define intelligence
k
Patrick Ford
> is there one definition?
Not yet one that is acceptable to the consensus.
--
--
+ =================================+
Patrick Ford
Auckland, New Zealand
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1
abuse@!--#echo var
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
Blue Eyes
>
> k wrote:
>
> > is there one definition?
>
> Not yet one that is acceptable to the consensus.
I think intelligence could be defined as the ability to know how stupid
one is.
PixelHead
ksn.r...@clear.net.nz.invalid says...
> is there one definition?
since no ones started anything - other than the ability to recognise
stupidity - which almost is an opposite (and is without definition
itself)...
i'd say that high intelligence (as opposed to animal intelligence) - is
the ability to recognise ones self. ie The ability to pass what's
commonly known as the mirror test.
Only two animals have shown some evidence of passing the mirror test,
the dolphin and a species of chimp (can't recall the name now).
Could we start with the definition of Life?
Patrick Ford
> Could we start with the definition of Life?
I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
--
--
+ =================================+
Patrick Ford
Auckland, New Zealand
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1
abuse@!--#echo var
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
PixelHead
> PixelHead wrote:
>
> > Could we start with the definition of Life?
>
> I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
but not perfectly
?
reason: life wouldn't continue for that long otherwise - consumption
would take care of that.
Also: the definition needs further expanding. An idea can self-
replicate.
k
olfaction
i had a diff kind of question in mind. but welcome.....hope someone answers
your questions too.
gipsy
Patrick Ford wrote in message <39F741A3.MD...@ihug.co.nz>...
>PixelHead wrote:
>
>> Could we start with the definition of Life?
>
>I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
That would rule out viruses (or virii or however it's pluralized) then
because they need a host cell to replicate.
Hey, that would mean a virus (or any other incomplete strand of DNA or RNA)
was not the precursor to the first living cell, which means that the first
living cell needed to be 100% complete before it could work (live and
reproduce).
Gipsy
PixelHead
ksn.r...@clear.net.nz.invalid says...
> mirror test? poor methodology...coz of diff sensory modalites - especially
> olfaction
that's what makes the mirror test so hard to "make". perhaps I shoulda
said "mirror" test.
Patrick Ford
> In article <39F741A3.MD...@ihug.co.nz>, pa...@ihug.co.nz says...
> > PixelHead wrote:
> >
> > > Could we start with the definition of Life?
> >
> > I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
>
> but not perfectly
>
> ?
>
> reason: life wouldn't continue for that long otherwise - consumption
> would take care of that.
But would that disqualify it as life? Do you think life has to be
continuous and non-terminal as a process? I was thinking one iteration
of self-replication would suffice. I'll have ot think about that some
more.
>
> Also: the definition needs further expanding. An idea can self-
> replicate.
Yeah, well I took it for granted that it was a discrete phyicical entity we
were talking about. Sorry for presuming.
fiona Taylor
Well, if we consider the definition of a GOOD life...
Good food
Good drink
Good sex
More good sex
yep...more.....
--
Fee
Hamilton
e-mail : fio...@ihug.co.nz.invalid
ICQ: 11485464
fiona Taylor
Thee able itea too rekogneyes
1. gud fewd
5. gud jrenk
99. gerate secks
screaming.chicken
Mel
catfood
wrote:
>The definititon of life...hmmm...
>Well, if we consider the definition of a GOOD life...
>Good food
>Good drink
>Good sex
>More good sex
Sounds like you'd also need to add a comfortable and very sturdy bed
to you list too, Fee ... just to make it all that much more enjoyable.
catfood (http://lordcatfood.i.am)
(APNZ Website ... http://www.geocities.com/apnz2000/photopage.htm)
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤
gipsy
fiona Taylor wrote in message <8t68p6$njj$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
Mai mayt end eye regjulurlee rite two eachudder laik dis.
Itz kwite phunnee tu put dis thru uh speach injun end haf id stil kum owet
az wreckigneyezabull speach. Idz umaysing wot phun ewe kan haf wiv a
mykreaupreausezsoar!
Gipsy
Dazza
--
Dazza
(29, AK, ICQ 56617434)
screaming.chicken wrote...
Jace
wrote:
Hooked on phonics strikes again!
---
Jace
ja...@softhome.net
ICQ# 4654209
http://sydewinder.tripod.com/default.html
falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~qandrews
Freeform fantasy RP
Blue Eyes
> >
> >> Could we start with the definition of Life?
> >
> >I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
>
> That would rule out viruses (or virii or however it's pluralized) then
> because they need a host cell to replicate.
>
> Hey, that would mean a virus (or any other incomplete strand of DNA or RNA)
> was not the precursor to the first living cell, which means that the first
> living cell needed to be 100% complete before it could work (live and
> reproduce).
>
> Gipsy
Is that not the whole gist of the irreducible complexity argument? The
complexity of many even simple organisms is such that the mathematical
chance of them occurring simply by chance is infinitesimal (if chance is
indeed the organising principle involved in evolution-or rather the
selection by and of chance events -but then on most level surely that
selection involves a conciousness tho? At its most minimal this may be
simple differentiation but even this implies consciousness of the other)
Blue Eyes
awareness of one's own stupidity. I now have reason to believe it may
indeed be an UNAWARENESS of one's own stupidity-(those who plod ahead
and achieve against all the odds) Or would that be a definition of
Counter-intelligence?
