100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > SkyHook5652
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/21/09 02:12 PM
|
|
Somthing that's always bothered me about the "natural" workings of the univers is the bi-sexual reproduction thing.
How the heck could evolution develop a system whereby two separate lifeforms had to come together and exchange parts in order to give rise to another lifeform? It just seems completely backward. Asexual reproduction is simpler, more efficient and more dependable. So how/why could something that simple and efficient evolve into something so random and complex, yet so universal? Anyway, for me, that is probably the most baffling of all "natural" processes to explain without some sort of "design" involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
purpose
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/21/09 01:43 PM
|
|
I think having purpose is what differentiates the animate from the inanimate. (Having indeed read the rest of your post, as well) I still sort of question this, in part perhaps because the way it is written.
What is meant by "purpose" makes a difference here. Does it mean "will (or a goal)," as in "I have (a) purpose in life," or does it mean "meaning," as in, "life itself has purpose"? The inanimate very well could have purpose; it could very well have "meaning" beyond our comprehension or intention, beyond our own definitions. I'm sure you meant "purpose" as in "the inanimate lacks free will and thus intent," but I believe that making a distinction between those two usages makes a difference. More to the point, things like plants (not sentient, at the very least) DO have pragmatic purposes: Feeding, giving oxygen to, and sheltering humanity and animals. Think of water's purposes. The earth itself's purposes. The sun's purposes. Etc. Even on a spiritual/philosophical level these things could be (and have been) said to have purpose (as in meaning): I had in mind the “goal” usage in my above post. Now personally, I differentiate between “goal” – as thing to be achieved – and “purpose” – as the reason why one desires to achieve it. For example, one wants to learn how to drive – that would be the “goal”, and the “purpose” would be “to be able to travel faster than walking”. The difference between that and the “meaning” meaning seems to be mainly that in the case of a “goal” (or “why”) it is applied to self as a desired end result, whereas in the case of “meaning”, it is applied to “other” as to how it relates to, or assist in, self achieving a desired end result. In other words, the purpose (why) of learning to drive a car is travel faster, and the purpose (meaning) of the car itself is to aid or assist in travelling faster. So in that sense, the animate/inanimate I think still applies. The animate has the “why” purpose and the inanimate has the “meaning” purpose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 12/20/09 05:53 PM
|
|
Just for some sort of starting point...
Definition of "design" from dictionary.com: "an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
purpose
|
|
I'm with Jeannie on this one.
The way I think of it is: Purpose is not "discovered" it is "decided". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
purpose
|
|
purpose, artificial? speculate how ever you want, would love to hear the wisdom of every possible perspective. I think having purpose is what differentiates the animate from the inanimate.
And also there is a difference between a self-determined purpose and an other-determined purpose. For example, a robot may have a "purpose", such as "to assemble a part" or "to explore the planet Mars". But those purposes are wholly determined by others, not by the robot itself. Also, a person may have a purpose that has some "other determinism" involved, such as when one is hired to do a job, the purpose behind it may be entirely the purpose of one's boss. But I think that true "freedom" is when one is completely self-determined. But that's not to say that, for example, one shouldn't do one's job or that one shouldn;t follow the laws of the land. Only that one should do those things by one's own decision - not by the decision of another. Just some thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That "all power comes from the sun" is not really accurate. You mentioned geothermal, which doesn't come from the sun, nor does nuclear power.
I'm trying to play devil's advocate here... nuclear power may not come from our sun, but it came from a sun. Does that count?
It does seem though that all power could be said to derive untimately from the conversion of matter into energy. But then I'm not an expert on the Big Bang theory so that may not actually be true. Might the heat trapped in the earth be the result of our sun in its infancy? Warming the protoplanets as they coalesced? I'm really reaching, here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing that comes to my mind, as far as "E=mc^2" being relevant to our lives, is nuclear power. Many places, when you turn on the lights - some of that power came from the conversion of mass to energy in a nuclear reactor.
That "all power comes from the sun" is not really accurate. You mentioned geothermal, which doesn't come from the sun, nor does nuclear power.
I've heard it argued that *all* of our power comes from the sun, which is power primarily by the conversion of mass to energy. (Gravitational collapse also contributes a bit). I don't remember how geothermal fits into that picture. Certainly wind power, wave power, solar power, and (if its truly from anceint biomass) petroleum derive their power from the sun. It does seem though that all power could be said to derive untimately from the conversion of matter into energy. But then I'm not an expert on the Big Bang theory so that may not actually be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOU ARE HERE is great, however, a little long. It really puts our existence and importance into perspective.
There is the "Holographic Universe" theory, put forth by David Bohm which, if true, would indicate that spacetime is "grainy" and not actually a "continuum". (The GEO600 gravitational wave detector has found some "jitter" that physicist Craig Hogan believes may be actual evidence of the "graniness" of spacetime.) If that's true, then the speed of light might just be a factor of the size of the "grains", which would mean that the the speed of light would be relative to the size of the universe and not a constant at all.
