Light created Life

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm guessing LCL has put me on ignore since he no longer replies to my posts and he seems to have missed my previous explanation of trolling.
Now here we have another person thinking that they are being ignored. You guys are like babies. I have a lot to answer, you are not the only one. And I have a life. Duh. You must be an only child.

Maybe somebody could quote me.
And here he is putting in another line. When you see that you are not being answered, look at who is. I am always busy. Nothing you say can scare me, I find it all quite amusing, and intend to take it all in.

[RandFan]

That is the way you need to see it, because you are an atheist. Can you see that? Your world would crumble without that view.I'm getting a little tired of this. My world view doesn't require anything. I was a Christian who served a two year mission to convert people to Christ. It was only after I made a commitment to find the truth no matter what the truth was that I became an atheist. If there is a god I can go back to believing in god. I only need a logically valid reason to do so.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No it doesn't. No matter how many times you repeat this, you will still be wrong. You have no understanding whatsoever of physics or chemistry.
If inorganic matter owes to energy, organic matter, which is a step up from it does too. Instead of particles, simple biological beings are forming lifeforms.


You want to use brain surgery as an example? Okay. You and your website are claiming the equivalent of, "brain surgery says that thoughts and emotions are stored in little capsules in the medulla oblongata." You cannot claim brain surgery (or math) as evidence for your ideas unless you understand them. You don't seem to have even a rudimentary understanding.
This is exactly why people have cautioned you not to use a different definition of a word within a single framework. It works for puns, but not for serious studies.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I have stated what I am claiming, you don't have to equate it to anything. With your big head bent around a pun, brain surgery, you have dreamt up a do-do.

Love means nothing to a tennis player.
As I said before. If this is an example of what I am doing at the site. why didn't you bring one of those many examples here, instead of make this one up? That would show me that I am wrong. What you are showing is how I could be wrong if I did that. You said I did. Bring am example of it here. Otherwise, stop trying to make your dreams come true through misdirection.

No, it is not based on laws. The laws are based on the system. You are conflating the legal definition of "law" with the scientific definition. Don't do that unless you are making a joke.
I was doing no such thing. But when someone is saying the laws of energy, and the laws of the land, are they not talking about a set way that things are being done. I will put your answer up at the site.

186,000 miles per second: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.I got no problem with that. But the law says that the speed limit is 60 miles an hour. On the one hand the spped of light can not be surpassed, but a roadway speed limit can. Still in both places law represents a limit. Society has laws to set limits. Science has laws because they are limits.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm guessing LCL has put me on ignore since he no longer replies to my posts and he seems to have missed my previous explanation of trolling.


Maybe somebody could quote me.
So. I guess I am not a troll. But do you want to here my label for you?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That makes no sense and the answer to your question is no.
Okay. No. What is all that stuff below?

Language was not developed with the purpose of expressing logical thought, it was developed with the purpose of warning someone that he was about to be eaten by a lion. Since that time, language has not gotten much better at expressing logic.

Take the fact that logicians have developed their own set of symbols (~p and such) as evidence that language on its own was insufficient to express pure logical concepts.

Also consider the word "then" in the following two sentences: "I opened the soda and then drank it"; and "I opened the soda and then watched TV". In the first sentence, the word "then" implies a causal connection. I could not have enjoyed the soda before I opened it. In the second sentence, there is no causal connection. The word "then" just tells us what order the actions were taken. I could watch TV without opening a soda, I just didn't.

In fact, even the first sentence is logically insufficient. Logicians would want to rephrase it: "If I drank the soda, then I opened it". Here, we are using language to stand in for symbolic logic but we are using an artificial, unnatural and unspeakable form of language. It now reads less like a coherent thought than an SAT question.

So, in conclusion, your desire to use analogies to unify everything you have ever heard is misguided, fallacious and, more to the point, stupid. I am not stupidly using analogies, and my particle page will show the connection to the word capture used socially and it used in science. In both places, something is being held. If it were not, it would be stupid for science to use the term, and it is not that.
As for language and logic. Language also has to do with emotions, and as Spock would tell you, "emotions are not logical." Still it does pretty good. The thing you just gave about language and logic, points out the differences between science and religion. Science being logic, can't deal easily with religion, because it is not logical. Yet they are both a part of our world.

[Loss Leader]

Science assumes that there is a unity formula without having one.

No, scientists do not. You are wrong. That statement is untrue.

Once again, physicists theorize that there may be a grand unification theory, they come up with one, they test it and it (so far) fails. Then, they discard that theory and start over.

They do not assume that there is a "unity formula," whatever that is. They do nothing of the sort.

Once again, you are wrong. And, once again, you are guided by your first impressions and passing understanding without bothering to go and learn anything about the subject.

It is your refusal to learn any new information that makes you particularly annoying. Plenty of people are happy to work hard to learn a complex topic that interests them. You are not. And, because of that, I theorize that you will always be wrong. Now I will test my theory by observing whether you ever get anything right.

[zizzybaluba]

LCL,

I noticed that you have yet to respond to my suggestion that you see a doctor.
I'm rather curious, have you ever been diagnosed with a mental disease or defect?

[bruto]

It has been used because it is logical to assume. It don't have to be right. But it is logical to assume. Science does it all the time.

NO NO NO!
It has been used AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS NOT LOGICAL TO ASSUME!. The particular example I cited - the argument from design - is used as an example of an INCOMPLETE AND DEFICIENT ARGUMENT! Assuming is exactly what logic does not permit. It is illogical to assume. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Suppressed premises are permissible only when the suppressed premise is either inherent in the definitions of what is being discussed, or is considered so obvious as to be considered universal knowledge. At that point, the premise can be assumed, in the sense that it is assumed to have been presented. Its existence is still required even if it need not be stated.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Not all life forms are social.
Why every time I say something somebody always says "all." When they know that nothing is absolute.

It would be nice if you wouldn't draw unwarranted conclusions.
Matter and energy are not 2 side of the same thing?

[RandFan]

Why every time I say something somebody always says "all." When they know that nothing is absolute. The fact is counter to your ideas.

Matter and energy are not 2 side of the same thing?"2 sides"? I don't know. What does that have to do with anything?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

>The structure of a solid is like the structure of a society. Society is like society. Therefore, society is like energy.

What the hell are you saying here? Look. What I am saying is that the universe is based on four forces. They are the rhyme and reason behind the conditions for life. Since life is a product of those same forces, why wouldn't they be behind how life behaves? Especially since the system that matter uses looks the same as the social system that life uses.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It has been used AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS NOT LOGICAL TO ASSUME!.
Could you keep your red out my face. No it is by definition, logical to assume. But we are not perfect. You are talking as if we are. I am sure that the people who work science, because they are human, say things like: "this might work," or "lets try this." Some of them even have the courage to say that "I found that by accident." And I am sure that some have even said "let us assume that this is true."


The particular example I cited - the argument from design - is used as an example of an INCOMPLETE AND DEFICIENT ARGUMENT! Assuming is exactly what logic does not permit. It is illogical to assume. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Is it so hard for you to grasp that we live in the real world? And I am sure that people who consider themselves logical, sometime assume. Or do they call it an "educated guess?" Get real.

Suppressed premises are permissible only when the suppressed premise is either inherent in the definitions of what is being discussed, or is considered so obvious as to be considered universal knowledge. At that point, the premise can be assumed, in the sense that it is assumed to have been presented. Its existence is still required even if it need not be stated.
Right out the the textbook. From the design of the universe, a designer can be assumed, and then built on. Like with what happens with a lot of things in our real world.

[zizzybaluba]

And I am sure that some have even said "let us assume that this is true."


Can you name even one?

[Cosmo]

Right out the the textbook. From the design of the universe, a designer can be assumed, and then built on. Like with what happens with a lot of things in our real world.

You are quite simply wrong.

You are quite simply wrong when you claim to see "design" in the universe, and you are quite simply wrong when you conclude that a designer can be assumed or "built on" (what does that even mean?).

When you continue to argue the existence of a designer without even caring to logically analyze your own claim, you are quite simply wrong and a hypocrite for expecting the same of others.

When you continue to argue in biology or chemistry or physics, you are quite simply wrong for attempting to be an authority on subjects in which you have no education or background.

When you read this response and indignantly reply back to me with an insult or ad hominem, you will, once again, be quite simply wrong for using a logical fallacy in an argument.

[Loss Leader]

What the hell are you saying here?

I was making fun of you by pointing out how absurdly deficient your argument is.

Look. What I am saying is that the universe is based on four forces.

Physicists theorize that four forces have been at work in the universe. I'm not sure that any physicist would agree that the universe is "based" on these forces, that others could or could not be present or that they are sufficient to understand the universe as we now conceive it.

They are the rhyme and reason behind the conditions for life.

No, they are not. They are not in any way. As far as can be told, gravity has nothing to do with the conditions of life. Life appears to have formed in the reletively weightless environment of water. Life also appears to depend more on chemistry than on physics.

Since life is a product of those same forces, why wouldn't they be behind how life behaves?

Not all things take on the characteristics of their constituents. Salt water, for example, is made up of sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Yet, together, they combine to become something entirely unlike either.

Especially since the system that matter uses looks the same as the social system that life uses.

It does not. You are wrong. As I said in a previous post which you ignored:

1. A social group makes its own laws to suit its own aims whereas matter is bound by immutable universal laws that it had no hand in making.

2. Any given individual is free to disobey any given law. Matter has no choice in whether it will obey physical laws.

3. All human social systems have some degree of stratification of members - by importance, education, gender and/or wealth. There is no difference between atoms or molecules of any substance; they are all subject to exactly the same rules.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You need me to tell you what's wrong with your logic?!?
You start with a false premise, a bad foundation. Your entire argument is a house built on a sink hole.
You misinterpret science.
You scoff when your errors are pointed out, and continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

I predict you're going to ask again, why am I posting on the twenty-somethingth page of your thread of all you say is nonsense. Its simple really-- you are a jester to me. You make me laugh with your foolishness and ignorance.

In all seriousness, I think you need to see a doctor. Your ramblings remind me strongly of a paranoid schizophrenic.
God I hope that you are not right about me needing a doctor. But you know what makes me think I am right? With all that you have put here, there is nothing about why you think that. Your list should look something like the reverse of this:
Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy? Yeah it does.
Does life come from matter? Yeah it does.
Is their a type of matter that is friendly to life? Yeah, carbon.
Is life linked to the conditions for life? Yeah it is.

It is the order of energy on which matter is built. Why wouldn't the order of nature also be based on the order of energy?

Oh wait a minute. Science uses social terms in describing particles. How can that be? Well the particles that they are describing have sought of a social system . It would have to. Why else would they be describing it like that? If they meant something else, they wouldn't have done that.

Could it be that the laws that humans have come to live by, the ones that they pulled out of their hearts and minds, are them giving voice to the energies that compell them? The energies that make made them who they are?
Energies whose mission in the universe seems designed around creating order, and more and more advanced ways to convert energy.

Now if stuff like that, pointing out where you say I am obviously wrong, how would I be able to stand against that? I summarized my whole thing right here, no massive words, or complex concepts, plain english. You don't have to agree. You don't have to like it. But you do understand it, and nowhere is it off the deep end.

[bruto]

Could you keep your red out my face. If big red words offend you, all you need to do is start making sense. No it is by definition, logical to assume.No. You misunderstand, deeply and fundamentally and seriously. Logical conclusions are entirely dependent on the truth of their premises. If the premises are tentative or assumed, then the conclusion is also only tentative or assumed, and explicitly so. It is possible in "intension" to make logical statements about things which do not exist or are not real, as long as the things argued about are agreed upon by definition, and the conclusions limited to the universe of discourse specified. We could engage in a strictly logical discussion about the properties of gryphons, as long as we have agreed on the definitions. The winner of the logical match does not thereby get to assert that gryphons exist. Statements about things which exist must be based on premises that are true in reality. But we are not perfect. You are talking as if we are. No. If we were perfect, logic would not need to be taught. Logic is required precisely because we are not perfect. I am sure that the people who work science, because they are human, say things like: "this might work," or "lets try this." Some of them even have the courage to say that "I found that by accident." But finding a truth by accident is not the same thing as guessing at whether or not it is true after it is discovered. Many truths are discovered by accident, but they are not accepted as such until they are demonstrated as facts. And I am sure that some have even said "let us assume that this is true." Sources, please.


Is it so hard for you to grasp that we live in the real world? And I am sure that people who consider themselves logical, sometime assume. Or do they call it an "educated guess?" Get real.

Of course I realize we live in a real world, and often assume. Educated guesses are an important way to approach an idea or a possibility. That is not the same thing as what is required to support an assertion, or to argue on its behalf. That's where logic becomes a useful skill, and one you would do well to take more seriously, rather than making nonsensical and erroneous arguments when the deficiency is pointed out.

Right out the the textbook. From the design of the universe, a designer can be assumed, and then built on. Like with what happens with a lot of things in our real world. Indeed, right out of the textbook, that from the appearance of order in the universe A DESIGNER CANNOT BE ASSUMED unless you supply the missing premise that the appearance of order requires an intelligent designer. You have, as always, jumped to a conclusion that order proves design. It does not. It might, but it need not. Order is order, and design is design. If the apparent order of the universe is evidence of design, a proof is required, and you have not provided that proof. Nobody has. Prove this, and you win the big prize. You'll be rich and famous, and everyone will acknowledge your genius. Fail to prove it, and you are just another guy on the internet, operating on faith. It's really just that simple.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Physicists theorize that four forces have been at work in the universe. I'm not sure that any physicist would agree that the universe is "based" on these forces, that others could or could not be present or that they are sufficient to understand the universe as we now conceive it.
I agree with that their could be more. But for right on the base number is 4. At least that is the number they are looking to put together with math.


No, they are not. They are not in any way. As far as can be told, gravity has nothing to do with the conditions of life.
I don't think that matter would have formed the same way without gravity. And I know that gravity is essential to a healthy life. Look what happens to those who stay out in space for a long period. In fact, I think there is a limit to staying away from it.


Life appears to have formed in the reletively weightless environment of water. Life also appears to depend more on chemistry than on physics.
I think it is depended on both.


It does not. You are wrong. As I said in a previous post which you ignored:

1. A social group makes its own laws to suit its own aims whereas matter is bound by immutable universal laws that it had no hand in making.
The laws of matter came first, and life is made up of it, so the behavior of matter is part of its makeup. How it acts has more leeway than matter, because it is a couple of steps removed. It has a layer of biology that gives it more options, and more choices.


2. Any given individual is free to disobey any given law. Matter has no choice in whether it will obey physical laws.
Lower lifeforms have less control over what they do then humans do, and matter has none, it shows a progression. No, some, more.

3. All human social systems have some degree of stratification of members - by importance, education, gender and/or wealth. There is no difference between atoms or molecules of any substance; they are all subject to exactly the same rules.
Humans have the most control, and atoms none-that fits.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If big red words offend you, all you need to do is start making sense.
I was. As much as you.

No. You misunderstand, deeply and fundamentally and seriously. Logical conclusions are entirely dependent on the truth of their premises. If the premises are tentative or assumed, then the conclusion is also only tentative or assumed, and explicitly so.
But a place to start.

It is possible in "intension" to make logical statements about things which do not exist or are not real, as long as the things argued about are agreed upon by definition, and the conclusions limited to the universe of discourse specified. We could engage in a strictly logical discussion about the properties of gryphons, as long as we have agreed on the definitions. The winner of the logical match does not thereby get to assert that gryphons exist. Statements about things which exist must be based on premises that are true in reality.
Those sound like perfectly good rules for the game.
The universe appears to have a design. How was it worked? Through energy. The order written into 4 forces, will produce this result, under these conditions. I will start there.



No. If we were perfect, logic would not need to be taught. Logic is required precisely because we are not perfect. But finding a truth by accident is not the same thing as guessing at whether or not it is true after it is discovered. Many truths are discovered by accident, but they are not accepted as such until they are demonstrated as facts. Sources, please.
It is still a work in progress, science learns something new all the time. But until then, I will hold on to this.


Of course I realize we live in a real world, and often assume. Educated guesses are an important way to approach an idea or a possibility. That is not the same thing as what is required to support an assertion, or to argue on its behalf. That's where logic becomes a useful skill, and one you would do well to take more seriously, rather than making nonsensical and erroneous arguments when the deficiency is pointed out.
I profiled the forces from how science defined them. They do fit what I said. I have heard no definition against what I said. The one about the chartacteristics of light, did not fit because I never said light, I said the two parts of light.


Indeed, right out of the textbook, that from the appearance of order in the universe A DESIGNER CANNOT BE ASSUMED unless you supply the missing premise that the appearance of order requires an intelligent designer. You have, as always, jumped to a conclusion that order proves design. It does not. It might, but it need not. Order is order, and design is design. If the apparent order of the universe is evidence of design, a proof is required, and you have not provided that proof. Nobody has. Prove this, and you win the big prize. You'll be rich and famous, and everyone will acknowledge your genius. Fail to prove it, and you are just another guy on the internet, operating on faith. It's really just that simple.
More logic then faith. 14 billion years of design calls for one serious designer. To me.

[Loss Leader]

The laws of matter came first, and life is made up of it, so the behavior of matter is part of its makeup. How it acts has more leeway than matter, because it is a couple of steps removed. It has a layer of biology that gives it more options, and more choices.

You are an idiot.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes you do. You keep trying to make science support your ideas. I've only tried to explain to you HOW science works, and somehow you accuse me of making a religion out of it.
Who made you the voice of science? Some of the problem betweeen religion and science is that some of those under its banner are biased. And they lend their egos to it. Just like priest claim to speak for God.


There would be no sweet pickles, either, but those aren't meant to explain anything about the universe. Neither is religion.
It tries to explain the emotional part of the human experience. Badly in a lot of places, but there is more to life than logic. Logic is great, but it is not logic that makes people be right by themselves and other living things. There is a feeling that somehow it is the right thing to do. That feeling comes from a feeling of connection.


You believe in a paranormal creator.
Paranormal? What is that? Just because you can't see something, does not mean it isn't there. And if it is there, it is normal.


Possible, but highly unlikely given what we know. In fact, so unlikely that it seems unreasonable to consider the idea until further evidence is discovered.
Unreasonable to you. You are entitled to that.



Unbalanced ? Who's trying to create a kiddie picture explaining life and the meaning of energy and the universe while smart people around the world have spent centuries trying to make sense of it all ? Who's unbalanced ?
You see? If I/we could not find it, what makes you think you have? Its just sour grapes. That is why that thing is not going to go away. I am actually in love with the way people like you hate it. So you see, no amount of negative coming from you bothers me. I will bow only to logic, because I won't and can't stand against it.


This is the second time you admit to tilting your criteria. Please don't contradict yourself again.
In case you are living in a dream world, the planet is tilted towards human. Only as human could you be able to say things against them.


Auto-pilots can fly planes. It doesn't make them intellectually sound.
Who designed the auto-ipilot and the plane?


Humans aren't the strongest lifeforms. Ever try to wrestle an elephant ?
Are you tilting the critriea? And I would feel quite confident in facing one in a tank.

Only, and ONLY if they tilt their criteria, which makes the whole process stupid.
I am going to love taking this to a wider area to let people here what you said here.



Now you're giving human attributes to weather, again.
I did not. Should I have said its characteristics?

[RandFan]

You are an idiot. I really don't like personal attacks. I find them typically intellectually lazy and emotionally visceral. In this case though I'm going to make an exception and agree with you.

LCL, you are an idiot.

[Loss Leader]

I really don't like personal attacks. I find them typically intellectually lazy and emotionally visceral. In this case though I'm going to make an exception and agree with you.

LCL, you are an idiot.


You know, it's not that he has a pet theory that bothers me. It's when he says, "I will bow only to logic, because I won't and can't stand against it," as he does in the immediately preceeding post. When logical thought is explained to him - when we actually take time to explain ciruclarity, begging the question, etc. - and when he still refuses to even see what has been said, that's when I snap. If he wanted to educate himself, the information is there. It's the fact that he doesn't even want the information and that he ignores it when it is handed to him that marks him in my mind.

I know plenty of people of average or lower intelligence who work very hard to understand issues that are important to them. The fact that LCL won't is maddening to me.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Now that's one of the worst analogies I've ever come across, because in your case you aren't getting into a cab, you're getting into a random car and hoping beyond hope that the driver will drive out of state to a series of specific destinations in cities that you've never even been to. It's not surprising that you end up hopelessly lost! :rolleyes:


You are saying that matter does owe how it looks and behaves to energy, but not in the ways I mean. And I guess you are talking about the mental/emotional stuff? Well, since the order of energy does that for matter, is it possible that the order behind thought could be? Energy is a good source of order, and it is at work there.

And you don't have to yell. And how can you rewrite my story? You have no idea what I know, or at least you don't want to know. I have talked about a full range of things in a lot of subjects and have not stumbled all that much. And I have been under a searchlight here.


Who'd have guessed that books about maths written in English use similar terms to books about English written in English. :rolleyes:
No. I was talking about sentence structure, quotation marks, equations and the like.

Social laws are made by the social participants, atoms do not make the laws by which they function. In a society each individual can choose whether or not to follow any individual rule, atoms have no choice. Different societies have different rules, different groups of atoms have the same rules.
As I said. Particles at the lowest level, lower life, animals, humans. Particles can't, life can, higher life can do more. Energy providing the base on which all else is formed.

ps I wouldn't worry about him teaching grad students. You need a PhD to do that!
Wow and he shouted it too! There ways of getting around that, but I never said that was a goal of mine.

[bruto]

I will not go so far as to say that LCL is an idiot, though in his forum persona he does indeed come across as a fool. I will say that I believe he is hopelessly attached to a pet idea which blinds him to the deficiencies others find so egregious as to be laughable, and causes him to be arrogantly unaware of how bad his presentation is, how deficient his knowledge is, how sloppy his thought processes, how careless his language, and in general how intellectually lazy he is. I wish it were as simple as being an idiot, but those habits are widely practiced by others of whom we would expect much more; there are many fools who are not idiots, and LCL is one of a large company.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You know, it's not that he has a pet theory that bothers me. It's when he says, "I will bow only to logic, because I won't and can't stand against it," as he does in the immediately preceeding post. When logical thought is explained to him - when we actually take time to explain ciruclarity, begging the question, etc. - and when he still refuses to even see what has been said, that's when I snap. If he wanted to educate himself, the information is there. It's the fact that he doesn't even want the information and that he ignores it when it is handed to him that marks him in my mind.

I know plenty of people of average or lower intelligence who work very hard to understand issues that are important to them. The fact that LCL won't is maddening to me.
I have been logically talking to people all my life without a book version of what it is. I am sure that plenty of people do. You are talkiing about me, but the sought of stuff that you are talking about has been done by a lot of people here. And if you were a part of, or witnessed the picture posting, you can sought of see why I think that some have not measured up to your definition of logic. That was me surprised that supposely logical people would even think to do such things.
Sure you may know a lot about that stuff. But that does not mean that those of us that ain't been to college don't know enough about logic to get a point across. When someone does not understand something, which happens, "they ask what is that?" Then the person gives them their version of logic. If it is not good enough to stand behind, I for one, will not stand there.
I present my points very simply, but I don't stick to simple subjects. I have talked about everything that any body else here has, and I have openly admitted what I don't know. I also know when something simple is being turned into something else. I call it bending space and time. Use to do it myself.
I fully understand that any point can be logically seen from many angles. It is sought of a way that smart people think they can get around anything. Like tricky and co with the 4 basic operations of math, someone else with electromagnetic radiation not containing those things, some else trying to take me on a math vacation, there was even one person who wanted to raise the universe to the temperate needed to get 2 of the forces to combine so that there would only be 3, and the latest thing with matter and energy.
Now you may be sincere in what you are saying, but I can't tell. It would help though, if you held everyone to the standards you seem to want to set for me.

[Ysidro]

Reading just five pages has made my brain leak out. Can someone get the dust pan?

I've never seen a better example of concrete thinking anywhere. I'm going to be amazed for days now.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I will not go so far as to say that LCL is an idiot, though in his forum persona he does indeed come across as a fool. I will say that I believe he is hopelessly attached to a pet idea which blinds him to the deficiencies others find so egregious as to be laughable, and causes him to be arrogantly unaware of how bad his presentation is, how deficient his knowledge is, how sloppy his thought processes, how careless his language, and in general how intellectually lazy he is. I wish it were as simple as being an idiot, but those habits are widely practiced by others of whom we would expect much more; there are many fools who are not idiots, and LCL is one of a large company.
And again, everything about what I am, but nothing here about why that is. I mean there you no example about where this person sees this stuff? He claims to see it everywhere, but I see nothing. How is saying this, proving anything? Where is the evidence. Use the ammo you got, not the stuff you wish you had.

[RandFan]

I have been logically talking to people all my life without a book version of what it is. I am sure that plenty of people do. You are talkiing about me, but the sought of stuff that you are talking about has been done by a lot of people here. And if you were a part of, or witnessed the picture posting, you can sought of see why I think that some have not measured up to your definition of logic. That was me surprised that supposely logical people would even think to do such things.
Sure you may know a lot about that stuff. But that does not mean that those of us that ain't been to college don't know enough about logic to get a point across. When someone does not understand something, which happens, "they ask what is that?" Then the person gives them their version of logic. If it is not good enough to stand behind, I for one, will not stand there.
I present my points very simply, but I don't stick to simple subjects. I have talked about everything that any body else here has, and I have openly admitted what I don't know. I also know when something simple is being turned into something else. I call it bending space and time. Use to do it myself.
I fully understand that any point can be logically seen from many angles. It is sought of a way that smart people think they can get around anything. Like tricky and co with the 4 basic operations of math, someone else with electromagnetic radiation not containing those things, some else trying to take me on a math vacation, there was even one person who wanted to raise the universe to the temperate needed to get 2 of the forces to combine so that there would only be 3, and the latest thing with matter and energy.
Now you may be sincere in what you are saying, but I can't tell. It would help though, if you held everyone to the standards you seem to want to set for me. :rolleyes:

If I thought there was any hope I'd respond in a point by point fashion. But to what end?

[Cosmo]

And again, everything about what I am, but nothing here about why that is. I mean there you no example about where this person sees this stuff? He claims to see it everywhere, but I see nothing. How is saying this, proving anything? Where is the evidence. Use the ammo you got, not the stuff you wish you had.

If you are honestly unclear why people think this of you, you've clearly not been paying the slightest modicum of attention for the last 26 pages.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Reading just five pages has made my brain leak out. Can someone get the dust pan?