Patrick Ford
> gipsy wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Ford wrote in message <39F741A3.MD...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > >PixelHead wrote:
> > >
> > >> Could we start with the definition of Life?
> > >
> > >I'll kick off with. "the ability to self-replicate."
> > >--
> >
> > That would rule out viruses (or virii or however it's pluralized) then
> > because they need a host cell to replicate.
> >
> > Hey, that would mean a virus (or any other incomplete strand of DNA or RNA)
> > was not the precursor to the first living cell, which means that the first
> > living cell needed to be 100% complete before it could work (live and
> > reproduce).
> >
> > Gipsy
>
> Is that not the whole gist of the irreducible complexity argument? The
> complexity of many even simple organisms is such that the mathematical
> chance of them occurring simply by chance is infinitesimal
The actual mathematical chance of something occurring is irrelevant if it
quite clearly has occurred.
> (if chance is
> indeed the organising principle involved in evolution-or rather the
> selection by and of chance events -
No scientist has ever suggested that it is chance.
That is just one of the straw-man lies invented by the fundy liars.
All chemical and physical processes are driven by inevitable forces of nature. To suggest
that evolution or bioogensis is controlled only by chance is anaolgous toi
suggesting that corrosion of metal by acid is just by chance meeting of
molecules. In a way it's sort of true, but still quite a ludicrous idea.
Blue Eyes
Strange you should mention corrosion of metals by acid as that is my
profession-I am an etcher-acid bites faster the more the amount of metal
exposed as this raises the temperature. Bubbles of the gases given off
stop acid from biting and need agitation or brushing away to affect
certain biting with many mordants. It it is a 'temperamental' process
with a seeming mind of its own. Have you read Darwin's Black box (I
think by Richard Behle) Remember there is also a fundamentalist monolith
called Neo-Darwinism. I am no Fundy Religiot -I breed various animals
and watch their life cycles-while I accept the biological inheritance or
basic phylogeny of organisms there are a lot of unanswered questions
involving behaviour and metamorphosis-I think study of atomic particles
and understanding of electrical processes will help one day prove or
disprove the likes of morphic fields/resonance. Fractal processes have
also been demonstrated-particularly in the patterns produced by cone
shells.
Patrick Ford
>
> Strange you should mention corrosion of metals by acid as that is my
> profession-I am an etcher-
For what application? Art,machine parts or what?
> acid bites faster the more the amount of metal
> exposed as this raises the temperature. Bubbles of the gases given off
> stop acid from biting and need agitation or brushing away to affect
> certain biting with many mordants.
Ahh, mordants. Now I see. I did mess around with that some years ago and I
have an inkling of what is involved to become proficient at controlling
the process. The example you give of the gas moderating the reaction is a
good one to illustrate the universal law of cussedness. For every action
there is something trying to inhibit it.
> It it is a 'temperamental' process
> with a seeming mind of its own. Have you read Darwin's Black box (I
> think by Richard Behle)
Michael Behe. If you have read the book, I hope you have read the hundred
or so debunkings by reputable scientists. Behe is most strongly debunked by
those whom he claims to quote in support of his propositions.
There is probably a review somewhere on http://www.holysmoke.org
Behe's book is chock full of deliberate misrepresentations, sophistry and
downright lies. But he spins a good yarn, and does it so well it's not so
easy to avoid getting sucked in.
> Remember there is also a fundamentalist monolith
> called Neo-Darwinism. I am no Fundy Religiot -I breed various animals
> and watch their life cycles-while I accept the biological inheritance or
> basic phylogeny of organisms there are a lot of unanswered questions
> involving behaviour and metamorphosis-
So there is in every branch of science. There are a hell of a lot of gaps
in the understanding of evolution, but knowledge is doubling about every
five years now, not just with the collection of field data, but with
developments of techniques that wouldn't have been dreamed about ten years
ago..
> I think study of atomic particles
> and understanding of electrical processes will help one day prove or
> disprove the likes of morphic fields/resonance. Fractal processes have
> also been demonstrated-particularly in the patterns produced by cone
> shells.
The fractal demonstration that I like best is the way such a simple
equation can duplicate the dendritic patterns of stuff like lichens and
moulds. I love running fractal demonstrations and watching it grow, and
then modifying the algorithm a tiny bit and watching a new one.
Blue Eyes
>
> Blue Eyes wrote:
>
> >
> > Strange you should mention corrosion of metals by acid as that is my
> > profession-I am an etcher-
>
> For what application? Art,machine parts or what?
> > acid bites faster the more the amount of metal
> > exposed as this raises the temperature. Bubbles of the gases given off
> > stop acid from biting and need agitation or brushing away to affect
> > certain biting with many mordants.
>
> Ahh, mordants. Now I see. I did mess around with that some years ago and I
> have an inkling of what is involved to become proficient at controlling
> the process. The example you give of the gas moderating the reaction is a
> good one to illustrate the universal law of cussedness. For every action
> there is something trying to inhibit it.
