atheist conversation |
Marlene:JAYWILSON- You sense that too? JOSH- Maybe you could be more specific on what you do believe. If you want to know what or what not I believe I'll be glad to answer. - 1:02:45 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:- Joette and ALL: There is nothing narrow-minded about what I have said. In fact, it's about being aware of a greater potential for all of us. Indeed, there are forces at work that out of our control, afterall, compared to the Universe we are trivial, but the fact that we care enough to find cures for depression and world peace are signs that we are making this world what we want it to be. No one says we are there yet. We all engage in the same fight for energy, but if we even believe in this evolution thing, then the humankind is only a step on the ladder. I'm talking about something bigger than the human dilemma. I'm talking about unlimited potential. Study quantum mechanics or check out some of Carl Sagan's books if you want to understand what I have found. Being an atheist doesn't mean we turn off our sense of appreciation. It means that we aren't limited to 4000 year-old theories. - 2:25:54 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:On second thought, for those interested in what I'm trying to put into words, read "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, or rent the film "MindWalk" with Sam Waterston and John Heard (not very entertaining, but very in-depth).. because maybe I am not being very clear. Has anyone read "The Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield and wants to talk about it? - 3:05:22 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Marlene- not meaning to hog up all the space this room by myself, please share what you believe. {o: - 3:08:00 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..that 6th sense thing must have something to it:JOSH- Yikes! Not THE CELESTINE PROPHECY! Yup! Now I know where your coming from. Listen to Art Bell much? The guy that wrote it was on as a guest. - 3:53:18 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..that 6th sense thing must have something to it:JOSH- Yikes! Not THE CELESTINE PROPHECY! Yup! Now I know where your coming from. Listen to Art Bell much? The guy that wrote it was on as a guest. - 3:54:09 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:OOPS! Looks like I may have suttered, anyway Josh. I believe (until further evidence is proven fact) that huamnity is but another species of animal on this planet. Although we consider ourselves to be more intelligent that the rest of species, I believe our itelligence as we know it has been developed as a means for our survival over the million or so years we've been evolving. We are nothing more than another animal IMO. - 4:19:53 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I am always interested in learning more when a person comes along that has a different sense of "spirituality" than my own. I personally don't adhere to what is written in The Celestine Prophecy, but would be very interested in hearing about your own experiences. Do you adhere closely to its writings? Do you let your "spirit" speak instead of your "ego"? Do you actually see auras around things? Do you avoid the manipulators, the "poor me's'" and others who may affect your own energy field? To be honest, I roll my eyes when The Celestine Prophecy is mentioned, to me it is right up there with the "I'm Okay, You're Okay" genre of pop psychology. I take it your are not an objectivist, but still require the collective to fill a void in your life, which works for some, but not for myself. - 13:55:52 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
PASSING THROUGH...:...Same people. Same blurts. Nothing new. - 14:00:55 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:I'd have to say you're not particularly observant PT, old buddy. - 14:09:18 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Oh boy, it seems I became the center of attention in here. I'd just like to say that I don't adhere to The Celesine Prophecy, or any of the ideas I expressed in here. I do like the ideas and I thought it would be fun to talk about them and defend those ideas as I saw them. I certainly intend to deceive anyone and I didn't realize it would become a 'attack the person who does not speak like us' kind of thing, anyway...MARLENE- I agree that we are animals, and I also believe that we are evolving, which means that the future is undetermined until we decide it, and there won't be much fact to it except that we have accepted it. Truth is relative anyway. Does hope fit into your views at all? Or are we just animals bumbling around on this desolate rock? JOETTE-- If you agree with the concept of evolution, doesn't that mean we are in this together, and that the collective need preceeds everything else? (just asking) - 15:47:35 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:.. that's 'certainly DIDN'T intend'... sorry. - 15:49:01 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Grant -How does the mind work, anyway?- :JOETTE-- Are you familiar with cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, especially his book 'How the Mind Works'? I happened upon the little Profile thing in 'Scientific American' and this book sounds absolutely fascinating to me. I'm going a-hunting this very day. - 16:51:37 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Grant -The lowly typo-:OPEN-- As a small service to the collective, I'm willing to edit any errors or statements that didn't come out as intended and that ya'll are uncomfortable with. Just make a separate post requesting a correction. I'll make such correction, then delete the request. I'm not willing, however, to edit your statements or comments for content after someone else has responded. In other words, I'm willing to edit boo-boos only. - 16:59:17 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I do hope that we keep on evolving and that we don't bumble ourselves out of existence. I didn't mean to attack you personally so please don't take it that way. I had a copy of the _ The Celesine Prophecy_ but lent it out and it's never come back. I think your idea of discussing the points, starting from #1, would be a great idea. Let's do it! - 17:33:18 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - it's a bit of "a rock and a hard place" for me w.r.t. collectives. I do know that I avoid said collectives after being part of groups, seeing the dynamics within, and deciding that I myself do not fit into a group. Yes, I like to think we are all in this thing together, but it's the politics of a group that I just cannot come to grips with. I do have anti-social characteristics though, so that plays a big part of it for me. My questions to you were not meant as an attack on you or your beliefs. If I had asked those questions IRL, you would have found them presented calmly, and with more than a little interest. I understood from your posts that you did follow The Celestine Prophecy, and I merely wanted to know about your own experiences. - 18:09:18 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Joette...:GRANT - yes, I am more than a little familiar with Steven Pinker, and how cognitive science works. I agree with it in theory and in practise, but it's so much work! ;o) - 18:11:31 on 1 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:CARL - the other day you wondered if that "Atlanta shooter" was religious...if you haven't read this yet, it should answer your question...(from a letter in his home): "Please know that I love Leigh Ann, Matthew and Mychelle with all of my heart. If Jehovah is willing, I would like to see all of them again in the resurrection, to have a second chance." - 0:03:33 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- Sounds fairly religious to me! - 3:01:46 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Marlene- Okay. Well, the First Insight begins with synchronicity (a term founded by Carl Jung), where we become conscious of the coincidences in our lives. "Something else is going beneath our everyday life," in other words, the events in our lives and the people we meet are all plot points to lead us, inspire us, challenge us, or to make us rethink where we are going. This insight also gets us ready to understand the preoccupations we have. What do you think of synchronicity? - 3:36:51 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Joette- if you'd like to read about some of my experiences click my name. It's a bit long, I have to warn you. ALL: has anyone seen "MindWalk" or read any of Fritjof Capra's books, 'Turning Point' or 'The Tao of Physics'? Great stuff. In "Mindwalk", the characters talk about a perception crisis - the way we view the world has become too mechanistic, instead of a global awareness we focus our energies onto each individual problem, solving the pieces only to find out more problems arise from a limited scope of action. Any thoughts? - 3:53:48 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
you-no:Joette, I'll assure you the A. Shooter wasn't religious but sounds like he should have been. Why would you think that kind of act comes from a religious person? I consider myself religious and something like that would be the last thing I would ever do! - 7:40:15 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:you-no: I didn't state that the Atlanta shooter was religious. He stated that fact himself in his own writing. Is it possible you missed that point in my post? There are many acts that can be performed during a lifetime, and then the person committing the act asks for forgiveness on his/her deathbed, and then everything is okay. That's a basic tenet of Catholicism, n'est pas? Have you ever seen a funeral for a mafia don? They always seem to have big funerals complete with priests and bishops. Then there's that little lady in Texas who thought she should be exempt from a ride on the electic chair because she had religion, and many clergy agreed with her. I could go on for hours giving examples of atrocities committed by so called religious types, even stating the obvious about the Crusades, but I don't want to bore you. Maybe you wouldn't do anything heinous, but there are many that would, and they would hide behind their religion to rationalize their actions. - 11:23:43 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Grant -by their assumptions ye shall know them-:YOU KNOW-- Beliefs in Jehovah and the resurrection are religious beliefs, no? Your views on what makes one religious may themselves be part of your religious views, which is OK, but can result in poor communication with heathens, IMO. - 11:44:03 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (Because it's tough being religious):ALL: For those of you that have audio on your computers, you might find this little mp3 download amusing (if you haven't already heard it). - 16:23:00 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:Synchronicity? Wasn't that an album by the Police? - 16:46:43 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:you-know: He was a scout-master, therefore he was a christian. You would never do that? That's good to know, nor would I. And you know what-t really doesn't matter WHAT he was or wasn't inasfar as his beliefs are concerned. What we are doing here is playing philosophical judo with the christian mind-set in that their 'faith' ( which espouses a collectivist attitude),prompts them to associate certain behaviours and consequences with certain groups depending on their beliefs--rather than on an individual basis. - 16:56:42 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:- Yes, synchronicity was also the name of an album by The Police. - 17:14:12 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:EDUCATION?: while rambling about in readin'I snagged a book about intelligence as it may be "in" leader and creative types. These things as they are at the high school level of education is my concern. If you've noted curriculum issues going on in HS near you, e.g.; one of the things I noted, was the "disturbance" I experienced. What caused it? I'm sure it was that I did not know anything about whatever the school administrators were doing. I think I may have bumped run into an explanation of what they've been up to, as it was attributed to the leader creative types in that book. The book was published in the 70's. The exact given term for it hasn't taken root yet, but a meaning hit me, it is just a personal response being given the wider public spectrum. First, what is the personal play; it can be only described as favortism. How is it public play? The action is known as a "tracking system", which is illegal. This means o'course it will be denied. Nonetheless, what is its most notable vestige, that its likes really exist? The answer is with the college univ.recognition of HS advance placement courses. This advance placement stuff was, by the way, the impetus of those nine black students pushing themselves into the white schools in Alabama[?] back in the 1950's. Berkeley HS still has a course plan that takes some thru to a HS degree and another plan, that upon request, that will take others into Cal Stanford etc. Is this supposed to be a socially responsible course of action? of such action, what does it serve, or allow or what? Poor thinking allowed the dark ages, what will such allow today? - 17:41:58 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Of your,"..limited scope of action." what experience do you see yourself and us others as missing? Or, are you merely concerned with some truth and falsehoods? - 18:48:07 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I read your bio - an interesting life you have led thus far. However, I am a bit curious as to why you do not believe that your accident was not really an accident, but rather, from the way you have written, "divine intervention". Accidents are merely a set of actions coming together, albeit with unfortunate circumstances most times. There is no evidence to indicate that a higher force plays a part this way. Josh, I am confused. Are you atheist, or what? - 19:34:06 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: What religious or religious-like group was it that was buying what they held to be anti-religious sites? Once under their control, such sites were being redirected. To have for experience opposition can be the stuff of and for one's mental health, but JOSHUA's position does seem pleading. - 20:01:43 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- The problem is our obsessive pursuit of growth, and the importance of future generations. As Capra says, "When we failed to include them (future generations) into our scientific theories and in our pursuit of growth, we put all living systems in jeopardy" and "The essential nature of matter lies not in object, but in interconnections". Our plans for growth and problem-solving never seem to be holistic. Like Joette says, the problem with politics is strategy and not long-term. - 20:10:39 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: not bad, looking to the past- only, I agree is a problem and is further compounded by the problems of a now. Does a right right come out of two such problems? - 20:18:54 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:JOETTE- No, not divine intervention, but a living Universe which is ready, willing, and able to respond to our expectations. In other words, I don't personify the events that are naturally found in the Universe - which is why I am an atheist. I'll quote Fritjof Capra again as he says, "The basic dynamics of evolution is not adaptation, it's creativity... A living system, although dependent upon, is not determined by its environment." As I said in my bio, 'I believe in a conscious Universe, ...And maybe, just perhaps, in a different lifetime, I found myself with the cancer I knew I would someday be strong enough to conquer.' And I'll say again, I don't adhere to these ideas for the basis of my life, but I do like to think about them now and again, and I'd say they make more sense than anything else I have found; it's a lot like Buddhism, but not quite, which says that, for lack of a better term, We are all god. Atheism only means that we don't subscribe to a 4000 year-old theory, it doesn't mean we don't experience things that are sometimes beyond our control and will maybe someday fully understand. Afterall, as we all know, the Universe is very big and we are very small. I'm no expert on these things, but click my name and check out one of my pages, please. I could talk about this forever. - 20:35:19 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Perhaps you've also read a book titled,"The Symbiotic Universe"? The author lays out an assortment of supportive concepts for this very sort of all. If you get a chance its available on the Amazon.com place. If I were a cash betting feller, I say you'd find it a good read. - 20:58:55 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I'll check out your other site, but before I do, I will blindly ask another question or 10 (joke). I am a spiritual person to a certain degree. I gain much happiness and contentment from nature, and appreciate being able to enjoy such things as flora and fauna, lakes and streams and all that is usually found under the auspices of "nature". However, I think this is where you and I take separate paths. When something wonderful is within my view, when something really good happens to me, or even if something terrible happens to me, I don't stop to consider that there may be a force at large, other than what is known to be true thus far. I don't look for any cosmic energy, I no longer stop to consider anything other than the tangible, the knowable. It is my opinion that "what you see is what you get". I appreciate that there are questions people ask themselves, but at this point in my life, after several decades of searching, I have concluded that there is nothing really very mysterious about anything, that spirituality is just an emotion. I truly believe that when people attempt to include mystery and ponderence in all of their actions, they eventually become embittered or mad. I admire you though, Josh. You've had a couple of close calls in your life, and so your outlook is different than my own. - 21:27:23 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - do you truly believe that trees "know" when to change the colour of their leaves? Do you truly believe that trees are conscious, and can make conscious decisions such as this? - 21:31:17 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:(JOSH...and on a personal note, I'm mighty curious to know what movies you've been involved with ;) - 21:31:59 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Carl- thanks for the book suggestion, I'll check it out. CARL AND JOETTE (and anyone else): Obviously, there is no one answer to the human problem, and honestly, mechanistic views aren't the entire problem, but they signify alot. We know that the two primary patriarchal and matriarchal principles are way out of balance. Weapons are in the hands of the the patriarchal, power-minded people and our whole intellectual shift has followed, too. So maybe it's time to give more to our nurturing and passionate sides. What I was describing was what Capra calls a Systems thinking, thinking of whole systems, not the pieces. He says that we are in a perception crisis right now, that, if shifted over to an Ecological thinking, it wouldn't be a power over others, it would give us personal empowerment - placing the entire responsibility of the world into our hands. It's a general answer to our problems, admittedly. But what if every answer we sought was in balance with a question like 'Yeah, but what does this do for the ecology of the world?" Thoughts? - 21:50:33 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - maybe I'm thick, but I don't quite get the gist of your post. Is Capra proposing that humans must all begin to think, and act, alike? Not only is it impossible, but it would be the greatest infringement on reason one could possibly imagine. - 21:53:43 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Joette- I understand your way of thinking. I used to call it Minimalism, because it reduces everything down to what is absolutely known to be fact, and leave it at that. And I think it's a great principle to start with (I made reference to Occam's Razor on one of my pages) to rid us of extranneous beliefs like dogmatic religions, etc. But that is also the problem of a mechanistic way of thinking. The mechanistic view has become holistic, but it's principles are to minimalize the world into problem pieces. And science is largely responsible for this mindset (originally founded by Descartes). But as we also know, there are other branches of science that are not confined to this world and our problems, and science has branded us all with a sense of mystery. Simply put, if we stuck to minimalism in all aspects, we couldn't learn and grow, we couldn't evolve, and the pursuit of knowledge would end. When religionists ask me about the Universe and how it started, I say, 'We don't know. That's why we have scientists. And if they aren't willing to settle for stories (Creatonism), than neither should we.' :c} - 22:06:04 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette - Indeed. He doesn't deny it, either, but he says all the problems are simply fragments of one single crisis - the crisis of perception. We would have to change everything together, at the same time... the ideals, the institutions, and the values. We would need a leader who could bridge the gaps, to inform all of us, and to allow us to feel the responsibility upon us. It's no easy task to tell people the values that have been passed on for centuries are wrong, but to sit back and watch it and say it can't be done, is the easy way out.--- As far as the trees go, it's not a 'knowing' like we know, where we use critical thinking and morality, trees constantly adapt the colors of their leaves for the right waves of light for energy. No one is telling them what to do, and no two trees do it exactly the same way at the same time. Same with birds flying south for the winter, or any number of species adaptations. --- And finally, as far as my career goes, I worked on many independent films, and one or two studio films. The last one, Chump Change, is right now looking for a distributor and the producers are hoping for a national release within a year. - 22:15:38 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:Joette- reasoning based upon long-term benefits would only infringe upon the greedy and power hungry. - 22:23:31 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: That JOSH! He's a slippery one. He's slippery cuz he slides into what seems to me to be a perceptualist's point of view. This particular way seems most preponderate in the way of fedisms. Then, w/out warning he slides off towarj the conceptual stuff of conceptualism. As I pointed out above, for a bit I was wondering what up with JOSH? I still got a wary eye on'im. - 22:26:08 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - it would be a sorry state of affairs if mankind were to be of one mind. This goes right back to the politics of a collective. There must always be a leader, but who is to say that the leader has a clear and uncorrupted agenda? What exactly would the leader do, if everyone were to work for the same cause? In fact, why would there have to be a leader, if all were working for the benefit of mankind? If you look at it long enough Josh, does it not remind you of God, and religion? It does to me. If you truly believe that this is the way mankind is meant to comport itself, then I might suggest that you start looking at life more critically. I would prefer to keep things as they are, warts and all, then to have to surrender my freedom and intellect. It scares me to think that intelligent people actually think Capra's suggestion is feasible. - 23:15:46 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - and don't be presumptuous about my way of thinking. Call it what you will, but it is a way of viewing the world that I have attained, after much work. It is not a viewpoint garnered from looking at a flower and stating "a rose is a rose is a rose" without first looking at all the angles. - 23:18:45 on 2 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I'm not talking about a dictatorship, or a totalitarian regime. I'm talking about a leader as in a teacher, someone who has the skills to show everyone how harmful our current ways are harmful and how we should convert to a more responsible way of thinking. Not one answer. Answers that incorporate an ecological future, instead of a mechanistic destructive force. The leader is the example until we all incorporate a better sense of responsibility. Right now we are doing more harm than good. No, it does not remind me of God and religion. The ultimate responsibility should always be on us. That would be the ultimate test of freedom and intellect. - 0:11:02 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - no, you are wrong. There can be no freedom if everyone is to think the same, act the same, be the same. I agree, there is a lot wrong with the some of the systems currently in place, but there is a lot right with many too. I harken back to your statement that humans are animals. I agree with that. But even animals, whether they be wolves, sheep or little toads, still have among them rogues. In your ideal world, how would you deal with the rogues, those that decide they aren't happy with the state of the world? It will be everthus, unless you see a breeding process wherein a person's individualism is destroyed. - 0:17:27 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