I've never seen a better example of concrete thinking anywhere. I'm going to be amazed for days now.
You see? Nothing. Why would I think that I am beaten?

[Cosmo]

You see? Nothing. Why would I think that I am beaten?

Because you are either unable or unwilling to concede defeat. You laugh at the united front of skeptics and critical thinkers poking holes in your dogma, completely certain that every last one of them is grossly mistaken.

Talking to you is, for most of us, like talking to a brick wall. The same is probably true for what you think of most of us.

In any case, this thread isn't going anywhere. I wonder why you continue to drag it on.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If you are honestly unclear why people think this of you, you've clearly not been paying the slightest modicum of attention for the last 26 pages.
Sure I have. I have sumerize my position several times tonight. alone. Where is yours? Like I said, you say it is so easy? A couple of quick examples would do it.

[Cosmo]

If you are honestly unclear why people think this of you, you've clearly not been paying the slightest modicum of attention for the last 26 pages.Sure I have. I have sumerize my position several times tonight. alone. Where is yours? Like I said, you say it is so easy? A couple of quick examples would do it.

You appear to believe that the objections to your theory are because you are somehow not communicating your position to us.

This is excellent evidence that, as I said, you really have no idea why people object to your theory.

[Ysidro]

You see? Nothing. Why would I think that I am beaten?

Wow. I point out what amounts to a developmental order in you and you take it as success.

What color is the sky in your world? It must be a very pretty fantasy land.

[zizzybaluba]

God I hope that you are not right about me needing a doctor.
Why don't you pay one a visit, just to see what (s)he says? It might prove a valuable experience for you.

But you know what makes me think I am right? With all that you have put here, there is nothing about why you think that. Your list should look something like the reverse of this:
Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy? Yeah it does.
Does life come from matter? Yeah it does.
Is their a type of matter that is friendly to life? Yeah, carbon.
Is life linked to the conditions for life? Yeah it is.
This is nonsense and has nothing to do with your worthless graph.

It is the order of energy on which matter is built. Why wouldn't the order of nature also be based on the order of energy?
You made the claim, its up to you to prove it.


Oh wait a minute. Science uses social terms in describing particles. How can that be? Well the particles that they are describing have sought of a social system . It would have to. Why else would they be describing it like that? If they meant something else, they wouldn't have done that.
This has been explained to you many, many, many, many times before. To try again would be futile.

Could it be that the laws that humans have come to live by, the ones that they pulled out of their hearts and minds, are them giving voice to the energies that compell them? The energies that make made them who they are?
Energies whose mission in the universe seems designed around creating order, and more and more advanced ways to convert energy.
No.

Now if stuff like that, pointing out where you say I am obviously wrong, how would I be able to stand against that? I summarized my whole thing right here, no massive words, or complex concepts, plain english. You don't have to agree. You don't have to like it. But you do understand it, and nowhere is it off the deep end.
Its so far off the deep end, its out of the pool.

[zizzybaluba]

Wow. I point out what amounts to a developmental order in you and you take it as success.

What color is the sky in your world? It must be a very pretty fantasy land.

Welcome to the forum, Ysidro!
Would you like a stick to help us beat this dead horse?

[wollery]

You are saying that matter does owe how it looks and behaves to energy, but not in the ways I mean. And I guess you are talking about the mental/emotional stuff? Well, since the order of energy does that for matter, is it possible that the order behind thought could be? Energy is a good source of order, and it is at work there.No, I mean that there's no intent or design to it.

And you don't have to yell. And how can you rewrite my story? You have no idea what I know, or at least you don't want to know. I have talked about a full range of things in a lot of subjects and have not stumbled all that much. And I have been under a searchlight here. You are the one who keeps admitting that you know next to nothing about maths, or science, and it's obvious to just about anyone that you don't understand logic. You use inaccurate, populist websites to get your information, which is what I meant by getting into any car at random, and the knowledge required for a full understanding of the several subjects you're broaching isn't anywhere near where you are, hence it's in several different cities in different states, not a short hop across town. I wasn't rewriting your story, I was correcting it.

As for stumbling, you've fallen flat on your face on a remarkably consistent basis. You're the only one who can't see it.

No. I was talking about sentence structure, quotation marks, equations and the like. Yes, language has basic rules, if it didn't then we'd be unable to communicate.

But this is not the same as maths, because we can actually break most of these rules, and still make sense. Sticking to the rules makes it easier for us to understand each other, but it isn't necesarry.

As I said. Particles at the lowest level, lower life, animals, humans. Particles can't, life can, higher life can do more. Energy providing the base on which all else is formed.Still doesn't work as an analogy. Sorry.

Wow and he shouted it too! There ways of getting around that, but I never said that was a goal of mine.Really, how do you get to teach grad students without a PhD? And if it isn't a goal of yours then what were you talking about when you said -

But it works. I want to teach grade school students.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Because you are either unable or unwilling to concede defeat. You laugh at the united front of skeptics and critical thinkers poking holes in your dogma, completely certain that every last one of them is grossly mistaken.

Talking to you is, for most of us, like talking to a brick wall. The same is probably true for what you think of most of us.
Now this is the 1st time anyone even noticed that they maybe a part of the problem.
You say you do this stuff all the time, take sport in it. You have a certain point of view, and that is that. Here I am, with an idea of the type that you love to get your teeth into. It can't be right. The guy is admitting what he don't know openly. Easy target right? Wrong! I defended what I said and I'm ready for more. I know my limitations, and know what I know. And I am sitting in front of a computer. This is great. Even if I couldn't deal with you, it can. But believe it or not, only about 30% of what you said was over my head. Instead.

I got people saying humans are no better than bacteria, electromagnetic radiation does not contain those 2 energies, the 4 basics of math ain't basic, that there are 3 forces, if we are willing to destroy the rest of the universe, that when science says strong and weak they mean what they say, but when they say capture or violates it means something else, oh I can go on here. You see, that is what fun looks like. Oh I think that you all are pretty smart people, it is just the stuff that you have taken yourselves through in order to appear right. When I say that I will only stand behind something that obviously stands by itself, the stuff above is why I wouldn't. I will not risk someone being able to put my head on their wall, next to something like "I said gravity has no influence on life."
So actually, it maybe you who could gain from a lesson or two. Instead, what I get is people looking to insult me, without showing any of the fun that I have just listed that I have had. From your prior experiences wasn't our positions reversed?


In any case, this thread isn't going anywhere. I wonder why you continue to drag it on.
I thought we were having logical fun here? If you got no more questions for me, I certainly have some for you. Show me where I was defeated. If it was such a bad experience, why would I want to relive it? And don't worry. In the back of my mind. I am thinking that there is a chance that you all might be right about me being crazy. So to make sure I am punished, I am going to make sure that what is said here becomes widely known. That way everyone will know how much of a fool I am.

[Cosmo]

Because you are either unable or unwilling to concede defeat. You laugh at the united front of skeptics and critical thinkers poking holes in your dogma, completely certain that every last one of them is grossly mistaken.

Talking to you is, for most of us, like talking to a brick wall. The same is probably true for what you think of most of us.The guy is admitting what he don't know openly. Easy target right? Wrong! I defended what I said and I'm ready for more.

In your opinion. Most of us would disagree.

I know my limitations, and know what I know. And I am sitting in front of a computer. This is great. Even if I couldn't deal with you, it can.So your computer is writing your posts for you? That explains a fair bit. :rolleyes:

I got people saying humans are no better than bacteria, electromagnetic radiation does not contain those 2 energies, the 4 basics of math ain't basic, that there are 3 forces, if we are willing to destroy the rest of the universe, that when science says strong and weak they mean what they say, but when they say capture or violates it means something else, oh I can go on here.It sounds like you don't understand much of what has been said to you.

You see, that is what fun looks like.You have an interesting definition of "fun". I do not think that most other participants in this thread are having "fun".

In any case, this thread isn't going anywhere. I wonder why you continue to drag it on.

I thought we were having logical fun here?

Logical fun? What is that?

If you got no more questions for me, I certainly have some for you. Show me where I was defeated.There is no use in attempting to show you where you were defeated. Why? Because where most of the thread participants think you were defeated (dozens and dozens of places) and where you think you were defeated (nowhere) obviously do not match up, nor will they ever match up because you refuse to concede defeat. As long as that is true of you, you will (by definition) never feel as if you were defeated.

If it was such a bad experience, why would I want to relive it? And don't worry. In the back of my mind. I am thinking that there is a chance that you all might be right about me being crazy.I don't think most people here think you're crazy. Closed-minded and willfully ignorant, sure, but not necessarily crazy.

[zizzybaluba]

I thought we were having logical fun here? If you got no more questions for me, I certainly have some for you. Show me where I was defeated. If it was such a bad experience, why would I want to relive it? And don't worry. In the back of my mind. I am thinking that there is a chance that you all might be right about me being crazy. So to make sure I am punished, I am going to make sure that what is said here becomes widely known. That way everyone will know how much of a fool I am.

You don't need punishment, you probably need therapy and/or medication.

[bruto]

Sure I have. I have sumerize my position several times tonight. alone. Where is yours? Like I said, you say it is so easy? A couple of quick examples would do it.

YOU are the one who has proposed a theory. It is entirely up to you to prove it. It is not anybody's obligation to disprove it or to present any kind of alternative theory, in order to question yours or to find fault in the way you present it. This seems to be one of several basic, elementary ideas you cannot grasp. If you make a statement that purports to be true or factual, I (or anybody else) can say "I doubt it. Prove it." I (or anybody else) need not disprove it. I (or anybody else) need not provide an alternative theory. You alone must provide the evidence and persuasive argument. If you cannot, then you fail. Whether you know it or acknowledge it, in this you are failing.

[Ysidro]

Welcome to the forum, Ysidro!
Would you like a stick to help us beat this dead horse?

It's looking rather bloody on its own really. This is less beating a dead horse than watching lemmings race off a cliff.

I know people have stated they don't think light is a troll, but I really can't see anything else here. Maybe I just dont' want to think anyone can be this willfully ignorant and so deluded.

[Belz...]

Prove there is no God.

Sorry, Light. That's not how it works. I haven't spoken of God, one way or another, when speaking of science. You're the one who wants to include it in your theories. It's YOUR burden of proof, not mine.

Also, since I asked, first, that you prove that evolution is part of a "plan", I'd like you to answer that first, too.

Read it again. I said whatever stood in for gravity. You say magnetism, fine with me.

It doesn't "stand in" for anything. These two forces are completely different and you of all people, using all four of them in your "theory", should know this.

I thought science was pretty straight on that. Matter and energy are the same thing. I have to look it up.

Have you looked up any of the things you said you had to yet ?

I know I never seen a spirit. So yes. I have to say "if" when someone else says they have.

They don't say they have, they say they saw something that they interpret as a spirit. There's a world of difference. Whenever those claims are put to the test, they always fail.

Logically though, it is not too far fetch to say that energy survives, it just has to stay together when it does.

That doesn't make any sense. "Energy" survives, but it disperses. Your "mind" isn't "energy", it's a pattern of synapses which, I'm sorry to say, breaks down after death,.

And it is some very smart energy. I don't think that its behavior can be plotted using what we know about other energies, it is quite unique.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Again, mind isn't energy, and energy isn't smart in any way, shape or form. You're confusing different concepts, again.

You thought wrong. Again. Science likes it true.

The simple truth.

No, no and NO. Many answers are exceedingly complex, Light. Look at quantum mechanics and relativity. Not simple mathematics.

The only thing that proves is that I am one person who got one of the many replies coming at them wrong. You need to sit in my seat.

No, YOU need to read what people tell you. Otherwise this'll just go in circles forever and you won't ever learn anything, especially when you specifically ask a question.

Yet they are doing something, for the overall natural community aren't they? Nature is interdepended, is it not?

No, not in the sense that you think it is. It's interdependent but only coincidentally. The spider doesn't give a hoot about anything but it's own stomach.

But sometimes when people dance around answers, you have to corner them into an answer.

You just don't like the ones they give you.

I have been nothing but reasonable. I asked a question. I got "not really" and I noticed that that happens when the answer would be in my favor.

How do you know that the answer would be in your favour if you don't even try to understand what the anwer is ? He said "not really", and you think that means he really meant "yes" but decided to disagree with you just for the hell of it ? Exactly what do you think people on this forum do, Light ? You think we're here to reinforce some form of statu quo and fight for a kind of scientific dogma ?

You see, this debate is only about me being wrong-for most.

It's only because you ARE wrong, Light. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you'll be on your way to learning. You're not getting any younger, you know.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It's looking rather bloody on its own really. This is less beating a dead horse than watching lemmings race off a cliff.

I know people have stated they don't think light is a troll, but I really can't see anything else here. Maybe I just dont' want to think anyone can be this willfully ignorant and so deluded.
Come on. You see so much wrong, just got to the forum, have posted here at least 2 of your 5 posts and you only did it to say I am a troll. You are either dumb, or maybe I must have met you before. You sure you don't have another name?

[Belz...]

And is often followed by the female eating the male and I don't mean to imply anything sexual.

Actually, I think this happens only when the mating "ritual" is unsuccesful.

[Belz...]

Yet somehow you think it makes rational sense that it does not happen. You see. You already have your verdict, nothing will change that, but you. If you thought it did survive, you would find all types of reasons why.

Problem is, however, that we have evidence that shows that the mind is wholly comprised within the brain. If the brain dies, that's it.

Boy. Look at how jioned at the hip you all are. One mentions something, and the wagons begin to circle. And it does not matter what you circle around. Spiders, give me a break. I think one of the best traits of a person is independant thought.

The answer was based on your contention that all life was social. This is clearly not true, as a single example debunks your hypothesis.

And all it took was a single spider. Boy you are smart. All of nature is a social system.

And here you change your claim. I'll assume you've abandoned your earlier claim about life, as you seem to be claiming that "nature" is a society. That's simply not true. As I said, it's coincidental.

As someone has said here, that is not my reasoning, it has been around since the 19th century. And you being an atheist, means that you can't believe in a designer of any type. It is your reasoning that is very very flawed. You simply have to avoid anything having to do with the subject.

You're appealing to the idea's longevity, here. That's another fallacy.

Also, beign an atheist does not mean you can't change your mind, unless a theist can't change his mind either. Beign open-minded is beign able to go beyond your biases and accept evidence contrary to your beliefs. That's the core of skepticism.

And you follow your friends. What else do they tell you to think?

Your resorting to personnal attacks that presume that you can tell what someone thinks over the internet does nothing to lend your opinion credibility, here. Instead of insulting people for beign "sheep", you should do your homework and understand the subject at hand.

Science assumes that there is a unity formula without having one.

Wrong again! Boy, if you keep this up you'll beat Iacchus' record 10,000 times.

Science doesn't "assume" that there's a fundamental law or force, it posits its existence and is attempting to find out if it exists or not.

I never said science assumed there was a God. They surely do not. They assume that everything else has a source, not the universe.

Depends on your definition of "source". The universe has a "source", but not a "cause" in the temporal sense.

You know. With evolution as both designer and design,

Again, not "design" in the sense you understand it. It's more like rolling billions of dice and eventually finding useful patterns.

and humans being the most advanced form of life (given most critriea)

Have you learned NOTHING of what I told you ? There is only ONE criteria that makes humans more "advanced", and that's intelligence. All the other points you could bring up stem from that one. Intelligence is not a useful criterion in some environments.

they can claim to have no creator. Is that what they want? Is that what their ego demands? "No one, or thing is above me."

That's the worst example of convoluted theistic rhetoric I've seen in recent years. Really. You ASSUME, contra all the evidence and reasoning presented to you, that humans are the superior form of life, which is FALSE, and THEN use this assumption, project it onto us, and call us arrogant because, by denying a creator, we see ourselves as the apex of existence.

But here's the catch: IT'S YOUR ASSUMPTION, not ours. Not one poster here has agreed with you that humans are "higher" than other lifeforms. You're the one who wants a God, you're the one who wants us to be his cherished end-goal. Your attempt to make us into your private army of strawmen is despicable and insulting.

[Belz...]

Now here we have another person thinking that they are being ignored. You guys are like babies. I have a lot to answer, you are not the only one. And I have a life. Duh. You must be an only child.

Insults again. I'm starting to wonder if you're as old as you said you were. No one that age is this childish.

Nothing you say can scare me, I find it all quite amusing, and intend to take it all in.

Are you saying you have no intention to learn, here, only to mock the opposing view ? That's the textbook definition of trolling.

If inorganic matter owes to energy, organic matter, which is a step up from it does too. Instead of particles, simple biological beings are forming lifeforms.

Except the bolded part is wrong. Your argument collapses.

I got no problem with that. But the law says that the speed limit is 60 miles an hour. On the one hand the spped of light can not be surpassed, but a roadway speed limit can. Still in both places law represents a limit. Society has laws to set limits. Science has laws because they are limits.

You mean you really didn't understand his post ? What he was saying is that the term "law" means different things in those two instances. The laws of physics aren't a standard imposed on reality that particles may or may not obey. They are a description of the behaviour of said particles.

Why every time I say something somebody always says "all." When they know that nothing is absolute.

Simply because you make bold assertions that assume that things ARE simplistic and absolute. "Nature is a social system" is not a "maybe" or a "some of", it's an absolute statement that leaves no other alternative. Mayhap you should try to watch the way your construct your sentences, if you want people to understand what you mean.

Is it so hard for you to grasp that we live in the real world? And I am sure that people who consider themselves logical, sometime assume. Or do they call it an "educated guess?" Get real.

See, you're still trying to fit common sense and everyday thinking to the world of science and truth. You can't make absolute statements and guesses about how things work. You have to KNOW, and this is why we have scientists, not witch-doctors.

Lower lifeforms have less control over what they do then humans do, and matter has none, it shows a progression. No, some, more.

No, it doesn't. No, they don't. No, you're wrong again.

14 billion years of design calls for one serious designer. To me.

There is no design. Get over it.

Who made you the voice of science?

You made you ? What ? Just because I'm not science itself I can't tell you how it works ?

It tries to explain the emotional part of the human experience.

No it doesn't. It [christianity] attempts to explain how the universe was made. It makes claims about the nature of existence. And those claims are wrong.

but there is more to life than logic. Logic is great, but it is not logic that makes people be right by themselves and other living things.

That, I can agree with. However, UNDERSTANDING those non-logic things must be done with logic.

Paranormal? What is that? Just because you can't see something, does not mean it isn't there. And if it is there, it is normal.

And therefore scientific, in a way. A "creator" to the universe is unscientific, in a number of ways.

Unreasonable to you. You are entitled to that.

You think it is reasonable to assume something that goes against all the evidence you have ?

You see? If I/we could not find it, what makes you think you have? Its just sour grapes. That is why that thing is not going to go away. I am actually in love with the way people like you hate it.

Hate what ? What are you babbling about, now ?

Just because science "hasn't found it" yet, doesn't mean it can't be found. And what's that ridiculous comment about me thinking that _I_'ve found it ?

In case you are living in a dream world, the planet is tilted towards human.

Wrong again, Albert. The planet is extremely hostile towards us. We've survived in spite of a lot of adversial conditions, not because of them.

Who designed the auto-ipilot and the plane?

Irrelevant. You said that piloting a plane indicated intelligence. Auto-pilots aren't intelligent. Ergo, you are wrong.

Are you tilting the critriea? And I would feel quite confident in facing one in a tank.

The tank is not part of the human, bucko. Humans don't grow tank when they come to age. If you come up against an elephant, chances are you have no tank. Why the hell did you bring it up, anyway ?

I am going to love taking this to a wider area to let people here what you said here.

They're surely going to love seeing you put your foot in your mouth in every one of your posts.

Here's an example of what I said : Let's say you had two people appear on Jeopardy. Now, one's a medical doctor, and the other an architect. Now, if your questions (or answers, in this case) are ALL very specific and complex ones related ONLY to the doctor's field of expertise, who do you think will win ? Is it because the doctor is better than the architect, or because the game is rigged ? That's why you can't say humans are the "highest" life forms because you're rigging the game in their favour. Not nature. YOU. You're the one using intelligence as your sole criterion. Obviously they'll win. And it doesn't matter if most people would agree with you, because they'd still all be wrong. Why ? Because then they'd ALL be guilty of rigging the game. But in nature, there is only one criterion: survival.

[Belz...]

guy is admitting what he don't know openly. Easy target right? Wrong! I defended what I said and I'm ready for more.

Sorry, Light. But that's not what you did. When you think it'll make you seem reasonable, you say that you could be wrong, but whenever you are SHOWN to be wrong, you recoil back to your cocoon and start calling people names, not the least of which is your contention that we disagree with you because we fear your ideas. It's a good thing insults aren't arguments.

I got people saying humans are no better than bacteria, electromagnetic radiation does not contain those 2 energies, the 4 basics of math ain't basic, that there are 3 forces, if we are willing to destroy the rest of the universe, that when science says strong and weak they mean what they say, but when they say capture or violates it means something else, oh I can go on here.

Well, I can't say that you understand any of it, but if you could admit defeat on a few of those, it would go a long way towards giving you credibility.

Oh I think that you all are pretty smart people, it is just the stuff that you have taken yourselves through in order to appear right.

That's your fundamental mistake, and the primary thing preventing you from learning anything, here. You are so convinced that what you say is right and obvious that you cannot understand why everyone here disagrees with you. Your logical path is to assume that we do this on purpose.

This is like 9/11 truthers assuming that we are government shills simply because we don't buy their ridiculous theories.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sorry, Light. That's not how it works. I haven't spoken of God, one way or another, when speaking of science. You're the one who wants to include it in your theories. It's YOUR burden of proof, not mine.

Fine, then we are at least even. I can't prove there is, and you can't prove there isn't. Still you think there isn't, and I think there is.

Also, since I asked, first, that you prove that evolution is part of a "plan", I'd like you to answer that first, too.
I'm sure you would like a lot of things.


It doesn't "stand in" for anything. These two forces are completely different and you of all people, using all four of them in your "theory", should know this.
I know that they are different. Gravity holds the moon in orbit, and you said (and I believe you) that magnetism is does that for the atom. What? Is there more you would like to weave into what I said?


Have you looked up any of the things you said you had to yet ?
If you have been watching I have googled plenty here. And when I do, I be right. Are you saying that energy and matter are not the same thing, I hate to waste my time. And for my trouble I have no choice but to put it on the site.



They don't say they have, they say they saw something that they interpret as a spirit. There's a world of difference. Whenever those claims are put to the test, they always fail.
Fine. You are the one that has looked into every claim in the world, and throughout time, and have found them to be wrong. But if you haven't, I am goinig to use "if."



That doesn't make any sense. "Energy" survives, but it disperses. Your "mind" isn't "energy", it's a pattern of synapses which, I'm sorry to say, breaks down after death,.
Have you ever seen someones brain hooked up to an EKG machine? They have sinewaves for everything from lip movement, to hand movement. And I am sure that when the technology premits, they will be able to measure them form thoughts too. Yes. biochemistry is at work there, but there are energy workings that mirror them.
And again. You of course know for a fact that the energy breaks down. Fine. The graph shows that the energy that leaves the body goes off in 3 different directions, absorbed into things and the energy that is always all around us. That thing is very handy.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Again, mind isn't energy, and energy isn't smart in any way, shape or form. You're confusing different concepts, again.
The different types have definite order. And order is the stuff that everything is built on, including intelligence.


No, no and NO. Many answers are exceedingly complex, Light. Look at quantum mechanics and relativity. Not simple mathematics.
Once understood, the complex becomes simple. Ask that guy I was talking to about the two types of math theorems: "the simple, and those not known yet."


No, YOU need to read what people tell you. Otherwise this'll just go in circles forever and you won't ever learn anything, especially when you specifically ask a question.



No, not in the sense that you think it is. It's interdependent but only coincidentally.
It is, but it is a coincidence? Billions of years of workings for random to just accidently fit in some many places to make the overall structure work as finely as it does?

The spider doesn't give a hoot about anything but it's own stomach.
And its children. For a short time at least. And you must see that filling its stomach serves to balance its part of the natural plan.

You just don't like the ones they give you.
No. Some of them be wrong. Like your lone spider theory here. All life is out for itself, and that is the part that shows the overall plan. How is it that they work so well together, without seeking to work together?


How do you know that the answer would be in your favour if you don't even try to understand what the anwer is ? He said "not really", and you think that means he really meant "yes" but decided to disagree with you just for the hell of it ? Exactly what do you think people on this forum do, Light ? You think we're here to reinforce some form of statu quo and fight for a kind of scientific dogma ?
Exactly. Here is the thing. When I ask some question I get people going on and on about other things not even related to it. I can't shut them up. But then at other times I get "not really." You do the math.
You also seem to overlook something about yourself. You are atheist, you have a deep rooted point of view. You are not about to give it up. The only thing that I can do for those who attack me is to make it as logically costly as possible. Are you sure you want to stick to that matter/energy thing?


It's only because you ARE wrong, Light. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you'll be on your way to learning. You're not getting any younger, you know.
And you really care about me? Okay. Show me where I am wrong.

Damn. It took me 2 seconds to google E=mc2 and it said: "One of Einsteins' great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different states of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter." Why do you people make yourselves look dumb like that? And right after taunting me for not looking stuff up too.

[zizzybaluba]

Come on. You see so much wrong, just got to the forum, have posted here at least 2 of your 5 posts and you only did it to say I am a troll. You are either dumb, or maybe I must have met you before. You sure you don't have another name?

You just don't get it.

He was attempting to be nice to you by calling you a troll rather than delusional.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Have you ever seen someones brain hooked up to an EKG machine? They have sinewaves for everything from lip movement, to hand movement. And I am sure that when the technology premits, they will be able to measure them form thoughts too.

I'm staying out of this argument, but just like with another thread, I'm stepping in here about misrepresenting EEG. First, it is not EKG but EEG (electroencephalogram). Second, there is no such thing as "sinewaves for everything from lip movement to hand movment" whatever that is supposed to mean. We can see artifacts related to muscle movement from eyes, tongue and mouth, but those sorts of movements have nothing to do with motor planning or thought. They are purely artifactual and result from the movements themselves -- nothing from the brain. The fact that the brain controls those movements is beside the point. Third, the only rhythm at all related to hand movement is the mu rhythm, and this is not seen in all people. This particular central rhythm disappears when someone moves. Fourth, EEG is such a gross technique it will never measure thought, whatever Hans Berger thought of it. Magnetoencephalography might have a chance, but EEG never will. The closest we have been able to come to this is with the 40 Hz event related potentials that seem to correlate with entrained neural networks.