>
> > It it is a 'temperamental' process
> > with a seeming mind of its own. Have you read Darwin's Black box (I
> > think by Richard Behle)
>
> Michael Behe. If you have read the book,
I haven't in it's entirety-the bits I did read seemed interesting. But I
find Dawkins less than convincing and very doctrinaire. Sheldrake seems
a bit far fetched but I am sure something in the nature of a field has
an impact on the diversity and the interactions of organisms.And now
biologists are reconsidering Lamark and his so called heresy. My
personal interest is Geckos,their diversity,biogeography-I am sure that
an exploration of the geometry of reptiles scales would be
mathematically interesting-the major obvious differentiating aspect
between species for phylogenists.
Patrick Ford
> Patrick Ford wrote:
> >
> > Blue Eyes wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Strange you should mention corrosion of metals by acid as that is my
> > > profession-I am an etcher-
> >
> > For what application? Art,machine parts or what?
>
> Art-aquatints etc,but I also have done pcb's with my father.
FDo you do it for mass production or just limited run high-priced prints? I
had the impression etching was becoming a lost art under pressure from the
speed and cheapness of roto-lithography. Are etching and intaglio
synonymous, or am I confusing two different but similar processes?
> > Michael Behe. If you have read the book,
>
> I haven't in it's entirety-the bits I did read seemed interesting. But I
> find Dawkins less than convincing and very doctrinaire.
Yes but he has always been prepared to review and modify his "doctrines."
Being doctrinaire is an occupational hazard of an academic at the top of
his field.
> Sheldrake seems a bit far fetched but I am sure something in the
> nature of a field has > an impact on the diversity and the interactions
> of organisms.
I only know sketchily of Sheldrake--I don't think I have read any of his..
> And now
> biologists are reconsidering Lamark and his so called heresy. My
> personal interest is Geckos,their diversity,biogeography-I am sure that
> an exploration of the geometry of reptiles scales would be
> mathematically interesting-the major obvious differentiating aspect
> between species for phylogenists.
Hmm, Galapagos in miniature?
PixelHead
k
>I haven't in it's entirety-the bits I did read seemed interesting. But I
>find Dawkins less than convincing and very doctrinaire. Sheldrake seems
>a bit far fetched but I am sure something in the nature of a field has
>an impact on the diversity and the interactions of organisms.And now
>biologists are reconsidering Lamark and his so called heresy. My
>personal interest is Geckos,their diversity,biogeography-I am sure that
>an exploration of the geometry of reptiles scales would be
>mathematically interesting-the major obvious differentiating aspect
>between species for phylogenists.
>
paperback series.
>> > Remember there is also a fundamentalist monolith
>> > called Neo-Darwinism. I am no Fundy Religiot -I breed various animals
>> > and watch their life cycles-while I accept the biological inheritance
or
>> > basic phylogeny of organisms there are a lot of unanswered questions
>> > involving behaviour and metamorphosis-
>>
for metamorphosis - goodwin & webster (1982) - in some really wierd social
science journal - a paper on biological structuralism -damn i wish my
bibliography was all typed up - but you've must have seen goodwin's pop
sci book, "how the leopard changed his spots"?
for beh - guess who wants to write one? ;-))))))
right - i should not be here. study beckons....
Gipsy.
>I wrote a few posts back that intelligence could be defined as an
>awareness of one's own stupidity. I now have reason to believe it may
>indeed be an UNAWARENESS of one's own stupidity-(those who plod ahead
>and achieve against all the odds)
TV taught me (and TV never lies ;-) ) that this is referred to as "Pulling
a Homer" which means "To succeed despite stupidity."
Gipsy
Gipsy.
>gipsy wrote:
>>
>> That would rule out viruses (or virii or however it's pluralized) then
>> because they need a host cell to replicate.
>>
>> Hey, that would mean a virus (or any other incomplete strand of DNA or
RNA)
>> was not the precursor to the first living cell, which means that the
first
>> living cell needed to be 100% complete before it could work (live and
>> reproduce).
>>
>> Gipsy
>
>Is that not the whole gist of the irreducible complexity argument?
Pretty much, yep.
> The complexity of many even simple organisms is such that the mathematical
>chance of them occurring simply by chance is infinitesimal
infinitesimally *small*, that is. :-)
> (if chance is
>indeed the organising principle involved in evolution-or rather the
>selection by and of chance events -but then on most level surely that
>selection involves a conciousness tho?
At the lowest level it may involve just physical laws. (ie: species X
survive better than species Y because species X has an outer membrane that
blocks UV rays more effectively.)
Gipsy
Gipsy.
>
>The actual mathematical chance of something occurring is irrelevant if it
>quite clearly has occurred.
What is "quite clear" is that life exists on this planet. What isn't "quite
clear" is how that life got here. There is no definitive proof either way
that it came by purely natural processes or by intelligent design from some
omni-potent being.
>> (if chance is
>> indeed the organising principle involved in evolution-or rather the
>> selection by and of chance events -
>
>No scientist has ever suggested that it is chance.
Have you read everything ever written by scientists and everything ever said
by scientists? How else can you know that "no scientist has ever suggested
that it is chance." Why is the word "chance" so prevalent in discussions of
origins then? Don't accuse 'fundies' of being the only ones to use that
word.
Gipsy
Gipsy.
