Light created Life

[wollery]

I never heard that theory regarding the earth's formation. I thought it was spun from cosmic dust. Although, we do know that comets and meteors impacted earth (like the moon, Mars, etc.).

But you are basically saying that the bulk of the earth is this? Obviously the earth would have had to have been here to some degree of size for the earth to be a sizeable enough target for impacts to hit what was here.

If I am wrong on what makes up the bulk of the earth, or how earth was formed, steer me somewhere where I can enlighten myself, because what you say is a new one on me.After the Sun formed there was a swirling disc of gas and dust left over in orbit around it. Small dust particles clumped together to form large dust particles, large dust particles clump together to form larger particles, and so on, up to boulder sized rocks, and further up to small planitesimals, asteroids, small rocky planets and large rocky planets. Jupiter swept up most of the matter in the Solar accretion disc, and the other planets took care of most of the rest. In the outer reaches of the disc the matter was too spread out to form into planets efficiently, and got stuck in small rocky, icy bodies. These form the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud, which are where comets come from.There was Ice and water in the inner Solar system during planet formation, and some of the Earth's water comes from that. Some of it comes from Kuiper belt and Oort cloud objects which were deflected into the inner Solar system by gravitational disturbances from Jupiter and maybe Saturn.

Why not? :) Read my post just above here where I address this, regarding a cookie. Actually I could have used more fact in just citing earth's volcanos. They are molten rock, but belch out lot's of STEAM.And how does the water get into the cookie in the first place?

You mix the cookie dough using water! You add the water before you bake the cookie. It doesn't get there by magic.

Well, early on, did not it just bond with helium? (I.e. stars)Nope, no bonding with Helium, nothing bonds with Helium (except other Helium atoms at temperatures close to absolute zero, -273oC).

Early stars were almost entirely Hydrogen, which underwent nuclear fusion within these stars to form Helium and other heavier elements.

What?...that we came from other worlds? The alien theory? I HOPE that is not what you mean.No, but we can observe organic and pre-organic molecules in the depths of outer space, so it's not hard to imagine that the organic material that got life on Earth started might have come here from outer space, riding on a comet or meteor.

[Cosmo]

Dang, I missed the 3000th post :(

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And after all this time: no idea what "evolution" means.
Let me give a shot. Bam! Life comes from non-life. It develops a method to replicate itself. A method that is not perfect, so there are slight mutations every so often, making the process random.
Okay, so this partcular dna pattern (a lifeform) works for its enivorment, so it strives. Over time, because of mutations, different verisions of the same life form can develop. That is if their adaptations don't interfere with it reproducing.
But if something happens to change the enivorment, and one type is better suited to survive, that type may become all there is of that type of lifeform, at least for a while. Then it starts over. Sometimes though, if there are big changes in what a lifeform does, or looks, it may become (or be regarded) another species altogether.



What's the "highest" form of life, Light ? <giggle>
I guess that depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about in intelligence and technology, humans.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Evolution sounds just fine to me, only I am having problems with no input from the lifeform. The book says "Organisms vary whether they need to or not. Whether a variation is helpful or harmful depends on the enivorment." Yet humans used their brains more, and they got more of it. The panda bear was said here to have used his brain less, and got less. Or is that, those with less populated the species.
The message/want/need/input from the lifeform, is pasted on. Their input, their actions (or lack of them) are involved. An otherwise random thing, acts in the direction of use or nonuse. The teeth, claws, and wardrobe of humans are inadequate for the natural neighborhood, so he thought of something. And nature helped.

[cyborg]

Jesus, you still don't get evolution do you?

[Belz...]

Let me give a shot. Bam! Life comes from non-life. It develops a method to replicate itself. A method that is not perfect, so there are slight mutations every so often, making the process random.
Okay, so this partcular dna pattern (a lifeform) works for its enivorment, so it strives. Over time, because of mutations, different verisions of the same life form can develop. That is if their adaptations don't interfere with it reproducing.
But if something happens to change the enivorment, and one type is better suited to survive, that type may become all there is of that type of lifeform, at least for a while. Then it starts over. Sometimes though, if there are big changes in what a lifeform does, or looks, it may become (or be regarded) another species altogether.

I guess that depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about in intelligence and technology, humans.

See, this looked pretty good. I thought "Well, he's probably just saying what he knows I expect is the right answer just to get it right, although he doesn't believe that, but I'll just give him the benefit of..." and then THIS comes in:

Evolution sounds just fine to me, only I am having problems with no input from the lifeform. The book says "Organisms vary whether they need to or not. Whether a variation is helpful or harmful depends on the enivorment." Yet humans used their brains more, and they got more of it. The panda bear was said here to have used his brain less, and got less. Or is that, those with less populated the species.
The message/want/need/input from the lifeform, is pasted on. Their input, their actions (or lack of them) are involved. An otherwise random thing, acts in the direction of use or nonuse. The teeth, claws, and wardrobe of humans are inadequate for the natural neighborhood, so he thought of something. And nature helped.

Yeah, you were definitely faking understanding.

[nescafe]

Evolution sounds just fine to me, only I am having problems with no input from the lifeform.
That is because evolution works on genes, not individual organisms or species. Organisms are tools genes use to protect themselves from the environment and help themselves reproduce.

The book says "Organisms vary whether they need to or not. Whether a variation is helpful or harmful depends on the enivorment." Yet humans used their brains more, and they got more of it. The panda bear was said here to have used his brain less, and got less. Or is that, those with less populated the species.

You seem to be thinking in Lamarckian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) terms. If it worked that way then the children of accountants would be accountants, the children of steroid-using bodybuilders would be stronger, and the children of amputees would have shorter or absent limbs.

It just does not work that way.
The message/want/need/input from the lifeform, is pasted on. How?
Their input, their actions (or lack of them) are involved.
By what mechanism does this create genetic variation? Can you tell it apart from the normal crossover/recombination that happens as part of meiosis and fertilization (for sexed organisms)?

[Dancing David]

Let me give a shot. Bam! Life comes from non-life. It develops a method to replicate itself. A method that is not perfect, so there are slight mutations every so often, making the process random.
Okay, so this partcular dna pattern (a lifeform) works for its enivorment, so it strives. Over time, because of mutations, different verisions of the same life form can develop. That is if their adaptations don't interfere with it reproducing.
But if something happens to change the enivorment, and one type is better suited to survive, that type may become all there is of that type of lifeform, at least for a while. Then it starts over. Sometimes though, if there are big changes in what a lifeform does, or looks, it may become (or be regarded) another species altogether.

Pretty close.

The problem is the BAM!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Pretty close.

The problem is the BAM!
That was just a starting point, making a long story short.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

See, this looked pretty good. I thought "Well, he's probably just saying what he knows I expect is the right answer just to get it right, although he doesn't believe that, but I'll just give him the benefit of..." and then THIS comes in:

Sorry to disappoint you. Like I said, up to there, I'm alright with it. If I was into telling you what you wanted to hear, I can be right every time. How hard is that? You tell me, and I repeat what you said.

Yeah, you were definitely faking understanding.
What would I get out of faking understanding? And how much more clear can I be than "I am having a problem with..."

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That is because evolution works on genes, not individual organisms or species. Organisms are tools genes use to protect themselves from the environment and help themselves reproduce.
This might be it right here, while I know this is right, the organism seems like nothing. It's the thing in the middle, the one enabled by what is inside, and the one most influenced by what is outside.
How could it not play a big role?



You seem to be thinking in Lamarckian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) terms. If it worked that way then the children of accountants would be accountants, the children of steroid-using bodybuilders would be stronger, and the children of amputees would have shorter or absent limbs.
It doesn't work that way either, we inherit the "tendency to," in regards to a talent, a disease, or a certain disposition. Strong parents "tend to" have strong kids. Of course enivorment plays a big part.

How?
They inherit.

By what mechanism does this create genetic variation? Can you tell it apart from the normal crossover/recombination that happens as part of meiosis and fertilization (for sexed organisms)?
I'm going to have to work on this one.

[Loss Leader]

It doesn't work that way either, we inherit the "tendency to," in regards to a talent, a disease, or a certain disposition. Strong parents "tend to" have strong kids. Of course enivorment plays a big part.


You are dead wrong. In general, children tend towards the mean. Children of really short parents tend to be taller than they are. Children of really tall parents, tend to be shorter.

You really should, you know, read a book instead of just making up things which sound good to you after no reflection.

[bruto]

This might be it right here, while I know this is right, the organism seems like nothing. It's the thing in the middle, the one enabled by what is inside, and the one most influenced by what is outside.
How could it not play a big role?



It doesn't work that way either, we inherit the "tendency to," in regards to a talent, a disease, or a certain disposition. Strong parents "tend to" have strong kids. Of course enivorment plays a big part.

They inherit.

I'm going to have to work on this one.

You certainly are going to have to work on it. You need to find out just what it is that offspring inherit. And more important, what they do not.

[nescafe]

This might be it right here, while I know this is right, the organism seems like nothing. It's the thing in the middle, the one enabled by what is inside, and the one most influenced by what is outside.
How could it not play a big role?

The organism is not "nothing" -- if you took (say) all the DNA out of a fertilized human egg and put it in a running stream, that DNA would decay without a chance to pass itself on. Leave it in the egg, though, and let the egg implant itself in a handy human uterus (custom designed to provide just the right sort of environment, that genetic ensemble could (for example) build an organism capable of conquering most of the known world and spreading copies of itself all over most of a continent.

Genghis Khan benefited by having the sort of charisma needed to build a world-conquering army -- the genes that built him benefited by being able to spread copies of themselves across most of Europe and Asia.

It doesn't work that way either, we inherit the "tendency to," in regards to a talent, a disease, or a certain disposition. Strong parents "tend to" have strong kids. Of course enivorment plays a big part.
You will have to define what you mean by "tendency to" more rigorously, then. Your description of how you think evolution works seems quite Lamarckian.

And of course the environment plays a big role -- if there were no environmental constraints (space, food availability, competition, etc.) there would be no natural selection -- all a gene would have to do to be successful would be to keep replicating.

They inherit.

I'll take tautologies for $300, Alex.

I'm going to have to work on this one.Please do. The answer is both scary and wonderful at once.

[Belz...]

Sorry to disappoint you. Like I said, up to there, I'm alright with it. If I was into telling you what you wanted to hear, I can be right every time. How hard is that? You tell me, and I repeat what you said.

Exactly.

What would I get out of faking understanding?

Acceptance.

And how much more clear can I be than "I am having a problem with..."

Oh, you're quite clear about your inability to understand Darwinism vs Lamarckism.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Exactly.

Oh, you think I wrote the right answer (while not understanding it) to trick you into thinking that I knew? On top of that though, I really believe something else?

Acceptance.
So, now I am willing to make believe that I believe something that I really don't, because I want to be accepted? That would turn me into a sock puppet. You frown your face, and I get sad. Can you tell me what advantage your acceptance would win me?



Oh, you're quite clear about your inability to understand Darwinism vs Lamarckism.
Good, I am trying to be clear, but I figure, if others can understand it....

[Belz...]

Oh, you think I wrote the right answer (while not understanding it) to trick you into thinking that I knew? On top of that though, I really believe something else?

Yes.

So, now I am willing to make believe that I believe something that I really don't, because I want to be accepted?

Yes. You've been doing that from the start. Poorly, mind you.

That would turn me into a sock puppet.

No that you make you you.

Can you tell me what advantage your acceptance would win me?

Acceptance.

Good, I am trying to be clear, but I figure, if others can understand it....

...and have explained it to you, you should be able to understand right ? WRONG!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes.
Since I got the right answer, why couldn't I just leave it at that and just dropped the subject? You yourself said that it was the second part that really threw you, even though you were on to my trick from the beginning. "How could he have gotten this right? He must be faking it."


Yes. You've been doing that from the start. Poorly, mind you.
I don't know what you mean here. If you mean acceptance of the diagram, yes. I mean, if you all thought it was right, I would have went to phase two. This is just one piece of a bigger picture.
If you are talking about me personally wanting acceptance, you might be thrown by my demeanor. I'm naturally nice, and call it as I see it. Some think that is weak, its really not.


No that you make you you.
I would not be helping myself if I "bent" myself around things I didn't believe, while seeking the approval of people who only exist as words. I think I read on another thread that a psychiatrist would have a time with the avatars we have choosen. I noticed how small and alone it seems, but that little guy (and plenty like him) fought a superpower.


Acceptance.
For its own sake? And since I haven't gotten what I was looking for, shouldn't I be suffering about now, my confidence shot?


...and have explained it to you, you should be able to understand right ? WRONG!
Actually what you are seeing is me checking what you say. If it is there, I'm not going to be able to hide from it, and if I see what I am saying, you are not going to be able to either.

[Belz...]

"How could he have gotten this right? He must be faking it."

Precisely. Since the beginning you've shown not only that you don't understand these concepts, but that you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding them.

I don't know what you mean here. If you mean acceptance of the diagram, yes. I mean, if you all thought it was right, I would have went to phase two. This is just one piece of a bigger picture.

No, that's not what I meant. But while we're on the subject: IF we had told you it made sense, you could've gone to "phase two". But now that we DO tell you it doesn't, you refuse to accept it. In other words, the only answer you WILL accept is "yes". Therefore, discussion with you is useless, since you will only pick the answers that are convenient to you.

If you are talking about me personally wanting acceptance, you might be thrown by my demeanor. I'm naturally nice, and call it as I see it. Some think that is weak, its really not.

Yes, that IS what I meant. And I don't see how you beign nice has anything to do with it.

I think I read on another thread that a psychiatrist would have a time with the avatars we have choosen.

He would have a hard time saying anything about me, I'm sure.

I noticed how small and alone it seems, but that little guy (and plenty like him) fought a superpower.

what the hell are you talking about ?

For its own sake? And since I haven't gotten what I was looking for, shouldn't I be suffering about now, my confidence shot?

Of course not, because you've convinced yourself that, no matter what, the "graph" is correct.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Precisely. Since the beginning you've shown not only that you don't understand these concepts, but that you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding them.
I would say reluctance is the word. I will defend something till I can't. I owe it that, but that only goes so far. Right is right.


No, that's not what I meant. But while we're on the subject: IF we had told you it made sense, you could've gone to "phase two".
I was shown to need study, I can fix that. Or at least make a better attempt.

But now that we DO tell you it doesn't, you refuse to accept it. In other words, the only answer you WILL accept is "yes". Therefore, discussion with you is useless, since you will only pick the answers that are convenient to you.
That wasn't how it went. I found it impossible for anyone (especially me) to be completely wrong about everything (even though I did get my name wrong). I think in the zeal of some to crush me with absolutes, it made me laugh instead. "There are no electrical or magnetic components to electromagnetic radiation?" Some of that stuff about "complexity" and the word "higher," those are the words used to explain the drama, and I used them the same way.
"The simplest organisms are organized at only one level of structure. As organisms become more complex, their structures are organized in more complex ways." At least that is what Modern Biology says. "The more complex organisms are multicellular...."


Yes, that IS what I meant. And I don't see how you beign nice has anything to do with it.
If the goal is acceptance, mean does not work as well.
So your theory is that I am seeking acceptance, by acting unacceptable? Oh, I guess that is what you meant when you said I was doing a poor job.


He would have a hard time saying anything about me, I'm sure.
:)


what the hell are you talking about ?
I thought the picture brought on the acceptance needing thing. The guy does look lonely.


Of course not, because you've convinced yourself that, no matter what, the "graph" is correct.
It is a diagram.
Fill in the blanks and see why: Life____ Addition_____ Negative______ Love_____ Attraction_______ etc.
They are the words used to explain the drama.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

By what mechanism does this create genetic variation? Can you tell it apart from the normal crossover/recombination that happens as part of meiosis and fertilization (for sexed organisms)?
I can't find one. I mean a way that it can write its experience in its DNA. I mean a mutation can occur in the lifetime, but there is no individual control.

[nescafe]

I can't find one. I mean a way that it can write its experience in its DNA. I mean a mutation can occur in the lifetime, but there is no individual control.
good!

What do you think that means?

You might want to make up a list of the ways that organisms (not just humans and mammals) have of passing information from parent(s) to offspring. It will help in your ponderings.

[Belz...]

I would say reluctance is the word. I will defend something till I can't. I owe it that

You "owe" "it" nothing. You owe it to yourself and the people you've engaged in conversation here to be honest enough to admit when you're wrong, even if it means you're completely wrong. Hey, it happened to me more than once about similar subjects. Why do you have such a hard time scrapping the whole deal ?

That wasn't how it went. I found it impossible for anyone (especially me) to be completely wrong about everything

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it IS possible. Of course, if by everything you mean everything, then no. But if you mean "everything pertaining to my theory", then yes, it's entirely possible. Remember my Giant Chicken theory ? Well, I don't subscribe to it, but it IS completely wrong. So what if I did believe in it ?

I think in the zeal of some to crush me with absolutes, it made me laugh instead.

Your first mistake.

"There are no electrical or magnetic components to electromagnetic radiation?" Some of that stuff about "complexity" and the word "higher," those are the words used to explain the drama, and I used them the same way.

Okay, I'm going to ask this now: what the hell is the "drama" ?

"The simplest organisms are organized at only one level of structure. As organisms become more complex, their structures are organized in more complex ways." At least that is what Modern Biology says. "The more complex organisms are multicellular...."

Of course. But "complex" doesn't mean "higher" if you want "higher" to mean "better", and "complex" is often subjective: though multicellular organisms are obviously more complex than unicellular ones, you'd be hard pressed to tell me if a dog is more complex than a horse.

So your theory is that I am seeking acceptance, by acting unacceptable? Oh, I guess that is what you meant when you said I was doing a poor job.

You're trying to get the right answer to my question, without really understanding it. Why would you do that ?

It is a diagram.
Fill in the blanks and see why: Life____ Addition_____ Negative______ Love_____ Attraction_______ etc.

Fill in the blanks with what ? Opposites ? See what I meant about not learning anything ?

[Solus]

Dang, I missed the 3000th post :(

I was sick or I would have had it, but that 3000th belonged to me. Oh well, I'll just wait till the 5000th eventually comes up.

[Solus]

You "owe" "it" nothing. You owe it to yourself and the people you've engaged in conversation here to be honest enough to admit when you're wrong, even if it means you're completely wrong. Hey, it happened to me more than once about similar subjects. Why do you have such a hard time scrapping the whole deal ?

I've been embarrassingly wrong on this forum more than once but I'll always been willing to admit when I am wrong. Does LCL still feel he is right? Or is this about defending something that was broken on the first page?

LCL should just come up with some new idea and hopefully after all this maybe it will be something sensible, that others will agree with him on...

What the heck was LCL arguing in the first place? He should lay out his argument again. Or was it just that light created life? :confused:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You "owe" "it" nothing. You owe it to yourself and the people you've engaged in conversation here to be honest enough to admit when you're wrong, even if it means you're completely wrong. Hey, it happened to me more than once about similar subjects.
I have admitted being wrong when I was, plenty, the Lamarck thing just now, I still do not believe that I am completely wrong-not by a long shot.

Why do you have such a hard time scrapping the whole deal ?
I believe it for one, and two, it has a job to do.


But if you mean "everything pertaining to my theory", then yes, it's entirely possible.
Yes it is possible for it to be entirely wrong, but even if it were, I would still have to present it because of the way the thing lines up, and what it says when it does. All I would have to do is to make known that I thought it was wrong. I always intended to find a way to present what you all have said about it, that is some very interesting stuff. That diagram can be used as a focus, and what you say won't hurt me a bit. "If I am wrong, here is why." That way the thing can be used to educate.

It will be used though, my plans for it are too important for me to throw it away (even if I had the guts). I see it as a weapon of "mass-construction."

Your first mistake.
It was. And if you look back you will see me warn that "you better know what you are talking about," before I accepted (and admitted) that I think (for the most part) you did. Still, even smart people disagree: "Science is based on observations, and if we deny the evidence for direction in ecology and evolution, we are not being scientific. This purposefulness of life does not mean that there is a knowable end point, or that humans are that end point. It means rather that we are part of a cosmically creative process that builds up structure, complexity, and intelligence as it destroys gradients." This is from the book INTO THE COOL. That book reads like I wrote it, that is, if I were that good.


Okay, I'm going to ask this now: what the hell is the "drama" ?
The universe is a stage, and everything plays a part.


Of course. But "complex" doesn't mean "higher" if you want "higher" to mean "better", and "complex" is often subjective:
I never thought "higher" meant "better," and I said so.

though multicellular organisms are obviously more complex than unicellular ones,
That is the stuff I was talking about.

you'd be hard pressed to tell me if a dog is more complex than a horse.
Yes I would, but I would have a better chance comparing them to bacteria, or a flower, but even would depend on what I was refering to.

You're trying to get the right answer to my question, without really understanding it. Why would you do that ?
I don't know what you mean here, but there, I was joking. Being accepted would be nice, but I thought you noticed that that is not that high on my list. There is no way I would hold a position to get people to like me. I can turn the computer off, but I can't avoid the mirror.


Fill in the blanks with what ? Opposites ? See what I meant about not learning anything?
The diagram will provide a good lesson in the many types of opposites, and even whether or not they are opposites at all.

[streamlet]

I believe by "The drama," Light means what noted philosopher Douglas Adams called, "life, the universe, and everything." Oh dear, now I'm thinking that the diagram might be improved if Light put "42" on one side and "-42" on the other. After all a number is something with an objective opposite! :)

[bruto]

.....
The diagram will provide a good lesson in the many types of opposites, and even whether or not they are opposites at all.

It hasn't yet. Do you intend to modify it in some way?

[Belz...]

I have admitted being wrong when I was, plenty, the Lamarck thing just now, I still do not believe that I am completely wrong-not by a long shot.

It really doesn't matter. Lamarckism is dead. There is no imput from the individual. Period.

You "admit" to being wrong and then come back with the same thing you've admitted to being wrong on later.

I believe it for one, and two, it has a job to do.

The second is included in the first.

Haven't you understood yet that BELIEF has nothing to do with reality ?

Yes it is possible for it to be entirely wrong, but even if it were, I would still have to present it because of the way the thing lines up, and what it says when it does.

But that would mean that it is NOT entirely wrong. You've just full of contradictions, aren't you ?

That diagram can be used as a focus, and what you say won't hurt me a bit. "If I am wrong, here is why." That way the thing can be used to educate.

As an example of what NOT to do in science, yes. But that's not how you're presenting it.

It will be used though, my plans for it are too important for me to throw it away (even if I had the guts). I see it as a weapon of "mass-construction."

Precisely. Your quest is based on blind faith, not logic and reason.

Still, even smart people disagree.

But it doesn't follow that people who disagree are smart.

The universe is a stage, and everything plays a part.

Ah, so it's a useless metaphor. Please stick to the facts. <giggle> I can't believe I asked YOU that.

I never thought "higher" meant "better," and I said so.

You meant "more advanced" which is a synonym, especially because you assumed that intelligence was better than any other strength.

That is the stuff I was talking about.

Then your contention is meaningless, as usual. Of course they are more complex SINCE THEY ARE MADE OF THE SIMPLER ONES.

The diagram will provide a good lesson in the many types of opposites, and even whether or not they are opposites at all.

As usual, you take the bad to be good.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It really doesn't matter. Lamarckism is dead. There is no imput from the individual. Period.
Fine, there is no input.

You "admit" to being wrong and then come back with the same thing you've admitted to being wrong on later.
I was not talking about Lamarckism.


The second is included in the first.
Fine.