It'-me:God blessed mankind with a thing called choise. That makes us differant. We don't think, act, or even have the same abilities. That "leader" who has it all figured out, does he have a name, sounds a little like someone called "Jesus", That's who it would take to make it work! - 3:20:39 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Sounds good, Josh, But it would never work. When someone is given that much athority or power, it tends to create a man such as the likes of hitler. I'm not sure any one man has that kind of "know how" Such ideas have allready been tried before. Alexander, Hitler, Herod, all tried and failed - 3:49:46 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:HI RICKY! But jesus isn't coming back! - 3:55:24 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Wow just what we needed here! But I seem to smell ferns. If your asking do I believe that there are forces out there that plot the road we humans will travel to become "one with the universe", no! If these forces so exist, then there would have to be a creator force and just what or who would this force be? - 4:04:18 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:ALL - You all seem to be missing the point. No dictators, no join or die slogans, and no single plan. The responsibility of the world should be on all our shoulders, and we should always consider future generations in our decisions. And we need leaders who set the examples. That's all I'm saying. I don't know where you are contriving these narrow-minded point of views from what I am stating. I can't say it any simpler. - 6:40:31 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I never said anything to the effect that we are being led. I said we make of the world what we want it to be. And life is self-defined. We are already one with the Universe. Our very lives are based upon patterns of interconnectedness with the Universe. That's quantum physics. Check out the books I suggested. Great stuff! - 6:44:31 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I don't think the point of view I espouse is narrow minded at all. Rather, it is an educated one. You suggest that mankind be of one mind. That there be a "teacher". I asked you how rogues would be handled in that world. It is idealistic to think that there wouldn't be people who weren't working towards the same goal as the majority. What to do about them? Imprisonment? Death? People come in all shapes and sizes, with different thought processes and tastes. What you are talking about brings chills down my spine. - 11:25:16 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Grant -Fluff 'n stuff-:JOSH-- Pardon this long cut and paste but itreveals a central error in my view. -------Josh:Joette- I understand your way of thinking. I used to call it Minimalism, because it reduces everything down to what is absolutely known to be fact, and leave it at that. And I think it's a great principle to start with (I made reference to Occam's Razor on one of my pages) to rid us of extranneous beliefs like dogmatic religions, etc. But that is also the problem of a mechanistic way of thinking. The mechanistic view has become holistic, but it's principles are to minimalize the world into problem pieces. And science is largely responsible for this mindset (originally founded by Descartes). But as we also know, there are other branches of science that are not confined to this world and our problems, and science has branded us all with a sense of mystery. Simply put, if we stuck to minimalism in all aspects, we couldn't learn and grow, we couldn't evolve, and the pursuit of knowledge would end. When religionists ask me about the Universe and how it started, I say, 'We don't know. That's why we have scientists. And if they aren't willing to settle for stories (Creatonism), than neither should we.' :c} - 22:06:04 on 2 Aug 99 GMT-------------- We stick-in-the-mud skeptics who narrow-mindedly insist on connecting beliefs to evidence! By far the most common type of arguments from religionists are the type which state in some way that atheism can't be true because religious beliefs are more positive or offer more hope and happiness and provide more basis for moral behavior, etc. All of these things, whether or not true, have no bearing on the question of the existence of gods. Ironically, I see your arguments as exactly like these arguments. Beliefs which are not tied to observable physical facts are arbitrary and are a demonstration of the workings of human nature and the mind rather than any indication of reality. It's idealism, romanticism, and wishful thinking. To indignantly accuse we of the skeptical persuasion (which by the way is not some off-the-wall unsupportable position but is the position stated by Darwin and countless other scientists) of narrow-mindedness in such a cavalier fashion only demonstrates a degree of smugness and lack of understanding of a basic philosophy. Don't get me wrong... I think your beliefs are interesting, and I think you have every right to entertain them. I just think you'll do better here by backing them up rather than trying to belittle opposition, which coincidentally is also a tactic of those other unmentionable types. In other words, I humbly suggest you lose the condescending attitude until you get a better feel for the place, if such a feel interests you. - 12:29:50 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH...:...Right. That does it. I'm never posting here again. - 13:28:31 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I was insulting? It's not OK for *me* to be insulting but is OK for you? I don't intend to drive you from the board, or even curtail your thinking. I have to go to work, where I don't have computer access. I'll have to wonder all day about this, I guess. - 13:36:09 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GEE!: has the number one draft selection become another Marc Wilson? - 14:30:16 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
The Real Josh:I didn't post that last Josh remark. - 15:37:28 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
The Real Josh:Does ANYONE in here understand what I am saying? I didn't call anyone's beliefs narrow-minded. I was referring to people's perceptions of what I was saying. - 15:45:19 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:There is an obvious misunderstanding here, because people are assuming things that I am not saying. I don't know how to say it without seeming indifferent to any of your views. And my persistent approach was not to condemn, but now it seems that I have to clear my name. I DO care what all of you have to say, but I AM NOT talking about a dictatorship or a Jesus character. I have explained leader as in a responsible, ethical person - A politician who argues for the responsibility of his/her country's members. A person who asks everyone to be rational and skeptical. "Ask not what your country can do for, ask what you can do for your country (or world)". And JOETTE, you are right, there will be rogues. These people who do not exhibit the responsibility necessary, will not be able to reap the rewards, just like we are doing to ourselves today. It all comes down to individual responsibility. --- All of the strange and unusual theories of the Universe I posted can be referenced in any quantum physics book... yes, science. These beliefs are in fact not irrational. They just don't exactly come up in everday conversation. And I will put here that because I mention one physicist, Capra, that doesn't mean he stands alone in his beliefs. Systems thinking and holistic perceptions are very common. They even have holistic medicines. And what may seem strange about them is that the Universe does not fit into any one sentence to describe it. Everyone wants clear, cut answers - which simply do not exist. That is why the world is what we make of it. So we can continue in our semi-productive, but mostly harmful ways, or convert to a different way of viewing the world: ecologically. Because in the end, it is our own future that will suffer if we neglect nature. Who was the last dictator that argued for the responsibility of it's members? - 16:06:17 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:REAL JOSH: It looks to me that you like to dally about matters of physics and perception- now and then; and matters of conception and mind, but probably intentionally not in the psychological domaine. If I have an issue w/you, it would be just the clashing of opinions. This may include some o'the others here too, IMO the regulars here seem like a group that are reader writers. Ever read on monadism? - 16:06:43 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:GRANT- Hi. Ironically, we are on the same page here. I am a skeptic, too. It amazed me when I read the books I mentioned. It amazed me when I read the findings. And it amazed me when we got to this point here. I admit to an imaginative side, now and then, but I didn't come up with these findings. Scientists did, from Jung to Carl Sagan and Fritjof Capra. Synchronicity, holism, systems thinking, ecological thinking. The problem I was pointing out with too much skepticism is that people tend to brand all new and different ideas as extranneous. I'm saying that if we didn't wonder and have a sense of mystery, we'd all be a bunch of skeptical sticks in the mud. So please understand that it's not that I am trying to be offensive, and I feel horrible that I've been put on the spot like this to defend other people's findings (I can only imagine what they go through.(c: ). So let's, please, find a common ground here. - 16:24:56 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - why find a common ground? It's delightful to share in this discussion! And in a microcosm such as this, even those of us who have the best interest of the universe at heart, we can't agree. Apply this to your ideas, and you see where I am coming from. Now, when it comes to physics, I am pretty much a dough brain. I tend to study human nature", something can't be molded or compared to what a tree goes through each year. We do have among us a student of physics (ROB!) so I would be interested in his analysis of your posts. - 16:39:26 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Hi Carl. I've read a few things on monadism. The central view seems to be that this consists of an idea of a 'total brain activity', meaning that that brain operates to the focus of one goal, of one arch cell. But still, the problem is breaking things down into pieces. As this article suggests, a single cell is no more single unit as the whole brain is a unit, and humans are a unit of the world, etc. We can't escape holism, it seems, no matter what we wish to perceive. :) - 16:43:21 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I can appreciate a natural sense of skepticism to different ideas, but if you admit to a 'doughy' brain with physics, then how can you use posts like 'It is not a viewpoint garnered from looking at a flower and stating "a rose is a rose is a rose" without first looking at all the angles' to argue against what I am saying? I think that is unfair. That's what made it seem like I was being attacked for no other reason than sharing different, and somewhat visionary, views with my fellow skeptics. (C: - 16:57:24 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: of your,"..can't escape holism, etc." that sure looks like understand the links the connections of theism. WHile you deny that, let me see what I can find in the new ager dialogues. Holism, interesting horizon for a thing that is just a sack o'cells all o'which seek merely to reproduce themselves. - 17:05:50 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - look it fuckwit. Up until now I have done no attacking, but now you've asked for it. Just because I do not know much about physics, does not mean that I am not an expert in other areas. Physics isn't everything, and if you think it is, then get your head out of your pedantic ass. I don't imagine you are an expert either, and I could sit here spewing theories and mathematical formulas with the best of them, but what you are citing is pie in the sky, rose coloured impractical rhetoric. - 17:21:47 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Josh:holism (n.) 1. the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts. 2. an apporach to healing or healthcare, often involving therapies outside of the mainstream of medicine, in which isolated symptoms or conditions are considered secondary to one's total physical and psychological state. (Webster) - a known Bible thumper, and no mention of theistic qualities. And I didn't realize how words like fuckwit and pedantic ass can be used to win arguments. I'll have to use them more often. - 17:41:29 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Fuh-quit...:-) - 18:12:16 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:JOSH--.....'Have an existence other than the mere sum of its parts'..are you suggesting existence beyond existence..or perhaps an existence beyond perceivable existence? - 18:16:02 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:PETER: Do you mean that JOSH is really just arguing for the notion of "consciousness" and the "unconscious"? - 18:41:24 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Webster is not my concern, the definition is what it is, your portrayal application of its ideas however, are of another matter. If you could continue in your presentation and usage perhaps something in line with your perceptions, be they as they may be, will ooze out. I too have had trouble laying forth what I think I see, patience works, not frustration and chidness. - 21:22:54 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Peter: An existence beyond our current perceivable existence - which just means it's time to change our perceptions. - 21:46:38 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- It's no doubt words on a screen aren't sufficient to express the Universe or the meaning of life. And I'm stuck here. Without repeating myself I can't explain it any better. Remember, too, that there are whole books on these subjects and I can only take bits and pieces to discuss them in here. Are there any specifics you want to go over? Personally, I think skepticism can also challenge all the latest theories, too, otherwise we'd be arguing over the same old things over and over, but most people tend to shove off anything that can't be broken down into 30 second media bytes.... I always remind myself that there was once a time when the skeptics said the Wright Brothers would never create a machine that flies. - 21:59:35 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: The WB, not a strong example, they were just a couple of several that pulled off that stunt, all used info that was available for a long time. - 22:15:43 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl... same thing with changing the way we perceive the world. - 22:29:36 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: perhaps you struggle with the notion of awareness, if you really have your sights set on new, expanding, wider of inclusions views of the world. Do you like wittgenstein? - 22:43:36 on 3 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- What evidence is there of An existence beyond our current perceivable existence. - 1:26:16 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene, are you talking about a good subject tonight - 1:26:22 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:HI RICKY- No actually I'm focused on a rather shitty subject at this point but since it has nothing to do with this discussion, I'm just talking to myself. BUT..this IS a good subject that we're discussing right now. If you think about it, in your bible jesus was talking about the same thing Josh is suggesting. - 2:09:40 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- the new perception comes from a greater awareness. That's really what I've been saying all along. Marlene- The world is what we make of it, at any moment we can change our perspective of it. The evidence is in our thoughts and actions. - 2:56:57 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Now I hope I'm getting the hang of this...what your saying is that (to put it simply, frills just confuse IMO), life is what we make of it and if we would just try to see where it's going in the future that we could make this a better place for our future generations. I believe many of us are doing this already, non? - 3:06:20 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:OPEN-- The odd unsigned posts and mis-signed posts are eminating from the IP of the PASSING THROUGH poster. I think henceforth I will take the liberty of signing them for him/her. Anyone think this is overstepping the bounds of free speech, free inquiry, free thought, free love, or a personal right to spinelessness? - 3:27:07 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
farnes:josh - [forgive my lack of punctuation - keyboard problems] i'm enjoying your posts, and it is no mean feat to keep these folks from attacking out of reflex. congrats. i am very curious as to why you are discussing these things at all. is this simply a form of entertainment, or do you hope to learn something here. or is your aim to enlighten -- or any combo of the previous. perhaps it is something else altogether. do you know why you are here, and if yes -- why. thanks. - 3:57:24 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- yes, but as I've explained in previous posts, our mostly good efforts are out-weighed by the destructive ones. Because of our mechanistic perceptions, we don't really solve anything in pieces. Our entire way of perceiving the world has to change in order to achieve real progress and to save ourselves from destroying this planet entirely. - 4:13:38 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:farnes- a huge, hearty thanks to you. I was feeling like a traveling medicine man on a soap box for awhile.... Well, my first experience with these theories was for entertainment, but the more I learn about them and see the holistically negative results of our current ways, I can't help but feel passionately in favor of the new perceptions. As for this room, like I do in my daily life, I discuss these ideas. And honestly, I get the same reactions with most people (most of my good friends, however, are on the same wavelength). So it gets frustrating, but I guess in a way, I'm learning alot. Since these theories aren't exactly everday conversation, it requires a whole barrel of supporting information, and then I find people losing interest and/or nit-picking with one or two details (ironically, in the mechanistic ways they're accustomed to). - 4:22:37 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Grant :JOSH-- We don't seem to be communicating well but I don't have time to talk now. More tomorrow... - 4:43:46 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:FARNES - you've hit the nail right on the head with your statement "it requires a whole barrel of supporting information". If there is supporting information that the universe is conscious, I would be interested in knowing where to find it. - 10:44:04 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'll try to stay light and cheery for Farnes. :-) This is all of course completely subjective. The focus of my study, and of my thinking, such as it is, is a fuller understanding of life and the universe. I'm a curious person. I discovered that in order to make any sense of myriad conflicting theories and claims, there must be some standard of evidence which is as independent as possible of personal and cultural preferences, preconceptions, and value judgments. Otherwise one is selecting BELIEFS on the basis of emotion rather than trying to make OBSERVATIONS. When religionists come along, my complaint with them is not their particular beliefs, but that they hold no objective standard of evidence, so their views on life and the universe seem to me to be somewhat arbitrary, and at the same time they are telling me that my standards of evidence are not valid, not because of any philosophical problems, but simply on the basis that they don't lead to the conclusions which they prefer but do not substantiate; conclusions which according to my standards of evidence are unsupported and thus arbitrary. What has drawn me to this discussion board is that though the posters have varied beliefs, background, styles, knowledge, experiences, etc., they all seem to have some standards of evidence, which puts me on a common footing with them. Sorry to be so long-winded. Anyway, so you come along, and as with the religionists, I object, not to your specific beliefs, but to your apparent lack of standards of evidence, which to me renders your beliefs somewhat arbitrary. Nothing personal. - 12:49:14 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: of the unnamed here, of whom its possible to see a specific location for them, if they aren't spam'ers, a naming or perhaps a coding them would be giving us others a reference to at least direct a thot or two would be nice. If they grow disruptively meaningless, a bullet to the back of the head would then be in order. ;} - 14:29:32 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- talk about fluff, I waited until this morning to hear some great words of wisdom. No offense, but did you study quantam mechanics or read the sources I suggested? Afterall, how can you be skeptical about something you have no knowledge of? Like I already said skepticism is great for liberating us from age-old superstitions, but leave the absolute skepticism up to the scientists, please. If we all were absolute skeptics like you suggest, we couldn't learn and grow, we couldn't evolve, and we would all be those 'sticks in the mud'. But because there are people like me who see how destructive our current ways are, people bother to find alternate solutions. I'm just glad it's the scientists (the real skeptics) who founded these theories and have made working theories out of them, and didn't leave it up to the average joe to decide how to fix the world's problems. What are you suggesting, just because they aren't exactly the topic of everday conversation that these theories are not usable practical means? Do you know how long it takes to reach the critical mass? A chat room is not the place to observe the evidence, I suggest that you and Joette read the material and then decide. - 14:40:08 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: With an idea I've read that has been mentioned by several thinker writers, JOSH seems concerned with the source of what we are. He's denied a religious connection, a point atheists appreciate in and of itself, for the thing that we exist in. The idea simply says that the unintelligible is the source of intelligence, or the unknown is the source of the known. Of this idea JOSH does deny the ignorant anthropomorphisms of religion and theism, but he also means to deny the ditty of, how does one eat an elephant? One can do it, not all at once o'course, but one bite at a time. Does JOSH also mean to deny the use of a fork and knife for that endeavor, by his repulsion of the mechanisms of science? These "mechanisms" are but simple restrictive extensions of the human nervous system to draw from or tap into the unknown unknowable, aren't they? - 15:01:52 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- no offense to you either, but your critical analysis skills are quite lacking. It was I who wrote the bit about the 'barrel full of supporting evidence' and if you read it entirely, I wrote how people in here, instead of understanding the whole context of the paragraph, they nit-pick with one or two details. And that's what you did, again. I take the time to read what everyone has to say and to respond to every detail. From what I gathered I can assume that you are just here to argue? I like to hear what you have to say but try to be more civil please. (c: - 15:17:10 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Just like any tool - a fork, a knife, or science, they're only as good as the people that wield them. - 15:22:01 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:JOSH--An interesting assertion-one made by few others on this board in the past. However, despite all their pompous claims of having some inside knowledge to quantum mechanics-they fail to understand that this question ultimately must answer to its philospohical implications, and there it fails--miserably. Before I decide whether it is worthwhile to demolish it systematically, ( which I can assure you I can) I still will enter such an argument as this with the same apprehension as i would with someone defending their religios beliefs--and that you will adhere to your beliefs, regardless of what counter evidence you will be faced with. If you have read George H. Smith, he talks about the futility of entering such a discussion--and James Randi refers to the defenders of such beliefs as 'unsinkable rubber ducks'. The most obvious problem I can forsee in your case is the question of reference points. These must first be established, and by reading some of your previous posts, the wonderful world of logic is one which you going to be an extremely difficult one for you to adhere to, an one which I will continously wrestle to the ground with--much moreso than the debate at hand. So, at