Those "sinewaves" are graphical representations of summated EPSPs and IPSPs over significant areas of the brain that reflect differences in electrical potential between electrode pairs. The sinusoidal change over time reflects the regular change in potential when comparing different brain regions over time. That is what EEG does. Let's not romanticize it.

[RandFan]

I'm staying out of this argument, but just like with another thread, I'm stepping in here about misrepresenting EEG. First, it is not EKG but EEG (electroencephalogram). Second, there is no such thing as "sinewaves for everything from lip movement to hand movment" whatever that is supposed to mean. We can see artifacts related to muscle movement from eyes, tongue and mouth, but those sorts of movements have nothing to do with motor planning or thought. They are purely artifactual and result from the movements themselves -- nothing from the brain. The fact that the brain controls those movements is beside the point. Third, the only rhythm at all related to hand movement is the mu rhythm, and this is not seen in all people. This particular central rhythm disappears when someone moves. Fourth, EEG is such a gross technique it will never measure thought, whatever Hans Berger thought of it. Magnetoencephalography might have a chance, but EEG never will. The closest we have been able to come to this is with the 40 Hz event related potentials that seem to correlate with entrained neural networks.

Those "sinewaves" are graphical representations of summated EPSPs and IPSPs over significant areas of the brain that reflect differences in electrical potential between electrode pairs. The sinusoidal change over time reflects the regular change in potential when comparing different brain regions over time. That is what EEG does. Let's not romanticize it.My thanks to you for this and the other post. It's amazing just how much nonsense is posted on Internet forums uncorrected. And many if not most of us are guilty of it, myself included. I try to check on things before I post them but so many myths are so deeply ingrained in our psyche that we simply take them for granted.

Again, thank you.

RandFan

[TobiasTheViking]

Ok, we are now over and above 1000 posts


AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wow, thanks, RandFan.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Sorry, Light. But that's not what you did. When you think it'll make you seem reasonable, you say that you could be wrong, but whenever you are SHOWN to be wrong, you recoil back to your cocoon and start calling people names, not the least of which is your contention that we disagree with you because we fear your ideas. It's a good thing insults aren't arguments.
Where do you see me insulting people and name calling? I do it. But very rarely. Even when I catch you doing what you said you don't do.


Well, I can't say that you understand any of it, but if you could admit defeat on a few of those, it would go a long way towards giving you credibility.
You see? The smart man now does not understand. I listed them, why didn't you point out the ones you thought I was wrong about?


That's your fundamental mistake, and the primary thing preventing you from learning anything, here. You are so convinced that what you say is right and obvious that you cannot understand why everyone here disagrees with you. Your logical path is to assume that we do this on purpose.
You have to be doing it on purpose. Either that or I am giving you too much credit. Matter and energy are different states of the same thing. How else can you account for people here saying that they are not? It can't be because you didn't know better. And the guy I was talking to showed that he understood by saying "not really." And here is another thing. When someone here says something wrong, no one corrects them but me. You all are not after what is right, you are after what you can make right.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Ok, we are now over and above 1000 posts


AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS
I told you I was ignoring you till a later time. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm staying out of this argument, but just like with another thread, I'm stepping in here about misrepresenting EEG. First, it is not EKG but EEG (electroencephalogram). Second, there is no such thing as "sinewaves for everything from lip movement to hand movment" whatever that is supposed to mean. We can see artifacts related to muscle movement from eyes, tongue and mouth, but those sorts of movements have nothing to do with motor planning or thought. They are purely artifactual and result from the movements themselves -- nothing from the brain. The fact that the brain controls those movements is beside the point. Third, the only rhythm at all related to hand movement is the mu rhythm, and this is not seen in all people. This particular central rhythm disappears when someone moves.
I seen the thing attached to the girls' head with wires coming from different places on the head, and that is what the nurse told me. You seen to know more, and I will bow to that. Still, there is a lot of energy goings on in there.

Fourth, EEG is such a gross technique it will never measure thought, whatever Hans Berger thought of it. Magnetoencephalography might have a chance, but EEG never will. The closest we have been able to come to this is with the 40 Hz event related potentials that seem to correlate with entrained neural networks.
Again I bow. I was thinking more in terms of future developments. I got great respect for science.

Those "sinewaves" are graphical representations of summated EPSPs and IPSPs over significant areas of the brain that reflect differences in electrical potential between electrode pairs. The sinusoidal change over time reflects the regular change in potential when comparing different brain regions over time. That is what EEG does. Let's not romanticize it.
I thought it sounded too good to be true at the hospital. I withdraw what I said.

[TobiasTheViking]

I told you I was ignoring you till a later time. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

yes i do.. do you?

please just bloody well answer my first question. This was THE THIRD POST IN THIS THREAD.

Here it is. That is all i want from you, just answer my first question.

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Welcome to the forum

[RandFan]

Still, there is a lot of energy goings on in there.:rolleyes:

I think back to the early Greek philosophers more than 2,000 years ago, the rise of rational thought and empiricism. The advancement of science and the scientific method. The foundations laid for hundreds of interconnected disciplines and the incomprehensible database of human knowledge and understanding and here we are in the 21st century having mapped the human genome, split the atom and landed humans on the moon only to have some *** post "there is a lot of energy goings on in there" in a skeptics forum after having been shown time and time again he doesn't know what the sam hell he is talking about.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein

[Ichneumonwasp]

Still, there is a lot of energy goings on in there.


I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that much energy is created by the brain that is measured by EEG, then I need some sort of comparison. Compared to a nuclear generator the amount of energy produced by the brain and measured by EEG is almost non-existant. Very little energy is measured. In fact it requires amplification (granted this is partly due to the damping effect of skull and cerebrospinal fluid).

If you mean that there are frequent changes in amplitude, well, then, yes there are. The brain constantly fires, and different areas are more active at different times. There are large relay loops signalling from deep to superficial structures that create the patterns we see during an EEG. And we know what happens when that energy is quieted -- nothing. No mind. Complete absence.

[Ysidro]

Come on. You see so much wrong, just got to the forum, have posted here at least 2 of your 5 posts and you only did it to say I am a troll. You are either dumb, or maybe I must have met you before. You sure you don't have another name?

I am neither dumb nor have we met before.

I am a former lurker who has been reading this thread and can come to two conclusions: you are either a troll or an idiot. I refuse to believe your are an idiot. Therefore I must believe you are a troll.

I'm not going to continue with this anymore either. If you're a troll I'm only feeding you. If you're an idiot you'll never learn after all this.

The only reason I posted to begin with was to let other people know there are folks who are reading this and gaining knowledge from it. Not knowledge of silly little graphs and poorly thought out myths on light and relationships. No, instead learning real science from the folks who are trying to teach you.

There's another reason I'm done with you (besides never having started), I cut my hand today and it's difficult to type with 12 sutures and possible nerve damage. yes, I am mentioning this to get sympathy from any hot forum skeptic chicks. :-D

[RandFan]

There's another reason I'm done with you (besides never having started), I cut my hand today and it's difficult to type with 12 sutures and possible nerve damage. yes, I am mentioning this to get sympathy from any hot forum skeptic chicks. :-D :D You would get much better response in Forum Community.

Hey, get better. And watch where you put your hand. You don't know where it's been.

[Loss Leader]

Let me try something else:

LCL, who would you believe? Whose opinion about your theories would you respect? Who is the perfect person that you would like to visit your site and read this thread and then give you his/her honest opinion about your work?

Is there any specific person or any type of person who could tell you that you were making mistakes and whom you would listen to?

You name the person and I will do my best to get him ot her to wade through this and give you a personal grade on your efforts.

You say that when we tell you that you are wrong, it makes you all the more sure you are rigt. Who could tell you that you were wrong that would make you less sure you were right? Who is that person?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You don't need punishment, you probably need therapy and/or medication.
I guess you know this from your own experience?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Let me try something else:

LCL, who would you believe? Whose opinion about your theories would you respect? Who is the perfect person that you would like to visit your site and read this thread and then give you his/her honest opinion about your work?

Is there any specific person or any type of person who could tell you that you were making mistakes and whom you would listen to?

You name the person and I will do my best to get him ot her to wade through this and give you a personal grade on your efforts.

You say that when we tell you that you are wrong, it makes you all the more sure you are rigt. Who could tell you that you were wrong that would make you less sure you were right? Who is that person?
You. All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

[Cosmo]

You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

Further evidence that not only has LCL not paid the slightest bit of attention to this thread for the past 26 pages, but there is no person or group who could possibly convince him he's wrong.

[I less than three logic]

I guess you know this from your own experience?
I bet that’s how psychiatrists know when people need treatment or medication, because they’re crazy too. ;)

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I am neither dumb nor have we met before.

I am a former lurker who has been reading this thread and can come to two conclusions: you are either a troll or an idiot. I refuse to believe your are an idiot. Therefore I must believe you are a troll.

I'm not going to continue with this anymore either. If you're a troll I'm only feeding you. If you're an idiot you'll never learn after all this.

The only reason I posted to begin with was to let other people know there are folks who are reading this and gaining knowledge from it. Not knowledge of silly little graphs and poorly thought out myths on light and relationships. No, instead learning real science from the folks who are trying to teach you.

There's another reason I'm done with you (besides never having started), I cut my hand today and it's difficult to type with 12 sutures and possible nerve damage. yes, I am mentioning this to get sympathy from any hot forum skeptic chicks. :-D
You give me nothing to respond to. And by the way. Why on earth would I be concerned about what you think? My thinking is this, if you could logically back up what you are saying, you would be doing that. Do you also believe that matter and energy are not different states of the same thing? I hope you did not pick that they aren't from some of the real science being thrown around here.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I bet that’s how psychiatrists know when people need treatment or medication, because they’re crazy too. ;)
Are you a psychiatrists?

[I less than three logic]

Are you a psychiatrists?
If I was would I “bet” that’s how they do it, or would I know that’s how it works?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Further evidence that not only has LCL not paid the slightest bit of attention to this thread for the past 26 pages, but there is no person or group who could possibly convince him he's wrong.Where are your logical examples? This is further proof that you have none. Look. I am not forcing you to come here. You have a problem, take a hike. I am here to debate the topic, do you have a question about that?

[Cosmo]

Where are your logical examples? This is further proof that you have none.

I have not seen any need to poke logical holes in your argument because many, many others already have. This is further proof that, as I've been saying, you are simply not paying attention to the objections that others are raising.

I am here to debate the topic...No you're not.

You're here to convert the masses with your dogma - and to hell with what any of those so-called "skeptics" or "critical thinkers" say. Damn the logic and full speed ahead! They're simply not willing to entertain the notion of your supreme designer, so they are simply wrong. Imagine how famous you'll be - and imagine how many followers you'll have - after you show those skeptics a thing or two!

You have nothing original to offer the world or this forum. This thread is not a debate, it's on the border of an insult flame war and you either don't care or haven't seen it coming.

Once again, I must ask: why are you dragging this thread on?

[zizzybaluba]

I guess you know this from your own experience?

what a clever retort...:rolleyes:

[zizzybaluba]

Just curious, am I the only one who sees any similarity between LCL and Gollum from lord of the rings?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that much energy is created by the brain that is measured by EEG, then I need some sort of comparison. Compared to a nuclear generator the amount of energy produced by the brain and measured by EEG is almost non-existant. Very little energy is measured. In fact it requires amplification (granted this is partly due to the damping effect of skull and cerebrospinal fluid).
I am dropping completely anything I said about the EEG machine. I obviously got bad information. I believe that you know what you are talking about.

If you mean that there are frequent changes in amplitude, well, then, yes there are. The brain constantly fires, and different areas are more active at different times. There are large relay loops signalling from deep to superficial structures that create the patterns we see during an EEG. And we know what happens when that energy is quieted -- nothing. No mind. Complete absence.
Are you saying here that the chemical workings of the brain produces as a byproduct energy workings that make up the mind?

And do you agree that the part of the brain that is responsible for language, also responsible for math, like Rand Fan has already stated?

Do you think there is a link between math and language?

[Cosmo]

Just curious, am I the only one who sees any similarity between LCL and Gollum from lord of the rings?

http://media.pixpond.com/6xtu4lw.jpg http://media.pixpond.com/6xtu4lw15.jpg

My god...you're right! :eek:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I have not seen any need to poke logical holes in your argument because many, many others already have. This is further proof that, as I've been saying, you are simply not paying attention to the objections that others are raising.

No you're not.

You're here to convert the masses with your dogma - and to hell with what any of those so-called "skeptics" or "critical thinkers" say. Damn the logic and full speed ahead! They're simply not willing to entertain the notion of your supreme designer, so they are simply wrong. Imagine how famous you'll be - and imagine how many followers you'll have - after you show those skeptics a thing or two!
Are you okay? You seem to be a bit stressed.

You have nothing original to offer the world or this forum. This thread is not a debate, it's on the border of an insult flame war and you either don't care or haven't seen it coming.
You should know. You helped make it that way, I have been, and remain against that stuff, but you seem bent on continuing.

Once again, I must ask: why are you dragging this thread on?
If you have no questions on the topic, why are you here? What does it matter to you how long this thing goes on? You sound as if I offered you a ride home and you want to leave now. I made no such offer. If you have some place to go, no one is keeping you here. Or do you feel compelled to remain as long as I do?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

My god...you're right!
That thing have just drove you plum crazy didn't it? But I guess that it what happens when the demented do not get what they want. When reason fails, there is only madness.

[Loss Leader]

Do you think there is a link between math and language?

There is no link between math and language. As proof, I suggest that you read the best book I've ever read on the subject, The Unfolding of Language by Professor Guy Deutcher. You may also email him with your questions at: G.Deutscherlet.leidenuniv.nl

Says one review: Deutscher argues that the same mechanisms work to build and to destroy linguistic structures. Prime among them are economy, novelty and analogy. Economy (more accurately, laziness) leads to dropping syllables or slurring vowels to make pronunciation easier. For example, the French word for the month of August, Aot (pronounced "oo") began as "Augustus," after the Roman emperor. Novelty often takes the form of metaphor, seeking new ways to express the abstract: "thrilled" originally meant "pierced," as by a spear-a sensation somewhat sharper than what is usually referred to by this word. And analogy leads us to apply known rules to unfamiliar situations, as when a young child says "foots" or "drinked."

Language, we learn, is accidental and careless - constantly destroying and remaking itself. Its "rules" are temporary conveniences which change with startling speed. Punctuation, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, meaning - nothing is safe.

And none of this has anything at all to do with the manner in which math is invented, understood or communicated.

You said that clearly presented facts could change your mind. I challenge you now to read this book and decide if your ideas about math and language are in any way correct.

[Cosmo]

That thing have just drove you plum crazy didn't it? But I guess that it what happens when the demented do not get what they want. When reason fails, there is only madness.

Either you've long ago severed your link to pop culture or you have no sense of humor. Maybe both.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If I was would I “bet” that’s how they do it, or would I know that’s how it works?
What? Do you have a rational question of some type about the topic here? If not, why are you here?

[Cosmo]

Are you okay? You seem to be a bit stressed.

Ad hominem noted and rejected. You need to learn to debate without resorting to logical fallacies.

You should know. You helped make it that way, I have been, and remain against that stuff, but you seem bent on continuing.

Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Either you've long ago severed your link to pop culture or you have no sense of humor. Maybe both.
Like I said. I am here to debate the topic posted. Why are you here? I simply cannot believe that you are not smart enough to find something else to do with yourself.

[Cosmo]

Like I said. I am here to debate the topic posted. Why are you here? I simply cannot believe that you are not smart enough to find something else to do with yourself.

Your second ad hominem attack in as many replies to me. You need to learn to debate without resorting to logical fallacies.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Ad hominem noted and rejected. You need to learn to debate without resorting to logical fallacies.



Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:
And you should learn to do it without being an idiot.

[zizzybaluba]

And you should learn to do it without being an idiot.
And its a hat trick on the ad homs...

[Cosmo]

And you should learn to do it without being an idiot.

:dl:

Do we have a flame war yet? :)

[zizzybaluba]

Do we have a flame war yet? :)

3562

Nicky says yes...

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

:rolleyes:

I think back to the early Greek philosophers more than 2,000 years ago, the rise of rational thought and empiricism. The advancement of science and the scientific method. The foundations laid for hundreds of interconnected disciplines and the incomprehensible database of human knowledge and understanding and here we are in the 21st century having mapped the human genome, split the atom and landed humans on the moon only to have some *** post "there is a lot of energy goings on in there" in a skeptics forum after having been shown time and time again he doesn't know what the sam hell he is talking about.
So the way I said that displeased you? You must of figured out by now that I am not trying to please you. The mind is the energy workings of the brain, I am not looking to dive into it, that is not the topic at this time. You don't mind do you?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

yes i do.. do you?

please just bloody well answer my first question. This was THE THIRD POST IN THIS THREAD.

Here it is. That is all i want from you, just answer my first question. Apparently you don't.

[RandFan]

Like I said. I am here to debate the topic posted. Right.

[RandFan]

So the way I said that displeased you? You must of figured out by now that I am not trying to please you. The mind is the energy workings of the brain, I am not looking to dive into it, that is not the topic at this time. You don't mind do you? I don't care what you are trying to do. I just despise willful ignorance. I don't mind that someone is simply ignorant. That can be cured. You on the other hand don't even know the basics and don't care that you don't know. You keep spouting barely comprehensible statements that are often fundamentally wrong. It's not that you are simply ignorant but that you have filled your ignorance with nonsense and then refuse to be corrected when shown wrong. Now, I don't know if you are incapable of understanding how and why you are wrong or just that your ego won't allow it. Whatever the reason you are one of the few that are worthy of being called idiot because you arrogantly persist in your ignorance.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

There is no link between math and language. As proof, I suggest that you read the best book I've ever read on the subject, The Unfolding of Language by Professor Guy Deutcher. You may also email him with your questions at: G.Deutscherlet.leidenuniv.nl
I will read the book. Thank you. I asked, you delivered. I will also look at the 3 Rand Fan suggested. I don't have enough information to stand behind an opinion either way. If you noticed I am asking, not stating. What you presented sounds very logical to me. Do you think that there is a common link between languages? Something common to all?

[Loss Leader]

I will read the book. Thank you. I asked, you delivered. I will also look at the 3 Rand Fan suggested. I don't have enough information to stand behind an opinion either way. If you noticed I am asking, not stating. What you presented sounds very logical to me. Do you think that there is a common link between languages? Something common to all?

The only thing common to all languages is that language is found wherever humans are. Otherwise, as Dr. Deutcher points out: Turkish is spoken grammatically backwards, Semitic languages have a structure unlike anything else; and English becomes completely unrecognizable if an English-speaker goes back in time just a few hundred years. There are no universal language rules.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't care what you are trying to do. I just despise willful ignorance. I don't mind that someone is simply ignorant. That can be cured. You on the other hand don't even know the basics and don't care that you don't know. You keep spouting barely comprehensible statements that are often fundamentally wrong. It's not that you are simply ignorant but that you have filled your ignorance with nonsense and then refuse to be corrected when shown wrong. Now, I don't know if you are incapable of understanding how and why you are wrong or just that your ego won't allow it. Whatever the reason you are one of the few that are worthy of being called idiot because you arrogantly persist in your ignorance.
Okay. Okay. You think I am a idiot. I get it. You say it as if you are trying to cast a spell by saying it so often. You done now? Why would you talk to an idiot? We have been over this for 20 pages. You despise me, nothing I say makes any sense. I get it? Now again. Why would you think what you think should be of any importance to me? You see me giving you grief over you biased atheist view? For some it is not a problem to other views, but to you it makes your head thick.

[RandFan]

There is no link between math and language. As proof, I suggest that you read the best book I've ever read on the subject, The Unfolding of Language by Professor Guy Deutcher. You may also email him with your questions at: G.Deutscherlet.leidenuniv.nl

Says one review: Deutscher argues that the same mechanisms work to build and to destroy linguistic structures. Prime among them are economy, novelty and analogy. Economy (more accurately, laziness) leads to dropping syllables or slurring vowels to make pronunciation easier. For example, the French word for the month of August, Aot (pronounced "oo") began as "Augustus," after the Roman emperor. Novelty often takes the form of metaphor, seeking new ways to express the abstract: "thrilled" originally meant "pierced," as by a spear-a sensation somewhat sharper than what is usually referred to by this word. And analogy leads us to apply known rules to unfamiliar situations, as when a young child says "foots" or "drinked."

Language, we learn, is accidental and careless - constantly destroying and remaking itself. Its "rules" are temporary conveniences which change with startling speed. Punctuation, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, meaning - nothing is safe.

And none of this has anything at all to do with the manner in which math is invented, understood or communicated.

You said that clearly presented facts could change your mind. I challenge you now to read this book and decide if your ideas about math and language are in any way correct.Thanks, I just ordered the book. Have you read The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Species-Co-Evolution-Language-Brain/dp/0393317544)?

I've got to re-read it. It's been a few years. I think he had a different conclusion but I'm not sure about that or even how much his conclusion differed.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The only thing common to all languages is that language is found wherever humans are. Otherwise, as Dr. Deutcher points out: Turkish is spoken grammatically backwards, Semitic languages have a structure unlike anything else; and English becomes completely unrecognizable if an English-speaker goes back in time just a few hundred years. There are no universal language rules.
I have been thinking that because we are human, and because we are biologically the same, that there must be a link somewhere, but I have been unable to find one. I had high hopes for math, but it is constant, and language is not. As you pointed out.

[RandFan]

Okay. Okay. You think I am a idiot. I get it. You say it as if you are trying to cast a spell by saying it so often. You done now?No.

Why would you talk to an idiot?Character flaw.

We have been over this for 20 pages.Ignorance on parade.

You despise me...No, I don't know you. I despise your pigheaded arrogance and willful ignorance. There's a big difference.

...nothing I say makes any sense.It's not just that nothing makes sense but that you aren't learning. Your arrogance keeps you from gaining some useful information and enlarging your understanding of the natural world.

I get it?I can't answer that question. Do you?

Now again. Why would you think what you think should be of any importance to me? It's clear that little that anyone has to say is of any importance to you.

You see me giving you grief over you biased atheist view?"Biased"? I confess that I have biases but nothing that I have said to you is based simply on my biases. I have had a lot of conversations on this forum with Christians and Buddhists and others, some I have great respect for and some who have taught me a lot about a number of things. I'm not so arrogant that I can't be taught by someone who understands logic and reason.

For some it is not a problem to other views, but to you it makes your head thick.This is just rhetorical.

[TobiasTheViking]

Apparently you don't.

actually i think the consensus is that you don't.

And thanks for once more proving that you can't participate in a debate by once more ignoring my questions......

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are you saying here that the chemical workings of the brain produces as a byproduct energy workings that make up the mind?

No. The functioning of the brain is what we call the mind. No byproduct. The brain is there to be the mind -- that is why it exists in the first place. The problem in thinking about all this arises from the way we use language to discuss these issues. We use words like "brain" and "mind" as nouns. Mind is not a noun, though. It should be a verb. The process we call mind is the brain functioning, just like the process we call "running" is the body functioning in a particular way.

[/QUOTE]And do you agree that the part of the brain that is responsible for language, also responsible for math, like Rand Fan has already stated?

Do you think there is a link between math and language?[/QUOTE]

There are two questions there. Is there a link between math and language? Yes. Is the same part of the brain responsible for math also responsible for language? That is much, much more complicated -- in large part because "math" is not one single thing.

There are several different language areas in the brain. The two biggies are Wernicke's and Broca's areas. Wernicke's is located in the posterior temporal lobe. It would be wrong to think that there is one area that "does" language, though. There are really several different pockets that serve language function. When we stimulate someone's brain to determine what areas are responsible for language as part of pre-surgical planning for epilepsy surgery, we find areas that are responsible for language next to areas that are not, in a sort of patchwork.

The classical "math area", responsible for arithmetic calculations is in the same general area, but not identical to the classic Wernicke's area. Calculation ability is localized, generally, to the area of the angular gyrus and can be disrupted by a small lesion creating a syndrome known as Gerstmann's syndrome -- which involves loss of calculation ability, the ability to determine finger types (finger agnosia), right-left confusion, and dysgraphia (writing difficulty).

But "math" is a much wider concept than just calculation ability, so I would have to agree that there is large overlap between language and math in terms of localization (this is due, in part, to the fact that they use some of the same functions, such as symbol manipulation). They do not precisely map onto the exact same areas, though.

[Belz...]

Fine, then we are at least even. I can't prove there is, and you can't prove there isn't. Still you think there isn't, and I think there is.

NO, we're NOT even. Don't you understand ANYTHING that I say ? The burden of proof is ON YOU. Not I. It's your responsability to prove your claims.

I'm sure you would like a lot of things.

THAT is trolling, Light. You're not here to educate yourself or test your ideas. You're here to preach. When pressed for answers or explanations, you resort to platitudes. Fine. Be ignorant.

If you have been watching I have googled plenty here. And when I do, I be right.

The problem is, I fear you select your google finds to fit your theory and ignore the rest.

Are you saying that energy and matter are not the same thing, I hate to waste my time.

I'm saying the answer to your question is not as simple as you think.

Fine. You are the one that has looked into every claim in the world, and throughout time, and have found them to be wrong. But if you haven't, I am goinig to use "if."

I don't understand why you continue to attack me when I make claims like these. What difference does it make if _I_'m the one who tested these claims or not ? They were tested AND FAILED. Unless you can find an unexplained case, you have no "if".

Oh, and "if" pink unicorns exist, then evolution could be wrong. "If".


Have you ever seen someones brain hooked up to an EKG machine? They have sinewaves for everything from lip movement, to hand movement. And I am sure that when the technology premits, they will be able to measure them form thoughts too. Yes. biochemistry is at work there, but there are energy workings that mirror them.

That energy is produced by that meatsack we call a brain. Not the other way around.

You of course know for a fact that the energy breaks down. Fine. The graph shows that the energy that leaves the body goes off in 3 different directions, absorbed into things and the energy that is always all around us. That thing is very handy.

Except you made it up. Nothing is handy in science when you just make things up. And don't tell me science isn't everything. Nothing else is useful when trying to understand the cosmos.

The different types have definite order. And order is the stuff that everything is built on, including intelligence.

Who cares ? Energy ISN'T intelligence, even "if" you could show that it's required for intelligence to form. Chloride isn't salty.

Once understood, the complex becomes simple.

It becomes understandable, and it can be explained in simple terms, sometimes, but it doesn't "become" simple. You're having a hard time with this, aren't you ?

Ask that guy I was talking to about the two types of math theorems: "the simple, and those not known yet."