Haven't you understood yet that BELIEF has nothing to do with reality ?
What people believe influences their reality.


But that would mean that it is NOT entirely wrong. You've just full of contradictions, aren't you ?
I said it is possible it is completely wrong, I don't think it is though.


As an example of what NOT to do in science, yes. But that's not how you're presenting it.
I'll present both sides and leave it up to the viewer.


Precisely. Your quest is based on blind faith, not logic and reason.
Blind faith has nothing to do with it.


But it doesn't follow that people who disagree are smart.
So. Do you disagree with what he said?


Ah, so it's a useless metaphor. Please stick to the facts. <giggle> I can't believe I asked YOU that.
You knew what I was talking about, you just wanted to be a word cop.


You meant "more advanced" which is a synonym, especially because you assumed that intelligence was better than any other strength.
Intelligence can make it possible to be fast, fly, breathe under water, create armor, see into the micro world, defeat unseen threats, plan, etc, what can't it do?


Then your contention is meaningless, as usual. Of course they are more complex SINCE THEY ARE MADE OF THE SIMPLER ONES.
You stance was different 20 pages ago? I said more complex and had bacteria thrown at me. Humans are considered a higher form of life, bacteria, a low form of life.


As usual, you take the bad to be good.
Isn't bad relative?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It hasn't yet. Do you intend to modify it in some way?
There is no need. It drew the response as it is.

[cyborg]

What people believe influences their reality.

What a spectacular non-answer.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What a spectacular non-answer.
I think the person who asked the question said that "there is one reality." That the truth is the truth. And while I agree that there is one truth/reality, who can say what that is? So instead, what we do is make due with what we have at the time. Something that is widely agreed upon. Except, science is different, while what it says is not always widely agreed upon, it is generally agreed upon by a very knowledgeable bunch, and their results speak for itself.
Disagree with them? That is fine, but take them on at their level and they will more than likely win. They put more into the fight. That does not mean that their reality is right, but (I think) it is the next best thing. But did they create their own reality, or do they have the right one? Is it possible for anyone to have the right one? Is it possible for them to reach the right one without taking taking in the whole picture?

[cyborg]

Except, science is different, while what it says is not always widely agreed upon, it is generally agreed upon by a very knowledgeable bunch, and their results speak for itself.

Science takes ego out of the equation.

But did they create their own reality, or do they have the right one? Is it possible for anyone to have the right one? Is it possible for them to reach the right one without taking taking in the whole picture?

Possibilities are irrelevant.

Unless the madman can SHOW he's right then he's SOL as far as persuading anyone else.

If you don't get this then just stop whilst you're behind. No one here is going to give a crap about 'possibilities'.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Science takes ego out of the equation.
Its method seeks to take ego out of the equation, scientist don't always succeed. And you know, it is ego that drives many scientist. The method seeks to keep them in line.

posibilities are irrelevant.
They are the bouncing balls of science.

Unless the madman can SHOW he's right then he's SOL as far as persuading anyone else.
I wish you were right, but you are not. Many a madman has done just that. After all, mad is relative. What about the "madness" behind the method of Dr Dino? Have you seen that thread "The Secret"? Ever read "Dianetics"? It can be done. I KNOW it. I am taking the time to do it for the right reasons. Not that I am mad, or anything. Normal people view most scientist as mad. You know, the ones that are fanastic in one area, but less so in others. Just as the scientist may view them as "less smart," to put it mildly.

If you don't get this then just stop whilst you're behind. No one here is going to give a crap about 'possibilities'.
So above you were not talking about everyone, just people here? Only, you can not speak for everyone here. Unless you guys are connected enough to act in each others interest, consciously or not. That, or you share pretty much the same opinion, which would make it appear that you act in each others interest.
String theory has as much proof as I do right now, so it is "legit" for me to stand where I am. If science can "bounce" that ball around, so can I.

[cyborg]

Its method seeks to take ego out of the equation, scientist don't always succeed. And you know, it is ego that drives many scientist. The method seeks to keep them in line.

So... in other words science takes ego out of the equation.

They are the bouncing balls of science.

No, they really aren't.

I wish you were right, but you are not. Many a madman has done just that. After all, mad is relative. What about the "madness" behind the method of Dr Dino? Have you seen that thread "The Secret"? Ever read "Dianetics"? It can be done. I KNOW it. I am taking the time to do it for the right reasons.

Right... so you think these people who invented this crap did so for the wrong reasons? Don't you think in their minds it was perfectly justified?

You are not helping your case.

So above you were not talking about everyone, just people here? Only, you can not speak for everyone here.

Erm, I'm just telling you what skeptics do. If you don't get what that is yet then is there any point in continuing to engage you in discussion?

That, or you share pretty much the same opinion, which would make it appear that you act in each others interest.

S-K-E-P-T-I-C-S.

Yeah, we pretty much share the same opinion - put up or shut up.

String theory has as much proof as I do right now, so it is "legit" for me to stand where I am. If science can "bounce" that ball around, so can I.

That is just wrong I'm afraid. Not all scientists are as skeptical as they should be.

We are however. So if you want to bounce your metaphorical balls find somewhere else. You will get no respite here, people will not engage with your ideas because bouncing balls is 'cool'. They will do exactly what they have done to date; demand evidence, demand evidence, demand evidence.

Seriously, you are wasting your time doing anything other than supplying it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So... in other words science takes ego out of the equation.
It tries, but remember, we are dealing with people...right?


No, they really aren't.
Well not literally.


Right... so you think these people who invented this crap did so for the wrong reasons? Don't you think in their minds it was perfectly justified?
Probably, though some know better. I think exploitation is wrong, I'll be the judge. I am sure that you have done that yourself, once or twice. Who were you refering to when you said mad man?



You are not helping your case.
You would be surprised what I am doing to my case.


Erm, I'm just telling you what skeptics do. If you don't get what that is yet then is there any point in continuing to engage you in discussion?



S-K-E-P-T-I-C-S.

Yeah, we pretty much share the same opinion - put up or shut up.
Take it easy, it happens. Christian sites favor christians, cat sites favor cats. I don't think it is a conspiracy or something. Ever hear of a crowd not favoring the home team?


That is just wrong I'm afraid. Not all scientists are as skeptical as they should be.
Right, like I said, they are people. Their success is in the method.

We are however. So if you want to bounce your metaphorical balls find somewhere else. You will get no respite here, people will not engage with your ideas because bouncing balls is 'cool'.
Why would I be looking for "respite"? What part of "sharping the axe" and all the war references I make make people think I am looking for a hug? And haven't you been "engaging" it this long? Don't think its cool, blast it to hell. Showing how all those things "shouldn't" be related, tips the scale in the direction of the "accident" that put them together on that diagram. Respite? I am trying to warn you that eventually I am going to give this thing a wider audience.

They will do exactly what they have done to date; demand evidence, demand evidence, demand evidence.
Fine, I'm working on it.

Seriously, you are wasting your time doing anything other than supplying it.
I got plenty of time, and I am here this long to show that I had/have, at least, a leg to stand on. I was just unprepared to present it, but electromagnetism is the force most tied to life, and it is primarily the two components that make it up, that makes things what they are. Negative and positive charges, attractive and repulsive forces. The order of the universe, gave us (or allowed us to invent) the math of the universe.

I'm working on a summary.

[Belz...]

What people believe influences their reality.

Which is irrelevant to REALITY. Who cares WHAT they believe in, if it changes NOTHING of reality ? You're trying to find emotional significance to the universe; you're conflating two things.

I said it is possible it is completely wrong, I don't think it is though.

Contradiction. I think you mean to say "I don't think I am, though"

Again, what you believe is irrelevant to reality.

I'll present both sides and leave it up to the viewer.

Depending on how you present it, it would probably be dishonest, because you'll more than likely give more space and text to YOUR side, even though it's been thoroughly debunked.

Blind faith has nothing to do with it.

Yes it DOES. Pay attention: No matter how many people explain to you how wrong you are, you still keep the "graph" because it means something to you. That is an emotional, not rational, response. And contra what you said numerous times in the past, emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality.

So. Do you disagree with what he said?

Irrelevant. I was making a point.

You knew what I was talking about, you just wanted to be a word cop.

No, I just wanted to point out that your continued use of the word "stage" has no real meaning, so you should stop using it.

Intelligence can make it possible to be fast, fly, breathe under water, create armor, see into the micro world, defeat unseen threats, plan, etc, what can't it do?

Again, irrelevant. Technology doesn't make me fly. It makes planes fly, and I can ride the plane. As a lifeform I'm not much better than I was before I boarded the plane, and almost any OTHER form of life on earth can still gut me.

You stance was different 20 pages ago? I said more complex and had bacteria thrown at me. Humans are considered a higher form of life, bacteria, a low form of life.

Et voilà! You've come right back to square one. Thanks for proving my point. You didn't learn that, either.

Isn't bad relative?

Liar and coward, Light. You know exactly what I meant.

[Belz...]

Its method seeks to take ego out of the equation, scientist don't always succeed. And you know, it is ego that drives many scientist. The method seeks to keep them in line.

Ego drives scientists ? Do you know what the word means ?

It tries, but remember, we are dealing with people...right?

Irrelevant, AGAIN. The fact that thousands of scientists use this methods minimises error. There is NO other method so far that gives us any relevant results.

I wish you were right, but you are not. Many a madman has done just that. After all, mad is relative.

Well, everything seems "relative" to you, these days. I guess this is the defense mechanism you've invented in order to maintain the self-illusion that you're right.

I am trying to warn you that eventually I am going to give this thing a wider audience.

And you'll get the same reaction you're getting here, except from ignoramuses. And you'll STILL think you're right, no matter what.

[Dancing David]

I think the person who asked the question said that "there is one reality." That the truth is the truth. And while I agree that there is one truth/reality, who can say what that is? So instead, what we do is make due with what we have at the time. Something that is widely agreed upon. Except, science is different, while what it says is not always widely agreed upon, it is generally agreed upon by a very knowledgeable bunch, and their results speak for itself.
Disagree with them? That is fine, but take them on at their level and they will more than likely win. They put more into the fight. That does not mean that their reality is right, but (I think) it is the next best thing. But did they create their own reality, or do they have the right one? Is it possible for anyone to have the right one? Is it possible for them to reach the right one without taking taking in the whole picture?

I can't rememebr if I have said this on this thread already.

I agree with you the question is what is it that we are discussing.

Truth?

All human thoughts are equaly false and equaly true.

What science relies upon is observational validity. that is, can a theory provide predictable outcomes that can be observationaly verified.

On this forum and most likely all sceptic's forums observational validity will triumph.

Now that said perceptions are real but they are not often valid to observational standards. Cover one ye, look at a complex visual field, do you see the blind spot? It is about the size of your fist held at arms lenth.

Why isn't there a blank area in that visual field? because your brain makes up the perceptions in the blind spot.

It sort of manufactures a lot of perceptions.

So what is percieved is real to the critter which percieves it, but it might not have observational validity.

Take an optical illusion, there is one that involves thick lines on a whire space and you will percieve a color of grey in certain areas, the thing is the grey is not there, the space is actualy white. You will percieve it as grey. Just like the colors in the moire patterns, they aren't there in the pattern but you percieve them anyway.

So yes perceptions, ideas and feelings are very real. they do exist.

The question for science is:

Do they have observational validity?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Which is irrelevant to REALITY. Who cares WHAT they believe in, if it changes NOTHING of reality ? You're trying to find emotional significance to the universe; you're conflating two things.
I don't understand your view of reality. Are you saying that there is but one reality, but since it is unknowable, nothing else matters?


Contradiction. I think you mean to say "I don't think I am, though"
No, I said what I meant.


Depending on how you present it, it would probably be dishonest, because you'll more than likely give more space and text to YOUR side, even though it's been thoroughly debunked.
That is quite a reality you made yourself there. If I use exactly what you said, there is little chance for me to be dishonest. If I use my own words to explain what you said, there is. I don't want to use my own words to make sure that will not happen.


Yes it DOES. Pay attention: No matter how many people explain to you how wrong you are, you still keep the "graph" because it means something to you.
How does that differ from a person trying to cure a disease, or build a device-they think-is important? It "meant something" for Columbus to cross the ocean, and believe it or not, it means something (for some) to win the Nobel Prize.

That is an emotional, not rational, response. And contra what you said numerous times in the past, emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality.
Worthless to the scientific method, not reality.


Irrelevant. I was making a point.
So was I, they are saying the same thing I have been saying, are they wrong too?


No, I just wanted to point out that your continued use of the word "stage" has no real meaning, so you should stop using it.
You mean "drama"? Stage doesn't sound right. I'll see.


Again, irrelevant. Technology doesn't make me fly. It makes planes fly, and I can ride the plane. As a lifeform I'm not much better than I was before I boarded the plane,
You can be a lifeform on the other side of the planet. Sometimes that comes in handy. Technology is made from the natural advantage of humans, just as the natural advantage of a bird is to fly.

and almost any OTHER form of life on earth can still gut me.
If it hasn't already been gutted, sad to say.

Et voilà! You've come right back to square one. Thanks for proving my point. You didn't learn that, either.
Hey, why jump on me? I am not the only person who thinks that, multicellular life is more complex.


Liar and coward, Light. You know exactly what I meant.
Do I call you names when you do the same to me? Above, with the intelligence thing, you know what I meant. Are you appealing to emotions, even though you say they are "WORTHLESS for understanding reality?"

[wollery]

I don't understand your view of reality. Are you saying that there is but one reality, but since it is unknowable, nothing else matters?Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, still remains.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, still remains.
That is what baffles me about the religion, most of those who cease to believe, only seem to began believing in something else.

[bruto]

That is what baffles me about the religion, most of those who cease to believe, only seem to began believing in something else.

You must make sure you understand the distinction between various types of belief, though. It's a word which, like so many words, can have different meanings in different contexts. "I believe in Santa Claus" does not mean the same thing as "I believe that the ground under my feet is real." If you cease to believe in things that do not exist, this does not mean that you must never believe in anything at all, including things that do exist. Not all belief is faith, at least as we customarily use the word "faith," and even if you use the word "faith" as, say, Santayana does in the phrase "animal faith," to denote the common sense beliefs by which we must function in relation to the material world, it's not the same as blind faith in things which defy reason.

[Belz...]

I don't understand your view of reality. Are you saying that there is but one reality, but since it is unknowable, nothing else matters?

Who said it was unknowable ?

No, I said what I meant.

Ah, so there you have a contradiction.

That is quite a reality you made yourself there. If I use exactly what you said, there is little chance for me to be dishonest. If I use my own words to explain what you said, there is. I don't want to use my own words to make sure that will not happen.

And in doing so you ensure that any flaw in your theory isn't your fault.

How does that differ from a person trying to cure a disease, or build a device-they think-is important? It "meant something" for Columbus to cross the ocean, and believe it or not, it means something (for some) to win the Nobel Prize.

Because you're not following any form of method or procedure that would allow you to ever reach a conclusion. That's the difference.

Worthless to the scientific method, not reality.

I SAID:

That is an emotional, not rational, response. And contra what you said numerous times in the past, emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality.

Please pay attention.

So was I, they are saying the same thing I have been saying, are they wrong too?

You're not very good at following conversation, are you ? Perhaps you can check upthread and see what we were talking about ?

You can be a lifeform on the other side of the planet. Sometimes that comes in handy. Technology is made from the natural advantage of humans, just as the natural advantage of a bird is to fly.

Humans still can't fly. They need those gizmos.

If it hasn't already been gutted, sad to say.

Meaningless.

Hey, why jump on me? I am not the only person who thinks that, multicellular life is more complex.

Nice try. But THIS is what you said:

Humans are considered a higher form of life, bacteria, a low form of life.

Bolding mine. That's the part I was responding to.

Do I call you names when you do the same to me?

Tu quoque.

Are you appealing to emotions, even though you say they are "WORTHLESS for understanding reality?"

Nope. I'm not. I'm pointing out that you're not man enough to face reality.

[D'rok]

Yes it DOES. Pay attention: No matter how many people explain to you how wrong you are, you still keep the "graph" because it means something to you. That is an emotional, not rational, response. And contra what you said numerous times in the past, emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality.

This thread is a real train wreck, but I find your post intriguing. The question of the merits of emotion and reason in understanding the world interests me, so I've spun a new thread off this part of your post.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2524927#post2524927

[Solus]

Happy birthday LCL!

[bruto]

Yes, happy birthday to LCL and Religion Student, who seem to share the day if little else.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Happy birthday LCL!
Thank you.

Yes, happy birthday to LCL and Religion Student, who seem to share the day if little else.
Thank you too...I think.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The organism is not "nothing" -- if you took (say) all the DNA out of a fertilized human egg and put it in a running stream, that DNA would decay without a chance to pass itself on. Leave it in the egg, though, and let the egg implant itself in a handy human uterus (custom designed to provide just the right sort of environment, that genetic ensemble could (for example) build an organism capable of conquering most of the known world and spreading copies of itself all over most of a continent.

Genghis Khan benefited by having the sort of charisma needed to build a world-conquering army -- the genes that built him benefited by being able to spread copies of themselves across most of Europe and Asia.

I have read where there are 10 times as many bacteria cells in the human body, then there are human cells. I am starting to feel that we are "their" life vehicle.


Please do. The answer is both scary and wonderful at once.

I think it is scary that we don't contribute anything, but doesn't it mean that every DNA pattern alive today, existed continously in one form or another for close to 3 billion years?

[Belz...]

I think it is scary that we don't contribute anything, but doesn't it mean that every DNA pattern alive today, existed continously in one form or another for close to 3 billion years?

<giggle> No Lamarckism, right ?

[nescafe]

I have read where there are 10 times as many bacteria cells in the human body, then there are human cells. I am starting to feel that we are "their" life vehicle.
Yes. In most cases, though, this is not a problem.


I think it is scary that we don't contribute anything, but doesn't it mean that every DNA pattern alive today, existed continously in one form or another for close to 3 billion years?

Not at all. DNA mutates (via various mechanisms) all the time, and every mutation can (potentially) enhance, not affect, or degrade the fitness of the gene ensemble that DNA is a part of. The ones that enhance the fitness tend to get passed on, the ones that are neutral are just along for the ride, and the ones that degrade tend to get weeded out.

New DNA patterns are created all the time, and the ones that are useful tend to stick around.

[Dancing David]

I think it is scary that we don't contribute anything, but doesn't it mean that every DNA pattern alive today, existed continously in one form or another for close to 3 billion years?


there are things that are passed on to the next generation and the future that are not subject to natural selection, human patterns of behavior (IE habits and thought patterns), buildings, depleted resources, plantings and written and oral traditions and knowledge.

They do not evolve by natural selection the way a genome does.

Happy Birthday!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

New DNA patterns are created all the time, and the ones that are useful tend to stick around.
Human patterns are no longer as "challenged" as they use to be, most get pasted along. Though I guess that is a good thing, if something really bad happens, there would be someone around with the genes to handle it. I hear that there are people immune to AIDS.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

there are things that are passed on to the next generation and the future that are not subject to natural selection, human patterns of behavior (IE habits and thought patterns), buildings, depleted resources, plantings and written and oral traditions and knowledge.
What? I was not refering to any of that stuff. I am puzzled at Belz answer too, he must think I am saying the same thing you are. I know those things are passed on, and not subject to natural selection (unless natural selection is about the best way/method/design winning out over another). Though of course, that would not be the same thing.

They do not evolve by natural selection the way a genome does.
Of course not.

Happy Birthday!
Thank you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Who said it was unknowable ?
Does anyone know it?


Ah, so there you have a contradiction.
They happen.


And in doing so you ensure that any flaw in your theory isn't your fault.
Is that my plan?


Because you're not following any form of method or procedure that would allow you to ever reach a conclusion. That's the difference.
I am going to reach a conculsion based on the best evidence, but the diagram uses the words used to explain things, to tell a very familiar story.


Humans still can't fly. They need those gizmos.
built with their natural advantage.


Nope. I'm not. I'm pointing out that you're not man enough to face reality.
Now who are you to judge? And whose reality are we talking about?

[wollery]

Who said it was unknowable ?

Does anyone know it?Unknown and unknowable are two very different things LCL. Check out a dictionary, you might be surprised.

[Belz...]

Does anyone know it?

That's not unknowable, Light. That's UNKNOWN.

They happen.

Not in reality, they don't. Two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true.

Is that my plan?

You tell me. You've been using that "I'm not the first one to say that" tactic quite a bit.

I am going to reach a conculsion based on the best evidence

So far you've shown the exact opposite tendency.

but the diagram uses the words used to explain things, to tell a very familiar story.

This is an emotional response. I thought you said you'd use evidence ?

built with their natural advantage.

Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.

Now who are you to judge? And whose reality are we talking about?

See ? You haven't learned THAT either. There is only ONE reality.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Unknown and unknowable are two very different things LCL. Check out a dictionary, you might be surprised.
The two words are different. what makes you think that I don't know they have two different definitions?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That's not unknowable, Light. That's UNKNOWN.
I think I asked you a question about what you thought reality is?


Not in reality, they don't. Two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true.
In our reality it can, ever heard of the law? Now it might not be the one real reality but it works just as well.



You tell me. You've been using that "I'm not the first one to say that" tactic quite a bit.
"I'm not the first one to say that" I don't know what you mean?


So far you've shown the exact opposite tendency.
To you, I never admitted to be wrong.


This is an emotional response. I thought you said you'd use evidence ?
I got no problem with emotions.


Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.
They use their machines to. They didn't have to wait for evolution.


See ? You haven't learned THAT either. There is only ONE reality.Again, what do you mean by reality?

[nescafe]

Human patterns are no longer as "challenged" as they use to be, most get pasted along.

ITYM "passed".

However, assuming that humans are under less selection pressure than they used to be is a rather large assumption -- a few tens of generations of favourable environmental conditions is barely an eyeblink on the timescales human evolution operates on.

Though I guess that is a good thing, if something really bad happens, there would be someone around with the genes to handle it. I hear that there are people immune to AIDS.

:) That is what is so interesting about human evolution -- our genetic mix is fairly homogenous, our day-to-day and generation-to-generation survival at this point depends more on our knowledge and ability to shape our environment than anything else. Almost as if it had been selected for...

[Belz...]

I think I asked you a question about what you thought reality is?

If you're too lazy to dig it up then we'll never know.


In our reality it can, ever heard of the law? Now it might not be the one real reality but it works just as well.

I still don't understand how come you don't memorise anything that's been said here. There IS ONLY ONE REALITY. Your subjective interpretation of it is irrelevant.

"I'm not the first one to say that" I don't know what you mean?

Oh, yes you do.

To you, I never admitted to be wrong.

Well, you didn't. Proof: you're still using your graph as though nothing happened.

I got no problem with emotions.

Reading, Light. Learn to use it. You said you'd use evidence, and then you come with an emotional interpretation. That's not evidence.

They use their machines to. They didn't have to wait for evolution.

Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.

Again, what do you mean by reality?

Look up the definition.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote]I still don't understand how come you don't memorise anything that's been said here. There IS ONLY ONE REALITY. Your subjective interpretation of it is irrelevant.
I was trying to get your sense of reality, whether or not you think the present reality is enough, whether are not we share the same one.


Well, you didn't. Proof: you're still using your graph as though nothing happened.
Some of that stuff was not directly tied in with the diagram. And someone has already said that those words do fit across from each other "at a simple level."



Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.
Humans can fly... in a plane.

[Belz...]

I was trying to get your sense of reality, whether or not you think the present reality is enough, whether are not we share the same one.

THERE IS ONLY ONE REALITY.

