then. I desperately needed a break and didn't feel like watching TV. I'll have to duck back out tomorrow. I've fallen behind on my regular job and I need to get caught up. I'm just hoping I'll be able to work a few less hours on the next portion of the project.

Thanks for asking.

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th February 2007, 09:27 PM

You're not answering the question. WHY is light "most responsible" for anything ?

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."

The book the Conquest of Energy says the same thing.
"The form of energy most impostant 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. Heat and lightwaves bring in eight minutes, from the sun ninety-three million miles away, all the energy that keeps the world alive....
Yet this part of the radiant energy spectrum represents only a tiny portion of the broad array of electromagnetic waves which today are known to exist."

To us, Light. Read again.

I have seen many references just like the two here, and a book on molecular biology said that: "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, energy, and information." And I have seen plenty of references about this too.

By the way, wouldn't the information still be there without us, like the math behind the universe?

You and your funny nonsensical assertions.
Are the assertions of those referenced above nonsense too, or does it become nonsense when I say it? Do you what me to provide references about humans being a "higher" form of life again? Because when I said it (in the same context they did) that was tagged nonsense as well.
Life and death, negative and positive, attraction and repulsion, love and hate, and all the things in the diagram, are in the right relationship to each other-and the right context. And while I respect the intelligence I have seen here, they are all related pairs, and are the words used to describe the drama. They were all arbitrarilly arrived at (as all words are) but to me, that makes them fitting together (especially in the center square) all the more interesting.

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th February 2007, 09:45 PM

I'm just checking in to see if LCL has won any awards, changed any minds, said anything profound? In other words, has our collective view of the world changed as a result of the contributions of LCL? Has anything beyond an addition of 66 pages to JREF been affected?

Please, don't misunderstand, I'm not calling for an end to this but I think it worth noting that LCL's time seems to have been a big waste. JMHO.
I have a study path, and I'm moving down it. I don't think it was a waste of time.

Somebody let me know if there is ever a change.
Change? Even after I thanked you for showing me the diagram is based on related pairs, not four. Or do you measure change only in your direction?

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th February 2007, 10:05 PM

I have no idea what you are trying to say but this combination of words is meaningless. DNA has no "mental/emotional" anything. It's just DNA.
I was saying that his well known past, and his DNA, could have a greater impact on who he thought he was. The same would apply to a clone of George Washington, but not to one of his unknown slaves.

No, no he wouldn't.
That would depend on his lawyer. A DNA test of the remains in the tomb, and his likeness to drawings there, may help his case. Afterall, he planned on coming back, and in a way, there he would stand.

Zep

18th February 2007, 10:22 PM

Goodness me! LCL is STILL going with this crap! Amazing!

Cosmo

18th February 2007, 10:23 PM

I was saying that his well known past, and his DNA, could have a greater impact on who he thought he was. The same would apply to a clone of George Washington, but not to one of his unknown slaves.

Are you being racist?

Cosmo

18th February 2007, 10:25 PM

Goodness me! LCL is STILL going with this crap! Amazing!

Yes, but we (the collective of regular forum members) are just as responsible for that as he is.

cyborg

19th February 2007, 05:29 AM

I was saying that his well known past, and his DNA, could have a greater impact on who he thought he was.

That could equally well apply if you decided to pick a random child and tell him he's a clone of XYZ.

The DNA has bugger all to do with it.

Belz...

20th February 2007, 09:52 AM

The book the Conquest of Energy says the same thing.

"The form of energy most impostant 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. Heat and lightwaves bring in eight minutes, from the sun ninety-three million miles away, all the energy that keeps the world alive....

He forgot to mention the part where the nuclear forces keeps the world EXTANT.

By the way, wouldn't the information still be there without us, like the math behind the universe?

There is no math behind the universe. How many times will someone have to point this out to you before your brain cells begin working like they should and STORE THIS INFORMATION ?

Are the assertions of those referenced above nonsense too, or does it become nonsense when I say it?

It becomes nonsense when you don't understant why they're right or why they're wrong, depending.

Do you what me to provide references about humans being a "higher" form of life again? Because when I said it (in the same context they did) that was tagged nonsense as well.

It is. You rigged the game, remember ?

Life and death, negative and positive, attraction and repulsion, love and hate, and all the things in the diagram, are in the right relationship to each other-and the right context.

No, they're not. Again, your brain cells aren't doing their job of storing information. I'm starting to suspect cerebral damage.

And while I respect the intelligence I have seen here, they are all related pairs, and are the words used to describe the drama.

Precisely what I expect. You came here to discuss your silly ideas with people who know better, and confronted with a mountain of evidence against you, you prefer to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout really, really loud.

They were all arbitrarilly arrived at (as all words are) but to me, that makes them fitting together (especially in the center square) all the more interesting.

Of course. ANYTHING arbitrary fits.

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

Belz...

20th February 2007, 09:54 AM

Change? Even after I thanked you for showing me the diagram is based on related pairs, not four.

That's not change, per se. That's retreating deeper into your delusions, adding yet another layer of woo.

That would depend on his lawyer.

No, because an identical twin brother, with the SAME DNA, isn't considered to be the same person by law. A clone wouldn't, either. you DO know about identical twins, don't you ?

Loss Leader

20th February 2007, 01:20 PM

That would depend on his lawyer. A DNA test of the remains in the tomb, and his likeness to drawings there, may help his case. Afterall, he planned on coming back, and in a way, there he would stand.

Then you, sir, are in luck because I just happen to be an elderlaw and estates lawyer with over ten years experience. And my official legal opinion is: It is impossible under any reading of any law of any western country for a clone to ever be considered the individual from whom he was cloned. It is violative of all of the most basic precepts of this area of law, most important being the concept of finality. This concept argues strongly that a decision once made not be allowed to be revisited indefinitely. That is why appeals, when allowed, have strict time limits.

The issue of King Tut's death having been fully and finally decided several thousand years ago, it may never be reopened by anyone for any purpose. Ever.

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 02:58 PM

Are you being racist?
Because I mentioned he had slaves? He did, right?

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 03:06 PM

That's not change, per se. That's retreating deeper into your delusions, adding yet another layer of woo.

Recognizing that those there are pairs is a delusion?

No, because an identical twin brother, with the SAME DNA, isn't considered to be the same person by law. A clone wouldn't, either. you DO know about identical twins, don't you ?
I was not talking about twins. I was talking about cloning someone who prepared for his own return. He purposely preserved and hid his property for a future time because he believed he would be back.

cyborg

20th February 2007, 03:29 PM

I was not talking about twins. I was talking about cloning someone who prepared for his own return. He purposely preserved and hid his property for a future time because he believed he would be back.

Irrelevant.

DNA is not the person.

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 03:54 PM

Then you, sir, are in luck because I just happen to be an elderlaw and estates lawyer with over ten years experience. And my official legal opinion is: It is impossible under any reading of any law of any western country for a clone to ever be considered the individual from whom he was cloned.
How can something that has not happenned yet already be decided? And I am not talking about just anyone, he prepared to come back. And who said I needed a western view?

It is violative of all of the most basic precepts of this area of law, most important being the concept of finality. This concept argues strongly that a decision once made not be allowed to be revisited indefinitely. That is why appeals, when allowed, have strict time limits.

The issue of King Tut's death having been fully and finally decided several thousand years ago, it may never be reopened by anyone for any purpose. Ever.
Fine. I don't want to add law books to my pile, you win.

bruto

20th February 2007, 04:01 PM

Recognizing that those there are pairs is a delusion?

I was not talking about twins. I was talking about cloning someone who prepared for his own return. He purposely preserved and hid his property for a future time because he believed he would be back.

You seem not to comprehend. A clone IS a twin, whether of the same generation or not. It is not the same person. If you have a cloned offspring, which is what you're basically talking about, even if the offspring is not produced by the usual mechanism, the clone would be just that: an offspring. The clone can, after all, be alive at the same time as his parent.

Popular culture seems to view cloning as some kind of exotic high tech thing, owing to its difficulty with complicated critters like sheep, but it's not that mysterious. Grafted plants and those that propagate vegetatively are clones, for example. Every banana you eat is a clone of every other one of the same variety, but that does not mean that if I buy a banana I have the right to eat yours!

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 04:08 PM

Irrelevant.

DNA is not the person.
It can be the blueprint for one.

Loss Leader

20th February 2007, 04:23 PM

How can something that has not happenned yet already be decided? And I am not talking about just anyone, he prepared to come back. And who said I needed a western view?

Fine. I don't want to add law books to my pile, you win.

Woo hoo!

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 04:36 PM

There is no math behind the universe. How many times will someone have to point this out to you before your brain cells begin working like they should and STORE THIS INFORMATION ?
Order then, that has mathematical dimesions.

Precisely what I expect. You came here to discuss your silly ideas with people who know better, and confronted with a mountain of evidence against you, you prefer to close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout really, really loud.
I have said plenty of times why I am here. I am starting to think you are delusional. My eyes and ears are not closed to anything, they don't need to be, "really, really loud?" I think you see what you want to see.

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th February 2007, 05:10 PM

You seem not to comprehend. A clone IS a twin, whether of the same generation or not. It is not the same person. If you have a cloned offspring, which is what you're basically talking about, even if the offspring is not produced by the usual mechanism, the clone would be just that: an offspring. The clone can, after all, be alive at the same time as his parent.

So a clone is not an exact physical copy?

bruto

20th February 2007, 07:44 PM

So a clone is not an exact physical copy?

No. A clone is an exact genetic copy. When you clone a plant, it still grows its own way afterwards, and when you clone a sheep, it still starts out as an embryo, and develops according to its own environmental influences, effects of maternal nutrition, accidents, etc., and acquires its own history. Next time you buy a bunch of bananas, check them out. Even in the relatively simple life cycle of bananas, enough goes on to ensure that no two are exactly alike, even though they are indeed clones.

It's pretty amazing when you think about it. For example, you may not be aware that apples, when bred in the usual way by pollination, do not breed true, and almost all seed propagated apple trees produce inedible "spitters." The apples we eat are propagated by grafting from the occasional lucky accident. so, for example, every single Macintosh apple that has ever been grown and eaten in the history of the world is a clone arising from the grafted scions (vegetatively propagated offspring) of one single Canadian tree.