Next time you see him, tell him Belz... says he's wrong.

It is, but it is a coincidence? Billions of years of workings for random to just accidently fit in some many places to make the overall structure work as finely as it does?

Ah! Finally you understand something. Good. We're getting somewhere.

The answer to your question is: yes.

And its children. For a short time at least. And you must see that filling its stomach serves to balance its part of the natural plan.

Coincidentally, yes. But that wasn't your original claim. Spiders aren't social animals. I do think this concludes that. Now, onto your "nature is social" claim...

No. Some of them be wrong. Like your lone spider theory here.

I don't think you're qualified yet to tell wrong from right in these matters.

All life is out for itself, and that is the part that shows the overall plan. How is it that they work so well together, without seeking to work together?

Easy: they don't.

Exactly. Here is the thing. When I ask some question I get people going on and on about other things not even related to it. I can't shut them up. But then at other times I get "not really." You do the math.

Incredible. So you're SO convinced about your ideas, that you cannot possibly see why people would disagree with you unless they were dishonestly resisting change ? You need to think that over.

You also seem to overlook something about yourself. You are atheist, you have a deep rooted point of view.

I wasn't born atheist; and it took me a good 16 years to become one. It's not "deep-rooted" by any stretch of the imagination. You're AGAIN wrong.

You are not about to give it up. The only thing that I can do for those who attack me is to make it as logically costly as possible. Are you sure you want to stick to that matter/energy thing?

I'll stick with it because you're wrong about it. If you show me wrong, then I'll change my mind. Personally, I have no emotional investment in reality the way it's currently understood by me. In fact, if I could cast fireballs and lightning bolts I'd be a much happier man. If I had an immortal soul, that'd be neat, too. I'd love that. So, by all means, show me wrong, because I'd like nothing more.

And you really care about me?

If I had my way, everyone in the world would cease to be ignorant. That'd solve a lot of problems.

Show me where I am wrong.

I've been doing that for 27 pages.

Damn. It took me 2 seconds to google E=mc2 and it said: "One of Einsteins' great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different states of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter."

I never said they couldn't be turned into one another. Everybody here knows that. But to say that they are one and the same is simplistic and misleading. Again, I call your reading ability into question.

Why do you people make yourselves look dumb like that? And right after taunting me for not looking stuff up too.

We only look dumb to you because you don't understand a quarter of what we say. And what you seem to understand you go on to ignoring.

[Belz...]

Where do you see me insulting people and name calling? I do it. But very rarely.

Contradicting yourself in two adjacent sentences.

Even when I catch you doing what you said you don't do.

When exactly did I say I don't do that ? Name calling ? I do that A LOT. I just don't use it as an argument. I do it to insult people.

You see? The smart man now does not understand.

I'm not half as smart as you think that I think I am.

I listed them, why didn't you point out the ones you thought I was wrong about?

You were wrong about ALL of them. That's why people pointed them out. The list you gave was created by you in order to make them seem ridiculous. That happens to be a very insulting way of conducting a debate, by the way.

You have to be doing it on purpose.

No, I don't. I you'd step out of your 4'x4' apartment, you'd realise that LOTS of people in the world are going to disagree with you on a number of subjects even though you think your opinion on those subjects is self-evident and obvious. Sometimes, what we take for granted isn't that simple; and sometimes there isn't a satisfactory answer.

Matter and energy are different states of the same thing. How else can you account for people here saying that they are not?

Because it really ISN'T THAT SIMPLE.

When someone here says something wrong, no one corrects them but me.

That's not true. People here constantly correct one another on a number of subjects. I've been corrected numerous times, myself, because I simply didn't know, didn't understand or didn't interpret the answer properly. Beign corrected isn't insulting. It's part of learning.

The reason why no one's corrected anyone else in THIS thread is because YOU are just wrong.

You all are not after what is right, you are after what you can make right.

It's unfortunate that you continue to indulge in this delusion of yours. As long as you maintain it, you can never learn.

I seen the thing attached to the girls' head with wires coming from different places on the head, and that is what the nurse told me. You seen to know more, and I will bow to that. Still, there is a lot of energy goings on in there.

So, you will "bow" to his explanation but you still maintain your opinion, contrary to what he said ? That's an amazing ability you have, there.

I got great respect for science.

I think the word you're looking for is "fear". It's okay. Most people fear what they don't understand, too. "Respect" is a synonym for fear, sometimes.

Are you okay? You seem to be a bit stressed.

An almost clever way to answer his post.

The mind is the energy workings of the brain

Speculation.

Okay. Okay. You think I am a idiot. I get it. You say it as if you are trying to cast a spell by saying it so often. You done now? Why would you talk to an idiot?

That's not what he said. Gosh. Do we need to resort to kiddie-talk, now ?

[Loss Leader]

No. The functioning of the brain is what we call the mind. No byproduct. The brain is there to be the mind -- that is why it exists in the first place. The problem in thinking about all this arises from the way we use language to discuss these issues. We use words like "brain" and "mind" as nouns. Mind is not a noun, though. It should be a verb. The process we call mind is the brain functioning, just like the process we call "running" is the body functioning in a particular way.

And do you agree that the part of the brain that is responsible for language, also responsible for math, like Rand Fan has already stated?

Do you think there is a link between math and language?

There are two questions there. Is there a link between math and language? Yes. Is the same part of the brain responsible for math also responsible for language? That is much, much more complicated -- in large part because "math" is not one single thing.

There are several different language areas in the brain. The two biggies are Wernicke's and Broca's areas. Wernicke's is located in the posterior temporal lobe. It would be wrong to think that there is one area that "does" language, though. There are really several different pockets that serve language function. When we stimulate someone's brain to determine what areas are responsible for language as part of pre-surgical planning for epilepsy surgery, we find areas that are responsible for language next to areas that are not, in a sort of patchwork.

The classical "math area", responsible for arithmetic calculations is in the same general area, but not identical to the classic Wernicke's area. Calculation ability is localized, generally, to the area of the angular gyrus and can be disrupted by a small lesion creating a syndrome known as Gerstmann's syndrome -- which involves loss of calculation ability, the ability to determine finger types (finger agnosia), right-left confusion, and dysgraphia (writing difficulty).

But "math" is a much wider concept than just calculation ability, so I would have to agree that there is large overlap between language and math in terms of localization (this is due, in part, to the fact that they use some of the same functions, such as symbol manipulation). They do not precisely map onto the exact same areas, though.


Can you guess the one word in your entire post you probably shouldn't have said?

[bruto]

Either you've long ago severed your link to pop culture or you have no sense of humor. Maybe both.

If LCL has any trace of humor or understanding of it he has not so far revealed it here.

[bruto]

Why would you think what you think should be of any importance to me?

If it is not, then why did you introduce your subject on this forum? If you are not interested in what people think, you are simply trolling.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can you guess the one word in your entire post you probably shouldn't have said?

That damn Molly Bloom has me in her spell.:)

[I less than three logic]

What? Do you have a rational question of some type about the topic here? If not, why are you here?
Oh, guess I didn’t realize that was a requirement for posting on this thread. That rule seems a bit hypocritical doesn’t it? I mean, you want to require others to make rational statements while you’ve been posting here for 28 pages and haven’t posted a rational one yet. :boggled:

[Loss Leader]

That damn Molly Bloom has me in her spell.:)

The problem is that LCL equates a link between two things as their being equal or even as one thing causing another. He believes that energy causes matter because energy and matter are linked. He believes that the laws of physics are somehow a simpler form of social laws, apparantly because both use the word "law." And he believes that "not really" means "yes, I enthusiastically agree." He will see nothing in your answer except that one word.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But he very obviously didn't want there to be a link between the two.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Can you guess the one word in your entire post you probably shouldn't have said?
Must everything be a contest? I asked about a link between language and math, and that is some good stuff. Okay. What shouldn't I have said?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If LCL has any trace of humor or understanding of it he has not so far revealed it here.
Another somethinig I don't have, or can't do. I am not surprised. If I didn't know better, I would get from the experience here that I don't exist.

[I less than three logic]

Must everything be a contest? I asked about a link between language and math, and that is some good stuff. Okay. What shouldn't I have said?
Well for starters only everything you posted so far. ;)

Besides, I don’t think he was talking to you. I had the impression he was speaking to Ichneumonwasp, since that was who he quoted and such.

[wollery]

Must everything be a contest? I asked about a link between language and math, and that is some good stuff. Okay. What shouldn't I have said?He wasn't talking to you!

[Tricky]

Another somethinig I don't have, or can't do. I am not surprised. If I didn't know better, I would get from the experience here that I don't exist.
No, that's Lifegazer who says nobody exists except God. You're the one that says nothing exists but energy. Sometimes we get our woo-woos confused.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If it is not, then why did you introduce your subject on this forum? If you are not interested in what people think, you are simply trolling.
I wanted to see how the graph would stand against the best opposition. I don't care what people here personally think of me because they don't know me. How can their opinion count in that area? I am concerned about what they think of that graph, but only in what it lacks logically. Telling me that it is stupid does nothing, without taking examples from it and showing me where they are wrong.
The only thing that I heard here that had an impact on it is that science now thinks that the labels of negative and positive should be switched around. What I heard about there being 3 forces instead of 4.
That the 4 basics of math aren't the 4 basics of math.
That energy and matter are not different states of the same thing,
That stuff about the 2 genders and humans not being the most advanced, stuff like that, don't hold up.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, that's Lifegazer who says nobody exists except God. You're the one that says nothing exists but energy. Sometimes we get our woo-woos confused.
I am not saying that nothing exists but energy and you know that. That is another attempt at twisting what I say to make it appear wrong, and it is not worthy of logical people. I have written that "matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy" so much that even I am getting tired of hearing it. So I know that you know what I am talking about, you just need to appear not to.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

He wasn't talking to you!
Sorry.

[I less than three logic]

I wanted to see how the graph would stand against the best opposition. I don't care what people here personally think of me because they don't know me. How can their opinion count in that area? I am concerned about what they think of that graph, but only in what it lacks logically. Telling me that it is stupid does nothing, without taking examples from it and showing me where they are wrong.
The only thing that I heard here that had an impact on it is that science now thinks that the labels of negative and positive should be switched around. What I heard about there being 3 forces instead of 4.
That the 4 basics of math aren't the 4 basics of math.
That energy and matter are not different states of the same thing,
That stuff about the 2 genders and humans not being the most advanced, stuff like that, don't hold up.
Just what, exactly, to you think the Theory of Everything is attempting to explain? You claim to hold a piece of it.

As a side note, scientists should really stop adopting other’s criticisms as the name of their theories. It leads to all kinds of confusion with laymen. There is just as much confusion generated solely by the name of the TOE as the Big Bang Theory.

[RandFan]

I am concerned about what they think of that graph, but only in what it lacks logically. The graph is nonsensical. It does not advance any principle. It does not enlarge our understanding of the natural world. It is not grounded in logic and reason. It is silly and vacuous.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The problem is that LCL equates a link between two things as their being equal or even as one thing causing another. He believes that energy causes matter because energy and matter are linked.
I have already stated my position on that enough to be known.

He believes that the laws of physics are somehow a simpler form of social laws, apparantly because both use the word "law."
Not because of only that word. You all have the same method of twisting things to try and make it seem wrong. One guy quoted me as saying that I think the planet is a woman. And he knows I said not such thing. I said female, but he needed to hear woman. Matter has sought of a social system made up of particles.

And he believes that "not really" means "yes, I enthusiastically agree." He will see nothing in your answer except that one word.
That person said "not really" when asked whether or not matter and energy were to states of the same thing. I was trying to help when I said he meant yes. He was only avoiding saying it because he did not want to say that I was right.

[Belz...]

I wanted to see how the graph would stand against the best opposition.

It doesn't stand on its own, not to mention any opposition. The slighest breeze could topple it.

I am concerned about what they think of that graph, but only in what it lacks logically. Telling me that it is stupid does nothing, without taking examples from it and showing me where they are wrong.

No need. It is COMPLETELY wrong. Start over.

The only thing that I heard here that had an impact on it is that science now thinks that the labels of negative and positive should be switched around.

Which doesn't change a thing to science, unless you're trying to fit that graph of yours into anything. Switching negative and positive only affects YOUR hypothesis.

What I heard about there being 3 forces instead of 4.

Well, under some conditions there are.

That the 4 basics of math aren't the 4 basics of math.

Well, they aren't.

That energy and matter are not different states of the same thing,

Well, they aren't, exactly.

That stuff about the 2 genders and humans not being the most advanced, stuff like that, don't hold up.

Wow. 28 pages and over a thousand responses to your posts and nothing of that has seeped in ? You're well on your way to becoming the next Iacchus. Only you make more sense.

We've shown that some lifeforms, some of which have nothing to do with our "makeup", have no sex, and that "most advanced" depends on which standard you're using. That you can't grasp that is sad, especially since it was explained to you so succintly.

I am not saying that nothing exists but energy and you know that. That is another attempt at twisting what I say to make it appear wrong, and it is not worthy of logical people.

Neither is saying that people disagree with you because they don't want to.

[Belz...]

Matter has sought of a social system made up of particles.

Not by any definition of "social" that I know of.

That person said "not really" when asked whether or not matter and energy were to states of the same thing.

That was the best answer he could muster, and I agree with him.

I was trying to help when I said he meant yes.

No, you were trying to make him say something he didn't say. That's dishonest.

He was only avoiding saying it because he did not want to say that I was right.

You don't know that. You're speculating.

[TobiasTheViking]

ehm


Are you going to answer me?

Like.. ever?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You were wrong about ALL of them. That's why people pointed them out. The list you gave was created by you in order to make them seem ridiculous. That happens to be a very insulting way of conducting a debate, by the way.
Why didn't he say that? And the way that list was created is done to me all the time.


No, I don't. I you'd step out of your 4'x4' apartment, you'd realise that LOTS of people in the world are going to disagree with you on a number of subjects even though you think your opinion on those subjects is self-evident and obvious. Sometimes, what we take for granted isn't that simple; and sometimes there isn't a satisfactory answer.
I have found that out. Here humans are not considered he most advanced, but to everyone I ask outside of here they are.


Because it really ISN'T THAT SIMPLE.
Of course. Few things are. But Einstein said that "matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing," if he can say that, I sure can. What would you have me say?



So, you will "bow" to his explanation but you still maintain your opinion, contrary to what he said ? That's an amazing ability you have, there.
The brain does have energy workings. He said that himself.


I think the word you're looking for is "fear". It's okay. Most people fear what they don't understand, too. "Respect" is a synonym for fear, sometimes.
And this points out what you were saying earlier, that "things are not that simple." When you don't like something that I say, even though I said it simple enough, you "try" and use a more complex explaination to turn it into something else. Note the word "try," because I ain't having it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

ehm


Are you going to answer me?

Like.. ever?
I have. You didn't like it. I said I would again. Later. I posted several paragraphs why, I guess you didn't like that either. I will. But that answer/reply thing you got going is rather unique. It takes a unique approach.

[Cosmo]

I have found that out. Here humans are not considered he most advanced, but to everyone I ask outside of here they are.

Argument from popularity - you are quite simply wrong, LCL.

Of course. Few things are. But Einstein said that "matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing," if he can say that, I sure can. What would you have me say?

The key difference here is that Einstein knows what he meant when he said that, but you have no idea what Einstein means when he says that. You are quite simply wrong, LCL.

The brain does have energy workings. He said that himself.

See above. You are quite simply wrong, LCL.

And this points out what you were saying earlier, that "things are not that simple." When you don't like something that I say, even though I said it simple enough, you "try" and use a more complex explaination to turn it into something else. Note the word "try," because I ain't having it.

You are oversimplifying. Not everything can be so easily distilled into layman's terms. You are quite simply wrong, LCL.

[TobiasTheViking]

I have. You didn't like it. I said I would again. Later. I posted several paragraphs why, I guess you didn't like that either. I will. But that answer/reply thing you got going is rather unique. It takes a unique approach.

you keep saying that, where have you answered me?

Show me the post.. which post number was it.

Because i certainly haven't seen an answer for you.. Not even one i didn't like.

I have yet to see even one answer from you.

[Loss Leader]

matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy

Okay, how? How does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy? In what ways does matter look and behave like energy? In what ways does matter look and behave in a way dictated by energy?

What physical process causes matter to look and behave like (or in a way dictated by) energy? In exactly what manner did energy cause matter to form, to look and to behave how it does? What steps did energy take to do this?

How can we test that matter really looks and behaves like (or in a way dictated by) energy?

What would be a successful test? What test results would cause you to doubt your assertion?

[Belz...]

I have found that out. Here humans are not considered he most advanced, but to everyone I ask outside of here they are.

That's because "advanced" seems to mean "technologically". If you ask that question, of course people are going to say "yes". But if you say "higher" and then name some attributes like strength or agility or longevity or survivability or whatnot, they're going to say no. Only intelligence and the neat things it gave us can lead to a positive answer. If only ONE human attribute can be used to determine that we're "higher", it should tell you something about the whole.

As I've said before, in nature, the only thing that matters is survivability. So far, every species on this planet passes that test; and not one necessarily better than the others. That we can establish colonies on other planets to increase our chances of survival is cool, but it doesn't mean we're "better", just very, very ingenious.

Of course. Few things are. But Einstein said that "matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing," if he can say that, I sure can. What would you have me say?

I would have you simply try to understand exactly what he meant by that.

The brain does have energy workings. He said that himself.

Yes, it does. But that's not the SOURCE of the mind, rather the end result. Also, as someone said, it's a very SMALL amount of energy.

And this points out what you were saying earlier, that "things are not that simple." When you don't like something that I say, even though I said it simple enough, you "try" and use a more complex explaination to turn it into something else. Note the word "try," because I ain't having it.

Oh, so you think that the really complex concepts that you can't grasp are really, really simple but explained in really, really complicated ways because scientists don't want you to be right about the soul of life ?

I think a much more reasonable explanation is that you simply don't grasp those really complex concepts.

[Belz...]

Okay, how? How does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy? In what ways does matter look and behave like energy? In what ways does matter look and behave in a way dictated by energy?

And, more to the point, Light, if matter and energy are really one and the same, doesn't energy owe how it looks and behaves to matter ?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No. The functioning of the brain is what we call the mind. No byproduct. The brain is there to be the mind -- that is why it exists in the first place. The problem in thinking about all this arises from the way we use language to discuss these issues. We use words like "brain" and "mind" as nouns. Mind is not a noun, though. It should be a verb. The process we call mind is the brain functioning, just like the process we call "running" is the body functioning in a particular way.

And do you agree that the part of the brain that is responsible for language, also responsible for math, like Rand Fan has already stated?

Do you think there is a link between math and language?

There are two questions there. Is there a link between math and language? Yes. Is the same part of the brain responsible for math also responsible for language? That is much, much more complicated -- in large part because "math" is not one single thing.

There are several different language areas in the brain. The two biggies are Wernicke's and Broca's areas. Wernicke's is located in the posterior temporal lobe. It would be wrong to think that there is one area that "does" language, though. There are really several different pockets that serve language function. When we stimulate someone's brain to determine what areas are responsible for language as part of pre-surgical planning for epilepsy surgery, we find areas that are responsible for language next to areas that are not, in a sort of patchwork.

The classical "math area", responsible for arithmetic calculations is in the same general area, but not identical to the classic Wernicke's area. Calculation ability is localized, generally, to the area of the angular gyrus and can be disrupted by a small lesion creating a syndrome known as Gerstmann's syndrome -- which involves loss of calculation ability, the ability to determine finger types (finger agnosia), right-left confusion, and dysgraphia (writing difficulty).

But "math" is a much wider concept than just calculation ability, so I would have to agree that there is large overlap between language and math in terms of localization (this is due, in part, to the fact that they use some of the same functions, such as symbol manipulation). They do not precisely map onto the exact same areas, though.
Thank you very much.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That damn Molly Bloom has me in her spell.:)
You would not have said anything different no matter where I stood in reference to the questions I asked-would you?

[bruto]

I wanted to see how the graph would stand against the best opposition. I don't care what people here personally think of me because they don't know me. How can their opinion count in that area? I am concerned about what they think of that graph, but only in what it lacks logically. Telling me that it is stupid does nothing, without taking examples from it and showing me where they are wrong.
The only thing that I heard here that had an impact on it is that science now thinks that the labels of negative and positive should be switched around. What I heard about there being 3 forces instead of 4.
That the 4 basics of math aren't the 4 basics of math.
That energy and matter are not different states of the same thing,
That stuff about the 2 genders and humans not being the most advanced, stuff like that, don't hold up.

You've gotten that. You have been told over and over what the graph and your arguments lack logically, but have chosen to deny that the logical faults, false premises, misunderstandings and hidden assumptions that have been pointed out are actually faults, or that they matter. When presented with specific and particular logical errors you either ignore them or shuck them off as unimportant. You've even gone so far as to contend that specific logical errors that have been pointed out are logical by definition!

If you want specific logical criticism, you can start with my reiteration that your argument for intelligent design of the universe, like many of your other assertions, is missing a premise. A suppressed premise is a logical error unless the premise is self-evident or contained in the defnition of the matter being discussed. In either case, the premise exists and can be brought out as needed, and is suppressed only as a matter of style. If the suppressed premise hides an unsupported assumption it is fallacious. Despite your contention, assumption is not a logical operation. When you said that you were quite simply incorrect, and revealed a fundamental lack of appreciation for rational argument, as well as demonstrating that you are at least disingenuous, if not downright hypocritical, in contending that you are actually interested in constructive criticism of your logic.

So, here it goes again: you cannot logically argue that the appearance of order in the universe implies a designer without a second premise. There must be a second premise whereby you convincingly establish as a fact that order, real or apparent, can only come about through the action of a designer. Without that second premise, your argument is not an argument. It is an assertion of faith. Nobody on earth so far has come up with that second premise convincingly enough to consider the problem anything but one of everlasting controversy. If you do come up with it, then I hope you have your tuxedo pressed, so that you will look presentable when you receive your Nobel prize.

[bruto]

You would not have said anything different no matter where I stood in reference to the questions I asked-would you?

That little reference flew so high over your head you'd need binoculars!

[Ichneumonwasp]

You would not have said anything different no matter where I stood in reference to the questions I asked-would you?

No.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And, more to the point, Light, if matter and energy are really one and the same, doesn't energy owe how it looks and behaves to matter ?
You all would not have allowed me to say that all this time if it was wrong. So why is it being questioned now? I appears to me that even if you know something that I am saying is correct, you treat it as if it is not. Give me the it is not that simple reply. That is why I got the "not really" response earlier.
To reply to your question, energy came first, and it holds matter together.

[Tricky]

You all would not have allowed me to say that all this time if it was wrong.
Don't flatter yourself. This forum lets anybody stay as long as they don't violate forum rules. You can say whatever you like if you stay in the boudaries of legality and decency.

So why is it being questioned now? I appears to me that even if you know something that I am saying is correct, you treat it as if it is not.
Everything you have said from the very beginning has been questioned. I could count the things you've gotten correct on one hand.

Give me the it is not that simple reply. That is why I got the "not really" response earlier. Why? You would just ignore it as you have done since the moment you arrived. You've never shown the slightest interest in learning why you were wrong, even though many have tried to enlighten you.

To reply to your question, energy came first, and it holds matter together.
Energy came first? Do you have any evidence for that whatsoever, or is this another one of your "facts" that you've extracted from your rectal orifice.

If it is so simple for energy to become matter, then why don't you tell me two ways this can happen. The first is easy.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That little reference flew so high over your head you'd need binoculars!
Why do you say that?
Why didn't you tell me what it was?
Is there workings here that are not for me to know?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Don't flatter yourself. This forum lets anybody stay as long as they don't violate forum rules. You can say whatever you like if you stay in the boudaries of legality and decency.
I was not talking about behavior. I was talking about what I said. You all would not let me get away with saying something wrong that long.


Everything you have said from the very beginning has been questioned. I could count the things you've gotten correct on one hand.
It would be better if you showed me. That way I can deal with what you are saying.


Why? You would just ignore it as you have done since the moment you arrived. You've never shown the slightest interest in learning why you were wrong, even though many have tried to enlighten you.
I am interested in nothing but why I am wrong. I kepp telling you all to tell me.

Energy came first? Do you have any evidence for that whatsoever, or is this another one of your "facts" that you've extracted from your rectal orifice.
I did not get it from there. I don't need to present evidence for that. You know it to be true. That has been sought of may problem. I present as if you know what I am talking about. I am right. You do understand, but I was wrong in thinking that you all would freely, unbiasely say what you know. What I have found instead is, if you think something would aid me in the slightest, and you know it is right, you will not say. If I don't say it, that is my fault.
I agree that I cannot use your knowledge as a short cut to gathering information. But you are not giving me something if I say something like "matter and energy are different forms of the same thing." If it is right, it is. You are not require to help me, but I don't think that you tasked to impede me. At least not under the banner of science. Ideas that are way out of whack can't hurt science, but others may help.
I also understand that these are not normal times. Science, or at least those under its banner, are afraid of certain ideas. Namely anything that can be used by religion.
If it is so simple for energy to become matter, then why don't you tell me two ways this can happen. The first is easy.[/quote]

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No.
Anything else would cheapen the information, and the person delivering it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You've gotten that. You have been told over and over what the graph and your arguments lack logically, but have chosen to deny that the logical faults, false premises, misunderstandings and hidden assumptions that have been pointed out are actually faults, or that they matter. When presented with specific and particular logical errors you either ignore them or shuck them off as unimportant. You've even gone so far as to contend that specific logical errors that have been pointed out are logical by definition!
You see all you put here? It contains not examples. Saying all gives me nothing. Even if it were all, I would have to start somewhere.

If you want specific logical criticism, you can start with my reiteration that your argument for intelligent design of the universe, like many of your other assertions, is missing a premise. A suppressed premise is a logical error unless the premise is self-evident or contained in the defnition of the matter being discussed. In either case, the premise exists and can be brought out as needed, and is suppressed only as a matter of style. If the suppressed premise hides an unsupported assumption it is fallacious. Despite your contention, assumption is not a logical operation. When you said that you were quite simply incorrect, and revealed a fundamental lack of appreciation for rational argument, as well as demonstrating that you are at least disingenuous, if not downright hypocritical, in contending that you are actually interested in constructive criticism of your logic.
Are you asking me why make a design in the first place?
Or are you asking me why assume a designer because I see a design?
If the second, why not assume a design. Science is expecting to be able to interpret a message from other world intelligence by how it is logically presented. It expects to see order, and that will be enough for it to assume or look ing the direction of an orderer.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And, more to the point, Light, if matter and energy are really one and the same, doesn't energy owe how it looks and behaves to matter ?
You are saying that as if the idea is just my idea. You know certain things are true. If you want to act like they are not your are wrong in many ways. But you also weaken your own position to the point where someone of less knowledge can make you look dumb. Let me tell you something, but I don't believe that you will be able to hear.