However, I noticed a slight error, or incongruity. It states that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but it is 93 billion light years wide. Assuming the universe started out as a singularity (single point) then it would have to have expanded must faster than the speed of light. the only way I can account for this (I am NOT a physicist), is that the speed of light is constant in whatever medium it passes through. So, possibly in the medium of space (whatever it consists of) then the speed of light is approx 186,00 mps. But, I suppose in the medium of nothing, perhaps it can go much faster. Any other theories?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
|
|
Sky wrote:
Well this was my position way back at the beginning of the thread. I stated that the very term 'evidence' is meaningless outside of the context of the specific situation or idea that the 'evidence' is being said to support.
I agree. Evidence requires something to relate to. That is to say, in order for anything to be considered evidence, it must be evidence of something.  But I was chastised by the host for attempting to go beyond the purpose of the thread which was to consider 'evidence' without reference to any specific situations or ideas. I suggested that "evidence" would be a meaningless concept in that case and I still maintain that view. Without a specific situation or idea to support, the very meaning of the concept of 'evidence' is lost. It's a meaningless concept when taken out of context like that. It's not an absolute idea it's an idea that is relative to other ideas and dependent upon them for it's very meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 12/16/09 06:35 PM
|
|
So to 'bend' a spoon with your mind would be equivalent to modifying the "SPOON'S PROGRAM" using only your mind.
I'm not quite sure that is where the program would be, but there would have to be a connection from the spoon to its program. The program itself might be "somewhere else" or it might be arising from within the spoon. The spoon is projected from that program, perhaps from within the spoon. But like a computer, it cannot run without its "operating program" and that operating program has to have a vehicle and power to run that vehicle has to have energy.
The question then becomes, "Where is the program stored" Well, you've just suggested that the "program" or "infromation" is actually being stored in the object itself: If the energy is shut off, the computer would crash. If all things arise from the quantum field and the quantum field is shut down, everything might just disappear.    I mean, we have always (well, for the past half-century or so since the advent of modern computers) analogized "mind" as a kind of "computer". The main point of contention seems to be based on the idea that there must be some “overmind” that contains the one-and-only computer/program that outputs all “objective” information. But I don’t see that as being necessary. All that is really necessary is for there to be agreement, between separate minds/computers, as to the output of the program. Once that agreement is achieved, then we simply have two (or multiple) separate minds which are effectively running the same program and thus have identical outputs. And since the program’s “output” is what we label “the objective”, we then have what we call the “common reality”. In other words, as far as “objective” is concerned, two computers running identical programs and outputting the exact same “objective” information, would be indistinguishable from a single computer running a single program and outputting the exact same “objective” information. (Hence my analogy of a game being played online by multiple players.) But of course, that indistinguishability between a single program and multiple identical programs would only apply while the source/cause/nature of the program and it’s output was unknown.  In the case of the spoon, (which is not thought of as having a "mind") where the program is stored has to be connected to that which projects it. The agreement exists in that all participants in the game have agreed to enter and play by the rules. They would have to have a lot of power to be able to break the rules or ignore the spoon to the point that it could no longer exist. The integrity of the spoon does not depend on a "unanimous" agreement, or anyone who decided they did not agree might cause the spoon to disappear. Of course if you have enough power you can cause yourself not to see the spoon, and with a little more power, you could cause others to not see the spoon (as a hypnotist can do). But in general, the spoon maintains its integrity within the program. I’m not sure I agree that it takes “lots of power” to alter the program though (i.e. “break the rules or ignore the spoon”). To my mind, it only takes understanding of how the program works. We are, after all, the programmers. JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
|
|
Creative wrote In a general terms, yes everything perceived is evidence of something.
Here is an objective analysis offering the grounds upon which the conclusion is being made.
Isn’t the perception of a thing evidence of its existence?
Pan wrote: Anything that can be perceived is evindence. If this is true, then all things perceived are necessarily evidence.
That is false. It seems to me it is, which means that anything perceived is evidence. Either that or the thing itsef isn't evidence, rather the perception of it is the evidence. Which would make evidence entirely subjective. Intersting food for thought.  All "stuff" is evidence of something. But if you are looking for evidence of a particular thing, assertion, statement, crime, etc. everything perceived is not evidence of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So to 'bend' a spoon with your mind would be equivalent to modifying the "SPOON'S PROGRAM" using only your mind.
I'm not quite sure that is where the program would be, but there would have to be a connection from the spoon to its program. The program itself might be "somewhere else" or it might be arising from within the spoon. The spoon is projected from that program, perhaps from within the spoon. But like a computer, it cannot run without its "operating program" and that operating program has to have a vehicle and power to run that vehicle has to have energy.
