[OT] Emergence vs. reductionism, Laughlin/Hawking?
Rolf
hinted at in the header, but I am very interested in learning more.
Robert B. Laughlin, "Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down". Stephen
Hawking, "A Briefer History of Time" (Update of "A Brief History of Time").
I realize this is not the right forum but I just wonder, can anyone provide
some hints or links for me to pursue this matter?
It seems to me that creationism has run dry and is ready for burial.
Rolf
dkomo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
What could be simpler?
Also there have been long threads on this subject in talk.origins in the
recent past. Go to Google Groups and search in t.o. on the above terms.
r norman
wrote:
In this forum, I have been an active proponent of emergence, in the
sense that complex systems people use the term. John Wilkins, our
resident philosopher, is the major reductionist having serious
objections to the notion of emergence especially as used in
philosophy. Here is some information I have compiled:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Emergent Properties
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
John Holland
Emergence: From Chaos to Order
Addison-Wesley 1997
review
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/holland-on-emergence/
Markus Christen and Laura Rebecca Franklin
The Concept of Emergence in Complexity Science:
Finding Coherence between Theory and Practice
http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~markus/articles/Emergence_def.pdf
Timothy O'Connor
Emergent Properties
Amer Philosophical Quart 31(1994)91-104
http://php.indiana.edu/~toconnor/Em_Prop.pdf
JF Ponge
Emergent properties from organisms to ecosystems:
towards a realistic approach
Biol Rev Camb Phils Soc (2005)80(3)403-411
V Benci and P Freguglia
About emergent properties and complexity in biological theories
Riv Biol 2004 May-Aug 97(2):255-268
nando_r...@yahoo.com
basicly just engaged in metaphysics. Hawking postulates things unseen,
the other is thinking of postulating things unseen. You should in
stead research science about "anticipation" by Dubois, which is the
more hard science. Theories that incorporate the future and have
several alternative possible results, and are mathematically, and
observationally sound.
I can also advise you to read the Quran. You would get a good sense of
judgement, that you need for understanding the reality, and
significance of these alternative possible results in the future.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
*Hemidactylus*
Wilkins and Norman debate reduction versus emergence than get too
involved with any metaphysically clouded baggage you might bring to
the table. Which Sura(s) deal with reduction versus emergence BTW?
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
> I can also advise you to read the Quran. You would get a good sense of
> judgement, that you need for understanding the reality, and
> significance of these alternative possible results in the future.
>
if reading the quran brought good judgement, it looks like no one in
the middle east has ever read the quran.
Rolf
and found
http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/coPubl/97e.EKS/emerg.html
which looks interesting.
Back to browse the feedback....
Rolf
Rolf
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171210533.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I am afraid i belive that theories that as far as possible - are able to
provide understanding of the past alos are the best for predocitng the
future. We know that religious scriptues fail on both counts. As for the
Quran, I won't tell you what I belive is the truth about the Quran I'll say
this much, though, that as far as i am concerned, it cannot tell me one iota
about reality.
In retrospect, it can easily be seen that the world would have been a better
place without it. Wish I had a time machine. Or at least, that people woild
stop pushing ancient scriptures.
Rolf
r norman
wrote:
>Before reading the feedback, I decided I better do some research of my own,
>and found
>
>http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/coPubl/97e.EKS/emerg.html
>
>which looks interesting.
>
That, indeed, is an interesting site. Of particular importance for
the "debate" is the following, taken from that source:
"The concept of emergence has an ambiguous status in contemporary
science and philosophy of science: On the one hand, many scientists
and philosophers regard emergence as having only a pseudo-scientific
status. On the other hand, new developments in physics, biology,
psychology, and crossdisciplinary fields such as cognitive science,
artificial life, and the study of non-linear dynamical systems have
focused strongly on the high level 'collective behaviour' of complex
systems which is often said to be truly emergent, and the term is
increasingly used to characterize such systems. One reason for the
widespread scepticism against the word is a historical load of
confusion surrounding the metaphysical aspects of the concept,
reflected in the fact that it has been used in a long series of
different ways, apparently making it impossible to use it as a clearly
defined term"
Rolf
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:omdus2d66icptsgsi...@4ax.com...
Thank you. I'll have a look.
With reference to Wilkins and philosopy, - philosophy is not quite my cup of
tea, so I'll leave that part to him. I am more concerned with what emergence
and chaos may mean in the context of physics, chemistry and biology But
that covers the entire chain from the bang to ourselves, which is where my
quest ends.
Rolf
Perplexed in Peoria
"Rolf" <rolfa...@tele2.no> wrote in message news:53940hF...@mid.individual.net...
Wilkins can probably be dismissed that easily, but I'm not sure philosophy
can be. Issues of philosophy are central to the whole debate over emergence,
whether carried on by physical scientists, social scientists, or people in
the humanities. What a focus on the physical sciences can give you is
a set of examples which the proponents propose to call 'emergence'. But
whether those examples all have something essential in common is, at heart,
a philosophical question.
Frank J
Since you mentioned creationism, this might be the right forum.
I didn't read those books, and read "A Brief History of Time" ~10 yrs
ago, but here's my 2c on emergence v. reductionism anyway: AIUI,
"emergence" is testable, and seems to have a role in evolution and
abiogenesis, but the word suffers from ambiguity, as it is often used
in a different sense by pseudoscience. Same for "reductionism": I
don't think any scientists take it in the strawman version that
pseudoscientists like to portray it.
As for "creationism run dry," as science it was always dry. As a
rhetorical strategy, however, especially in its ID format, it is
"overflowing."
To tie your 2 ideas together, my thoughts have been that, if IDers
were sincere that they had a scientific alternative to evolution,
instead of a pathetic, though wildy successful, strategy to keep all
anti-evolutionists under a big tent, they would likely be speaking in
terms of emergence, self-organization, and some of the other "non-
reductionist" concepts that appear to be enhancing, not replacing,
Darwinian evolution. Of course they'd still get in trouble if they
tried to sell it as "alternative science," which is synonymous with
"we don't need no stinkin' testing."
r norman
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Rolf" <rolfa...@tele2.no> wrote in message news:53940hF...@mid.individual.net...
<snip>
>> With reference to Wilkins and philosopy, - philosophy is not quite my cup of
>> tea, so I'll leave that part to him. I am more concerned with what emergence
>> and chaos may mean in the context of physics, chemistry and biology But
>> that covers the entire chain from the bang to ourselves, which is where my
>> quest ends.
>
>Wilkins can probably be dismissed that easily, but I'm not sure philosophy
>can be. Issues of philosophy are central to the whole debate over emergence,
>whether carried on by physical scientists, social scientists, or people in
>the humanities. What a focus on the physical sciences can give you is
>a set of examples which the proponents propose to call 'emergence'. But
>whether those examples all have something essential in common is, at heart,
>a philosophical question.
If you take the issues seriously, a rare occurrence in this forum,
Wilkins turns out to be devilishly difficult to dismiss. Besides,
you can dismiss him all you want but he never actually goes away!
TomS
<1171218729.3...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
>
>On Feb 11, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <rolfaalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> I don't know if anyone around here are familiar with the sort of stuff
>> hinted at in the header, but I am very interested in learning more.
>>
>> Robert B. Laughlin, "Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down". Stephen
>> Hawking, "A Briefer History of Time" (Update of "A Brief History of Time").
>>
>> I realize this is not the right forum but I just wonder, can anyone provide
>> some hints or links for me to pursue this matter?
>>
>> It seems to me that creationism has run dry and is ready for burial.
>>
>> Rolf
>
>Since you mentioned creationism, this might be the right forum.
>
>I didn't read those books, and read "A Brief History of Time" ~10 yrs
>ago, but here's my 2c on emergence v. reductionism anyway: AIUI,
>"emergence" is testable, and seems to have a role in evolution and
>abiogenesis, but the word suffers from ambiguity, as it is often used
>in a different sense by pseudoscience. Same for "reductionism": I
>don't think any scientists take it in the strawman version that
>pseudoscientists like to portray it.
>
>As for "creationism run dry," as science it was always dry. As a
>rhetorical strategy, however, especially in its ID format, it is
>"overflowing."
I wonder how popular ID is. Whether there are many people who
are following ID, even as a rhetorical strategy. It strikes me that
the typical letter to the editor doesn't so much follow the "teach
the controversy" stuff, as it relies on the old standards of
creationism. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that ID appeals
only to a small segment of the anti-evolution people.
I don't believe that there are many people who care about the
bacterial flagellum or the Cambrian explosion, or even about
the interpretation of the Bible. I think that the real battleground
is being related to monkeys.
How much do the ID people have to say about the (obvious)
fact of the great similarities between the human body and that
of - well, really, the typical mammalian body?
>
>To tie your 2 ideas together, my thoughts have been that, if IDers
>were sincere that they had a scientific alternative to evolution,
>instead of a pathetic, though wildy successful, strategy to keep all
>anti-evolutionists under a big tent, they would likely be speaking in
>terms of emergence, self-organization, and some of the other "non-
>reductionist" concepts that appear to be enhancing, not replacing,
>Darwinian evolution. Of course they'd still get in trouble if they
>tried to sell it as "alternative science," which is synonymous with
>"we don't need no stinkin' testing."