You see. We see each other about the same way. That the other is not open to anything new. You have an advantage in the fact that you have people to suppost you, but is it not really as much of an advantage as you might think. When one makes a point, the others flock to support it. To me that only puts you all in the same corner. Close enough to be caught in the same net.

You are like highly capable jet fighters. Unmatched in your element. But you allow yourself to come down so low that any one who can throw straight can knock you out of the sky. I don't understand why you would do that. But it seems that what you have to defend seems worth the effort. And that can only be ego. I feel bad about luring you so low. But it is not me. You come so low that lower is the next step. Then I hit you with a google rock.
Under normal conditions, that would not be that bad. But I really do think I got something here. I very well may be delusional. But I am willing to take it to the next step. If I am wrong, I am going to make sure that a lot more people than are here know about it. That way I can serve the purpose of making sure that everyone knows that I am a fool. Because I truely don't think that I am. But I am wrong, I hope that will make it plain to me. If I am not, it will be you. Make sure you know what you are talking about.

[Loss Leader]

LCL, I asked you who you would believe that you were making an error. You answered:

You. All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

Let's test out your willingness to change your mind when presented with reasons. You just wrote:

Or are you asking me why assume a designer because I see a design? If the second, why not assume a design.

There are good reasons why we should not assume that the universe was designed. We should never assume anything. Scientists do not ever make any assumptions. Instead, the scientific method generally involves:

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish results

You will notice that making assumptions is nowhere in the list above. Scientists do, actually, make assumptions but they do it when they form a hypothesis. When they test the hypothesis, they test the assumptions. Scientists assumed that all combustable materials contained phlogiston which burned up and left the remaining material lighter than before. They burned stuff, weighed it and were satisfied until they burned iron. Iron weighed more after it was burned. Nothing about iron should add phlogiston during burning especially when all other materials lost it; so scientists concluded that their assumptions about phlogiston were wrong.

If you state that scientists make assumptions which they then do not immediately test, you are wrong.

Now, if you wish to ask us to believe that the universe was purposefully designed, you must create a test that demonstrates it. You would, however, be the first person ever to do so. There are some very dedicated men and women in the ID movement working on nothing but this problem all day every day and they have so far come up with nothing. If it cannot be tested, it cannot be assumed.

Scientists did not come to this way of thinking by accident. Logic dictates that nothing can be assumed. Consider the following example regarding the existence of Cowboys.

A. If there are Indians, there must be Cowboys.
B. Assume there are Indians.
C. Therefore, there are Cowboys.

Note that, if A is true, B gives us no choice but to believe in Cowboys. We nevcer looked for Indians; we don't know if any are around. But this argument doesn't even let us ask about Indians. It shuts off all debate on the topic. Is this an Indian, is it an Eskimo, is it a guy pretending to be an Indian ... we don't know. We were never allowed to ask. This is why assumptions cannot be made - they force us to accept conclusions without evidence.

Those are the concrete reasons I believe you are wrong for asking us to assume a design to the universe. How do you respond?

[RandFan]

There are good reasons why we should not assume that the universe was designed. We should never assume anything. Scientists do not ever make any assumptions. Instead, the scientific method generally involves:

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
Publish results

You will notice that making assumptions is nowhere in the list above. Scientists do, actually, make assumptions but they do it when they form a hypothesis. When they test the hypothesis, they test the assumptions. Scientists assumed that all combustable materials contained phlogiston which burned up and left the remaining material lighter than before. They burned stuff, weighed it and were satisfied until they burned iron. Iron weighed more after it was burned. Nothing about iron should add phlogiston during burning especially when all other materials lost it; so scientists concluded that their assumptions about phlogiston were wrong.

If you state that scientists make assumptions which they then do not immediately test, you are wrong.

Now, if you wish to ask us to believe that the universe was purposefully designed, you must create a test that demonstrates it. You would, however, be the first person ever to do so. There are some very dedicated men and women in the ID movement working on nothing but this problem all day every day and they have so far come up with nothing. If it cannot be tested, it cannot be assumed.

Scientists did not come to this way of thinking by accident. Logic dictates that nothing can be assumed. Consider the following example regarding the existence of Cowboys.

A. If there are Indians, there must be Cowboys.
B. Assume there are Indians.
C. Therefore, there are Cowboys.

Note that, if A is true, B gives us no choice but to believe in Cowboys. We nevcer looked for Indians; we don't know if any are around. But this argument doesn't even let us ask about Indians. It shuts off all debate on the topic. Is this an Indian, is it an Eskimo, is it a guy pretending to be an Indian ... we don't know. We were never allowed to ask. This is why assumptions cannot be made - they force us to accept conclusions without evidence.

Those are the concrete reasons I believe you are wrong for asking us to assume a design to the universe. How do you respond? LCL, this is one of the best explanations of the scientific method that you will likely find. It's simple and clear. I encourage you to think about what is being said. There is a whole world of discovery to be gained by understanding the information conveyed in this post.

Don't start with assumptions that you are right. Question those assumptions and find ways to test them even if that means finding others to help you test them. There are a lot of people here who would be happy to help you. Bear in mind though that not all assumptions can be easily tested.

I've come here to this forum and also the science forum many times asking questions. I'm always amazed at the insights I gain. There really are some remarkable people here and I'm really not one of them but I would gladly help where I can and what little I can.

I look forward to your response to Loss Leader

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That's because "advanced" seems to mean "technologically". If you ask that question, of course people are going to say "yes". But if you say "higher" and then name some attributes like strength or agility or longevity or survivability or whatnot, they're going to say no. Only intelligence and the neat things it gave us can lead to a positive answer. If only ONE human attribute can be used to determine that we're "higher", it should tell you something about the whole.
You have to be kidding? Intelligence is the key to it all. I don't have to be as strong as an elephant if I got a tank. Something built from human intelligence. Racecars got the fastest beat. And they are some of the slower things the mind of humans has come up with. With machines built from intelligence the bacteria threat is known, and in some places countered. The solar system is even within reach.

All animals have some intelligence, but it is in fact the ultimate weapon for humans. Did I say ultimate? As many here have pointed out, it depends on what you are measuring. What if the goal was to live through it all? Sharks and others have seen the dinosaurs come and go. The passing of humans, (if we are dumb enough to let ourselves pass) would be a brink of the eye to them.

I know about the things that others are saying about other forms of life. Without some of them we would not exist. But being fragile is a byproduct of being capable. Can you imagine some other creature claiming/fighting to hide the fact that humans were ever here, because of the quickness of our passing? All because they were more able to destory themselves, than they were to live together?

Really. I am not missing anything. But I think, that consicousness, and the ability to destory yourself, is what it is all about. The ultimate challenge? Don't do it!
We can't blame nature, a rock from space, or now, even the death of the sun. (Given enough time) Here is the stakes, here is something to make it very important, very fragile-find a way not to do it. Now! We got nowhere near the time that some of those that-I consider-lower forms of life have. Maybe they were smart enough to past on developing for themselves, the ultimate weapon.

[wollery]

Anthropocentrism rules okay! :p

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Your second ad hominem attack in as many replies to me. You need to learn to debate without resorting to logical fallacies.
Here is another period of truth. I have no idea what ad hominem means. Even aften all these pages. I know it must be bad..but. But I now how to respond to questions, at least the ones dealing with what I am talking about. And I see none here.

[Cosmo]

Here is another period of truth. I have no idea what ad hominem means. Even aften all these pages. I know it must be bad..but.

More deliberate, knowing, willful ignorance. The fact that you haven't checked wikipedia - or even googled - speaks volumes about you. Shameful.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

you keep saying that, where have you answered me?

Show me the post.. which post number was it.

Because i certainly haven't seen an answer for you.. Not even one I didn't like.

I have yet to see even one answer from you.
You have to be kidding? Oh wait. you are doing that answer/reply thing. You said I have not answered you once. Will you be kind enough to tell me how many times I replied to you? I think we can establish what is happening between us thru there.
I told you that I understood what was happenning. And I said that I had to develop something special to deal with it. I said I would, and I will. Now. I need for you to check how many times I replied to you. I know by the way I said that, that you can't. But when I finally do, it will show that you are full of it. You trapped yourself no matter what you do.I said I looked back and saw that you had a reason for how you might be saying that at first. I told you what I thought was happenning, and told you what I intended to do about it. Later I told you that I "was now" ignoring you. It is all there. And when I have the time, and learn how to to move previous posts, I will deal with you. It will only be icing on the cake when I am able to answer the questions you asked-the best I possibly can-but you have it coming.

[bruto]

You see all you put here? It contains not examples. Saying all gives me nothing. Even if it were all, I would have to start somewhere. I am not going to reread and repost all that has gone before. I and others have pointed out specific examples of errors and unsupported assumptions. In a previous post I addressed the first sentences of your first post on this thread with specific comments. I have just provided another response to another of your posts pointing to a specific instance of a specific missing premise. How much more specific can it be?

Are you asking me why make a design in the first place? No, Of course not. You miss the point. Start again. I am saying that if you infer a designer from the appearance of design, you must provide a link between the two if you are to make any claim of logical argument.
Or are you asking me why assume a designer because I see a design?You're getting warmer. You're almost there! I am not quite asking why you should assume or infer the designer. I am asking you to provide a convincing argument that demonstrates why I or anybody else should believe your assumption. A convincing link between the appearance of design and the necessity of a designer. You can arrive at your ideas any way you like. You can get your truth from cold logic, holy books, or the whispering of a little bird, and it can still be true. But you cannot argue it thus. for that you need sound logic. If you cannot provide such an argument you're just opining. You may be right or wrong in your opinion, but an opinion is all it is. Your inference from a single premise is logically incomplete.
If the second, why not assume a design. If the only answer is "why not?" then you are speculating on a matter of belief or faith. You are not presenting an argument. Once again, I stress that your speculation may or may not be right, but your argument is illogical, and entirely open to question. Science is expecting to be able to interpret a message from other world intelligence by how it is logically presented. It expects to see order, and that will be enough for it to assume or look ing the direction of an orderer. It is a serious mistake to equate the means by which an inference is arrived at and the means by which it is proven. Please reread that sentence carefully, and try to comprehend what it means, because I believe you have a real problem here, and you have voiced it before, when you noted that scientists occasionally make accidental discoveries and seemed to suggest that this excuses them from strict logic. So once again: the means by which an inference is arrived at are NOT the means by which it is proven, disproven, tested or argued. It is likely true, as you say in your own muddled way, when searching for intelligent life in the universe, scientists will almost certainly be looking for signs of order as a cue for further investigation. It is reasonable to do so. However, the signs of order thus found, if found, will prove nothing at all! It will then be up to whoever homes in on that apparently ordered information to prove, using premises other than the simple appearance of order, that what they have found is meaningful and comes from intelligent beings rather than from a natural source of apparent order. Do not confuse the source of the knowledge with the proof of it.

Once again, if you manage to glean nothing else from this exchange, please try to understand this most basic and important principle of distinction between discovery and justification. While it is often very interesting and revealing to know how an idea comes about in the first place, this is entirely a different question from the question "why should we believe that it is true?" Einstein arrived at some of his greatest insights through thought and mathematical processes, but they were confirmed by experimental evidence, not by their mathematical elegance. The mathematician Ramanujan said that a goddess gave him mathematical formulas in his dreams. But when he woke up, he did not ask the goddess for help. He proved them mathematically.

I've been away from home the last week, posting from an intermittent dialup connection, and without access to my own library. Now that I'm home, I will add this little passage, with apologies to those other than LCL to whom it will likely seem quite elementary and obvious:

You will perceive, on examination, that what is called a 'conclusion,' - that is, a Proposition proved by Argument, - is drawn in reality, from two other Propositions. And these are called its 'Premises;' from their being (in natural order) 'premised,' or put before it.

At first sight, indeed, some might suppose that a Conclusion may follow from one premise alone. For it happens oftener than not, that only one is expressed. But in this case there is always another Premise understood, and which is suppressed from its being supposed to be fully admitted.

That this is the case, may easily be made evident, by supposing that suppressed Premise to be denied; which will at once destroy the force of the argument. For instance if any one, from perceiving that 'the World exhibits marks of design,' infers [or concludes] that 'it had an intelligent Maker,' he will easily perceive that he had in his mind another Premise also; namely, that 'whatever exhibits marks of design, had an intelligent Maker:' since if this last proposition were denied, the other would prove nothing. ...[a long and verbose passage follows with examples of single premise arguments that are valid when the second premise is contained within the definition of the first - e.g. if man is defined as "rational," then one can say from the single premise, because X is a man, he is rational.]...

It is to be observed, that, when an argument, stated in this last form, is met by opponents, their objection will sometimes lie against the assertion itself, that is made; sometimes against its force as an argument. they will say either 'I deny what you assume,' or 'I admit, indeed, what you say, but I deny that it proves your conclusion.' For instance, in the example above, an atheist may be conceived either denying that the World does exhibit marks of design, or again, denying that it follows from thence that it must have had an intelligent Maker.

Now, you are to observe, that these are not, in reality, objections of different kinds. The only difference is, that, in the one case, the expressed Premise is denied; in the other, the suppressed Premise. For the force as an argument, of either Premise, depends on the other Premise. If either be denied, the other proves nothing. If both be admitted, the conclusion regularly drawn from them, must be admitted. (from Easy Lessons on Reasoning, by Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 1868)


Here's another slightly more modern reference:

Logical analysis of discourse involves three preliminary steps...

1. Arguments must be recognized; in particluar, unsupported statements must be distinguished from conclusions of arguments.
2. When an argument has been found, the premises and conclusions must be identified.
3. If the argument is incomplete, the missing premises must be supplied.(Logic, by Wesley C Salmon, 1963. - The above book is part of a series published by Prentice Hall in paperback called "Foundations of Philosophy." It is a very handy elementary text on logic and how it is used, without going into the algebraic technicalities of symbolic logic, and if you can find a copy, LCL, it would be a useful tool.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

More deliberate, knowing, willful ignorance. The fact that you haven't checked wikipedia - or even googled - speaks volumes about you. Shameful.
I don't believe that anyone would fall for such a thing. And so fast. You have to know that if you are so eager to snap up bait like that, you must be pretty hungry for something to poke me with. You have already seen that I am willing to use google. And what it has done to those who play dumb. Because there is no way I believe that they did not know the answer already to what I googled. But then again, you did fall for this.

If you had a clue, you would see that I take care to say that you all are smart. I don't have to pretend, because I really believe that about most of you. You ever seen anything like that? Here you are calling me seven shades of ignorant, and I am calling you smart. Even though you are telling me that I am wrong about everything.

But I am starting to worry.

You see, I need for you to be smart. Unlike you, I would not be talking this long to an idiot. And if I were. There is no way I would be doing as badly as some of you are. I just simply would not risk my ego standing behind something that is not right, or talking to someone playing dumb. You see what happened to that "baby guy." I will answer him though. I find his kind fun. Once I quiet the rest of this house, he will get his chance center stage.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I am not going to reread and repost all that has gone before. I and others have pointed out specific examples of errors and unsupported assumptions. In a previous post I addressed the first sentences of your first post on this thread with specific comments. I have just provided another response to another of your posts pointing to a specific instance of a specific missing premise. How much more specific can it be?
That premise is far from the graph. My main point.


No, Of course not. You miss the point. Start again. I am saying that if you infer a designer from the appearance of design, you must provide a link between the two if you are to make any claim of logical argument.
I am saying that the link is in the characteristics of the energies involved. I provided a site that says that.

It says that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy. And that energy is the soul of life. That "conscious energy" is the goal of the drama.

It is a serious mistake to equate the means by which an inference is arrived at and the means by which it is proven. Please reread that sentence carefully, and try to comprehend what it means, because I believe you have a real problem here, and you have voiced it before, when you noted that scientists occasionally make accidental discoveries and seemed to suggest that this excuses them from strict logic. So once again: the means by which an inference is arrived at are NOT the means by which it is proven, disproven, tested or argued. It is likely true, as you say in your own muddled way, when searching for intelligent life in the universe, scientists will almost certainly be looking for signs of order as a cue for further investigation. It is reasonable to do so. However, the signs of order thus found, if found, will prove nothing at all! It will then be up to whoever homes in on that apparently ordered information to prove, using premises other than the simple appearance of order, that what they have found is meaningful and comes from intelligent beings rather than from a natural source of apparent order. Do not confuse the source of the knowledge with the proof of it.
You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like that stuff that law does with stuff. Someone comes in, "hey I think I found this." and the system gives you all these forms to fill out. How can the forms be more complex then what you found? It could not possible always been like that. When Bell spilled acid, did Watson come in with the forms? Did they even know why the thing that they made worked? I just heard that gravity is still a theory, but I am sure that everyone agrees that it works. I think about the same thing can be said for the soul. Oh wait. I don't have the forms filled out.

Look at this stuff this guy got?

Once again, if you manage to glean nothing else from this exchange, please try to understand this most basic and important principle of distinction between discovery and justification. While it is often very interesting and revealing to know how an idea comes about in the first place, this is entirely a different question from the question "why should we believe that it is true?" Einstein arrived at some of his greatest insights through thought and mathematical processes, but they were confirmed by experimental evidence, not by their mathematical elegance. The mathematician Ramanujan said that a goddess gave him mathematical formulas in his dreams. But when he woke up, he did not ask the goddess for help. He proved them mathematically.

I've been away from home the last week, posting from an intermittent dialup connection, and without access to my own library. Now that I'm home, I will add this little passage, with apologies to those other than LCL to whom it will likely seem quite elementary and obvious:



Here's another slightly more modern reference:

The above book is part of a series published by Prentice Hall in paperback called "Foundations of Philosophy." It is a very handy elementary text on logic and how it is used, without going into the algebraic technicalities of symbolic logic, and if you can find a copy, LCL, it would be a useful tool. That stuff makes me afraid to have a thought. Can you imagine thinking all your life and someone calculating that "that they think" you have not been? How on earth have people been understanding me for the past 46 years? Oh my Gawd! Are you telling me they haven't been?
Oh wait. I have been talking on forums like this for a year now. Knowing none of what you stated above. And I can tell you honestly I have no intention of going anywhere near any of it. But how much of it do I need to asked the question: Do you believe that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy?

[RandFan]

That stuff makes me afraid to have a thought. Can you imagine thinking all your life and someone calculating that "that they think" you have not been? How on earth have people been understanding me for the past 46 years? Oh my Gawd! Are you telling me they haven't been?

Oh wait. I have been talking on forums like this for a year now. Knowing none of what you stated above. And I can tell you honestly I have no intention of going anywhere near any of it. But how much of it do I need to asked the question: Do you believe that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy?Willful ignorance. Your post demonstrates a profound ignorance. No, you don't need to know philosophy or understand logic to get through life. Not knowing philosophy and logic makes you a child when you come here and ask stupid questions.

Ask your question. It won't advance any argument or enlarge our understanding of the natural world.

Assuming the answer is Yes, so what?
Assuming the answer is No, so what?

Assuming you hit on some great and grand principle you couldn't even formulate an argument to justify it. You don't even have a rudimentary understanding.

[TobiasTheViking]

You have to be kidding?
No

Oh wait. you are doing that answer/reply thing.
Yes, what is wrong with that?

You said I have not answered you once.
And you haven't.

Will you be kind enough to tell me how many times I replied to you?
What would that serve?

I think we can establish what is happening between us thru there.
We can? could you please tell me, because i have no idea.

I told you that I understood what was happenning.
What is happening?

And I said that I had to develop something special to deal with it.
So you make claims, and you can't back them up. You know, if you just said "i don't know, maybe i am wrong, ok, i'll look into it and see if i am correct or not" then i could accept you delaying. But when you say "i'll deal with you later, i'm right, i'm right, i'm right" i see no reason to give you any time to delay.

I said I would, and I will.
You have postponed it for over 1000 posts.. how much more time do you neeD?

Now. I need for you to check how many times I replied to you.
Why?

I know by the way I said that, that you can't.
Why can't i?

But when I finally do, it will show that you are full of it.
When you finally do what? and i am full of what?

You trapped yourself no matter what you do.
I have trapped myself how?

I said I looked back and saw that you had a reason for how you might be saying that at first.
What does that mean? "had a reason for how you might be saying that at first" does that even mean anything?

What does it mean?


I told you what I thought was happenning, and told you what I intended to do about it.
And what are you gonna do about it? instead of screaming "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT, I CAN'T HEAR YOU I'M RIGHT" and not answering.

Later I told you that I "was now" ignoring you.
You were ignoring me from the start.

It is all there. And when I have the time, and learn how to to move previous posts, I will deal with you.
what do you mean "move previous posts"?

Deal with me how?

It will only be icing on the cake when I am able to answer the questions you asked-the best I possibly can-but you have it coming.
Well, i look forward to when you will answer my questions. When will you answer my questions?

[zizzybaluba]

I'm currently reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins; last night, I got a chuckle out of the beginning of chapter 8, because of how it reminded me of LCL:

The human mind is an inveterate analogizer. We are compulsively drawn to see meaning in slight similarities between very different processes. {list of various analogies skipped} Sometimes such analogies can be immensely fruitful, but it is easy to push analogies too far, and get overexcited by analogies to are so tenuous as to be unhelpful or even downright harmful. I have become accustomed to receiving my share of crank mail, and have learned that one of the hallmarks of futile crankiness is overenthusiastic analogizing.

[zizzybaluba]

Here is another period of truth. I have no idea what ad hominem means. Even aften all these pages. I know it must be bad..but. But I now how to respond to questions, at least the ones dealing with what I am talking about. And I see none here.

From your beloved wikipedia:
Ad hominem An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

[bruto]

That premise is far from the graph. My main point.


I am saying that the link is in the characteristics of the energies involved. I provided a site that says that.

It says that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy. And that energy is the soul of life. That "conscious energy" is the goal of the drama.

[B] You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like that stuff that law does with stuff. Someone comes in, "hey I think I found this." and the system gives you all these forms to fill out. How can the forms be more complex then what you found? It could not possible always been like that. When Bell spilled acid, did Watson come in with the forms? Did they even know why the thing that they made worked? I just heard that gravity is still a theory, but I am sure that everyone agrees that it works. I think about the same thing can be said for the soul. Oh wait. I don't have the forms filled out.

Look at this stuff this guy got?

That stuff makes me afraid to have a thought. Can you imagine thinking all your life and someone calculating that "that they think" you have not been? How on earth have people been understanding me for the past 46 years? Oh my Gawd! Are you telling me they haven't been?
Oh wait. I have been talking on forums like this for a year now. Knowing none of what you stated above. And I can tell you honestly I have no intention of going anywhere near any of it. But how much of it do I need to asked the question: Do you believe that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy?

I see you are honing and perfecting the manifesto of wilful ignorance, even to the point of obviously and outspokenly missing the one important point I stressed above, repeated, and suggested you take the extra time to understand. But more than that you have shown either dishonesty or a really worrisome psychological dissociation: you have, numerous times, asserted that your thought and argument are logical, while simultaneously declaring with arrogant defiance that you have no knowledge of the most basic, introductory, kindergarten-level principles of logic, and no intention ever of learning or understanding them. Many of us have gaps in our knowledge and make mistakes, but few of us parade them with such oblivious pride.

I've been careful to address the "internet persona" that you put forth here, and your arguments themselves, rather than speculate on who or what you are when you're home, and I do not wish to up the ad hominem content of this thread, but I must observe that I have a few times in my life had discourse with people whose style resembles yours. One was schizophrenic, and another was an alcoholic at the point of delerium tremens.

To the last sentence I will reiterate one last time:

1. All you are stating is belief. Without coherent argument that is all it will ever be.

2. Without useful definitions the statement is nonsense. Most of what you say is nonsense.

3. If as you so simplistically state, matter and energy are the same thing, then the statement is a tautology: inherently true but useless because it is devoid of information beyond the definitions of the terms used. A circle owes how it looks and behaves to its circularity. This statement is both true and useless.

[Loss Leader]

When I asked you whom you would believe that you were making mistakes, you wrote:

You. All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

Since that time, I wrote you a very long post laying out exactly what logical error you had made and giving you examples. Bruto also wrote you an excellent post. You ignored me completely.

Bruto wrote that you were confusing how scientists thought of ideas with how they prove them. He wrote that the theorizing and discovery phase can be quite messy, even accidental, but the testing and proving phase required rigor, repeatability and falsifiability. Instead of thanking Bruto for logically presenting why you were wrong, you dismissed him completely by writing:

It could not possible always been like that.

You have no authority for your answer. You simply do not know that to be true. Even if it were true that in the past people were less rigorous about their methodologies, that does not mean that they were correct. Where there has been sloppy science, there has been poor progress.

As an example, consider ancient Greece. Human vivisection was considered immoral in that society - autopsies could not be done. As a result, there was almost no way to determine how the human body worked or what was inside. This led to a whole lot of guesses - that health is the product of the balance of the four humors, that the purpose of the brian is to cool the blood, etc. Without testing, they were just guesses, though. And they were all completely wrong. Imagine how advanced we would be now if the Greeks had allowed the human body to be carefully studied.

The example you cite shows how widely off the mark you are:

When Bell spilled acid, did Watson come in with the forms? Did they even know why the thing that they made worked?

Once again, the answer is that the discovery phase can be full of guesses. However, Bell tested his guesses. He did not think up an idea for a telephone and publish plans for it, saying he thought it would work. He tested his designs. When something didn't work, he tried to figure out why. He changed his ideas, built something else and tested that. He did it relentlessly and eventually he created a phone that worked.

You, on the other hand, have just thought up some stuff and said you believe it will work. You have not tested it or refined it in any way.

You make another mistake:

I just heard that gravity is still a theory, but I am sure that everyone agrees that it works.

Actually, theories of gravitation are tested and refined all the time. Galileo and his students arived at the theory and tested it as best they could. When NASA calculates how much fuel a rocket needs to make it into space, they are theorizing about gravity; when they launch the rocket, they are testing their theories. And just recently physicists used gravitational lensing to see farther than has ever been seen before. They thought gravity would act as a magnifying glass, they tried it and it worked.

Every time you drop a pencil, you are testing the theory of gravity and having it proven to you.