Some of that stuff was not directly tied in with the diagram. And someone has already said that those words do fit across from each other "at a simple level."

How convenient. If what we've said here doesn't concern the diagram, then it proves what we said all along: the diagram is nonsense.

Humans can fly... in a plane.

Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.

[Dancing David]

[quote=Belz...;2537206]
I was trying to get your sense of reality, whether or not you think the present reality is enough, whether are not we share the same one.

Reality is reality, human perceptions of sensations vary, as do thoughts. Some speculate there are other universes.


Some of that stuff was not directly tied in with the diagram. And someone has already said that those words do fit across from each other "at a simple level."



Humans can fly... in a plane.


There is a qualifier there.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

THERE IS ONLY ONE REALITY.
Is it knowable? Does anyone know what it is?


How convenient. If what we've said here doesn't concern the diagram, then it proves what we said all along: the diagram is nonsense.
King Tut having the right to the property he left does not bother it, me being wrong about Lamarckism doesn't either. About putting life opposite death, I wasn't wrong.


Irrelevant. Humans can't fly.
So when you compare the natural ability of some animal, and say humans can't do that, I could just say that the animal can't get cable and be just as right as you were trying to be. The animal can't drive, can't buy shoes, etc.

[Belz...]

Is it knowable? Does anyone know what it is?

Well we have an interesting method used to determine it. You might know it as "science".

King Tut having the right to the property he left does not bother it, me being wrong about Lamarckism doesn't either. About putting life opposite death, I wasn't wrong.

The King Tut angle was a minor thing; of course you wouldn't have any problem giving it up. You keep coming back to Lamarck, so I don't see how you could say that. You're dead wrong about life vs death.

So when you compare the natural ability of some animal, and say humans can't do that, I could just say that the animal can't get cable and be just as right as you were trying to be. The animal can't drive, can't buy shoes, etc.

A human on a plane doesn't fly. The plane flies. How difficult is it for you to understand this ?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

:) That is what is so interesting about human evolution -- our genetic mix is fairly homogenous, our day-to-day and generation-to-generation survival at this point depends more on our knowledge and ability to shape our environment than anything else. Almost as if it had been selected for...
Intelligent life is the natural outcome of the evolutionary process. It only seems right that a lifeform that survives through its intelligence, would be very relient on it.

[cyborg]

So when you compare the natural ability of some animal, and say humans can't do that, I could just say that the animal can't get cable and be just as right as you were trying to be. The animal can't drive, can't buy shoes, etc.

You really love domain reasoning errors don't you?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You really love domain reasoning errors don't you?
I guess. I never heard of the term. I suppose if I said a fly can't drive a car, that can be countered, endlessly, with things it can do.

[Belz...]

Intelligent life is the natural outcome of the evolutionary process.

No. It is A possible outcome. This is why only one species has any appreciable amounts of it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No. It is A possible outcome. This is why only one species has any appreciable amounts of it.
Humans have a lot, but everything living has some. Okay, there are lifeforms with no brain, so their actions cannot be said to be "thought out," but at what point can thinking be said to be taking place? And I know that I can begin to assume thinking is taking place if the lifeform has a brain.
And somehow, I think, that if I made a statement like that, you would have flipped.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The King Tut angle was a minor thing; of course you wouldn't have any problem giving it up.
I did not think it was minor. I thought that was his stuff.

You keep coming back to Lamarck, so I don't see how you could say that.
I was wrong.

You're dead wrong about life vs death.
It wasn't "life verses death," it was life being the opposite of death. And it is still opposite enough for me.
Over here we have something alive, I can tell because it is jumping around. It has that certain "animated" quality we like. Over here, we have the opposite. Not the complete opposite (if that is even possible) but enough.
Now, of course, plenty of things can appear "animated," but you know what I mean. Living/Dead, Life/Death.


A human on a plane doesn't fly. The plane flies. How difficult is it for you to understand this ?
I understand. Humans can't fly, except with something built by way of their natural abillity.

[Cosmo]

I still read most of the posts in this thread, even after all this time. But I keep up to date today for a different reason than I did at the start of this thread.

Almost every time I check in on this thread, I see Belz getting the last word in with a well-written post that addresses every one of LCL's latest points. I nod in satisfaction, certain that LCL will concede the point - or, if I'm feeling cynical, certain that LCL will ignore the point and move on.

The former almost never happens. Around and around the cycle of ignorance goes, and I'm unsure whether to admire Belz for his perseverance, scold LCL for his stubbornness, scold Belz for HIS stubbornness, or some combination of the above.

But those days have passed. I now read this thread for the same reason that people slow down and stick their heads out the car window when they drive past an accident - pure, unadulterated, morbid curiosity.

[Belz...]

Humans have a lot, but everything living has some.

Most life forms on this planet don't have ANY.

Okay, there are lifeforms with no brain, so their actions cannot be said to be "thought out," but at what point can thinking be said to be taking place?

Well, you need some neurones, to start.

I did not think it was minor. I thought that was his stuff.

It was irrelevant to the thread's subject, and therefore minor.

It wasn't "life verses death," it was life being the opposite of death.

Back at playing with words ? "Versus" means "against" which happens to be a form of "opposite".

And it is still opposite enough for me.

Enough ? How is "NOT AT ALL" "enough" ? How can NOT being an opposite be enough of an opposite for you ?

People have told you many times about this, but you REFUSE to learn it.

In short, you only learn what you want to learn; basically, what new knowledge doesn't threaten your world-view. The rest, you forget as you read it.

I understand. Humans can't fly, except with something built by way of their natural abillity.

Intelligence isn't particularily natural, Light. It has to be trained. In the wild, early humans were more cunning, perhaps, but that didn't stop the predators from eating them, did it ?

[Belz...]

The former almost never happens. Around and around the cycle of ignorance goes, and I'm unsure whether to admire Belz for his perseverance, scold LCL for his stubbornness, scold Belz for HIS stubbornness, or some combination of the above.

Ooh!! Ooh! Scold ME!! Scold ME !!!!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Most life forms on this planet don't have ANY.
Well their instincts (and/or behavior patterns) make them appear to have some. Aren't those things the precursor to real intelligence?Haven't we just added a layer of reason around our instincts?


It was irrelevant to the thread's subject, and therefore minor.
If you put it that way, fine.


Back at playing with words ? "Versus" means "against" which happens to be a form of "opposite".
I just wanted to be exact...a form of opposite, huh? So opposites take different forms. Yet there is nothing that can be opposite about life and death?


Enough ? How is "NOT AT ALL" "enough" ? How can NOT being an opposite be enough of an opposite for you ?
I am NOT buying "not at all." No way, no how. Yes, I heard that life does not have an opposite, and even though that would make it as special as I think it to be, I am not buying that either. So, in the diagram, I can't use death to show the end of life?

"What is that?"
"That's life."
"And that over there?"
"That's Death." One tends to stand, the other prefers to lie down. Take any lifeform and almost everything associated with its life, becomes absent upon its death. The observation is pretty straight forward, and can be tested.

In short, you only learn what you want to learn; basically, what new knowledge doesn't threaten your world-view. The rest, you forget as you read it.
I forget nothing, and I am pretty happy with a changing world view. And I don't feel threatened, I already stated why.


Intelligence isn't particularily natural, Light. It has to be trained.
Humans have the natural ability to be trained then.

In the wild, early humans were more cunning, perhaps, but that didn't stop the predators from eating them, did it ?
That is might point, the predators were usually, naturally, stronger and faster. They had sharper claws and teeth, naturally provided. Humans beat them with a naturally sharper mind-and the sharp stick it helped them make. Or, at least, they had a mind with the natural ability to be sharpened.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I still read most of the posts in this thread, even after all this time. But I keep up to date today for a different reason than I did at the start of this thread.

Almost every time I check in on this thread, I see Belz getting the last word in with a well-written post that addresses every one of LCL's latest points. I nod in satisfaction, certain that LCL will concede the point - or, if I'm feeling cynical, certain that LCL will ignore the point and move on.

The former almost never happens. Around and around the cycle of ignorance goes, and I'm unsure whether to admire Belz for his perseverance, scold LCL for his stubbornness, scold Belz for HIS stubbornness, or some combination of the above.

But those days have passed. I now read this thread for the same reason that people slow down and stick their heads out the car window when they drive past an accident - pure, unadulterated, morbid curiosity.Hey, don't you know you can cause an accident that way?

[wollery]

Well their instincts (and/or behavior patterns) make them appear to have some. Aren't those things the precursor to real intelligence?Haven't we just added a layer of reason around our instincts?Are you suggesting that bacteria have brains?

[Belz...]

Well their instincts (and/or behavior patterns) make them appear to have some. Aren't those things the precursor to real intelligence?Haven't we just added a layer of reason around our instincts?

No. Once again, you haven't included the thread's previous 77 pages into your knowledge base.

I just wanted to be exact...a form of opposite, huh? So opposites take different forms. Yet there is nothing that can be opposite about life and death?

Precisely.

I am NOT buying "not at all." No way, no how.

Indeed. You've just basically said you will never change your mind. So why are you here ?

Yes, I heard that life does not have an opposite, and even though that would make it as special as I think it to be, I am not buying that either.

It doesn't make it "special". The only reason why you think so is because of your antiquated concept of universal opposites.

So, in the diagram, I can't use death to show the end of life?

Moving the goalposts and strawman. Death IS the end of life. A gas station can be the end of the road, but it isn't the road's opposite, is it ?

"What is that?"
"That's life."
"And that over there?"
"That's Death."

Except you could never actually point to either life or death.

One tends to stand, the other prefers to lie down. Take any lifeform and almost everything associated with its life, becomes absent upon its death. The observation is pretty straight forward, and can be tested.

And yet it still doesn't say anything about opposites. Just about the end of the process. How is something that is, BY DEFINITION, part of the process, be opposite to it ? I don't think you've ever answered that.

I forget nothing, and I am pretty happy with a changing world view. And I don't feel threatened, I already stated why.

Then why won't you change it ?

Humans have the natural ability to be trained then.

That's a natural ability of almost all creatures. Try again.

That is might point, the predators were usually, naturally, stronger and faster. They had sharper claws and teeth, naturally provided. Humans beat them with a naturally sharper mind-and the sharp stick it helped them make. Or, at least, they had a mind with the natural ability to be sharpened.

Nope.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Are you suggesting that bacteria have brains?No. They only have one cell.

No. Once again, you haven't included the thread's previous 77 pages into your knowledge base.
I think I have.


Indeed. You've just basically said you will never change your mind. So why are you here ?
That is not what I said. And I am still here because (I think) I can explain myself better.


It doesn't make it "special". The only reason why you think so is because of your antiquated concept of universal opposites.
After further thought, the universe is driven by opposites, some more opposite than others. The opposite of a binding force is an unbinding one, and a force of attraction is opposite one of attraction/repulsion.

Except you could never actually point to either life or death.
I can point to the descriptions of them. "That living thing, is what we call life. That dead one is..."


And yet it still doesn't say anything about opposites. Just about the end of the process. How is something that is, BY DEFINITION, part of the process, be opposite to it ? I don't think you've ever answered that.
I said before that the diagram reads: life, living, death.


Then why won't you change it ?
I don't think it needs it. The first lifeform, would you say it was given birth to, or did "life" just come into being? Death, the end of life, came into being when it died.


That's a natural ability of almost all creatures. Try again.
Humans are best at it. And I am sure that most creatures would not be able to do somethings no matter how long you trained them.

I'm going to look into this point some more.

[Cosmo]

I can point to the descriptions of them. "That living thing, is what we call life. That dead one is..."

Funny because it's classic circular logic. :)

Sad because LCL will not understand why. :(

[cyborg]

I don't think it needs it. The first lifeform, would you say it was given birth to, or did "life" just come into being? Death, the end of life, came into being when it died.

Try to comprehend this.

Lifeforms are machines based on organic chemistry. Carbon provides a large number of building blocks to provide the parts of the machine.

When the machine is 'alive' it is operating under certain parameters. When it 'dies' it ceases to operate under these parameters. There is no magic point between these - especially when it comes to larger machines that are essentially co-operative networks of smaller machines. That is to say when a human 'dies' the machines that comprise it do not all 'die' at the same time. The essential feature that one looks for when one proclaims a human 'dead' is essentially a state at which attempting to make the machine operate within the parameters of the state of 'living' is no longer possible.

There is no special 'spark', no magic mechanism, no soul. Life is an abstraction for the action of a physical system with particular properties.

[Belz...]

That is not what I said.

Then what did you mean by "No way, no how." ?

After further thought, the universe is driven by opposites, some more opposite than others.

Dammit, Light. This is EXACTLY what I said:

It doesn't make it "special". The only reason why you think so is because of your antiquated concept of universal opposites.

Your concept is FALSE.

The opposite of a binding force is an unbinding one, and a force of attraction is opposite one of attraction/repulsion.

What's opposite gravity ?

I can point to the descriptions of them. "That living thing, is what we call life. That dead one is..."

Descriptions are not the thing itself. Your reply is worthless.

I said before that the diagram reads: life, living, death.

Yes, and "living" and "death" happen to be part of "life" and therefore CANNOT be its opposites. "Living" and "Dead", however...

I don't think it needs it.

Which is why I said this:

you haven't included the thread's previous 77 pages into your knowledge base.

The first lifeform, would you say it was given birth to, or did "life" just come into being?

Neither. You're making up the choices of answers, but none of them is correct.

Death, the end of life, came into being when it died.

No, it didn't. It's amazing. I've never seen such wilfull ignorance.

Humans are best at it. And I am sure that most creatures would not be able to do somethings no matter how long you trained them.

Irrelevant. It just shows that your claim that "Humans have the natural ability to be trained then." is wrong. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to remember somethint that happened TWO POSTS ago.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Try to comprehend this.

Lifeforms are machines based on organic chemistry. Carbon provides a large number of building blocks to provide the parts of the machine.

When the machine is 'alive' it is operating under certain parameters. When it 'dies' it ceases to operate under these parameters. There is no magic point between these - especially when it comes to larger machines that are essentially co-operative networks of smaller machines. That is to say when a human 'dies' the machines that comprise it do not all 'die' at the same time.
I know that. Enough of the whole dies so that it is no longer able to function as it did. The enitity, that was the product of the whole operation, is no longer-operating. Some of the parts though, continue living.

The essential feature that one looks for when one proclaims a human 'dead' is essentially a state at which attempting to make the machine operate within the parameters of the state of 'living' is no longer possible.
Fine.

There is no special 'spark', no magic mechanism, no soul.
Those names came about to describe those "living parameters."

Life is an abstraction for the action of a physical system with particular properties.
Yes, systems that developed over a 14 billion year patterned process that may, or may not, have had a designer. The idea of a designer came about because at least one system, became conscious of itself, and the process. Feeling special about that, has led it to all we now know. Are humans special? I think yes. Consciousness makes him at least unique in that regard. Whether or not the process meant to create consciousness, it did, and consciousness has, without a doubt, added a whole new dimesion to the game.

[cyborg]

Those names came about to describe those "living parameters."

Which they do so incorrectly - hence there is no soul, no magic mechanism nor spark.

Yes, systems that developed over a 14 billion year patterned process that may, or may not, have had a designer.

Irrelevant.

The idea of a designer came about because at least one system, became conscious of itself, and the process.

Irrelevant.

Feeling special about that, has led it to all we now know.

Irrelevant - if it were even true.

Are humans special? I think yes.

Irrelevant.

Consciousness makes him at least unique in that regard.

Irrelevant.

Whether or not the process meant to create consciousness, it did, and consciousness has, without a doubt, added a whole new dimesion to the game.

No it does not. It changes nothing functionally at all.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Then what did you mean by "No way, no how." ?
Guess it is possible for me to change my minid about that, but it isn't likely.


Dammit, Light. This is EXACTLY what I said:
Right. I was confirming that what you said, is how I think.

What's opposite gravity ?
The electromagnetic force. Gravity is attraction, and the EMF is attraction and repulsion. Not exactly opposite, but repulsion makes it enough.


Descriptions are not the thing itself. Your reply is worthless.
Okay, I can't exactly point to truth are justice either. Fine.


Yes, and "living" and "death" happen to be part of "life" and therefore CANNOT be its opposites. "Living" and "Dead", however...
Life is the proper name for its first appearance. After many failed attempts, LIFE took hold, (and has existed ever since) what do you want me to call it when (the first form) ceased to be? It seems to me that that was its death. Functioning and non functioning is opposite enough for me.

No, it didn't. It's amazing. I've never seen such wilfull ignorance.
Why didn't it?


Irrelevant. It just shows that your claim that "Humans have the natural ability to be trained then." is wrong. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to remember somethint that happened TWO POSTS ago.
What are you talking about? You said humans have the most, because most other lifeforms didn't have any. You say that it isn't natural because they have to be trained, I said the ability to be trained must be natural then, again you say no. I know this, something about their intelligence is natural. I will nit pick what it is with you sometime later.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Which they do so incorrectly - hence there is no soul, no magic mechanism nor spark.
Others "feel" differently.

[Upchurch]

The electromagnetic force. Gravity is attraction, and the EMF is attraction and repulsion. Not exactly opposite, but repulsion makes it enough.
Sorry for just wandering in, but gravity isn't a "force" in the same way that the electromagnetic field is. Gravity is the space time compression in the presence of matter/energy. The opposite of gravity would be a stretching of space time in the presence of matter/energy and that has never been observed to happen.

eta: Actually, I'm not sure the "stretching" would be right. I guess the opposite might be to deform the "other way", whatever that "way" would be. Even then, I think the 3D POV would be identical.

[Wat Tyler]

Others "feel" differently.
:rolleyes:

Every human being who has ever existed 'feels' (or 'felt') that the Earth is a stationary, non-rotating entity, and that the Sun, Moon, and stars all rotate about it.

The use of our (as far as we know so far) unique ability to think logically in abstract terms has enabled us to realise that, in fact, the Earth not only rotates, and revolves around the Sun, but is also in constant motion with respect to the Universe!

Again, by using our ability for abstract rational thought, we have managed to prove these assertions by building machines that we can fire outside the atmosphere of this rock to take observations that prove it.

'Feelings' are NOT a reliable thing upon which to base a model of reality or a model of society.

Observation, deductive reasoning, experimentation, rational discussion of observed results, and a willingness to alter one's initial hypotheses are.

Thus, you'll please excuse me when I take the Scientific Method over Bronze-Age mythology any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Especially when we consider that following the Scientific Method has never caused one human society to invade, subjugate and brutalise another, or indeed any individual to do same to any other individual.
An adherence to those same Bronze-Age mythologies, on the other hand, has endless 'form' in both these matters.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sorry for just wandering in, but gravity isn't a "force" in the same way that the electromagnetic field is. Gravity is the space time compression in the presence of matter/energy. The opposite of gravity would be a stretching of space time in the presence of matter/energy and that has never been observed to happen.
I read the opposite would be anti-gravity, but I am going to drop the gravity opposite EMF thing. I knew I shouldn't have said that. I will go back to gravity and the EMF being related pairs. Gravity being a long range force of attraction, and EMF being the long range force of attraction and repulsion.
I was thinking something like how the stronger EMF opposes the weak force gravity, by stopping us from being draw to the center of the earth.

eta: Actually, I'm not sure the "stretching" would be right. I guess the opposite might be to deform the "other way", whatever that "way" would be. Even then, I think the 3D POV would be identical.
I don't know what you are talking about, but you seem to have much better handle on it. Fine.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

:rolleyes:

Every human being who has ever existed 'feels' (or 'felt') that the Earth is a stationary, non-rotating entity, and that the Sun, Moon, and stars all rotate about it.

The use of our (as far as we know so far) unique ability to think logically in abstract terms has enabled us to realise that, in fact, the Earth not only rotates, and revolves around the Sun, but is also in constant motion with respect to the Universe!

Again, by using our ability for abstract rational thought, we have managed to prove these assertions by building machines that we can fire outside the atmosphere of this rock to take observations that prove it.

'Feelings' are NOT a reliable thing upon which to base a model of reality or a model of society.

Observation, deductive reasoning, experimentation, rational discussion of observed results, and a willingness to alter one's initial hypotheses are.

Thus, you'll please excuse me when I take the Scientific Method over Bronze-Age mythology any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
That was sought of a joke. But there is a difference in feeling that the planet is round, and feeling that life has a soul. The soul is based on feeling. I think the feeling has to do with everything truely being a part of the whole, and humans being the only ones to give voice to it. Or at least try to.

Especially when we consider that following the Scientific Method has never caused one human society to invade, subjugate and brutalise another, or indeed any individual to do same to any other individual.
An adherence to those same Bronze-Age mythologies, on the other hand, has endless 'form' in both these matters.

I fear the coldness of the Scientific Method, though I agree they are not linked to things you mentioned. Then again, unemotionally making the weapons that are used by the emotional does not leave its hands completely clean either. Its hard to separate reason from emotions in mental/emotional beings.

[wollery]

That was sought of a joke. Sort of.


Sort of!!!

Sort of, as in; kind of, like, approximately, roughly, almost.

Sought is the past participle of the verb to seek, as in; to look for, to search, to try to find.

For pete's sake, you've been told several times. It's becoming clear that your inability to take things on board pervades even your spelling and grammar. How hard is it to get such a simple thing through your skull? :nope:

[cyborg]

Others "feel" differently.

Irrelevant.

[bruto]

Sort of.


Sort of!!!

Sort of, as in; kind of, like, approximately, roughly, almost.

Sought is the past participle of the verb to seek, as in; to look for, to search, to try to find.

For pete's sake, you've been told several times. It's becoming clear that your inability to take things on board pervades even your spelling and grammar. How hard is it to get such a simple thing through your skull? :nope:

Makes you want to go nucular, doesn't it?

[wollery]

Makes you want to go nucular, doesn't it?Don't you start! :cool:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sort of.


Sort of!!!

Sort of, as in; kind of, like, approximately, roughly, almost.

Sought is the past participle of the verb to seek, as in; to look for, to search, to try to find.

For pete's sake, you've been told several times. It's becoming clear that your inability to take things on board pervades even your spelling and grammar. How hard is it to get such a simple thing through your skull? :nope:Good God man, get a grip on yourself. Its just a misplaced word, not the end of the world, do you need someone to rub your stomach?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Makes you want to go nucular, doesn't it?
Damn, you too? I'm tempted to misplace it again, that way I can step outside and see in what direction you live.

[wollery]

Good God man, get a grip on yourself. Its just a misplaced word, not the end of the world, do you need someone to rub your stomach?No, as I said, it's a symptom of your inability to take on new data, or change.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, as I said, it's a symptom of your inability to take on new data, or change.
Really? It could have also been a misplaced word, like I said. But then, you will see what you want to see. Did you notice that nuclear was misspelled? I didn't say anything because I knew what he meant, those things happen, no deeper meaning need apply.

[wollery]

Really? It could have also been a misplaced word, like I said. But then, you will see what you want to see.What I see is someone who steadfastly refuses to change his opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're complete rubbish, and being shown that all of his basic tenets are totally erroneous.

Did you notice that nuclear was misspelled?Yes, he was extracting the urine.

I didn't say anything because I knew what he meant, those things happen, no deeper meaning need apply.It wasn't misplaced, but intentional, and the fact that you completely failed to see it just demonstrates, once again, your poor reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It wasn't misplaced, but intentional, and the fact that you completely failed to see it just demonstrates, once again, your poor reading comprehension. :rolleyes:
What? I was suppose to red something into what appeared a misspelled word? And because I didn't shows that I have poor comprehension? I didn't go over the radar, it went under it. I'm not looking down there-ain't I got enough to do?