>
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
*Hemidactylus*
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:26:03 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
> >"Rolf" <rolfaalb...@tele2.no> wrote in messagenews:53940hF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> With reference to Wilkins and philosopy, - philosophy is not quite my cup of
> >> tea, so I'll leave that part to him. I am more concerned with what emergence
> >> and chaos may mean in the context of physics, chemistry and biology But
> >> that covers the entire chain from the bang to ourselves, which is where my
> >> quest ends.
>
> >Wilkins can probably be dismissed that easily, but I'm not sure philosophy
> >can be. Issues of philosophy are central to the whole debate over emergence,
> >whether carried on by physical scientists, social scientists, or people in
> >the humanities. What a focus on the physical sciences can give you is
> >a set of examples which the proponents propose to call 'emergence'. But
> >whether those examples all have something essential in common is, at heart,
> >a philosophical question.
>
> If you take the issues seriously, a rare occurrence in this forum,
> Wilkins turns out to be devilishly difficult to dismiss. Besides,
> you can dismiss him all you want but he never actually goes away!
>
gloves off with Schopenhauer playing the part of Mikey (Burgess
Meredith voice over) here. Reduction or emergence its all superficial
smokescreen and what we "see" or we assume we perceive is nothing but
illusion plain and simple. Neither me nor my dog here exist in
reality. We are blobby collections of molecules (whatever that word
means). I may perceive her in the emergent sense of tissues and organ
systems and "behavior" (what the hell is that), but we should strive
to reduce to basic causation (paging Hume). "Tissues" are an illusion.
She doesn't really have "black" and "white" fur. When I tell her to
sit and she responds sucessfully this is just a bag of molecules
receiving air waves emitted from another bag of molecules in
"anticipation" of molecules with the superficial form of a dog
biscuit. I shouldn't even be talking in the molecular level since the
truly efficacious "level" of discussion is subatomic particles and
quantum mechanics.
She's not even a transitory vehicle for her genes (spaying took care
of that anyway) since genes are just labels we place on nucleic acid
chains which can be broken down beyond mere "atoms" to the quantum
level. An electron microscope is but a figment of our imgintion which
is itself also a figment of itself. Seeing cellular structure isn't
helpful because thats an artifact of how the equipment works, our
conceptual framework and the illusion of organization that breaks down
when you break atoms apart to get at the foundations of "reality". You
should be able to predict, given a collection of billions of atoms,
what they will do when combined as genes cells, etc into an
"organism" (note the vitalist connotations in this ghostly word).
Back to my "dog". Our struggle for the seat of alpha of the household
is but an illusion too foisted upon us by the pop ethologists and
Cesar "Dog Whisperer" Millan. TV shows are reducible to the signals
transmitted through satellites and the way TV creates illusion on the
screen, be it tradtional color HDTV or plasma.
Hierarchical organization in groups of animals (known colloquially by
the nominalist pseudo-labels "human" and "canine") easily break down
to its basis at the quantum level. It's all atoms, light waves and
sound waves. Nothing more. Talk of innate behavior and learned
behavior and "brains" and social dynamics is mere nonsense foisted
upon us by emergent neo-vitalists. If you can't take it down to modern
physics you're talking gibberish.
r norman
wrote:
I'm with you all the way on this one. John has already confessed to
being mostly empty space.
*Hemidactylus*
> On 11 Feb 2007 12:47:36 -0800, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com>
plays no role in how they function. You could take just about any
combination of the same atoms and do the same thing. Lock and key
mechanisms that physiology and molecular biology is based on is
complete nonsense. The indole form of serotonin has no real meaning.
The double helix as organized structure was a fiction concocted by
Watson and Crick and any combination of the same basic atoms could do
the same thing. Or should I say that if we deconstruct the double
helix down to its atomic building blocks we should be able to tally
(or add) these and predict what genes there are and what phenotypic
traits they will lead to.
The lipid bilayer means nothing nor the complex proteins that span it.
We could burn the lipids as fuel, analyze that result and backtrack to
the initial condition. It's not how the atoms in the lipids are
arranged that's important. The shape of the proteins could likewise be
predicted just by tallying the numbers of each amino acid present and
there's no need of a ribosomal assembly process whatsover. If we
separate the atoms of each amino acid apart and mixed them all
together they would automatically assume their proper position and
function together as a fully assembled protein should. It doesn't
really matter the order the amino acids are assembled in the protein
chain. There's nothing that truly emerges in protein. Any combination
is equivalent.
It doesn't matter how tissues are organized to form organ systems and
structures. It doesn't matter how neurons are organized in the brain
since they are all equivalent (hey they have the same genome). You
could puree a brain and pour the resulting mush back into the skull
through a small hole and restore a fully functioning nervous system.
Migration patterns and dying patterns of neurons during development
mean nothing. We could rip all this neural mass apart, blend it and
then predict the behavior of the resulting mass from its constituent
parts, however chaotically disassembled. We could tally all the atoms
of this mush ripped from organismic context and predict the behavior
of the organism. It's easy to distinguish a carbon atom that was in a
gene from one that was in a lipid. Scientists do this all the time.
r norman
wrote:
I hate to interrupt you when you are on a roll, but my impression is
that John W. simply takes the position and momentum of each elementary
particle, along with the pattern of connection and interaction with
its neighbors, as part of the lower level system. The fact that my
quarks and electrons are now in Arizona is part of the fundamental
particle physics that is used to explain the universe.
Frank J
> "On 11 Feb 2007 10:32:09 -0800, in article
At the risk of being misinterpreted (which I am very often) I like to
quip that no one "believes in" ID. Meaning that the scammers know that
they are misrepresenting a correct theory and leading the audience to
infer one of several long-falsified creationist positions. And that
the scammed that rave about ID actually usually infer either YEC or
OEC.
As I see it, the only creationists that ID does not appeal to are YEC
and OEC *leaders,* and even then I think it's more a case of
conflicting egos than an honest belief that ID is too "watered down."
>
> I don't believe that there are many people who care about the
> bacterial flagellum or the Cambrian explosion, or even about
> the interpretation of the Bible. I think that the real battleground
> is being related to monkeys.
I agree, but, amidst all the technical jargon, ID has enough feel-good
sound bites to keep them asking for more. These days, rank-and-file
YECs rave about Behe even more than they rave about their YEC leaders,
despite Behe's admission of common descent, and despite the fact that,
even if IDers were on to something about flagella and Cambrian phyla,
it would not at all falsify common ancestry with our closest relative
species. Why, because they're looking for any scrap they can hold on
to. The irony is that, aside from lying, quote mining, etc., I think
we can learn some PR lessons from IDers.
>
> How much do the ID people have to say about the (obvious)
> fact of the great similarities between the human body and that
> of - well, really, the typical mammalian body?
As you know, they try to say as little as possible, and move on to
safer turf.
>
>
>
> >To tie your 2 ideas together, my thoughts have been that, if IDers
> >were sincere that they had a scientific alternative to evolution,
> >instead of a pathetic, though wildy successful, strategy to keep all
> >anti-evolutionists under a big tent, they would likely be speaking in
> >terms of emergence, self-organization, and some of the other "non-
> >reductionist" concepts that appear to be enhancing, not replacing,
> >Darwinian evolution. Of course they'd still get in trouble if they
> >tried to sell it as "alternative science," which is synonymous with
> >"we don't need no stinkin' testing."
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
> in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
> GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TomS
<1171244382....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
I will pass on that straight line beginning "aside from".
There are several things that I try, over and over again.
One of them is to point out the similarities, which are the only
things that are mentioned as "designed", between the human
body and the generic mammalian body. According to the
"argument from design", things like "the eye" are designed,
and we share the same "eye design" with many other mammals.
There are some of the "design" advocates who offer reasons
for these similarities, such as "this shows that we share the
same designer", or "this shows that there is a common purpose
or a common material". This should be shocking to anyone
who doesn't like being related to monkeys. It says that the
designer either wanted us to be monkeys, or that the designer
didn't care enough about us to make us markedly different,
or that the designer had little choice.
Another thing that I try to do is to point out that to argue
that we, individually, are concerns of God, is not to argue
against evolutionary biology, but to argue against reproductive
biology. And, in fact, that many of the points about "design"
were used at an earlier time (before evolution became an
issue) to argue against individual development. The clock-
maker analogy, the thing about "chance", and so on.
But I agree with you that the arguments of ID are meant
as "feel good" arguments. It makes people feel as if they
are arguments against being related to monkeys. They
have the superficial appearance of being "scientific", and
against something or other uncomfortable. But they are
not arguments against what is uncomfortable about
evolutionary biology. If the entirety of the ID arguments
were accepted, it wouldn't change a thing about being
related to monkeys.
And one more thing - if there were a legitimate inference
from patterns in nature to an intelligent designer of
those patterns - then there are far more complicated
patterns to the world of life than "the vertebrate eye".
The nested hierarchy, the history of life, biogeography,
are all far better examples of "specified complexity",
and thus one "should" infer that those are designed.
Which would mean that the desiger wanted life to
have the appearance of evolving.
>
>>
>> How much do the ID people have to say about the (obvious)
>> fact of the great similarities between the human body and that
>> of - well, really, the typical mammalian body?
>
>As you know, they try to say as little as possible, and move on to
>safer turf.
[...snip...]
And I'd like to keep on the for-them-riskier turf.