Nobody simply assumes that it works.

I think about the same thing can be said for the soul.

No, it can't and you should see why. You haven't tested it. You haven't devised a test that the soul would pass but everything else would fail. Bell did it when he built a working phone; NASA did it when the rocket made it into space. But you have not done it. That is why your statement is false.

Now, you said you wanted logical explanations of exactly how you were wrong. I've done my best. Last time you ignored me. How will you respond now?

[Tricky]

From your beloved wikipedia:
Ad hominem An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.
It is indeed a logical fallacy. Just because a person says idiotic things in their "arguments" does not prove that the person is an idiot. But it is a good piece of evidence.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
Damon Runyon

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It is indeed a logical fallacy. Just because a person says idiotic things in their "arguments" does not prove that the person is an idiot. But it is a good piece of evidence.
That thing said that you calling me an idiot was a one of those things.
And I don't personally be attacking people as part of my game plan. I do it in response, and quickly move away from it.
Thanks for getting it for me. I didn't get it myself because I did not think I needed it. I can't even pronounce it, so I know I won't be using it. I don't get the whole latin thing anyway. We are speaking english here.

[Tricky]

That thing said that you calling me an idiot was a one of those things.
And I don't personally be attacking people as part of my game plan. I do it in response, and quickly move away from it.
Thanks for getting it for me. I didn't get it myself because I did not think I needed it. I can't even pronounce it, so I know I won't be using it. I don't get the whole latin thing anyway. We are speaking english here.
Au contraire. I was saying it did not prove you were an idiot.

[I less than three logic]

Au contraire.
English only please. :D

See:
We are speaking english here.

[Tricky]

English only please. :D

See:
Does gibberish count as English?

[I less than three logic]

Does gibberish count as English?
Is that a trick question? I don't think you'd be very hard pressed to find plenty of people who would agree that English is gibberish. ;)

[Tricky]

Is that a trick question? I don't think you'd be very hard pressed to find plenty of people who would agree that English is gibberish. ;)
I'm not talking about that British crap where some bloke is knackered because he had to spend a fortnight in the car park under the bonnet of his lorry.

I'm talking 'bout 'Merican English.

[bruto]

With regard to styles of argument and fallacy, I'm sure it is an accidental irony, but amusing nonetheless, that this thread's originator designated himself "lightcreatedlife@hom."

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Since that time, I wrote you a very long post laying out exactly what logical error you had made and giving you examples. Bruto also wrote you an excellent post. You ignored me completely.
What is it with this ignoring thing that some of you got going for yourself? I have a lot to do. You see how large the thread is. And look at all that you wrote here? On the one hand you talk about logic, but you seem unable to uniderstand my position.

Bruto wrote that you were confusing how scientists thought of ideas with how they prove them. He wrote that the theorizing and discovery phase can be quite messy, even accidental, but the testing and proving phase required rigor, repeatability and falsifiability. Instead of thanking Bruto for logically presenting why you were wrong, you dismissed him completely by writing:

I have been missing the point here recently. When I saw that stuff about logic, and what is posted above, I wrote it off as a dodge because I saw no direct questions about the graph itself. But what I think you are saying is because it is wrong period, because it is not repeatable and testable.
But I hope that you can understand why I thought the way I did, because none of this was mentioned in the beginning. The questions were hot and heavy. Only now has all this other stuff come up. What took you so long?
But okay. Lets go with what you are now saying. I am no scientist, but I do wonder, study and theorize. Like I am sure a lot of people do.
Looking for the soul and a possible source of creation I profiled the basic forces and found that they connect. If science defined them right, they fit exactly where they are suppose to be. And why wouldn't science have defined them right?
What I here now is. "Hey. Can you prove their is a soul? Test it? If you can't then everything you have said is wrong." ********. It is a theory and life is its test and its evidence. The word is in the book. And it is a prime focus of a large segment of life. Based on how it is defined, it can be tested, seen and theorized about.

You have no authority for your answer.
New idea often start out like that. Look what is being done for string theory, and a lot of other things that are thought up. I have even heard that some in medical science are talking about finding the center for the soul in the brain. Can it be tested? Give it time. In the mean time there will be theories about such things.

You simply do not know that to be true.
Even if it were true that in the past people were less rigorous about their methodologies, that does not mean that they were correct.
Science advances when some things fail all the time. And I know another thing, scientist are still people. Not this perfect machine some of you think it is. Leaps of faith are taken all the time.

Where there has been sloppy science, there has been poor progress.
But progress is made.


Once again, the answer is that the discovery phase can be full of guesses. However, Bell tested his guesses. He did not think up an idea for a telephone and publish plans for it, saying he thought it would work. He tested his designs. When something didn't work, he tried to figure out why. He changed his ideas, built something else and tested that. He did it relentlessly and eventually he created a phone that worked.
Next. I will embark on my experimental phase. In fact I have already started.

You, on the other hand, have just thought up some stuff and said you believe it will work. You have not tested it or refined it in any way.
You have not seen it all. It runs 200 pages in one place, and 300 in another. But I don't expect that that is something you would know. As far as you are concerned, it seems like I have not.


Actually, theories of gravitation are tested and refined all the time. Galileo and his students arived at the theory and tested it as best they could. When NASA calculates how much fuel a rocket needs to make it into space, they are theorizing about gravity; when they launch the rocket, they are testing their theories. And just recently physicists used gravitational lensing to see farther than has ever been seen before. They thought gravity would act as a magnifying glass, they tried it and it worked.
Fine. I believe you. I like gravity, but it is not me who continue to call it a theory.

Every time you drop a pencil, you are testing the theory of gravity and having it proven to you.
Everytime you think and feel you are in touch with your soul, and remember the definition was not made up by me. There is something there that people felt that they had to come up with a name for. Not being able to see it, has not stopped them.



No, it can't and you should see why. You haven't tested it. You haven't devised a test that the soul would pass but everything else would fail. Bell did it when he built a working phone; NASA did it when the rocket made it into space. But you have not done it. That is why your statement is false.
Give it time. When the test is devised, the theory would be ready. In fact a theory can push science forward by requiring something to test it. It is a work in progress.


Now, you said you wanted logical explanations of exactly how you were wrong. I've done my best. Last time you ignored me. How will you respond now?
I have.

[Tricky]

With regard to styles of argument and fallacy, I'm sure it is an accidental irony, but amusing nonetheless, that this thread's originator designated himself "lightcreatedlife@hom."Yeah, I actually mistook it for a pun the first time I saw his name.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

With regard to styles of argument and fallacy, I'm sure it is an accidental irony, but amusing nonetheless, that this thread's originator designated himself lightcreatedlife@hom.
Look at that name. Don't it look like a mistake? I have already covered that. I wanted that name for the web site, but I guess I put it in the wrong place.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Au contraire. I was saying it did not prove you were an idiot.
I understood that. The thing said it was a fallacy to make personal attacks, and you did.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I would have you simply try to understand exactly what he meant by that.
Me doing that would not change what he said. "Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing," right?


Yes, it does. But that's not the SOURCE of the mind, rather the end result. Also, as someone said, it's a very SMALL amount of energy.
Yes. That is why I withdrew from the things I said about the EEG machine. I think that because it is so small an amount, the spirit is really not very big. IT is not seen because it is too small.


Oh, so you think that the really complex concepts that you can't grasp are really, really simple but explained in really, really complicated ways because scientists don't want you to be right about the soul of life ?
You are kidding right? I am saying that the complex can become simple through widespread understanding. Today a high school student could at least keep up with somebody like Newton. But the people of his time had a hard time understanding what he was saying.
And I believe that science thrives to convey what it knows in the simpliest terms it can.


I think a much more reasonable explanation is that you simply don't grasp those really complex concepts.
It is you who seems to not know that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

[bruto]

Look at that name. Don't it look like a mistake? I have already covered that. I wanted that name for the web site, but I guess I put it in the wrong place.

I realize fully that it was a mistake, and remember that you explained it. I still find it amusing that the mistake should have come up with an accidental "@hom" from the start. It is an amusingly ironic coincidence.

[zizzybaluba]

New idea often start out like that. Look what is being done for string theory, and a lot of other things that are thought up. I have even heard that some in medical science are talking about finding the center for the soul in the brain. Can it be tested? Give it time. In the mean time there will be theories about such things.


I'd ask, but I'm pretty damn sure you don't know string theory from a kite string.

And you've "heard" some in medical science talk about the soul? I've heard the moon is made of green cheese and Elvis still lives. If you can't back it up with evidence, its worthless.

[Loss Leader]

Next. I will embark on my experimental phase. In fact I have already started.

Please describe your experimental phase.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Are you saying you have no intention to learn, here, only to mock the opposing view ? That's the textbook definition of trolling.
You know very well that I said no such thing. If you read me saying that, you know what else I said. Talk about acting like a child.


[quote]Except the bolded part is wrong. Your argument collapses.
Energy and matter are not 2 forms of the same thing?


You mean you really didn't understand his post ? What he was saying is that the term "law" means different things in those two instances.
of course it does. But related things. The same word is used, and it describes about the same thing.

The laws of physics aren't a standard imposed on reality that particles may or may not obey.
If you read what I said I covered this, again you are leaving out anything you need to to get the spin you need. Now that is "purposely ignorant," "selectively ignorant." I am recording all this and will comb over it for the rest of my life, and have others do the same thing. I am warning you.

They are a description of the behaviour of said particles.
Yeah. In a sense, "the laws it lives by."


"Nature is a social system" is not a "maybe" or a "some of", it's an absolute statement that leaves no other alternative. Mayhap you should try to watch the way your construct your sentences, if you want people to understand what you mean.
I said "nature is a social system", people here say, "there is no God." there is no soul, I am absolutely wrong. If you are the conscience of english, maybe you should treat us all the same.

See, you're still trying to fit common sense and everyday thinking to the world of science and truth. You can't make absolute statements and guesses about how things work. You have to KNOW, and this is why we have scientists, not witch-doctors.
Look at this?

There is no design. Get over it.
Now look at this. Are you making an absolute statement on the same page you are telling me not too?


You made you ? What ? Just because I'm not science itself I can't tell you how it works ?
Why can't I? Remember it is you that are saying that matter and energy are not different forms of the same thing, not me?


No it doesn't. It [christianity] attempts to explain how the universe was made. It makes claims about the nature of existence. And those claims are wrong.
I said religion. There are many. But even that one trys to teach doing right by your fellow man. Even if it is not always practiced.


And therefore scientific, in a way. A "creator" to the universe is unscientific, in a number of ways.
There is more to life then science.


Wrong again, Albert. The planet is extremely hostile towards us. We've survived in spite of a lot of adversial conditions, not because of them.
It is also the only place known that someone like you could have developed. Talk about ungrateful. And the climate of this planet is not hostile to human life. Things happen, but I guess you want a perfect world?


The tank is not part of the human, bucko. Humans don't grow tank when they come to age. If you come up against an elephant, chances are you have no tank. Why the hell did you bring it up, anyway ?
I can come up against an elephant just about anyday, and would not need a tank either. Man made bars will see to my safety.


They're surely going to love seeing you put your foot in your mouth in every one of your posts.
Okay. We will see.


Here's an example of what I said : Let's say you had two people appear on Jeopardy. Now, one's a medical doctor, and the other an architect. Now, if your questions (or answers, in this case) are ALL very specific and complex ones related ONLY to the doctor's field of expertise, who do you think will win ? Is it because the doctor is better than the architect, or because the game is rigged ? That's why you can't say humans are the "highest" life forms because you're rigging the game in their favour. Not nature. YOU. You're the one using intelligence as your sole criterion. Obviously they'll win. And it doesn't matter if most people would agree with you, because they'd still all be wrong. Why ? Because then they'd ALL be guilty of rigging the game. But in nature, there is only one criterion: survival.
Humans are pretty good at that too. Survival has become so easy that we have people jumping from planes and riding rollercoasters just to add the "thrill of the edge," to their lives. There are even people surviving in space. A challenge that they had to create, in order to overcome.
Any criteria that I can think of would have humans somehow connected to it. And that is why they are the most advanced, not because I am being unfair.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Please describe your experimental phase.Right now?
Find out what would stand in the way of proof.
Set the standards.
Make observations.
See if what you need to prove it is possible.
Study out of body experiences around the world.
Find or construct very sensitive equipment that can detect thought.
Find people willing to make out of body attempts.
It could take some time, but in the meantime I am going to continue to develop the theory behind what that graph is saying.

[TobiasTheViking]

why are you ignoring me again?

I didn't even ask the same questions i did before.


Is it just because you can't actually answer the questions, and by ignoring me you hope people won't notice your imperfection?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'd ask, but I'm pretty damn sure you don't know string theory from a kite string.
I am not a fan of string theory. And I don't see where it has any bearing on what is going on here. It would give you a chance to show me which one of ours is bigger though, and I really don't want to know. Oh wait. I do know. Since you made the challenge, and I know very little about it, you probably do know more.

And you've "heard" some in medical science talk about the soul? I've heard the moon is made of green cheese and Elvis still lives. If you can't back it up with evidence, its worthless.
It is not worthless, I don't have to reference everything. Even if you never heard of it, someone here may have. And if I am wrong, which it seems I can't help but be here, I will hear it soon enough. They will chase me around, I'll google it, and for the trouble have no choice but to added it to the site.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

why are you ignoring me again?

I didn't even ask the same questions i did before.


Is it just because you can't actually answer the questions, and by ignoring me you hope people won't notice your imperfection?
You must be kidding. How am I going to be able to hide here? I have not even seen you post yet. But I will find it and REPLY tomorrow.

[TobiasTheViking]

ok, the question is post number 1155, just so you can find it.

[TobiasTheViking]

Right now?
Find out what would stand in the way of proof.
Set the standards.
Make observations.
See if what you need to prove it is possible.
Study out of body experiences around the world.
Find or construct very sensitive equipment that can detect thought.
Find people willing to make out of body attempts.
It could take some time, but in the meantime I am going to continue to develop the theory behind what that graph is saying.

are you going to double blind it?

[nescafe]

Find out what would stand in the way of proof.

Your excerable understanding of how science works and your lack of the requesite background information. Some heavy background in physics, several different branches of pcychology and neurobiology, and tons of information theory will be needed. Plan on spending at least the next ten years of your life at a good university.


Set the standards.

What standards are you going to set?
What processes are you going to use to decide that those standards are appropriate?

Make observations.


What observations will be needed?
What precautions will be in place to eliminate bias from your observations?


See if what you need to prove it is possible.

Study out of body experiences around the world.


All well and good. You might want to conduct a review of the literature in the field. This will probably require access to a university library to get access to all the journals you will need to go through.


Find or construct very sensitive equipment that can detect thought.


You might have to wait for nanotechnology to become more advanced for this, but that is not important. The much bigger challenge will be to decode those thoughts that you can detect.


Find people willing to make out of body attempts.


Poor/broke undergrads. The perfect fodder for this sort of work.


It could take some time, but in the meantime I am going to continue to develop the theory behind what that graph is saying.

Ditch the graph. It has as much intrinsic meaning as numerology or kaballah, and explains about as much about the universe as either of them.

[Glen.Nogami]

Poor/broke undergrads. The perfect fodder for this sort of work.

"There's a new work study program. It's called 'Get hit by a car and almost but not quite die, then tell us what you see while they're operating on you.'":D

[bruto]

Right now?
Find out what would stand in the way of proof. ...[snip]


But you've stated right here that you intend never to do any such thing!

[Belz...]

And do you agree that the part of the brain that is responsible for language, also responsible for math, like Rand Fan has already stated?

Do you think there is a link between math and language?

So, if the sales department is also responsible for handing memos, sales and memos have a link ?

You all would not have allowed me to say that all this time if it was wrong. So why is it being questioned now? I appears to me that even if you know something that I am saying is correct, you treat it as if it is not. Give me the it is not that simple reply. That is why I got the "not really" response earlier.

Did I strike a nerve ? I was just asking if your opinion on the matter meant it worked both ways. I still don't agree with it. Ever hear the expression "for the sake of argument" ?

To reply to your question, energy came first, and it holds matter together.

"Came first" ? If it's one and the same, as you claim, that shouldn't matter.

I did not get it from there. I don't need to present evidence for that. You know it to be true.

That's a very convenient dodge.

What I have found instead is, if you think something would aid me in the slightest, and you know it is right, you will not say.

Again, how can you say that unless you're a telepath ?

Science, or at least those under its banner, are afraid of certain ideas. Namely anything that can be used by religion.

Afraid ? Science discovers new things all the time. Scientists often have to contend with discoveries that completely blow away their theories. Why would they be afraid of your claims ?

You are saying that as if the idea is just my idea.

Would you please stop saying that. I have NEVER claimed that this is ONLY your ideas. I'm tired of shooting down your strawmen.

You know certain things are true.

I take it you have NOT read what I said about this.

But you also weaken your own position to the point where someone of less knowledge can make you look dumb.

Should I care ? If you're right then show it.

We see each other about the same way. That the other is not open to anything new.

I have evidence to support that view.

you have people to suppost you, but is it not really as much of an advantage as you might think. When one makes a point, the others flock to support it. To me that only puts you all in the same corner. Close enough to be caught in the same net.

Again, you didn't read what I said. Allow me to repeat it.

Oh, so you think that the really complex concepts that you can't grasp are really, really simple but explained in really, really complicated ways because scientists don't want you to be right about the soul of life ?

I think a much more reasonable explanation is that you simply don't grasp those really complex concepts.

And:

That's your fundamental mistake, and the primary thing preventing you from learning anything, here. You are so convinced that what you say is right and obvious that you cannot understand why everyone here disagrees with you. Your logical path is to assume that we do this on purpose.

This is like 9/11 truthers assuming that we are government shills simply because we don't buy their ridiculous theories.

[Belz...]

You are like highly capable jet fighters. Unmatched in your element. But you allow yourself to come down so low that any one who can throw straight can knock you out of the sky. I don't understand why you would do that. But it seems that what you have to defend seems worth the effort. And that can only be ego.

Same answer as religious nuts : "You don't believe in God because you don't want something to be superior to you." Oh, wait. YOU DID say that before.

What is it with you guys, anyway ?

Reminds me of something someone said: There is no greater arrogance than man looking himself in the mirror and thinking himself so perfect that only an omnipotent creator could explain it.

I feel bad about luring you so low. But it is not me. You come so low that lower is the next step. Then I hit you with a google rock.

Google is only as good a tool as the person using it.

If I am wrong, I am going to make sure that a lot more people than are here know about it. That way I can serve the purpose of making sure that everyone knows that I am a fool. Because I truely don't think that I am. But I am wrong, I hope that will make it plain to me. If I am not, it will be you. Make sure you know what you are talking about.

The problem is, we HAVE shown you to be wrong. You haven't told "a lot more people" that you are. You haven't learned. Instead, you've adapted reality to your belief, instead of the opposite. Now, we're the willful enemy, trying to keep down the herald of truth, namely you. You need to step down from that delusion, quick, because otherwise it'll just get worse. Everyone who disagrees with you, you'll say they're doing it on purpose. You need to snap out of that loop.

You have to be kidding? Intelligence is the key to it all.

NO! This is what we've been telling you. Intelligence is ONLY ONE attribute.

I agree that intelligence gives us a whole lot of advantages through technology, but it does not mean that the species "homo sapiens" is superior. It just means that we can kick other species' butts with our weapons. Were the germans "superior" to other countries in WWII ? Or just stronger ?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

There are good reasons why we should not assume that the universe was designed. We should never assume anything. Scientists do not ever make any assumptions.

When people say that there is no God, aren't they making just as much of an assumption as someone who says that there is? What are some of the tests that prove a designer does not exist? People who think that there is a designer at least have an unexplained design. Some of the people who don't believe in a designer, have to force themselves not to see a design.

People make assumptions, some people are scientist, some scientist make assumptions. And why not? They are a valuable tool. They don't have to be always right, but they lay the ground work for farther study.

Note that, if A is true, B gives us no choice but to believe in Cowboys. We nevcer looked for Indians; we don't know if any are around. But this argument doesn't even let us ask about Indians. It shuts off all debate on the topic. Is this an Indian, is it an Eskimo, is it a guy pretending to be an Indian ... we don't know. We were never allowed to ask. This is why assumptions cannot be made - they force us to accept conclusions without evidence.
They don't force anything. Remember, it was just an assumption. And some assumptions are based on some very good evidence.

[wollery]

When people say that there is no God, aren't they making just as much of an assumption as someone who says that there is?Actually the answer to that is no. Look up Occam's razor.

What are some of the tests that prove a designer does not exist?No need to prove a designer doesn't exist, just prove that there's no need for a designer and it becomes superfluous to requirement. That's where Occam's razor comes in.

People who think that there is a designer at least have an unexplained design. Some of the people who don't believe in a designer, have to force themselves not to see a design. No, they don't believe in a designer precisely because they don't see design. You're getting it the wrong way round.

People make assumptions, some people are scientist, some scientist make assumptions. And why not? They are a valuable tool. They don't have to be always right, but they lay the ground work for farther study.Wow, wonder of wonders, I agree with you. As a scientist I make assumption. As a scientist I test those assumptions. As a scientist if someone points out that my assumption is logically wrong I shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh well, I was wrong."

They don't force anything. Remember, it was just an assumption. And some assumptions are based on some very good evidence.If it's based on evidence it's a conclusion or a hypothesis. An assumption is, by definition, something for which there is no evidence.

[Belz...]

I don't believe that anyone would fall for such a thing. And so fast. You have to know that if you are so eager to snap up bait like that, you must be pretty hungry for something to poke me with.

What the hell are you talking about ? You've demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge of almost anything discussed here, and you don't seem to put any effort in changing that. Cosmo pointed that out quite clearly. Instead of saying "I don't know what an ad hominem is", you should've opened another browser window, and actually checked it out. The fact that you didn't gives the impression that you've very comfortable in your ignorance.

And what it has done to those who play dumb. Because there is no way I believe that they did not know the answer already to what I googled. But then again, you did fall for this.

Even if you were right, don't you think there is another likely explanation: namely, that people DID know the answer but DISAGREED with it ?

Here you are calling me seven shades of ignorant, and I am calling you smart.

Well, at least you're right about something.

You see, I need for you to be smart. Unlike you, I would not be talking this long to an idiot. And if I were. There is no way I would be doing as badly as some of you are. I just simply would not risk my ego standing behind something that is not right, or talking to someone playing dumb.

Again you play the victim, or saviour of reason. You are incapable of accepting the possibility that you are wrong. Don't bother saying that you are. The mere fact that you consider that people here disagree with you not because you are wrong but because they can't possibly accept your genius ideas shows that.

[Belz...]

I am saying that the link is in the characteristics of the energies involved. I provided a site that says that.

It says that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy. And that energy is the soul of life. That "conscious energy" is the goal of the drama.

Even if you were correct that matter "owes" something to energy, it doesn't follow that "conscious energy" exists, and there is a "goal" or a "soul".

As this point I'd like to repeat what bruto said:

you have, numerous times, asserted that your thought and argument are logical, while simultaneously declaring with arrogant defiance that you have no knowledge of the most basic, introductory, kindergarten-level principles of logic, and no intention ever of learning or understanding them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Same answer as religious nuts : "You don't believe in God because you don't want something to be superior to you." Oh, wait. YOU DID say that before.
I must of said some people. All of them could not possibly think that way. That would mean that everyone who believed in God wanted/needed something over them. And I for one don't need that at all. And I think that a being of such power would not need others to think that.

Reminds me of something someone said: There is no greater arrogance than man looking himself in the mirror and thinking himself so perfect that only an omnipotent creator could explain it.
Humans are only a small part of the equation. There is 14 billion years of universe behind them. A universe with a system that allows for the eventual creation of life. Now it could have all been an accident that an entire universe developed just right, but there is also a good chance that it had some help. At least at the beginning.


The problem is, we HAVE shown you to be wrong. You haven't told "a lot more people" that you are. You haven't learned. Instead, you've adapted reality to your belief, instead of the opposite. Now, we're the willful enemy, trying to keep down the herald of truth, namely you. You need to step down from that delusion, quick, because otherwise it'll just get worse. Everyone who disagrees with you, you'll say they're doing it on purpose. You need to snap out of that loop.
I do not see myself as this holy holder of truth, just an idea. Truth is the one word that I don't shout from the roof tops. And I don't see you all as the enemies of truth. You just have a particular point of view, and yes, an agenda. You have already stated that debunking things like this is what you do. Note the word "debunking." You already know that they can't be right, you just have to find out how. And I think your methods do you no favor.
I say the 4 basics of math, people here say can't be. But don't math consider them so?
I say matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy, I get "not really." But isn't matter and energy 2 forms of the same thing? Didn't energy come first?
I say humans are the most advanced form of life, and people here pick a lifeform that nowhere (even in its greatest natural advantage) cannot be matched by the things that humans have made with theirs.
I say look how science defined them. And I get back that they did not mean it that way. But I am yet to hear what they did mean in the cases I presented.
What you are showing me is that given enough education any point of view can be made to appear wrong, that is not the same thing as proving something IS wrong.

I agree that intelligence gives us a whole lot of advantages through technology, but it does not mean that the species "homo sapiens" is superior.
I never said superior. I said that they are the most advanced form of life. And even there their greatest advantage, might turn out to be their greatest problem, if they use it to wipe themselves from the face of the planet.

It just means that we can kick other species' butts with our weapons. Were the germans "superior" to other countries in WWII ? Or just stronger ?
I am not saying stronger, I am saying advanced. And advanced also means that "kicking butt" has to give way to saving resources, and protecting the life that kicking butt has endangered.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Even if you were correct that matter "owes" something to energy, it doesn't follow that "conscious energy" exists, and there is a "goal" or a "soul".
You see how hard it is to say I am right? That is evidence of biase at work. Am I correct on that or not?

Conscious energy does exist, it is called mind.

Because the four forces are ordered, and have created an orderly universe, and orderly life, order can be said to be the method/soul and the goal.

As this point I'd like to repeat what bruto said:
You mean that I have been able to carry on here without even having kindergarten logic skills? What does that say about you? And him.

[wollery]

Humans are only a small part of the equation. There is 14 billion years of universe behind them. A universe with a system that allows for the eventual creation of life. Now it could have all been an accident that an entire universe developed just right, but there is also a good chance that it had some help. At least at the beginning.So you're a deist then?