The question then becomes, "Where is the program stored" Well, you've just suggested that the "program" or "infromation" is actually being stored in the object itself: If the energy is shut off, the computer would crash. If all things arise from the quantum field and the quantum field is shut down, everything might just disappear. I mean, we have always (well, for the past half-century or so since the advent of modern computers) analogized "mind" as a kind of "computer". The main point of contention seems to be based on the idea that there must be some “overmind” that contains the one-and-only computer/program that outputs all “objective” information. But I don’t see that as being necessary. All that is really necessary is for there to be agreement, between separate minds/computers, as to the output of the program. Once that agreement is achieved, then we simply have two (or multiple) separate minds which are effectively running the same program and thus have identical outputs. And since the program’s “output” is what we label “the objective”, we then have what we call the “common reality”. In other words, as far as “objective” is concerned, two computers running identical programs and outputting the exact same “objective” information, would be indistinguishable from a single computer running a single program and outputting the exact same “objective” information. (Hence my analogy of a game being played online by multiple players.) But of course, that indistinguishability between a single program and multiple identical programs would only apply while the source/cause/nature of the program and it’s output was unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 12/16/09 02:05 PM
|
|
Creative wrote
Here is an objective analysis offering the grounds upon which the conclusion is being made.
Isn’t the perception of a thing evidence of its existence?
Pan wrote: Anything that can be perceived is evindence. If this is true, then all things perceived are necessarily evidence.
That is false. It seems to me it is, which means that anything perceived is evidence. Either that or the thing itsef isn't evidence, rather the perception of it is the evidence. Which would make evidence entirely subjective. Intersting food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 12/16/09 12:21 AM
|
|
After having established that the other person functions as a "light detector" you have all you need to use it as a tool for gathering evidence of light based phenomena.
You didn't "have to explain it". We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it... 
So you are posing questions that you recognize have obvious answers? Do I really need to be put to the test at this point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
|
|
I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography.
The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin.
Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it. In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it. Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man... As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means. So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”? In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer. In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.) So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man? Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.) Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.) Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.) Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all? Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it. As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot. Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards. Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy. And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.) And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them. Really it would be quite elementary. But that doesn’t offer any objective evidence of the existence of the image of the wineglass. Yes, he has objective evidence of a “fifth sense” in others. But he does not have objective evidence of the existence of the holographic image. We're all blind to infrared, ultraviolet, and the further wavelengths away from the visible spectrum yet we've got tools that sense those things for us. Hardly any of those images from hubble or any other telescope are of the spectrum of light we can see. We've taken something invisible to us but visible to at least one of the items in our toolbox for evidence gathering and then used it to produce something that is within the boundaries of our senses. It's so basic I shouldn't have to explain it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
subjectivity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is a property of a sentence, or not. That's it.
I think Jeannie was referring more to this definition: From dictionary.com - Truth: 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life. ... than to this definition From dictionary.com - True: 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Abra is showing off his talent for creativity because
I never heard it put that way, but it makes for an interesting wording for the complementary statement - energy contains mass.
Actually the equation refers to mass-energy equivalence. It is a concept of measurement as in the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It does not imply that mass is energy, only that it contains energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Evidence...
|
|
I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography.
The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin.
Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it. In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it. Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man... As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means. So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”? In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer. In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.) So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man? Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.) Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.) Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.) Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all? Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it. As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot. Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards. Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy. And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.) And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them. Really it would be quite elementary. But that doesn’t offer any objective evidence of the existence of the image of the wineglass. Yes, he has objective evidence of a “fifth sense” in others. But he does not have objective evidence of the existence of the holographic image. The point is - if there is no "object - of matter" there is nothing to perceive. If there is reason to believe an 'object' exists, there will (eventually) be 'objective' data to qualify the existence of the object, and some way to prove - even to a blind man - the validity of the objects existence - without requiring 'faith' in a subjective interpretation. In the case of the holographic image - your subjective interpretation was incorrect, there was not wine glass, therefore if the blind had faith in your subjective interpretation - his faith would have been broken when you realized the wine glass was NOT a wine glass at all but a holographic immage.
Just from a purely philsophical perspective, I wonder what sort of subjective interpretation would be given to that kind of sensory input. It's seems fairly certain that it would not be identical (or even similar?) to that of a sighted person. Interesting thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/14/09 03:33 PM
|
|
Can anybody prove to me a GOD?? I'm coming in late on this thread, but the very first thing that came to my mind when I read the title of this thread was: "Define exactly what it is you want proof of."
This seems to always be a problem with this kind of question. What usually happens is that someone presents a viewpoint and then someone else replys with "that's not what I meant by 'God'". In other words, it's kind of a baiting question. It leaves a huge loophole that the questioner can always use to get out of anything. For example, the pantheistic view is that everything is collectively god. So from that perspective, the existence of anything at all is absolute proof of the existence of god. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