this point you may think of me as a 'chicken' if I don't just quite enter into a full-throttled debate with you, but I chose to do so just because, well, actually at this point in time, I really wouldn't know where to start. I am having a problem right now in simplifying the establishment of the ground rules here. And as you know these MUST be established before any further discussion can take place. So for now, I will just watch you until I find an opportunity for me to strike where it would have any signifigant impact. Good luck. - 15:24:10 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Peter- ...talk about pompous. Did you say anything important there? It sounded to me like you were patting yourself on the back for something with absolutely no substance. I've posted many paragraphs so far, read them over and respond to those, then read the works of Carl Sagan, Fritjof Capra, and Richard Dawkins to name a few. In the meantime, get off the horse you rode in on. - 15:57:55 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: The "mechanistic ways", can you wield them? So far for reasons as PETER points out that he has yet to determine where to begin with a response to you, I've been diggin'about only to see what you mean. Are you really just a rookie draft choice? As you know there is nothing wrong with inexperience if you have something to say, good! I for one have no desire to impinge of the individual behavior, or intrinsic developmental processes of anyone. - 16:07:41 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- for example, a man goes into the hospital for a gall bladder operation. They remove the gall bladder, but the source for the stress remains, so all the doctors did was solve a piece of the problem. Holistic medicine looks at the whole being to find the source of the problem. In that case, exercise may have been the best preventative care, but people today are accustomed to the 'immediate fix' of the mechanistic ways. The same way holistic medicine works, we can use the same theories to solve the problems of the world. The Brazilian Rainforest loses a football field an hour of forestry because of private beef industry demands, which in turn causes the majority of the greenhouse effects. Then what do we do, put a consumption tax on the beef industry to curtail their destruction? Another industry will take over. So we play these fix-it games over and over never really solving the problem. But if we were to change our perceptions to include the ecological facets of this world, of which our life depends anyway, we would be more responsible custodians of this world, and we'd be ensuring our own future in the meantime. Quantum mechanics defines our inseparable connection with the Universe. Once we realize how powerful we have become, our future will not be limited to outrageous skepticism that all but suffices to nothing more than the religionists' claims that we are helpless prisoners of a force called nature, here on this desolate rock in the middle of space. It's all within us. We chose the mechanistic ways, just like we can choose new ways. - 16:30:11 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - it is apparent to me that you think you have the skills and tools necessary to be the leader in the new and improved world. So, in layman's terms, let's hear how you "walk the walk". Let's hear about all the wonderful things you've done thus far to make the world a better place to live. - 16:48:15 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Who says I should be the leader? I can't even get a few people in a discussion room to follow the values of holism. I prefer the role of teacher. Let someone else be the politician. How about a scientist that founded these theories or a doctor who uses these things in practice? That makes more sense. JOETTE- I partly organize a weekly discussion group which consists of a variety of members, including two doctors, and an engineer, and new people all the time. It's not much but people seem to like it. Last week, we all watched that film 'MindWalk' I mentioned and I'm still getting email about it. - 17:45:35 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: "Holistic" that must be your chosen pet peeve, xplain its relevance to the all within us. What is the all? What is it which is that within us? What is the that that is the without of that thing which is us? Will that quantum connection or relevance perse require a teacher? What will that connection call for how does or can any know the connection of the all in an objective way without need for a recogniton? Do you see us having to pass thru the confusion of growth first or again in order to arrive at what is an all, of that which it appears your holism must be. - 18:08:37 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Explain how QM gives evidence to what you claim to be truth. - 18:41:52 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GEEZ!: Was that really FARNES, the same of old? Sure looked like it with the same "old" prejudging ways as always. The FARNES of old, didn't he have a way to kno'who was hell bound and heaven bound? Yea! he is one to have on 'your' side. - 19:01:27 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm no expert on quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone has trouble believing that, but I have read a fist full of books on the subject, and I know enough to know that it's a gift from the gods for people who don't like to be bothered with evidence and such. QM seems to be used as justication for believing whatever one happens to favor. If our very perceptions are suspect, who can say we are wrong? That said, I hope you don't get too frustrated here and throw in the towel. My estimation of your value here hasn't changed. The fact that you disagree with pretty much everyone here increases rather than diminishes that value, IMO, as long as you are willing to speak openly and responsibly, which you seem to be doing. From my point of view, and maybe that of some others, you are expecting us to listen to your conclusions and hopefully accept them, but we would rather look at evidence and follow it where it leads ourselves. It is easy to become frustrated. You may wish to keep in mind that most of us are not, um, spring chickens, and have been exposed to these ideas many times before. - 19:12:14 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:ALL - It's no surprise that everyone wants a single answer, one phrase that will sum up the Universe into a cohesive, tangible definition. But that just isn't possible. So what I'm gathering here is that people only see two choices: religious faith that there is a divine plan for everything, or that there is nothing at all but biological life & chemical reactions and chance. What do either of these philosophies solve? Nothing. They both willingly place humans to be the victimed, bumbling, virus-carrying, desperately lost, seemingly intelligent for no useful reason, creatures of the Universe. And people forget that we chose to believe these things. We learned them and accepted them, but that doesn't make them true. - 20:16:56 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Evidence? What is the ALL of everything? That's exactly what physicists wanted to figure out. So they examined atoms, the building blocks of everything. And what they found out is that an atom is made up of electrons, and protons, a nucleus - but mostly - EMPTY SPACE. Yes, empty space. Atoms are so far removed from our everday thought, that in order to get an idea: if you wanted to see how many atoms there were in an orange, you'd have to blow up the orange to the size of the earth, and then the atoms would be the size of cherries. And if we wanted to see the nucleus we would have to blow up the atom into a sphere the size of a small island so the nucleus would be the size of a small pebble. And electrons would be even smaller, with empty space everywhere else. The entire sphere the size of a small island would contain only a pebble and a few grains of sand (resembling electrons). So it took all this just to explain the nature of an atom, which amounts to basically, nothing. Not much of an answer, huh? Imagine the reactions physicists had... - 20:43:34 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
farnes:josh -- my handle is linked to a princeton univ study that addresses consciousness as a possible factor in determining physical reality. i give you much credit for attempting to present these ideas here. carl -- i am the farnes of old, but i don't recall you. have we ever had a discussion. joette -- regarding 'barrels of supporting evidence' -- i don't believe much is forthcoming within our lifetimes, but you may want to check out the link on my handle. would you venture that reality is subjective - a la the old acorn about dual lightning strikes that from one point of reference happen simultaneously, but from another reference point happen sequentially. - 20:46:21 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Cody:This is off topic, but i wanted to share it: Over a year ago my mother became very ill. After a month of hospital stays, things looked grim. One cloudy day as my grandmother was praying for her, the clouds parted and the sun shone directly on her face. We took this as a sign from God, and I stopped worrying, even when things looked bad. I believe that God lead my mother to ask to switch hospitals(even though she was supposedly "getting better). The new hospital found in a day what the others couldn't in weeks-a cyst that would have killed her. Just something to think about. Thanks Cody - 21:00:00 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (holi unorthodox):JOSH: Forgive my silence, but I've a few questions to break it: You talked of evolution as if it had a goal, but I personally find that a little misleading. Isn't it just enough that organisms are constantly changing in accordance with natural laws -with little more goal than say, atoms of a gas settling in a box? You can talk of their settling as a "goal", but that seems to imply it is something the atoms are striving for and paints a picture I find a little uneccesarily complex. Is there something missing in the simplification -is there something real that is undeducable from the conventional scientific picture? The other question concerned quantum mechanics -it's a subject that I have to work with and as such I was wondering what it's relevance was in deducing your views. One last thing- in your last post, that we might be the latter possibility (biological/chemical and chance etc organisms), it is by no means sequencial that we lose any value or ability to have purpose. Those things are still available as long as we have our sembalnce of conciousness. - 21:00:06 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:(I am taking the time to explain these things...) So here was a world entirely unknown to humans: the subatomic level. They didn't even have words to describe it. They had to invent language and ideas to conceptualize these new discoveries. If there is mostly empty space in atoms, then what makes matter solid? Physicists were forced to the conclusion that Matter does not exist - with certainty, in definite places, but only shows a tendency to exist. And if we wanted observe an electron we cannot say it exists in a definite place, we can only describe its tendencies to be in a certain place, which scientists call probabilities. It is only when we directly measure electrons that they appear in a definite place. But between measurements YOU CANNOT SAY that they are in any definite place or that it has traveled a definite path from one place to another. The electron exists without a specific location until we actively measure it. It only appears to us when we examine it. We are the ones who force the electron into submitting to a definable state. Without us, a particle has no independent existence, it is completely malleable to our intentions- which is the beginning metaphor for the meaning of life... - 21:04:38 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- I was typing my previous post before I read yours. And I think my previous post answers some of your questions, you'd be more of an expert than I, but I didn't mean to imply that evolution had any other goals than our own. ALL - As Fritjof Capra wrote, "The basic dynamics of evolution is not adaptation, it's creativity"..."A living system is self-maintaining, self-renewing, and self-transcending. Although we are dependant upon our environment, we are not determined by it." ---- Now LIFE --- Life is a bunch of probability patterns of interconnections. The essence of Life is self-organization - continuous structural change but stability in the pattern of a system's organization. MATTER? Well, first.. a particle is a serious of relations that reach outward to connect with other things (the things are interconnections of other things). So the essential nature of matter lies not in objects, but in interconnections. Relationships are what make matter. Matter is solid because probability patterns are difficult to compress. -- People wanted evidence, maybe they can see why it's not easy to do. - 21:16:37 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:thanks, farnes. I think that is a very beneficial site for this discussion. thanks for your input. - 21:24:10 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - Cody's post is excellent timing. Before I dismiss it as a series of coincidences, tell me how Cody's story is any different from your own. - 21:47:11 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:FARNES - no, I do not consider reality to be subjective. - 21:48:35 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (a minor matter):Josh: Just wondering, if the particle has no independent existence without us, how did we come to be? If you believe in something along orthodox scientific views, weren't the particles there before we were? I was under the impression the particle *did* exist, it's just one would not be able to say where. BTW, I wasn't sure what you meant about matter being solid because probability patterns were difficult to compress? Many thanks for taking the time to reply - 21:54:48 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: sort of outta'JOSH's post, Heidigger once said of science, "Science says nothing", what does that mean? - 21:59:37 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Quite simply, Cody is taking the coincidences in his life and in relation to the people he knows, and personifying it all into one theory called god. God-believers think that an unknowable, non-temporal being poofed us into existence but somehow exists in our time to comfort and watch over us. And they call than an answer. I call it convenience. We can identify the coincidences in our lives, but to say they are all the result of one cause is highly implausible. - 22:21:07 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:FARNES: No I just looked on where you were concerned. It seems you began as or was for a good while an ok joe, but then something happened and you went bonkers or something. - 22:23:51 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob and Joette and ALL- I think it was Carl Sagan who calls humankind "the feelers" of the Universe. The particles have existed long before us, but it took humans to come along and identify them and to try to define them into comprehensible terms. We are the part of the Universe that wants to understand itself, which also means that we have the same potential as any atom in the Universe. We chose our paths so far and that is why we cannot limit our potentiality. That's why I think it was physicists who coined the phrase, "Life is what we make of it." Life is entirely subject to our internal filters, like tradition, culture, heredity, etc. but it is entirely malleable to all our intentions. --- ROB: Have you seen 'MindWalk' or read any of Capra's works? (most of this is para-phrased from him)... in terms of matter, all subatomic particles manifest themselves in a strange way between potentiality and reality. And since there are no solid objects at the subatomic level, these probability patterns arrange themselves around the nucleus like shells. The different patterns of shells create different kinds of matter and different levels of solidity... As you can see the definition is hardly solid, either, but that's only because humans are trying to condense the undefinable into definable terms. - 22:49:08 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:It's something unpredictable, but in the end is right. I hope you had the time of your life. - Green Day - 23:21:07 on 4 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Carl -- are you baiting me? you minx! regarding your first post to me -- I found it quite ironic and assinine. As to your last post to me, you were only assinine. Well, at least you keep your comments brief. Hey - there IS a God! - 0:23:05 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:And just WHO is that god? You Farnes? Still playing stage hand? - 3:09:28 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Nothing I destest more is listening someone parrot someone else's ideas and thoughts, as you do Capra's. Why not just explain things in your own words? - 3:11:35 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Since Capra inspires you, how about a little Stenger? Here's some of his findings and I'm sure that Sagan would lean much more toward Stenger's findings than he would Carpa's ideas....Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts. However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale. Douglas Stalker and Clark Glymour, eds., Examining Holistic Medicine (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1985). 2.For a fuller discussion and references, see Victor J. Stenger, Physi - 3:27:08 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- References to Sagan should have been past tense of course. - 3:28:41 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Please read the whole write up as Stenger mentions Capra. - 3:32:24 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Why do I feel a need to repost this, after Marlene's cut-and-paste job? I dunno. ///Marlene:JOSH- Nothing I destest more is listening someone parrot someone else's ideas and thoughts, as you do Capra's. Why not just explain things in your own words? - 3:11:35 on 5 Aug 99 GMT - 4:14:49 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- how about your words? - 4:15:23 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I don't even pretend to be a physics professor. I can not even begin to explain the evidence that professionals find in my own words. On the other hand, simple ideas like Capra's would likely be easy. So I'm waiting. This simple idea of Capra's is fine but he went on to make an extraordinary claim. Where is this evidence to back his claim? My words are this, there is absolutely no evidence of QT being what Capra (and yourself of course) claim it to be. - 4:28:27 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Obviously my cut and paste job didn't get your attention which it was meant to do. Did you read Stenger's article? Or did you like other theists totally ignore reason and hide behind your illusion? - 4:32:07 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- After reading Stenger's words, I see the need to describe what it is he is assuming. He assumes that certain theorists of quantum effects assume a superluminal quality, where human consciousness is determined by quantum effects and that this provides for instantaneous connections with the whole Universe, in an effort to disprove the notion that the human mind controls reality. How could it be both? It is our own perceptions that determine the effects on the sub-atomic level because we are applying ourselves to the Universe, not the other way around. And then he goes on to say that superluminal motion or signaling has ever been observed. Well, duh! As soon as we set out to observe the particle, it condenses into a specific location and placement. He doesn't deny that but he says human consciousness has no role in this effect. But without consciousness, it can't be observed, and it can't be determined - which I see as the major flaw in his argument. Has anyone else gathered anything? - 4:55:34 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene: What does this mean? --I can not even begin to explain the evidence that professionals find in my own words. - 4:57:58 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I am curious why you call me a theist, too... Please explain. - 4:59:38 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Josh -- What "this means" is that Marlene takes at face value the word of anyone whose opinions happen to coincide with her pre-established position -- and that she vehemently demands evidence that she is capable of understanding only from people who hold an opinion that differs from hers. - 6:17:07 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Grant -Pondering black kettles and double-standards and such.-:Farnes-- Have you never read, understood, and appreciated something the likes of which you could not yourself write? Must one assume that you can't appreciate a difference between choosing not to believe a thing not yet well understood and holding up an expert's well expressed doubts, (would you call this blind doubt, as opposed to blind acceptance, and can you detect the difference?) and believing , seemingly on the basis that it feels right, someone's claims and conclusions and holding up such someone's well expressed writings and implying that people should either disprove it, or failing that must believe it, as opposed to, say letting evidence lead where it leads, and resisting a temptation to shop for esthetically pleasing conclusions and then seek evidence to fit? For some people reality is simply not sufficient. I'm not one of these people. Anyway, forgive me if I'm not too receptive to your critique of the "pre-established position." Now personally I don't care if others agree with my views or not. I'm only seeking that they understand what they are, and maybe occasionally offer some feedback. Some people, for reasons I don't fully understand, feel compelled to convert others to their beliefs. There is a resulting difference in approach obviously. This is that facet of life which allows me to be caught ever-so-pleasantly off guard by Jehovah's Witness types at my door. There's a certain assumption on their part that they know more than I do, which can't be based on evidence since they don't know me, but that's another matter. I guess what I'm trying to say is bite me, Farnes. But I mean that the best possible and most pleasant way. :-) - 9:29:24 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:Josh why do you capitalize the word "universe"? - 11:26:51 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:'Words are falling out like endless rain into a papercup, they slither while they slip away acoss the Universe'..JOETTE..Hey, it's just FUN to capitalize 'Universe'..see? - 12:46:20 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Cody--:..are you still with us? - 12:55:56 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:..that SHOULD read: CODY, are you still with us?? - 12:56:59 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Occasionally the Xtians say things best: "God grant me wisdom and patience in my search for Truth; and spare me from they who have found it." :-) - 13:12:25 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