One of the things that I've learned about political debates is
how important it is to determine the turf. As long as the ID
people determine the turf, they are going to have the
appearance of winning.
dkomo
[snip]
>
> With reference to Wilkins and philosopy, - philosophy is not quite my cup of
> tea, so I'll leave that part to him. I am more concerned with what emergence
> and chaos may mean in the context of physics, chemistry and biology
Here's a clear example of emergence in physics I ran across this
morning. It's called a "phonon" and it is a quantized particle of sound
energy.
"Perhaps the simplest thing a metal can do is vibrate; if you hit one
end of a metal bar, a sound wave can will travel through it. The
frequency at which the metal vibrates is an emergent property, as is the
speed that sound travels in the metal. Recall the wave/particle duality
of quantum mechanics, which asserts that there is a wave associated with
every particle. The reverse is also true: there is a particle
associated with every wave, including a particle associated with the
sound wave traveling through the metal. It is called a phonon."
"A phonon is not an elementary particle. It is certainly not one of the
particles that make up the metal, for it exists only by virtue of the
collective motion of huge numbers of the particles that do make up the
metal. But a phonon is a particle just the same. It has all the
properties of a particle. It has mass, it has momentum, it carries
energy. It behaves precisely the way quantum mechanics says a particle
should behave. We say that a phonon is an *emergent paricle*."
Lee Smolin, _The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory,
the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next_, p. 132
Dick
wrote:
Why start with the "bang"? Sort of a convenient way to define the
discussion to avoid philosophy, isn't it.
Where did the emergent energy come from? How did the variable forces
come to be fixed. How did they come to be "just right" to create an
earth environment suited to life? Was there anything preceeding the
Bang?
Nuclear physics must cope with entanglement and virtual particles,
duality of particles. Why let yourself off the hook with such a
narrowly defined question.
You may not be comfortable with an expanded view, but your life's
value it a product of the true "origin" of the universe. Accident,
then live by society's rules and be happy. Emergent due to a thought
of the "All," then look at what might be the purpose of "The All" in
releasing the Bang.
I am not endorsing any one philosopy or religion.
Dick
wrote:
He surely would be missed as a valuable voice.
Dick
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:57:45 +0100, "Rolf" <rolfa...@tele2.no>
Why do important philosophical discussions have to use so many
abstract and lengthy words? The above quote tells me nothing.
pseudo-scientific status
crossdisciplinary fields
non-linear dynamical systems
'collective behavior' of complex systems
Is it any wonder it is "impossible to use it as a clearly defined
term"?
r norman
wrote:
It seemed quite clear to me, hence I quoted it in its entirety.
The most important idea is right in the first sentence: "The concept
of emergence has an ambiguous status". It then goes on to clarify:
"On the one hand... On the other hand..." Especially important to me
is the statement "One reason for the widespread scepticism against the
word [emergence] is a historical load..." which is what I believe to
be the major difference between John Wilkins and me: he carries that
load and I do not.
I am sorry that you have difficulty reading prose.
Rolf
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%cJzh.6637$gj4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
I know I will have to dig deeper into this before I can say with conviction
what I think. However, WRT 'whether those examples have something essential
in common' - yes, that may be a philosophical question. At this stage, I am
prepared to believe that they may have - or just as well not have, something
eessential in common.
The subject would of course be easier to handle if that 'common' could be
found - but for emergence itself, wherever emergence may be shown to apply,
it should not matter all that much, or?
Well, I hope I am not finished with this study yet. I have to sort out the
question: Is emergence of importance for philosophy itself, or is it just
that emergence, like any other subjet or phenomenon may be the subject of
philosophic study?
Arrgh - I better put my think helmet back on.
Rolf
Dick
wrote:
Take it as you will. You hear what fits your world.
Words are containers for ideas. If the words are not received as
intended by the sender, then no useful exchange is possible.
I tend to evaluate complex abstract phrases as an indication the user
has not thought through what they want to say or they are impressed
with their own vocabulary.
The central question concerns ambiguity:
"The concept of emergence has an ambiguous status".
I think ambiguity is a failure to communicate caused by excessive use
of abstractions.
KISS: keep it simple stupid! One of the wise sayings of the world.
By the way, I am as guilty as the next with excessive use of
abstractions. It is so much easier to sound brilliant to myself than
reviewing a lengthy series of abstractions and plucking out those not
needed and eliminating superfluous ones.
I give myself a pat on the back. I at least run the spell checker.
r norman
wrote:
Have you been over to that other thread, "Emergent properties"?
>
>
>
>
John Wilkins
If you read law, you need to know the conventions and jargon. If you
read physics, you need to know the conventions and jargon. If you read
philosphy, you need to know the conventions and jargon.
These conventions and terminologies actually *aid* communication among
those who know them - it reduces ambiguities and misunderstandings. And
I personally think there was nothing difficult here:
> >>pseudo-scientific status
Something that pretends to be science but isn't
> >>crossdisciplinary fields
Topics that are covered by more than one field or discipline.
> >>non-linear dynamical systems
Systems whose behaviour doesn't graph as simple lines on a chart
> >>'collective behavior' of complex systems
I can't see how to express that more simply.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Dick
Preaching to the choir feels good with all of the vibrant "amens".
However, "The concept of emergence has an ambiguous status" was the
point of discussion. You certainly have the right to defend what you
like, but I don't think defense of "lexicons" helps clarify how
"emergence" gained "an ambiguous status."
r norman
wrote:
The ambiguous status consists simply of the fact that there are
serious, intelligent, knowledgeable thinkers who believe that
"emergence" is pseudo-science or nonsense or improper reasoning while
there are others equally serious and intelligent and knowledgeable who
believe that "emergence" is a valid and legitimate phenomenon in the
way the world works.
(There are also jokesters, semi-intelligent and untutored in various
fields, who are on each side, also!)
nando_r...@yahoo.com
things behave. Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
at the end of the avenue."
(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
>things behave. Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
>future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
>presently with one's heart.
What has the pump of the blood circulation system got to do with
anything?
>Don't be fooled by science.
And don't let YOUR stupidity fool us either.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
>things behave.
Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
> Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
>future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
>presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
knowledge?
>"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
>world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
>learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
>sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
>at the end of the avenue."
>(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> On 17 Feb 2007 23:50:35 -0800, the following appeared in
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
> >things behave.
>
> Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
> most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
> rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
Look to any rock under a microscope, and the atoms are shaking wildly
with much variation. A rock has heat, and heat is an unstable
property. So that will cause variations in the heat properties of the
rock.
The orbit of planets around our sun also have variation. This is why
we equip spacecrafts that fly through the solarsystem with engines.
They can't just compute the trajectory from the orbits from an initial
state, they must also equip the craft with an engine to correct the
trajectory at critical points, because of variations in orbit.
> > Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
> >future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
> >presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
>
> Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
> about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
> knowledge?
You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
volition.
> >"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
> >world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
> >learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
> >sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
> >at the end of the avenue."
> >(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
>
> Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
The meaning of objectivity is when we pass on information from the
environment directly without changing it, like a machine. Subjectivity
is when we take information from the environment and make a decision
on it.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kleuskes & Moos
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 19 feb, 00:13, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Feb 2007 23:50:35 -0800, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
> > >things behave.
>
> > Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
> > most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
> > rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
>
> Look to any rock under a microscope, and the atoms are shaking wildly
> with much variation. A rock has heat, and heat is an unstable
> property. So that will cause variations in the heat properties of the
> rock.
Well... I whipped out my old microscope and looked at a rock... No
atoms to be seen.
How come? Admittedly it's not a tunneling scanning electron
microscope.
> The orbit of planets around our sun also have variation. This is why
> we equip spacecrafts that fly through the solarsystem with engines.
Hmmmm... Methinks gravity has something to do with both the
"variations" and the neccesity of engines. The latter also being
linked to the need to manouvre... Does this diatribe have any point?
> They can't just compute the trajectory from the orbits from an initial
> state, they must also equip the craft with an engine to correct the
> trajectory at critical points, because of variations in orbit.
The precision in any sensor and actuator is actually limited as anyone
with a passing knowledge of physics or engineering can tell you.
> > > Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
> > >future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
> > >presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
>
> > Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
> > about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
> > knowledge?
>
> You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
> volition.
And let me guess... You know better?
> > >"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
> > >world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
> > >learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
> > >sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
> > >at the end of the avenue."
> > >(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
>
> > Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
>
> The meaning of objectivity is when we pass on information from the
> environment directly without changing it, like a machine. Subjectivity
> is when we take information from the environment and make a decision
> on it.
You have weird notions on objectivity and subjectivity. In your
opinion, my computer is completely subjective, taking all it's
information out of the environment (peripherals) and basing decisions
on it.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> On 19 feb, 16:28, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 19 feb, 00:13, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb 2007 23:50:35 -0800, the following appeared in
> > > talk.origins, posted by "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > >If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
> > > >things behave.
>
> > > Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
> > > most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
> > > rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
>
> > Look to any rock under a microscope, and the atoms are shaking wildly
> > with much variation. A rock has heat, and heat is an unstable
> > property. So that will cause variations in the heat properties of the
> > rock.
>
> Well... I whipped out my old microscope and looked at a rock... No
> atoms to be seen.
> How come? Admittedly it's not a tunneling scanning electron
> microscope.
There would be the problem then...
> > The orbit of planets around our sun also have variation. This is why
> > we equip spacecrafts that fly through the solarsystem with engines.
>
> Hmmmm... Methinks gravity has something to do with both the
> "variations" and the neccesity of engines. The latter also being
> linked to the need to manouvre... Does this diatribe have any point?