Patrick Ford wrote in message <39F87A11.MD...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
>Michael Behe. If you have read the book, I hope you have read the hundred
>or so debunkings by reputable scientists. Behe is most strongly debunked by
>those whom he claims to quote in support of his propositions.
Who does he claim to support?
>
>> Remember there is also a fundamentalist monolith
>> called Neo-Darwinism. I am no Fundy Religiot -I breed various animals
>> and watch their life cycles-while I accept the biological inheritance or
>> basic phylogeny of organisms there are a lot of unanswered questions
>> involving behaviour and metamorphosis-
>
>So there is in every branch of science. There are a hell of a lot of gaps
>in the understanding of evolution, but knowledge is doubling about every
>five years now
And in spite of those gaps, scientists will lie and say that evolution is a
proven fact.
So, based on your rate of doubling every 5 years, that means that 100 years
ago, our "knowledge" of evolution was only 0.000095367431640625% of what it
is today. (0.5^(100/5)) But even then, with so little knowledge, scientists
were "certain" that evolution was a proven fact.
Yeah right!
Gipsy
PixelHead
@freakeemail.com says...
> Patrick Ford wrote in message <39F861CA.MD...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >
> >The actual mathematical chance of something occurring is irrelevant if it
> >quite clearly has occurred.
>
>
> What is "quite clear" is that life exists on this planet. What isn't "quite
> clear" is how that life got here. There is no definitive proof either way
> that it came by purely natural processes or by intelligent design from some
> omni-potent being.
That clearly isn't correct though - as...
* there is now quite a lot of evidence to support what is commonly known
as 'the theory of evolution'.
whereas
* there is no evidence whatsoever to support creation by some omnipotent
'thing' (eg god or whatever) - other than the amazing human imagination!
PixelHead
@freakeemail.com says...
A good scientist wouldn't operate like that at all. They are not
interested in lies or lying to support a possible theory - indeed, the
very opposite is true. A good scientist will try and break a theory,
thereby proving that 'that ain't right - gotta be something else'.
Blue Eyes
>
> Blue Eyes wrote:
>
> > Patrick Ford wrote:
> > >
> > > Blue Eyes wrote:
> FDo you do it for mass production or just limited run high-priced prints? I
> had the impression etching was becoming a lost art under pressure from the
> speed and cheapness of roto-lithography. Are etching and intaglio
> synonymous, or am I confusing two different but similar processes?
>
I do them because they have specific aesthetic qualities unachievable by
any other method. High-speed production runs-unlikely- they are
laboriously inked by hand and take up to 4 hours to ink and even then
you can stuff them up by squashing a spider through the press etc etc!
Intaglio is any subsurface printing method including etching, engraving
and aquatint and mezzotint. Linos are relief prints-etchings can be
printed in relief like Blake's of 'Tyger, Tyger... ' fame . Lithos are
what are called planographic prints.
Yes- I despair it is a dying art in this country-except the largely
boutique and trinket type prints for sale in craft shops.
It is often excluded from Art awards in this country because we have a
very primitive notion of originality and 'aura' in this country. My
defence of it is that almost all great artists from the Renaissance
since have been great printmakers as well as their other disciplines.
(Durer,Picasso,Rouault,Whistler,Degas,Moore,Klee,Miro,Dali,Close,Hockney,Hogarth,Frink,Bourgeois,Cassat,Warhol(who
turned them into paintings) Even people like Anish Kapoor do them.
> --
Blue Eyes
>
>
> d'Arcy Thompson - on growth & form, reprinted classic in the canto
> paperback series.
>
Have seen excerpts-must see the original tho!Thanks for telling me where
to find it!
> >> > Remember there is also a fundamentalist monolith
> >> > called Neo-Darwinism. I am no Fundy Religiot -I breed various animals
> >> > and watch their life cycles-while I accept the biological inheritance
> or
> >> > basic phylogeny of organisms there are a lot of unanswered questions
> >> > involving behaviour and metamorphosis-
> >>
> for metamorphosis - goodwin & webster (1982) - in some really wierd social
> science journal - a paper on biological structuralism -damn i wish my
> bibliography was all typed up - but you've must have seen goodwin's pop
> sci book, "how the leopard changed his spots"?
I think I heard him on Nat Rad a few months ago?
>
> for beh - guess who wants to write one? ;-))))))
>
> right - i should not be here. study beckons....
Study hard! No time for Newsgroups this time of year!! But
thanks for the suggests-I am only a interested layperson on this
subject but have done an ecology paper with my fine arts degree.
Jonski
>What is "quite clear" is that life exists on this planet. What isn't "quite
>clear" is how that life got here. There is no definitive proof either way
>that it came by purely natural processes or by intelligent design from some
>omni-potent being.
Disagree. Read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
Cheers
Jon
=====================================================================
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
=====================================================================
Gipsy.
Jonski wrote in message <46jivsgmb4l9rbd0r...@4ax.com>...
>Gipsy. wrote:
>
>>What is "quite clear" is that life exists on this planet. What isn't
"quite
>>clear" is how that life got here. There is no definitive proof either way
>>that it came by purely natural processes or by intelligent design from
some
>>omni-potent being.
>
>Disagree. Read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
>
to observe how life got started. Science requires observation. We can
observe modern day processes and evidence such as fossils, but these all
exist in the present, not in the past.