At least Bill was calm when he was wrong - 13:29:43 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Universe, Universe, Universe. - 14:26:15 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- So what your saying is the universe wasn't here before we humans existed because we weren't here to observe it? - 14:40:25 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:FARNES- Good evaluation of me. So what have you got to add to this discussion other than "there IS a god"? You had nothing months ago, have you anything now? - 14:42:48 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes - Pondering the significance of short person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic resonance and other highly ambient domains:Grant: Arf! I think the key sentence in your last post to me runneth on a bit. Would you please paraphrase your own words and re-post? It's the second sentence -- starts out with "Must one. . . " You lost me around the seventh or eigth comma. I really do want to know what it is you are trying to say. And what offends me about Marlene's posting of Stenger's opinions is that she offers it without demonstrating her understanding of his findings. And she does this immediately after posting her distaste for copying-&-pasting the writings of another. Marlene implies she understands Stenger's research, but does not have the words to express her interpretation of his data. So she decided to post Stenger's words. Huh? Couldn't she have dumbed it down so that it read more easily? Stenger's writing is wordy and hard to follow. Was Stenger simply saying QM is not a factor regarding the human mind, and that the mind does not affect physical reality. Additionally - that there is no connectivity evident in the universe that transcends time and space. At least not on the quantum level. He assumes that if there were such connectivity, that it would entail some sort of transmission the occurs faster than the speed of light -- and since we have never observed anything traveling that fast, it doesn't happen. He further states that (paraphrasing) the phenomenon of an electron in a particle accelerator taking two paths simultameously falls completely within established laws of physics, and nothing mystical has really occurred. Winding it all up, Stenger says classical physics is a natural extension of the subatomic thang. Did I misinterpret him? I'll bet he was puffing on a pipe and waxing his moustache when he wrote that. - 14:43:58 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- What it means is that I'm not a professional on QM like you pretend to be. When one pretends to "know" everything they come across as an idiot. Your coming across loud and clear. - 14:46:20 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:FARNES YOU ASSHOLE- I understand Stenger's view but I'm not the one here making a fantastic claim. Worm meat that you are, you could at least have the balls to address me instead to posting to Grant your brainless opinions. - 14:49:32 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Are you also beginning to see JOSH as theist-like to or have you seen enough to just put a cross and bible in his hands? I wonder where he gets the stuff for lines like, "...instantaneous connections to the whole universe." Wow! It must be so wonderfully ecstatic to deal with the all in that manner and know it so. Do we dare anticipate, however, that all he's doing is attempting to create doubt whereof the all that the human creature calls knowledge? O'course you know we know what the theist inclined or theist-like inclined will have presumed they have cleverly inferred to be the conclusion. "Something" must have setup an order of all that the human creature can punily know, or simply accept the greater of that "somethings" higher power. Unfortunately, such slate clearing accounts just do not hold water for me, you? - 14:57:04 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I said it wasn't until humans came along that the Universe had to be described. And knock it off with the stupid insults. You come off as very immature, not being able to add anything but insults and cut-and-paste jobs. - 15:05:13 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
PETER**yawning**....an example of SO far from what I have seen of 'JOSH-logic**:..Billy is a communist. I know this because he collects model airplanes, and I knew a kid who collected model planes once and no one ever saw him go to church-- so he must have been an atheist and atheists are communists - 15:13:24 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I wish I had the luxury of making such grand conclusions about my fellow discussion room member if only you would offer as much material. If you had read what I posted, the 'instantaneous connections' line was from Stenger's article. And since I never once mentioned an ultimate Design, or supernatural qualities, you come off as outwardly pompous, and vehemently defiant of any contradictions to your predisposed biases of what an atheist should be. - 15:14:41 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Observation: People are more than willing to post comments which show an absolute ignorance on a subject in the facade of childish, playground comeback lines and/or a pretend ambivalence to any subject matter. - 15:22:43 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: but JOSH, it is difficult, for me at least, to separate whatever and whoever you think you are from anything you post here. As far as the posts read, the words are you too through and through. Hey! thats pretty clever too, how it seems "you know" what I know about the being of an atheist. Gosh! you must be smart, or something, heheh! - 15:26:18 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH-Mature people can recognize an idiot when they see one. In a "nice" world a mature person wouldn't call you one but this just isn't a "nice" world. It's made up of butterflies AND flies, a sweet little butterfly, I'm not so grow up. The only immature person here seems to be you. You make a claim then try to back out of it. Over the last four years, at least four people like you have posted here claiming to be atheists. Each one has some new-age agenda that differs very little from other theists. When you can support your claim, talk to me then. - 15:29:03 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Geez, you know of absolutes too! HAHAHA!!! - 15:29:16 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Like I said, vehemently defiant of any contradictions to your predisposed biases of what YOU THINK an atheist should be. - 15:29:37 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene: Case closed. - 15:30:44 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Definition of what some people think an Atheist should be: This world sucks, that's just the way it is. I'm not gonna deny it, and I'm just gonna sit here happy that I know this while other people think they can make it better. And because I have no beliefs of my own no one can ever accuse me of not being reliable. I don't put myself out to express the nothingness I feel. Smugness is contentment. - 15:39:26 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Case closed on your claims, agreed. Your last post is almost word for word what all the theists post about atheists. Is that a wolf suit you got on? - 16:00:11 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:BTW JOSH- That's "atheist" not "Atheist". - 16:01:23 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Do you recall that other person who came in here, said he/she had a better way. Anyone not agreeing with him/her was a "case-closed" mind. Remember how he\she went after you females here in a way that was noteworthy? Recall too how we here were to share and discuss his/her subject as he\she portrayed it? Hmmm? - 16:06:50 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Congratulations. This room has been won back over to smugness. I feel smug, too. - 16:16:48 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- btw, how would you know if I did support my claims, considering all you offered was a cut-and-paste job...? - 16:19:01 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Close minded is assuming that as a moderately evolved ape, one has all the answers to the Universe. Open mindedness is assuming that as a moderately evolved ape, we have only begun to understand. - 16:20:05 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - now, I am very cool and calm here, although you seem to think I attack you. I have some cool and calm questions to ask: If you were to put a label on yourself, would you label yourself a pantheist? I asked you why you capitalized the word universe, and you didn't respond with an answer. Could you please do that? Also, why do you think that we have "predisposed conclusions" about the state of the world? Do you believe that we have done no research of our own? It is possible that our areas of study differ from your own, but you truly believe that one day we just woke up and decided that this is as good as it gets, that we just sit back enjoying our smugness (your word)? Do you honestly think that we aren't trying to make this a better world too, although we don't go around preaching about a conscious universe? Do you not think it is possible to do that without looking for something that so far has no evidence to support its existence? I would appreciate some honest replies to these questions. - 16:35:44 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: As GRANT, seems it was him, earlier pointed out to you we here are not youngsters when and where it concerns having read and studied on a fairly wide variety of topics. You seem- thus far, "hell-bent" on having opposition and or enemys here. What do you want, followers? Sheep? Oohs and ahhs for your every line and thought? Smug, poor choice but it is a way to begin if thats the point you choose to start from, well, so be it. - 16:38:27 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- good morning. Lotsa honest questions are what I appreciate. I am an Atheist and capitalization is my own preference; by emphasis, I guess it makes certain words stand out. Mechanistic ways are predisposed to all of us because we were born into a world that already had these ways. It has nothing to do with research. That's what the civilized world has become. My definition of Atheism has always been that I don't believe in personifying the Universe into singular concepts, like God or Creator. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that there are things that we don't have control over or that there are things still yet unexplained, as you know. So I'm presenting ideas to explain some of the unknowns. And the strange this is, I'm not getting detailed criticisms of the points I make - all I get are blatant dismissals. No one in here has yet to offer their own intelligent opposition to the details (why, scientifically speaking, it doesn't work). The evidence is in our everyday actions. We are actively deciding how this world works and how it should work for us. I don't think it's any huge step to identify how much power each of us has individually, and together as a world population. Let's talk about this some more. - 16:52:04 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- You don't mean CDrake, lol! I agree, Josh is mining in the wrong area for followers. - 16:52:33 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I have no "beliefs" to offer and I don't claim to have. Your the one making the claims. Support them or admit that you don't know what your talking about. My cut and paste job had much more to offer than Capra this and Capra that. - 16:55:31 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- It certainly would be different if people weren't making sly comments about others in posts to other people in this room. And I'm not our for enemies or a standing ovation, but like I just said to Joette, I'm not getting any detailed replies to the methods of these theories - all I get are blatant denials. Since I am the one presenting the ideas I think it's safe to say I am the one who receives all the opposition (except from people like farnes), and I don't give in too easily to avoid confrontations. Personally, I like an honest challenge. So you can cancel your fears that I am a theist trying to infiltrate your comfy little Atheist camp here. I am a proud Atheist with a few more beliefs than you have, apparently. If you don't want to talk about the topics I present, then don't, but if you do, do it civily, please. - 17:01:15 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Please explain to me what your cut-and-paste job offered. I want to hear what you have to say. But now that I think about it... if you TRULY don't have ANY beliefs, then you have no need to criticize mine. Anything you would say now would seem to mean that you do have beliefs, making you a convenient commentor/Islander as the mood suits you. Now I get it. Don't expect me to play anymore of your games. - 17:07:39 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - without prejudice - "No one in here has yet to offer their own intelligent opposition to the details". This is your own sentence. Now, my criticism of your ideas was explained in some of my posts, but maybe you are as guilty as the rest of us for not reading or understanding what the other person has to say. Now, you may consider yourself a student of physics, while I consider myself a student of psychology. I understand, as well as most, how intricate the human brain is, how much there is to learn about it, but also what a marvellous organ it is. I understand how the brain works as well as anyone, bar a neurologist. I know, and not unequivocally, that your utopian world will not work, unless there is some actual physical re-engineering of the human brain. Yes, we can teach, we can advocate, and most of us here do that, contrary to what your definition of an atheist at this site is, but you have to understand that we, as a natural organism, will constantly evolve, physically, intellectually and psychologically. You know, as well as I, if you've done your homework on what makes a person reason, that in all societies there are those that want to lead, those that want to follow, and those that want to complain, just for the sake of complaining. You have accused us of being the latter, which really isn't true, and maybe after you've been here for awhile, and start recognizing us as people and not just anonymous words on a message board, you would find that to be untrue. (sorry for the run on sentences). I would enjoy discussing this with you, if, and only if, you have done any reading on organizational behaviour, because we aren't on the same page if you haven't. What causes me the greatest concern of your ideas is that you might think that someone actually has the right to demand people think and act a certain way. We do this already, in that we have laws that must be followed, but to actually demand that people think a certain way is frightening. H.G. Wells wrote a book about this very subject, which I hope you have read, and were suitably offended by. - 17:13:29 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Until I see something that I can think is whatever and whoever you are, then you might see an honest challenge but shit!, quotin'others and repeating what others have said, thats such kidstuff. In fact that kind of communicating seems to me to smack of the theists who seek to qualify their religious propositions via the authority of scientists, e.g., aka creationists. Who gives a crap who that Capra or whoever is. The more interesting thing to me anyway, who are you? - 17:17:26 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Ever since my "cut and paste" job you seem to have become extremely defensive. Here's a suggestion...maybe you didn't like what Stenger had to say about Capra. I think this page went though the same problem with a guy who claimed ole Z. Sitchen had all the answers. - 17:27:30 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- read everything I posted before I even mentioned Capra. That is me. Don't get stuck on the idea of me bringing outside references to this room. And get off the theist generalization already. I could easily say, continual blatant denials are also the mindset of theists. Marlene- Did you read my response to Stenger's article? Then respond with what you think. Joette- Thanks for your honest response. I'll have to get back to you later today so I can get some things done today. (c: Have a nice day everyone! - 17:38:36 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (squeeze me):JOSH: Forgive me again, but I am finding it a bit hard to follow you- without wanting to seem nit-picky, you seem to contradict yourself and I lose track of what you are saying. You stated that "without us, the particle has no independent existence", then you say that the particles existed long before us. Which is it? If they did not independently exist then my question remains concerning how we evolved. With regards to the discussion on solidity, I am presuming you are alluding to the probability density functions of the electrons that orbit the nucleus? Now by solidity, do you mean the degree by which something can be compressed? I agree that the Pauli exclusion principle, along with the allowed eigenstates of the electron orbits prevent the atom existing as an atom below certain sizes (though it *can* be compressed further by breaking it up). Do not the forces between particles play the greatest role in our notion of solidity though? In any case, I fail to see what the relevance of this is? - 18:03:51 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: good ol'CD, what wowzer he/she was. - 18:42:05 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- As I have told you, I'm not a physics whiz but I am capable of forming an opinion on those whom I trust to make evidence available. So far you've tried your best to scam us using your knowledge of physics yet I don't see Josh (whoever) writing actual scientific findings in any reliable scientific mags or papers. Rob (who studies QM) is much more qualified to get down to the fine points of QM with you. Or I suggest you write to Stenger and point out the error of his ways. I'm sure he'll reply and then you can post his reply on this discussion to show us "just how right you are". - 18:52:57 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: Just saw a head shaking article- for me, about the Amazon forests. Brazil will begin monitoring activity that may be illegal. Good! In particular, goes the article, the Gov't types will watch for those farmers that burn plots to prepare it for planting and the rainy season. What about those coporate lumberers and settlement clearing operations? Will these actions also get placed under some sort of preventative halting moratorium? I'm no green peace type but that just struck me as assinine, maybe JOSH oughta seek and preach his "holistic" stuff there? That is a real and honest comment, no joke intended. - 19:17:57 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOette:CARL - I don't know what Josh's response will be to your comment re the rainforests, but if I comprehend anything he has said about making this a better world, we may finally agree on something. In this instance, we have to look at our own actions. Are we consumers of the products that are packaged courtesy of these rainforests? If we are, then we, as individuals have the ability to decide whether we should purchase these products or not. It may not seem like much, but when each person makes a conscious decision to boycott certain products, a company will often take a serious look at their business ethics. As a very small example, here in the town where I live, some of us decided to make our point by taking our own dishes to the McDonald's restaurants (McDonald's always being the bad guys in rainforest discussions). This was back in the days of their sytrofoam packaging. There was an international outcry towards this company, people all over the world were taking their own dishes to McDonald's, so that the food would be served on something other than a disposable, non-recycable piece of styrofoam. It worked to a certain degree. The styrofoam is gone, (of course there was a concern about the ozone layer regarding this too). So, it's a matter of individual ethics going up the ladder to corporations. - 19:39:07 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOette: Yea, its one thing to do the peacock thing- some call it sophomoric, but, what the human critter does and can do, how's it go that n'er the twain to meet, or something so. If you haven't may I suggest that you pick up the book,"Guns, Germs and Steel" by J.Diamond. - 20:30:27 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE and CARL- In the area I'm from the majority of the dumps have been closed and recycling has become a "have to". We have no choice but to separate the garbage. We do what we have to do to keep our enviroment clean. I live right beside a provincial forest here and we have had the "lazy ones" pack up their garbage and just dump it in the bush. Not only are they lazy but stupid besides as many of them throw out papers with their names on them. One day I found garbage belonging to a huge family thrown in the bush right across from me. I called my councellor and so I've heard that family not only had to pick up their garbage but also had to pay a sizable fine. I notice now that they regularly bring their garbage to the recycle bins. I have no problem trying to help other countries keep their enviroment clean and safe but I also think we need to keep our backyards clean. I don't know about you but I give a certain amount per month to save the rainforests through my local credit union. Have you seen something similiar in your areas? - 20:38:28 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Speaking of dumps, yesterday I saw and went back today to purchase a book on news censoring. One of the bits I quickly read says of the industrial nations, that these countrys need someplace to dispose of the garbage which each has. These countries are using now, the sparsely settled and unoccupied areas of the African Sahara desert as a dumping site. The piece also says the various gov't officies stop any and all news accounts of that action. Yo! JOSH, your wiser ways are called for, is it really here tho'? - 20:58:42 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- I believe that! Much more should be done toward reducing industrial waste. Much has been taken care of in our country but there is much more work to be done. Did you watch 60 Minutes2 on Tuesday? About the Russian town (something don't ask me to remember the Russian name) 26? - 21:07:30 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: No, missed it. Probably in matters as this discussion, is about where it seems to me that the likes o'the theorist types have no meaning. Its not a "something" that needs to be done, we need to make it happen. Will or does an 'intelligent opposition' mean anything in matters as this? About the only thing I can't bring myself to do yet, is the pets pooper scooper thing. The Seinfeld joke lingers in my mind at those times. But, for the most part I pickup and dispose o'garbage and such in the neighborhood. In the neighborhood, a tall sugar pine was cut down, the apartment folks said it blocked their view of the bay. ARRGH!!! - 21:33:42 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- that isn't a contradiction. What that means is that by themselves, particles exists as part of a holistic assemblage. It is we humans who, when trying to oberve them, force the particle into an independent existence so that we can identify it. And yes, I was referring to the compression of the orbits. The forces between particles is mostly empty space and this was to signify the mostly undefined presence of atoms. Again, it isn't until we force the particles into a submittal state that we can identify them, which is how our perceptions influence our results. - 21:48:31 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- from now on, if you can't defend something, do not post it. I'm not gonna sit and and argue with one of your cut-and-paste jobs only to hear you back away from your responsibility in posting it. If you can't understand and defend it, don't submit it. That is the ultimate sign of unintelligent cowardry, no offense intended. (c: - 21:50:50 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Well, I too, marvel at the brain. That aside, however, I feel the need to clear up this misconception about a Big Brother world I would like to see come into effect. The idea of focusing our energies on ecological principles first is not a mind control device. We are inhabitants of this world, first - at that is our limitation, we cannot ignore it. Our lack of responsibility in this area is causing more harm than good, and it's our own futures that we are playing games with. So there isn't really much choice in the matter except that we protect the environment. We'll still have leaders, and followers, and complainers, but all of them in a responsible world. I'll ask you, quite honestly, what is more important than ensuring our own future? - 21:58:00 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Gosh MARLENE!! Looks like JOSH gots the whip nawadays. wow! "...if you can't defend something, do not post it." whew!!! - 22:17:08 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- still looking for support from others? Why not defend the reasons against an ecologically-minded world instead? - 22:22:35 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: heheh, JOSH, settle down. - 22:37:04 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I'll post what I choose to post. I trust that Stenger has proven that there is no need for quackery when it comes to QM. Obviously you don't like being called a quack. Now if you want to talk about something in my ballpark, I'll gladly give my expertise on that. Like I said, unlike yourself, I don't even to pretend I'm an expert on QM. I think you should cut the crap and admit your not qualified either. - 22:41:03 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- For instance you made the obviously uninformed remark that man is "an evolved ape"? Where are you getting this info from? - 22:43:17 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- Can you imagine this asshole as a leader in some type of little new-age cult. As soon as someone hits a nerve, they're thrown out on their asses. It sounds to me like he's started something like that already. A pity people aren't more skeptical. - 22:46:34 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: As we've experienced these types before, be it CD, or that english teacher, or even RICKY who wanted to go after control. - 22:54:52 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Where do you get the idea that someone must be physicist to talk about physics? And since you don't know anything about Stenger, why do you put trust in him? Sounds like blind faith to me. Good idea. Stick to what you know, I'll talk about what interests me and wait for a good conversation to come along. - 23:04:16 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- can you imagine this asshole Marlene functioning in the real world? DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW CHILDLISH THESE KINDS OF COMMENTS ARE? Put it to bed you two. - 23:09:31 on 5 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:FARNES-- It