Gravity, as it is basicly formulated in science, doesn't have much of
anything to do with it, because the basic formula for gravity
calculates no variation. If it was just gravity one could calculate
the trajectory of the spacecraft through the solar system from an
initial state, and just use the force of gravity and essentially
require no engine, but one cannot.
> > They can't just compute the trajectory from the orbits from an initial
> > state, they must also equip the craft with an engine to correct the
> > trajectory at critical points, because of variations in orbit.
>
> The precision in any sensor and actuator is actually limited as anyone
> with a passing knowledge of physics or engineering can tell you.
So there is variation.
> > > > Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
> > > >future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
> > > >presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
>
> > > Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
> > > about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
> > > knowledge?
>
> > You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
> > volition.
>
> And let me guess... You know better?
There is variation in the heat, and that variation is a sign of
volition. As distinguished from when there would be no variation in
heat, then that would be a sign of no volition, because there would be
no alternates. That is why we consider a rock as having no volition,
because to the naked eye it just sits there and does nothing, and for
most practical purposes that is true. But microscopically we can see
that things are happening, that the rock is doing things. And if it
would be so that a rock is positioned in such a way to balance out
forces in a stack of rocks, then in the event such variation in the
rock may cause a grain of rock to chip away, and an avalanche occurs
on the moutainside at that particular time. The origin of the
avalanche is then a decision in the rock there and then, which
triggers the rest. If there is no decision acknowledged there and
then, we are left to argue the cause of the avalanche in an infinite
regress of forces back to the origin of the universe. It makes more
sense to argue back to volition there and then as causing the
occasionaly unpredictable avalanche, then to argue back all the way to
the origin of the universe as the explanation.
> > > >"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
> > > >world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
> > > >learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
> > > >sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
> > > >at the end of the avenue."
> > > >(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
>
> > > Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
>
> > The meaning of objectivity is when we pass on information from the
> > environment directly without changing it, like a machine. Subjectivity
> > is when we take information from the environment and make a decision
> > on it.
>
> You have weird notions on objectivity and subjectivity. In your
> opinion, my computer is completely subjective, taking all it's
> information out of the environment (peripherals) and basing decisions
> on it.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
No..... decisions have alternative possible results. The only
decisions a computer makes usually is in the random function, which
isn't so much used in computerprograms. You must be thinking of if
else logic as decisions, but in if else logic the only thing that
happens is that a variable automatically gets adjusted. There is no
decision there because there are no alternative possible results, it
does the same thing every time.
But in so far as a computer picks a color black or white by the random
function, then it is behaving subjectively. So to say, the computer is
not passing on information that forces black or white, it is making
the information of black or white as the case may be, itself.
etc. etc. etc. just like most people here you obviously also know very
little about freedom on an intellectual level.
You sciencefans do great harm to everyone by destroying their
knowledge of freedom, you cause great pain and suffering.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>On 19 feb, 00:13, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 17 Feb 2007 23:50:35 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
>> >things behave.
>>
>> Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
>> most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
>> rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
>
>Look to any rock under a microscope, and the atoms are shaking wildly
>with much variation. A rock has heat, and heat is an unstable
>property. So that will cause variations in the heat properties of the
>rock.
>
>The orbit of planets around our sun also have variation. This is why
>we equip spacecrafts that fly through the solarsystem with engines.
>They can't just compute the trajectory from the orbits from an initial
>state, they must also equip the craft with an engine to correct the
>trajectory at critical points, because of variations in orbit.
Every macroscopic event involving other than volitional
beings can be predicted using nothing more than the known
laws of physics and the previous state of the objects in
question and the state of their environment. No "decisions"
by non-volitional objects are needed or required.
>> > Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
>> >future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
>> >presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
>>
>> Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
>> about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
>> knowledge?
>
>You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
>volition.
Yeah, I was also fooled by science into believing gravity
takes precedence over any belief or decision I might make.
Since that's obviously not true for you please demonstrate
your superiority by stepping off a tall building and
floating slowly to the ground. Let me know how that turns
out.
>> >"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
>> >world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
>> >learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
>> >sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
>> >at the end of the avenue."
>> >(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
>>
>> Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
>
>The meaning of objectivity is when we pass on information from the
>environment directly without changing it, like a machine.
Wrong. Objectivity refers to the examination of data without
letting our prejudices, such as the bizarre belief that
rocks make decisions, color it.
> Subjectivity
>is when we take information from the environment and make a decision
>on it.
Wrong again. Subjectivity refers to the interpretation of
data based personal prejudices, such as the bizarre belief
that rocks make decisions.
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
> volition.
you know, if nando wasn't such a pathetic islamist idiot, you'd have
to feel sorry for him...thinking that rocks have ''volition'.
what a moron. of course, 'islamist moron' is a redundancy.
>
Earle Jones
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
*
It wasn't always that way. There was a time for example when Arab
thinkers dominated science and mathematics. The word "algebra" has
Arabic orgins:
"The word algebra is a Latin variant of the Arabic word al-jabr.
This came from the title of a book, Hidab al-jabr wal-muqubala,
written in Baghdad about 825 A.D. by the Arab mathematician Mohammed
ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi."
"Starting around 750 AD, science flourished under the Abbasid
caliphs of Baghdad, gradually spreading its influence as far west as
Spain and eastwards into Central Asia, over a period of more than
600 years....
"...The common factor, however, was the Arabic language, which for
a time became the international language of science. It was only
later, in the 12th and 13th centuries, when the Arabic works began
to be translated into Latin, that such knowledge passed to the west."
The "Legacy of Islam" lists 26 great Muslim scientists of the past.
Their lives spanned the years 700AD through about 1400AD.
What breakthroughs came from that world in the past 600 years?
earle
*
Refs:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
http://www.amaana.org/ISWEB/contents.htm#pos26
Kleuskes & Moos
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 19 feb, 17:01, "Kleuskes&Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 feb, 16:28, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 19 feb, 00:13, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Feb 2007 23:50:35 -0800, the following appeared in
> > > > talk.origins, posted by "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > > >If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
> > > > >things behave.
>
> > > > Sure, if the "things" have volition. Unfortunately for you,
> > > > most of the "things" you insist make decisions, such as
> > > > rocks, don't have much in the way of volition.
>
> > > Look to any rock under a microscope, and the atoms are shaking wildly
> > > with much variation. A rock has heat, and heat is an unstable
> > > property. So that will cause variations in the heat properties of the
> > > rock.
>
> > Well... I whipped out my old microscope and looked at a rock... No
> > atoms to be seen.
> > How come? Admittedly it's not a tunneling scanning electron
> > microscope.
>
> There would be the problem then...
Given the modus operandi for a scanning tunneling microscope, it's
impossible to witness "atoms shaking wildly".
> > > The orbit of planets around our sun also have variation. This is why
> > > we equip spacecrafts that fly through the solarsystem with engines.
>
> > Hmmmm... Methinks gravity has something to do with both the
> > "variations" and the neccesity of engines. The latter also being
> > linked to the need to manouvre... Does this diatribe have any point?
>
> Gravity, as it is basicly formulated in science, doesn't have much of
> anything to do with it, because the basic formula for gravity
> calculates no variation.
Well, that's news considering gravity "as it is basically formulated
in science" is excerted by all masses, hence to calculate trajectories
to a degree of precision that would make course corrections
superfluous, you would need to know the positions of every last bit of
duust in the solar system.
Thank you for showing you do not even have a basic grasp of physics.
> If it was just gravity one could calculate
> the trajectory of the spacecraft through the solar system from an
> initial state, and just use the force of gravity and essentially
> require no engine, but one cannot.
See above.
> > > They can't just compute the trajectory from the orbits from an initial
> > > state, they must also equip the craft with an engine to correct the
> > > trajectory at critical points, because of variations in orbit.
>
> > The precision in any sensor and actuator is actually limited as anyone
> > with a passing knowledge of physics or engineering can tell you.
>
> So there is variation.
There is (stochastic, usually) imperfections in measurements. It tells
you something about the degree of precision in the measurement. It
does not tell you anything about the object oif that measurement.
> > > > > Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
> > > > >future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
> > > > >presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
>
> > > > Religion is about social behavior and morality. Science is
> > > > about objective knowledge. Are you often fooled by objective
> > > > knowledge?
>
> > > You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
> > > volition.
>
> > And let me guess... You know better?
>
> There is variation in the heat, and that variation is a sign of
> volition. As distinguished from when there would be no variation in
> heat, then that would be a sign of no volition, because there would be
> no alternates. That is why we consider a rock as having no volition,
> because to the naked eye it just sits there and does nothing, and for
> most practical purposes that is true. But microscopically we can see
> that things are happening, that the rock is doing things.
""Doing things" in my book, is not the same as "volition". Especially
if said things are random motions due to heat.
> And if it would be so that a rock is positioned in such a way to balance out
> forces in a stack of rocks, then in the event such variation in the
> rock may cause a grain of rock to chip away, and an avalanche occurs
> on the moutainside at that particular time.
So? You are no ready to charge a rock with willfully and maliciously
causing an avalanche? If not, why not?
> The origin of the avalanche is then a decision in the rock there and then, which
> triggers the rest.
So you _would_ charged that stone with willfully causing an
avalanche? Now why is it that stones haven't been charged with any of
the many avalanches around the world? Much damage was caused, lives
were lost, all due to those malicious stones.
If you argue that stones have volition, then, by jove, they should be
held responsable in a court of law!