Solus

20th February 2007, 07:53 PM

So... sixty-five pages of this now huh?

I think it's safe to say there will a hundred and sixty five pages eventually. :p

wollery

20th February 2007, 11:03 PM

So a clone is not an exact physical copy?Nope. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and iris patterns, and sniffer dogs dogs can tell them apart, even if they've spent several days in the same environment eating the same things.

cyborg

21st February 2007, 03:43 AM

It can be the blueprint for one.

No, it IS the blueprint.

The blueprint is NOT the person.

Drop this nonsense.

Belz...

21st February 2007, 09:04 AM

Recognizing that those there are pairs is a delusion?

Inventing that they are, is.

I was not talking about twins.

Twins ARE clones, Light.

I was talking about cloning someone who prepared for his own return. He purposely preserved and hid his property for a future time because he believed he would be back.

Uh-huh. I'm sure Loss_Leader can attest to the fact that one's property is no longer one's property when abandoned for several thousand years.

Belz...

21st February 2007, 09:08 AM

I have said plenty of times why I am here. I am starting to think you are delusional.

I'm not the one clinging to discredited ideas.

You're modifying your "graph" so that it remains "alive", but in so doing you must continue to ignore evidence. If you didn't you'd have to ABANDON that ridiculous doodle, instead. That'd be real learning, not claimed learning.

So a clone is not an exact physical copy?

No. A clone is an exact genetic copy.

EVEN if the clone were an exact physical copy, and EVEN if it was an exact psychological copy, somehow, he would still not be the same person, per se.

Loss Leader

21st February 2007, 11:25 AM

Uh-huh. I'm sure Loss_Leader can attest to the fact that one's property is no longer one's property when abandoned for several thousand years.

No system could function if there were any other rule.

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 12:08 PM

Well, I suppose I could go to europe and claim some land of my ancestors' in France...

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 12:55 PM

Inventing that they are, is.
I invented nothing. Life_____, negative_______, attraction______, addition______, love_____, north_____ if told to add what related to them, what would you put in the blanks?

Twins ARE clones, Light.
Twins can be a boy and a girl, I thought a clone had to be physically exact?

Uh-huh. I'm sure Loss_Leader can attest to the fact that one's property is no longer one's property when abandoned for several thousand years.
It seems to me that king Tut would be a special case, considering he did not abandon his property-he hid it. And by them putting his organs in different jars, it stopped everything from getting all mushed up. It looks to me that they were relying on science for a "come back" instead of something labelled supernatural.

But like I said, fine, the clone is not him, and that is not his stuff. So, it is what is in the body (or brain) that makes the person who they are? Something that seems to have a mental/emotional nature that shows a definite connection to all other life, and the conditions for life from which it came.

cyborg

22nd February 2007, 01:07 PM

Twins can be a boy and a girl, I thought a clone had to be physically exact?

A genetic clone is GENETICALLY exact. Jeeze - twins consisting of boys and girls are not genetically identical - they are not IDENTICAL twins. They are irrelevant to your argument that somehow genetics maketh the man.

It seems to me that king Tut would be a special case, considering he did not abandon his property-he hid it.

King Tut is dead.

Forever.

The genetic code is not the man.

Is the blueprint the building?

It looks to me that they were relying on science for a "come back" instead of something labelled supernatural.

Then extracting and throwing away the brains as 'unimportant' was a pretty hefty mistake for the Egyptians to make.

So, it is what is in the body (or brain) that makes the person who they are?

The sum total of everything that has occured since they started interacting with their environments.

Something that seems to have a mental/emotional nature that shows a definite connection to all other life, and the conditions for life from which it came.

No.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 01:24 PM

No. A clone is an exact genetic copy. When you clone a plant, it still grows its own way afterwards, and when you clone a sheep, it still starts out as an embryo, and develops according to its own environmental influences, effects of maternal nutrition, accidents, etc., and acquires its own history. Next time you buy a bunch of bananas, check them out. Even in the relatively simple life cycle of bananas, enough goes on to ensure that no two are exactly alike, even though they are indeed clones.

It's pretty amazing when you think about it. For example, you may not be aware that apples, when bred in the usual way by pollination, do not breed true, and almost all seed propagated apple trees produce inedible "spitters." The apples we eat are propagated by grafting from the occasional lucky accident. so, for example, every single Macintosh apple that has ever been grown and eaten in the history of the world is a clone arising from the grafted scions (vegetatively propagated offspring) of one single Canadian tree.
I didn't know that. It is amazing, thanks.

bruto

22nd February 2007, 01:28 PM

I invented nothing. Life_____, negative_______, attraction______, addition______, love_____, north_____ if told to add what related to them, what would you put in the blanks?

Twins can be a boy and a girl, I thought a clone had to be physically exact?

It seems to me that king Tut would be a special case, considering he did not abandon his property-he hid it. And by them putting his organs in different jars, it stopped everything from getting all mushed up. It looks to me that they were relying on science for a "come back" instead of something labelled supernatural.

But like I said, fine, the clone is not him, and that is not his stuff. So, it is what is in the body (or brain) that makes the person who they are? Something that seems to have a mental/emotional nature that shows a definite connection to all other life, and the conditions for life from which it came.

Holy smokes, man, have you really never until now been aware that there are two kinds of twins in the world? Identical twins are clones, developed from the same initial embryo which splits. Non-identical twins are ordinary siblings, developed from separate embryos. The basic understanding of this does not require heavy or difficult research.

Who you are is who you are. It really doesn't matter exactly what criteria you use to define the "who-ness" of an individual. One thing cannot also be another thing at the same time. A separate person is a separate person. However similar, even identical, two beings are, they cannot be the same being. You do understand, don't you, that a clone can exist at the very same time as the organism (person, plant, sheep or whatever else) it is cloned from? We're not talking here about perpetuating the same person (or plant or sheep.) We're talking about reproduction. Parent and child, however the mechanism is jiggled.

Loss Leader

22nd February 2007, 01:35 PM

I invented nothing. Life_____, negative_______, attraction______, addition______, love_____, north_____ if told to add what related to them, what would you put in the blanks?

This post is an excellent examle of the absolute core and crux of your problem. If you, LCL, can understand the mistake you have made here, you can understand virtually all of the mistakes you have made at every stage of your thinking. Here it is:

How things seem when just applying regular common sense has absolutely nothing to do with how things actually are. The way things appear at first glance does not mean that this is actually how they operate or that the way we thought about those things were at all logical.

The earth appears to be fixed and unmoving but it is not. A person far away appears to be very small but he is not. Here's a good one: Imagine a car merging onto the highway on which you are traveling. The ramp comes straight at you perpendicularly and then bends so that the car enters the road parallel to you. As you see that car come down the perpendicular part of the ramp, you might think that the person is speeding quite recklessly. But as he turns and merges on, you see that he is actually going far slower than you were. Appearance means NOTHING.

Now, I will admit that the vast majority of people, if told to name the opposites of your list as quickly as possible would say "deathpositiverepulsionsubtractionhatesouth." However, this is not evidence that their answers are logical. it is only evidence that most people unreflexively link these ideas in their minds.

Logic, research and scientific evidence, however, reveals that this great majority is wrong. They are wrong. The definition of "opposite" or "related pair" swings wildly from one pair to the next. And there is no reason to think that a "related" pair is equal to any other "related" pair.

It's just not the way real scientific progress is made. Accept it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 01:46 PM

A genetic clone is GENETICALLY exact. Jeeze - twins consisting of boys and girls are not genetically identical - they are not IDENTICAL twins. They are irrelevant to your argument that somehow genetics maketh the man.
I didn't say it made the man, it is a very important part of being him. I have always been aiming for the activity (and the activators) inside.

Then extracting and throwing away the brains as 'unimportant' was a pretty hefty mistake for the Egyptians to make.
I'll say. But a lot of people thought on up to a couple of hundred years ago, that the heart was the most important organ.

The sum total of everything that has occured since they started interacting with their environments.
And most of that was conveyed through what they saw.

No.
Oh.

cyborg

22nd February 2007, 01:56 PM

I didn't say it made the man, it is a very important part of being him.

Well as the point is trying to be made to you: there are a load of indentical twins who would vehemently disagree.

I'll say. But a lot of people thought on up to a couple of hundred years ago, that the heart was the most important organ.

And they engaged in the sort of thinking you do no doubt.

And most of that was conveyed through what they saw.

That does not parse.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 02:36 PM

This post is an excellent examle of the absolute core and crux of your problem. If you, LCL, can understand the mistake you have made here, you can understand virtually all of the mistakes you have made at every stage of your thinking. Here it is:

How things seem when just applying regular common sense has absolutely nothing to do with how things actually are. The way things appear at first glance does not mean that this is actually how they operate or that the way we thought about those things were at all logical.

The earth appears to be fixed and unmoving but it is not. A person far away appears to be very small but he is not. Here's a good one: Imagine a car merging onto the highway on which you are traveling. The ramp comes straight at you perpendicularly and then bends so that the car enters the road parallel to you. As you see that car come down the perpendicular part of the ramp, you might think that the person is speeding quite recklessly. But as he turns and merges on, you see that he is actually going far slower than you were. Appearance means NOTHING.

Now, I will admit that the vast majority of people, if told to name the opposites of your list as quickly as possible would say "deathpositiverepulsionsubtractionhatesouth." However, this is not evidence that their answers are logical. it is only evidence that most people unreflexively link these ideas in their minds.

And that is where I came from.

Logic, research and scientific evidence, however, reveals that this great majority is wrong. They are wrong. The definition of "opposite" or "related pair" swings wildly from one pair to the next. And there is no reason to think that a "related" pair is equal to any other "related" pair.
I didn't say one pair was equal to another, they don't have to be. Life makes them all work regardless, and how they are. Life styles swing wildly from culture to culture, but always around those same concepts. The names are used to describe things, things that don't have exact boundries, but enough of one to be dealt with-in most cases.

It's just not the way real scientific progress is made. Accept it.Scientific progress is made in many ways, that diagram led me to the EMF and what I am reading says it is tied "most" to life. Of course you must be are right though, it can't be that easy. But I have heard all you all have said here, and while you show things are more complex than they appear, those are the words (and concepts) used to describe our drama. If nothing else, the diagram says logically put those words at the corners of 5 squares and it is "funny how things fit together."