doesn't seem so convoluted to me, but I guess it wouldn't. Blah, blah, blah. "Arf"? I wouldn't mind tying to talk to you, Farnes. It's usually interesting to talk to people with divergent views, but you're so hostile. You're like Robert T. Lee, but with brains. I don't relish the thought of me talking about Stenger while you are looking for any personal weakness, error, mispelling, mismatched socks, bit of corn in the teeth etc. to exploit. If I could be mere opposition even, rather than enemy... - 3:38:48 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene some people's children!:JOSH- You'll talk about what interests you and wait for a good conversation to come along? If I were you, I'd do exactly that. Big baby, not use to opposition? Stop whining ! - 4:03:39 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Grant - Being hostile toward you was never my intention. If I was, I'm sure that hostility was the overspill of my fun with Marlene and Carl. Sorry about that. Thanks you for your possible interest in having a discussion with me -- but I'm really not interested. Believe me - this is not personal. It's just that engaging in philosophical conversation goes against my philosophy. I have no desire to display my beliefs, and no interest in defending them. I just stopped in because mccoy (my wife) thought I might be interested in Josh's posts. The interaction with Carl and Marlene was purely incidental. I don't plan on staying much longer. Thanks. - 4:53:40 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:FARNES- So maccoy is the wife! LOL! I'll be sure to tell NC about that. Now things make a little more sense. - 5:03:08 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- There are many RTL's with brains, that's what's scary. - 5:05:08 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:CARL - "its one thing to do the peacock thing- some call it sophomoric". What do you mean? - 11:17:09 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:FARNES-- Fair enough. Thanks. - 11:44:30 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- Things haven't been hopping like this for some time here. I think it's healthy. In fairness, I think we are also capable of holding up our end in the hostility department. :-) It's easy to get frustrated, and to take things too personally, and of course we all *know* that we are right, an assumption which itself ought to arouse our skepticism, and an assumption which doesn't ease communication. Geez, ain't I the preachy bugger. --Wonder what's become of Doug? - 12:03:30 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene with prejudice:GRANT- I have no problem with people like Ricky, for instance, telling us about his beliefs. He's straight forward and obviously a follower. What the world needs much less of is these control freaks who create their own religions based on pseudo-science. Myths are one thing, the corruption of science another. - 14:02:14 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- do you wake up and munch on a bunch of grumpy pills each day or what? haha. Btw, why do you call physics and QM myths? Because you don't know about them? My point is, don't be so quick to judge something you claim no knowledge of. - 14:40:45 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- you didn't answer my question. Why do you put trust in Stenger if you don't know what he's talking about? - 14:48:52 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: The peacock reference eh, gee that was yesterday when I saw that, hmmm? The specifics of that image have since been absorbed but of the sophomoric connection, thats about the opinionated and a kind of immaturity. Such behavior- sophomoric, however does expect admiration and discussion of its peacock-like beauty. That kind of attempt, as an account for this JOSH, seemed like an appropriate image to put out here. Its my view from here that this JOSH is doing his darndest to confront anybody or everybody here while waving the flag that all he wants is a discussion. I see tho'he's got his tail feathers fully fanned, and wants to know why it ain't purtty. While we all have thinker writers we find favorable and even influential, we also know with what parts of those views that we don't and can't agree. I don't know about you but I'm already bored with whoever this Crapa or carpa dude JOSH's jc might be. So surely passages here being attributed to that character cannot, if we are to be fair, also be the JOSH person. - 15:10:39 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I will admit that all of this has been amusing from my standpoint - to watch a bunch of people who claim no knowledge of something or somebody mentioned - defend tooth and nail that it cannot be true. And based on what? Ignorance. As you mentioned, yes, this was just a discussion. But what does it show about certain people in this room? And who are the real skeptics if certain people claim to be skeptics but without all the facts? Let's continue this discussion since I'm pretty much tired with repeating myself about QM. - 15:22:06 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:CARL - you made the peacock statement in regard to my post, didn't you? I understood that you were criticizing people who try to do something to change things by the way you wrote that post. Your response didn't clarify it for me. - 15:22:48 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: unfortunately, what I saw when I brought the peacock bit forward its gone. looks like we gotta go on. But, if it comes back to me, I'll grab as much of it as I can. - 15:47:23 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Stenger:JOSH--Tell me where I'm wrong. - 15:49:56 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: ever seen or heard the ol'greek saying that goes, as soon as I think I know then I know that I know nothing, the actual ditty ain't immediately available but it goes about like that. Perhaps it is not an ignorance that they we I mean to convey. - 16:23:40 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I'd just like an honest discussion here. - 16:26:42 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
PETER--:..Actually, I think Joette is kinda cute myself.. - 17:07:32 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: "Honest", that in and of itself invites all manner of ilk, are you really ready for such an enterprise? How does QM relate to atheism, this is the contrare of theism, do you see it instrumental to the end or furtherance of either? Theism IMHO is still just a human endeavor based on purely a hypothesis. QM isn't that just the way a means QP gets itself on paper for one's cogitation? - 17:07:37 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I've been seeking honest opinions since I've entered this room. IMHO, theism is based on lack of control of a few basic psychological tendencies and ignorance of modern information of the physical world. QM is a part of science which studies the very elements of life. Remember, science is just a tool. What it finds are its results. QM is how scientists defined what they found. That is not questionable. What is questionable are the significances of their findings and that's what I'm trying to have an honest discussion about. What is your definition of atheism? What do you know about QM? Do you have enough information to make conclusions about it? - 17:20:28 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Atheism is the lack of a belief of god[s] because theism is the belief in god. I find the notions, of QM as a an account of a system of a working process, acceptable. Of the information that I've read its my guess that QP\QM is a theory of dynamics. Conclusions, thats an action for the theist-type mind, or should that be mind-set? - 17:53:09 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (QM or Cue I?):JOSH: I don't know if you regard the "holistic assemblage" as having independent existence, but I hope you would agree that the particle has a wave function even if it has not been subjected to any kind of observation. But what happens when this wave function "collapses" (to use classical QM terminology) is a matter of debate, though the two strongest contenders (at least in mine and the scientific community I am aware of's humble opinion) for QM interpretation are the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave (or hidden variable) theory and the Everett many-worlds interpretation. But in the first, the particle is considered as having had independent, definite existence before the observation anyway, and in the second we have a particle with no more independence about it's existence after observation than before (both being one of a multitude of possible worlds/eigenstates of which the universe is a superposition). Now I don't expect you to accept this (these two theories alone have plenty of problems) -you seem to side with the classical (Copenhagen) interpretation though and I would point out that even in that the wave function is regarded to be "collapsable" by other things than just conciousness- namely under "macropscopic, irreversible or sufficiently decoherent" circumstances -which will have been instantiated long before humans were on the scene. As for the solidity discussion, I am afraid I am going to put my anal hat on again as to me this sentence seems meaningless: "The forces between particles is mostly empty space and this was to signify the mostly undefined presence of atoms." I am referring here to your equating forces and empty space (I'm not sure why the "mostly", but for "undefined presence" I refer to the point above about interpretations). I do agree that our attempting to identify a particle will influence the state of that particle (or it's wavefunction), but I still fail to see what the significance is of this (or rather what your point is). I am not sure if you are attempting to reason from QM, but if so then I would be aware that there is much controversy and sufficient gaps in our interpretations to render it shaky ground upon which to build. - 18:16:30 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ROB: And, isn't that the proverbial "tip of the ice-berg". - 19:56:46 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- why do theories of dynamics leads to theistic mindsets? - 22:08:27 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: why? who knows what moves those folks- religious adherents, to a mindset. If those about me here are any indication of those folks, it may be that they- here, won't take the time to put themselves through any kind of process of rigorous thinking. They- here, read a thing called a dailey bread to each other and thats what and where they leave their thinking. No rational check no thoughtful evaluation whatsoever, all they do is enagage a childish explanation and acceptance of 'why' its right. I suppose it could be said its one o'those different strokes kind of thing, but, what do you see? - 22:35:08 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- thanks for your detailed analysis. I'm familiar with the different theories, and yes I consider the holistic assemblage as an independent existence. And yes, there are other forces that collapse the particle besides consciousness. But the fact that consciousness DOES collapse the particle is the point I was making, and we seem to agree on that. Let's put the principles aside for a sec. Here lies the metaphor. The power we humans have to identify the particle into our terms is the basis for everything we have been able to achieve, and even for what he have failed. The identifiable collapse of the particle is a literal metaphor for our ability to control our environment (to the degree that we can and have learned so far). We don't just inhabit this planet, we are a binding part of it and we make it suit our needs. It's an obvious conclusion to make, but the full understanding of it (the holistic conclusion) is that we have more responsibility than we ever imagined before. Everyone of our actions affects the world we live in. And everyone one of us has the potential to influence some part of the world, and even the smallest affected part is a part of the whole. We all have to learn to understand this new sense of reponsibility that we have always had, and that we are the prime movers of this world. And because of this, we can understand that our future, and the future of our planet, mostly depends upon our actions. It's the type of thing that requires a global awareness, however, and from the reactions I see from non-theists alone, it's a little frustrating to see how people seem to shirk a practically ultimate responsibility away from themselves. - 22:37:20 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- If you understand QM for what it really is, the basic premise is that there are no conclusions - but the ones that we make. Our only liability here on this planet is to ensure our own survival, and more importantly the survival of this planet. It's not a limitation that I am trying to employ, it's a limitation that we are all aware of. I'm saying let's be responsible about it, grow up, and stop destroying our home. Is this what you would like to leave to your children? (if any) Do you see what I mean? It's all up to us. - 22:44:54 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: You seem to have the view that the human creature is the apex of the organic life forms now on this orb. If that is true then the frustration you claim to experience has validity. Lets see, you wrote that the learned human creature has been doing so, learning, for several thousand years right? And the orb itself has been around for several billion years. There is no way any can determine if in the early beginning that this orb took 365 days, if it spun on an axis in 24 hours, to circle the sun. So we have some unknowns and have to claim some givens, such as what appears to be your position that the human creature is at the apex of organic life forms. Hmmm, do tell, your "holistic" thing really looks like a way to the future. - 22:55:07 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- I thought of another phrase to describe this metaphor, it is humans who give meaning to an otherwise indifferent Universe. - 22:57:20 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Is the reality, dare we say it is, of extinction also in the "holistic" thing? - 22:57:39 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I trust Stenger like I trust my banker BECAUSE he's a professional. If your not happy with that answer then you KNOW what you can do. And likewise, you amuse me. - 23:09:02 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:"from the reactions I see from non-theists alone, it's a little frustrating to see how people seem to shirk a practically ultimate responsibility away from themselves." Because we don't agree with you, we are shirking responsibility? Isn't that like saying "if your not for me, your against me"? or even more more absurd "you non-theists don't like green apples so you don't care if small children walk in traffic". - 23:15:42 on 6 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- your trust in Stenger sounds like blind faith. Capra, Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and David Darling are professionals, too. You don't have all the facts. You don't even know what the facts are. And because you don't accept the holistic responsibility, I pointed that out. Your example is a little misleading. - 0:27:42 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I see you found a way to nit-pick your way into the discussion again. Since you don't speak of any of the details, I'm still getting the impression that you just like to argue. - 0:29:30 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- as this point in time, humans are on top of the evolutionary ladder. We must continually learn and grow. I don't know where you get your conclusions. And no, the Universe won't disappear because we destroy our planet. Life will go on. It just depends upon if we want to be there or not. - 0:32:48 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..doing her best at trying to be understanding:JOSH- Just where has Sagan agreed with your theory? Again your the guy making the claim, convince me. I promise not to argue if your come across straight foward. Once again, very plainly, for those of us who aren't understanding you, state the facts so we can at least understand what your saying. It's not just me, others here that aren't understanding you either. - 0:41:43 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - there is a danger in being presumptuous. You hold up Carl Sagan as though he is someone we have never heard of. Chances are very good that some here were reading Sagan's work before you were born. You see, some do know what they are talking about, they just don't find it necessary to preach it. - 2:10:48 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - w.r.t. your metaphor...how can the universe be "indifferent"? - 2:13:16 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- All of Sagan's books deal with holism and general responsibility for this planet. His series 'Cosmos' always dealt with the collective human problems and our place in the universe. "Pale Blue Dot" focuses on our responsibilities of this planet. Please read what I said today and discuss it. I think I was pretty straight-forward in the post I wrote to Rob. But I don't want to keep repeating myself, so if you like, we can exchange emails so I can answer you directly - unless you have a specific point you want to discuss here. Like I said, there is no one sentence I say that will explain it, there is alot of information to think about. Thanks for your understanding. - 2:18:08 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- So..I'm waiting. Let's do this point by point, detail by detail. I'll put effort and time into it. Let's start with your first point which was synchronicity. We'll test this using Sagan's "baloney detection kit". Ready? I promise I won't argue or be insulting through the whole procedure. This is something we can all do. First step..(I've got the book in front of me, I'll keep it by my keyboard until your ready. - 2:19:16 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I'm glad we're on better ground here! But let's start from square one and work our way into this. - 2:21:52 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I also agree that Sagan cared very much for this planet and everything on it including humanity and their problems. But in order to do this thing properly I will have to leave out Sagan's ideas as well as Stenger's or Capra's. Of all the people I admire Sagan is one I will always tend to put on a pedestal. - 2:28:15 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- the Universe doesn't have a meaning. At its basic levels, it operates like a machine. It is humans that tried to make sense of it. We are the ones who want answers. The Universe could care less... so to speak. As far as being presumptuous, I supplied the facts like people requested. Rob is the only one who discusses it with me in detail, so if people have something to say, they should say it, and defend it like I am. I mentioned Sagan in response to Marlene's faithfulness to Stenger, which she could not defend, so please don't misunderstand. But understand that I do appreciate your comments. - 2:29:42 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:FYI - here is a bit of Capra's writings. It is written clearly and concisely (for those not understanding what Josh is saying - this is purely information..I make no editorial comments) - 2:32:24 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Like I said, I'm not gonna repeat myself in here. You can scroll through the archives and see what I posted and then we can talk about it. Let's be fair. You had a chance to discuss the details when I posted them. If you want to make a point about synchronicity, go ahead and make one, preferably from your own opinions. - 2:35:49 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - you know what? You are pissing me off again. You have now elevated Rob to being the only one who can discuss anything with you in detail. Like I said a few days ago, there's a whole lot more to life than physics. It is obvious that you have been bested by Rob, and so you have treat him with some deference, but you know what? The rest of us here have value too. We just don't come here to preach. Instead of shooting your mouth off, why not get off your ass and do something tangible? A weekly meeting isn't going to change the world. Tell us what you have done to make this a better world. You are quite a litte bore. - 2:38:48 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- For someone who bores you, you sure get worked up about what I say. I responded to your posts, and I thanked you for your honest replies, but then you get all defensive when I ask to discuss the details. What's the deal? - 3:00:19 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Josh - I think I understand what you are saying when you describe the universe as indifferent -- but where does humanity fit into that equation. Are we not, after all, a component of this universe? - 3:03:45 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- When it comes to really understanding QM one would need to study mathematical subdiscipline then arithmetic, geometry, algebra, differential and integral calculus, ordinary and partial differential equations, vector calculus, special functions of mathematical physics etc. etc. for at least fifteen years to even prepare them to try to understand. This is NOT an area I choose to study in but I do know that QM works. What I fail to understand is how you believe it has anything to do with the human mind as a collective. Since you understand QM so well and have went through this intense study and are a self-proclaimed expert on the subject, I'll look forward to seeing your name up there with Stenger's and Sagan's. Obviously your either too far ahead of me or too far out (the latter I suspect) to continue any type of conversation. - 3:24:17 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Josh -- Oops! I see in your post above that you separate humans from the equation (outside of humanity, the universe is indifferent). (Got caught being lazy!) Why would a part of the universe arise that is not indifferent after countless eons of indifference? Do you separate humans from other life-forms regarding this? - 3:24:22 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- Thanks for the FYI. I'll read it tomorrow although I scanned it tonight and already I disagee with much of it. It's finally raining here after five weeks of "not a drop of rain". I have my windows open and it just smells wonderful out there! Josh pissed me off initially but then I thought I'd try to find some common ground. Since his response was as it was, I figure Naaaaaa! no more talkie. I don't want to add to his already overinflated ego. - 3:34:09 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Goodnight atheists...and Josh. - 3:39:19 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Marlene - I'm not trying to incite you here. . . but -- I was talking to my brother today (he has a BS in math, MS in is physics, and was invited to join Univ. of Penn. as a paid researcher in their theoretical astronomy doctoral program - declining, as they pay very little $$). Anyway, I asked him what he thought of Stenger's assertion that classical physics is the macro end of a consistent continuum from the quantum level. He said Stenger is wrong. He didn't go into the "why" because he was in the middle of dinner with his girlfriend. He did, however, sort of chuckle. I realize I am posting hearsay, and I post this as an anecdote only. It is possible that I did not represent Stenger's assertion properly. - 3:41:41 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:anal rentative correction -- "theoretical astro physics" in astronomy doctoral program. - 3:45:35 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:FARNES- I decided to drop back in. Maybe send him to Stenger's website. He's really quite respected in his field. - 4:05:21 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Guess I'll wait for Rob's response. - 15:15:11 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:farnes- I didn't mean to pass by your comments...The right combinations of the Universe produced a self-reflecting part of it. Two-legged creatures only occupy .33% of the entire lifespan of the Universe as far as we know, and then count how many other intelligent life forms there are. One possible explanation is that we spent so many years trying to master survival that we thought there had to be a reason for it, but only so many millions of years after we started - and we forgot that we just wanted to survive. Theoretically speaking, humans are a bit different from other living creatures in that we are consciously manipulating our environments on new levels. But we are not separate from them, as some would like to believe.... Hope this helps. The Universe doesn't conform to easily to explanation. - 15:28:45 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Rob is here (metaphorically speaking):JOSH: Well I appreciate you taking the time to try and explain your views. Now, I have a dilemma in that there are lots of small points I should make (which would probably seem picky to you), but on the other hand I don't want to get too sidetracked from the main points. With that in mind then, I'll try and