> If there is no decision acknowledged there and
> then, we are left to argue the cause of the avalanche in an infinite
> regress of forces back to the origin of the universe.
So?
> It makes more sense to argue back to volition there and then as causing the
> occasionaly unpredictable avalanche, then to argue back all the way to
> the origin of the universe as the explanation.
If we were to follow your line of reasoning, we should, as stated
above, hold the blasted rock responsable.
> > > > >"I left behind illusion, I said to myself. Henceforth I live in a
> > > > >world of three dimensions with the aid of my five senses. I have since
> > > > >learned there is no such world. But then, as the car turned out of
> > > > >sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me
> > > > >at the end of the avenue."
> > > > >(Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited)
>
> > > > Nice quote. Does it mean anything *objectively*?
>
> > > The meaning of objectivity is when we pass on information from the
> > > environment directly without changing it, like a machine. Subjectivity
> > > is when we take information from the environment and make a decision
> > > on it.
>
> > You have weird notions on objectivity and subjectivity. In your
> > opinion, my computer is completely subjective, taking all it's
> > information out of the environment (peripherals) and basing decisions
> > on it.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> No..... decisions have alternative possible results. The only
> decisions a computer makes usually is in the random function, which
> isn't so much used in computerprograms.
Being a programmer, and having a copy of "seminumerical recipes" on
the shelve, i can soundly assure you that "random functions" do not
exist. "Pseudo-random functions" do exist, but they are no different
from the rest of the computer.
Furthermore if computers weren't able to make dicisions, they would be
completely and utterly useless. In fact, they are able to make
decisions (allbeint very simple ones) much faster than you and I.
Besides you are sidetracking the point I made.
> You must be thinking of if else logic as decisions, but in if else logic the only thing that
> happens is that a variable automatically gets adjusted.
Bullshit.
> There is no
> decision there because there are no alternative possible results, it
> does the same thing every time.
If it did the if then else construct would be useless, while loops
would NEVER terminate and if those decisions weren't based on
peripherals, the "volatile" keyword in "C" would not be needed.
But let's cut through the chase here (or rather the semantic
smokescreen you're trying to put up). If a computer does not make
decisions and a stone does, what's the difference between the two?
Randomness? Is randomness a prerequisite for making decisions? Do you
contend that all decisionmaking should involve a pair of dice (or some
equivalent)?
> But in so far as a computer picks a color black or white by the random
> function, then it is behaving subjectively.
I should hope not. Using a "random function" yields highly predictable
results, since it's strictly mathematical. Given the same seed, the
same sequence of pseudo-random numbers will emerge.
> So to say, the computer is not passing on information that forces black or white, it is making
> the information of black or white as the case may be, itself.
Thank you for showing that, in adition to basic physics and
engineering, you know diddlysquat about computers, too.
> etc. etc. etc. just like most people here you obviously also know very
> little about freedom on an intellectual level.
You hardly seem qualified to be the judge of that.
> You sciencefans do great harm to everyone by destroying their
> knowledge of freedom, you cause great pain and suffering.
Science gave me a way to read your diatribe and gave me the freedom to
respond to it. By using a computer (eventhough you haven't got a clue
about how it actually works) you proclaim yourself to be a great fan
of science (or at least it's products).
So that last statement would seem more than just a little moronic and/
or hypocritical.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nothing of rocks, computers or *anything* behaving freely.
You say you can't see atoms shaking wildly, yet you can deduce atoms
shaking wildly by looking at them through an electron microscope.
As before, the basic formula of gravity is an equation, one cannot get
variation from an equation. One has to enter in other factors to get
variation.
The random function of most computers is partially based on variation
in processor heat and is not completely calculated from a formula. You
can't get the same result from the same seed because the variation
from processor heat is part of the result.
As before, that rocks have volition is much less absurd then to
explain the origin of an avalanche as being the origin of the
universe. Rocks can't talk so they couldn't say why in the event they
decided on a particular variation that caused a grain of rock to chip
away, and cause an avalanche.
The value of life, or any kind of valueing is not objective science.
Your argument about taking rocks to court just illustrates your
ridiculous sense of justice, where you don't differentiate between
different kinds of decisions.
Your fundamental miscomprehension of if else logic and do while loops,
as well as the random function is so obvious to need no further
comment.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
at seeing Western science as it is. They would all be creationists
without a doubt in my mind. It is not credible that a Muslim scientist
would not think of creation and final judgement as real, and what the
universe is all about.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>Well everything you say is simply wrong
Funny, you took the words of my next post to you right out
of my mouth.
HANL.
<snip>
*Hemidactylus*
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You seem to be fooled by science into believing that rocks have no
> > volition.
>
> you know, if nando wasn't such a pathetic islamist idiot, you'd have
> to feel sorry for him...thinking that rocks have ''volition'.
>
*Hemidactylus*
> In article <1171934565.031463.33...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
ironic given the tendency in Islam for a prohibition againt drinking
the stuff.
*Hemidactylus*
(or other ethnic group with a predominate Muslim cultural tendency)
biologist. Would they have any objective exposure to Darwin or
evolutionry science? If they expressed doubts about Allah (aka God) or
declared themselves unbelievers in public how would they be treated by
the powers that be? If an Arab in Saudi Arabia had copies of Darwin's
and/or Dawkins's books and walked around the street with them and
didn't bow to Mecca like everyone else, would they get visited by the
religious police and/or their head lopped off as a public spectacle?
Oman has significant loggerhead turtle nesting on their beaches. Do
field biologists in Oman look at loggerheads as a species that evolved
and shared common ancestry with other chelonians and other
vertebrates, not to mention the rest of life or do they view
loggerheads as static and created by Allah or do they manage to
compartmentalize secular scientific views of turtles so as not to
impact their reverance for the Koran?
We complain about Christian fundamentalists in the US and their
tendency to try injecting creationism (or "Intellient Design") into
the cirriculum of schools, but do we have it easy being agnostics,
atheists or even theistic evolutionists here compared to some, if not
most Islamic states? Wouldn't Behe be considered a heretic in Islamic
views since he's not exactly going full bore with praising of Allah
(not to mention the Prophet). Do the Islamic states even need a Behe,
since (apart from Turkey after Ataturk though they're backsliding
lately) the status quo is not secular but inherently religious?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
rubbish:
http://www.microsoft.com/mind/0399/flux/flux0399.asp
"Generating random numbers in software has always been problematic. By
its very nature, software is deterministic, so using software to
produce a truly nondeterministic number isn't possible without some
randomizing factor. The random number generator integrated in Pentium
III-based systems uses thermal noise from a resistor to produce a
random number that actually is quite random."
I believe in the end they introduced that randomness by heat generator
in the pentium IV and not III.
Kleuskes said everything upside down. Saying the if else function is
unpredictable, and the randomness function on the other hand is
entirely deterministic! gee
Obviously the rest of what Kleuskes said was rubbish also, but dealt
with already.
I wonder how many people bought into what Kleuskes was saying.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I, for one, bought entirely into what Kleuskes was saying because he
said correctly.
There do exist random noise generators that use thermal noise as a
source. There do also exist random noise generators that use
radioactive decay as a source. However virtually all professional
quality programs that rely on "random" numbers use a properly
validated pseudo-random number generator that is completely
deterministic. The so-called "hardware" random number generators have
very often failed to pass certain statistical tests that are important
to users. So nobody is going to use a new hardware generator until
all the tests are done. Besides, not everybody uses a Pentium IV cpu.
Mitchell Coffey
> On 11 Feb 2007 12:47:36 -0800, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >Hierarchical organization in groups of animals (known colloquially by
> >the nominalist pseudo-labels "human" and "canine") easily break down
> >to its basis at the quantum level. It's all atoms, light waves and
> >sound waves. Nothing more. Talk of innate behavior and learned
> >behavior and "brains" and social dynamics is mere nonsense foisted
> >upon us by emergent neo-vitalists. If you can't take it down to modern
> >physics you're talking gibberish.
> I'm with you all the way on this one. John has already confessed to
> being mostly empty space.
If so he has, 'tis no slick cause for quick dismissal: As I understand
it, most space is of the empty kind, and most empty space is filled
with dark matter. Science and metaphysics therefore merge, the sum to
be found in that much-misunderstood writ of holy wisdom:
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away.
- William Hughes Mearns,
Antigonish, 1899
Mitchell Coffey
r norman
<m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
Sounds holistic to me! The being of nothingness.
And any cause is slick cause for quick dismissal of John.
wf3h
and that's why muslims are 500 years behind the west.
John Wilkins
I wasn't anywhere but here, so I won't go away from everywhere else, no
matter how much you all ask me to.
Mitchell Coffey
The philosopher speaks of dark matters; yet where there is darkness
there is hope, elsewise in emptiness there'd be nothing.
Speaking of words, it just occurred to me that, a few years back, the
American Provincial Governor of Mesopotamia was a man named
Negroponte. (As the Tigris said to the Euphrates, just between you
and me.)
Mitchell Coffey, or someone going by the name Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
You aren't Mitch Coffey. You're someone else by the same name.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
talking rubbish too.
So as before:
- if-else function predictable
- random function unpredictable
- the timing of an occasional avalanche unpredictable
- the behaviour of atoms on a microscopic level is unpredictable
etc.
and all this unpredictability is from decisions, and that is because
decisions are based on alternative possibilities. And no not every
decision is the same and that is why one would not take a cat, a dog,
a cricket, or the heat variation in a rock to court for for their
decisions, eventhough they all have some aspect of free behaviour in
which they make decisions.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
completely, then Muslim scientists.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
svirk
> at seeing Western science as it is.