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 02:46 PM

Well as the point is trying to be made to you: there are a load of indentical twins who would vehemently disagree.
Not the ones blamed for what their twin did.

And they engaged in the sort of thinking you do no doubt.
Gotta start somewhere.

That does not parse.
Most of the information collected by a person, is collected through their sense of sight. Something that has to do with light.

cyborg

22nd February 2007, 03:28 PM

Not the ones blamed for what their twin did.

That does not reinforce your argument!

That just reinforces the difference between 'genetics' and 'identity'!

Gotta start somewhere.

Yes but you do not seem to be going anywhere.

Most of the information collected by a person, is collected through their sense of sight. Something that has to do with light.

UGH.

Seriously? You're going to pull this crap?

What about blind people? Are they less real in your estimation of things?

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 06:34 PM

That does not reinforce your argument!
As you suggested, I was trying to drop the point, (I think the red eyes scared me) but no one can doubt that how a person looks plays a large role in who they are. And even who they can pretend to be.

Yes but you do not seem to be going anywhere.
To you. The diagram shows that the EMF has "most" to do with life, what I am reading says the same thing.
Someone here said electrostatic forces are responsible for chemical bonds and is related to the EMF.
Attraction, repulsion, negative and positive are the base influences that compell particles to do what they do, and things "labeled" the same are the base influences that drive life. Only we call them Love, hate, negative and positive.

The book Into the Cool is speaking my language (even though it did not review well) so I am not as alone as it seems, and I am reading nothing that stands in the way of what I am saying.

What about blind people? Are they less real in your estimation of things?Blind people miss some of the experience, as do those who can't hear, etc.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd February 2007, 09:04 PM

Holy smokes, man, have you really never until now been aware that there are two kinds of twins in the world? Identical twins are clones, developed from the same initial embryo which splits. Non-identical twins are ordinary siblings, developed from separate embryos. The basic understanding of this does not require heavy or difficult research.
I guess I was a little loose on the word identical. I have seen supposed identical twins who were a girl and a boy-they looked exactly the same.

Who you are is who you are. It really doesn't matter exactly what criteria you use to define the "who-ness" of an individual. One thing cannot also be another thing at the same time. A separate person is a separate person. However similar, even identical, two beings are, they cannot be the same being. You do understand, don't you, that a clone can exist at the very same time as the organism (person, plant, sheep or whatever else) it is cloned from? We're not talking here about perpetuating the same person (or plant or sheep.) We're talking about reproduction. Parent and child, however the mechanism is jiggled.
Nowhere I have said that a person can live forever by just cloning himself. So I know he could not actually be that person. That is an exact copy of his body (sort of) but not his-spirit. But who knows, after 3,000 years, maybe he is ready for a comeback. That was a joke.

jesus_freak

22nd February 2007, 11:54 PM

sorry if this was already answered but if light created life (and I think it is safe to say that is a pretty big if) what created light?

cyborg

23rd February 2007, 01:44 AM

but no one can doubt that how a person looks plays a large role in who they are.

How a person looks plays a small role in who they are.

To you.

To everyone NOT you.

Attraction, repulsion, negative and positive are the base influences that compell particles to do what they do, and things "labeled" the same are the base influences that drive life. Only we call them Love, hate, negative and positive.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Blind people miss some of the experience, as do those who can't hear, etc.

Are they or are they not individuals?

Taffer

23rd February 2007, 03:15 AM

This thread is still going?

Wow...

Fill me in, have we made any progress, or am I going to have to post this:

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1161382099-1161356741260.jpg (http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/index.html?view=1161382099-1161356741260.jpg)

Loss Leader

23rd February 2007, 07:31 AM

I didn't say one pair was equal to another, they don't have to be. Life makes them all work regardless, and how they are. Life styles swing wildly from culture to culture, but always around those same concepts. The names are used to describe things, things that don't have exact boundries, but enough of one to be dealt with-in most cases.

So, basically, you didn't understand a word I said.

wollery

23rd February 2007, 07:45 AM

I guess I was a little loose on the word identical. I have seen supposed identical twins who were a girl and a boy-they looked exactly the same.You muppet! If they're a boy and a girl, then they cannot be identical twins, no matter how much they look alike. If they're identical then they must be the same sex.

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 09:24 AM

I invented nothing. Life_____, negative_______, attraction______, addition______, love_____, north_____ if told to add what related to them, what would you put in the blanks?

Nothing. Any concept can be related to any other concept easily. It doesn't mean squat.

Twins can be a boy and a girl, I thought a clone had to be physically exact?

:jaw-dropp

Are you telling me that you don't understand the difference between identical twins (one egg that split in two) and non-identical ones (two different eggs) ?

It seems to me that king Tut would be a special case, considering he did not abandon his property-he hid it.

He died. Legally, dying and dying tend to be the same thing.

And by them putting his organs in different jars, it stopped everything from getting all mushed up.

Same thing for incineration.

It looks to me that they were relying on science for a "come back" instead of something labelled supernatural.

Ridiculous. Their DNA is destroyed by time. He could not be cloned.

But like I said, fine, the clone is not him, and that is not his stuff. So, it is what is in the body (or brain) that makes the person who they are? Something that seems to have a mental/emotional nature that shows a definite connection to all other life, and the conditions for life from which it came.

You're trying to make things completely different than what they really are. To put it simply, you are what you are, and no one or no thing can be you except you.

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 09:32 AM

And that is where I came from.

Time to unlearn.

I didn't say one pair was equal to another, they don't have to be. Life makes them all work regardless, and how they are.

"Life" doesn't do anything. It's a word.

Life styles swing wildly from culture to culture, but always around those same concepts. The names are used to describe things, things that don't have exact boundries, but enough of one to be dealt with-in most cases.

Death is NOT the opposite of life. Death is, at most, the opposite of BIRTH.

Scientific progress is made in many ways, that diagram led me to the EMF and what I am reading says it is tied "most" to life.

Don't you realise yet that ANY person reading your graph, who would not see it as nonsensical, would arrive at a different conclusion ? That's why it's arbitrary and subjective. No two people could agree on it. That's NOT how science works.

If nothing else, the diagram says logically put those words at the corners of 5 squares and it is "funny how things fit together."

Again, it only fits because you want it to.

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 09:37 AM

As you suggested, I was trying to drop the point, (I think the red eyes scared me) but no one can doubt that how a person looks plays a large role in who they are. And even who they can pretend to be.

Doesn't matter. A look-alike isn't the person they look like. Identical twins and other clones aren't the same individual even if they're made from the same blueprint, just like two houses made from the same plans aren't the same house.

The diagram shows that the EMF has "most" to do with life, what I am reading says the same thing.

That's because you're reading the diagram, THAT YOU MADE.

Attraction, repulsion, negative and positive are the base influences that compell particles to do what they do, and things "labeled" the same are the base influences that drive life. Only we call them Love, hate, negative and positive.

Again, you show your inability to learn ANYTHING. How many times has this been told to you ? "Love" and other emotions are CHEMICAL. Interraction between MOLECULES. And particles aren't "compelled" to do anything. That's how they function.

The book Into the Cool is speaking my language (even though it did not review well) so I am not as alone as it seems, and I am reading nothing that stands in the way of what I am saying.

You're arguing from popularity, again.

Blind people miss some of the experience, as do those who can't hear, etc.

It still defeats your argument, that light is oh-so important.

I guess I was a little loose on the word identical. I have seen supposed identical twins who were a girl and a boy-they looked exactly the same.

How do they look exactly the same if one is female (boobs, remember ?) and one is male ? You're not making sense.

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 09:39 AM

You muppet! If they're a boy and a girl, then they cannot be identical twins, no matter how much they look alike. If they're identical then they must be the same sex.

though it might be possible to alter the DNA afterwards to change that artificially, I guess you couldn't call them twins or clones anymore at that point.

Solus

24th February 2007, 04:49 PM

Nope. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and iris patterns, and sniffer dogs dogs can tell them apart, even if they've spent several days in the same environment eating the same things.

Wait, Wollery as far as I know identical twins share exactly the same DNA. The scientific term for them is monozygotic twins. News to me I need to look this up. If the DNA is the same why would the iris pattern and finger prints be different?

cyborg

24th February 2007, 04:52 PM

Because the phenotype of an organism is not the same as its genotype.

Or, to put it another way, physical characteristics are not solely determined by genetics.

Solus

24th February 2007, 04:55 PM

Solus

24th February 2007, 04:58 PM

Because the phenotype of an organism is not the same as its genotype.

Or, to put it another way, physical characteristics are not solely determined by genetics.

It's been about 5 years since I've taken college biology so I'm a little rusty. I do remember that though.

RandFan

24th February 2007, 09:18 PM

So long as we don't convince LCL that his ideas are worthless then his efforts are of value... Of course LCL could never be convinced that his ideas are worthless even though they are. They have meaning only to him and no one else but that is enough for the deluded.

wollery

25th February 2007, 02:55 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th February 2007, 02:32 PM

How a person looks plays a small role in who they are.
And you say that knowing that the world is image driven too. If someone got their looks altered, those close to them may still see them as the same person, but first they would have to get thru the door. Those that did not know that person well to begin with, may never believe the new them.
If you are saying that looks play a small role in how a person sees themselves, I you need to get out more.

Are they or are they not individuals?
I never said that they weren't individuals, I said without seeing, they miss alot of the experience.

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th February 2007, 02:36 PM

sorry if this was already answered but if light created life (and I think it is safe to say that is a pretty big if) what created light?
Would the big bang be invalided because I was unable to tell you what came before that?

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th February 2007, 02:45 PM

So, basically, you didn't understand a word I said.
Sorry, I must have. Because the opposites don't equate to each other, life doesn't work?

cyborg

25th February 2007, 02:49 PM

And you say that knowing that the world is image driven too. If someone got their looks altered, those close to them may still see them as the same person, but first they would have to get thru the door. Those that did not know that person well to begin with, may never believe the new them.

*Sigh*

The perceptions of *OTHERS* is irrelevant.

If you are saying that looks play a small role in how a person sees themselves, I you need to get out more.