leave the physics behind as it doesn't seem to be essential to the discussion, though will point out that the role of conciousness in QM is unclear, hotly contested and not present in all interpretations. This is borne out by the absence of an account of the mechanism by which consciousness might collapse a wave function (not that all interpretations require the wave function to actually be collapsed). Now for your "literal metaphor" (a fatefully ambiguous oxymoron), I find the foregoing discussion on QM both unneccesary and misleading. Take for example Schrodinger's cat again: now until we look in the box the cat is both alive and dead with given probabilities. When we "force the cat into a definite state", we are surely no more responsible (IMHO) for it's possible death through merely having collapsed it's wave function, n'est-ce pas? For in QM the influence we have is purely random -you could argue that we might chose not to make the observation of the cat at all, but that's hardly what I would call a "controlling responsibility". Why you refer to this at all seems baffling to me -the "future of our planet" is no more dependent on our conscientious actions in the wake of QM understanding than it was beforehand. Reponsibility for our actions (and their knock-on effects) is something that I am pretty sure everyone in this discussion board is capable of understanding (irrespective of whether they wish to act on that responsibility). I don't know if the use of QM was to elucidate your point about responsibility (if so then I find it very strange that you employ the use of something so complicated in order to explain something so very simple), but if not then I can only imagine you were attempting to use QM to make our "global responsibilities" more compelling, though for the reasons outlined above I fail to see how this could be so. - 17:04:55 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (pointing the labour):JOSH: Yes, sorry. I am working 7 days a week at the moment, and what with being on the other side of the pond I usually get to miss all of the action ;) Anyway, forgive the long post but yours warranted some detail in response. - 17:10:14 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- How can you say 'consciousness is not present in all interpretations'? Who made the interpretations? I think you see the point I'm making, and I pointed this out after reading Stenger's article: We don't know anything without human consciousness and that is why it is essential to all theories of QM (or anything, for that matter). How we define it is exactly the metaphor I was explaining. And I think it is very fortunate that we can delve all the way into QM and still see how succinctly the intricacies of the Universe also depend upon our own filters: experience, conceptual thought, symbolic language, dreams, etc. for us to understand and manipulate them. You can point out all the principles that don't include human consciousness, but were they not givens to begin with? - 17:32:54 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- I hope that doesn't sound too aggressive. I truly appreciate your honest input. - 17:35:14 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Josh -- How, might you suppose, the survival instinct came about? The survival instinct pre-dates consciousness, as you stated in so many words. Even plants put forth effort toward self-preservation, with their various poisons and coloring to warn of its poisons. If the answer is that at first we (all living things) wanted to exist only long enough to reproduce - then what factor in those "conditions" would spark life to want to perpetuate its atomic arrangement (via reproduction) after its death? I can buy that life came about do to the coming together of certain factors, but why wouldn't it simply wink out after it ran its course? After all, since matter can't be created or destroyed -- the indifferent universe gets to keep the atoms either way. - 18:17:35 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (How do you collapse a Mexican wave function? Take everyone's chairs away...):JOSH: Well agressive I can cope with -anyhow, regarding conciousness perhaps I wasn't making myself clear: I'm not saying that conciousness -as a phenomenon- is not permitted with certain interpretations. I am saying that whereas in the Copenhagen interpretation conciousness is one of the fundaments of the collapse of the wave function, there are plenty of other interpretations where it is not. Furthermore, in the Everett interpretation the wave function does not even collapse -the universe being a superposition of all the possible (existent) realities, of which we experience (and are concious within) only one. I am afraid I have to disagree- I don't see the point you are making as none of this changes what I had to say in my last post. I would also like you to clarify what you meant by the "intricacies of the universe depending on our internal filters". - 19:05:09 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene: A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics as typed on Usenet. The higher the score, the more likely the contribution is from a Crackpot. by John Baez A -5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Albert Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence). 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to ones past theories. 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc. 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. - 19:25:56 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- You can't determine the effects of consciousness without consciousness, so all interpretations depend upon and permit consciousness as part of the experiment. There is no obective standard to judge things by other than our own consciousness - meaning our our filters such as experiences, thoughts, etc. which all go into each hypothesis and experiment performed by humans. You can't remove the human factor from any of your theories. Even the interpretations where consciousness is not a direct causality of the collapse, you couldn't make that interpretation without consciousness. - 19:37:07 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:farnes- You're asking the questions I'm sure physicists ask themselves everyday. I'd say, if the universe works like a machine at its most basic levels, then its goal, at least on this planet, is "better and stronger, more reliable and more efficient". Why does it do that? We don't know yet. - 19:42:20 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:.. and still waiting for an original thought from Marlene. - 19:43:12 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Here's an original thought- I think.... you may fit into that crakpot category. - 19:46:06 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
it'sme:Hea it does, josh, God made it all, the atoms, cells matter, qm and all the rest! - 20:14:58 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I shall ask again...what are you doing to make this a better world? - 20:20:22 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:If the earth operates like a machine, I would say like all machines, it will sooner or later wear out. No machine is built to last forever. The earth is in a decline. It's not getting better but getting worse. Things such as government, schools, cities, rivers, streams, lakes are all becomming poluted and surely don't work as well as they once did, just to name a few. Just fifty years age, young people helped the old across the street and gave them help when needed, now the young people will run over the old, knock them down and care less. I don't call that improvement, or getting better. - 20:38:01 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Farnes:Josh -- So, basically, this leaves us in a state of unknowing, yes? I can accept Carl's definition of atheism ("lack of a belief of God") as valid. But although His existence has not been proven scientifically, it remains a viable explanation (among many, I guess) to this presently unanswerable issue. But I've come across so many "atheists" who hold the belief, in no uncertain terms, that there is no God. Are you of that sort? Seems to me that the "God explanation" does not yet scientifically warrant being discarded. Let's take a poll: Who among the atheists here hold the belief "there is no God?" And who among the atheists here simply "lack a belief in God?" I am not referring to organized religion what-so-ever -- just the notion that God may exist. (Note to GRANT -- Grant, it has occurred to me that I am having the conversation I previously declined to engage in. I wish you would jump in - you seem level headed and I'd like to hear your comments, assuming you're interested in this thread. Not to mention it may alleviate the twinge of guilt I am experiencing. And yes, I still feel that talking about this stuff really contributes nothing - I'm simply indulging myself against my better judgement.) - 20:47:33 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:RICKY- I'm close to 50 years old. I've seen a decline in young people's behavior too. That's because it's the "in thing" right now IMO. I think most parents try to teach their children good social skills but there really is a period of time in one's life (ages anywhere from 10- 25)where kids absolutely divorce themselves from parent's values and most times do just the opposite. I'd wager that these same kids that would run someone down for kicks at 15, could be the kindest person when they reach 25. I don't like the violent "in thing" right now. It's a far cry from the in thing of my generation, "love and peace" but it will change. We can't even predict what the "in thing' will be in the next 10 years I don't think. I hope that it will be something more socially acceptable. It tends to work that way. The in thing in my parents day was street boxing and betting on cock fights. Violent IMO. Pollution is common in any overpopulated and over industrialized country. That can change with more enviromential changes and some population control. No one can change that but we humans so we really do need to take responsibilty for those changes, not in the future but now. We are progressing but in small steps. We no longer allow slavery in most countries and those that do, we try sanctions to show our distaste for it. Communication is better so that we can make more people aware of responsibilities, not as many wars occur nowadays that continue for decades. Other countries try some type of intervention for peace. Fatal diseases are being cured, viruses are being identified and measures are taken to prevent their spread. There are amny good things too Ricky. - 21:06:17 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:FARNES- Like Josh's theory, the god theory, has no supporting evidence. If actual factual evidence were to show that god exists or Josh's theory was no longer a theory but observed to be fact then I would admit that there is evidence so there is a very good possibility that it must be so. To date, there isn't. - 21:12:53 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Rob (losing conciousness):JOSH: I shall say it again: "I'm not saying that conciousness -as a phenomenon- is not permitted with certain interpretations. I am saying that whereas in the Copenhagen interpretation conciousness is one of the fundaments of the collapse of the wave function, there are plenty of other interpretations where it is not." There is nothing you say in your last post about conciousness that is unique to quantum mechanics -the only thing that would have been were if you cited conciousness as an agent for collapsing wave functions, which I have remarked upon as not being the only view held. Now moving on from this diversion, I again refer you to my penultimate post and the redundancy of your "metaphor", and shall bid you goodnight. - 22:31:42 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:RICKY - and 50 years ago, the world was at war. Millions of people died. But I guess that's okay, since young people helped old people across the street. - 22:57:44 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette...games people play...:FARNES - for me, it's a lack of belief in a god. - 23:00:38 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:Okay guys...enough physics...let's talk about my own favourite subject: ETHICS. Lately I have been doing research into lung transplants for personal reasons, and I came across information on a new and radical type of transplantation. The usual way to do a double lung transplant is for someone to die, and those lungs, given proper timing and financial resources, are put into someone who needs new lungs. If all goes well, the recipient will live a full and useful life. Now, with this new procedure, the lobes of lungs from living donors are used. The bad lungs are removed from the sick person, and a lobe of two lving donors are transplanted into the sick person. This type of surgery is being kept quiet and has only been done a total of 30 times throughout the world, because it is considered unethical. Why, you ask? It is considered unethical by some because there is a risk to the donor, and the medical community does not want to deal with the issues involved in having to defend their actions. In the cases I read about, the donors were counselled ad nauseum about the risk they were taking. The healing process is long for the donors, and very painful, but they all knew what they were getting into. Now, living donors who donate their kidneys are made out to be heros, so I wonder why there is a problem with this new type of lung transplantation? Any opinions? (and would anyone be willing to donate a lung lobe? *s*) - 23:15:27 on 7 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- I hadn't even heard of this procedure. Is it a mostly successful operation? If so, I see nothing unethical about it! Would I donate a lobe? Of course, the same as I would donate a kidney. The only questions I have are these. Firstly I suppose the donor would have to have healthy lobes? Is there a compatability factor the same as the kidney transplant? In what countries has this operation taken place and the frequency in each of those countries? - 0:09:22 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:MARLENE..the procedure has been done in the U.S. and in England, with surprisingly excellent results. There was no mention of the compatibility, but each case I have read about was done quickly, there was no waiting. Friends and family members were donors. And yes, the donors would have to have healthy lobes, so we smokers wouldn't qualify. - 0:17:58 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:farnes- To me, there is no God. Saying something like Lack of a belief implies that the God theory holds water in some way. 'Lack' just means that we don't have that belief. Why should we be the least bit approving if we don't see any reason to believe? --- Marlene- I'm not gonna stoop down to your level and make sly comments about YOU to other people, so please act your age. Since you still claim no knowledge of the facts of QM or any of the points Rob and I agree on, your opinions are arbitrary on the matter. What reason do you have to criticize? Why do you insist on instigating a childish argument? Let's be civil here. (I thought we agreed on this already) *shaking head* - 0:20:29 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Like I explained before, I prefer the role of teacher. It seems to work better IRL, so maybe this isn't the place to continue with the theories I brought up.... Anyway, as long as the donors know about the risks of the operation, I don't see a problem. I just don't understand the part about the lobes. Can lobes replace lungs? I don't know their function. - 0:26:40 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..this IMO and if you don't like it you know what you can do ...teacher.sh@&!:JOSH- I wasn't posting to you and I don't plan to after this post. IMO, whether you like it or not, whether you rant and rage, whether you resort to calling me childish, whether you pretend to be a teacher (which insults my family profession), whether you threaten to jump off a cliff, I really could give a #%&*, your a crackpot. - 0:35:50 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Grant (ROB-bery in progress):ROB-- Hope you don't mind a little gratuitous praise, but your posts, particularly the 17:04:55 one, are things of beauty, and, maybe incidentally, they are good counterbalance to less disciplined thought. But don't let that stop you from coming around speaking regular talk! - 4:54:58 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Grant :FARNES-- I'll be happy to chip in .02 for the cause. I am also one who believes there is no god, but it may not be exactly as you visualize. My beliefs are naturalistic, with all the implications. I see religious behavior as part of behavior patterns selected out impartially and uncaringly, as is evolution's way, because of positive outcomes in regards to cooperation. I recognize that there are many implications included in this package which are not eagerly embraced by the idealist. :-) - 5:16:48 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Grant (No need for guilt):FARNES-- Re your statement: "And yes, I still feel that talking about this stuff really contributes nothing..." The way I look at this, conclusions are of little value here. The odds of any of the great mysteries being resolved here are slight to nil. Even if one of us were to chance onto *the* answer to one of life's great questions, odds are nobody would recognize it. It would likely get a few sarcastic responses. The value in this site and other similar sites for me is the exchange and processing of ideas, and the resulting pushing back of the horizon. - 5:34:26 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOETTE-- Ethics is one of my favorite subjects as well. The ethical issues I see here would be in regards to the allocation of relatively scarce medical resources, that is, could this medical currency be spent more wisely, and it seems like there would have to be some judgment on an appropriate balance between the likely benefit to the recipient and possible risk to the donor. I can't think of other issues, even religious, can you? Would I be willing to act as donor? Yes. - 5:56:10 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Rob- If you'd be so kind as to read my opinion once more, I'd be happy to clarify some things. The point that I was making, and that we both agree upon: 'I do agree that our attempting to identify a particle will influence the state of that particle (or it's wavefunction)'. That's it. I know about the other theories, but this is something we both can relate to. At the most basic level, it appears that humans affect their environment, and as a discussion topic I was making use of this theory. In the example of Shroedinger's Cat, even the many-worlds interpretation suggests that each observation only selects one of many possibilities where consciousness may not appear to be an agent. I was hoping as someone with specific knowledge of these theories we could discuss this. If I wanted a third-party objective view of all the theories I would have gone back to the books. In this case, I wanted to talk about what we agree upon and I was hoping I made this clear. Let's discuss this. If not, please understand my intentions. - 15:16:25 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- I agree with you that we are not going to solve anything here about the answer to life's mysteries, and especially about your line: 'It would likely get a few sarcastic responses'. But I was hoping people could at least discuss a few of the possibilities in here in a reasonable way and would be open to contemplate some of the more non-daily conversation topics that are represented in a certain branch of the scientific community. But instead, I get the sarcastic remarks and all kinds of outrageous generalizations thrown at me. Why did you ask me to contribute to your site if you wished to ostracize me too? - 15:31:45 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- shouldn't that be 'YOU'RE a crackpot'? Just asking. You seem to like correct grammar and spelling, so I thought I'd do you the favor, too. (c; - 15:33:53 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm glad you are here. I think your ideas are at least as valuable as mine. I think it's tough coming into such a group and you have done remarkably well. Please keep my philosophical differences with you seperate from actual real-life type stuff. I respect your thinking. I think you are an idealist. Which of us is actually objectively more correct is not likely to be resolved here, and really doesn't matter except to us anyway. I think in time you will get to know the other posters better and feel more comfortable. This isn't real life. It's just some minor little corner of the web. I think you'll do just fine if you stay with us for a while. If your views were the same as mine I wouldn't have invited you here. Unfortunately the problem of taking things too personally around here is one that I'm not out of the reach of. - 15:56:34 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:thanks, Grant. - 18:08:54 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - for what it's worth, I'm glad you're here too! - 20:37:53 on 8 Aug 99 GMT
ricky:Joette.There.have.been.war.ever.since.time.begun.Today.lives.arebeing.lost.through.sinceless.slauter.I'll>Be.back.my.keyboard.is.sticking.. - 4:11:46 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Strange, I don't recall ever bugging someone about grammar, spelling or typing errors. Couldn't care less about it as long as the person makes themselves understood. - 5:51:47 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I disagee with Grant. This is real life and we are all real people. Your going to find many people like myself on actual atheist discussions. You have a view and that's fine. I don't agree with it. Because I don't agree with it doesn't mean we have to be enemies but I'm not about to sit back on this discussion and say "whatever" or not post my opinion because it may hurt your feelings. Ricky is a theist and I have no problem with him. He states his opinion to "life's answers" and I most of the time disagree with him. He doesn't get all pissed. Even we atheists disagree on many issues and have had more than a few aguments. It's not a big deal! - 6:04:50 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Steven :RICKY- God may protect your keyboard from rain, but not from soda, hehe. - 14:17:45 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: HaHa! everybody now, quit pickin'on JOSH! He's precious and maybe not always well. What BS. Didn't see any points made on the inclusion or exclusion o'extinction when "holisticness" was involved. It looks as tho'JOSH has a similar or the same opinion of evolution as some other turn o'the century folks. That seems to be that evolution must have an objective, they held for those times, and that being that it was to "improve" things. I don't think, or rather what I seen said o'evolution doesn't lead my thoughts into that direction. I think however, that those who seem to hold that evolution is to 'improve', is a weak example of atheistic thinking. I can see how it- to improve, correlates so very well with theism's contentions of a "design". Consider, o'er the weekend I heard a news report say that penicillin can't contest or handle as many microscopic human-pests as it did just 5 years ago. Why not? Too many o'you folks are making those microbes stronger by the use o'all those antibiotics and 'flu-shot' things, the report sorta'said. Looks like the start of the war of the worlds. Of your QM query to me, as MARLENE pointed out to you JOSH, that is a huge field. I've yet to read o'any writer thinker who'd 'claim' such a range o'familiarity. IMHO, I suspect that most o'them figure such a claim would be foolish of them. - 15:10:01 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: Ever wonder about that 4.5 bilion years ago beginning o'this universe, the all we think we're part of? TH RIBOT wrote in a book published in 1899 this-> They may be of any given magnitude. The Hindus, whose exuburant imagination is well known, invented the 'koti', equivalent to four billions three hundred and twenty-eight millions of years for calculating the life of their gods; each 'koti' represents a single day of the devine life. <- He was explaining his views on abstractions and numbers in the chapter V, Evolution of the principal concepts, of the book "Evolution of General Ideas". Have we ever really been the sceptic we think we are? - 15:27:11 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Thanks, Joette. I agree, GRANT. This room is fun, but real life is much better! --- CARL --- That's because, from what I've found, evolution is the basic mechanistics of the Universe; it increases complexity and form. However, with the use of consciousness we have taken it almost entirely upon ourselves how we want to advance. We could have remained nomads and sheepherders and advanced more spiritually for growth and understanding like certain races of people, or we could advance technologically and make mechanical means our better lifestyle. Your definition of improvement might be the problem. In respect to QM, it would be foolish to think that familiarity cannot be obtained from study and discussion of topics. That's how we learn and grow. What's the other choice, don't talk about