You are ignorant about the matter.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can ignore those 2 for as far as science goes, since they are
> basicly just engaged in metaphysics.
Emergence and reductionism arnt always incompatable. Both are useful
for describing and modeling real world situation. Emergence, for
example, is great for life like systems.
Both of these are not metaphysics but ways of approaching real world
systems and getting real results. I've been studying systems for
years and what we're talking about is top down vs. bottom up.
Emergence is a bottom up approach whilst reductionism is top down.
Emergence is about decentralisation and complex behaviors being
produced from simple rules and those simple rules may have been
reached by a reductionist approach.
> Hawking postulates things unseen,
> the other is thinking of postulating things unseen.
Both of these are untrue. Hawking may be off track many times due to
his inablity to adopt concepts like Lee Smolin's evolving universe (he
has a go at it in most of his books) and his love of ideas that would
have Einstein going - 'whoooo there - do the math' . Hawking is, to
the public, the face of cosmological science but, to those who
understand science to a great depth, far greater than I can even
pretend, he wouldnt make it into the top 20 of great living
scientists.
> You should in
> stead research science about "anticipation" by Dubois, which is the
> more hard science.
Is that that old paper you trawled up that was inconclusive in it's
findings and went from okay maths to complete fantasy in terminology.
That work has been superceeded by others looking into the nature of
time. As I've mentioned before, others see the time of arrow as not
always flowing one way.
We know through hard science that a ball does not anticipate the
window as you tried to posit but faled in a very public way.
> I can also advise you to read the Quran.
Why that and not the bible or the collective tales of hans christian
anderson or brother grim?
It's a book by people for poeple. It's useless for science as it was
writen without the knowledge of modern science. There's no mention of
even basic physics or chemistry in the Quran after all.
> You would get a good sense of
> judgement, that you need for understanding the reality, and
> significance of these alternative possible results in the future.
If you want a good sense of judgement you must be able to be aware of
the situation you are in. We invent our own alternatives based upon
our internal modeling of external reality. This is based up on our
past knowledge which we use to predict the future using probabilities,
likelihoods and gut feeling (the brain making connections that are
hard or impossible to communicate in a conscious way).
You've reached a dead end in terms of your ideas.
Stew Dean
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Again, for anyone who is actually reading this stuff, Norman is just
>talking rubbish too.
It wouldn't be the first time. However, others who claim that
actually produce good reasons.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that anybody would actually buy into what you all are saying.
As before:
- if else function ;predictable
- random function; unpredictable
etc. etc.
- when in doubt about free will, volition etc. , carefully analyze
what people say is true about it in practical day to day life, because
that usually is true
- completely ignore all western scientists, philosophers and
sciencefans intellectualizing on the subject
That way one can avoid most of the horribly stupid opinions to have on
the subject, which errors are absolutely thousand times as worse as
saying the earth is flat or some other error like that.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is virtually impossible to follow what you say because you don't
include the context of your remarks. Please learn to include the
previous text in your responses.
Kleuskes&Moos made a comment about the notion of deterministic
pseudo-random number generators in computer science. You wrote a
response specifically about the generation of "random" numbers harshly
criticizing Kleuskes&Moos. I wrote indicating that Kleuskes&Moos was
(were) perfectly correct in what was said specifically about random
numbers and pseudo-random number generators and hardware random number
generators as used in computer science.
I don't particularly care about your philosophy on determinism or
randomness or decision-making. I do care that you make serious errors
of fact or interpretation in many other areas, such as what you wrote
about random number generators. Those errors make one ponder about
the validity of whatever else you write.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
unpredictable, and the if-else logic is completely predictable, just
like it said in the microsoft article I quoted.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
and are constantly looking for mindless backup from disinterested
fellow evolutionists who can't possibly get you out of the
intellectual jam that you're in.
Probabilities are an integral part to the way things are. What you're
talking about has been coined the term "weak anticipation" by Dubois,
and is distinguished from the "strong anticipation" that is
experimentally, and mathematically established as true to fact.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Again, Norman is just talking rubbish, the random function is
>unpredictable, and the if-else logic is completely predictable, just
>like it said in the microsoft article I quoted.
>
Is the pseudo-random function unpredictable?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
Western scientists have grown up with science.
Muslim scientists need to grow up.
There are good scientists in many muslim countries, they are atheists.
--
Bob.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172257038....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Yes completely predictable when you have the formula and the inputs.
>
I can't know what the hell you are talking about, because you snipped the
conversation.
Nevertheless, I'll have to dismiss what ever you are predicting simply for
the fact that you are involved in predicting it.
Regards,
JR
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
*Hemidactylus*
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Western scientists are 500 years closer to annihilating the world
> completely, then Muslim scientists.
>
the thought of an Islamic state having both a large stockpile of nukes
and long range missiles is a very scary one. MAD kept the US and USSR
from annihilating each other. Martyrdom for paradise is not the sort
of ideological foundation that keeps a theocracy from nuking Dar al
Harb out of existence. Nukes are kinda like suicide bombs on a much
grander scale. And terrorist organizations with suitcase nukes are
probably scarier than Islamic states with nuclear missiles.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Come on Stew it's the other way round, you have reached your dead end,
> and are constantly looking for mindless backup from disinterested
> fellow evolutionists who can't possibly get you out of the
> intellectual jam that you're in.
Have you worked out why you are a coffee lover yet? Don't tell me,
because you like coffee.
> Probabilities are an integral part to the way things are.
Given that probabilities are just things we make up to predict the way
the world are they're only integral to us understanding things and the
calculations we do. Nature doesnt use them, it's just causality from
start to finish (yeah I know you can't get your head around that but
that's not my problem).
> What you're
> talking about has been coined the term "weak anticipation" by Dubois,
> and is distinguished from the "strong anticipation" that is
> experimentally, and mathematically established as true to fact.
What experiments are those then? Oh right - it's just you making shit
up again.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"For systems with a time shift, the slave or driven
system anticipates the values of the master or driver
system by a future time period giving rise to an
anticipatory synchronization"
There that proves it.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you have idea of the interpretation of the paper you cite and its
complete lack of relevance to any argument you might possibly be
trying to make?
Do you understand that the two systems, slave and driven, are both
entirely deterministic and therefore "anticipating a future value" is
in no way or shape analogous to "predicting an uncertain future"?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
got a problem of it all going back to a single point, the origin of
the universe. So for any 2 systems to synchronise, you got to go trace
all the way back to the origin of the universe through which the
systems can communicate and adjust to another, or else you can just
deny that there are 2 systems altogether, and that it is really 1
system. But you don't need to do any of that foolery, for you can just
calculate with potentials inhabiting the future, and decisions
inhabiting the present, as a way for 2 systems to communicate and for
instance synchronize one to another.
If for instance you drop a basketball then you got the ground system,
and the basketball system. That basketball is going to hit the ground,
and the ground is going to push it back up. That's hard to calculate
if we have to look for classical causation of the pushing and hitting
all the way back to the origin of the universe, or else if we have to
view this as 1 system in stead of 2.
So what you do then is to calculate with future states, so that the
ground can anticipate the basketball falling on it, and the basketball
can anticipate being pushed. So there we have 2 systems, and we take
each timestep, each decision on the potentials, as an origin, so we
don't have to go all the way back to the origin of the universe to get
an origin by which the 2 systems can communicate. We can't really take
timesteps in classical causation, because classical causation is all
instantaneous. I mean, there is no sense to say x caused y, when z
caused x, and p caused z, and q caused p etc. There is no apparent
reason to stop causation all the way back to origin of the universe,
in classical causation.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
r norman
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Boy, you really don't understand anything, do you! But then I don't
read all the nonsense you post so I haven't really gotten the full
impact of that observation before.
First, the paper under discussion, which you refuse to quote in your
replies, is a mathematical system of difference equations. They in no
way intend to describe physical systems or explain the universe; they
are an abstract system.
Second, realistic mathematics that does describe physical reality
comes as a set of equations describing how the system develops over
time plus a set of boundary conditions describing what happens at the
boundary of the system (because nobody except cosmologists "calculate"
the entire universe) plus a set of initial conditions describing the
state of the system at some defined time "zero" which is NOT all the
way back at the big bang but at some arbitrary starting time (because
nobody except cosmologists "calculate" back to the big bang).
There really are mysterious features of what we call time that
physicists deal with. You don't have a clue about them.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
future values.
"The current state variable y(t) will synchronize with
the potential future value of the state variable x(t + 2)"
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
I honestly don't think you have the first clue about how much work has
to go into proving an idea. This is a quote completely out of
context. For it to make sense you need to answer...
What systems is this refering to? What is meant by 'time shift' in
this context? How does that time shift apply to the system and by
what mechanism. Give an example of these both in terms of an
illustrative and real world objective example.
Next slave or driven show a relation between systems. Without defining
what these systems can be and giving examples this again is
meaningless.
What values can be passed back through time, what are the limits to
this, which systems does it apply to? Give an illustrative example.
Give a real world objective example. Give supporting information,
peer reviews and how this idea can be independently proven and, more
importantly, disproven.
Just to give you some background to why I'm asking this I'll describe
the realationship of facts through to theory as used universally by
science.