Gipsy
Jonski
>Dawkins' book does not constitute proof.
Quite right. It does, however, present a logical, consistent framework
in which to conduct enquiries. It's ratifiable and extensible. It
shows that we don't have to resort to supernature to explain the
existence of life. It's the best answer we've got at the moment.
Gipsy
>Gipsy. wrote:
>
>>Dawkins' book does not constitute proof.
>
>Quite right. It does, however, present a logical, consistent framework
>in which to conduct enquiries. It's ratifiable and extensible. It
>shows that we don't have to resort to supernature to explain the
>existence of life. It's the best answer we've got at the moment.
>
it eliminates the *possibility* of a supernatural explanation.
Shouldn't scientists have an open mind? If there is some extra dimension to
the universe, a spiritual dimension, which at present can't easily be
discerned or measured with conventional equipment, shouldn't scientists at
least be openminded enough to learn more about this spiritual dimension?
The matter contained in the universe, where did it come from?
The energy contained in the universe, where did it come from?
The universe itself, where did it come from and what contains it?
Ultimately there needs to be something bigger and more powerful than our
universe, to cause all these other things to begin to exist. The ultimate
un-caused cause.
Gipsy
k
for my part, i was only asking the question wrt how people can be very
intelligent in some areas of life, real drongos in others.
wrt the way this thread has evolved, you're (g&j) both using the 'best
answer we have' argument. what da fuck is da null hypothesis? is a
rejection of that an automatic acceptance of da h(a)? and if you don't
agree the hypo-deductive mefod applies, then you bofe have meta-feories. as
have i.
but you're both damn functionalists...
hehehe
love,
k
Gipsy wrote in message <97287441...@shelley.paradise.net.nz>...
k
USE that theory, and don't test it.....etc, etc, etc....heard that b4 and
i accept it.
so stuff the hypo-ded meth for this argument if u wanna. perspectives depend
on the questions asked. common descent, as i will say for those who don't
know, is of course undeniable. however, given that it is, it ain't a great
explanatory tool. for others, it is.
gyps, causality is just a condition that you think applies as equally to
other perspectives.
i reject both positions. whether or not i have my own is another issue.
just got in with my final bit b4 i was challenged by a newbie,
k
Jonski
>but you're both damn functionalists...
But you *still* haven't defined that word, k.
Please?
;-)
Dazza
> The matter contained in the universe, where did it come from?
> The energy contained in the universe, where did it come from?
> The universe itself, where did it come from and what contains it?
> Ultimately there needs to be something bigger and more powerful than our
> universe, to cause all these other things to begin to exist. The ultimate
> un-caused cause.
>
> Gipsy
Question: If there is something bigger and more powerful... Where did that
come from?
--
Dazza
(29, AK, ICQ 56617434)
Gipsy
Dazza wrote in message <2BdL5.11313$SF5.2...@ozemail.com.au>...
there is something there that was not created but simply *is*. That
something does not need or rely on anything else for its own existence.
Interestingly, in the bible, one of God's names is "I am". (ie: not "I was
made" or any other dependent derivative) The bible also says of God that he
is the creator and *sustainer* of all things and that he has always existed.
Several statements in the bible also indicate that God's "time" is not the
same as our "time" and that God can see the future and the past and the
present with equal ease. So comprehending God's origin or beginning may be
impossible within our time-bounded dimension.
A good book to read about God and what qualities he should/could have as
deducted by logical reasoning is "Handbook of Christian apologetics". I've
put it in storage so unfortunately I can't tell you what the ISBN is or the
names of the authors but you might be able to find it in a library. Gotta
warn you though, the logical arguments presented in that book require a
turbo-charged brain to comprehend fully, anything less and you'll just get a
headache! ;-)
Gipsy
k
there is a lack thereof.
have you lost it yet?
:-}
Chrissy
> Question: If there is something bigger and more powerful... Where did
that
> come from?
The imagination of people - mainly religious people - from throughout
the ages.
Chrissy
Dazza
my comment in above and below...
My perspective of what you've said, Henry, is that human's tend to want to
know what the next step up in the chain is. Some people stop at the universe
and say "It always existed", others may say "God always existed". Either
way, it doesn't really bother me - if God exists, I'll get along with him/it
after I'm dead 'cause I'm a nice fella and no doubt so is s/he.. If the
universe existed first then what is it? How big is it? Does it even have a
size, or is size a human (3 dimensional) concept? If the big bang theory is
correct, then when all the matter in the universe was squished up into a
tiny wee dot, what was around the dot? Wouldn't that other stuff be part of
the unverse as well? (Uh oh... headache coming... hehe)...
It's not so much who is right or wrong about it, but the inability of some
to allow other people to think differently and accept that, that causes
trouble. (If that made sense to anyone..).
But for now, I'm on this planet and my main focus is to be nice to those
around me, and lead a happy life, and have good relationships/friendships
with others, helping them to be happy too (omg - I think I just made the
thread relevant..), and to look after the place enough so my children can do
the same.
Don't ya reckon?
:o)
--
Dazza
(29, AK, ICQ 56617434)
Gipsy wrote in message ...
>
> Dazza wrote in message..