it, don't study it, and don't try to understand it? I don't agree that we should promote ignorance. - 16:14:53 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:ANY: Has anyone else read 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn? It's all about the early diversions of humankind. However, now that I mentioned it, I have a feeling people will stay away from it....haha - 16:20:18 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:..On principle alone, I disagree with everyone. - 16:59:01 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH; So you are a friend of Ishmael? "...is the basic mechanistics of the universe; it increases complexity and form.", does it? So what is the problem of the horseshoe crab or the shark? - 17:38:10 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I've read the book, yes. Am I a friend of the imaginary character in the book, no. There is no problem with the horseshoe crab or shark, but they weren't always in the forms they take today, or as specialized in adaptation. Humankind seeks a different form of specialization. - 17:49:45 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..another form of wishful thinking?:CARL- I see your point on how "improvement using consciousness" which is after all emotion and everyone's emotions are different, is similiar to design. Good point! - 18:01:10 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: You are so wet behind the ears, still got a milk mustache, that line was from the story! geez. - 18:20:06 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:ALL: So we are at the mercy of nature to determine our evolutionary future? That sounds more like a Design argument and Fate. I guess we're just programmed robots, bumbling around on this planet. Oh well. - 18:38:20 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Yea, that kind o'position makes it seem like JOSH was and understands quite well the principles and tenets of theism. Like some who switch favors when they do so, "to feel" safe those changes include a substitution for that pie in the sky stuff. Does JOSH figure evolution must be for the 'better' in life or for the 'good' of life, since there ain't no heaven. Did you note how he quietly did not say of extinction? If the today human thing is just another organic life form then as other such forms all we- o'today, do is convert solar energy into an action. For now we do ok, except for those pesky miscrobes, they are gonna be the ending factor o'the human life form. Ain't gonna be no bombs and rockets. - 18:42:51 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: I brought the crab and shark thing to the fore along with that 'koti' reference to point out an importance for doubt. What do those who "study" sharks and crabs mean when they say that neither has changed since back when they were with and even before some kinds o'dinosaurs? One of the points I note o'theists when here is a need for their words to be accepted or disproven. That seems to be your position. SO, an either/or condition, is that not a logical fallacy, or is that ok nowadays? You mention the word discussion, what do you want to discuss? The good for humanity or the good of humanity? A better world? What is the human spirit? For whatever reason it seems like you think that we ain't to sharp here. As has been pointed out to you we don't agree with each other due to atheism and there is no reason for any here to agree with a cotton pickin thing you inscribe. Do you need others to agree with or yield to you? - 19:08:20 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Programmed robots? Well doesn't that sound like design. Evolution, IMO, has been physical changes in organisms over millions of years many happening as a result of changes to the enviroment the organism is trying to survive in. In psychology evolution takes on another meaning altogether and again psychology isn't an exact science, even worse it can support all kinds of crackpot ideas anywhere from Jung to Mack. - 21:02:27 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Well if the term 'mechanistics of the universe' bears real meaning then it must follow that something of the likes of the human organism would be a 'programmed robot'. - 21:32:38 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Joette...seeing Red...:okay, another ethical question regarding the REAL world...in Russia, there are factions who want to see Lenin's grave dismantled, and his body planted in the ground, instead of being on display, as though to bury their past. The Communists are in a furor as they want to see their beloved leader when they go for their daily goosestep around Red Square. Here is my opinion...Russia has an incredibly rich history, not only centuries ago, but the transformations it has undergone just in the 20th century are numerous, and quite incredible. I think it is important that Russia, as a people, not try to hide their Communist past. They may not want to celebrate it any longer, but it has made them what they are today (which isn't anything to boast about at the moment, but will eventually change). Any opinions? After all, this is the real world, not just theory. :o) - 22:27:39 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:It's a small world afterall...just last night, someone else asked me if I had read that book "Ishmael" and I had to admit I had never heard of it. Is it the noveau reading of the atheist world these days? - 22:28:52 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:PETER - I disagree with your disagreement. - 22:29:31 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: Hey there, yea, Russian need not engage any kinda'hiding action that its present leader types may say may argue is important to its future and its history. Its communist past is an important cultural piece of what the human did. Is it a bad thing, not more nor less than the attrocities that the USA gov't has done throughout the world "for" its presupposed theory of democracy. If or when any group of people attempt to hide or cover-up its cultural being, that is the stuff of another dark age. - 22:38:31 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- Many people in this area come from Russia. Although communism isn't an ideal way of life, I believe many people were happy with it. I don't see any reason why they should bury their past. In fact they should be proud of it. They tried something but it didn't work. - 22:47:51 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- From what I understand the book _Ishmael_, has nothing to do with atheism but more to do with the way we humans treat this planet. It's set as a fictional story but has some very good messages. - 22:50:17 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: I just saw that WJC plans on 'controlling' USA news that the world can have. Is that good? That is an action not meant for the good of the world, terrible terrible terible that is all I can say, and some folks said its ok to lie, hmmm? - 22:50:56 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- What do you mean? Do you mean the US plans to allow the broadcasting of American news in certain countries? - 23:12:18 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- Ooops! I meant "not allow" - 23:13:18 on 9 Aug 99 GMT
franklin:Hi, I'm new here. I've been looking through here for a few days, and I hope you guys don't mind if I jump right in. I'm an atheist, and I practice Buddhism. JOSH - I read those same books you talked about and if it means anything to you, I think Buddhism would suit your beliefs. As you may or may not know, Buddhism practices compassion for all creatures and most Buddhists I know are atheists. You seem to be very sincere in your attempts to share what you have learned, and trust me I've had my fair share of so-called skeptic oppositions when I would ask for the best for all creatures. I think "tree-hugger" and "new-age crap" were the same words I got too, and it always seemed like you had to be bitter about the world and people, in general, in order to be classified as an atheist. It seemed like all the atheists I knew had some religious scar they were trying to cover up so they wouldn't let themselves get caught up in 'superficial new age thinking' enough to care about the people around them. I also have to say that before I practiced I was very skeptical and cynical about the world until I saw it was getting me nowhere and I certainly knew there was more to life than hard-core scientific principles. Much more. But that's not to say science isn't great. I think the world could use more compassionate people and a few less nay-sayers.... Well, I tend to go on about what I care about. I'll try to stop in here and there. I wish the room well. Hi Carl, Marlene, Joette, Grant, Peter and anyone else I missed. Love and light everyone. - 0:23:33 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:FRANKLIN - welcome! If I were to ever have put a label on myself, it would be that of Buddhist, but with limitations. While I enjoy the "live, love, light" philosophy of Buddhism, I don't agree with the idea that you have to love someone just because they exist. - 0:30:17 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:HI FRANKLIN- If I were to put a label on myself it would be an atheist, a very skeptical atheist. I'm not cynical about the world and have no "religious scars" god inflicked, blue fairy inflicted or pink unicorn. Although I don't "like" everyone, I consider myself a compassionate person and do a lot of things to help others whether it be volunteer work or donating whatever I can. I don't "need" something other than what I live with from day to day to believe in. I love life. As a Buddhist, do you believe in a continuing existence beyond death? - 3:20:09 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:franklin- Thanks for taking the time to write. I happen to agree with Buddhism in many ways, but I'm not quite sure what makes me not call myself one. I feel the same way about people and the creatures of this planet, and the entire Universe for that matter. We're all part of a binding interconnectedness, so to not love something or someone else is to dislike a part of yourself, IMO. --- ALL --- franklin's words reminded me of an anecdote, something that happened, or rather, I witneseed, the other day that I would like to share.... I was waiting on line at the bank and a mother had two little kids with her. The one kid just called the other one 'stupid', and the second kid told the mom. The mom looked down at the second kid and said, "People are what they say to others." And the second kid replied, "Well, I'm gonna tell everyone how smart they are." --- Stories like that always make my day. - 5:04:31 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:I just realized that someone (like Carl or Marlene) would confuse 'witnessed' for a religious expression. That was not my intention. I'm not usually so analytical of my own writings but I thought I'd save some unnecessary criticisms in the long run. haha... - 5:31:22 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Hi FRANKLIN-- I think this place could use a little diversity of beliefs and ideas. May I point out a couple of minor irritants for me in your post? No offense intended. I really am happy you stopped by. The first: (and I really hope we get a chance to talk more about this at some point) "...I was very skeptical and cynical about the world until I saw it was getting me nowhere and I certainly knew there was more to life than hard-core scientific principles." 'Skeptical' and 'cynical' are not the same thing at all. You have leapt to a conclusion here which is demonstrably false. Also, I have never in my entire life heard any person, atheist or not, say or imply that there is not more to life than "hard-core scientific principals." Second: "...I've had my fair share of so-called skeptic oppositions..." The use of the term 'so-called' sets off bias alarms from here to the Ozarks and beyond, as it should. Do some word substitutions and I think you'll see what I mean. Example: We've had so-called Buddhists here before. ---Just didn't want you to think Josh cleared all the brush for you. You'll still need a machete and some skill in its use. I do hope you stick around, and I do think Josh has cleared some of the undergrowth. :-) - 5:42:16 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:STEVEN-- LOL! - 5:43:05 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Grant on why it is important to communicate well :This bear and this rabbit were talking. The bear asked the rabbit, "Do you have trouble with poop sticking to your fur?" The rabbit said, "No." So the bear picked up the rabbit and used it to wipe his butt. - 12:17:12 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..:JOSH- Well ain't you the hypocrite! You don't act like you like Carl or I very much. This reminds me of those all-loving christians. - 13:27:44 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: The piece said some group of people connected to WJC will setup offices, i guess, as reference sources of things that are to become what interests and concerns outside of the USA will treat as the official whatever out o'DC. Especially it seems, in matters of DC's plans for its foreign policy, this will grow o'course. I wonder what ever happened to that constitutional thing, freedom of the press, or whatever it 'was'???? - 14:26:58 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene, Marlene- *hug* Why always so quick to judge? What have I been saying all along? I care about the world and our future here. Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean I don't love you and everyone else. Some people I find a little more challenging than others, but that's okay. - 14:42:44 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Just a thought.. but maybe people can be skeptical AND cynical? Who's to say? - 14:44:40 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- What likely happened to all that is BIG GOVERNMENT. Revenue Canada has been formed a task group to get out in the public and try to stop the "undergroud" home repair business. Maybe it has something to do with a tunnel they built so MPs wouldn't have to walk outside in the winter. It's a very short tunnel and was estimated to cost about a million. In reality it has now cost over three million. I suppose they have to pay the contractors now. Bet the undergound could have built it for a fraction of the cost. - 14:45:42 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: But JOSH, as you seemingly recognised of yourself and your kid story, you did have what some religious adherents say was a god-related experience. You saw goodness and like them what registered with you was that warm fuzzy feeling. In your primitive comprehension, not the reptile brain part, just your atavistic parts you "felt" that a mystery had just happened before your very eyes. True-speak is a good thing JOSH, - 14:55:04 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: just teasin and playin w/you - 14:57:23 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: "Underground"? Definitely not a case o'True-speak! I'm always astounded by what the public leaders will say in order to do what they do. GRANT's post on communication fit matters as even that, but in more direful not a good way. I just heard a story about 4 Florida kids that for about a year were burning buildings. The cops had no clear clues. Then, for whatever reason they were angered by or at someone or something at the school they attended. They were accidently stopped from burning it when a teacher at the school saw one of them and admonished him for whatever. They then redirected their plans to killing the teacher. One of the kids parents owned or ran a pawn shop. That kid had 20+ guns in his bedroom. The point of communication, they shot and killed that teacher, shot him twice once in the head and again in a buttock when the teacher fell on his frontside. The police then, essentially called it "gay-killing" due to the buttock shot! The case wasn't solved for another year. - 15:32:02 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:FRANKLIN: One of the basic problems I have with JOSH is the apparent value displacement of theisms onto the theory of evolution. I characterise this as JOSH qualifying it- evolution, with the ideas that It's "for" improvement betterments, etc. If we accept that then as part of his human kit, that thing that he is, coincidently includes the further qualification that JOSH is also an atheist. Atheism is simply the position that one has a non-belief in a godthing. There are no other required or needed qualifications. MARLENE aptly points out that she has other cares but those do not nor does she 'fly' them flaglike for purposes relevant to her position of atheism. Buddhism "and" atheism, I don't see any connection, is there one? - 17:27:24 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl AND ANY: Just a barrage of questions I came up with. I'm looking for your opinion(s), not a standing ovation, I'll say from the start... What is it about holism that you don't like? Do you think holism interferes with atheism? How else would you explain evolution without including everything you know and live by? What things would you leave out? What would you say knowledge is? Is there an end to knowledge? If not, then what does improvement mean? Do you think we're gonna spend the next million years on this planet just to adapt to new environmental situations?....I think we depend upon our environment alot, but we are no longer solely determined by it. Evolution means more than adaptation, IMO; it means that we learn from the past and grow into the future- but that doesn't mean there is some definited unforseeable future. It means the future is unlimited in potential, an infinite amount of possibilities. I look at history and see and entirely human-focused plan -i.e. what humans wanted (this was an idea in 'Ishmael', that all our situations are the result of decisions that lead us here, and that we are free to pick new paths at any time). The thing about theists I don't approve of is that they credit someone or something else for their accomplishments and failures, when it's been all up to us the whole time. We got here (wherever here is) because we wanted to, whether there is an objective improvement or not, and the future is gonna be the same way. Your thoughts? - 20:24:53 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- BTW, do you think your experiences of people asking you about 'Ishmael' were just random coincidences or a synchronistic pattern? Just curious. (Did you read "The Celestine Prophecy"? If so, your thoughts?) - 20:33:57 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: ever go out into a wide open field for maybe a biology or crop class bug hunt? An instructor issues those very large hooped nets so as you walk across the field you sweep up all manner of things. That net, thats your holism thing. Sometimes, back when, when irrigating an alfalfa field, I liked to and would stand in one place for an hour or so and watch the water move over the soil and about and through the plant stems and crowns. Very interesting. - 21:39:09 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Everything. Every Thing. - 22:32:12 on 10 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Improvement in the USA: Few years ago, boys driving tractor-trailers for a living could make a fairly good go at it if they worked hard and keep the truck running. Then someone figured that if they increased the weight-limit, truckers could make more money. As a result of this "prosperity", the weight limits were increased, causeing freight cost to drop, boys wore out their trucks faster because of the extra weight they pulled, and now it's very hard to make it in the trucking industry. Fellow come up with an idea to increase the yeld in soey-beans ten to fifteen bushels to the acer. As a result of this increase, farmers had to build larger storage bins, had to buy bigger combines, had to tend more acerage to take care of the cost of the added equipment, resulting in lots more work to make the same amount of money. Is all this modern technology paying off? Is things really getting better? Don't want to sound negative but wow! Same things are happening in the fishing industry. - 0:17:07 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:RICKY- I KNOW what your talking about when it comes to the trucking industry but the heavier loads aren't the only big problem. Another peeve I have with the farming industry is the terminator seed. Have you heard of this? I don't blame technology for these problems but big business being bedpartners with government. - 0:45:39 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Right. I'm sure he didn't intend to tie cynicism to skepticism. Whatever could I have been thinking? - 1:06:09 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..you show me first:JOSH- Before I answer all those questions (which I gladly will), I'd like to know what definition of "holism" you buy into. - 2:58:34 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- You must be thinking of the theists. Most of them like to tie the two together. Seems to make them feel better about their position. - 3:02:21 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- The new episodes of OZ have started. - 3:41:11 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- I don't mind people disagreeing. I think the discussion is much more interesting really when conflicting points of view are being explained and defended. But I prefer it when people understand the other viewpoints, or at least try to, and are willing to substantiate or justify their own. One needn't feel threatened to the point of refusing to acknowlege internal logical consistency or merit of an opposing viewpoint. I don't know... maybe I'm the only one who read Franklin's post closely. Wish he would have stayed around and chatted a bit. He'll get a raspberry from me if he isn't willing to talk about his criticisms. I would love to talk about mine. :-) - 5:37:22 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:I've already explained holism. My definition is consistent with everything I've posted. How would you describe it? - 14:56:12 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:that last post was for Marlene.... - 14:58:33 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: of the thinker/writers I've read on the holism thing its, at least, not a bad thing. Of the views which those folks seem take of holism I'm struck by an attitude, theirs, I see as an exercise of semantics. Instead of just saying "all" or other such words, they came up with the word holism. Instead of 'wholism', so as to simply refer to a whole as in everything, for the sake o'the religious the word artificers went with holism. I don't have the references handy to illustrate instances of thinker/writers yielding to the religious mind set but I can get a couple. Again, if the word restructure was engaged on holy instead of whole, the latter being the actual target, then it makes sense to me why it seems that those thinker/writers I've read use the word "holism" as if to say, thats all we can do at this time is but to say that word. To me the idea they mean to convey, is merely an invitation to continue to study and learn about the whole thing. - 16:20:16 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I asked you a question and once again you avoid directly answering it. I give up! - 16:27:50 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- What are you giving up on? Read my posts next time. - 16:32:28 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Once again, repeating myself... Holism (n.) 1. the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts. 2. an approach to healing or healthcare, often involving therapies outside the mainstream of medicine, in which isolated symptoms or conditions are considered secondary to one's total physical and psychologial state. //// Which both mean that problems should be looked at from the largest perspective possible. What causes the little problems? What is affecting the whole system? What effects does the whole system have on us? - 16:45:12 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Now how would you describe holism? - 16:46:08 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Hey! I gotta'kick out of the flick "The Blair Witch Project". I usually don't involve myself with such kidstuff, but it wasn't a bad movie. I was intrigued by its low cost production and some of its reported quality character o'being heavily loaded with imagination. - 17:23:24 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Josh, the definition that I would imagine your working with is the theory that a whole culture or organism is a more rich field of study than it's parts or symptoms. - 19:31:10 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- While holism may be a great idea, it doesn't work out for every case in which it could be employed. For instance, a person is diagnosed with a tumor. One can eat well, exercise well, be happy etc. etc. and the tumor will still be there. The only way to get rid of the tumor is to "reduce" the therapy to the tumor itself. - 19:35:07 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- If you read my bio, the example of a tumor is very relevant to me. Without getting too much into detail, the doctors have so far been able to remove most of it. But going back to find the indications of its causes point to the treatment