I am saying that looks have F-ALL to do with *WHO* a person is.

You endless obfuscation of a simple matter of identity is tiresome.

Looking *LIKE* someone will never make them *BE* someone.

So drop this crap about someone looking like a dead guy entitling them to something. Unless you consider all factors it is irrelevant.

THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE THE DEAD PERSON.

I never said that they weren't individuals, I said without seeing, they miss alot of the experience.

So?

RandFan

25th February 2007, 02:51 PM

Let me make a prediction. Some day this thread will end. When it does, nothing of significance will have been accomplished. LCL will still cling to his notions (right or wrong as they may be) and no one else will agree with him. If I'm correct what could the implications of that fact be?

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th February 2007, 02:59 PM

You muppet! If they're a boy and a girl, then they cannot be identical twins, no matter how much they look alike. If they're identical then they must be the same sex.

Or, to put it another way, physical characteristics are not solely determined by genetics.

I was thinking that there was some wiggle room to even the word "identical." They were said to be identical even though their sexes were known.
Look at all the things that Loss Leader knows about opposites not being opposites, but still refers to them as different types of opposites.

cyborg

25th February 2007, 03:05 PM

bruto

25th February 2007, 03:28 PM

I was thinking that there was some wiggle room to even the word "identical." They were said to be identical even though their sexes were known.
Look at all the things that Loss Leader knows about opposites not being opposites, but still refers to them as different types of opposites.

This, sir, is a CLASSIC case of not understanding the difference between the generic meaning of a word and the meaning within a specific universe of discourse, a subject which has been at issue since page one of this laughably unproductive thread. "Identical" means many things, at different times and in different contexts. But when applied to twins in the context of biology, it has a specific, circumscribed, agreed-upon meaning, which is not necessarily the same as the meaning in other areas of discourse. When we speak of "identical" twins, we mean that they are monozygotic (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art2778.asp). That is what "identical" means when we speak of twins. They may look different. They may be different sizes, have different birthmarks, etc. etc. But because they have split from the same zygote, they have the same genetic makeup, and that - and only that, is what the word "identical" means when we speak of twins.

Solus

26th February 2007, 02:47 AM

[purely anecdotal]
I knew monozygotal twins at high school who didn't even look alike. And I don't mean that they weren't exactly identical, I mean you probably would have guessed that they were brothers, but one was smaller, skinnier and had a constantly runny nose due to sinus problems. This was the result of a disease he picked up as a toddler that his twin somehow managed to avoid catching.
[/purely anecdotal]

Still a good a story and difference between most here and the general public is that we recognize what anecdotal accounts are worth. Good for a story but useless if one wants to prove something in a scientific matter.

I can't tell you how many times various people throughout the years have tired to prove something to me purely though anecdotal accounts.

Belz...

26th February 2007, 04:40 AM

wollery

26th February 2007, 05:44 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 06:43 PM

I am saying that looks have F-ALL to do with *WHO* a person is.

I am saying that looks count, certainly more than it should, but it does. The acceptence of the picture ID says so, and so does the divide between rich and poor, black and white.

Looking *LIKE* someone will never make them *BE* someone.
I was talking, at first, about a clone, and there is more their than looks.

So drop this crap about someone looking like a dead guy entitling them to something. Unless you consider all factors it is irrelevant.
I had dropped that part.

So?
So seeing has most to do with our experience.

Lonewulf

26th February 2007, 06:47 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 06:54 PM

Eos of the Eons

26th February 2007, 06:59 PM

I can not tell which one was designed, they both look random to me.
:eye-poppi

*faints*

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 07:21 PM

Ugh. Idiot. Learn something about genetics would you?

Male/female twins DO NOT have the same DNA.

THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL.
As I said, I did not hold the term identical literally. The term twins suggests two people who look alike, but we know that they don't always, I thought of the word identical sort of like that. Clone on the other hand, I thought, was an exact copy. And remember the example of a girl and a boy was mine, that in itself flys in the face of the word "identical," but that is what I was told, and that is what I said. Look again, I was not stating that stuff as fact, nor was I seeking a fight on the subject.

Eos of the Eons

26th February 2007, 07:28 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 07:28 PM

:eye-poppi

*faints*
What? Tell me what you are getting at.

Eos of the Eons

26th February 2007, 07:43 PM

What? Tell me what you are getting at.
Why? You obviously won't get it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 07:55 PM

The term "twin" ONLY suggests that they shared a womb. Fraternal twins rarely look alike. Except those weirdo Olson twins. They are an exception.

Go on, you say such silly things. It's fun to refute some. Just gotta wait for the next post...
Truthfully, I am amazed at the collective intelligence I seen here. I love it. I thought I was pretty smart, but there is always better-much better. What I say sound silly in relation to what you all know-I guess. I can't believe everything (at least I don't want to) but even if it were true, I could fix that.
Some have talked about me being delusional, but I am relieved that I can recognize better-and admit it. My secret as to why it is not driving me mad? I became a good chess player by learning the rules, and then, losing. At least I think I am good, though I know that there are always better-much better.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 07:56 PM

Why? You obviously won't get it.I could try.

Solus

26th February 2007, 08:43 PM

I can not tell which one was designed, they both look random to me.

Come on LCL this is beyond simple. :(

An average 12 year old could easily answer this question. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you now. I don't think I'll poke fun at him anymore, this isn't even remotely funny it's just sad. I almost regret being so hard on him.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 09:42 PM

Come on LCL this is beyond simple. :(

An average 12 year old could easily answer this question. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you now. I don't think I'll poke fun at him anymore, this isn't even remotely funny it's just sad. I almost regret being so hard on him.
Wow. Actually, I am starting to feel sorry for you. You show that wisdom does not come with knowledge. Your whole life is about poking fun. People like you are on an endless search to find anything to help you feel smart about yourself. We are perfect for each other, and that diagram, my attitude, and ego, are the perfect weapon. The learning adventure (and you) will keep me here. Good news, right?

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th February 2007, 10:18 PM

Lightcreatedlife, I have a question for you.

Below are two images. One of them was made using random methods, the other by design, to be different from the random image. The question for you is;

Which one is random, and which one displays design, and more important, how do you know?

I should add that this is not a trick question, I just want to see if you know which image is which, and hear you're reasoning.

Could everyone else please refrain from answering until LCL has had a go.
Any change would make it different from the other image. I forgot we were talking about twins and such.
So was a trick question. I looked at the images, and not the words. Because of your use of the word design, I read what you say, and still thought you wanted me to see if one image had a "design" to it.
Any difference makes another individual.

wollery

27th February 2007, 12:33 AM

cyborg

27th February 2007, 05:15 AM

cyborg

27th February 2007, 05:20 AM

You show that wisdom does not come with knowledge.

Wisdom may not come with knowledge but it cerainly does not come with ignorance.

Belz...

27th February 2007, 07:13 AM

I am saying that looks count, certainly more than it should, but it does.

Not in science it doesn't. In sociology, maybe.

As I said, I did not hold the term identical literally. The term twins suggests two people who look alike, but we know that they don't always, I thought of the word identical sort of like that. Clone on the other hand, I thought, was an exact copy.

Identical twins are clones. An EXACT copy would include personality, scars, etc. Exactly how you would do that eludes me (unless you include Transporter accidents), but the copy, although exact, would still not be the original.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 05:36 PM

LCL, you're still missing the entire point. One image was made by carefully placing the dots.
But because you didn't use a pattern, it "appears" random.

It was designed to look the way it looks.
random by design.

The other was produced by placing the dots randomly. It wasn't designed to look any way at all, it just happened to end up that way.
random because it has no pattern.

In fact I could have designed an image to look random, but technically that would have been cheating, so I made the effort to do it properly.

And it really isn't a trick question, but it is a very elegant demonstration of how the human mind can see order where there's randomness, and randomness where there's order.
As I understand it, the human mind sees order in mathematical dimesions.

So please, have another go, really try to think about order and randomness, and how you might tell the difference between the two.
Randomness has no pattern, and order does. Oh wait, I do see two patterns. Both images are made up of dots of two sizes only, and both have nine large dots. The number of small dots may even be the same in both-but no way am I going to count them.

And Solus, you'd be surprised at just how many people get this wrong. This isn't about making fun of LCL, it's about trying to show him why he's wrong.
Okay, why am I wrong?

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 05:50 PM

Identical twins are clones. An EXACT copy would include personality, scars, etc.
an exact physical copy is what I was talking about.

Exactly how you would do that eludes me (unless you include Transporter accidents), but the copy, although exact, would still not be the original.
King Tut could start out as an exact physical copy and argue (with the proper prepartion) the case that he was the orginal, though Loss Leader said he would not win his/that stuff back.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 05:53 PM

Wisdom may not come with knowledge but it cerainly does not come with ignorance.
Even an ignorant person can be wise enough to seek knowledge.

Loss Leader

27th February 2007, 05:59 PM

King Tut could start out as an exact physical copy and argue (with the proper prepartion) the case that he was the orginal, though Loss Leader said he would not win his/that stuff back.

King Tut is dead. Whomever attempted to argue that he was King Tut would be thrown out of court without the slightest moment of hesitation.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 06:10 PM

*Sigh* The ability to MISTAKE identity is not the issue here.
Who is talking about mistaken identity? I was saying a rich child can grow up thinking he owns the world, while a poor one may not. How they look would thus impact on who they are. Their weight, the horn sticking out his forehead, or whether or not a child thought they were good looking or not, has an impact on who they are.

So? The rest of your argument is a non-sequitur. It is not important to the universe at large that we happen to be quite reliant on a small portion of the EM spectrum for building a model of the universe.
Our part of the universe made us that way.

wollery

27th February 2007, 06:19 PM

I think the point wollery is getting at - and I could be wrong - is that A is what people would perceive as being random because it is hard to pick out nice patterned structures where infact B is random because when you randomly distribute items in sufficient quantities you tend to get a smooth distribution.You are wrong, on all counts. Sorry! Told you it wasn't as easy and obvious as you might think.

So? The rest of your argument is a non-sequitur. It is not important to the universe at large that we happen to be quite reliant on a small portion of the EM spectrum for building a model of the universe.Actually we use a huge range of the EM spectrum to build our models of the Universe. We just need various types of detectors and telescopes to "see" them.