[bruto]

Really? It could have also been a misplaced word, like I said. But then, you will see what you want to see. Did you notice that nuclear was misspelled? I didn't say anything because I knew what he meant, those things happen, no deeper meaning need apply.

I guess I should have put quotes around it, or a smiley or something. The persistent and obstinate inability of our illustrious commander in chief to pronounce that word is so notorious that linguist Jeff Nunnberg even wrote a book titled Going Nucular.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What I see is someone who steadfastly refuses to change his opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're complete rubbish, and being shown that all of his basic tenets are totally erroneous.
Of course you are right. There are no electrical or magnetic components to electromagnetic radiation. The light force does is not most responsible for life. But since the nuclear forces work at the atomic level, and gravity (now) primarily holds us to the ground, which force is left for all the other stuff?

[Wat Tyler]

That was sought of a joke. But there is a difference in feeling that the planet is round, and feeling that life has a soul. The soul is based on feeling. I think the feeling has to do with everything truely being a part of the whole, and humans being the only ones to give voice to it. Or at least try to.


Then you are either incapable of rational thought, or merely trolling.

I pity you.


I fear the coldness of the Scientific Method, though I agree they are not linked to things you mentioned. Then again, unemotionally making the weapons that are used by the emotional does not leave its hands completely clean either. Its hard to separate reason from emotions in mental/emotional beings.

Ooh, way to bring up a not-only vague, but also utterly unrelated opinion in order to try to distract others from the fact that your 'argument' has just been utterly blown out of the water.

Also, the nature of the weapon used to kill/oppress people is irrelevant - without the desire to use it, no weapon is of any danger at all.

The Crusaders did not need F-15's, nukes or any other weapon(s) designed by modern scientists to massacre the Jewish & Muslim populations of Jerusalem, did they?

Neither did the Persians.

Neither did the Mongols.

The list of 'religiously-motivated' massacres and genocides is disgustingly long and stretches back into pre-history.




BTW, is English your first language?

[Belz...]

Guess it is possible for me to change my minid about that, but it isn't likely.

No I think you got it right the first time around: "No way, no how".

The electromagnetic force. Gravity is attraction, and the EMF is attraction and repulsion. Not exactly opposite, but repulsion makes it enough.

This is a prime example of how you pick something that goes AGAINST what you're saying as though it supported you. Gravity doesn't work the way you think it does, and EM works both by attraction and repulsion, so it's in no way an opposite to gravitation.

Okay, I can't exactly point to truth are justice either. Fine.

Why does this "fine" by you doesn't seem to indicate that I've seen the last of that argument ?

Life is the proper name for its first appearance. After many failed attempts, LIFE took hold, (and has existed ever since) what do you want me to call it when (the first form) ceased to be? It seems to me that that was its death. Functioning and non functioning is opposite enough for me.

That's because you aren't reading: BIRTH and DEATH are opposites. They are BOTH part of LIFE, and therefore cannot be opposites TO IT.

Why didn't it?

Because "Death" isn't a real thing. It doesn't come into beign. Which comes back to this:

Descriptions are not the thing itself.

To which you answered this:

Okay, I can't exactly point to truth are justice either. Fine.

To which I said this in this very post:

Why does this "fine" by you doesn't seem to indicate that I've seen the last of that argument ?

See my frustration, now ?

What are you talking about? You said humans have the most, because most other lifeforms didn't have any. You say that it isn't natural because they have to be trained, I said the ability to be trained must be natural then, again you say no. I know this, something about their intelligence is natural.

I said that planes aren't a natural ability, and that intelligence needs to be developped. A hypothetical child raised by wolves wouldn't have much of an IQ, would he ? But I can train a dog to do a number of things that it wouldn't do otherwise. Does that mean that these things are part of its natural ability ?

[Belz...]

Damn, you too? I'm tempted to misplace it again, that way I can step outside and see in what direction you live.

:D

That was funny. You should go into comedy instead of physics.

[Belz...]

BTW, is English your first language?

It isn't mine, so it's not an excuse, either way.

[streamlet]

Not too related: I recently watched a show on National Geographic about children raised by animals. The phenomenon is very rare in the real world and mostly happens when parents "throw out" mentally handicapped children they can't afford to care for. (all cases in the show were from third world countries, btw.) Such children aren't any good as evidence since they didn't start out on the normal level, mentally.

The most interesting case was of a Russian girl (name Oksana, I think.) whose parents put her out with the dogs when she was seven or so. Now in her teens she can talk and behave like a human, at least somewhat. Since she spoke Russian I couldn't tell how mature she sounded. She can run on all fours, grown, and bark, and enjoys spending time with the dogs. She said, "because it's my nature."

This girl's story was fascinating and the program did not tell as much as I wanted to know! Whether she'll grow up to invent anything is for the future to tell, but I wish her luck.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What I see is someone who steadfastly refuses to change his opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're complete rubbish, and being shown that all of his basic tenets are totally erroneous.
You see, the use of words like, total, complete, and overwhelming, is confusing me about some of you. You talk like I am talking about something unheard of, impossible, and it is neither. You might not believe it, fine, but others might. I borrowed this from another thread, and the last line is why I am still here. I am looking for those references to bring here, and while they may not prove me right, they will show I am far from insane. They may even show you something about yourself, unbiased and unemotional? The emotions in those words could have cracked my skull, and you wonder why I wear a helmet.

Really? I don't have any problem with it at all. I suggest, for example, that the EM spectrum is a good analogy.

EM radiation is, in the strict sense, an "immaterial substance." Certainly many of the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science found it to be so, although they spent more of their time talking about "light" than about "EM radiation." The idea that there were lots of different kinds of EM radiation -- radio waves, X-rays, and so forth -- was novel and interesting, but hardly world-shattering.

And, in fact, the idea of the "soul" being somehow tied to the EM spectrum has quite a long history in the literature.



It wasn't misplaced, but intentional, and the fact that you completely failed to see it just demonstrates, once again, your poor reading comprehension. :rolleyes:
Even if that were true, I'm not worried, because I am going to get better.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Then you are either incapable of rational thought, or merely trolling.

I pity you.
Thanks for caring.



Ooh, way to bring up a not-only vague, but also utterly unrelated opinion in order to try to distract others from the fact that your 'argument' has just been utterly blown out of the water.
See? There is an absolute word again, some people seem to think they can cast magic spells with them.
Blown out the water? You mean the gravity thing? Hey, it happens. I'll live.

Also, the nature of the weapon used to kill/oppress people is irrelevant - without the desire to use it, no weapon is of any danger at all.
What about an accident? A misplaced bio-weapon or something?


The Crusaders did not need F-15's, nukes or any other weapon(s) designed by modern scientists to massacre the Jewish & Muslim populations of Jerusalem, did they?

Neither did the Persians.

Neither did the Mongols.

The list of 'religiously-motivated' massacres and genocides is disgustingly long and stretches back into pre-history.
So? You seem a little emotional.
Modern weapons, and the situation they put us in, can bring "down the curtain" on everything.



BTW, is English your first language?
You know, if you are asking this to insult me, that would make you a troll. And if you are being one, while accusing me of it, it puts your thought process in doubt.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No I think you got it right the first time around: "No way, no how".
Wow, and this is the same guy who talks about willful ignorance and people who refuse to change their mind.



This is a prime example of how you pick something that goes AGAINST what you're saying as though it supported you. Gravity doesn't work the way you think it does,
It is the force of attraction betwen any, and all masses, how hard is that?

and EM works both by attraction and repulsion, so it's in no way an opposite to gravitation.
I see attraction (gravity) verses attraction and repulsion (EMF). One force pulls, one pulls and pushes, they are both long ranged forces, so they share the same plane.
And the diagram works llike this, since there are 4 of them, and the relationship of the nuclear forces was obvious, I had only 2 places to put the other 2, and they fit. The diagram makes itself.


Why does this "fine" by you doesn't seem to indicate that I've seen the last of that argument ?
Fine, is my way of saying I concede, you think I am saying, "okay... for now."


That's because you aren't reading: BIRTH and DEATH are opposites.
Fine.

They are BOTH part of LIFE, and therefore cannot be opposites TO IT.
You appear to be right, I will study the subject further. Notice I did not say, fine.


Because "Death" isn't a real thing. It doesn't come into beign.
Fine, it happens. It happens to living things.



I said that planes aren't a natural ability, and that intelligence needs to be developped. A hypothetical child raised by wolves wouldn't have much of an IQ, would he ?
He would have a "natural educational potential" though, that other animals don't have.

But I can train a dog to do a number of things that it wouldn't do otherwise. Does that mean that these things are part of its natural ability ?
Being trainable is, and his potential is less than the child. I think it has something to do with the natural size, and complexity of their brains.

[Solus]

LCL what are you trying to prove here? They argue against your points but what is your grand point? So to speak.

I honestly can't answer that question and I've been around this thread for months. Can you please answer it?

[Belz...]

Wow, and this is the same guy who talks about willful ignorance and people who refuse to change their mind.

Yes, because you refuse to change your mind. Why wouldn't I say it ?

It is the force of attraction betwen any, and all masses, how hard is that?

It's not that simple.

I see attraction (gravity) verses attraction and repulsion (EMF).

That doesn't make sense. EM can do both, so it's clearly not "opposite" gravity, even in that respect.

One force pulls, one pulls and pushes, they are both long ranged forces, so they share the same plane.

Woah. Wait a minute. What is this "plane" of which you speak ?

And the diagram works llike this, since there are 4 of them

Again, not learning.

and the relationship of the nuclear forces was obvious, I had only 2 places to put the other 2

No, it isn't. You used their names to make their "profile", as usual ignoring reality and prefering to go with how it "sounds" to you. Why would you pair the weak and strong force instead of, say, gravity and the strong force ?

In fact, the eletromagnetic force and weak force are the easiest to merge, I'm told. Going back towards the big bang, they are the first to coalesce.

and they fit. The diagram makes itself.

Only in your mind, Light. That's the whole problem. You give more weight to your "feelings" about this nonsense of yours then you do about the knowledge and expertise of people who know what they're talking about. That's just as bad as creationists and conspiracy theorists.

Fine, is my way of saying I concede, you think I am saying, "okay... for now."

I know. "For now" implies that you're not CONCEDING the point but merely ignoring the conclusion so that you can return later with the same, unfazed opinion.

Fine.

:rolleyes:

You appear to be right, I will study the subject further. Notice I did not say, fine.

I don't APPEAR to be right, Light. It's simple logic.

Fine, it happens. It happens to living things.

So does mitosis, but you wouldn't say it's opposite to life, would you ?

He would have a "natural educational potential" though, that other animals don't have.

Irrelevant.

Being trainable is, and his potential is less than the child. I think it has something to do with the natural size, and complexity of their brains.

Of course it does, but it shows that the dog HAS that natural ability. And I'm starting to get really weary of explaining the same thing over and over. Don't you retain anything ?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, because you refuse to change your mind. Why wouldn't I say it ?
Again, you see what you want to see, I have changed my mind about things retaining to the graph... I mean diagram.


It's not that simple.
Am I wrong?


That doesn't make sense. EM can do both, so it's clearly not "opposite" gravity, even in that respect.
It does not have to be a complete opposite. Few things are, and there are all types of opposites. By the way, isn't EM acting in opposition to gravity when it stops us from falling through the planet?


Woah. Wait a minute. What is this "plane" of which you speak ?
The macro-plane. And before you start, I know EM operates on there too, and gravity barely at all. EM operating operating at both levels supports the role I applied to it.


Again, not learning.
There are 4 fundamental forces.


No, it isn't. You used their names to make their "profile", as usual ignoring reality and prefering to go with how it "sounds" to you. Why would you pair the weak and strong force instead of, say, gravity and the strong force ?
I didn't pair any of those things. I used them as I found them. Not as they sounded to me, but the way they were. The weak and strong forces operate at the micro level. The "binding" and "decaying" goes on there... or, should I say, starts?



In fact, the eletromagnetic force and weak force are the easiest to merge, I'm told. Going back towards the big bang, they are the first to coalesce.
Merging them is not what this is about, it is opposition, the "push and pull" that makes the universe work.


Only in your mind, Light. That's the whole problem. You give more weight to your "feelings" about this nonsense of yours then you do about the knowledge and expertise of people who know what they're talking about. That's just as bad as creationists and conspiracy theorists.
My feelings had nothing to do with it, I put those things in the relationship they are "thought" to have, and they told a story that "saddles" science and religion.


I know. "For now" implies that you're not CONCEDING the point but merely ignoring the conclusion so that you can return later with the same, unfazed opinion.
I said I am not saying "for now" when I say "fine." When I find more information I will revisit a point. After all, this place does not contain all the answers, if it did, you would have a complete picture.


I don't APPEAR to be right, Light. It's simple logic.
So is putting life opposite death, I thought.


So does mitosis, but you wouldn't say it's opposite to life, would you ?
No. It is a part of the process.


Of course it does, but it shows that the dog HAS that natural ability.
I never said the dog didn't. I have always said that humans have more. A flower-none. A dog-some. A human-the most.

And I'm starting to get really weary of explaining the same thing over and over.
You created that little go round. You knew when I said humans "had" that I was not saying that others hadn't any. Perhaps, maybe, I could have said humans have "the most ability to be trained," but you already know they are the "most intelligent."

[Belz...]

Again, you see what you want to see, I have changed my mind about things retaining to the graph... I mean diagram.

Doodle. You haven't changed the graph at all. All you've done is engage in mental gymnastics in order to explain away the many reasons why it is nonsensical. That's not changing your mind; it's retreating further into your delusions, adding a layer of woo.

Am I wrong?

Obviously, since it's not that simple.

It does not have to be a complete opposite.

It's not only NOT a complete opposite, it INCLUDES the other. If you had understood anything of what I've been telling you about life vs death, you'd know that something that includes something else cannot also be its opposite.

By the way, isn't EM acting in opposition to gravity when it stops us from falling through the planet?

Pushing against someone doesn't mean I'm his conceptual opposite.

The macro-plane. And before you start, I know EM operates on there too, and gravity barely at all. EM operating operating at both levels supports the role I applied to it.

You mean macro vs micro ? They're not different planes, Light. It's just terms we use for different scales.

For your information, gravity is negligible at the MICRO level, not macro.

There are 4 fundamental forces.

Only under certain conditions. You've been told this already. Numerous times.

I didn't pair any of those things. I used them as I found them.

No, you didn't. They aren't "found" in any way, and they aren't "paired" unless we make them paired. You are lying, or deluded. You made the graph, you made the pairing. Like this:

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

Merging them is not what this is about, it is opposition, the "push and pull" that makes the universe work.

Precisely. You've determined what the criteria was, arbitrarily, and decided that the "feel-good" way was the right way. Have fun with that.

My feelings had nothing to do with it, I put those things in the relationship they are "thought" to have

Thought by who ? Why ? By what logic ? You "felt" it was good and put them that way. Otherwise, please cite the references of their pairing and the reasons why that is.

and they told a story that "saddles" science and religion.

Again, the term "story" seems to differ in definition when YOU use it. Religion has nothing to offer except in a subjective, feel-good manner. Again, emotions.

After all, this place does not contain all the answers, if it did, you would have a complete picture.

Talking on internet forums is not the best way to prove something if you're not ready to accept the answers.

So is putting life opposite death, I thought.

You were wrong, because you trusted the common usage of the words instead of understanding the concept behind them.

No. It is a part of the process.

So is death.

You created that little go round. You knew when I said humans "had" that I was not saying that others hadn't any. Perhaps, maybe, I could have said humans have "the most ability to be trained," but you already know they are the "most intelligent."

I believe my point is made.

[Dancing David]

Again, you see what you want to see, I have changed my mind about things retaining to the graph... I mean diagram.


Am I wrong?


It does not have to be a complete opposite. Few things are, and there are all types of opposites. By the way, isn't EM acting in opposition to gravity when it stops us from falling through the planet?

E/M is also an atractive force between opposite chages, that varies with the square pf the distance.

The macro-plane. And before you start, I know EM operates on there too, and gravity barely at all. EM operating operating at both levels supports the role I applied to it.

the plane is only one, there are not more than one, reality is a unified lump. The macro-plane is the micro-plane.

There are 4 fundamental forces.

Yes but the merger is still between the electro magnetic and weak.
And then they merge with the strong.



I didn't pair any of those things. I used them as I found them. Not as they sounded to me, but the way they were.

maybe you need to read some more.

The weak and strong forces operate at the micro level. The "binding" and "decaying" goes on there... or, should I say, starts?

the range of the forces is not related to thier nature. The strong force can operate at a distance, it just it very strong.

Merging them is not what this is about, it is opposition, the "push and pull" that makes the universe work.

OOOK?

Weak and strong push pull each other? What?
Evidence?



My feelings had nothing to do with it, I put those things in the relationship they are "thought" to have, and they told a story that "saddles" science and religion.

So does the cow and the ice.

And they are not thought to be related except in GUT. Range is not part of it.

Do you know how the weak and strong forces operate?

Gluons and mesons?



I said I am not saying "for now" when I say "fine." When I find more information I will revisit a point. After all, this place does not contain all the answers, if it did, you would have a complete picture.


So is putting life opposite death, I thought.

that excludes the category of all that is not living and hasn't been part of life. the opposite of life is not living.



No. It is a part of the process.


I never said the dog didn't. I have always said that humans have more. A flower-none. A dog-some. A human-the most.

Depends on which ability ? Can you phoosythesize or create celluose?
Or see UV and IR?


You created that little go round. You knew when I said humans "had" that I was not saying that others hadn't any. Perhaps, maybe, I could have said humans have "the most ability to be trained," but you already know they are the "most intelligent."

OOOK?

Hsn't the term anthropocentric been beaten into your head. i shall have to contact the Non Human Animal Anti-Defamation Leauge.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Doodle. You haven't changed the graph at all. All you've done is engage in mental gymnastics in order to explain away the many reasons why it is nonsensical. That's not changing your mind; it's retreating further into your delusions, adding a layer of woo.
To tell the truth, I like the word graph, but it has been shown that it is not. And thanks to you, I will change it. Dancing David says that the opposite of life, is nonlife, and I have already said that I like that better anyway... SO BE IT. I will just explain why death is not there.


Obviously, since it's not that simple.
So you are saying that gravity is not a force of attraction between all mass?


It's not only NOT a complete opposite, it INCLUDES the other. If you had understood anything of what I've been telling you about life vs death, you'd know that something that includes something else cannot also be its opposite.
Not even alittle?


Pushing against someone doesn't mean I'm his conceptual opposite.
It is opposing the force of attraction, wouldn't that be repulsion?


You mean macro vs micro ? They're not different planes, Light. It's just terms we use for different scales.
Well, lets just keep using them then.

For your information, gravity is negligible at the MICRO level, not macro.
That is what I meant. Though I read about one particle interplays with all 4 forces.


Only under certain conditions. You've been told this already. Numerous times.
I am talking about those conditions.


No, you didn't. They aren't "found" in any way, and they aren't "paired" unless we make them paired. You are lying, or deluded. You made the graph, you made the pairing. Like this:
Back to name calling again? Is it possible that I am neither? I sure hope so, because... you said you were not trying to convince me anymore, yet here you are. Does that mean you were lying, or deluded? And even if you do happen to dance your way out of that, (and you just might) how are you ever going to fault me for my "foot work"?
I got you this time Batman.
Seriously though, can we just get along? There is a a lot of space between angels and demons.


Precisely. You've determined what the criteria was, arbitrarily, and decided that the "feel-good" way was the right way.
I depended on the common use of the words. That means that nothing is how it appears, right? I wonder how we get along with all of the common perception wrong.

Have fun with that.
Oh, I will. "Hey, I thought this, but look how wrong it may all be.


Thought by who ? Why ? By what logic ? You "felt" it was good and put them that way. Otherwise, please cite the references of their pairing and the reasons why that is.
Common usage.


Again, the term "story" seems to differ in definition when YOU use it.
Not by much. I know religion is not completely right, but I don't think it is completely wrong either.
Religion has nothing to offer except in a subjective, feel-good manner. Again, emotions.
Yeah, those damn things, but what would we be without them?


Talking on internet forums is not the best way to prove something if you're not ready to accept the answers.
I can accept the answers, YOU think I can't.


You were wrong, because you trusted the common usage of the words instead of understanding the concept behind them.
Silly me, I trusted too much. I'll just take my money, and go.


So is death.
Fine.


I believe my point is made.
The point is, you knew what I was talking about but felt the need to dance.

[Wat Tyler]

Thanks for caring.


De nada.


See? There is an absolute word again, some people seem to think they can cast magic spells with them.
Blown out the water? You mean the gravity thing?


I mean the whole validity of your emphasis on 'feelings' over observable facts.

As for your assertion about 'absolute words' and people using 'thinking they can cast magic spells with them' - my only observation is that your method of changing the subject in order to try to distract readers from the damage done to your position by your opponents' points is utterly ineffective in a forum comprising intelligent, educated people.

I don't blame you for adopting it - after all, it's a tactic that has been a favourite of politicians for years - but then, they are addressing their arguments to the whole mass of society, and there's nowt so dumb as folk.


What about an accident? A misplaced bio-weapon or something?
Modern weapons, and the situation they put us in, can bring "down the curtain" on everything.


Another good reason to do our damnedest to rid the species of nonsensical mythological/dogmatic systems that are based on what I call 'Master Race/'God's Chosen People' syndrome - because they encourage xenophobia and aggression.

History shows us that the consequences of these belief and lack-of-thought-systems were bad enough when the most sophisticated weapon in anyone's arsenal was nothing more advanced than a crossbow - how much worse will be the first Religiously-motivated genocide armed with NBC weapons?

To damn Science, or try to revert to Bronze Age society because
Science + Religion + Humans = Genocide
is a good example of a Category Error.

We cannot change Humans, and the benefits and necessity of Science are clear for all to see - it is the 'Religion' bit wherein the danger lies.

Not only that, but ALL of the 'benefits' that it accords to society can be provided by rationality and the Scientific Method - and with NONE of its inherent dangers.

Religion is dangerous and un-necessary; it is the 'Religion' bit that needs to be changed/discarded.


You know, if you are asking this to insult me, that would make you a troll. And if you are being one, while accusing me of it, it puts your thought process in doubt.

I wasn't asking it to insult you - I was asking whether English was your first language because wollery pointed out your continued misuse of 'sought of' for 'sort of'.

That is the kind of mistake that might be excusable in a non-native English speaker, but is damning for a person whose first language is English.

I made a reference to trolling (in relation to your previous post addressed to me) because you totally avoided addressing any of the points that I raised, and instead tried to change the subject.

If you are interested in a genuine debate. then it would behoove you well to actually address the points addressed to you by those who disagree with your assertions.

To fail to do so is the mark of one who is either incapable of countering his opponents' arguments, or is merely trying to 'be provocative' - aka 'trolling'.

RSVP.

[DOC]

Religion is dangerous and un-necessary; it is the 'Religion' bit that needs to be changed/discarded.



Excerpt from a letter of Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine,

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

Excerpt from the article "Ben Franklin's Letter to Thomas Paine"

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...?ResourceID=93

Wallbuilders website

[Wat Tyler]

Excerpt from a letter of Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine...


Your post would be pertinent if I had claimed that Religion be removed and not replaced with anything else as a basis for morality.

However, in an earlier post in this thread (and in my last one) I said that it should be replaced with a rationally-based tuition in the necessity and utility of morality, backed up with the evidence of history, rather than 'justified' with an appeal to anyone's imaginary friend/overlord.