With science you start with facts, observations, data etc. Next step
is hypothesis, these are ideas that describe the facts. Hypothesis
then need to be tested either through experimentation or continued
observation (if X is true then we should see Y). After a lot of
testing, peer reviewing etc you might end up with a theory. Unlike
common usage a theory is the most solid part of science, equivalent to
'truth' in religion. Unlike religion all theories are open to
attempts to be proved wrong, this is the only way that theories get
proved right. Laws are small vignettes pulled from theories but the
theories tie everything together (they are second to theories, which
most people get the other way round).
So. What are your facts and what is you hypothesis.
You have got a long way to go before you can even start about proving
anything. This is why science is much better at finding out how things
work than religion, although religion is quite good at people stuff.
Stew Dean
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or so to say; when you believe in classical causation only then you
> got a problem of it all going back to a single point, the origin of
> the universe.
This is a problem because of what? You don't like it?
> So for any 2 systems to synchronise, you got to go trace
> all the way back to the origin of the universe through which the
> systems can communicate and adjust to another,
No. You only need the starting states. It may be the future affects
the past, but that's still a deterministic system but with the arrow
of time allowed to go both ways. That future state would still be
determined by past states so the statement hold true. Anticipation
will still be deterministic.
> If for instance you drop a basketball then you got the ground system,
> and the basketball system. That basketball is going to hit the ground,
> and the ground is going to push it back up.
Okay. This is a simple physic experiment. Drop the ball, measure the
ball, calculate stuff using standard physics. You can tell stuff like
how, er, bouncy the ball is.
> That's hard to calculate
> if we have to look for classical causation of the pushing and hitting
> all the way back to the origin of the universe, or else if we have to
> view this as 1 system in stead of 2.
Correct, we do. It is one system. The whole of the universe is
effectively one system, everything affects everything else. We
artificially split it into different systems so we can understand it.
The definition of systems is for our understanding. You could split it
into 100 systems, the ball would still bounce in the same way.
Remember how you told how a path of a spaceship has to be adjusted?
This is because our measurements of the universe are not exact and can
never be without an exact model of the universe down to the subatomic
level. Causality ripples out from each point. Some things have no
affect or their affects are so incredible low they have no effect.
The vibration of atoms due to heat does not make the basket ball move
of it's own volition at room temperature as atoms are very very very
very small.
A single grain of sand will have 2 million, million, million molecules
in it. To quote the internet..
"The Sahara Desert is about 9 million km^2 in size, the whole United
States would fit in it. If you were to dig up all of the Sahara
Desert up to an inch deep, you would collect as many sand particles
as there are silicon dioxide molecules in one grain of sand"
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> First, the paper under discussion, which you refuse to quote in your
> replies, is a mathematical system of difference equations. They in no
> way intend to describe physical systems or explain the universe; they
> are an abstract system.
from the paper:
"It must be pointed out that synchronization plays a
central role in many natural and artificial systems."
Yeah nice try Norman, but it's you who doesn't have a clue at all. The
whole point of the "strong anticpation" as different from "weak
anticipation", is that the potentials / probabilities are inherent to
the system, and not just properties of a model. And there you go
saying that it in no way intends to describe physical systems....
But as before, you didn't have a clue to begin with, because you are a
Darwinist, and Darwinists don't understand anything about FREE
behaviour.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
>Causality ripples out from each point.
That should read; causality ripples out from each point of decision.
Now you have only the one point, which is the origin of the universe.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you look carefully you will find there is variation in the way
> things behave. Looking to the past may give you a clue about the
> future, but, as religion shows, one needs to focus on the decisions
> presently with one's heart. Don't be fooled by science.
if there is any more proof needed that islamists and christianists
believe in the death of the intellect, and of civilization itself,
this paragraph could not provide more graphic evidence
religion has never lead to an explanation of the physical world.
muslims have had the quran for 1400 years but are totally dependent on
western science for the very existence of much of their way of life.
nando's view of the world...'religion will explain all' has been a
failure for 5000 years. islam especially is degenerate in its present
form and leads to nothing. yet he says it's the only way to understand
the physical world...'dont be fooled by science'.
the screed of those who live in caves.
>
wf3h
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Western scientists are 500 years closer to annihilating the world
> completely, then Muslim scientists.
>
ROFLMAO!! it's islamists who've taken western science and employed it
in the service of their genocidal beliefs who threaten the world. if
the west had the morality of islamists, there would be no islamists.
arabs would be extinct as would pakistanis and iranians.
it's YOUR religion that threatens the world, not science
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 25 feb, 11:57, "stew dean" <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Causality ripples out from each point.
>
> That should read; causality ripples out from each point of decision.
So are your decision points every atom, or just some, or subatomic or
above the atomic level?
I think your 'decision' is just another word for 'causality', it's
just you're having difficulty trying to merge your new knowledge about
science, limited as it is, with your less than authodox spiritual
beliefs.
You're desperately trying to find a point where some kind of
supernatural entity can tinker with the universe, some way to make the
universe more like a thinking entity. In your universe clouds think
and rocks make moral decisions. It's like a hollywood dance number or
kids story book.
Meanwhile in the real universe...
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"arbitrary". So to say; in classical determinism there's no good
reason to start observation far back in the chain of cause and effect,
or a little closer. Strictly speaking initial conditions are really
only the origin of the universe. And it is these initial conditions we
must know to do any multi-system science at all, because the initial
conditions are really points of decision through which several systems
can communicate one to another. You take the initial conditions of the
one, and of the other, and then you adjust one to another by the
initial conditions. But the initial conditions are really decisions on
potentials, as is also indicated by the ultra sensitivity to initial
conditions. The ultra sensitivity comes from the small scale at which
the initial conditions are set, and on such a small scale there is
free behaviour.
Creationists don't have this problem of arbitrary points in the chain
of cause and effect, because we can trace back to decisions, and so it
is not arbitrary, we trace back to the nearest decision.
So you see this logic of free behaviour, solves quite a few very basic
problems in physics.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, look at what Norman said. The point where to start observation is
> "arbitrary".
Correct.
> So to say; in classical determinism there's no good
> reason to start observation far back in the chain of cause and effect,
> or a little closer. Strictly speaking initial conditions are really
> only the origin of the universe.
It's true to say that to exactly reproduce reality in it's complete
form you need to go back to the absoute beginning of time. But that's
impossible. So what's the alternative?
> And it is these initial conditions we
> must know to do any multi-system science at all, because the initial
> conditions are really points of decision through which several systems
> can communicate one to another.
None of this either makes sense or has any context to make sense.
You've just made up another of your catch phrases, in this case 'multi-
system science'. Systems are something I know a thing or two about.
I can't think of a case where I would look at multiple systems simply
because if two systems interact they become one system.
> But the initial conditions are really decisions on
> potentials, as is also indicated by the ultra sensitivity to initial
> conditions.
If you decode your language you are right - the initial condition does
alter the outcome. What you must consider is how that initial
condition is reached. Unless intelligence is involved then it's more
causality.
> The ultra sensitivity comes from the small scale at which
> the initial conditions are set, and on such a small scale there is
> free behaviour.
You've made this mistake before. Small scale alterations in the vast
majority of cases make zero difference as the sheer numbers and
interactions smooth out slight variations into larger patterns. Where
small alterations make a difference is if the larger patterns are in a
balanced state where things may go one way or the other.
What I'm aware you're looking for is a point where you can stick a
flag and say 'spiritual decisions are made here'. So by going to the
edge of our knowledge and ability to see things you consider that's a
safe place to put it. This is called a 'god of the gaps' argument, god
always ends up controlling the systems at are beyond our current
knowledge, until we know more then god moves a bit further away. What
you don't know is that where you've stuck your flag is already well
known territory and there's no place to stick your flag. The subatomic
world is not a huge mystery untill you start going much much lower.
Electrons are well known things and behave in a well understood way.
So if you decision point is at the electron level then you have no
place to put your flag. Perhaps you want to go smaller, start looking
at quarks or cosmic strings?
> Creationists don't have this problem of arbitrary points in the chain
> of cause and effect, because we can trace back to decisions, and so it
> is not arbitrary, we trace back to the nearest decision.
If you can show evidence of a supernatural decision then you'll be the
first in history. Creationists stick a totally arbitrary point on the
start of life etc. Some say it's 4000 years, some say it's bigger.
None of them appear to really agree on anything.
All that creationists say is arbitrary, it's all made up and bears
little or no relation to reality. I can use a scientific theory but
how can I use some half baked idea from a creationist? They're not
even up to speed with modern faith so if I wanted to find god the last
people I'd ask would be creationists. If you look at the figures for
those who accept evolution in the UK you'll find amongst christians
most of them are non creationists as they understand evolution.
> So you see this logic of free behaviour, solves quite a few very basic
> problems in physics.
Sorry - where was the logic? I think you're still deeply confused
about how the universe works and how we explore how it works. Take
another run at it, use real world examples that can be varified
independently of you. If you're trying to convince me you're doing a
lousy job of it. I am open minded but I can't just take your word for
it when I talk to someone else and they say the exact opposite of you
BUT they provide evidence and references, sorry but they'll win each
time. If you are right you are doing a lousy job of convincing me or
anyone else.
Go to Google and look at your star ratings according to your profile.
It's not a indication of anything more than acceptance but it appears
people prefer the way I argue to you. Even if you where wrong but you
could argue in a better way you would get more stars.