But because you didn't use a pattern, it "appears" random.I did use a pattern, you just can't see what the pattern is.

random by design.???? The point is that it isn't random, it is very highly ordered.

random because it has no pattern.No. Random because it is, in fact, random. That's why I used randomizing techniques to make it, so that I would be certain that it was actually random.

As I understand it, the human mind sees order in mathematical dimesions.I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Randomness has no pattern, and order does. Oh wait, I do see two patterns. Both images are made up of dots of two sizes only, and both have nine large dots. The number of small dots may even be the same in both-but no way am I going to count them.Nothing to do with number of dots, the fact that they have the same number of large dots is just coincidence. I have no idea how many small dots there are.

Okay, why am I wrong?Because you see order where there is none. You see patterns where none exist.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 06:23 PM

King Tut is dead. Whomever attempted to argue that he was King Tut would be thrown out of court without the slightest moment of hesitation.
Not if he was backed by the scientists who did the cloning. Someone could even be brought in to argue "genetic memory," and whatever else is needed to "bend space and time." Look at the prize involved and tell me he would not have the help of legions of lawyers.

Hokulele

27th February 2007, 06:27 PM

Lightcreatedlife, I have a question for you.

Below are two images. One of them was made using random methods, the other by design, to be different from the random image. The question for you is;

Which one is random, and which one displays design, and more important, how do you know?

I should add that this is not a trick question, I just want to see if you know which image is which, and hear you're reasoning.

Could everyone else please refrain from answering until LCL has had a go.

Image A
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/95745e2e09777944.jpg

Image B
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/95745e2e097a99ca.jpg

Ooh, the glowworms! I think many people would be surprised by the answer to this (and be surprised by how many people get it wrong). I think the main point, which LCL is missing, is how do you know which is which. Forget the pictures for just a moment. Stop and think carefully about the words "random" and "order". Small hint: purpose. Now, how would that appear visually?

Wollery, please tell me to pipe down if I am either giving too much away, or taking this down a path other than the one you intended.

Solus

27th February 2007, 06:38 PM

LCL, you're still missing the entire point. One image was made by carefully placing the dots. It was designed to look the way it looks. The other was produced by placing the dots randomly. It wasn't designed to look any way at all, it just happened to end up that way. In fact I could have designed an image to look random, but technically that would have been cheating, so I made the effort to do it properly.

And it really isn't a trick question, but it is a very elegant demonstration of how the human mind can see order where there's randomness, and randomness where there's order. So please, have another go, really try to think about order and randomness, and how you might tell the difference between the two.

And Solus, you'd be surprised at just how many people get this wrong. This isn't about making fun of LCL, it's about trying to show him why he's wrong.

I know you're not trying to make fun of LCL your trying to help him or at least prove a point.

I may have jumped the gun with the twelve year old remark. I don't talk very much to people so it's easy for me to forget what the average person is like. I'm just speaking in cognitive terms here, a twelve year old should be able to correctly answer your question.

Since Cyborg already started I'll follow his lead.

OK I've thought about it I'm nearly certain this must be the answer.

Picture A is the randomly generated one; I look at it, I think of stars in the sky, and the way the mind makes patterns where none are actually there. Picture 2 has a clear order to it and looks like it was designed. Picture 2 shows too much order to just have been randomly created.

Hope I'm right...

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th February 2007, 06:40 PM

I did use a pattern, you just can't see what the pattern is.

???? The point is that it isn't random, it is very highly ordered.
You asked me, and it looks random to me.

Nothing to do with number of dots, the fact that they have the same number of large dots is just coincidence. I have no idea how many small dots there are.
I might count the small ones now, coincidence seems to follow me.
Because you see order where there is none. You see patterns where none exist.
I have to say what I see, how else am I to find out whether it is, or not? And isn't the human mind designed/prone to recognize patterns, and to find beauty/order in mathematical dimesions

wollery

27th February 2007, 08:04 PM

Jimbo07

27th February 2007, 08:10 PM

Picture A is the randomly generated one; I look at it, I think of stars in the sky, and the way the mind makes patterns where none are actually there. Picture 2 has a clear order to it and looks like it was designed. Picture 2 shows too much order to just have been randomly created.

Apparently, I outsmartipated myself. I said that picture 2 looked so ordered, that it would probably turn out to be the random one, whereas the first one was probably designed to 'look' random.' In my case it is, 'believe what you see.' :o

ETA: Reading back up this page, it appears cyborg made the same mistake I did, and we both missed the lesson.

Solus

27th February 2007, 08:13 PM

isn't the human mind designed/prone to recognize patterns, and to find beauty/order in mathematical dimesions

Yes, but the human mind is also capable of understanding that no pattern exists, and that the brain is merely connecting dots.

I once showed a person I loved a shadow.

"Can you see it", I asked "see what" she said. "The face that shadow is showing", "I'll help you so you can see it through my eyes".

I held her next to me first, and by moving her head, putting her line of vision in the proper spot, and showing her the face by tracing it with my finger she did pick it up. I doubt she'd even remember this but it was a special moment. To get another person to "see" as you do even for a moment is something amazing, especially if you care for that person and want them to understand.

Was there really a face in that shadow though? In the end it was just a shadow.

I normally never write dialogs so I hope that wasn't too bad, I haven't written any in years actually.

If everything in front of our eyes had something in it that only we could see and we could not know the truth behind it. We would indeed live in a demon haunted world and I will not stop with my pathetic attempts at trying to be vaguely insightful.:blush: Homer/Plato's cave comes to mind here.

Solus

27th February 2007, 08:26 PM

Oh well, I don't think I'm going to get any better answers out of LCL, so I'll reveal all.

Image A is random. Image B was carefully designed. The giveaway is that the spacing between the dots in B is uniform. A randomly produced image has clumps and holes. It takes great care, and design, to get the spacing even. (Try it for yourselves.)

However, most people can't see any obvious patterns in evenly spaced dots, and therefore say it's random, but can see patterns if the dots have clumps and spaces, so assume that is where the pattern is. As an example, look at the beautifully random distribution of stars in the sky and how we form patterns of constellations from them.

And this is the point, to those who don't actually know what to look for appearances can be very deceptive. But don't feel bad if you didn't get it, a lecturer at the university where I did my PhD used this very problem as a demonstration for his undergraduate statistics course, and half of them got it wrong every year.

In response to Cyborg's post, while it's true that over a very large number of iterations a random distribution approximates to a smooth one there are by far too few dots in those images to reach anywhere near that level.

Got it! The twelve year old comment is way off on this (although a few could get it). This is pretty hard actually, my first knee jerk answer was wrong. I had to think carefully to arrive at the correct answer. I'm also a psychology major so we study this type of thing. I'm aware of the problem humans have with grasping what randomness truly is.

It's good that you bought this up. It got me thinking I've been a bit too arrogant and mean to LCL it's ridiculous and I'll stop. Even with his brick wall mentality the answer isn't to throw stones at it.

Hokulele

27th February 2007, 08:35 PM

Got it! The twelve year old comment is way off on this (although a few could get it). This is pretty hard actually, my first knee jerk answer was wrong. I had to think carefully to arrive at the correct answer. I'm also a psychology major so we study this type of thing. I'm aware of the problem humans have with grasping what randomness truly is.

It's good that you bought this up. It got me thinking I've been a bit too arrogant and mean to LCL it's ridiculous and I'll stop. Even with his brick wall mentality the answer isn't to throw stones at it.

This is actually a cool phenomenon, and one missed in many places. My brother is a painter, and always complained about night scenes looking unrealistic. I explained how his "random" placement of stars was not random at all, but need more "bunchiness". Yes, I made up that word just now. Yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Carry on!

bruto

27th February 2007, 08:35 PM

Not if he was backed by the scientists who did the cloning. Someone could even be brought in to argue "genetic memory," and whatever else is needed to "bend space and time." Look at the prize involved and tell me he would not have the help of legions of lawyers.

Do you still not get it? You can argue genetic memory or richie rich's sense of entitlement or any other damfool idea you can think of, but the fact remains that a clone is not the individual from which the clone is an offspring. A clone and its parent or sibling can (and usually do) exist at the same time! You can't be two places at once!

Even if two clones are entirely identical, even if they are indistinguishable, identical simply does not mean "being the same thing!"

...somehow especially in this thread, I'm reminded of the old Firesign Theater ditty, "how can you be two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all!"

Loss Leader

27th February 2007, 08:49 PM

Not if he was backed by the scientists who did the cloning. Someone could even be brought in to argue "genetic memory," and whatever else is needed to "bend space and time." Look at the prize involved and tell me he would not have the help of legions of lawyers.

First of all, you said that you were conceding this issue. You said that you didn't want to argue it and that you were giving up on it. Now, it appears you have not.

Second, you are wrong. As certain as the scientists here are about your wrongness in matters of physics is how certain I am that you are wrong.

No lawyer would make that argument. No lawyer would go to court and say "genetic memory" (which, as far as I know, is a concept only explored on the TV show "Stargate"). That child would have no argument legal or scientific.

Sure, he could argue it. Anybody can go into court and say any crazy thing he wants. But he will lose. And he'll lose almost instantly.

The clone of King Tut is not King Tut in any way - not physically, not mentally, not spiritually and certainly not legally.

You are wrong.

wollery

27th February 2007, 08:51 PM

Apparently, I outsmartipated myself. I said that picture 2 looked so ordered, that it would probably turn out to be the random one, whereas the first one was probably designed to 'look' random.' In my case it is, 'believe what you see.' :o

ETA: Reading back up this page, it appears cyborg made the same mistake I did, and we both missed the lesson.I did keep saying that it wasn't a trick question.

Loss Leader

27th February 2007, 08:53 PM

Image A is random. Image B was carefully designed. The giveaway is that the spacing between the dots in B is uniform. A randomly produced image has clumps and holes. It takes great care, and design, to get the spacing even. (Try it for yourselves.)

However, most people can't see any obvious patterns in evenly spaced dots, and therefore say it's random, but can see patterns if the dots have clumps and spaces, so assume that is where the pattern is. As an example, look at the beautifully random distribution of stars in the sky and how we form patterns of constellations from them.