I would hope that the difference is clear.

After all, where, and from whom, do Franklin's 'weak and ignorant men and women' learn their Religiously-based morality?

Presumably from the adults in society - e.g. their parents and teachers.

Why could such people not teach them morality based on actual facts and reasoned argument, rather than self-evidently fallacious mythology?

[Cosmo]

If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.

Wicked?

Anyway, DOC, what's with your founding fathers fetish?

[cyborg]

Anyway, DOC, what's with your founding fathers fetish?

Apparently they cannot tell a lie.

[Solus]

The founding fathers are sacrosanct to some. I thought he was trying to derail this thread with that quote.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I mean the whole validity of your emphasis on 'feelings' over observable facts.
I never said that "feelings" were my "emphasis" nor have I acted like it. I am using reason, perhaps a bit flawed, but I can fix that... I think.

As for your assertion about 'absolute words' and people using 'thinking they can cast magic spells with them' - my only observation is that your method of changing the subject in order to try to distract readers from the damage done to your position by your opponents' points is utterly ineffective in a forum comprising intelligent, educated people.
That is what happened. And I have seen the subject twisted plenty. "Higher" meaning "better" is a good example. Boy, the time I had there. But I am fine with it, haven't you been reading? Your damage educates me, forces me to look...learn to duck. Do it if you must, but it is utterly ineffective in weakening me.

I don't blame you for adopting it - after all, it's a tactic that has been a favourite of politicians for years - but then, they are addressing their arguments to the whole mass of society, and there's nowt so dumb as folk.
You can keep up the "absolutely" right tactic as well, though I knew what I was saying, all I had to do is find what I was saying elsewhere, (by other very intelligent people) and I was able to put off calling a doctor.

Another good reason to do our damnedest to rid the species of nonsensical mythological/dogmatic systems that are based on what I call 'Master Race/'God's Chosen People' syndrome - because they encourage xenophobia and aggression.
In that, you are going to get help from that diagram (whether you want it or not) I am going to take you all to school. I'm sure you are going to make me proud.

History shows us that the consequences of these belief and lack-of-thought-systems were bad enough when the most sophisticated weapon in anyone's arsenal was nothing more advanced than a crossbow - how much worse will be the first Religiously-motivated genocide armed with NBC weapons?
Science put it in his hand. As I said, its hands are not entirely clean. Too bad it does not have a moral component-but then that would mess with the methodology. I think that science and religion are going to have to come to terms, that is, if we are going to survive.

To damn Science, or try to revert to Bronze Age society because
Science + Religion + Humans = Genocide
is a good example of a Category Error.
Now who said anything like that?

We cannot change Humans, and the benefits and necessity of Science are clear for all to see - it is the 'Religion' bit wherein the danger lies.
We can't yet change humans. Science makes it plain that we will be able to. And since science does without any consideration for if it should someone may try to. We might need religion to help support a NO.
Just like some of your thinking, could be used as the base of a doctrine to "crusade" against religion.

Not only that, but ALL of the 'benefits' that it accords to society can be provided by rationality and the Scientific Method - and with NONE of its inherent dangers.

[quote]Religion is dangerous and un-necessary; it is the 'Religion' bit that needs to be changed/discarded.
Fine with me, it has served its purpose. Its time to more toward a better understanding. But just remember, there was some good mixed in with the bad, and some of it can still be useful, if not essential.


I wasn't asking it to insult you - I was asking whether English was your first language because wollery pointed out your continued misuse of 'sought of' for 'sort of'.
That is the kind of mistake that might be excusable in a non-native English speaker, but is damning for a person whose first language is English.
Damning? Gee, I made a mistake, is there no room of forgiveness? I hope we don't lose things like that when science takes power.

I made a reference to trolling (in relation to your previous post addressed to me) because you totally avoided addressing any of the points that I raised, and instead tried to change the subject.
What points? They didn't need answering, I agree with them. Objective observation is best, most early observations were wrong.
You made science sound like a saint, I pointed out some bad.
The comment about the joke wasn't meant for you.

If you are interested in a genuine debate. then it would behoove you well to actually address the points addressed to you by those who disagree with your assertions.
78 pages and counting, I am doing the best I can, but I am one person.

To fail to do so is the mark of one who is either incapable of countering his opponents' arguments, or is merely trying to 'be provocative' - aka 'trolling'.

RSVP.
I'll be careful.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Wicked?
On this particular thread, wicked humans are all I have heard about.

[Cosmo]

On this particular thread, wicked humans are all I have heard about.

Is there any other kind? :)

[Belz...]

To tell the truth, I like the word graph, but it has been shown that it is not. And thanks to you, I will change it. Dancing David says that the opposite of life, is nonlife, and I have already said that I like that better anyway... SO BE IT. I will just explain why death is not there.

Fascinating.

So you are saying that gravity is not a force of attraction between all mass?

No, I'm saying that it's not that simple. I'm also saying that EM attracts as well, so it clearly cannot be an opposite to gravity.

Not even alittle?

No.

It is opposing the force of attraction, wouldn't that be repulsion?

Indeed. But you simply don't understand why that doesn't mean EM is opposite gravity.

That is what I meant. Though I read about one particle interplays with all 4 forces.

That particle only exists at the earliest faction of a second after the Big Bang, in theory.

I am talking about those conditions.

No, you're not, because under those conditions there are NOT four forces, but three, two or one, depending.

Back to name calling again?

Where did I call you names, this time ?

Is it possible that I am neither?

Normally, I'd have thrown "mistaken" into the mix, but considering how much time we've been "debating" about this without significant results, such willful ignorance can only be called a delusion; either that or you're trolling, which I don't think you're doing.

you said you were not trying to convince me anymore, yet here you are. Does that mean you were lying, or deluded?

And once again you show you understand nothing about what words mean.

I got you this time Batman.

You have nothing.

Seriously though, can we just get along? There is a a lot of space between angels and demons.

No, since they are both non-existent, the space between them is of no size at all.

I depended on the common use of the words.

That's part of your problem. You pick the definition you prefer, instead of a more technical, abstract one.

I wonder how we get along with all of the common perception wrong.

Because in everyday life it doesn't matter. When trying to understand how things work, it does.

Common usage

Ah, so you HAVE no references. Got it.

Not by much. I know religion is not completely right, but I don't think it is completely wrong either.

Of course they are, since they keep making it up.

Yeah, those damn things, but what would we be without them?

Different.

I can accept the answers, YOU think I can't.

I've got convincing evidence that you can't. Show otherwise.

The point is, you knew what I was talking about but felt the need to dance.

I don't dance; I'm not good at it. You claimed that technology is part of a human's advantages; I've countered that it's only because our civilisation, as a whole, developped it; our intelligence is a trained trait. In the wild, it isn't that hot.

[Belz...]

Fine with me, [religion] has served its purpose.

Yes, holding us back.

[cyborg]

Religion has no more purpose than anything else - it is the result of certain properties of human cultural growth and cognition.

[The Grave]

Maths?

Is 1=1 ?

Let x= 1 and y= 1

then x = y

and x^2 = y^2

so x^2 - y^2 = 0

and factorising, (x+y)(x-y) = 0

so... x+y = 0 or x-y = 0

BUT 1+1 = 2 ?

Is this a sign from god...ie in that IT can't do maths!

Griff....

[Belz...]

huh ?

[cyborg]

It's a mathematical 'trick' - that is to say it actually has a deductive error.

[Belz...]

Obviously. Maths aren't that flawed.

[slyjoe]

It's a mathematical 'trick' - that is to say it actually has a deductive error.

Not sure this is a deductive error ;)

ETA - sorry, just reread. I'll go back to sleep now.

[Wat Tyler]

I never said that "feelings" were my "emphasis" nor have I acted like it. I am using reason, perhaps a bit flawed, but I can fix that... I think.


Not in this thread, maybe - but you did in another one


That is what happened. And I have seen the subject twisted plenty. "Higher" meaning "better" is a good example. Boy, the time I had there. But I am fine with it, haven't you been reading? Your damage educates me, forces me to look...learn to duck. Do it if you must, but it is utterly ineffective in weakening me.


I don't think that anyone is trying to 'weaken you' - what we are trying to do is to show you that the claims you are making lack any factual evidence to support them, whereas there is plenty of factual evidence to contradict them.


You can keep up the "absolutely" right tactic as well, though I knew what I was saying, all I had to do is find what I was saying elsewhere, (by other very intelligent people) and I was able to put off calling a doctor.


Sorry, but I can not understand this bit. Please would you re-write it for me?


In that, you are going to get help from that diagram (whether you want it or not) I am going to take you all to school. I'm sure you are going to make me proud.


So, you are trolling?


Science put it in his hand. As I said, its hands are not entirely clean. Too bad it does not have a moral component-but then that would mess with the methodology. I think that science and religion are going to have to come to terms, that is, if we are going to survive.


Or, if we got rid of Religion, which is not only dogmatic, but also counter-factual, there is no need to change Science, is there?


Now who said anything like that?


Lots and lots of 'people of Faith' - e.g. the Taliban and the Wahhabbists (sp?). The fundie 'Chritstian' right in the USA also hate Science and want to suppress it.


We can't yet change humans. Science makes it plain that we will be able to. And since science does without any consideration for if it should someone may try to. We might need religion to help support a NO.


No, religion is inherently dangerous and has plenty of track record of causing murders, rapes, wars, and genocides.

Actually, we could already change humans, but as this is only attainable by a continual and selective process of directed breeding and genocide over hundreds of generations, I for one find the prospect 'unpalatable'.


Just like some of your thinking, could be used as the base of a doctrine to "crusade" against religion.


Except that I am arguing for a Rational approach to morality - not calling for the eradication of people who I claim to be 'inferior' or 'heretical' because of their adherence to Religion.


Fine with me, it has served its purpose. Its time to more toward a better understanding. But just remember, there was some good mixed in with the bad, and some of it can still be useful, if not essential.


<Sigh>

Firstly, exactly what are you arguing for (i.e. advocating) then?

Secondly, ALL of Religion's benefits can be provided by other, better, less-dangerous means - so why do we need to retain 'faith' in any of it?

It MUST be debunked.


Damning? Gee, I made a mistake, is there no room of forgiveness? I hope we don't lose things like that when science takes power.


Repeatedly making the same error when others have pointed it out is a damning indictment of a person's intelligence.

And I might add that Sarcasm is famously the lowest form of wit.


What points? They didn't need answering, I agree with them. Objective observation is best, most early observations were wrong.
You made science sound like a saint, I pointed out some bad.
The comment about the joke wasn't meant for you.


No, you alleged that Science is 'bad' because the technology that it produces can be misused.

Given that its benefits far outweigh its 'dangers' (in stark contrast to religion), Science is an endeavour with which we need to persevere.

Also, if you are NOT claiming that Religion, New-Age quackery and other 'feelings'-based woo is somehow vital to the advancement of the human race, then what the Vorsprung dürch Technik are you claiming?

If you are merely trying to provoke responses to 'your' thread, then you are trolling.

Your track record of not answering direct questions addressed to you seems to me to indicate that your motivation here is not debate, but is instead padding this thread.

Please prove me wrong, or I will be forced to conclude that you reside under a bridge and live in fear of billy goats.

[Belz...]

And I might add that Sarcasm is famously the lowest form of wit.

Dammit. And I thought I was being smart.

No, you alleged that Science is 'bad' because the technology that it produces can be misused.

Which, if true, would mean EVERYTHING would be bad.

[bruto]

Maths?

Is 1=1 ?

Let x= 1 and y= 1

then x = y

and x^2 = y^2

so x^2 - y^2 = 0

and factorising, (x+y)(x-y) = 0 yes indeed, since x and y are equivalent, x-y = 0, and multiplying anything by that results in zero, so....

so... x+y = 0 or x-y = 0

yes, one or the other....

BUT 1+1 = 2 ?

and 2 times zero is zero.

Is this a sign from god...ie in that IT can't do maths!

Griff....

Nope, I don't think we can blame God for that one.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Not in this thread, maybe - but you did in another one
Oh, did I say something that you interpreted as that?


I don't think that anyone is trying to 'weaken you' - what we are trying to do is to show you that the claims you are making lack any factual evidence to support them, whereas there is plenty of factual evidence to contradict them.
Science has worked at. Some think, that because someone said this, that that is the end of the story. Anyone saying something else, has got to be crazy. Even though science has shown that "crazy" may only mean "first."
The soul cannot be measured, because not everything about life can be. Still, it has been "kick around" long before me. Of course, just because something is "kick around" does not mean it should be, but some thing do. Problem is, how to tell the difference.


Sorry, but I can not understand this bit. Please would you re-write it for me?
The tactic, I was talking about is trying to tell me that no one thinks as I do, that I am standing totally alone-and therefore subject to being crazy. Judging from the silence in support of what I say here, and the amount of people viewing, it seems that way. And that worried me. I thought, maybe I am crazy, absolutely wrong, about everything, like they said. But first, I had a bases for what I was saying, and second, I have seen people saying much the same thing that I am, in other threads, why not here? They ARE looking. I think it has to do with friends. Even if I don't like what my friends say, I don't always confront them then and there.


Or, if we got rid of Religion, which is not only dogmatic, but also counter-factual, there is no need to change Science, is there?
Religion has shown what it can do when its emotional view is in charge, I am not all that in a hurry to see what the unemotional view is capable of.

Lots and lots of 'people of Faith' - e.g. the Taliban and the Wahhabbists (sp?). The fundie 'Chritstian' right in the USA also hate Science and want to suppress it.
Not me. I want to change religion, science is doing fine.


So you are trolling?
No. If you believe your view is right, others need to know. That way you can help many more people than just me. Let's spread the love.

No, religion is inherently dangerous and has plenty of track record of causing murders, rapes, wars, and genocides.
I agree, but you seem to only see the bad.

Actually, we could already change humans, but as this is only attainable by a continual and selective process of directed breeding and genocide over hundreds of generations, I for one find the prospect 'unpalatable'.
You seem so sure, is that the only way?


Except that I am arguing for a Rational approach to morality - not calling for the eradication of people who I claim to be 'inferior' or 'heretical' because of their adherence to Religion.
Absolute words can be taken (and acted on) absolutely.



Firstly, exactly what are you arguing for (i.e. advocating) then?
A middle ground. Religion is not completely wrong, and science has to potential of going wrong-with final results.


Secondly, ALL of Religion's benefits can be provided by other, better, less-dangerous means - so why do we need to retain 'faith' in any of it?
Fine with me. Get rid of the images, attack the stories with intense rational thought, save the moral lessons.

Repeatedly making the same error when others have pointed it out is a damning indictment of a person's intelligence.
I am one person, and 79 pages are a long way... and sometimes I make a mistake. It surprises me too, but it happens.


And I might add that Sarcasm is famously the lowest form of wit.
I think cats and recipes are.


No, you alleged that Science is 'bad' because the technology that it produces can be misused.
No I didn't, but I can mention bad, can't I? If not, you would be acting like religion.

Given that its benefits far outweigh its 'dangers' (in stark contrast to religion), Science is an endeavour with which we need to persevere.
Did I said something about ridding the world of science?

Also, if you are NOT claiming that Religion, New-Age quackery and other 'feelings'-based woo is somehow vital to the advancement of the human race, then what the Vorsprung dürch Technik are you claiming?
Since religion is not it, something between it, and science, must be. Though you may think science can do it all on its own, I don't.


If you are merely trying to provoke responses to 'your' thread, then you are trolling.
If I believe that is King Tuts' stuff, and its not, I am wrong, not trolling.

Your track record of not answering direct questions addressed to you seems to me to indicate that your motivation here is not debate, but is instead padding this thread.
Seems to you? Who the "H" are you? I don't need you, or this thread. Pad it? Its not an expensive account, but it may be a mental account. I may be giving you a view of something to come.

Please prove me wrong, or I will be forced to conclude that you reside under a bridge and live in fear of billy goats.
I don't even know you, why would I care? You can't hurt me, and the others here won't let you derail the thread. :p

[Belz...]

A middle ground. Religion is not completely wrong, and science has to potential of going wrong-with final results.

Huh. What does religion get right ?

I don't even know you, why would I care? You can't hurt me, and the others here won't let you derail the thread.

So that's it ? You don't need to prove your ideas because you don't know him ? You won't last for a second if you ever try to publish your nonsense.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Huh. What does religion get right ?
Religion covers what we feel, (though it may be somewhat wrong about the source) and gives a motive to do good (though it is not always followed).


So that's it ? You don't need to prove your ideas because you don't know him ?
He said prove I wasn't a troll.

You won't last for a second if you ever try to publish your nonsense.
Tell that to L. Ron Hubbard, or Dr Dino. Only I will do them one, (maybe two) better. I know you heard of the ID debate, but you may not have noticed that that diagram fits on a lunch box.

[Dancing David]

Religion covers what we feel, (though it may be somewhat wrong about the source) and gives a motive to do good (though it is not always followed).



I wish that was so, intolerance is often the highest political value of religion. Xianity and other have murdered millions of people in the name of religion.

religion is a bunch of atavistic myths and beliefs systems.

[bruto]

Religion covers what we feel, (though it may be somewhat wrong about the source) and gives a motive to do good (though it is not always followed).But does religion cover what we feel, or does it tell us what we're supposed to feel, and more importantly, to believe and trust in defiance of our feelings? Most religions get most of their business from telling us how wrong the things we feel and do naturally are, and why we must submit to the contrary commands of a deity. If religion is about what we feel, why do we need organized religions, and why are so many of them incompatible to the point of jihad and genocide? The substance of religion may be derived from feeling, insight, speculation, inspiration, and revelation, but the whole point of religion is to subordinate the secular realm of natural experience, scientific inquiry, reason and common sense to those sources.


Tell that to L. Ron Hubbard, or Dr Dino. Only I will do them one, (maybe two) better. I know you heard of the ID debate, but you may not have noticed that that diagram fits on a lunch box.

I couldn't help but think of the character from "Waiting for Guffman," with his "Remains of the Day" lunchboxes.

[Wat Tyler]

Science has worked at. Some think, that because someone said this, that that is the end of the story. Anyone saying something else, has got to be crazy. Even though science has shown that "crazy" may only mean "first."
The soul cannot be measured, because not everything about life can be. Still, it has been "kick around" long before me. Of course, just because something is "kick around" does not mean it should be, but some thing do. Problem is, how to tell the difference.


I see that English is not your first language.

What is?
Arabic?
Hebrew?
Urdu?

Whatever it is, fair play to you - I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that my command of your first language is far below your command of English.

But please stop claiming that English is your Mother Tongue, ok?
What's the point?


The tactic, I was talking about is trying to tell me that no one thinks as I do, that I am standing totally alone-and therefore subject to being crazy. Judging from the silence in support of what I say here, and the amount of people viewing, it seems that way. And that worried me. I thought, maybe I am crazy, absolutely wrong, about everything, like they said. But first, I had a bases for what I was saying, and second, I have seen people saying much the same thing that I am, in other threads, why not here? They ARE looking. I think it has to do with friends. Even if I don't like what my friends say, I don't always confront them then and there.


You'll find that most of us here place our trust in Rational Thought and the Scientific Method, because they produce verifiable results that are the same for every observer.

As opposed to decisions made on subjective 'feelings' that are different for every observer.

This is why you are encountering so much opposition on here.


Religion has shown what it can do when its emotional view is in charge, I am not all that in a hurry to see what the unemotional view is capable of.


So, you are saying that emotional, non-rational thought causes problems, and you do NOT want to replace it with Rational thought?

Sorry, but that only makes sense if you are only coming here to try to provoke an emotional response.


Not me. I want to change religion, science is doing fine.


I want to see Religion utterly debunked, and its hold on Power over humans be removed for ever.


No. If you believe your view is right, others need to know. That way you can help many more people than just me. Let's spread the love.


If you believe that, what's with your "I am going to take you all to School. You will make me proud" schtick?


I agree, but you seem to only see the bad.


Ever heard of Risk Management?
One removes the systems that have a proven track record of causing catastrophic failure.
One only keeps the systems that do NOT cause catastrophic failure.

Religion, and mythological methodologies, have a proven track record of causing the catastrophic failure of human societies.


You seem so sure, is that the only way?


Yes, because the human behavioural traits that Religion seeks to control/suppress are evolved-in, and so the ONLY way to get rid of them is by selected breeding and extermination of all subjects that still display them.

Not only do I oppose this because I disagree with Genocide, but also because of that perennial problem quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Absolute words can be taken (and acted on) absolutely.


At this point I would like to ask you to do some research into the meaning of the terms 'Scientific Method' and 'Rational Argument'.

To participate in this discussion, you are using the Internet and World Wide Web - together these form an historically unprecedented research resource.

Once you understand the terms in question, you will see that your concern in his matter is unfounded.


A middle ground. Religion is not completely wrong, and science has to potential of going wrong-with final results.


I refer the Honourable Gentlemen to the response that I made to his previous statement, and also ask him once again to investigate 'Risk Management'.


Fine with me. Get rid of the images, attack the stories with intense rational thought, save the moral lessons.


The MORALS can be provided by the Scientific Method and Rational Argument.

The lessons use the inherently-flawed methodology of Mythology/Religion, and should thus only be retained as examples of stories. They should NOT be used as 'lessons'.


I am one person, and 79 pages are a long way... and sometimes I make a mistake. It surprises me too, but it happens.


See the bit I have made bold above?

That, and other statements like it, are why I suspect you of Trollery.


I think cats and recipes are.


And statements such as this only reinforce my opinion.


No I didn't, but I can mention bad, can't I? If not, you would be acting like religion.


You attempted to make an inherently flawed, erroneous assertion - what experienced debaters call a 'Strawman' - out of Science.

I called you out for it.


Did I said something about ridding the world of science?


No, you call for the perpetuation of systems based on what we call 'woowoo' (or 'woo' for short).

I pointed out that there is a long and ghastly history of dogmatic extremists who advocate woo-based systems calling for the abolition/degradation of Science.

Please don't try to change the subject.


Since religion is not it, something between it, and science, must be. Though you may think science can do it all on its own, I don't.


I'll say it again - the Scientific Method, using examples from History, can.

Not 'Science'.

Different thing, you see?


If I believe that is King Tuts' stuff, and its not, I am wrong, not trolling.


Firstly, I do not have the first idea of the expression/analogy you are using here - and I doubt that anyone whose first language is English would either.
If anyone does understand it, I'm sure they'll explain it.

Secondly, it is not your errors that make me suspect you of trolling, it is the arrogant/flippant/insulting/emotive remarks that you chuck in every so often.


Seems to you? Who the "H" are you? I don't need you, or this thread. Pad it? Its not an expensive account, but it may be a mental account. I may be giving you a view of something to come.


Such as the apparent threat contained above.


I don't even know you, why would I care? You can't hurt me, and the others here won't let you derail the thread. :p

Says the Deraileur par excellence himself.
:rolleyes:

[streamlet]

The tactic, I was talking about is trying to tell me that no one thinks as I do, that I am standing totally alone-and therefore subject to being crazy. Judging from the silence in support of what I say here, and the amount of people viewing, it seems that way. And that worried me. I thought, maybe I am crazy, absolutely wrong, about everything, like they said. But first, I had a bases for what I was saying, and second, I have seen people saying much the same thing that I am, in other threads, why not here? They ARE looking. I think it has to do with friends. Even if I don't like what my friends say, I don't always confront them then and there.


My silent looking is not support, it's confusion. I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to get across. The bits I can understand, I mostly disagree with.