I know in my heart of hearts you are wrong but am trying to find some
way to agree with you, find some common ground we can talk about
instead of butting heads. But to do this requires some common
language and common knowledge. You reject both in favour of your own
personal ideas that are impossible to understand because you leave out
all context. I'm not the only one saying this so don't take my word
for it.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
or so to say free sex. But what particular thing is wrong with the
West, is more fundamentally free knowledge, rather then free sex. For
instance scientists who teach kids how to build nuclear bombs,
convinced that the free flow of knowledge is an absolute good. This
isn't really freedom, because there aren't any alternatives, one
cannot actually choose not to do it. Similarly with promiscuity. The
media speaks to people's lusts because that is indicated by maximizing
profitformula, and the people respond with behaving promisciously as
slaves to their lusts, rather then being actually free so that they
could decide not to. It's an established fact, there are a great many
johns in the West who've had sex with hundreds of women each. And of
course, there are many hookers in the west, who've had thousands of
man.
So you want the free flow of knowledge, but now you want me to
appreciate the knowledge that is given freely. To appreciate this
computer, that was built with the system of free knowledge. But it
doesn't work, the knowledge which you give me freely becomes mine. The
others don't want ownership of knowledge, for such is against their
beliefs, I do want ownership of knowledge because those are my
beliefs. Therefore just as like when I would find a berry in nature,
and if there's no one there to claim it, then I claim it for myself.
And this may seem like being ungrateful, but you should know that
ownership of knowledge is a big responsibility to have, and it presses
on one's conscience all the time.
So whenever you use your computer, know that the people who own that
knowledge which makes the computer are mostly only religious people,
and the rest believe that this knowledge should be free, and not owned
by anyone.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
*Hemidactylus*
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most Muslims don't like the West, because of promiscuity in the West,
> or so to say free sex. But what particular thing is wrong with the
> West, is more fundamentally free knowledge, rather then free sex. For
> instance scientists who teach kids how to build nuclear bombs,
> convinced that the free flow of knowledge is an absolute good. This
> isn't really freedom, because there aren't any alternatives, one
> cannot actually choose not to do it.
>
in school is how to do better at Runescape or hw to affod new 20'
wheels for the car because it would look nice when matched with the
neon lighted undercarriage. That's the sort of obsession that occupies
the mind of the "Wester" young male. That and as you imply, how to
hook up with chicks. To the "Western" male these chic exist in the
here and now. THey are tangible. To the mind of the Muslim youth
brainwashed by jihad these chicks are in the everafter and the
obseesion with martydom is the only thing tagible in the here and now.
I prefer "Western" obsessions than those of the Islamists anyday. I
prefer our youth booming bass in their cars and text messaging each
other over strapping exlosives to themselves and killing lots f
innocents in a shopping mall. Materialism and decadence brings
Westerners into shopping malls to buy stuff, eat at the pavilion and
watch movies. OTOH what drawx the suicide bomber towards the mall? A
higher moral standard?
>
Similarly with promiscuity. The
> media speaks to people's lusts because that is indicated by maximizing
> profitformula, and the people respond with behaving promisciously as
> slaves to their lusts, rather then being actually free so that they
> could decide not to. It's an established fact, there are a great many
> johns in the West who've had sex with hundreds of women each. And of
> course, there are many hookers in the west, who've had thousands of
> man.
>
the monogamous Westerner? What are harems and concubines? And what's
with forcing women into the beekeeper suits? In the west they can wear
bikinis if they so wish or they can cover themselves modestly. It's
their *choice*. In the west we don't philosophize about free will. We
exercise it.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the West which are sexually active, but actually most all those rock
and movie stars of the free sex era that you see on television, well
into their sixties by now, still have it on with scores of men and
women. They have a huge appetite for it which must be satisfied almost
daily, most of them.
And many of the middle aged people they have it on in huge numbers at
sexparties, and when they talk about that, they talk about it in a
very similar way like people who went to a war like Vietnam talk about
their experience. But really, when you went to a war or to a sexparty
you get a lot of nothing from it, because that's not the way it's
supposed to be, so there's little meaning in it.
Meanwhile in predominantly muslim Indonesia, women have 3 to 7
gradations in their smiles, and people approach each other only with
the right hand, and not the left, because that is civilized.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
*Hemidactylus*
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Meanwhile in predominantly muslim Indonesia, women have 3 to 7
> gradations in their smiles, and people approach each other only with
> the right hand, and not the left, because that is civilized.
>
use their left hand? Are they uncivilized? My goodness, are we
regressing to discrimination against left-handers again? Are they too
put to the sword in a totalitarian Islamic state, along with pagans,
homosexuals and apostates? I realize that tradition is to eat with the
right and wipe with the left, but come on now.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Most Muslims don't like the West, because of promiscuity in the West,
>or so to say free sex.
Most have to pay a lot for it.
> But what particular thing is wrong with the
>West, is more fundamentally free knowledge, rather then free sex. For
>instance scientists who teach kids how to build nuclear bombs,
Not exactly difficult science.
>convinced that the free flow of knowledge is an absolute good. This
>isn't really freedom, because there aren't any alternatives, one
>cannot actually choose not to do it.
you can choose, as people like McClueless and Dishonest Ray prove, to
ignore education and just be dumb.
> Similarly with promiscuity. The
>media speaks to people's lusts because that is indicated by maximizing
>profitformula, and the people respond with behaving promisciously as
>slaves to their lusts, rather then being actually free so that they
>could decide not to.
Believe me, your view of the west is very warped.
> It's an established fact,
Sure it is - withing your tiny little mind.
> there are a great many
>johns in the West who've had sex with hundreds of women each.
And Bobs as well :)
> And of
>course, there are many hookers in the west, who've had thousands of
>man.
As there are in every single middle-eastern country as well.
>
>So you want the free flow of knowledge, but now you want me to
>appreciate the knowledge that is given freely. To appreciate this
>computer, that was built with the system of free knowledge. But it
>doesn't work, the knowledge which you give me freely becomes mine. The
>others don't want ownership of knowledge, for such is against their
>beliefs, I do want ownership of knowledge because those are my
>beliefs.
Sorry bud, but you cannot own knowledge. You can try and keep it
private, but it will escape in the end because it loves to be free.
>Therefore just as like when I would find a berry in nature,
>and if there's no one there to claim it, then I claim it for myself.
>And this may seem like being ungrateful, but you should know that
>ownership of knowledge is a big responsibility to have, and it presses
>on one's conscience all the time.
Firking rubbish.
>
>So whenever you use your computer, know that the people who own that
>knowledge which makes the computer are mostly only religious people,
The hell they are.
>and the rest believe that this knowledge should be free, and not owned
>by anyone.
It isn't - not once it escapes - and it always does.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah that's a common misconception that it's only the young people in
> the West which are sexually active, but actually most all those rock
> and movie stars of the free sex era that you see on television, well
> into their sixties by now, still have it on with scores of men and
> women. They have a huge appetite for it which must be satisfied almost
> daily, most of them.
It's a common misconception that everyone is doing it all the time.
The media sell sex because it's an easy sell and people usualy want it
more when they can't have it.
So basically free sex always comes with a cost of some kind.
Also is having lots of consensual sex immoral anyway? Providing no
one is hurt physically or emotionaly can it be said to be immoral.
Everyone needs love etc and many people feel sex is best with someone
you love. Others it's just like drinking and drugs.
It appears you've got a hang up about this.
> And many of the middle aged people they have it on in huge numbers at
> sexparties, and when they talk about that, they talk about it in a
> very similar way like people who went to a war like Vietnam talk about
> their experience. But really, when you went to a war or to a sexparty
> you get a lot of nothing from it, because that's not the way it's
> supposed to be, so there's little meaning in it.
Correct. It's just an empty physical experience most of the time. But
for many it's the closest they get to a loving relationship, which is
deeply sad. Blame the media, big brother and trash TV. It's got
nothing to do with being a westerner either as there are big problems
with cultures around the world. The problem is rife if you head east.
> Meanwhile in predominantly muslim Indonesia, women have 3 to 7
> gradations in their smiles, and people approach each other only with
> the right hand, and not the left, because that is civilized.
And why is that civilized? Do you know? If you think 'it is because
it is' then you are unaware of the binds of your own culture. Culture
is very local and far from absolute. What is acceptable in one
country is not acceptable in another and whilst some muslims see
westerners as sinful, with women dressing like whores and apparently
out of control then in turn they are looked upon as ignorant, badly
educated, violent, unloving and backward.
Incidentally the right hand/left hand thing comes through one hand
being used for things like eating, the other used for, er, 'toilet
duties'. Just as Jewish folks don't eat pork because it goes off and
becomes bad to eat in hot countries, so the left hand, right hand
thing has become part of your culture. It's local custom with it's
roots based in something practical for a specific lifestyle for a time
and a place. Cultures change, customs fade and alter. As the
evironment changes so our behavour needs to change. For example I
don't eat meat because of religous concerns but of real world concerns
about world resources and global warming (eating meat is a bigger
contributor to global warming than all means of transport). Thousands
of years of culture have made the meat eating ship a hard one to turn
around, and I here the same sad excuses time and time again about it
(you think of it I've heard it and can give a preprepared reason why
it's incorrect).
The world is changing at an alarming rate, clinging to local cultures
is like the band continuing to play as the titanic sunk - it's not
sane.
Stew Dean