I got this dead wrong. Thankfully, I'm a better lawyer than I am dot-pattern-guesser.

Belz...

28th February 2007, 04:31 AM

But because you didn't use a pattern, it "appears" random.

random by design.

random because it has no pattern.

All that's irrelevant. The point is you cannot tell the difference between the two, and you cannot point to the designed one, so your claim that the universe looks designed is debunked.

an exact physical copy is what I was talking about.

Would STILL not be the same person, although his mind would be identical.

King Tut could start out as an exact physical copy and argue (with the proper prepartion) the case that he was the orginal, though Loss Leader said he would not win his/that stuff back.

That's because you still think he has a soul or something. But how can he ? An exact copy CAN STILL coexist with the original. He's not the SAME person although he looks identical. How hard is that to understand ?

Belz...

28th February 2007, 04:39 AM

Who is talking about mistaken identity? I was saying a rich child can grow up thinking he owns the world, while a poor one may not.

Patently false. A poor child can very easily think he owns the world.

How they look would thus impact on who they are. Their weight, the horn sticking out his forehead, or whether or not a child thought they were good looking or not, has an impact on who they are.

Who they THINK they are doesn't change reality.

Not if he was backed by the scientists who did the cloning.

Irrelevant, again. "Backed" doesn't cut it. He isn't the same person. Again, why is it so hard to understand ?

Someone could even be brought in to argue "genetic memory,"

There is no such thing as genetic memory. A cloned Tut would have NO memory at all. An exact copy, however it would be made, would have those memories, but would still NOT BE THE SAME PERSON.

I might count the small ones now, coincidence seems to follow me.

Even if they had the same number of dots, why should that be significant ?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th February 2007, 05:46 PM

First of all, you said that you were conceding this issue. You said that you didn't want to argue it and that you were giving up on it. Now, it appears you have not.
They kept brothering me.

Second, you are wrong. As certain as the scientists here are about your wrongness in matters of physics is how certain I am that you are wrong.
I don't think that much.

No lawyer would make that argument. No lawyer would go to court and say "genetic memory" (which, as far as I know, is a concept only explored on the TV show "Stargate"). That child would have no argument legal or scientific.
No lawyer? And I have seen that term used somewhere better.

Sure, he could argue it. Anybody can go into court and say any crazy thing he wants. But he will lose. And he'll lose almost instantly.
Fine.

The clone of King Tut is not King Tut in any way - not physically, not mentally, not spiritually and certainly not legally.
Any way? The DNA was a piece of him. But not if that person is right about his DNA being destroyed. And that is-was his stuff.

You are wrong.
Fine.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th February 2007, 06:03 PM

Patently false. A poor child can very easily think he owns the world.
Of course, and a lot of other things, but how he looks plays a part in who he thinks he is, and who the world thinks he is.

Who they THINK they are doesn't change reality.
his reality.

Irrelevant, again. "Backed" doesn't cut it. He isn't the same person. Again, why is it so hard to understand ?
He is not the same person, fine.

There is no such thing as genetic memory.
Fine.

A cloned Tut would have NO memory at all. An exact copy, however it would be made, would have those memories, but would still NOT BE THE SAME PERSON.
I said an exact physical copy, not the same person-fine.

Even if they had the same number of dots, why should that be significant ?
It would be another coincidence.

wollery

28th February 2007, 06:28 PM

They kept brothering me.Brilliant typo, given the topic at hand. :D

I don't think that much.Wow, no need even to quote mine. That's sig-worthy! :rolleyes:

Belz...

1st March 2007, 04:30 AM

Any way? The DNA was a piece of him. But not if that person is right about his DNA being destroyed. And that is-was his stuff.

No, no and no. The DNA is the BLUEPRINT for the HOUSE. It isn't PART of the HOUSE. Get it ? Do you ? Do you even read what people post ?

The "stuff" isn't his. It's the original's. But now that the original is dead, no mere copy could claim any right to it. In fact, even were the original to return, he wouldn't either.

Of course, and a lot of other things, but how he looks plays a part in who he thinks he is, and who the world thinks he is.

No.

his reality.

His reality is irrelevant. There is only one true reality.

He is not the same person, fine.

Fine.

I said an exact physical copy, not the same person-fine.

What's this "fine" phase ? Do you at least understand the argument ?

Even if they had the same number of dots, why should that be significant ?

It would be another coincidence.

And coincidences mean nothing. What's your point ?

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st March 2007, 05:20 PM

No, no and no. The DNA is the BLUEPRINT for the HOUSE. It isn't PART of the HOUSE. Get it ? Do you ? Do you even read what people post ?
I understand that that, but, if the blueprint is followed "exactly," it has a lot in common with the orginal. And while that does not mean a lot when the blueprint is of a house, it means more when it is of a person. I have heard of twins separated from each other living similiar lives. Some of the person we make of ourselves is tied to our DNA blueprint. It gives us a starting point, and may have something to do with the path we take.

The "stuff" isn't his. It's the original's. But now that the original is dead, no mere copy could claim any right to it. In fact, even were the original to return, he wouldn't either.
What about kinship laws? Did he mean to leave his stuff to the offspring his clone is?

His reality is irrelevant. There is only one true reality.
Yes, but until that one is found, most get by with a version of their own. Real, imagined, and otherwise.

What's this "fine" phase ? Do you at least understand the argument ?
I do, you win. That is not him. A clone is not, can not be, the orginal. That is not his stuff. He is gone. I guess his stuff was forfeit. What I was saying, was that if anybody had a case, he could have a good one. He did leave it, thought he would be back, we kept his stuff for him, kept his name over it. Ask a jury of his peers if that his stuff and the answer may not be as cut and dry. Though I now believe he would lose. And if that someone is right, that no DNA survived, then it couldn't happen anyway.

And coincidences mean nothing. What's your point ?
They are funny, and some may come closer than others.

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st March 2007, 05:24 PM

Brilliant typo, given the topic at hand. :D

Wow, no need even to quote mine. That's sig-worthy! :rolleyes:
That would be out of context.

wollery

1st March 2007, 06:10 PM

I understand that that, but, if the blueprint is followed "exactly," it has a lot in common with the orginal. And while that does not mean a lot when the blueprint is of a house, it means more when it is of a person.No it doesn't. It's a blueprint. That's all. You attribute meaning to it because you are human, and see humans as being special. When looked at unemotionally any blueprint, whatever it's for, is just a blueprint, and no more important or meaningful than any other blueprint.

I have heard of twins separated from each other living similiar lives. Some of the person we make of ourselves is tied to our DNA blueprint. It gives us a starting point, and may have something to do with the path we take.It's just selection bias.

How many twins separated at birth who didn't lead similar lives have you heard of? Probably none, because it isn't comment worthy, or memorable.

How about people who are no relation to each other living almost identical lives? It's not interesting because they aren't related to each other. Are you suggesting that they live similar lives because they have identical DNA?

As people keep on saying to you, coincidences are bound to occur, but they have no meaning beyond being curious statistical events.

What about kinship laws? Did he mean to leave his stuff to the offspring his clone is?Actually the Egyptians buried goods with the dead for them to enjoy and use in the next life. They did not believe they were coming back to Earth.

Yes, but until that one is found, most get by with a version of their own. Real, imagined, and otherwise.To quote UB40, "Don't let the only world you're ever gonna live in pass you by."

They are funny, and some may come closer than others.Closer to what? Being funny? Being coincidences?

wollery

1st March 2007, 06:31 PM

That would be out of context.Says the master of "out of context"!!

Your entire doodle is based on linguistic coincidences taken out of context! :rolleyes:

Also, perhaps you should read and think about what you post before hitting the submit button. Because a lot of what you post either makes no sense, or is unintentionally hilarious. I mean, seriously, "I don't think that much." just begs to be laughed at!

But don't worry, I wouldn't quote you in my sig, and I would never quote anyone out of context, except in a joking way.

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st March 2007, 08:47 PM

All that's irrelevant. The point is you cannot tell the difference between the two, and you cannot point to the designed one, so your claim that the universe looks designed is debunked.
Our universe has more going for itself than that. I knew more about the universe than those images, had a longer time to choose. What if I choose right? Would what I said about design be right?

Would STILL not be the same person, although his mind would be identical.
Closer. If only that mental/emotional based personality could be added. Would it be the same person then?

That's because you still think he has a soul or something. But how can he ? An exact copy CAN STILL coexist with the original. He's not the SAME person although he looks identical. How hard is that to understand ? Fine, he is not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st March 2007, 09:21 PM

Says the master of "out of context"!!

Your entire doodle is based on linguistic coincidences taken out of context! :rolleyes:
They maybe coincidences, but the things in the doodle are not out of context.

Also, perhaps you should read and think about what you post before hitting the submit button. Because a lot of what you post either makes no sense, or is unintentionally hilarious. I mean, seriously, "I don't think that much." just begs to be laughed at!
I'm not guarded like that, I speak plainly. If it makes sense to me (for the most part) I'll say it, and if its funny I'll laugh. Wrong or right (though right is the goal) I have to move on.

bruto

1st March 2007, 09:27 PM

Our universe has more going for itself than that. I knew more about the universe than those images, had a longer time to choose. What if I choose right? Would what I said about design be right?

Closer. If only that mental/emotional based personality could be added. Would it be the same person then?

Fine, he is not.

Same <> identical.

Think about it.

I look in my pocket. Inside it are two quarters. They came from the same roll, stamped at the same mint on the same day by the same die. They are, to all reasonable and visible means of measurement and detection, identical. They cannot be told apart. They even share the same history.

So tell me, do I have 25 cents in my pocket, or do I have 50 cents in my pocket?

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st March 2007, 09:47 PM

No it doesn't. It's a blueprint. That's all. You attribute meaning to it because you are human, and see humans as being special. When looked at unemotionally any blueprint, whatever it's for, is just a blueprint, and no more important or meaningful than any other blueprint.
When looked at unemotional.

It's just selection bias.

How many twins separated at birth who didn't lead similar lives have you heard of? Probably none, because it isn't comment worthy, or memorable.
Right.

How about people who are no relation to each other living almost identical lives? It's not interesting because they aren't related to each other. Are you suggesting that they live similar lives because they have identical DNA?
I was.