I do not see myself as this holy holder of truth, just an idea. Truth is the one word that I don't shout from the roof tops. And I don't see you all as the enemies of truth. You just have a particular point of view, and yes, an agenda. You have already stated that debunking things like this is what you do. Note the word "debunking." You already know that they can't be right, you just have to find out how. No. We question whether things are right, we don't just assume that they aren't. If something is right then we admit it. If it's obviously wrong then we point out why. You're assumptions are erroneous and your arguments illogical, therefore your conclusions are wrong. We just say so.

And I think your methods do you no favor.
I say the 4 basics of math, people here say can't be. But don't math consider them so?<sigh> No, maths doesn't consider them to be the four basics. Popular opinion does, but we've been all over this several times already, so I don't expect it to make any impression on you this time either.

I say matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy, I get "not really." But isn't matter and energy 2 forms of the same thing? Didn't energy come first?Owe is a very anthopomorphic word. And while we're on it, matter formed before photons decoupled, so in that sense matter came before light.

I say humans are the most advanced form of life, and people here pick a lifeform that nowhere (even in its greatest natural advantage) cannot be matched by the things that humans have made with theirs.:rolleyes:

I say look how science defined them. And I get back that they did not mean it that way. But I am yet to hear what they did mean in the cases I presented.Science uses many terms to mean things that those terms are not used to mean in common speech. Take the word theory for example. In common speech a theory is a suppossition based on little or no evidence. In science a theory is a model of how a particular system works, based on a large preponderence of evidence.

What you are showing me is that given enough education any point of view can be made to appear wrong, that is not the same thing as proving something IS wrong.No, we're showing you that given enough education one can discern when an argument is logically flawed, and if it is show why it is logically flawed. Sadly you don't seem to be learning.

I never said superior. I said that they are the most advanced form of life. And even there their greatest advantage, might turn out to be their greatest problem, if they use it to wipe themselves from the face of the planet.And we're saying that to generally apply the term "most advanced" to any form of life is a non-sequitor. It can only be applied to specific abilities.

I am not saying stronger, I am saying advanced. And advanced also means that "kicking butt" has to give way to saving resources, and protecting the life that kicking butt has endangered.Only if your definition of advanced is narrowed to mean technologically advanced.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No


Yes, what is wrong with that?


And you haven't.


What would that serve?


We can? could you please tell me, because i have no idea.


What is happening?
There is nothing here, that we ain't been over. Somehow you are claiming that I have not answered or replied to you at all. How can you say that?

So you make claims, and you can't back them up. You know, if you just said "i don't know, maybe i am wrong, ok, i'll look into it and see if i am correct or not" then i could accept you delaying.
I understand. All you want is to see me bleed alittle. In the answers I gave you. You know. The ones you never saw? The ones you are now saying that I did not admit I was wrong in.

But when you say "i'll deal with you later, i'm right, i'm right, i'm right" i see no reason to give you any time to delay.
"You see no reason to give me time to delay?" I think you have something wrong. I didn't ask for a delay. I told you I was taking one. I don't need anything from you. You are playing games-or something. And I told you I did not have the time right now-but I will. I have not had the same type of problems with too many others. Rand Fan alittle, but we have a special thing somehow.


what do you mean "move previous posts"?
Take previous posts and bring them here.

Like right here---X

Deal with me how?
Answer you in a way to show you are full of it.

Well, i look forward to when you will answer my questions. When will you answer my questions?
That was a long post that contend nothing. When I reply, some how you are not seeing it, but I know that I am sending them. I am thinking that the problem must be you. But I might be wrong. There. You drew blood.

[Loss Leader]

Well, LCL, you lied to me. I asked you whom you would believe that you were making errors and you wrote:

You. All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

So I wrote you a long post about the fallacy of making assumptions. I explained the scientific method. I gave you a citation to learn more. I put together several nice examples concerning phlogiston and cowboys and indians. I explained that even gravity was not assumed but was and still is rigorously tested by scientists. The endpoint was that no assumption may be made unless it can be tested and then revised if necessary.

And you wrote back:

People make assumptions, some people are scientist, some scientist make assumptions. And why not? They are a valuable tool. They don't have to be always right, but they lay the ground work for farther study.

So you have lied. Careful, logical presentation filled with examples is not enough to convince you that you have made an error. If your little worldview is a matter of personal opinion and faith with no evidence, just say so. But do not be dishonest. Do not pretend that you are open to new information when you are not. And don't waste anyone else's time like you have wasted mine.

[Belz...]

What is it with this ignoring thing that some of you got going for yourself? I have a lot to do. You see how large the thread is. And look at all that you wrote here?

If you were serious about debating this topic, you would read all of the posts here.

On the one hand you talk about logic, but you seem unable to uniderstand my position.

That's because it isn't logical.

What I here now is. "Hey. Can you prove their is a soul? Test it? If you can't then everything you have said is wrong." ********. It is a theory and life is its test and its evidence.

Sorry, that's circular reasoning. You MUST prove the soul in order to try to explain it.

New idea often start out like that.

I seriously hope you're not saying your idea will one day revolutionise science, because it's been around for quite some time and, so far, zilch.

Next. I will embark on my experimental phase. In fact I have already started.

Now, THAT will be interesting. Exactly how you plan to test your "theory" with your non-existent knowledge of science and logic, is going to prove very... enlightening.

[Belz...]

Me doing that would not change what he said. "Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing," right?

It would not change what he said, but it would mean you actually understand what it means, which you don't, as long as you cling to reading it like a four year-old.

I think that because it is so small an amount, the spirit is really not very big. IT is not seen because it is too small.

The what ?

You are kidding right?

Would you stop asking me that ?

I am saying that the complex can become simple through widespread understanding.

And I'm saying you're WRONG. The complex remains complex even when it's understood. Go ask Mr. Hawking and ask him if he thinks quantum mechanics is really simple.

Today a high school student could at least keep up with somebody like Newton. But the people of his time had a hard time understanding what he was saying.

It wasn't because it was COMPLEX, but because it was OBSCURE.

And I believe that science thrives to convey what it knows in the simpliest terms it can.

Of course. That doesn't mean that "simplest" equals "simple".

It is you who seems to not know that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

I told you: I know what you said. I've heard it before. I disagree that the sentence correctly describes the situation. And because YOU want it in the simplest terms possible to accomodate your ignorance, you prefer to read it as-is, rather than understanding it.

[Belz...]

You know very well that I said no such thing. If you read me saying that, you know what else I said. Talk about acting like a child.

Re-read what you said, buck.

Energy and matter are not 2 forms of the same thing?

You're kidding, right ? I haven't been clear the last 5 times ?

IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. And if Einstein said it was that simple, he's just plain wrong.

of course it does. But related things. The same word is used, and it describes about the same thing.

It's extremely frustrating to see you claim one thing in one sentence, as though ou understand anything, and then demolish that in the next one.

Just because it's the same word, doesn't mean it bears any resemblance or similarity. See the word "tip".

If you read what I said I covered this, again you are leaving out anything you need to to get the spin you need. Now that is "purposely ignorant," "selectively ignorant." I am recording all this and will comb over it for the rest of my life, and have others do the same thing. I am warning you.

I'd tell you where you can put your warning, but there are rules to this forum that I'd rather not break.

You tried to make it seem like the word "law" meant the same thing with particles as it does to society. I didn't re-interpret anything.

I said "nature is a social system", people here say, "there is no God." there is no soul, I am absolutely wrong. If you are the conscience of english, maybe you should treat us all the same.

Gosh, you really don't like it when people correct you, do you ? If you've got something to say, say it properly. Period.

Now look at this. Are you making an absolute statement on the same page you are telling me not too?

Indeed, I did. That's because I have enough evidence on my side to bury the Empire State Building.

You made you ? What ? Just because I'm not science itself I can't tell you how it works ?

Why can't I?

Because you don't know how it works.

Remember it is you that are saying that matter and energy are not different forms of the same thing, not me?

Yes, because I know what I'm talking about.

[bruto]

You mean that I have been able to carry on here without even having kindergarten logic skills? What does that say about you? And him.

If by carrying on, you mean that you can still turn your computer on and find the link to this thread, then yes, you're carrying on. In all other respects, you're failing, whether or not you are aware of it.

[TobiasTheViking]

There is nothing here, that we ain't been over.
Well, you still haven't shown me where you have answered me. And you promised to show me today. so.


Somehow you are claiming that I have not answered or replied to you at all. How can you say that?
I never said you hadn't replied to me, show me where i said that.

I understand. All you want is to see me bleed alittle.
I don't want to see you bleed, why would i?

In the answers I gave you.
What answers?

You know. The ones you never saw? The ones you are now saying that I did not admit I was wrong in.
You haven't admitted to be wrong in anything regarding my questions.

"You see no reason to give me time to delay?" I think you have something wrong. I didn't ask for a delay. I told you I was taking one. I don't need anything from you.
But don't keep making the same claim untill you are done with your delay and can actually back the claims up, that is all i said.

You are playing games-or something. And I told you I did not have the time right now-but I will. I have not had the same type of problems with too many others. Rand Fan alittle, but we have a special thing somehow.
I am not playing a game, no.

Take previous posts and bring them here.

Like right here---X[

Ehm, you don't have to, just post the post number.

Answer you in a way to show you are full of it.
As i've asked before.. Full of what?

That was a long post that contend nothing.
Mine or yours?

When I reply, some how you are not seeing it, but I know that I am sending them.
I've seen a lot of replies from you. But no answers to my questions. Just sidestepping them.

I am thinking that the problem must be you.
Based on what?

But I might be wrong.
I think it is more of a problem with you and me not understanding each other than some messages not getting through.

There. You drew blood.
I am not interesting in drawing blood, why would i be.

[Belz...]

I said religion. There are many. But even that one trys to teach doing right by your fellow man. Even if it is not always practiced.

You're changing the subject again. Re-read what I said and what I was answering to.

There is more to life then science.

Not when making claims about how the universe works, there isn't. "Intuition" has never given humanity anything useful. And before you answer something silly, I didn't say "Intuition has never given a person anything useful."

It is also the only place known that someone like you could have developed. Talk about ungrateful.

Ungrateful to what ? You still speak as though the Earth was a person.

And the climate of this planet is not hostile to human life. Things happen, but I guess you want a perfect world?

The climate isn't hostile ? What about all those oceans, deserts, mountains, ice fields, etc. etc. We don't live comfortably in more than just a few environments.

I can come up against an elephant just about anyday, and would not need a tank either. Man made bars will see to my safety.

If I'm not allowing you to use one kind of technology, why do you persist in switching to another one. I'll chalk this one up as a troll response. No one could be this dense.

Okay. We will see.

No, we won't. No one will pass comment on your site, and the only feedback WE'll have is through you. So you can say whatever you want.

Humans are pretty good at that too. Survival has become so easy that we have people jumping from planes and riding rollercoasters just to add the "thrill of the edge," to their lives.

You're cheating again.

Chimpazees have been into space, too, if you're allowed to use technology.

Any criteria that I can think of would have humans somehow connected to it. And that is why they are the most advanced, not because I am being unfair.

Again, you forget to say "technologically" after "advanced".

[Belz...]

I am not a fan of string theory.

Who cares if you're a fan or not ? The question is, does it work ?

When people say that there is no God, aren't they making just as much of an assumption as someone who says that there is? What are some of the tests that prove a designer does not exist?

There's that burden of proof, again.

People make assumptions, some people are scientist, some scientist make assumptions. And why not? They are a valuable tool.

No, they're not. You're pretty slow, aren't you ?

I must of said some people. All of them could not possibly think that way. That would mean that everyone who believed in God wanted/needed something over them.

I would not disagree with that statement, if you made it.

Humans are only a small part of the equation. There is 14 billion years of universe behind them. A universe with a system that allows for the eventual creation of life. Now it could have all been an accident that an entire universe developed just right, but there is also a good chance that it had some help. At least at the beginning.

That's a very silly way of seeing things. It's like pulling a straight flush in a poker game and assuming the deck was shuffled on purpose to give you that hand.

I do not see myself as this holy holder of truth, just an idea.

Then accept when you're wrong and stop calling us dishonest for disagreeing with you.

[Belz...]

You just have a particular point of view, and yes, an agenda. You have already stated that debunking things like this is what you do.

Yes, pointing out flaws in people's reasoning is something I enjoy very, very much.

Note the word "debunking." You already know that they can't be right, you just have to find out how.

No, that's why we have people here who know a lot about certain subjects to make sure we know IF they're right or not. If you stepped out of your own woo-thread and checked out the rest of the site, you might know this by now.

And I think your methods do you no favor.

That's only because we don't entertain other people's silly claims.

I say the 4 basics of math, people here say can't be. But don't math consider them so?

No.

I say matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy, I get "not really." But isn't matter and energy 2 forms of the same thing?

Not really.

Didn't energy come first?

In a way, maybe.

I say humans are the most advanced form of life, and people here pick a lifeform that nowhere (even in its greatest natural advantage) cannot be matched by the things that humans have made with theirs.

That's because you keep changing the rules of the game and expect us not to notice.

What you are showing me is that given enough education any point of view can be made to appear wrong, that is not the same thing as proving something IS wrong.

Not ANY point of view can be shown wrong, Light. Those that CAN'T, usually are.

I said that they are the most advanced form of life. And even there their greatest advantage, might turn out to be their greatest problem, if they use it to wipe themselves from the face of the planet.

I don't think intelligence is the greatest advantage. Again, bacteria were the first lifeforms on Earth, and they are very likely to be the last. As far as I know, that makes them the superior lifeform, though life as a bacterium probably sucks.

I am not saying stronger, I am saying advanced. And advanced also means that "kicking butt" has to give way to saving resources, and protecting the life that kicking butt has endangered.

Answer my question. Were the Germans better because they conquered other countries ?

[Belz...]

You see how hard it is to say I am right? That is evidence of biase at work. Am I correct on that or not?

Perhaps you should read what I said, again:

Even if you were correct that matter "owes" something to energy, it doesn't follow that "conscious energy" exists, and there is a "goal" or a "soul".

IF you were correct about matter and energy, it would say nothing about the soul or consciousness or goal. So your entire argument collapses one way or another, because whether or not you are right about matter "owing" how it looks and behaves to energy has no consequence on the rest of your claim.

Conscious energy does exist, it is called mind.

You agreed, a few posts ago, that the energy was a RESULT of the mind, not its cause. Now you backtrack, again. Don't you learn anything ?

Because the four forces are ordered, and have created an orderly universe, and orderly life, order can be said to be the method/soul and the goal.

The four forces did not create the universe, they were randomly created along with it. Any set of forces would have resulted in an ordered universe, though it's hard to imagine what that universe would be like. It does not follow that life, of any kind, would be impossible in it.

You mean that I have been able to carry on here without even having kindergarten logic skills? What does that say about you? And him.

You really should stop inventing what I think. That doesn't help you.

bruto said:

you have, numerous times, asserted that your thought and argument are logical, while simultaneously declaring with arrogant defiance that you have no knowledge of the most basic, introductory, kindergarten-level principles of logic, and no intention ever of learning or understanding them.

In other words, you AREN'T carrying on here BECAUSE you don't even have kindergarten logic skills. Not only that, but you are arrogant, ignorant and deluded. That's a very frustrating combination, though I suspect if you really had any interest in learning we'd have made some headway, by now.

All you want is to see me bleed alittle.

Maybe that would do you some good, metaphorically speaking.

[Loss Leader]

LCL's last post - yesterday at 11:20 a.m. (eastern). Dare I hope that he has taken leave of us for a junior high school science class?

[Anacoluthon64]

Dare I hope that he has taken leave of us for a junior high school science class?Naah, you're too optimistic, I think. Besides, (s)he's disappeared before for a day or so, only to reappear with renewed vinegar.

'Luthon64

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, you still haven't shown me where you have answered me. And you promised to show me today. so.

I think we are talking different languages. I said I did not know how to bring things here. And I did answer you-I think.

I never said you hadn't replied to me, show me where i said that.
I thought you had. I will look later.



You haven't admitted to be wrong in anything regarding my questions.
Because I wasn't. And I reworked the box to avoid some. I think I told you that. But I will get to them.

But don't keep making the same claim untill you are done with your delay and can actually back the claims up, that is all i said.
What I said, I have backed up.

Ehm, you don't have to, just post the post number.
And when I have the time to look I will. Do you see how long your reply is? There are lots others just like this. I have but so much time to spend here. I will answer, but I need time.

As i've asked before.. Full of what?
Are you telling me you never heard that term?


I've seen a lot of replies from you. But no answers to my questions. Just sidestepping them.
You see? Here we go. I told you I understood what you were doing, which is why I needed to make you a special case. I have already been over this in those non-answers of mine. So you do know what I am saying, and I told you I understood what you are saying. I will deal with it when I get the time.


I think it is more of a problem with you and me not understanding each other than some messages not getting through.
I think so too. Look at this though. In all that you just said here, you could have added one or two of those questions. That is the ones that I don't have to answer-yet-because of the box rework.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

[quote]Not when making claims about how the universe works, there isn't. "Intuition" has never given humanity anything useful. And before you answer something silly, I didn't say "Intuition has never given a person anything useful."
I bet that it gives them something useful about the universe as well. But yes. I agree that science should stick to logic, but humanity needs it.


Ungrateful to what ? You still speak as though the Earth was a person.
talk about your troll response? You know full well that I have never said that I thought the planet was a person. I said female. And I know you know that all females are not women.


The climate isn't hostile ? What about all those oceans, deserts, mountains, ice fields, etc. etc. We don't live comfortably in more than just a few environments.
7 billion of us get by. Some living in those conditions. On wait. They might not be all that comfortable. You want everything perfect, and to be comfortable too.


If I'm not allowing you to use one kind of technology, why do you persist in switching to another one. I'll chalk this one up as a troll response. No one could be this dense.
Not allowing me?
I am using intelligence. And that allows me to use anything made from it. If it were just a question of claw and teeth humans would have nothing.


No, we won't. No one will pass comment on your site, and the only feedback WE'll have is through you. So you can say whatever you want.
I would say exactly what is said here.


You're cheating again.
Cheating? from someone who said that survival is the name of the game?

[Anacoluthon64]

See? Where's me million?

'Luthon64

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

LCL's last post - yesterday at 11:20 a.m. (eastern). Dare I hope that he has taken leave of us for a junior high school science class?
Look at how much you miss me when I'm gone? Why would you waste you time if I am doing so badly?

[zizzybaluba]

Look at how much you miss me when I'm gone? Why would you waste you time if I am doing so badly?

I've told you before-- comedy. I missed laughing at your posts.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, pointing out flaws in people's reasoning is something I enjoy very, very much.
Hey. Knock yourself out.

No, that's why we have people here who know a lot about certain subjects to make sure we know IF they're right or not. If you stepped out of your own woo-thread and checked out the rest of the site, you might know this by now.
When I get the time.


That's only because we don't entertain other people's silly claims.
Talk about silly claims. Look at these answers.



No.



Not really.



In a way, maybe.

You see how hard it is for you to say yes in reference to what I say? And these are things that are already well known. Einstein said the one in the middle. You just can't do it. And I love it.


I don't think intelligence is the greatest advantage.
You wouldn't, because I did.

Again, bacteria were the first lifeforms on Earth, and they are very likely to be the last. As far as I know, that makes them the superior lifeform,
See? you picked what you wanted.

though life as a bacterium probably sucks.
Humans do have the best standard of living.


Answer my question. Were the Germans better because they conquered other countries ?
No. Not really. In a way, maybe.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I've told you before-- comedy. I missed laughing at your posts.
Glad I can help

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Naah, you're too optimistic, I think. Besides, (s)he's disappeared before for a day or so, only to reappear with renewed vinegar.

'Luthon64
I'm a he.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Who cares if you're a fan or not ? The question is, does it work ?
I don't thibnk it does.


That's a very silly way of seeing things. It's like pulling a straight flush in a poker game and assuming the deck was shuffled on purpose to give you that hand.
So it sounds more logical to "assume" that the universe resulted from a cosmic "lucky shot?"


Then accept when you're wrong and stop calling us dishonest for disagreeing with you.
Show me some examples from that graph so that I can see what you are talking about.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Your excerable understanding of how science works and your lack of the requesite background information. Some heavy background in physics, several different branches of pcychology and neurobiology, and tons of information theory will be needed. Plan on spending at least the next ten years of your life at a good university.


What standards are you going to set?
What processes are you going to use to decide that those standards are appropriate?



What observations will be needed?
What precautions will be in place to eliminate bias from your observations?


You might have to wait for nanotechnology to become more advanced for this, but that is not important. The much bigger challenge will be to decode those thoughts that you can detect.



Poor/broke undergrads. The perfect fodder for this sort of work.

It all is not going to be easy. And I am still forming those things.



Ditch the graph. It has as much intrinsic meaning as numerology or kaballah, and explains about as much about the universe as either of them.
Why would I do that? I have 30 pages on a forum of smart people who while they say they like nothing about it, can't touch nothing about it.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

"There's a new work study program. It's called 'Get hit by a car and almost but not quite die, then tell us what you see while they're operating on you.'"
Hey. That could work.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If you were serious about debating this topic, you would read all of the posts here.
I am serious. And I will get to them all. It is just going to take time.

That's because it isn't logical.
None that you are will to entertain. I am saying that life owes how it looks and behaves to energy. What part of that is not logical?


Sorry, that's circular reasoning. You MUST prove the soul in order to try to explain it.
That is an example of circular reasoning. The word has been used and defined long before me. A lot of people have found a need for it in many seriously studied areas. And gravity is not completely explained either, but it is there. Life does have a mental/emotional nature.

I seriously hope you're not saying your idea will one day revolutionise science, because it's been around for quite some time and, so far, zilch.
No. Not science. Remember, science isn't everything. It is aimed at the ID debate. I think that it is now centered around school. I think that morals should be taught there, and the soul as part of the plan could do that. That graph is easy to understand, not religion, and very portable. You see? Things aren't always as they appear. They are going to read what was said here one day and wonder why you said that the four basics of math aren't.


Now, THAT will be interesting. Exactly how you plan to test your "theory" with your non-existent knowledge of science and logic, is going to prove very... enlightening.
I know enough science and logic to deal with your forum. It is you who somehow don't know that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. I really don't know how you are going to explain that later.

[nescafe]

Ditch the graph. It has as much intrinsic meaning as numerology or kaballah, and explains about as much about the universe as either of them.

Why would I do that? I have 30 pages on a forum of smart people who while they say they like nothing about it, can't touch nothing about it.

Because, much like numerology and kaballah, your graph consists mainly of percived symmetries that you find pleasing, whether or not they have anything to do with the real world.

[Belz...]

I bet that it gives them something useful about the universe as well.

What, intuition ? No.

talk about your troll response? You know full well that I have never said that I thought the planet was a person. I said female. And I know you know that all females are not women.

All persons aren't women as well. What's your point ? The Earth isn't female, anyway. It's a ball of rock.

7 billion of us get by. Some living in those conditions. On wait. They might not be all that comfortable. You want everything perfect, and to be comfortable too.

No I don't. Again you show how bad you are at guessing what I think. Maybe you should stop that.

I said that most environments were hostile to us. You might have noticed that most people live in houses in order to deal with those adverse conditions.

Not allowing me?
I am using intelligence. And that allows me to use anything made from it.

No, because that assumes someone ELSE made the tank. No one person builds a tank unless the entire infrastructure that allows it exists, so that one elephant is really up against all of humanity and its history, which is by no means a 1-on-1 match.

If it were just a question of claw and teeth humans would have nothing.

Exactly. And in that context you couldn't claim that we are "higher".

I would say exactly what is said here.

I think you shoud re-read what I said. You misunderstood, again.

Cheating? from someone who said that survival is the name of the game?

It is. Survival is the only real criterion that makes any sense, in nature.

You see how hard it is for you to say yes in reference to what I say?

That's because the answer ISN'T yes. How hard is it for YOU to understand that ?

And these are things that are already well known. Einstein said the one in the middle.

He was wrong, then.

You just can't do it. And I love it.

I can say it. I won't, because it isn't true. But that just spoils the whole thing for you, doesn't it ? No one here agrees with you because you are so fundamentally, terribly wrong that you can't form a coherent hypothesis. It's simply more comfortable for you to think that we're all evil men trying to hide the truth from you.

I don't think intelligence is the greatest advantage.

You wouldn't, because I did.

I wouldn't because you haven't shown that it is.

Humans do have the best standard of living.

Only by HUMAN standards, which of course is circular.

No. Not really. In a way, maybe.

Maybe ? See how hard it is for you to say yes in reference to what I say ?

[nescafe]

I know enough science and logic to deal with your forum.
No, you do not. Might I suggest Unskilled and Unaware (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/unskilled.htm) as a little light reading?

[Belz...]

Who cares if you're a fan or not ? The question is, does it work ?

I don't thibnk it does.

Who cares what you think ? The question is, does it work ?

So it sounds more logical to "assume" that the universe resulted from a cosmic "lucky shot?"

Depends on how you see it. No one says there was only one of those shots, and the others were "unlucky". Frankly, we simply don't know. But assuming an infinite number of fluctuations, it's only logical to assume that, once in a while, one of them will make sense. Like the poker hand.

Show me some examples from that graph so that I can see what you are talking about.

What examples ? Your graph is nonsensical. There's no conclusion to be drawn from it. Period.

None that you are will to entertain. I am saying that life owes how it looks and behaves to energy. What part of that is not logical?

The whole sentence.

Now, obviously, IF matter is built "from" energy and matter forms the molecules that are part of life, you obviously have a link between the properties of one and the other. However, it's ridiculous to look at the most basic form of energy, look at how it behaves, and apply those caracteristics to life without even seeing how those various energies and forms of matter interact between one another to create even more COMPLEX behaviours.

That is an example of circular reasoning. The word has been used and defined long before me.

I don't care if it was used before you or not. If you cannot show that the soul exists, then any attempt to explain what it is will fail because we still don't know if it exists or not.

A lot of people have found a need for it in many seriously studied areas. And gravity is not completely explained either, but it is there. Life does have a mental/emotional nature.

Non-sequitur. Gravity is KNOWN to exist, but we don't necessarily understand the process involved. The soul is UNKNOWN to exist.

No. Not science. Remember, science isn't everything.

Perhaps YOU'D care to remember what I answered that the last time.

It is aimed at the ID debate. I think that it is now centered around school. I think that morals should be taught there, and the soul as part of the plan could do that.

Unless you can tell me what that "plan" is, that would be futile.

That graph is easy to understand, not religion, and very portable. You see?

Just because it's portable doesn't mean it makes sense. Look :

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

Things aren't always as they appear. They are going to read what was said here one day and wonder why you said that the four basics of math aren't.