Jonski
>have you lost it yet?
Babe, I've never found it ;-)
Cheers
Jonski
>If the big bang theory is correct, then when all the matter in the universe was squished up into a
>tiny wee dot, what was around the dot? Wouldn't that other stuff be part of
>the unverse as well? (Uh oh... headache coming... hehe)...
There was nothing around that dot, because there was no around for
anything to be in... you're confusing a vacuum with a nothingness. [1]
In a vacuum, there are things like quantum fluctuations, in a
nothingness, there is Nothing. Not a vacuum, but Nothing. No Thing.
Not only has time stopped, space (as in a spatial dimension) does not
exist.
Actually, I've stated that wrong: "In a nothingness..." There's
nothing to be inside of, in a nothingness.
Go read The Dancing Wu Li Masters...
Cheers
Jon
[1] It's the difference between {0}, a set containing the value zero,
and {}, an empty set. Or in computer terms, the difference between "0"
and "".
PS The derivation (and creation) of numbers is fascinating. Start with
the empty set, a nothingness, then define the set containing the empty
set (the set of all nothingnesses). After that you have the set
containing the set containing the empty set... Soon you have the
series: , , 0, 1, 2, 3... Wow. Elegant and beautiful. It's
mathematics at its simplest and finest- I mean we all learnt set
theory at primary school. Here we use it to _create_ counting numbers.
I'm in awe, and here I find the magic of the universe.
k
>the empty set, a nothingness, then define the set containing the empty
>set (the set of all nothingnesses). After that you have the set
>containing the set containing the empty set... Soon you have the
>series: , , 0, 1, 2, 3... Wow. Elegant and beautiful. It's
>mathematics at its simplest and finest- I mean we all learnt set
>theory at primary school. Here we use it to _create_ counting numbers.
>I'm in awe, and here I find the magic of the universe.
>
'night.
Jonski
>Here we use it to _create_ counting numbers.
Sorry, mean integers.
Cheers
Jon
Dazza
--
Dazza
(29, AK, ICQ 56617434)
Jonski wrote in message ...
Gipsy
The question of origins is one that we will never be able to answer with
certainty I suspect. At least not until we die. Then, we either meet our
maker or slip into a void of nothingness. (In which case we still don't have
the answer. Doh!)
Still, you gotta wonder about those folks who have had near death
experiences (or been clinically dead for extended periods of time) and
returned to life to tell their tale. Some people have tried to explain this
from an evolutionist's point of view, saying that these experiences are
created in the brain to ease the anxiety of the dying creature. This seems
to contradict the whole "selfish gene" concept. After all, if the body is
just some vehicle to propagate the genes, why should nature - or the genes -
care how you feel while dying?
It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death experiences
were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what objects
were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not be
able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
Gipsy
Gipsy
discoveries and inventions. Do you like your milk without bacteria in it?
You have the christian Louis Pasteur to thank for that. Send him a thank-you
note too when you get your next rabies or anthrax shot, because he
discovered how to develop a cure for such diseases.
Many christians from the past have contributed to man's knowledge and indeed
science owes its existence from a christian dogma: That the universe is
created by an intelligent being and has order and purpose to it, and that
this supreme being does not alter the universe on a whim such as you might
expect from Zeus and his gang. Hence we can rely on certain aspects of the
universe always being constant, and this allows scientists to develop
equations etc that reliably model the universe. Except for the last century
or so since communication and travel has become far more global, scientific
development was most prominent in those areas of the world where there was a
strong christian influence.
Gipsy
Blue Eyes
I was astonished to find out about the Kasimir effect after reading a
book on quantum physics recently (I am more a lay biologist than
physicist) Is it not possible that physics,theology,chemistry,biology
and art are differences in scale of the same?
Blue Eyes
Maori get the piss taken out of them a lot but Maori philosophy from the
likes of Te Matorahanga- The First 'Nothing'... Very similar in concept
I believe to , , or the set containing the empty set as stated above.
Also is not the Maori belief in ancestors roughly equivalent to the
Theory of Evolution all said and done? People were moaning about the
Maori content of a Stage one ecology paper I took, but I thought
actually the parallels were quite scientific and relevant. We ignore(and
I include Maori here) other cultures at our peril.
Blue Eyes
Really the last paragraph is quite incorrect-The Chinese invented
explosives,paper. Arabs much of our mathematics. Greeks geometry.
I think you are stretching the limits of credibility to suggest that any
distinct religion has any 'majority' in scientific development.I am
reminded of the Japanese professor who solved difficult linear
equations by folding a piece of paper without any computers.
Blue Eyes
> I was astonished to find out about the Kasimir effect after reading a
> book on quantum physics recently (I am more a lay biologist than
> physicist) Is it not possible that physics,theology,chemistry,biology
> and art are differences in scale of the same?
Or the sciences are differences in scale-arts and theology differences
in position?
Q-is it possible for a camera to photograph itself without a mirror?
PixelHead
@freakymail.com says...
> Chrissy wrote in message <97297121...@shelley.paradise.net.nz>...
> >Dazza wrote
> >
> >> Question: If there is something bigger and more powerful... Where did
> >that
> >> come from?
> >
> >The imagination of people - mainly religious people - from throughout
> >the ages.