As people keep on saying to you, coincidences are bound to occur, but they have no meaning beyond being curious statistical events.
At least that is something.

Actually the Egyptians buried goods with the dead for them to enjoy and use in the next life.
They sent along the spirit of his stuff?

They did not believe they were coming back to Earth.
Thinking that they had logical reasons for what they did, may be causing me to see a pattern where there is none.

To quote UB40, "Don't let the only world you're ever gonna live in pass you by."
True that. This one is absolutely known to exist.

Closer to what? Being funny? Being coincidences?
Being right. Like the importance of light to life, and what religions have said about it.

Belz...

2nd March 2007, 04:48 AM

I understand that that, but, if the blueprint is followed "exactly," it has a lot in common with the orginal.

By that wording, I take it you agree that it isn't the original, though. Am I correct ?

And while that does not mean a lot when the blueprint is of a house, it means more when it is of a person.

Why ? Please explain.

I have heard of twins separated from each other living similiar lives.

Of course. They have similar tastes, they are similar in every way, and mostly they spent many years together, doing the same stuff. What else would you expect ?

What about kinship laws? Did he mean to leave his stuff to the offspring his clone is?

He'd have to write a testament for that. He didn't. Clearly he meant for the stuff to be HIS when he returned in the flesh [assuming Wollery is wrong], but that will never happen. At most we'd have an exact copy, but legally he still wouldn't be the original.

Yes, but until that one is found, most get by with a version of their own. Real, imagined, and otherwise.

Well, that's why we have science: because we need to try to be as objective as possible. If we rely on those "imagined" realities, we'll never get anywhere, and I get the impression you put too much trust in your "reality".

I do, you win. That is not him. A clone is not, can not be, the orginal. That is not his stuff. He is gone. I guess his stuff was forfeit. What I was saying, was that if anybody had a case, he could have a good one. He did leave it, thought he would be back, we kept his stuff for him, kept his name over it. Ask a jury of his peers if that his stuff and the answer may not be as cut and dry. Though I now believe he would lose.

You're hard to follow, sometimes, but I think I get that.

Would STILL not be the same person, although his mind would be identical.

Closer. If only that mental/emotional based personality could be added. Would it be the same person then?

Read my sentence again, Light. "Although his mind would be identical". That's the "mental/emotional" stuff you're referring to. An exact copy would have that, too. It would STILL not be the original, although it would believe so.

And coincidences mean nothing. What's your point ?

They are funny, and some may come closer than others.

They're still irrelevant.

Our universe has more going for itself than that.

No, it doesn't. To you it "looks" designed, but you've shown that, even with simple examples, you can't tell the difference. Why do you think you would know with something as complex as the universe ?

RandFan

2nd March 2007, 07:54 AM

Being right. Like the importance of light to life, and what religions have said about it.I think knowledge is important even if we don't have a practical application for the knowledge at the time of discovery. That said, the significance of the knowledge grows as it becomes more applicable in practical situations or opens up other avenues of discovery. To date you have not established,

A.) That your proposition is correct or should even be considered.
B.) Any practical consequence if your proposition is correct.

All of these pages and you have not advanced or established a single concept or principle. Saying life created life is arguable at best and tells us nothing at worst.

Still you persist.

Loss Leader

2nd March 2007, 06:14 PM

I think knowledge is important even if we don't have a practical application for the knowledge at the time of discovery.

Thank heavens you think that way. Now I'll keep these notebooks full of data I have on the speed at which lint accumulates in my navel.

Solus

2nd March 2007, 10:54 PM

I started a new thread as I was inspired by Wollery's example. It's a guess what the picture really is thread. Nothing as good his example but just a bit of fun for me.

What is it? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2394769#post2394769)

sorry to interrupt LCL's... well at this point there are no words left.

carry on.

lightcreatedlife@hom

3rd March 2007, 03:45 PM

Same <> identical.

Think about it.

I look in my pocket. Inside it are two quarters. They came from the same roll, stamped at the same mint on the same day by the same die. They are, to all reasonable and visible means of measurement and detection, identical. They cannot be told apart. They even share the same history.
Even with all that they still may not share the same history.

So tell me, do I have 25 cents in my pocket, or do I have 50 cents in my pocket?
From my view, you have 50 cents.

bruto

3rd March 2007, 07:47 PM

Even with all that they still may not share the same history. Anything may occur if you make up your own story, but in mine they do.

From my view, you have 50 cents.

That's good, because being identical, while it means "being the same" in a qualitative sense (2+2 is the same as 4, and one quarter is the same as any other quarter for the purposes of buying a quarter's worth of stuff) it does not mean "being the same thing." Even if you could clone King Tut in a way never before imagined possible by science, and give him the same thoughts, the same history, the same feelings and the same body, he would not be the King Tut from whom the DNA was taken. He'd be another. This would be true even if, owing to the perfection of the process, he thought he was the original! And so, I hope, ends this silly digression.

C'est moi! Je suis l'original!http://www.thelin.net/laurent/cinema/films/tt0112682/20928.jpg

RandFan

3rd March 2007, 07:56 PM

Thank heavens you think that way. Now I'll keep these notebooks full of data I have on the speed at which lint accumulates in my navel.:D

Damn, not sounding stupid can be difacult.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th March 2007, 06:47 PM

Anything may occur if you make up your own story, but in mine they do.

That's good, because being identical, while it means "being the same" in a qualitative sense (2+2 is the same as 4, and one quarter is the same as any other quarter for the purposes of buying a quarter's worth of stuff) it does not mean "being the same thing." Even if you could clone King Tut in a way never before imagined possible by science, and give him the same thoughts, the same history, the same feelings and the same body, he would not be the King Tut from whom the DNA was taken. He'd be another. This would be true even if, owing to the perfection of the process, he thought he was the original! And so, I hope, ends this silly digression.
Yeah, that would do it. Its not him, and that is not his stuff. If he were able to be cloned with his memory (and I never believed he could) he would be very disappointed if he really did have a "comeback" plan.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th March 2007, 07:14 PM

I think knowledge is important even if we don't have a practical application for the knowledge at the time of discovery. That said, the significance of the knowledge grows as it becomes more applicable in practical situations or opens up other avenues of discovery. To date you have not established,

A.) That your proposition is correct or should even be considered.
B.) Any practical consequence if your proposition is correct.

All of these pages and you have not advanced or established a single concept or principle. Saying life created life is arguable at best and tells us nothing at worst.

Still you persist.
You are right. I was unprepared. I am preparing something. I am reading about electric charge, this statement is from Wikapedia.
"Objects may possess a property known as electric charge. An electric field exerts a force on charged objects, accelerating them in the direction of the force, in either the same or the opposite direction of the electric field. If the charged object has a positive charge, the force and acceleration will be in the direction of the field. This force has the same direction as the electric field vector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field_vector), and its magnitude is given by the size of the charge multiplied with the magnitude of the electric field."

I'm thinking that life is influenced by whatever is influencing everything else.
Replace "object" with a person, "the charge" with how they are feeling,
"the "electric field" with local conditions, "same or opposite direction" with choice, freedom of action, and conditions. But while where positive charges have to move in the direction of the field, humans don't have to.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th March 2007, 07:51 PM

"Life" doesn't do anything. It's a word.
I am talking about what the word represents.

Death is NOT the opposite of life.
By some views it is, that is where I got it from. They are a related pair.
Death is, at most, the opposite of BIRTH.
Both are in reference to what happens to life. Birth is "a" beginning to a lifeform, and death is its end.

Don't you realise yet that ANY person reading your graph, who would not see it as nonsensical, would arrive at a different conclusion ? That's why it's arbitrary and subjective. No two people could agree on it. That's NOT how science works.
It is too simple for that.

Again, it only fits because you want it to.
You talk like I am trying to put "stick" and "jet plane" together.
Fill in the blank, life____, negative_____ etc.

Belz...

5th March 2007, 04:33 AM

I am talking about what the word represents.

The word represents a wide concept of things, each acting independently. "Life" doesn't do anything except live.

By some views it is, that is where I got it from. They are a related pair.

So are "life" and "cash". Death is only related to life in that it is part of it.

Both are in reference to what happens to life. Birth is "a" beginning to a lifeform, and death is its end.

Therefore, by your own admission, death is not the opposite of life, but of "birth".

It is too simple for that.

What's too simple for what ?

You talk like I am trying to put "stick" and "jet plane" together.

It might actually make more sense.

Fill in the blank, life____, negative_____ etc.

Context, please. To which "negative" are we referring to, etc.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th March 2007, 12:03 PM

The word represents a wide concept of things, each acting independently. "Life" doesn't do anything except live.
That being the case, dying is a big deal. It is also the opposite of what you were doing, cells decaying instead of maintaining.

So are "life" and "cash". Death is only related to life in that it is part of it.
In context with what I was saying.

What's too simple for what ?
With the rule of related pairs, the diagram makes itself. I know that you don't agree, but you can follow what it is saying, right?

Context, please. To which "negative" are we referring to, etc. I was talking about energy, but wouldn't you have to put a "positive something" next to a negative something?

Belz...

6th March 2007, 04:34 AM

That being the case, dying is a big deal. It is also the opposite of what you were doing, cells decaying instead of maintaining.

Here we go with the dishonesty again. You know quite well, I'm sure, that the word "opposite" in the context you're using it now hasn't the same meaning as before.

But even if it were, your point would be irrelevant. "Dying" is not the opposite of "living", because it happens to be part of it. "Death" is not the opposite of "life", because it is part of it. "Lack of life" could be a better choice, but then it's the overwhelming majority.

With the rule of related pairs, the diagram makes itself. I know that you don't agree, but you can follow what it is saying, right?

The diagram doesn't make itself. Proof: YOU MADE IT. You made it using your own bias and your own misconceptions. The best thing for you to do would be to get rid of it and learn some real science, and stop following your emotions to reach conclusions.

I was talking about energy, but wouldn't you have to put a "positive something" next to a negative something?

Well, there is no opposite to life, per se, and "positive" in this context can only be applied to EM. Is the positive charge really "opposite" the negative ? I don't know, and neither do you.