That's what I said. You DO believe you are the bearer of truth. You see yourself as the next einstein, with your ideas beign revolutionary.

I know enough science and logic to deal with your forum.

No you don't. You couldn't deal with me back when I was 10.

It is you who somehow don't know that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

I know they are. I also know that that statement is wrong.

I really don't know how you are going to explain that later.

Same way I explain it to you, now. Hopefully the next chap will understand better than you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It doesn't stand on its own, not to mention any opposition. The slighest breeze could topple it.
I guess you are less than a breeze.



Which doesn't change a thing to science, unless you're trying to fit that graph of yours into anything. Switching negative and positive only affects YOUR hypothesis.
Right. Because it didn't change a thing to science, it didn't bother the graph.


Well, under some conditions there are.



Well, they aren't.



Well, they aren't, exactly.

You see how unsure of yourself when it comes to me being right? Everywhere else you are so sure.



We've shown that some lifeforms, some of which have nothing to do with our "makeup", have no sex,
So what? They are very low forms of life. The base on which more advanced forms are made. Those lifeforms also have very little intelligence, does that mean that all other lifeforms were not meant to have any? Even you should be able to see that evolution went from the simple to the complex. And that is iin the complex that the greater experience is realized.

and that "most advanced" depends on which standard you're using.
I know. The problem is that intelligence covers everything. Humans lost their fur because they developed intelligence enough to get it other places. Their whole existence is based around developing intelligence, it is their natural advantage. Measured against the natural advantage of any other form of life, intelligence(and humans) win.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Who cares what you think ? The question is, does it work ?



[quote]Depends on how you see it. No one says there was only one of those shots, and the others were "unlucky". Frankly, we simply don't know. But assuming an infinite number of fluctuations, it's only logical to assume that, once in a while, one of them will make sense. Like the poker hand.
First you dreamt up more than one, (without evidence) then you "logically assume" Someone gave me a page on how assuming was not science. In the end you got things looking the way you wanted.

The whole sentence.
Einstein said that, not me.

Now, obviously, IF matter is built "from" energy and matter forms the molecules that are part of life, you obviously have a link between the properties of one and the other. However, it's ridiculous to look at the most basic form of energy, look at how it behaves, and apply those caracteristics to life without even seeing how those various energies and forms of matter interact between one another to create even more COMPLEX behaviours.
You know that complex behavior is based on them.



Non-sequitur. Gravity is KNOWN to exist, but we don't necessarily understand the process involved. The soul is UNKNOWN to exist.
The soul is KNOWN to exist.


Unless you can tell me what that "plan" is, that would be futile.
Boy. You think big of yourself.


That's what I said. You DO believe you are the bearer of truth. You see yourself as the next einstein, with your ideas beign revolutionary.
Because I know the 4 basics are the four basics? Everyone but those here knows that.


No you don't. You couldn't deal with me back when I was 10.
That only shows that you always THOUGHT you were a big head.


I know they are. I also know that that statement is wrong.
Huh?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, you do not. Might I suggest Unskilled and Unaware (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/unskilled.htm) as a little light reading?
No you may not.

[Loss Leader]

Light, why didn't you respond to my post? In case you don't remember, I said YOU LIED TO ME.

Here's what I wrote and what you ignored:

Well, LCL, you lied to me. I asked you whom you would believe that you were making errors and you wrote:

You. All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

So I wrote you a long post about the fallacy of making assumptions. I explained the scientific method. I gave you a citation to learn more. I put together several nice examples concerning phlogiston and cowboys and indians. I explained that even gravity was not assumed but was and still is rigorously tested by scientists. The endpoint was that no assumption may be made unless it can be tested and then revised if necessary.

And you wrote back:

People make assumptions, some people are scientist, some scientist make assumptions. And why not? They are a valuable tool. They don't have to be always right, but they lay the ground work for farther study.

So you have lied. Careful, logical presentation filled with examples is not enough to convince you that you have made an error. If your little worldview is a matter of personal opinion and faith with no evidence, just say so. But do not be dishonest. Do not pretend that you are open to new information when you are not. And don't waste anyone else's time like you have wasted mine.

[Tricky]

So you have lied. Careful, logical presentation filled with examples is not enough to convince you that you have made an error. If your little worldview is a matter of personal opinion and faith with no evidence, just say so. But do not be dishonest. Do not pretend that you are open to new information when you are not. And don't waste anyone else's time like you have wasted mine.
While everything you say is factual, Loss Leader, I will still argue in LCL's behalf. A person who is mentally incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood is not lying. A person who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality is not lying. A person who ignores your arguments may be doing so because he cannot understand them and therefore cannot reply to them.

I believe that all three of these apply to LCL. He is not a liar. He is not a troll. He is an ignoramus, more to be pitied than reviled.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to show him the myriad of problems with his "ideas". There is hope that he can learn. Even ignoramuses can be inspire and taught to learn. A big "thanks" to you and Belz and all the others who have taken on this (usually) thankless task.

[Solus]

Dear god and all the angels in heaven! This thread is still going on. :eye-poppi Thank you LCL I will make use of this thread for a psychology class someday. I'll write a paper on mental illness and behavioral problems and use this thread to highlight them.

I can't feel pity for you because you won't help yourself. I have my own problems but I have worked to get help. I have all the sympathy in the world for those that want to help themselves,but you don't so you can go rot.

Here's a hat for you, I'm sure it will fit just right ;)

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/kutcherside.jpg

[zizzybaluba]

While everything you say is factual, Loss Leader, I will still argue in LCL's behalf. A person who is mentally incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood is not lying. A person who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality is not lying. A person who ignores your arguments may be doing so because he cannot understand them and therefore cannot reply to them.

I believe that all three of these apply to LCL. He is not a liar. He is not a troll. He is an ignoramus, more to be pitied than reviled.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to show him the myriad of problems with his "ideas". There is hope that he can learn. Even ignoramuses can be inspire and taught to learn. A big "thanks" to you and Belz and all the others who have taken on this (usually) thankless task.

I'm really on the fence as to whether LCL is to be pitied rather than reviled.
Yes, he truly is delusional and in need of mental help. And as such, I feel quite a bit dirty for having laughed at the symptoms of his illness. I picture him as quite a lonely fellow, with his 'theory' as a means of escape from the real world.

LCL, get help. Really. I know I've admitted to laughing at you here, but mental illness is not a joking matter. Seeking help is not a sign of weakness, its a sign of bravery.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What, intuition ? No.
Now you see how absolute you are. How can you say everybody, everywhere. I said human and that was too absolute for you.

All persons aren't women as well. What's your point ?
What point? I said female. You said that that meant that I said the planet is a women. You have to see the difference.

The Earth isn't female, anyway. It's a ball of rock.
See here? You did know.
And are you trying to tell me that all here think Earth is just a ball of rock? Because no one will challenge you? You see emotions would tell you that there are plenty of women in the world, but only one called "mom." This planet is really more to you, and life, than a ball of rock. I think science would even back that up. It is a unique, complex, and life supporting ball of rock. I don't think that you speak for science, but you attitude and ego is wide spread. Even more so because when one of you get a degree, something you think you BECOME science.

No I don't. Again you show how bad you are at guessing what I think. Maybe you should stop that.
You do it to me. Or is that okay?

I said that most environments were hostile to us. You might have noticed that most people live in houses in order to deal with those adverse conditions.
You might have noticed that those houses are reaching higher and higher into the sky. Humans have long ago got pass thinking of just shelter, and are seeking much more. Are you sure you want to keep matching examples against humans? That shows you that you can't know as much about logic as you seem to think. Who in their right mind would pick any other team?


No, because that assumes someone ELSE made the tank.
You better not be a scientist assuming. And the personal who was just after me about that should be on you any minute. After all, this is a free and fair forum.

No one person builds a tank unless the entire infrastructure that allows it exists,
One that does in fact exist.

[quuote]so that one elephant is really up against all of humanity and its history, which is by no means a 1-on-1 match.
That is my point. Who said it had to be? intelligence allows cooperation And any human with the money can buy a tank. In a lot of cases all he has to show is that his situation needs one.

Exactly. And in that context you couldn't claim that we are "higher".
And I didn't. But wouldn't it only be logical that since he does not have a claw, that he would pick up a stick? No matter what, if he can think, he will do something intelligent.



It is. Survival is the only real criterion that makes any sense, in nature.
and using intelligence to do it has made very good sense.


He was wrong, then.
You got to be kidding? With a choice between him and you, its him? Oh where, oh where, are the defenders of science now?


I can say it. I won't, because it isn't true. But that just spoils the whole thing for you, doesn't it ? No one here agrees with you because you are so fundamentally, terribly wrong that you can't form a coherent hypothesis. It's simply more comfortable for you to think that we're all evil men trying to hide the truth from you.
Why are people trying to get me to call them "evil?" Out to get me? I don't think that. Duh. People do disagree without being stupid, crazy, or game playing. It happens. You have an opinion, so do I. Others have theirs. Where have you been. Oh wait. I know. Here.
I hear all the time about what I should be doing, but it is okay for you all. How can this man speak for everyone in all he says, and no one corrects him? You are a team, that's why.
That guy who told me about a connection between math and language was almost chastised. Rand Fan quickly flipped the other way. Honestly. I think you are the popint man right now, with the rest are ready to pounce. You say no one here, I say this thing is not going to end here.






Only by HUMAN standards, which of course is circular.



Maybe ? See how hard it is for you to say yes in reference to what I say ?Is this a circular thing?

[Loss Leader]

I'm really on the fence as to whether LCL is to be pitied rather than reviled. Yes, he truly is delusional and in need of mental help. And as such, I feel quite a bit dirty for having laughed at the symptoms of his illness.

I don't know. He's certainly no kc440 or Truthseeker1234. Those guys are quite obviously paranoid and borderline personalities. Lifegazer becomes absolutely obsessed with his ideas, percevorating on meaningless points and lashing out at those who disagree. I think LCL could get along in public - order a coffee without a problem. He probably doesn't need to constantly talk about his pet theory to every person on the street. And, since his whole theory boils down to a fairly benign type of theism, he probably fits in well with the general religious climate in the country. If he threw in the word Jesus every now and then, he'd probably be indistinguishable from anyone else.

So long as he's using this as his outlet for crazy, he might be doing ok in the real world.

I picture him as quite a lonely fellow, with his 'theory' as a means of escape from the real world.

Oh yeah, without a doubt. If he doesn't learn to be more open to other ideas, he's going to stay lonely for a long, long time.

[Tricky]

I don't know. He's certainly no kc440 or Truthseeker1234. Those guys are quite obviously paranoid and borderline personalities. Lifegazer becomes absolutely obsessed with his ideas, percevorating on meaningless points and lashing out at those who disagree. I think LCL could get along in public - order a coffee without a problem. He probably doesn't need to constantly talk about his pet theory to every person on the street. And, since his whole theory boils down to a fairly benign type of theism, he probably fits in well with the general religious climate in the country. If he threw in the word Jesus every now and then, he'd probably be indistinguishable from anyone else.Oh yes of course. There are many ignorant and deluded people who are perfectly functional in society. Our society does not require critical thinking in many, maybe even most jobs. Obviously you would not want LCL to be a brain surgeon, but he could do just fine as a bus-boy. We need bus-boys.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm really on the fence as to whether LCL is to be pitied rather than reviled.
Yes, he truly is delusional and in need of mental help. And as such, I feel quite a bit dirty for having laughed at the symptoms of his illness. I picture him as quite a lonely fellow, with his 'theory' as a means of escape from the real world.

LCL, get help. Really. I know I've admitted to laughing at you here, but mental illness is not a joking matter. Seeking help is not a sign of weakness, its a sign of bravery.
I must say that I am starting to worry. With all of you saying the same thing. But look that this from my angle. I mean that was a full page of insult. I mean. If that was a full page of where I went wrong.

If it said something like LCL said the the 4 basics of math weren't.
Gravity did not effect life.
Matter and energy were not two forms of the same thing.
Humans are not the highest form of life.
Einstein was wrong.
The universe would have only 3 forces at a temperture where life in the universe is impossible.

If I were shown something like that, I would at least think that they thought they were right. Somehow, they seem to think that how they feel about me is the safer target. There they are allowed to "assume" all they want even though they, are those with them, says that that sought of thing shows a lack of knowledge, and logic, and whatever else they choose to dream up at the time. I am going to go look and see how you all have faired against others that came here. It also just dawned on me that you probably have a history that I could hold your feet to the fire with. No. That would distract me. And I haven't the time anyway. But I will.

[Tricky]

If it said something like LCL said the the 4 basics of math weren't.
Weren't what? The only four "basics"? They're not.

Gravity did not effect life. Gravity did not effect life. It might affect it though.

Matter and energy were not two forms of the same thing.

They are not. You have been told this time and time by very educated people. The fact that a thing can be converted into another thing does not mean that they are the same. And you never answered me as to two ways that energy can be converted to matter. One would almost suspect that you have no understanding of the process.

Humans are not the highest form of life.
They are highest at some things and not at others. You have time and time again used anthropocentric criteria to define "highest".

Einstein was wrong. Einstein was wrong about some things (which he admitted). But he was never as wrong as you. Not by several orders of magnitude.

The universe would have only 3 forces at a temperture where life in the universe is impossible.On this, I cannot comment. As far as I can tell, it is gibberish. Can you tell me at what temperature life is impossible? Since we don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe, this may be difficult.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Oh yes of course. There are many ignorant and deluded people who are perfectly functional in society. Our society does not require critical thinking in many, maybe even most jobs. Obviously you would not want LCL to be a brain surgeon, but he could do just fine as a bus-boy. We need bus-boys.
And you are a scientist? You can't be. But I truely hope you are.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Weren't what? The only four "basics"? They're not.
You are precious. Here is what happened.
You said they weren't (knowing full well then what I was talking about) and I googled it and they said that they were the 4 basics. Then you doubted google. Then others came and backed you, one quite convincingly. Later when I said I was posting what you said at the site you said you had already "conceded" the point. Later you back tracked and now you are saying "the only 4 "basics"?
You do know what recorded means don't you? What you are doing is what mental illness looks like. People here talk all about what a scientist would not do and here you are doing all that stuff in their face. And they can't see it. This is the kind of stuff that convinces me that you are wrong. You wouldn't need to go through all that if you weren't.

Gravity did not effect life. It might affect it though.
Thanks. I must have been doing that for years.


They are not. You have been told this time and time by very educated people.

But I googled it and they said that Einstein Said that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Are you saying that it's not?

The fact that a thing can be converted into another thing does not mean that they are the same.
So he was wrong?


And you never answered me as to two ways that energy can be converted to matter. One would almost suspect that you have no understanding of the process.
You must be too dumb to hear yourself think. As I have said countless times that even if I didn't know I could google it. I have not even seen the post where you first posted it, so look at the time I would have? But you know that policy where tv cameras don't show people who run out on the field naked for fear of encouraging them? You don't need me to help you play with yourself.

They are highest at some things and not at others. You have time and time again used anthropocentric criteria to define "highest".
Just one, intelligence, it covers the others. It is the one thing that makes the universe make sense.


Einstein was wrong about some things (which he admitted). But he was never as wrong as you. Not by several orders of magnitude.
Wait a minute, not about E=MC2. And that is all I asked. HE was human. Of course he was wrong about things. Are you sure you know what you are doing?

On this, I cannot comment. As far as I can tell, it is gibberish. Can you tell me at what temperature life is impossible? Since we don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe, this may be difficult.
3 minutes after the big bang. I think the question was about the Electroweak force.

Science and math both say that there is life out there.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Dear god and all the angels in heaven! This thread is still going on. :eye-poppi Thank you LCL I will make use of this thread for a psychology class someday. I'll write a paper on mental illness and behavioral problems and use this thread to highlight them.

I can't feel pity for you because you won't help yourself. I have my own problems but I have worked to get help. I have all the sympathy in the world for those that want to help themselves,but you don't so you can go rot.

Maybe you can help me? Are matter and energy two forms of the same thing?

Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?

Are humans the most advanced form of life on this planet?

Are math and language linked?



Please. You might be the one. Don't let me rot.

Lets see if you have any notion of self esteem.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Light, why didn't you respond to my post? In case you don't remember, I said YOU LIED TO ME.
Wow. I am I about to be judged by God?

Here's what I wrote and what you ignored:
someone ignored again? Didn't anybody here get enough attention when they were young?

So I wrote you a long post about the fallacy of making assumptions. I explained the scientific method. I gave you a citation to learn more. I put together several nice examples concerning phlogiston and cowboys and indians. I explained that even gravity was not assumed but was and still is rigorously tested by scientists. The endpoint was that no assumption may be made unless it can be tested and then revised if necessary.
Did you see all the assumptions that your crowd is making? I have no intention of being held to a standard that everyone else is not. How many people here took that logic course of yours? How many of them follow it, do you? You must be dumb as a doorknob if you think I care two cent the bull you got going for you.


So you have lied. Careful, logical presentation filled with examples is not enough to convince you that you have made an error. If your little worldview is a matter of personal opinion and faith with no evidence, just say so. But do not be dishonest. Do not pretend that you are open to new information when you are not. And don't waste anyone else's time like you have wasted mine.
Wow. I actually feel sorry for you. But I think it is dishonest of you to think that somehow you want to help me. I am going to look back and see whether or not you stick to those things that you have said about assumptions and logic. And you had better or I am going to make you a star.

[RandFan]

Maybe you can help me? Are matter and energy two forms of the same thing? Let's assume for a moment that they are, what can we infer from this?

Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?Assuming that it does, so what?

Are humans the most advanced form of life on this planet? Assuming that they are, so what?

Are math and language linked? I think they are, to some degree. What that degree is I'm not certain but that being said, so what?

Lets see if you have any notion of self esteem.Rhetorical.

[Tricky]

You are precious. Here is what happened.
You said they weren't (knowing full well then what I was talking about) and I googled it and they said that they were the 4 basics. Then you doubted google. Then others came and backed you, one quite convincingly. Later when I said I was posting what you said at the site you said you had already "conceded" the point. Later you back tracked and now you are saying "the only 4 "basics"?
You do know what recorded means don't you? What you are doing is what mental illness looks like. People here talk all about what a scientist would not do and here you are doing all that stuff in their face. And they can't see it. This is the kind of stuff that convinces me that you are wrong. You wouldn't need to go through all that if you weren't.
After all this time, you are still unable to understand this? I despair of hoping that you will ever learn anything.


But I googled it and they said that Einstein Said that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Are you saying that it's not?

So he was wrong?
You still seem to be suffering under the delusion that Googling equals truth.

Show me exactly what Einstein said about energy being two forms of the same thing. I'm guessing that you didn't understand it, since you have virtually no understanding of anything scientific.

You must be too dumb to hear yourself think. As I have said countless times that even if I didn't know I could google it. I have not even seen the post where you first posted it, so look at the time I would have?
You can Google that the earth is flat or (quite often) that evolution didn't happen. That doesn't make it so. Only a great fool would think so. You seem to think so. What can we conclude?


Wait a minute, not about E=MC2. And that is all I asked. HE was human. Of course he was wrong about things. Are you sure you know what you are doing? That equation quantifies the mathematics of conversion of energy into matter and vice versa. It doesn not say they are the same thing. If you had a layman's education in physics, you would know this. You don't even have a high-school education in physics. So you will understand if I don't worry too much about your opinion of my skills. I consider the source.

Science and math both say that there is life out there.
No they don't. Lots of scientists and mathematicians say it is possible, even likely. They tend to refrain from claims of knowledge about things without evidence. That is where they differ from you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't know. He's certainly no kc440 or Truthseeker1234. Those guys are quite obviously paranoid and borderline personalities. Lifegazer becomes absolutely obsessed with his ideas, percevorating on meaningless points and lashing out at those who disagree. I think LCL could get along in public - order a coffee without a problem. He probably doesn't need to constantly talk about his pet theory to every person on the street. And, since his whole theory boils down to a fairly benign type of theism, he probably fits in well with the general religious climate in the country. If he threw in the word Jesus every now and then, he'd probably be indistinguishable from anyone else.

So long as he's using this as his outlet for crazy, he might be doing ok in the real world.



Oh yeah, without a doubt. If he doesn't learn to be more open to other ideas, he's going to stay lonely for a long, long time.
Damn. This is not good.To watch people talking badly about you is a different kind of experience. It is like being able to hear the thoughts of another.
I just had a terrible thought. Even if I am not crazy, I am standing pretty close. I am hoping that somehow I have "split the hair." I think that there has to be a certain sought of irony to the full picture. I think for my own sake, there better be.

[wollery]

Damn. This is not good.To watch people talking badly about you is a different kind of experience. It is like being able to hear the thoughts of another.
I just had a terrible thought. Even if I am not crazy, I am standing pretty close.If you are referring to the oft quoted "thin line between genius and insanity" then no, you are not even in the neighbourhood.

I am hoping that somehow I have "split the hair." I think that there has to be a certain sought of irony to the full picture. I think for my own sake, there better be.Okay, it's been bugging me and I've tried to ignore it, but I can't any longer. It's 'sort of', 'sort' as in kind, type variety. Sought is the past participle of the verb 'to seek'.

[Solus]

Keeps going and going and going and going.:covereyes I think we have some completion for the energizer bunny here. Expect the energizer bunny isn't a willfully ignorant and delusional. And the bunny is kinda cool.

This thread must die, it bores me immensely. I'm gonna spam this thing with nonsense. Now. whenever I feel like it. I'll post anything I want just to shut LCL up and make him go away.

I used to love transformers as a kid. I found I have a collecter's item of sorts A fortress maximus transformer. http://i11.ebayimg.com/03/i/03/5a/61/3b_12_sb.JPG
It's worth about 500$ on ebay I've been tempted to sell but childhood memories have me holding on to it. I'd sell for 1000$ if there any prospective buyers :)

Any dicussion even the most banal and trival beats this garbage coming from LCL. I think I"ll beat him at his own game. At least till I find something better to do.

[wollery]

On this board we usually use recipes and pictures of kittens for that sort of thing.

[TobiasTheViking]

I think we are talking different languages. I said I did not know how to bring things here. And I did answer you-I think.

I thought you had. I will look later.



Because I wasn't. And I reworked the box to avoid some. I think I told you that. But I will get to them.

What I said, I have backed up.

And when I have the time to look I will. Do you see how long your reply is? There are lots others just like this. I have but so much time to spend here. I will answer, but I need time.

Are you telling me you never heard that term?


You see? Here we go. I told you I understood what you were doing, which is why I needed to make you a special case. I have already been over this in those non-answers of mine. So you do know what I am saying, and I told you I understood what you are saying. I will deal with it when I get the time.


I think so too. Look at this though. In all that you just said here, you could have added one or two of those questions. That is the ones that I don't have to answer-yet-because of the box rework.

and you PROMISED me an answer two days ago, you PROMISED to show me where you had answered me.


You have not backed up your claims.

You have postponed and sidestepped answering my questions for over a THOUSAND posts. And now you PROMISED me an answer, and you don't give me one within the timeframe you specified.

Now you again say you will answer at a later time. Well, how much time do you need? You already broke one deadline you put down for when you would answer me.

[Solus]

On this board we usually use recipes and pictures of kittens for that sort of thing.

My bad, a breach of forum etiquette :blush: Don’t care about LCL but I respect the other posters on this board.

Well then some cats. This one kind of looks like the one I used to have. That is before the poor thing got eaten by coyotes (His name was lemme :( )

http://www.kattenplaza.nl/page/katten_bestanden/forumkat2005.jpg


Anyway a discussion of medication then as I think it relates to this thread quite nicely.

http://www.petersonlawfirm.com/images/info/abilify.jpg

This drug is called abilify it’s an antipsychotic medication, I took it when I became manic and it saved me. However It’s used primarily for schizophrenia. I recommend LCL visits a psychiatrist and gets some kind of general evaluation. Though it’s possible the doctor will see no need for medication I’m pretty such based this on thread that won’t happen.

I have some samples of this drug that I would actually send to LCL just to shut him up with this thread. Nothing wrong with having mental problems but for love of god get help!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Keeps going and going and going and going.:covereyes I think we have some completion for the energizer bunny here. Expect the energizer bunny isn't a willfully ignorant and delusional. And the bunny is kinda cool.
This thread must die, it bores me immensely. I'm gonna spam this thing with nonsense. Now. whenever I feel like it. I'll post anything I want just to shut LCL up and make him go away.


Any dicussion even the most banal and trival beats this garbage coming from LCL. I think I"ll beat him at his own game. At least till I find something better to do.
Wow. You didn't answer any of the questions. Most here would not pass on a direct challenge. You must really be as dumb as your post say you are.
And what does it matter to you how long this goes on? I don't get that. The guy is bored with me but he comes to the only place where I am. Where are all those people who play "logic cop"? Doesn't this guy at least deserve a ticket?

[RandFan]

Enchilada Breakfast Casserole

12 oz can SPAM - cubed 1/2" 4 eggs1 small onion chopped 2 cups whipping cream1 small green pepper, chopped 1 tbsp all-purpose flour1 small tomato, chopped 4-oz can diced green chiles2 cups shredded Cheddar cheese 1/4 tsp garlic powder8 7" flour tortillas Picante saucePlace about 1/4 cup SPAM, 1 tablespoon onion, 1 tablespoon green pepper, 1 tablespoon tomato and 1 tablespoon cheese on one side of tortilla. Set remaining cheese aside. Roll up jelly-roll fashion; place seam side down in greased 13x9" baking dish. In small bowl combine remainin ingredients; blend together with wire whisk. Pour over ehchiladas. Cover; refrigerate overnight. Heat oven to 350. Bake, uncovered, for 40 to 50 minutes or until egg mixture is set. Sprinkle with remaining cheese. Return to oven; bake for 5 minutes or until cheese is melted. Serve with picante sauce.

Mmmmm.... Spam.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This drug is called abilify it’s an antipsychotic medication, I took it when I became manic and it saved me. However It’s used primarily for schizophrenia. I recommend LCL visits a psychiatrist and gets some kind of general evaluation. Though it’s possible the doctor will see no need for medication I’m pretty such based this on thread that won’t happen.

I have some samples of this drug that I would actually send to LCL just to shut him up with this thread. Nothing wrong with having mental problems but for love of god get help!
You sure know a lot about, and are sympathic to people (other than me) who have mental problems. You must be talking from great experience. Anyway. You got nothing to say. Yet you seem compelled to say something. I don't know what to tell you. But letting everyone know that you got nothing to say, only makes it worst. Just take whatever it is that is holding you together and just chill.