> >
> And from this same imagination of religious people sprang forth many useful
> discoveries and inventions. Do you like your milk without bacteria in it?
> You have the christian Louis Pasteur to thank for that. Send him a thank-you
> note too when you get your next rabies or anthrax shot, because he
> discovered how to develop a cure for such diseases.
> Many christians from the past have contributed to man's knowledge and indeed
> science owes its existence from a christian dogma: That the universe is
Was it Galileo (sp) that suggested the Earth might be round? -
Christians stuck him under house arrest for the rest of his life.
And how about Christianity pervading Europe - tried to wipe out the
religion over there (pagans) by makin' half of 'em "witches" and
drowning them (made up the concept of "witches are bad" for starters).
Luckily, the Black Death plague came along, and most people couldn't
believe in god anymore, and their power base in real life came to an
end.
Chrissy
> Q-is it possible for a camera to photograph itself without a mirror?
Yes - fibre optics.
Chrissy
Jonski
>This seems
>to contradict the whole "selfish gene" concept. After all, if the body is
>just some vehicle to propagate the genes, why should nature - or the genes -
>care how you feel while dying?
It's a by-product: pilots blacking out in g-fields have the same
tunnel of light and peacefulness that those having near-death
experiences do. It's not magic, it's actually very normal.
>It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death experiences
>were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
>doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what objects
>were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not be
>able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
Pseudoscience.
Jonski
>I was astonished to find out about the Kasimir effect after reading a
>book on quantum physics recently (I am more a lay biologist than
>physicist) Is it not possible that physics,theology,chemistry,biology
>and art are differences in scale of the same?
Possibly, except for theology. I'd put mathematics at the top of the
scale, physics below that and run from there through chemistry,
biology etc.
Now we're talking about synergy.
Cheers
Jon
Jonski
>Or the sciences are differences in scale-arts and theology differences
>in position?
That's a nice way to put it.
>Q-is it possible for a camera to photograph itself without a mirror?
Glib answers aside, yes, if you're willing to wait long enough.
Cheers
Jon
Chrissy
> Gipsy wrote:
>
> >This seems
> >to contradict the whole "selfish gene" concept. After all, if the body is
> >just some vehicle to propagate the genes, why should nature - or the
genes -
> >care how you feel while dying?
>
> It's a by-product: pilots blacking out in g-fields have the same
> tunnel of light and peacefulness that those having near-death
> experiences do. It's not magic, it's actually very normal.
>
> >It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death
experiences
> >were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
> >doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what
objects
> >were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not
be
> >able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
>
> Pseudoscience.
>
I had a school teacher once who said "Religion was invented by the
uneducated
to explain that which he was unable to comprehend.".
The quest for understanding has been going on for a long time and some
people
want an answer so much that they are prepared use anything to explain the
"unknown". Religion gives these people that answer.
Henry, this is not my opinion - it was said to me. So don't start.
Chrissy.
Dazza
Ta muchly :o)
> The question of origins is one that we will never be able to answer with
> certainty I suspect. At least not until we die. Then, we either meet our
> maker or slip into a void of nothingness. (In which case we still don't
have
> the answer. Doh!)
Too true... Bummer eh?
> Still, you gotta wonder about those folks who have had near death
> experiences (or been clinically dead for extended periods of time) and
> returned to life to tell their tale. Some people have tried to explain
this
> from an evolutionist's point of view, saying that these experiences are
> created in the brain to ease the anxiety of the dying creature. This seems
> to contradict the whole "selfish gene" concept. After all, if the body is
> just some vehicle to propagate the genes, why should nature - or the
genes -
> care how you feel while dying?
> It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death
experiences
> were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
> doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what
objects
> were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not be
> able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
> Gipsy
It is interesting to hear of these experiences, and I prefer to just let the
answer lay at "I don't know". I'm not denying the existence of there being
a superior consciousness that we generally don't think about. I hope there
is, but I don't know that. Therefore I live here and now as if tomorrow may
or may not be. After I'm dead - well, I'll deal with that then. For now, I
have priorities, of which my first priority is now.
I also find it interesting to listen to others points of view on it (and I
challenge them on their beliefs and I expect them to challenge me on mine).
A good discussion on trans-dimensional structure and our origins is quite
cool and can be satisfying to all concerned when all ears are open and minds
are prepared to bend and develop rather than dictate (It also makes an
excellent topic shortly after sex, if you're with the right person). The
whole field can lead to some good thought provoking and positive discussions
on time travel to psychic powers etc...
Feel free to discuss via email or another newsgroup, Henry (but I'll drop my
part here, as it's kinda more relevant to other ng's)
Gipsy
Jonski wrote in message ...
>
>>It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death
experiences
>>were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
>>doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what
objects
>>were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not be
>>able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
>
>Pseudoscience.
>
"out cold" - dead as far as doctors were concerned - regaining life or
consciousness and being able to tell what had happened around them (or even
in neighbouring rooms) while they were out cold.
What I provided were examples of *observations* only. Not *explanations*.
Gipsy
PixelHead
@freakymail.com says...
>
> Jonski wrote in message ...