Loss Leader

6th March 2007, 07:59 AM

I'm thinking that life is influenced by whatever is influencing everything else. Replace "object" with a person, "the charge" with how they are feeling, "the "electric field" with local conditions, "same or opposite direction" with choice, freedom of action, and conditions. But while where positive charges have to move in the direction of the field, humans don't have to.

I will now engage in exactly the same reasoning as you just did, Light:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

This applies to humans, too. Simply replace "matter" with "shrimp," replace "created" with "boiled" and replace "destroyed" with "fried." Then, since you've turned a negative word "destroyed" into a positive word "fried," you have to switch the negative "nor" to the positive "or." All that remains is to do what most people agree sounds mostly right all the time and change "can neither be" to "tastes best when." So, it is clear that it is a fundamental law of the universe that shrimp tastes best when boiled or fried. But, since it is shrimp, we can choose that this is not always the way it tastes best because shrimp has more free will than matter.

The amazing thing is that I just put the words in there and they happen to fit! I test it against what I read in a cookbook and it still fits! Sometimes, we make a lucky guess and that is how science advances!

There is absolutely no reason for you to generalize a statement about electricity to a sociological statement about humans. None. You are reasoning by analogy and such reasoning CANNOT CREATE NEW INFORMATION. I really wish you would just make this breakthrough already.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th March 2007, 09:04 AM

But even if it were, your point would be irrelevant. "Dying" is not the opposite of "living", because it happens to be part of it.
The last part, and life is the beginning. The spark, and when it went out.

"Death" is not the opposite of "life", because it is part of it. "Lack of life" could be a better choice, but then it's the overwhelming majority.
If there is a spirit that continues, that would be the perfect choice.

The diagram doesn't make itself. Proof: YOU MADE IT. You made it using your own bias and your own misconceptions. The best thing for you to do would be to get rid of it and learn some real science, and stop following your emotions to reach conclusions.
And that's the problem. Science can't use emotions, and religion can't use reason. Since life is mental/emotional, (whatever true truth is) it is between them.

Well, there is no opposite to life, per se, and "positive" in this context can only be applied to EM. Is the positive charge really "opposite" the negative ? I don't know, and neither do you.
I think someone here said it is, but I don't need for it to be opposite, I just need for it to be a related pair. Related how? In the way it is thought to be. As I said, the diagram makes itself because I can't put anything I what. Negative on one side, means I have to put positive on the other. Following that rule, and the characteristics things are thought to have, the diagram made itself. After that, the concidences add up to nearly 200.

Belz...

6th March 2007, 09:33 AM

The last part, and life is the beginning. The spark, and when it went out.

"Life" is the beginning of "life" ? How does that work ?

If there is a spirit that continues, that would be the perfect choice.

IF. Care to prove that, now ? Otherwise we're just engaged in pointless speculation. You ? Pointless speculation ? Never!!

And that's the problem. Science can't use emotions, and religion can't use reason. Since life is mental/emotional, (whatever true truth is) it is between them.

Non sequitur. Religion has ZERO success in determining truth. Emotion is NOT based on anything that is remotely linked to reality. Why trust it ?

Situation: You hear a song. You cry. Is the song sad ? No. YOU are sad. The fact that you're sad means NOTHING about the song itself.

Situation 2: Someone says something to you. You get mad. Are the words he used evil ? No. YOU are mad. The fact that your hormones made you angry doesn't mean there was a reason to.

Stop thinking that emotion means anything besides animalistic survival reactions. Understanding the universe CANNOT come from interpreting our own emotions and that is PRECISELY what we (well, the rest of us) have learned from science.

I think someone here said it is, but I don't need for it to be opposite, I just need for it to be a related pair. Related how? In the way it is thought to be.

What a convenient pile of bile. You need to think that something is related in the way you think it to be. That's real useful, Light.

As I said, the diagram makes itself because I can't put anything I what.

Of course you can, since what's in it depends on what "is thought". You're the one "thinking" and therefore anything in the "diagram" is SOLELY the result of your emotion-based thinking.

Negative on one side, means I have to put positive on the other.

Non sequitur.

After that, the concidences add up to nearly 200.

And we know that, after 166, it becomes MORE than just coincidence. :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th March 2007, 09:34 AM

There is absolutely no reason for you to generalize a statement about electricity to a sociological statement about humans. None. You are reasoning by analogy and such reasoning CANNOT CREATE NEW INFORMATION. I really wish you would just make this breakthrough already.
I am saying that life is part of a process, and that process is at work at all levels. The purpose of the universe ( designed, accident or otherwise) is towards more and more complex forms of energy, matter and information. Socializing is what the particles that makes things up are doing. There is another name for it, but they are interacting in relation to each other with the goal of greater influence/impact/presence. Particles are not conscious, they operate under 3 of the 4 forces. Humans are conscious, and operate under 4.
Humans represent another level of evolution: inorganic, organic, and now man-made materials. Life has developed its own (conscious) ideas about how things ought to be, and the means to make it so.

Belz...

6th March 2007, 09:47 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th March 2007, 01:14 PM

That's what I believed when I was much younger, before I learned about randomness.

Reading helps.
It sure does. In your reading I was wondering why you never came across a statement like the one below? I see them everywhere, which is why I felt safe when I said the same thing. So I might be out of step with the view here, but I am not that out of step.

"As it turns out, the electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton) and electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force) between the individual molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule) in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry), which arise from interactions between electron orbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_orbital)." Wikipedia.

Tricky

6th March 2007, 05:09 PM

Just popped in to say "hi" to LifeCreatedLife. I see you are still trying, with little success, to defend your ideas.

Tell me, do you post in any other threads at all? I've never seen it. Don't you think this monomania is unhealthy? Try to sample a variety of the topics here. It's a real smörgåsbord, and quite tasty.

Check out The Language Award links in my signature if you want to see some of the best posts in the forum as a whole.

Belz...

7th March 2007, 04:45 AM

It sure does. In your reading I was wondering why you never came across a statement like the one below?

Yes, because you brought it up in your first post. The article ignores the fact that, without the nuclear forces, there'd be no atoms. No atoms, no life.

Belz...

7th March 2007, 04:46 AM

Tricky

7th March 2007, 04:52 AM

Don't listen to him, Light. Nothing could possibly be of interest in the Language Award thread. Why ? Because I'M NEVER NOMINATED !!! :mad:
Occam's razor is your friend.;)

bruto

7th March 2007, 06:51 AM

Occam's razor is your friend.;)

Depends on how you brandish it.

Belz...

7th March 2007, 09:08 AM

Occam's razor is your friend.;)

What ? Are you saying I should say "Occam's razor" at random ? Would that increase my chances ? ;)

Loss Leader

7th March 2007, 11:43 AM

I am saying that life is part of a process, and that process is at work at all levels. The purpose of the universe ( designed, accident or otherwise) is towards more and more complex forms of energy, matter and information. Socializing is what the particles that makes things up are doing. There is another name for it, but they are interacting in relation to each other with the goal of greater influence/impact/presence. Particles are not conscious, they operate under 3 of the 4 forces. Humans are conscious, and operate under 4.
Humans represent another level of evolution: inorganic, organic, and now man-made materials. Life has developed its own (conscious) ideas about how things ought to be, and the means to make it so.

So, basically, you didn't comprehend one word I said.

Particles are not "socializing." Only living organisms can socialize. The fact that we can use the word "socialize" as a rough analogy does not mean that the two types of socializing are at all the same or are caused by the same forces.

What evidence do you have that particles have a "goal," let alone that their goal is greater influence/impact/presence? You have none. All you have is an analogy. "humans socialize to gain greater influence, therefore when particles "socialize" they must be doing it for the same reason. But since the two types of "socializing" are different, no parallels can necessarily be drawn between them. All parallels are provisional based on how good we already know our analogy to be. And analogies CANNOT CREATE NEW INFORMATION. The best they can do is help explain to a lay person what is already known to be true.

Just understand this already.

Belz...

7th March 2007, 12:13 PM

Particles are not "socializing." Only living organisms can socialize. The fact that we can use the word "socialize" as a rough analogy does not mean that the two types of socializing are at all the same or are caused by the same forces.

You're wasting good calories, Loss.

lightcreatedlife@hom

7th March 2007, 04:14 PM

Yes, because you brought it up in your first post. The article ignores the fact that, without the nuclear forces, there'd be no atoms. No atoms, no life.
That is my point. I did not quote that one, otherwise I would have come back with it as a reference. I see that same statement so much that I thought it was very well known. I am sure that those people know as you do, as I do, that gravity has to hold us to the ground for anything else to take place, and so forth like that.

Belz...

8th March 2007, 04:34 AM

Yes, so before light can even be useful for life, we need the other forces as well, INCLUDING electromagnetism for molecules.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th March 2007, 06:27 PM

So, basically, you didn't comprehend one word I said.

Particles are not "socializing." Only living organisms can socialize. The fact that we can use the word "socialize" as a rough analogy does not mean that the two types of socializing are at all the same or are caused by the same forces.
Only life can socialize, fine. The two types don't have to be the same-just related. One is based on the other, like organic and inorganic. The same goes for the forces/things that drive them. Negative, positive, attraction and repulsion are the base, life (humans in particular) have added to that.

What evidence do you have that particles have a "goal," let alone that their goal is greater influence/impact/presence?
In the "Conquest of Energy" the authors says: "The basic urge of organic evolution, which has resulted in the formation of increasing complex and varied living creatures, both plant and animal, results from the tendency of nature to arrange atoms in every possible pattern that an
environment and the available energy will permit."
The book Into The Cool, talks about that "available energy" having a "sucking" effect on life.

You have none. All you have is an analogy. "humans socialize to gain greater influence, therefore when particles "socialize" they must be doing it for the same reason.
I am not saying that particles socialize like life. They are not alive, and they are responding to known forces. I am saying that life has urges/leannings to socialize because of the process that made them, and of which they are a part.

But since the two types of "socializing" are different, no parallels can necessarily be drawn between them.
One came first, the other came out of it. Life is part of one process with different stages.

All parallels are provisional based on how good we already know our analogy to be. And analogies CANNOT CREATE NEW INFORMATION. The best they can do is help explain to a lay person what is already known to be true.

Just understand this already.
Interesting analogies can inspire deeper looks-especially among lay people.