Also I read this thread to learn from Belz and others. I joined the board because I want to get better at having informed opinions and stating them clearly. I'm still far from being master of the polite debunk but I'll get better.

[trvlr2]

Hi, just popping by to see how the delusions are holding up. Seems that LCL still has dandies.

Carry on, then.

[bruto]

Wat, the reference to King Tut's stuff refers back to a digression somewhere back in this thread regarding cloning and identity. I believe the point was made and carried that a clone is a genetically identical offspring, and that identity itself is not carried over in cloning, which LCL is now acknowledging.

[Belz...]

Religion covers what we feel

No, it doesn't. It's a dogmatic system that enforces a primitive conception of the world.

and gives a motive to do good (though it is not always followed).

Buying one's own eternity is not what I'd consider a selfless act.

Tell that to L. Ron Hubbard,

The fiction writer ?

Only I will do them one, (maybe two) better. I know you heard of the ID debate, but you may not have noticed that that diagram fits on a lunch box.

Doesn't matter if it fits on the head of a pin: it is nonsense.

[Wat Tyler]

Wat, the reference to King Tut's stuff refers back to a digression somewhere back in this thread regarding cloning and identity. I believe the point was made and carried that a clone is a genetically identical offspring, and that identity itself is not carried over in cloning, which LCL is now acknowledging.

Ah, OK.

Thanks for the explanation.
:)

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I see that English is not your first language.

What is?
Arabic?
Hebrew?
Urdu?
I saw the mistakes I made in the quote in question, that happens, ask anyone. My excuse (sometimes) is that I am trying to answer and then get back to my life. You know, I am one, you are many thing. If science had a hell, you would have banished me for that. I am going to make mistakes, but YOU don't have to deal with, after all, I did not ask you to come here... did I?

Whatever it is, fair play to you - I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that my command of your first language is far below your command of English.
So, in other words, yours is bigger than mine? Whatever works for you, is fine with me.

But please stop claiming that English is your Mother Tongue, ok?
What's the point?
Wow, you see how this guy has dreamed up an english contest? What is your point?


You'll find that most of us here place our trust in Rational Thought and the Scientific Method, because they produce verifiable results that are the same for every observer.
Can your method predict with who, or when, people will fall in love? If not, I think it cannot do it all.


As opposed to decisions made on subjective 'feelings' that are different for every observer.
You mean like how emotions play out in real life?

This is why you are encountering so much opposition on here.
Oh no, not opposition! You need to read more of the thread. If you slap me with what I don't know, guest what happens? I KNOW NOW. Checking it for myself, does it one better. How can I be mad? I would be if I wanted to hold on to my view no matter what, but that is not the case. I will stand by any idea, as long as it can stand (in some way) by itself. Instead of crying, I will gather the metal from your shells and mold it to my armor. You can't beat me. Trying to makes me stronger. Fire away!


So, you are saying that emotional, non-rational thought causes problems, and you do NOT want to replace it with Rational thought?
I do want to replace it, but fighting religion will only make them dig in. Especially if the tone you are using is used.

Sorry, but that only makes sense if you are only coming here to try to provoke an emotional response.
You seems pretty emotional anyway.


I want to see Religion utterly debunked, and its hold on Power over humans be removed for ever.
You see? That is not going to do it. Me, I honestly believe that it has somewhat of a point.


If you believe that, what's with your "I am going to take you all to School. You will make me proud" schtick?
I meant literally to school. The ID debate is bent around it, I can get there. Once there, you will tell them, what you told me.


Ever heard of Risk Management?
One removes the systems that have a proven track record of causing catastrophic failure.
Like emotions?

One only keeps the systems that do NOT cause catastrophic failure.
Only science has the potential to bring on the final catastrophic failure-even if that is by accident.

Religion, and mythological methodologies, have a proven track record of causing the catastrophic failure of human societies.
You left out the good, again.


Yes, because the human behavioural traits that Religion seeks to control/suppress are evolved-in, and so the ONLY way to get rid of them is by selected breeding and extermination of all subjects that still display them.
Religion is not nearly the threat that is was, I think you are being emotional.

Not only do I oppose this because I disagree with Genocide, but also because of that perennial problem quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You say I have problems with English, why would you think latin will help? That is, if that is latin. I could look it up, but I think if you wanted to be understood by someone you think is not (yet) your equal, you would have used other words. Hey, I'm impressed, I'm just not interested...yet.


At this point I would like to ask you to do some research into the meaning of the terms 'Scientific Method' and 'Rational Argument'.
I will put it on the list.


Once you understand the terms in question, you will see that your concern in his matter is unfounded.
I wish it was that easy, but there is a human side to the equation.


The MORALS can be provided by the Scientific Method and Rational Argument.
Perhaps, but the reality is that religion now holds that ground. Those there, are not going to let you destroy it without a very emotional fight-of which, I think, your view will lose.

The lessons use the inherently-flawed methodology of Mythology/Religion, and should thus only be retained as examples of stories. They should NOT be used as 'lessons'.
Not all of them, others can be "updated" to mirror modern times.


That, and other statements like it, are why I suspect you of Trollery.
Now, look back on your attack on my english.


I pointed out that there is a long and ghastly history of dogmatic extremists who advocate woo-based systems calling for the abolition/degradation of Science.
That is not what I am doing.

Firstly, I do not have the first idea of the expression/analogy you are using here - and I doubt that anyone whose first language is English would either.
If anyone does understand it, I'm sure they'll explain it.
You sure?

Secondly, it is not your errors that make me suspect you of trolling, it is the arrogant/flippant/insulting/emotive remarks that you chuck in every so often.
Yeah, that be me. Though I try not to be insulting. I am confident, why shouldn't I be? I'm going to win either way. And it is the perfect weapon against those who would like to see my spirit crushed. I am very glad to say, that, is not going to happen.


Such as the apparent threat contained above.
That's not a threat. I intend to help foster a place where people can go to get "their head straight" like I have here. They would open a "mental account" where their ideas/views could be tested. You see? I'm completely harmless. That is just one of the ways I am looking to pay for this experience, I'm going to expand it. Something like that, "ask Dr math" thing.


Says the Deraileur par excellence himself.
:rolleyes:In English please.
Where have I derailed anything?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

My silent looking is not support, it's confusion.
Who said you supported me? And your confusion may be helped with a question.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to get across.
That light is the soul of life, that religion felt the connection before science found it. That the words used to explain the drama, tell the story religion has when they are placed opposite each other like in the diagram. And because the subject includes everything, I have followed it wherever it led, but I did not do the leading.

The bits I can understand, I mostly disagree with.
SO?

Also I read this thread to learn from Belz and others.
Without me they wouldn't be saying what they are.

I joined the board because I want to get better at having informed opinions and stating them clearly.
Me too.

I'm still far from being master of the polite debunk but I'll get better.
Good luck.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, it doesn't. It's a dogmatic system that enforces a primitive conception of the world.
True, but it has projected, "good for goodness sakes."


Buying one's own eternity is not what I'd consider a selfless act.
The feelings are filtered through humans, it doesn't always come out as intended.


The fiction writer ?
Yeah, the author of Dianetics, the base of Scientology.


Doesn't matter if it fits on the head of a pin: it is nonsense.Well see.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Hi, just popping by to see how the delusions are holding up. Seems that LCL still has dandies.

Carry on, then.
Thanks for caring

[wollery]

Wat Tyler, to be fair to LCL, my sister IS English, and her writing is far worse than LCL's*. His English is idiomatic, even if it is often apparently stream of conciousness and riddled with spelling mistakes.

Please refrain from ad homs and just address his arguments (such as they are)






*Of course, she left school at 16 and hasn't written much more than a birthday card in the 25 years since then.

[Solus]

Yeah, that be me. Though I try not to be insulting. I am confident, why shouldn't I be? I'm going to win either way. And it is the perfect weapon against those who would like to see my spirit crushed. I am very glad to say, that, is not going to happen.

I wonder what prize LCL will get when he finally "wins"? :p

I think you have won already LCL, since you believe you have "won" and clearly no one else is going to see your point of view, so...

Also, no one here cares to see your "spirit crushed". I wish you would see reason but unless pigs fly that's unlikely to happen.

[Solus]

Wat Tyler, to be fair to LCL, my sister IS English, and her writing is far worse than LCL's*. His English is idiomatic, even if it is often apparently stream of conciousness and riddled with spelling mistakes.

Please refrain from ad homs and just address his arguments (such as they are)

*Of course, she left school at 16 and hasn't written much more than a birthday card in the 25 years since then.

What arguments does LCL have? :confused: He seems to just argue whatever vague point is on his mind. LCL should lay out his arguments clearly in one paragraph, that way it would be much easier to fix a flawed argument...

[wollery]

Please note the qualifier in the brackets.

[Wat Tyler]

Yep - he's a Troll.

As such, I am now desisting from feeding him.

Goodnight.

[streamlet]

Who said you supported me? And your confusion may be helped with a question.

That light is the soul of life, that religion felt the connection before science found it. That the words used to explain the drama, tell the story religion has when they are placed opposite each other like in the diagram. And because the subject includes everything, I have followed it wherever it led, but I did not do the leading.

Sorry Light-- my post came across harsher than I meant. I felt that it would have been lying to let you see support when there was none.

Question 1: When you say light is the soul of life, do you mean light as in what comes from lightbulbs, we see because of it, ordinary light, or do you mean the "holy light of god" or something?

Question 2: what do you think could 'grow' from your graph? If people came to accept your theory, what changes would that make in the world? What new discoveries could happen because of it? How will your idea change the physical world we live in?

Question 3: You seem determined to have your diagram thought of as scientific. Is that correct? If so, what does scientific mean?

Ponder these if you want, and answer if you'd like to help my confusion.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I wonder what prize LCL will get when he finally "wins"? :p
I become smarter than I was. If you push me, very much smarter. Since I believe that the universe had intelligence as a goal, the more I have, the better I can understand why.

I think you have won already LCL, since you believe you have "won" and clearly no one else is going to see your point of view, so...
I never said I won. Winning will end the game. Who wants that? And its not about convincing anyone now (that will happen if I get it right) its about me being wrong about EVERYTHING. If that is true, I have to fix it. If its not, I have to FIX those who tried to make me believe it. They could have hurt a weaker person, and almost got me. Only, I have the goal, the subject, the drive, the purpose, the time, and the promise of ultimate (least financial-I am an american) success needed to carry me through anything.


Also, no one here cares to see your "spirit crushed".
You, in particular, showed you didn't wish me well. And for what, I believe something else? That is not nice. And the rain of words like "ignorance" and "deluded" showed me the intentions of others. I am not mad though, (believe it or not, I am grateful) and mean no one any harm, but I must show that your EVERYTHING stance was a bit...wrong.

I wish you would see reason but unless pigs fly that's unlikely to happen.
:rolleyes:

[Solus]

LCL, I have nothing against you. Back in the early days I thought you were some kind of troll. Sometimes I need to inject humor in this thread though.

[Solus]

Yep - he's a Troll.

As such, I am now desisting from feeding him.

Goodnight.

I can't imagine LCL being a real troll. If you have been following this thread long enough it's clear LCL is just a deluded person. He probably has some kind of mental problem but who knows? No troll has this level of endurance, trolls like to come stir up trouble and vanish. LCL has never stopped and it was lot harsher early on.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sorry Light-- my post came across harsher than I meant. I felt that it would have been lying to let you see support when there was none.
I have no illusions about being supported, here. I just know that what I am saying about light is not TOTALLY somewhere near Pluto.

Question 1: When you say light is the soul of life, do you mean light as in what comes from lightbulbs, we see because of it, ordinary light, or do you mean the "holy light of god" or something?
I mean light as the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum. Religion thinking that light is the "creator of life," I think, is a felt connection. Something made easy by the importance of the sun, and somewhat referred to as the "son" being the "light of the world."

Question 2: what do you think could 'grow' from your graph?
It will increase the debate about the role of religion in school. Something I think will be soundly defeated by rational thought.

If people came to accept your theory, what changes would that make in the world?
That intelligence (and thus learning) is the purpose of life.

What new discoveries could happen because of it?
That science and religion are closer than is commonly thought. Afterall, they are two parts of a whole.

How will your idea change the physical world we live in?
I will put the money from the conflict into giving high schools a sustainable source of income, like some colleges have. They will own supermarkets, (at first) giving parents every incentitve to shop there, and thus tying education to a local (additional) energy source. Eating will propell education to a new level.

Question 3: You seem determined to have your diagram thought of as scientific. Is that correct?
Yes, but even if it isn't, it will draw the fire of the scientific, and thus, teach science.

If so, what does scientific mean?
To study rationally.

Ponder these if you want, and answer if you'd like to help my confusion.
I'll do what I can.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

LCL, I have nothing against you. Back in the early days I thought you were some kind of troll. Sometimes I need to inject humor in this thread though.
I slant my remarks to be humorous whenever I can, not to be mean, but to light things up. Entertainment does play a part.

I can't imagine LCL being a real troll. If you have been following this thread long enough it's clear LCL is just a deluded person. He probably has some kind of mental problem but who knows?
You sure you don't need sensitivity training? Words like deluded and mental problems make people mad-remember when I directed them at you? While I don't expect everyone to have my manners, I have no obligation to turn the other cheek.

No troll has this level of endurance, trolls like to come stir up trouble and vanish. LCL has never stopped and it was lot harsher early on.Neither hail, rain, or snow, will stop me from delivering the mail.

[cyborg]

That intelligence (and thus learning) is the purpose of life.

Learning does not require intelligence.

That science and religion are closer than is commonly thought. Afterall, they are two parts of a whole.

No.

Yes, but even if it isn't, it will draw the fire of the scientific, and thus, teach science.

Erm, no.

I will put the money from the conflict into giving high schools a sustainable source of income, like some colleges have. They will own supermarkets, (at first) giving parents every incentitve to shop there, and thus tying education to a local (additional) energy source. Eating will propell education to a new level.

You are kidding right?

[cyborg]

That intelligence (and thus learning) is the purpose of life.

Learning does not require intelligence.

That science and religion are closer than is commonly thought. Afterall, they are two parts of a whole.

No.

Yes, but even if it isn't, it will draw the fire of the scientific, and thus, teach science.

Erm, no.

I will put the money from the conflict into giving high schools a sustainable source of income, like some colleges have. They will own supermarkets, (at first) giving parents every incentitve to shop there, and thus tying education to a local (additional) energy source. Eating will propell education to a new level.

You are kidding right?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Learning does not require intelligence.
So, intelligence can be helped by learning.


No.
Says you.


Erm, no.
See comment above.


You are kidding right?
Of course.

[slingblade]

I will put the money from the conflict into giving high schools a sustainable source of income, like some colleges have. They will own supermarkets, (at first) giving parents every incentitve to shop there, and thus tying education to a local (additional) energy source. Eating will propell education to a new level.


The idea in itself isn't necessarily a bad one, and is being done already on some levels.

There's General Mills' Boxtops for Education program (and probably others like it), and many schools are allowing fast-food options in the cafeteria that generate income...though that's drawn some criticism because, well, it's fast food. :boxedin:

I like the premise behind the idea though: another option for parents to get involved in building their schools. One some of the less-involved might actually choose, because they don't have to go to the school to help out.

A store, the profits from which would go to the school, sounds on its face like a decent idea. Just saying.

[cyborg]

So, intelligence can be helped by learning.

Irrelevant - your implication is broken.


Says you.

Redundant. Religion and science require no correlation whatsoever. Your assertion is plain wrong.

See comment above.

You cannot teach science by not teaching science - that is tautologically obvious.

Seriously, there is a reason why your ideas aren't getting very far - it's because they're crap.

[Belz...]

True, but it has projected, "good for goodness sakes."

Actually, most religions ask you to do good for purely selfish reasons, as it's the way to eternal life and bliss. Personally, I think I'm going to cease to exist as an individual when I die. Where's my reward for being good ? So why am I not being more selfish ?

The feelings are filtered through humans, it doesn't always come out as intended.

Bull. The text is very specific on this.

Yeah, the author of Dianetics, the base of Scientology.

Well you shouldn't use him as a source for anything, then.

Well see.

We already have, Light. All of us except you. The fact that you don't see how fatal this thread has been to your theory demonstrates one or several of the following on your part:

- Delusion
- Willful ignorance
- Stupidity
- Troll behaviour
- Extreme stubborness

Pick your choice.

[Belz...]

That intelligence (and thus learning) is the purpose of life.

So why does only one species have any appreciable amount of it ? Someone screwed up life, badly.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The idea in itself isn't necessarily a bad one, and is being done already on some levels.

There's General Mills' Boxtops for Education program (and probably others like it), and many schools are allowing fast-food options in the cafeteria that generate income...though that's drawn some criticism because, well, it's fast food. :boxedin:

I like the premise behind the idea though: another option for parents to get involved in building their schools. One some of the less-involved might actually choose, because they don't have to go to the school to help out.
The only thing they have to do is support their children by where they shop for their most essential, persistent, needs. And what if students distributed those keychain discount cards that would put 5% of the total of all purchases into an account for child, payable upon graduation? Over 4 years, that could add up to one pretty penny.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So why does only one species have any appreciable amount of it ? Someone screwed up life, badly.
No, someone/thing had to get there first.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Actually, most religions ask you to do good for purely selfish reasons, as it's the way to eternal life and bliss. Personally, I think I'm going to cease to exist as an individual when I die. Where's my reward for being good ? So why am I not being more selfish ?
I don't believe in putting off now for what might be. I do good because it feels good. Though bad sometimes make me feel good too, especially when I can do it in a good cause.

Well you shouldn't use him as a source for anything, then.
Though I don't like it, he made something out of nothing.


We already have, Light. All of us except you. The fact that you don't see how fatal this thread has been to your theory demonstrates one or several of the following on your part:

- Delusion
- Willful ignorance
- Stupidity
- Troll behaviour
- Extreme stubborness

Pick your choice.
Hey, I like all of them. They give me that "underdog aura." They will also serve to make me look good, when I still get to where I am going. Oh yeah, bad sometimes feels good.

[Solus]

You sure you don't need sensitivity training? Words like deluded and mental problems make people mad-remember when I directed them at you? While I don't expect everyone to have my manners, I have no obligation to turn the other cheek.

My writing is quite toned down from what I could write. I don't care to deeply insult you and I don't intend to lower myself to that level. I do somewhat feel sorry for you, really. I study psychology so I don't consider being called mentally ill an insult.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Irrelevant - your implication is broken.
By you spinning around learning and intelligence? You are splitting hairs, nothing has been broken.



Redundant. Religion and science require no correlation whatsoever. Your assertion is plain wrong.
They are both on a search for truth. One has a good method of finding it, and the other has a "feeling" (a very widespread and pervasive feeling about its nature and intent) though it is "likely" to be wrong about its God given explanations.


You cannot teach science by not teaching science - that is tautologically obvious.
If I am saying "this" to someone, and someone else comes in and says "that" (and they are right) didn't the someone learn something?

Seriously, there is a reason why your ideas aren't getting very far - it's because they're crap.
As I see it, some of that stuff only becomes crap when I say it. Look at this:

No, you're not, because under those conditions there are NOT four forces, but three, two or one, depending.
Everything but four. Even though he knows that under our PRESENT conditions, there are four. But since I said it, he chooses to see them from any other angle. Even though he knows that life is not possible at three, two, or one.
I think it is great though, this "wrong machine" shows me the angles where I am wrong. A "right machine" would not have given me the incentive to look in all the places I have, or continue to look.

[Belz...]

No, someone/thing had to get there first.

I hope you put more thought than this into breathing, otherwise you're in big trouble.

If intelligence is the "goal" of life, how do you explain that only one species has managed to reach that goal, while the rest are thriving just fine without it ?

[Belz...]

I don't believe in putting off now for what might be. I do good because it feels good. Though bad sometimes make me feel good too, especially when I can do it in a good cause.

You're moving the goalposts, again. We are talking about religion, and it is clear that it doesn't give you the best of reasons to do good. Your claim is therefore debunked.

Though I don't like it, he made something out of nothing.

So have I. It doesn't mean my fiction works are in any way, shape or form true.

Hey, I like all of them. They give me that "underdog aura."

And here we have it, Troll. You're not interested in discovering the truth, correcting your ideas or in intelligent discussion. You're here to "fight the machine" and win, against overwhelming odds. You have a serious hero syndrome problem, Light. Get help.

They will also serve to make me look good, when I still get to where I am going. Oh yeah, bad sometimes feels good.

You're getting nowhere. Your theory is senseless, and you have no intention of ever learning anything that challenges it.

You are without merit.

Goodbye.

[Solus]

Well then this thread needs some cats! I hope others follow my lead. LCL is so far beyond hopeless, it goes beyond the merely pathetic. I'm bored being nice to LCL, he responds to me like a jerk and that will not be tolerated. I felt sorry for him but he's starting to get a "big head" now :p . Enough playing nice.

Anyone want to debate this asinine ignorant fool anymore?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/322503243_0592921842.jpg?v=0

Poor cat for having to be in this thread! :(

[Solus]

LCL, I have nothing against you. Back in the early days I thought you were some kind of troll. Sometimes I need to inject humor in this thread though.

I do now, you should have been nicer to me when I tried to be kind to you.

Level of math LCL understands.

X+1=3 solve for X

No, that's too hard for him.

2+2=? Solve LCL can solve this (maybe).
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/photos983/orangeyes.gif

[slingblade]

I study psychology so I don't consider being called mentally ill an insult.

I'm in therapy and I do consider it bad form, at least.
Sorry, but I do.

[Hokulele]

So, intelligence can be helped by learning.


If something you learn is incorrect, does this help or hinder your intelligence?

[Solus]

I'm in therapy and I do consider it bad form, at least.
Sorry, but I do.

I am mentally ill so I take medication and the problem is resolved (working on it). I guess I’m so used to identifying myself as mentally ill, I don’t consider it an insult but a PC term. If someone called me crazy or a loon that’s different, although with my type of illness you don’t see that level of behavior.

I do understand your point though.

[Solus]

As an aside, If I went over a line here someone let me know. My day just became really bad and LCL’s comments greatly annoyed me.

[Oualawouzou]

If something you learn is incorrect, does this help or hinder your intelligence?

IMHO, it depends entirely on what you do with that incorrect information once presented with evidence it is incorrect.

Learning only correct things does not equate intelligence, as you will never have to re-evaluate your own knowledge and learn to avoid logical pitfalls.

I'm not saying one should actively seek to mislead/be mislead, just that being mislead does not automatically lead to being stupid. :) Mistaken, yes. Stupid, no.

[slingblade]

As an aside, If I went over a line here someone let me know. My day just became really bad and LCL’s comments greatly annoyed me.

Don't worry about it. I know exactly how that feels. Have a hug.

:hug5

[Hokulele]

IMHO, it depends entirely on what you do with that incorrect information once presented with evidence it is incorrect.

Learning only correct things does not equate intelligence, as you will never have to re-evaluate your own knowledge and learn to avoid logical pitfalls.

I'm not saying one should actively seek to mislead/be mislead, just that being mislead does not automatically lead to being stupid. :) Mistaken, yes. Stupid, no.


I agree with you, I was just confused by the "intelligence can be helped by learning" comment. I should have known better than to post anything in this thread. Maybe my intelligence needs to learn. :)

[wollery]

Intelligence and learning are not directly related.

It is possible to learn a huge amount of facts and be as dumb as a post. It is also possible to learn very little and be as bright as a spark.

[streamlet]

I have no illusions about being supported, here. I just know that what I am saying about light is not TOTALLY somewhere near Pluto.