> >Gipsy wrote:
> >
> >>It also doesn't explain how these people who have had near-death
> experiences
> >>were able to describe things that happened while they were dead. (Such as
> >>doctors working on them or talking to relatives, or even seeing what
> objects
> >>were placed on high shelves in the room that the dying person would not be
> >>able to see from their position on the hospital bed.)
> >
> >Pseudoscience.
> >
> Pseudoscience?!? I was referring to *observed* phenomenon: People who were
Observed phenomena - Jesus looks dead - was he?
Patrick Ford
> Yes- I despair it is a dying art in this country-except the largely
> boutique and trinket type prints for sale in craft shops.
> It is often excluded from Art awards in this country because we have a
> very primitive notion of originality and 'aura' in this country. My
> defence of it is that almost all great artists from the Renaissance
> since have been great printmakers as well as their other disciplines.
I wasn't aware that such snobbery existed here. I had been under the
impression that print making was highly regarded and accepted as a
legitimate art form,
--
--
--
+ =================================+
Patrick Ford
Auckland, New Zealand
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1
abuse@!--#echo var
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
postm...@nsa.gov
Patrick Ford
> > What is "quite clear" is that life exists on this planet. What isn't "quite
> > clear" is how that life got here. There is no definitive proof either way
> > that it came by purely natural processes or by intelligent design from some
> > omni-potent being.
>
> That clearly isn't correct though - as...
> * there is now quite a lot of evidence to support what is commonly known
> as 'the theory of evolution'.
The theory of evolution is now just an attempt to explain *how* evolution
has occurred. That it did occur can not be disputed except by totally
illogical and dishonest arguments, including the resorting to deliberate
lies.
An American organisation called something like OCR which publishes a vast
amount of fundy creationist stuff is the leading proponents of such lying.
Somehow they have managed to fuck their minds so badly that they can
justify deliberate lying to promote what they call the truth.
Typical of contributors to their insane ravings are "Dr" Kurt Hovind, who
didn't finish high school, but awarded himself a doctorate all the same.
Patrick Ford
> >
> > And in spite of those gaps, scientists will lie and say that evolution is a
> > proven fact.
> > So, based on your rate of doubling every 5 years, that means that 100 years
> > ago, our "knowledge" of evolution was only 0.000095367431640625% of what it
> > is today. (0.5^(100/5)) But even then, with so little knowledge, scientists
> > were "certain" that evolution was a proven fact.
>
> A good scientist wouldn't operate like that at all. They are not
> interested in lies or lying to support a possible theory - indeed, the
> very opposite is true. A good scientist will try and break a theory,
> thereby proving that 'that ain't right - gotta be something else'.
Indeed. One of the first princplies of science is that a theory cannot be
proved, only disproved, and that is the method science uses.
Only the screaming fundies claim that scientists claim to have "proved"
things.
It's interesting that out of all the American fundies with vast
cash resources of their church academic institutions, NOT ONE has ever made
a scientific discovery. They resort to deliberate fabrications like the
nutcase liar that claimed to have found Noah's Ark by satellite
photography.
Blue Eyes
>
> Blue Eyes wrote:
>
> > Yes- I despair it is a dying art in this country-except the largely
> > boutique and trinket type prints for sale in craft shops.
> > It is often excluded from Art awards in this country because we have a
> > very primitive notion of originality and 'aura' in this country. My
> > defence of it is that almost all great artists from the Renaissance
> > since have been great printmakers as well as their other disciplines.
>
> I wasn't aware that such snobbery existed here. I had been under the
> impression that print making was highly regarded and accepted as a
> legitimate art form,
> --
>
now that comparatively cheap paintings can be had for the same price or
less than the price of a framed etching of possibly greater cultural
value and 'originality' than said painting. I think because overseas
artists-some respected and famous, often use mass production methods in
producing 'fine art' prints this has devalued the concept of a hand
produced print(of course democratization is often the reason solicited
but really in most cases they trade on the ignorance of the buying
public)
These mass produced prints -some in editions of many thousands printed
in a second or less on a machine compete with and inevitably cost less
than an individual print that takes 4 hrs to painstakingly ink. In some
countries a distinction is legally enshrined between a print and a
reproduction. A reproduction takes an original artwork and duplicates it
in a different media. This is distinct from creating an artwork on a
zinc plate and producing prints off the original template by the same
method of production or media.
Prince Charles 'Litho' recently sold by the Variety club is a case in
point-almost certainly it uses a Watercolour as the template and this
has then been reproduced photomechanically on a litho machine and
probably printed on similar paper to a 'genuine' litho, but without any
of the characteristic subtleties of that medium. This really is the same
as MP3 and its lack of true fidelity in most cases to the artist's
original version.
The print galleries in NZ now usually sell paintings and
sculpture/craft as well for financial reasons. Those prints that sell
are often by artists well known in other media who are essentially
reproducing their work in their preferred media by prints-with some
exceptions eg-Fomison/Frizzel who truely exploit(ed) the characteristics
of crayon litho-Many others are producing 'paintings' in traditional
print media with little subtlety.
I have no problem with prints produced by computer and printed by
electronic printing method such as Iris and Giclee-these are using the
same method of production-digital-throughout the process. I have used
both traditional and non-traditional methods myself and hybrids between
the two-but still believe handprints deserve to be priced relatively
higher given equal merit artistically.