I mean light as the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum. Religion thinking that light is the "creator of life," I think, is a felt connection. Something made easy by the importance of the sun, and somewhat referred to as the "son" being the "light of the world."

It will increase the debate about the role of religion in school. Something I think will be soundly defeated by rational thought.

That intelligence (and thus learning) is the purpose of life.

That science and religion are closer than is commonly thought. Afterall, they are two parts of a whole.

I will put the money from the conflict into giving high schools a sustainable source of income, like some colleges have. They will own supermarkets, (at first) giving parents every incentitve to shop there, and thus tying education to a local (additional) energy source. Eating will propell education to a new level.

Yes, but even if it isn't, it will draw the fire of the scientific, and thus, teach science.

To study rationally.

I'll do what I can.

From this it sounds like a main point of your work is to be wrong so that scientists will correct you and teach people like me. That's noble I guess. Seems like a strange way to go about it, but noble.

Why do you think the "conflict" is going to make money? Are you hoping to get your theory together enough to teach or something? Are you going to start a cult? Connecting education and grocery stores sounds like a good idea but I don't know business so I don't know if it'd actually work.

You might like reading about ancient religions from the anthropological standpoint. You'd find a lot of "felt connections." Unfortunately you have to wade through some very dry books to pick out the interesting facts.

Doesn't the evidence say that, well, LIFE is the point of life? Living things are hardwired to make more of themselves by reproduction, isn't that the base drive or whatever it's called?

(I'm just now realizing the level of facts-at-fingertips I'm going to require to not look like an idiot on this forum. It's daunting.)

I don't think "son" and "sun" have anything to do with each other. You're barking up an etymological fallacy there. Just say that many cultures had or have sun worship, and Christianity is similar to them in some ways.

I'm not sure about your "felt connections" either. You mean the two things are connected in popular thought, or that you feel they're connected, or both? I feel connections between lots of things but that's not anything metaphysical; it's just my brain. (except for the connection I sense between me and a certain movie star, THAT is a true connection and means we're destined for true love...)

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You're moving the goalposts, again. We are talking about religion, and it is clear that it doesn't give you the best of reasons to do good. Your claim is therefore debunked.
I didn't say it gave the best reasons, but it has given the most persisent ones. They movd from "God is going to reward/punish you, to "it is a nice human thing to do." Or, at least, it could.


So have I. It doesn't mean my fiction works are in any way, shape or form true.
Who said they were?

And here we have it, Troll. You're not interested in discovering the truth, correcting your ideas or in intelligent discussion.
I am into intelligent discussion, I'm not sure anyone claim honestly claim to know "the truth."

You're here to "fight the machine" and win, against overwhelming odds. You have a serious hero syndrome problem, Light. Get help.
I didn't ask for a fight, I'm just not the type that will run from one.
You gave me a list of words intended to insult me. Instead of being that, I spun it around (saw the good in it) and since you did not get the response you wanted, it made you angry instead of me. Remember, you said you stopped trying long ago, your aim was to make me angry. You sure you know what you are doing?

Science says four forces, but when I make reference to that, you say it is everything but. Should I accept your truth?



Goodbye.
Okay then, see you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If something you learn is incorrect, does this help or hinder your intelligence?
It will hinder it. But, (once fixed) can't the flaw itself give you an expanded view? Something like, "I been through that?"

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I do now, you should have been nicer to me when I tried to be kind to you.
You flip rather easily don't you? This side, or that one-only. Real life does not work like that. You didn't "insult me that deeply" but you know you tried to. Your mood seemed to change because of someone elses words, part of being an individual, is knowing your own mind.

[Solus]

You flip rather easily don't you? This side, or that one-only. Real life does not work like that. You didn't "insult me that deeply" but you know you tried to. Your mood seemed to change because of someone elses words, part of being an individual, is knowing your own mind.

You really are an idiot aren't you? :faint:

I think it's safe to say a 15 year old knows more about "real life" than you do.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You really are an idiot aren't you? :faint:
Says the man with the mental problem. How can anyone trust what you say? Tommorrow you may think something else, especially if you forget to take your pills.

[Solus]

Says the man with the mental problem. How can anyone trust what you say? Tommorrow you may think something else, especially if you forget to take your pills.

At least I can spell tomorrow correctly...

Trying to "deeply" insult me LCL? You don't even know what mental illness is. You're threading a fine line here, your post here could be VERY offensive to people...

[Dancing David]

Says the man with the mental problem. How can anyone trust what you say? Tommorrow you may think something else, especially if you forget to take your pills.


HUZZAH, CHAAAAARGE!

Now you have done it, HOW DARE YOU TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT A PERSON WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS!. I am greatly offended by your cultural slam on people with a mental illness, am mentaly ill, many people on this board are. So don't talk like that. You may not understand something, mental illness is amedical condition, and whatever culture you are from may stigmatize people with a mental illness, which is immoral, disgusting and stupid.


If he insults you then address the behavior, not some alleged defect of character created by a medical condition.

I take medication and I say you are dweeb for your above comments, I address your behavior thusly, you have no need to drag his mental illness into this. If you have compassion in your heart then forgive him.

You have insulted me and a lot of people on this board, I forgive you but i will also say

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry!"

Insult for insult, now we are even!

[Solus]

I'd report his post but it's LCL and I know how ignorant he is. Besides, I want to see how long this thread will go on. I can laugh at myself (I've reached a point where I can), so I don't take great offense but for others his insult here is beyond crude.

[Gnu Ordure]

I study psychology so I don't consider being called mentally ill an insult.

I'm sorry, Solus, but I feel you're being a little disingenuous here.

It's not an insult to label someone mentally ill, if the person doing the labelling is a psychiatrist who has reached this conclusion as a result of an in-depth, confidential, face-to-face assessment with his/her patient.

I presume that's not the case here...

In which case you accusing lcl of being mentally ill is therefore highly likely to be taken as an simple insult.

Normally I would agree with David's indignant response, but in the circumstances I understand lcl making the comment he did. You doubted his sanity first, and he angrily threw it back at you.

I'm not surprised. Are you ?



Here's a question, Solus.

If you really believe that lcl is mentally ill, why on earth are you arguing with him ?

If he's ill, he needs help. Attacking his delusions (if such they are), getting angry with him, and insulting him, do not constitute 'help'.

If you honestly believe that lcl is mentally ill, and is acting out his illness on this Forum, the compassionate response would be to calmly advise him to seek a professional opinion from his doctor, and then to withdraw yourself from the thread.

To do anything else would seem like deliberate cruelty to me.





Gnu.

[Solus]

I'm sorry, Solus, but I feel you're being a little disingenuous here.

It's not an insult to label someone mentally ill, if the person doing the labelling is a psychiatrist who has reached this conclusion as a result of an in-depth, confidential, face-to-face assessment with his/her patient.

I presume that's not the case here...
In which case you accusing lcl of being mentally ill is therefore highly likely to be taken as an simple insult.

I am mentally ill so I take medication and the problem is resolved (working on it). I guess I’m so used to identifying myself as mentally ill, I don’t consider it an insult but a PC term. If someone called me crazy or a loon that’s different, although with my type of illness you don’t see that level of behavior.

I do understand your point though.


Normally I would agree with David's indignant response, but in the circumstances I understand lcl making the comment he did. You doubted his sanity first, and he angrily threw it back at you.

I'm not surprised. Are you ?

Start from page one of this thread...



Here's a question, Solus.

If you really believe that lcl is mentally ill, why on earth are you arguing with him ?

I don't believe LCL is mentally Ill, LCL is just a hard headed moron. I only stick around this thread because it amuses me. LCL's level of ignorance is so profound it's quite pathetic. I've become hostile now because I"ve seen LCL become a real jerk as of late.

[Dancing David]

I'm sorry, Solus, but I feel you're being a little disingenuous here.

It's not an insult to label someone mentally ill, if the person doing the labelling is a psychiatrist who has reached this conclusion as a result of an in-depth, confidential, face-to-face assessment with his/her patient.

I presume that's not the case here...

In which case you accusing lcl of being mentally ill is therefore highly likely to be taken as an simple insult.

Normally I would agree with David's indignant response, but in the circumstances I understand lcl making the comment he did. You doubted his sanity first, and he angrily threw it back at you.

I'm not surprised. Are you ?



Here's a question, Solus.

If you really believe that lcl is mentally ill, why on earth are you arguing with him ?

If he's ill, he needs help. Attacking his delusions (if such they are), getting angry with him, and insulting him, do not constitute 'help'.

If you honestly believe that lcl is mentally ill, and is acting out his illness on this Forum, the compassionate response would be to calmly advise him to seek a professional opinion from his doctor, and then to withdraw yourself from the thread.

To do anything else would seem like deliberate cruelty to me.





Gnu.

Hmm..

I shall have to readw hat Solus wrote more carefully. In this thread I have mainly skimmed through stuff until I come to LCL's posts and then read them carefuly.

Calling someone mentaly ill is a violation of some Forum policy.

[Gnu Ordure]

Start from page one of this thread...

Solus, I admit I'm basing what I'm saying on the last couple of pages...

But I'm pointing out that you just said :

I don't believe LCL is mentally Ill, LCL is just a hard headed moron.

... whereas two days ago you said :

...it's clear LCL is just a deluded person. He probably has some kind of mental problem

I don't see how both those statements can be true...

Unless you claim that saying someone has 'mental problems' is radically different to saying they are 'mentally ill'...

Do you see my point ?



Gnu.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

HUZZAH, CHAAAAARGE!

Now you have done it, HOW DARE YOU TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT A PERSON WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS!. I am greatly offended by your cultural slam on people with a mental illness, am mentaly ill, many people on this board are. So don't talk like that. You may not understand something, mental illness is amedical condition, and whatever culture you are from may stigmatize people with a mental illness, which is immoral, disgusting and stupid.
I am not the one who brought the subject up, and where were you when he talked about me being mentally ill?

If he insults you then address the behavior, not some alleged defect of character created by a medical condition.

I take medication and I say you are dweeb for your above comments, I address your behavior thusly, you have no need to drag his mental illness into this. If you have compassion in your heart then forgive him.
I have been nothing but civil, but I already stated that I am under no obligation to turn the other cheek. And I won't.

You have insulted me and a lot of people on this board, I forgive you but i will also say "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry!"

Insult for insult, now we are even!
I wish it was that easy, but that stuff is a slippery slope. He drives me to insult HIM, YOU pick it up, fire on my parents, and I suppose to end it? Fine. I see one cat, or another reference to the mental health of anybody, and I end the thread. I can take what I learned here, and do a better job elsewhere.

[Solus]

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270915355_c8b9ae48e6.jpg

[Solus]

Start from page one of this thread...

Solus, I admit I'm basing what I'm saying on the last couple of pages...

But I'm pointing out that you just said :

I don't believe LCL is mentally Ill, LCL is just a hard headed moron.

... whereas two days ago you said :

...it's clear LCL is just a deluded person. He probably has some kind of mental problem.

I don't see how both those statements can be true...

Unless you claim that saying someone has 'mental problems' is radically different to saying they are 'mentally ill'...

Do you see my point ?



Gnu.

I used the word probably. Do note, a person can be deluded and not have any mental disorder. In LCL's case who knows and who cares?

[bruto]

I see one cat,.... and I end the thread. I can take what I learned here, and do a better job elsewhere.

Bye. Watch your....

6838


...tail on the way out.

[Gnu Ordure]

solus explained :



it's clear LCL is just a deluded person. He probably has some kind of mental problem.



I used the word probably.




oh, right... probably ....





well that's OK, then, if you're only calling someone 'probably mentally ill' ....


... sorry I mentioned it.


Gnu.

[Loss Leader]

Holy crap! This thread is over!

I feel like there should be some sort of closing ceremony or Ted Danson should look around wistfully and turn the lights off or something.

[wollery]

Did LCL just give up?

How uncharacteristic.

[bruto]

Did LCL just give up?

How uncharacteristic.

I think he's allergic to cats.

[Solus]

Did LCL just give up?

How uncharacteristic.

He seemed to have finally quit Wollery. This is the reason he gave:

I wish it was that easy, but that stuff is a slippery slope. He drives me to insult HIM, YOU pick it up, fire on my parents, and I suppose to end it? Fine. I see one cat, or another reference to the mental health of anybody, and I end the thread. I can take what I learned here, and do a better job elsewhere.

I wonder where "elsewhere" is? :p

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

He seemed to have finally quit Wollery. This is the reason he gave:
I said I would end it with a vote, and bruto voted "cat." I can't argue with cats-they don't talk. I knew when I ended it though, that it was just a cease fire. I have been using the time to stockpile arms: THE GENIUS WITHIN, INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE, THE BODY ELECTRIC, and ELECTROMAGNETISM AND LIFE. I am also glad to say that electromagnetism did indeed provide (and maintains) the "spark of life."


I wonder where "elsewhere" is? :p
Miss me?:rolleyes:

[wollery]

I said I would end it with a vote, and bruto voted "cat." I can't argue with cats-they don't talk. I knew when I ended it though, that it was just a cease fire. I have been using the time to stockpile arms: THE GENIUS WITHIN, INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE, THE BODY ELECTRIC, and ELECTROMAGNETISM AND LIFE. I am also glad to say that electromagnetism did indeed provide (and maintains) the "spark of life."Back to the battle metaphors I see.

And still insisting that EM is the most important of the fundamental forces for life. :nope:

Please explain how we would exist without gravity, or the nuclear forces, all three of which are vital for the continuing existence of the Sun, not to mention our remaining corporeal and stuck to the surface of the planet. Or where all these elements that we're made of came from.

Light may be the most obvious of the forces at work in life, but it is by no means any more important, or necesarry, than the other 3.

And your doodle is still garbage.

[bruto]

I said I would end it with a vote, and bruto voted "cat." I can't argue with cats-they don't talk. I knew when I ended it though, that it was just a cease fire. I have been using the time to stockpile arms: THE GENIUS WITHIN, INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE, THE BODY ELECTRIC, and ELECTROMAGNETISM AND LIFE. I am also glad to say that electromagnetism did indeed provide (and maintains) the "spark of life."


Miss me?:rolleyes:

In a way, especially since David Jay Jordan has managed to get himself banned. You're a pussycat yourself by comparison....

Seriously, now, I came across a book the other day, which I have not had a chance to read yet, but I thought of you when I got it, because it sounds like something you might find useful in your quest. It's called Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg. It was published in 1992, so it might not be at the very cutting edge, but this guy got a Nobel prize for his work in unifying forces of nature, and his book appears to be about, and in favor of, the idea of trying to get it all squeezed down to fundamentals as you would like to do. Of course if you read it with an eye to confirming your preconceived ideas, rather than learning new ones and risking the death of the old ones, it won't help much, but I toss it out here anyway. I imagine it could be found in a library. If for some reason it isn't, I'll send it to you after I've read it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Back to the battle metaphors I see.
Its a motivational thing.

And still insisting that EM is the most important of the fundamental forces for life. :nope:

Please explain how we would exist without gravity, or the nuclear forces, all three of which are vital for the continuing existence of the Sun, not to mention our remaining corporeal and stuck to the surface of the planet. Or where all these elements that we're made of came from.

Light may be the most obvious of the forces at work in life, but it is by no means any more important, or necesarry, than the other 3.

I got my ideas about light from places like the references I provided at posts #2479, 2606, 2643, 2739 and certainly others. I can look up what educational bases those people had to back up what they were saying, but I think I will find their papers it in order.
It also strikes me that there are no glowing statements like them about the other forces, even though those people knew as much about them, as they did about light. Am I to think that those "men of science" were bias, or calling it as they saw it? What impression was I suppose to take away from what they wrote about light?

And your doodle is still garbage.
Those sir, are fighting words.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

In a way, especially since David Jay Jordan has managed to get himself banned. You're a pussycat yourself by comparison....
I can't imagine saying something enough to get banned, though I have no idea what was said to him to get him in that mood.

Seriously, now, I came across a book the other day, which I have not had a chance to read yet, but I thought of you when I got it, because it sounds like something you might find useful in your quest. It's called Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg. It was published in 1992, so it might not be at the very cutting edge, but this guy got a Nobel prize for his work in unifying forces of nature, and his book appears to be about, and in favor of, the idea of trying to get it all squeezed down to fundamentals as you would like to do. Of course if you read it with an eye to confirming your preconceived ideas, rather than learning new ones and risking the death of the old ones, it won't help much, but I toss it out here anyway. I imagine it could be found in a library. If for some reason it isn't, I'll send it to you after I've read it.
Thank you, I will look for it.

[bruto]

I can't imagine saying something enough to get banned, though I have no idea what was said to him to get him in that mood.



I believe DJ Jordan is actually crazy. Not, like some here, a bit odd, foolish, stubborn, and such, but insane in the sense of being delusional and unable to discern the difference between truth and lies.

[Solus]

I can't imagine saying something enough to get banned, though I have no idea what was said to him to get him in that mood.

Well below is the answer LCL and I would never insult a person who admitted they had mental problems. I think you are just stubborn, this thread is just entertainment anyway.

Says the man with the mental problem. How can anyone trust what you say? Tommorrow you may think something else, especially if you forget to take your pills.

HUZZAH, CHAAAAARGE!

Now you have done it, HOW DARE YOU TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT A PERSON WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS!. I am greatly offended by your cultural slam on people with a mental illness, am mentaly ill, many people on this board are. So don't talk like that. You may not understand something, mental illness is amedical condition, and whatever culture you are from may stigmatize people with a mental illness, which is immoral, disgusting and stupid.


If he insults you then address the behavior, not some alleged defect of character created by a medical condition.

I take medication and I say you are dweeb for your above comments, I address your behavior thusly, you have no need to drag his mental illness into this. If you have compassion in your heart then forgive him.

You have insulted me and a lot of people on this board, I forgive you but i will also say

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry!"

Insult for insult, now we are even!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well below is the answer LCL and I would never insult a person who admitted they had mental problems. I think you are just stubborn, this thread is just entertainment anyway.
The difference between us is I will not fire on anyone, who does not (repeatedly) fire on me first. Look for yourself, through more than 80 pages. Disagreements need not be personal, though plenty of people seem to have a problem separating the two. It amazes at how some people readily sling words they do not want directed at them. They even seem surprised.
The example you gave was you forcing me into saying something that bothered other people. Something that would never had happened without your help. Above you say a person has to admit something to get off your "no fire" list, how noble of you. I treat people as I want to be treated, that way, it does not matter who they are.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Light may be the most obvious of the forces at work in life, but it is by no means any more important, or necesarry, than the other 3.
The books I have been reading lately say that not only is electromagnetism behind how the body heals itself, it plays "a vital role in diverse physiological processes." (Electromagnetism and Life.) Others say that more than likely that it is also behind "the first spark of life" to begin with.
I think I said this before, but with gravity holding things together/down, and the nuclear forces operating at the atomic level, that leaves just one force for everything else. And it just so happens that that force also operates at the atomic level, and gravity does some of its best work when it creates stars/light. Yes, I think that those people who wrote those glowing statements about light (and its importance to life) had good reason.
As for how can I pick one force over the others, I got the idea from people who knew enough to do just that. And sometimes, somethings can be said to be more important in reference to a certain something. Which one is more important to creating a baby, the male, or the female? They both make it happen, but yeah, she is more important.

[Dancing David]

The books I have been reading lately say that not only is electromagnetism behind how the body heals itself, it plays "a vital role in diverse physiological processes." (Electromagnetism and Life.) Others say that more than likely that it is also behind "the first spark of life" to begin with.

Hiya LCL, welcome back. Sorry if you were offended by the Monty Python quote. Yes Solus may be rude. Don't smear everybody with mental problems.
What books are those? I apologise if I hurt you.

The electromagnetic force is crucial to most things involving chemistry. So it is inherent in the ways that most atoms react to each other at a very small and a very large scale. It is part of chemistry, as in quantum mechanics.

So to say it plays a vital role in all chemical reactions would be the most accurate. The stage for the players if you will.


I think I said this before, but with gravity holding things together/down,

Well sorry earth's oceans wouldn't be much fun if they were part of some diffuse cloud of gas that permeated the whole universe. So gravity is an essential component to the formation of molecular clouds, lumps, accretion disks, stars and planets.

and the nuclear forces operating at the atomic level,

Um, hate to break this too you but so does the EM force, it just happens to act at a greater distance, as does the force that appears as gravity.

If the nuclei of atoms flew apart or the quarks hypothesized to hold together due to the nuclear forces than there would just be a bunch of quarks and no atoms for the EM force to act upon.

that leaves just one force for everything else. And it just so happens that that force also operates at the atomic level, and gravity does some of its best work when it creates stars/light.

Yeah, the whole things kind of works together, no gravity, no life, no weak force, no life, no strong force, no life, no EM, no life.

Yes, I think that those people who wrote those glowing statements about light (and its importance to life) had good reason.

Only because they didn't think about no gravity, no strong force and no weak force.

The whole shebang is wonderful and marvelous.

As for how can I pick one force over the others, I got the idea from people who knew enough to do just that.

And ignored enough to do that?
This is the anthropic principle all over again.

And sometimes, somethings can be said to be more important in reference to a certain something. Which one is more important to creating a baby, the male, or the female? They both make it happen, but yeah, she is more important.

Both of them.

There is a great documentary about !Kung made about fifteen years ago. the interviewer asks some question like that and the !Kung just look at them and laugh.

I agree however that the female has the part that grows the baby. However, it takes two hands to wash each other.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Hiya LCL, welcome back. Sorry if you were offended by the Monty Python quote. Yes Solus may be rude. Don't smear everybody with mental problems.
I wasn't offended, just annoyed, I thought it was clear that I was only talking to him. I don't know, or care to know, about anyones issues (it doesn't seem to hurt the quality of their thinking) everybody has them. I use medication, its called alcohol. I don't know whether I use it on a good day, or that it makes a day good.

What books are those?
The Body Electric, for one. Like with the references about light, I saw some of that stuff before it became important to remember the names of the book. That is, if you are refering to that "first spark of life" comment.


Well sorry earth's oceans wouldn't be much fun if they were part of some diffuse cloud of gas that permeated the whole universe. So gravity is an essential component to the formation of molecular clouds, lumps, accretion disks, stars and planets.
I said that... sort of, it holds things together. I guess I should have said it was also responsible for bringing things together.


Um, hate to break this too you but so does the EM force, it just happens to act at a greater distance, as does the force that appears as gravity.
I said that too. That helped the EM force be seen as playing a greater role.
So the EM force is the only force "observed" to have long and short range influence? Gravity having so little at the atomic level, and the nuclear forces none (found) at long range.


If the nuclei of atoms flew apart or the quarks hypothesized to hold together due to the nuclear forces than there would just be a bunch of quarks and no atoms for the EM force to act upon.


Yeah, the whole things kind of works together, no gravity, no life, no weak force, no life, no strong force, no life, no EM, no life.

Only because they didn't think about no gravity, no strong force and no weak force.
I doubt that they overlooked the others, even I know that everything plays a part. But, like team sports, someone can be recognized as "most valuable player."


And ignored enough to do that?
This is the anthropic principle all over again.
They didn't ignore, they saw it played the greater role in the life part of the equation.

I agree however that the female has the part that grows the baby. However, it takes two hands to wash each other.
His role can take less than 15 minutes, she has 9 months of mental, emotional, and physical issues to look forward to. I think it is a miracle that they are willing to put themselves through that, but then, the results is worth it.

[Dancing David]

I wasn't offended, just annoyed, I thought it was clear that I was only talking to him. I don't know, or care to know, about anyones issues (it doesn't seem to hurt the quality of their thinking) everybody has them. I use medication, its called alcohol. I don't know whether I use it on a good day, or that it makes a day good.

The Body Electric, for one. Like with the references about light, I saw some of that stuff before it became important to remember the names of the book. That is, if you are refering to that "first spark of life" comment.


I said that... sort of, it holds things together. I guess I should have said it was also responsible for bringing things together.


I said that too. That helped the EM force be seen as playing a greater role.
So the EM force is the only force "observed" to have long and short range influence? Gravity having so little at the atomic level, and the nuclear forces none (found) at long range.


Gravity acts at all scales.

Again without the strong and weak nuclear forces there would be nothing for the EM to work upon to create life as we know it. The EM would still be there, but there would be no proton, neutrons and a host of other strong and weak force mediated particles to act upon.

Without the strong force there would be no protons, no atomic building blocks. Without the weak force there would be no atomic nuclei.

With out the protons and neutrons there is nothing to create the structures which the EM force plays upon to create life.

None, nada, niente, zip, zilcharooni.

So if there is no orchestra hall and no instruments you can't have an important player in the band, now can you?


I doubt that they overlooked the others, even I know that everything plays a part. But, like team sports, someone can be recognized as "most valuable player."

Without the field, the ball, the world to play upon, there is no game.



They didn't ignore, they saw it played the greater role in the life part of the equation.

No protons, no hadrons, no life. No atomic nuclei, no carbon, no oxygen, no life.


His role can take less than 15 minutes, she has 9 months of mental, emotional, and physical issues to look forward to. I think it is a miracle that they are willing to put themselves through that, but then, the results is worth it.

There are fathers who do more than that, some of us even adopt other people's children.

Women are crucial.

However in your analogy, the woman is not the electromagnetic force, that is the baby. the woman is the strong, weak, gravity and em forces. No strong nuclear force, no hadrons, no hadrons, no atoms. No atomic nuclei, no atoms. No atoms, no life.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Gravity acts at all scales.
Fine with me. I thought it was just found to be at work with just one particle.

without the strong and weak nuclear forces there would be nothing for the EM to work upon to create life as we know it. The EM would still be there, but there would be no proton, neutrons and a host of other strong and weak force mediated particles to act upon.
This is fine with me too. I didn't say that light created the universe, I said it created life. The other players (with the help of light) provided the conditions. Those people I quoted (knowing science) said that light is the force most responsible for life.


the strong force there would be no protons, no atomic building blocks. Without the weak force there would be no atomic nuclei.

With out the protons and neutrons there is nothing to create the structures which the EM force plays upon to create life.

None, nada, niente, zip, zilcharooni.
Fine.

There is no orchestra hall and no instruments you can't have an important player in the band, now can you?

Without the field, the ball, the world to play upon, there is no game.
I am sure that when they award MVP to a player after the game, that they know that there would not be a game without the ball, or the people who built the stadium, those who put up the money, the designer, perhaps their wives, etc, etc. They said most valuable to winning the game, and those people I quoted said most important to life.


There are fathers who do more than that, some of us even adopt other people's children.
I got one of those myself, and it wasn't even my choice. Sometimes, we do what we need to do, when we need to do it. But I was refering to creating a baby, not caring for one.

Women are crucial.
Thank goodness for them. Reason told me, "I don't need this," emotions told her, "I have no choice," and how I felt about her gave me no choice.

However in your analogy, the woman is not the electromagnetic force, that is the baby. the woman is the strong, weak, gravity and em forces. No strong nuclear force, no hadrons, no hadrons, no atoms. No atomic nuclei, no atoms. No atoms, no life.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was giving an example of how something can be said to be more important by playing a crucial role. It has something to do with how often its name comes up when trying to explain what happened.

[Dancing David]

Okay, I don't think you get it.
No weak force: no atomic nuclei.
No strong force: no hadrons, no hadrons no atoms.
No gravity: just a diffuse cloud.

Here is a hint: All the forces are required to create life. Take one away and it won't work. Therefore they are all imporatant.

No hadrons, no electron shells, no electron shells=no chemical interactions, no field effects for atoms.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Okay, I don't think you get it.
I get it.

All the forces are required to create life. Take one away and it won't work. Therefore they are all important.
And I believe you. But...
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 important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation. 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."

And...

"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.

I'm thinking that life is influenced by whatever is influencing everything else in its drive towards more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Because of the role of electromagnetism, I believe that there is a "soul" a basic mode of behavior that encompasses everyhing. Negative and positive charges, attractive and repulsive actions. Electrical/magnetic giving rise to the mental/emotional nature of life. Instead of saying we are electrically charged, we say emotionally charged.
"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."

The reasoning ability of humans however, allows them greater choice and freedom of action from the influence of the conditions around them. Natural conditions, and those man made. Humans are following the "prime directive" of the universe when they group together to form more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom
I get it.

And I believe you. But...
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."

Here is the key, without the hadrons which are held together by the strong force there is no matter for the electromagnetic to act upon in that fashion. (Actually they may not be hadrons, but I mean protons and neutrons and other critters of their ilk)

No strong force and no weak force: No "talk, write, and move objects, and to machine and weld matter".

Just a bunch of electrons and other particles in a diffuse cloud.

And yes the EM force is important just like talking, but you can't talk if you don't have a body.

The book the Conquest of Energy says the same thing.
"The form of energy most important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation. Heat and lightwaves bring in eight minutes, from the sun ninety-three million miles away, all the energy that keeps the world alive....

No strong force, no weak force, no gravity: no sun, no earth no nothing, except a diffuse cloud of particles.
[/quote]

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."

And...

"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 can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena, which arise from interactions between electron orbitals." Wikipedia.
[/quote]
No strong force: no atoms.

There are no electrons inside the nucleus.

No strong force: no protons.

No weak force, no strong force: no "ordinary material objects" or "intermolecular forces"(no molecules if no atoms) or "molecules" or "chemical phenomena" or "electron orbitals".

Read up on the physics on Wikipedia and answer the following questions.

1. If there is no strong force what would the nucleus of an atom be made of?
2. If there was no weak force but there was the strong force how would you have a molecule other than vanilla hydrogen?
3. If you did not have an atomic nucleus, would you have an atom?



I'm thinking that life is influenced by whatever is influencing everything else in its drive towards more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Because of the role of electromagnetism, I believe that there is a "soul" a basic mode of behavior that encompasses everyhing. Negative and positive charges, attractive and repulsive actions. Electrical/magnetic giving rise to the mental/emotional nature of life. Instead of saying we are electrically charged, we say emotionally charged.
"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, and its magnitude is given by the size of the charge multiplied with the magnitude of the electric field."

The reasoning ability of humans however, allows them greater choice and freedom of action from the influence of the conditions around them. Natural conditions, and those man made. Humans are following the "prime directive" of the universe when they group together to form more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

Without the strong and weak forces you do not have atoms, period. No ability for matter to clump together. No way to group together, none. Just a diffuse cloud of particles.

Lets us try an analogy,

Which is more important the heart, brain or digestive tract?
__________________

[Tricky]

You're still here, LCL, and still harping on the same thing? I must say, you have a monomaniacal tenacity matched only by the most dedicated of Conspiracy Theorists.

[wollery]

I get it. No, you really don't!

And I believe you. But...
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."What is this man babbling about? I certainly don't use light to talk. I use air, vibrated by my larynx. I write with a pen or pencil (occasionally chalk), and move objects with my skeletomuscular system.

The book the Conquest of Energy says the same thing.
"The form of energy most important to our living world, and by all odds the form in which it can be moved most rapidly from place to place, is electromagnetic radiation. 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." Bolding mine. Not the fundamental force most important to our living world, the form of energy.

See the difference? Thought not.

And...

"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.All of which rely on atom staying atoms and sticking to planet Earth, which requires the strong & weak nuclear forces and gravity.

I'm thinking that life is influenced by whatever is influencing everything else in its drive towards more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Because of the role of electromagnetism, I believe that there is a "soul" a basic mode of behavior that encompasses everyhing.And yet you are unable to provide any evidence of said "soul" or all encompassing behaviour.

Negative and positive charges, attractive and repulsive actions. Electrical/magnetic giving rise to the mental/emotional nature of life. Instead of saying we are electrically charged, we say emotionally charged.Oh dear, back to the linguistic crap again.

Did you hear about the electrician whose was charged with battery and put in a dry cell? It was a terrible shock.

Words can have different meanings depending on the context.

"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."Everyone involved in this discussion already knows this, but thanks for the definition.

The reasoning ability of humans however, allows them greater choice and freedom of action from the influence of the conditions around them. Natural conditions, and those man made. Which proves what, exactly?

Humans are following the "prime directive" of the universe when they group together to form more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.The general trend of the Universe is to the less and less complex. Look up entropy.

:nope:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Read up on the physics on Wikipedia and answer the following questions.

1. If there is no strong force what would the nucleus of an atom be made of?
2. If there was no weak force but there was the strong force how would you have a molecule other than vanilla hydrogen?
3. If you did not have an atomic nucleus, would you have an atom?

Without the strong and weak forces you do not have atoms, period. No ability for matter to clump together. No way to group together, none. Just a diffuse cloud of particles.

I understand all you are saying here, but find it in my favor that while the EM force is just as active in making the atomic world work, it takes on the additional job of making the macro work as well. Gravity is easy to overlook, though it certainly plays a vital role in our physical form, and holding us down. Yeah, when talking about which force is most important to life, MVP goes to the EM force. They all are behind the conditions for life, but it is the EM force most responsible for life. While you can have a planet, it will not have life on it if it is the wrong distance from its sun.

Lets us try an analogy,

Which is more important the heart, brain or digestive tract?
__________________
To what, life?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, you really don't!
Sure I do. What am I, an idiot?

What is this man babbling about? I certainly don't use light to talk. I use air, vibrated by my larynx. I write with a pen or pencil (occasionally chalk), and move objects with my skeletomuscular system.
I don't know what he means. I can guess. All I need to know is that he has the education to back it up.

Bolding mine. Not the fundamental force most important to our living world, the form of energy.
Electromagnetic energy can be traced to the EMF.

See the difference? Thought not.
If I don't, I will.

And yet you are unable to provide any evidence of said "soul" or all encompassing behaviour.
Life is tied to a process that governs how it behaves, that sounds like a soul to me.

Everyone involved in this discussion already knows this, but thanks for the definition.
I know, I was showing I did. That, and showing that forces and charges are behind the interactions that drive life. Life however, can use reason to overcome them. Where particles have to, the process became more dynamic through life.

The general trend of the Universe is to the less and less complex. Look up entropy.

:nope:That face again. The universe had to get more complex first.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You're still here, LCL, and still harping on the same thing? I must say, you have a monomaniacal tenacity matched only by the most dedicated of Conspiracy Theorists.
Dr Frankenstein, meet your monster. :)
He may have a bit of a problem, but he won't destroy the town.
I object to the "mono" part though, the subject touches a lot of interesting subjects. I can't get tired.

[Tricky]

I object to the "mono" part though, the subject touches a lot of interesting subjects. I can't get tired.
No, monomania is completely correct. You rarely if ever post on other threads. As a result you've met only a tiny fraction of the really interesting people here. Do you like politics? Art? Music? Humor? We have it all. Take the blinders off, LCL, and see the whole beautiful spectrum. Don't stay hung up in your closet. Wear yourself out.

[Dancing David]

I understand all you are saying here, but find it in my favor that while the EM force is just as active in making the atomic world work, it takes on the additional job of making the macro work as well. Gravity is easy to overlook, though it certainly plays a vital role in our physical form, and holding us down. Yeah, when talking about which force is most important to life, MVP goes to the EM force. They all are behind the conditions for life, but it is the EM force most responsible for life. While you can have a planet, it will not have life on it if it is the wrong distance from its sun.

What makes carbon carbon?

I would say that it is a number of things, the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the electrons that are in their quantum vibrations around the nucleus.

You can't have the valences for carbon bonding if you don't have the nucleus. So the EM, weak and strong force are all needed to make carbon carbon.


To what, life?


Which is more imporatant? The MVP as it were?

[wollery]

Sure I do. What am I, an idiot? Do you really want me to answer that?

I don't know what he means. I can guess. All I need to know is that he has the education to back it up.Education and qualifications are meaningless. The most educated, qualified person can still talk utter crap.

Electromagnetic energy can be traced to the EMF.Yes, it can, but that has nothing to do with that quote.

If I don't, I will.I won't hold my breath.

Life is tied to a process that governs how it behaves, that sounds like a soul to me.Sounds like physics to me.

I know, I was showing I did. That, and showing that forces and charges are behind the interactions that drive life. Life however, can use reason to overcome them. Where particles have to, the process became more dynamic through life.How do you overcome quantum mechanics and the fundamental forces.

That face again. The universe had to get more complex first.No, it didn't. Small parts got more complex, but at the expense of the whole becoming less complex. Seriously, look up entropy.

[RandFan]

Holy crap! This thread is over!

I feel like there should be some sort of closing ceremony or Ted Danson should look around wistfully and turn the lights off or something.:D

Damn, I didn't think it would ever happen. Knock on wood.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do you really want me to answer that?
Not really.

Education and qualifications are meaningless. The most educated, qualified person can still talk utter crap.
I figure he is talking about fiber optics, or the EM field holding the atmosphere in place, something like that, when he talked about it being behind talking.

I won't hold my breath.
No you shouldn't do that, but I am finding what I have been saying. The Genius Within proposes that "we view life's motivation in a different way and assume that living things seek not to survive, but to socialize. In this context, I'll define socialization as the desire of individuals to merge into a cohesive group displaying emergent behaviors."
And that applies to atoms, cells and life.


Sounds like physics to me.
It sounds like the soul of life to others. Religion just had/has a harder time of explaining what it felt.

How do you overcome quantum mechanics and the fundamental forces.
I am not talking about over coming them, just working with, and through them, in more and more complex ways. The mental and emotional nature of life are aspects of them.

No, it didn't. Small parts got more complex, but at the expense of the whole becoming less complex. Seriously, look up entropy.
The good part.
I am afraid of that concept. I don't think I get it. I know about the ice in the glass thing, that things move towards a stable, less energy state. That some systems including life, take energy to continue itself, at the expense of their surroundings. That the universe will reach maximum entropy, but that is a long time off.
By using that word here, are you saying that the purpose of the universe is to end?
I will look again.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, monomania is completely correct. You rarely if ever post on other threads. As a result you've met only a tiny fraction of the really interesting people here. Do you like politics? Art? Music? Humor? We have it all. Take the blinders off, LCL, and see the whole beautiful spectrum. Don't stay hung up in your closet. Wear yourself out.
I think I will try politics.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What makes carbon carbon?

I would say that it is a number of things, the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the electrons that are in their quantum vibrations around the nucleus.

You can't have the valences for carbon bonding if you don't have the nucleus. So the EM, weak and strong force are all needed to make carbon carbon.
Okay. I understand, and believe you.
Hey, you didn't mention gravity. While it is important to making a star, which makes carbon, it is not important in carbon being carbon.

Which is more imporatant? The MVP as it were?
I don't think single cell life have any of those things. But if you are talking about a person, I think they are all important.

[Solus]

You're still here, LCL, and still harping on the same thing? I must say, you have a monomaniacal tenacity matched only by the most dedicated of Conspiracy Theorists.

The worst part is I don't get what LCL's point is supposed to be? It's impossible to argue with a person if they don't have a main thesis or idea.

[wollery]

Not really.Didn't think so. :D

I figure he is talking about fiber optics, or the EM field holding the atmosphere in place, something like that, when he talked about it being behind talking.The word he used was "talking", which has a very specific meaning. As do "writing" and "moving objects", which he also used.

And the atmosphere isn't held in place by an EM field, it's held in place by gravity.

No you shouldn't do that, but I am finding what I have been saying. The Genius Within proposes that "we view life's motivation in a different way and assume that living things seek not to survive, but to socialize. In this context, I'll define socialization as the desire of individuals to merge into a cohesive group displaying emergent behaviors."
And that applies to atoms, cells and life.Well that definition is useless. Off the top of my head I could name dozens of species which do exactly the opposite of that, and thrive because of it.

It sounds like the soul of life to others. Religion just had/has a harder time of explaining what it felt.I have no idea what that means.

I am not talking about over coming them, just working with, and through them, in more and more complex ways. The mental and emotional nature of life are aspects of them.Really, because in the post i responded to you said;

I know, I was showing I did. That, and showing that forces and charges are behind the interactions that drive life. Life however, can use reason to overcome them. Where particles have to, the process became more dynamic through life.Please make up your mind what you're saying.

The good part.
I am afraid of that concept. I don't think I get it. I know about the ice in the glass thing, that things move towards a stable, less energy state. That some systems including life, take energy to continue itself, at the expense of their surroundings. That the universe will reach maximum entropy, but that is a long time off.
By using that word here, are you saying that the purpose of the universe is to end?
I will look again.I'm not the one proposing that the Universe has a purpose.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The word he used was "talking", which has a very specific meaning. As do "writing" and "moving objects", which he also used.
I know what he meant by "writing" and "moving objects" and so should you. Things only appear to come in contact. At the micro level, they don't.


And the atmosphere isn't held in place by an EM field, it's held in place by gravity.
sorry.

Well that definition is useless. Off the top of my head I could name dozens of species which do exactly the opposite of that, and thrive because of it.
What about their interaction with their enivorment? They don't have to be related to interact with others. Nature is a social system.

Really, because in the post i responded to you said;
I wasn't talking about defying gravity on a whim, I was talking about how their "operating systems" made them feel. But then again, we are defying gravity when we walk.

I'm not the one proposing that the Universe has a purpose.I think you are saying that it has a direction.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The worst part is I don't get what LCL's point is supposed to be? It's impossible to argue with a person if they don't have a main thesis or idea.
I thought I did. I was going to write it, but the site says so.
Light is the soul of life. The electromagnetic components of light, gave rise to the mental/emotional nature of life. Electrical states gave rise to logic states, and magnetic polarites gave rise to emotions.
The word pairs used to describe the interaction of things at both levels (on the surface anyway) form the diagram at inthemath.com (even though the math is not included their-yet) when placed opposite each other.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I thought I did. I was going to write it, but the site says so.
Light is the soul of life. The electromagnetic components of light, gave rise to the mental/emotional nature of life. Electrical states gave rise to logic states, and magnetic polarites gave rise to emotions.
The word pairs used to describe the interaction of things at both levels (on the surface anyway) form the diagram at inthemath.com (even though the math is not included their-yet) when placed opposite each other.
I don't think that anyone would disagree that: "Life existed before genes, just as human storytelling and technology existed before language, but the capabilities of life exploded after the development of the genetic code." (The Genius Within) The author of that book thinks that: "Evolution possesses an intrinsic intelligence that's true, but that intelligence doesn't originate from static entities like genes. Although biological intelligence is an emergent property of many simpler individuals working in concert, those individuals responsible for evolution's emergent intellect can't be genes, because genes aren't sufficiently dynamic."
His book talks about "network intelligence," that (I think) shows a link between life and non-life, and that the emergence of intelligence is built into the evolutionary process.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I am afraid of that concept. I don't think I get it. I know about the ice in the glass thing, that things move towards a stable, less energy state. That some systems including life, take energy to continue itself, at the expense of their surroundings. That the universe will reach maximum entropy, but that is a long time off.
By using that word here, are you saying that the purpose of the universe is to end?
I will look again.

The "Schrodinger paradox" is in reference to how life maintains and improves on its situation in a universe mandated towards disorder. The book INTO THE COOL says:
"The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems, organisms—like sugar crystals forming in a supersaturated solution—increase their organization at the expense of the rise in entropy around them. The basic answer to the paradox has to do with context and hierarchy. Material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another."
By "hierarchical levels" they are talking about "higher" and "lower" forms of life, however arbitrarily arrived at.

[wollery]

The "Schrodinger paradox" is in reference to how life maintains and improves on its situation in a universe mandated towards disorder. The book INTO THE COOL says:
"The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems, organisms—like sugar crystals forming in a supersaturated solution—increase their organization at the expense of the rise in entropy around them. The basic answer to the paradox has to do with context and hierarchy. Material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another."
By "hierarchical levels" they are talking about "higher" and "lower" forms of life, however arbitrarily arrived at.No, it's referring to hierarchies of organizational order or entropy.

[Anacoluthon64]

Doggerel to Doggam Doggedness

Opposed by passion's anxious bloom
to write what must be writ,
so weave my motives 'pon your loom
and sew yourself a mitt
to cuff at ventures on your woo,
then send another post
to stuff this thread once more anew
with bluster truly toast.

For light created life, he held,
and argued fierce and long,
no reason that odd notion quelled
through thousand doubtings strong.
A squiggle here, a shading yon,
a graph to capture all
with quadrants drab and labels, mon,
"New Science!" - that's his call.

This thread with many lines has grown,
a tedium of smoke
with mirrors that in shame bemoan
the longest-ever joke:
a man contrived to gauge the world
by violating sense
with jargon dull and logic curled
and damaged evi-dense.

The final word has yet to sound,
a dull wit's hollow thud
as hollow head hits solid ground
and oozes yet more crud.
To all but you the ending's clear,
so wake and feel the pinch:
the rope that you have spun in here
has served yourself to lynch.

'Luthon64

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, it's referring to hierarchies of organizational order or entropy.
So entropy has to do with levels of organizational order?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Doggerel to Doggam Doggedness

Opposed by passion's anxious bloom
to write what must be writ,
so weave my motives 'pon your loom
and sew yourself a mitt
to cuff at ventures on your woo,
then send another post
to stuff this thread once more anew
with bluster truly toast.

For light created life, he held,
and argued fierce and long,
no reason that odd notion quelled
through thousand doubtings strong.
A squiggle here, a shading yon,
a graph to capture all
with quadrants drab and labels, mon,
"New Science!" - that's his call.

This thread with many lines has grown,
a tedium of smoke
with mirrors that in shame bemoan
the longest-ever joke:
a man contrived to gauge the world
by violating sense
with jargon dull and logic curled
and damaged evi-dense.

The final word has yet to sound,
a dull wit's hollow thud
as hollow head hits solid ground
and oozes yet more crud.
To all but you the ending's clear,
so wake and feel the pinch:
the rope that you have spun in here
has served yourself to lynch.

'Luthon64
Crud, spun, and long... hey, we got something in common.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, it's referring to hierarchies of organizational order or entropy.

Okay I see it.

J.S. Shiner, Matt Davison and P. T. Landsberg


Whether we are dealing with physical, biological, social, economic or symbolic systems, the concepts of order, complexity, and emergence are intimately involved with hierarchical structures. [Baas] "... a large proportion of the complex systems we observe in nature exhibit hierarchic structure." [Simon] "A prodigious complexity emerges from the consideration of a 'hierarchical order' ..." [Needham] "We do not know what forms of life exist, but we can safely assume that whenever there is life, it is hierarchically organized." [Koestler] The most commonly used measure of disorder (and order, through an appropriate inverse relation) is the Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon or information entropy. However, for the study of hierarchies it is not an appropriate measure. In general a hierarchy will have different numbers of states available to it at its different levels. Entropy is an extensive quantity and in general will change from one level of a hierarchy to another simply because of the difference in number of available states. A better measure for disorder is given by normalizing the entropy to an appropriate maximum value.

[Dancing David]

Entropy applies to the over all order of a system, in the case of life, an animal eats and disorders organised plant life to survive, plants take order and disorder it, etc.