they used to cure my childhood Leukemia: cranial radiation (which was a very experimental and aggressive treatment). So in removing the tumor, they solved only part of the problem, but holistically we have to look all the way back to what causes Leukemia and what can we do to prevent it, because the answers they had for me at the time were only a temporary solution, which lead to other complications. Do you see what I mean? They only treated the symptoms and not the causes of the original problem. I'm not sure what you mean by 'The only way to get rid of the tumor is to "reduce" the therapy to the tumor itself'... How does reducing therapy cure anything? I'm talking about preventative care (personally and world-wide) through holistic perceptions. Solving things piece-by-piece isn't getting us anywhere. - 20:06:04 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- What I meant by reducing was to limit the treatment to the problem area which isn't very holistic. Although there are many causes for many things, some which I agree with you, can be erased, there are other causes which would pertain to the individual themselves, such as genetic predispostion. Over all though, I agree that a holistic approach isn't a bad idea at all. - 21:04:29 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: Still going over the various articles now on the 'Links' part of this site. You've placed some very distressing pieces for one as myself to read. While the numbers for assorted aspect of religion vary, these numbers are reported nonetheless. I got a laugh out of that one bunch who said the view o'calvinism ought to be reinstated since that "was what" the founding fathers[USA] once held when or while they drew up the declaration and the constitution. A few days ago I bemoaned WJC's designs on monitoring the I-net, now, after reviewing some of those acts, e.g., as the Kansas board of education, for religion I am now no longer as concerned. It looks like to me that numerous people for whatever reason, or whatever it is, want the invisible and unknowable instead of just working. - 21:24:04 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Again lookin'around, having breesed thru the chat site for the LA shooter thing, from there I did not come away with an impression that made me think people want to be religious. Sure there were posts for religion but nothing of the likes I thought would be made, if such support was present as the action taken by that Kansas article had me thinking was so. Of that article, perse, I was seriously inclined to to think lots of people want a godthing. Live chat sites as that LA shooter line, allows me to think that religion is being put before placed before the public by the media. The next question, who wants that done? Why do they want it done? and so on. - 22:41:59 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- What about the other questions? Any opinions on them? (You might have scroll back to the older posts) - 23:50:01 on 11 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:MARLENE - thanks for the update on OZ. Would you believe in the last session of episodes, it was so disturbing I couldn't watch it anymore? Rather a departure from my usual diet of realism! - 1:34:33 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - regarding your question to me as to whether being asked about "Ishmael" 2 days in row was coincidence or sychronicity, I must say that it was coincidental. I am a voracious reader, and so was the person I was talking with, so many book titles had been mentioned. The fact that it was another person I met in a different atheist forum also lends to the probablity that a book of this sort would be mentioned is high. - 1:37:23 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH/MARLENE - this word "holism" (IMHO) can merely be substituted for the word "educated" in areas where medicine is involved. What do we know about the body? What do we know about the mind? What we do know is this "if a person isn't well psychology, they will not be well physically". That is why there is a plethora of books about how one has to confront an illness with a clear mind, why laughter is the best medicine, and so on. If a person educates themselves about their illness, instead of just taking a doctor's advice, a naturopath's advice, or some quack's advice, that person will have a far better chance of dealing with an illness, and either healing faster, or dying with more dignity. I just think it's sad that people have to rely on books and labels to understand this concept. - 1:42:33 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I've answered what I think of holism... Now, do I think that holism interferes with atheism? No, not with the definition of holism being discussed right now....How else would you explain evolution without including everything you know and live by? I agree with evolution to this point because of the physical evidence available. What I personally know or what values or vices I live by does not bear evidence for evolution.....What things would you leave out? As I have explained previously, evolution and evolutionary psychology are two different theories. The latter having much less supporting evidence than the former....What would you say knowledge is? ....What one knows, a range of information. Or it can mean all that is known or can be learned, the sum of what is known. Then of course it can mean sexual intercourse. ... Is there an end to knowledge? If not, then what does improvement mean? ...Since knowledge is the sum of what is known, in the present moment, it is the sum, the total, all that there is right now. But the good thing about it is we learn constantly and can always aquire more knowledge. Is there an end to the latter definition, only those who take Viagra know for sure...... Do you think we're gonna spend the next million years on this planet just to adapt to new environmental situations?... I'm not certain we humans will be here in the next million years. All the planning, thinking and other survival techniques are done to adapt to our enviroment. The enviroment may change drastically where all our skills will be useless or the enviroment may change in less dramatic ways allowing us to adapt. - 1:50:30 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- Well, you just have to get back into OZ. Shillengers(sp) kid has just turned up in the Emerald City and you can be sure that Tobias has found a way to repay Shillenger. It's starting right now so...gotta go! - 1:56:19 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Education lets us understand the illness, but holistic views look for the environmental and external physical signs for the cause of the illness. Holism deals more with preventative care. Most cases for tumors or gall bladder problems, for example, are caused by environmental stress which comes from outside of the body, so understanding the illness is great, and would most likely lead traditional doctors to remove the tumor or gall bladder as a temporary solution, but the external stress is still there.. and would most likely lead to more complications. A holistic approach would have been to have had a healthy exercise program and a healthy diet first, then surgery if necessary, second. - 3:39:35 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- So you don't feel that evolution is more than physical? You don't think our base for knowledge evolves? Some people say that consciousness and critical thinking are the result from all the extra time we accumulated from mastering survival. We had the time to plan and strategize our lives, and on, and on... Our intellectual growth can be seen in stages, just like physical evolution. I don't know how much you know about this stuff, but I'll explain it the best I can. We can see in history how certain biological forms were developed at the same points in time at opposite end of the world (called non-locality). One of the theories for this is called morphogenesis, described by morphic fields. These fields are described as a habit of nature which occur in non-organic and living systems and each time they happen, they are more likely to happen again. Biochemist Richard Sheldrake suggests that these morphic fields are also associated with thought and behavior. When something is learned once, it is more easily learned later by someone else. In other words, a pattern of thought is more easily produced once it has been produced before. This can be accounted for in what we what call universal archetypes. The archetypes are built up across eons of time at different places in the world, and they virtually mean the same things..... So what this is all suggesting is that knowledge, including values and vices, etc. are learned in stages and in spurts of growth. These morphic fields have also been used to account for quantum potential as well. This is obviously a short description of it all, but understanding our holistic existence and responsibility is the result of understanding the ability we have on the quantum level to affect everything we know and live by. - 4:26:12 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:CARL: I like to read anti-atheist material. I don't read it for sport exactly. I'm certain you remember Tony the Xtian. He and I corresponded for some months. It was often frustrating, for us both I'm certain, but I came to like and respect him. However, I never did feel like he came to understand my position, which of course is a position I share with many, many others. Since that time I've been looking for religionists or theologians who speak to my particular beliefs, which would indicate that they understand said beliefs. No luck so far. Still looking. - 4:29:50 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Hi JOSH. - 4:30:23 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Hey Grant. What's shaking? - 4:31:53 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Oh, you know... just checking in on the electron world. :-) - 4:33:53 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - long before the advent of pesticides and other chemicals...long before the ozone layer began to deplete...long before the Black Plague...there was disease. Hippocrates spent a great deal of time dealing with the "white cell disease", which we know as leukemia. If it is your thought that disease is caused by external forces, what then killed people who ate nothing but vegetables, kept themselves hygenic (as the Chinese did from the advent of their history)? It is incredibly naive to think that we could live without fear of illness if we ate well and exercised. In fact, did not Jim Fixx, the master of running, not die of a heart attack? Our bodies are, by natural causes, meant to break down eventually. Yes, we can live longer and healthier provided we weren't born with corrupt genes by leading a healthy lifestyle, but we will never be able to keep the Grim Reaper away for good. Now, tell me, how is your theory any different than a person being educated? It is one and the same, and it this branding of your modus operendi is merely a way for people to get gigs doing public speaking and writing books. - 14:24:58 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: So far of all the visiting religious types here that one fellow only, so far, seemed he had anything to really say about and for his religious ideas. Of the few times he exchanged ideas w/me I think now that I was impressed by a rare honest effort by a godthing adherent to say of it as that god-notion was or came to be meaningful to him. The religious fundamentalists however, are either a form of comedy- so we ought to laugh at them, or just another soap opera- there will always be another new twist to the story. Is theology really a something? - 14:41:11 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I didn't say that exercise and good diets would make us immortal, that all illnesses are caused by external forces (I only gave two examples), or even that holistic medicine was 100% effective, but that holistic approaches to medicine are more effective than treating diseases one by one. We can cure Leukemia to some extent, but we still don't know how to prevent it. Two of the doctors I talk with have discussed a gene replacement device. I don't know all the specifics, but due to the mapping of the DNA code and from collecting healthy genes from the entire population, geneticists will be able to replace defective genes to some extent (within the next 20 years). Who knows if gene replacement will work, but this way doesn't deal with an individual understanding their own disease or illness exclusively, it deals with understanding the whole body through an overall genetic population. I don't think we can ever cure or understand anything in isolation. Like I said, we can do our best to cure the disease but what caused the disease is still out there and the problem isn't solved. This is what makes traditional, mechanistic medicine unreliable in the long-run. - 15:19:42 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT01: Upon catching up on news this a.m., I see that Kansas will no longer concern its educational disciplines with matters of evolution. The Kansans say, simpletons that they are, they choose to say that evolution is confusing and deceptive. That may very well be a true descriptive account. I think too, we may have a living example right here w/JOSH. The notion of evolution is a doorway. Here one can see this notion thing in the terms of,"Myth of the Cave". Does one bring out with them the meanings of the cave for, for what reasons does the cave's meaning have for anything outside it? Of this point the particular concern could be a matter of a theory of knowledge. What exactly have the Kansans rejected? Surely all Kansans are not stupid even though the Univ.presidents have said that act sets the Kansas educational system back 100 years, they must have a better option in view. And, o'course I don't mean the scientific-like views and accounts of pre-scientific barely not cavemen goat and sheep herders. - 16:36:35 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Why do you insist on placing yourself and others of this room above skeptical standards? Don't confuse the fact that in bringing the ideas to this room that I invented these theories, number one. Number two, these are opinions that have already endured the countless hours of skepticism. In other words, if you have something to say about my comments, don't make me the focal point of your conversations to other people. That's a poor generalization. - 16:56:11 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I haven't much time today but I will investigate futher into some of the statements you made in your post to me. But to cut the crap and get down to basics, I suspect you buy into a theory called the conscious evolution and even further into Jung's theory of collective consciousness, non? - 17:14:46 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: For cryin out loud JOSH, I ain't pickin on ya', shit! Don't you learn of yourself from what others say of you or about you? I still learn of me,as sometimes I hear good and other times I hear things that cause to me to sit back and review me. You are a bit on the hypersensitive side - 17:21:14 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- What's the alternative? Darwinisn and random mutations? How could we have adapted this long with mutations alone? Consciousness would seem to be a big part of it, our ability to creatively adapt. Yes, Jung's theories on collective unconscious are very acceptable to me as well. - 17:25:55 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Still researching what you had to say in your post. You mentioned "Richard Sheldrake" but when it comes to morphogenesis , I think you meant Rupert Sheldrake, this guy. - 18:10:30 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- I told you Gabby existed, lol! - 18:12:22 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: of the names Sheldrake, Richard and Rupert, of the latter[your link], kinda'interesting. I was wondering where JOSH got the dialogue I think I begin to regularly see here. Thats some far out stuff. Hey JOSH! is that where you picked up some o'your terms? Maybe it oughta'be run through the baloney test of Sagan? - 18:36:24 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:Without God, there would be no coincidences - 18:41:02 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:PETER- That made my day! - 18:59:09 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Ever see a book called, "Why People believe Strange Things", I just saw it. When I saw it, I smiled and immediately thought of your link about that Rupert Sheldrake and the things he was saying in his interview. I find it hard to read such stuff and take it serious. The piece seems to invite the question that if one does not believe in a god because its invisible, then do you believe in thoughts, they are invisible. - 19:44:31 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - my point is that your "holism" is only a fancy word for "education". Now, you can't be terribly serious about this because you've already given two examples of your lack of knoweldge in this area. When I posted that bit about lobular transplants, you admitted you know very little about the repiratory system. That is normal for someone who has no concerns with their respiratory system. The next example you gave was today, when you admitted you no very little about gene replacement therapy. I happen to know a lot about it, but I am not taking the holistic approach...I am taking the approach of a person who wants to stay educated on medical processes and research. As far as your statement about how doctors may only treat an illness istead of trying to discover its cause, that again falls under the auspices of education. Doctors are merely providing a service, and if a patient does educate themselves, and finds themself in the position to possibly know more about a certain condition, then the patient has right to shop around for another doctor. And I must say too that there are thousands of researches in almost every country in the world looking for the causes of disease. I don't know if you are one of these alarmists that is convinced disease will never be cured if pharmaceutical companies have their way, but talk like that pisses me off. - 19:49:49 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Just one more shooting to malk to the name of Christianity. These jerks in California get cault for a number of murders and they clame the "Religious Cause" they represent saying Jesus cannot return until all Jews and Negros have been killed and eliminated from the face of the earth. Sounds like a religion I've never heard of before. Maybe Satan religion, but sure not the acts of a Christian. Makes me sick to hear people doing all these hateful things to others and say they're doing it in the name of Jesus! - 20:10:53 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..see we atheists and christians agree on some points:RICKY- I suspect your right. These white supremacists only use christianity to try to support their apparent. They use a verse in the new testament to support their claims where they interpret it to mean that jews are the children of satan. Of course IMO the religion part of it all is irrelevant. I think if someone wants to be kind it's because they are just a social person (like yourself) and it has nothing to do with a god. On the other hand, if a person wants to be nasty like this Beaufort (sp)it's because they are anti-social and it has nothing to do with a evil enity whether it be satan or a demon or whatever. - 20:33:28 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Ricky- that was supposed to read "apparent hate" - 20:34:47 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Saving space on a discussion board and not having specific information handy to discuss at the moment does not account for what you claim as "a lack of knowledge". Making doctors into customer service people I think is a valuable waste of their education. Why should their sole purpose to be maintenance workers faced with the same problems each day? That's exactly the problem. Doctors have become legal drug dealers. They say, "This is your problem. Take this pill" or "Have this surgery, and you'll be okay." It's the quick-fix solution that has no permanent stability, because the SOURCE for the problem still remains. It's the same with the pharmaceutical companies. With these kinds of practices they're bound to stay in business. We can see the effects of antibiotics. The viruses just become more powerful, making the problem even greater. And look at these prescription drugs on TV nowadays; to cure one problem you take a pill that has a whole list of side effects. This is your answer? Do you see what I mean? Holistic approaches are not totally expected to erradicate disease and illness, but they have the ability to make an individual's life more enjoyable than quick-fix, temporary solutions. - 20:42:34 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Still working on my response. I think maybe some of our differences may be a result of wording. Going with the theory of evolution, our brains today are no different than the brains of our 100,000 year-old ancestors. What has changed is our culture and that has changed through education and is constantly changing. Our brains are changing but we are aquiring more knowledge. Do you agree with this? Whether or not you agree this process is not a process of evolution but a process of cultural change. - 21:00:35 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene and ALL- Yes, thank you for the valuable article. I did mean to write Rupert, instead of Richard. However, now having admitted this, I'm going to have explain my apparent compassion for what seems like a set of theories from a scientist who also claims to be Christian. I will say that this is first time I heard him mention is religious distinction, but this is almost indifferent considering his beliefs are more like Buddhism, which was the original base for Christianity anyway, and I would have never made the slightest inclination for dogmatic values (which he also mentions). Regardless, if people want to discuss anything in that article, that would be great. There is a specific section where he discusses exactly what we talk about in here in respect to minimalist skepticism. - 21:02:30 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: Last eve, watchin'all the tv programs carry on'bout the LA shooter, one discussed the sanity/mental health of that fella. The point that clicked on my alarm, the psycho doc said that "doctors" in that discipline can have a person arrested if they- the doctors, have determined that that person is dangerous to others. That doctor I guess was liscensed in NY. That sure sounded like psychologists or whatever they are, are actually just a bit more than a new religion. - 21:03:11 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Making myself more clear...the former post should have read "Our brains aren't changing or evolving" - 21:03:30 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I was writing my previous post before I read yours. I was referring to a revolution of thought, knowledge, and culture etc. I didn't mean to imply our brains were evolving, so yes. - 21:05:41 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:that should be "evolution of thought"... *slaps my own head" - 21:06:46 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- So can we agree that thought/invention or discovery/=knowledge is a product of cultural change and not of evolution? - 21:08:54 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Yikes! are be back to square one? - 21:09:59 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Our physical brain is not evolving so much as our thoughts/culture/knowledge are, and our use of the brain. See what I mean? Our pattern of organization stays the same, but the structural patterns change. - 21:21:39 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- How about using "changing" instead of evolving and we have an agreement in this area. - 21:35:54 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Changing doesn't account for the levels of understanding. Evolution of thought implies stages of growth, patterns of thought, a base to learn from, etc. - 22:44:54 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Are you saying that our 100,000 year old ancestor wasn't capable of our level of understanding? - 23:20:55 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I am surprised at your attitude towards the medical community, given the fact that it was that community that discovered there was something wrong with you after your accident. Yes, doctors are merely service providers. Yes, they have many years of education, but that education is needed to provide the service they are handsomely compensated for in North America (not all countries hold doctors in such high esteem). If you can't look past the degrees hanging on the office wall, and can't see that person as merely a person providing a particular service for you, then you are not an educated patient. Maybe the doctors you have dealt with have the attitude "take this pill", "have this surgery", but not all doctors are like that. They are allowed to be the way you think they are because the conumers of their service allow them to be that way, afraid to ask questions or offer other opinions. People aren't taking antibiotics like candy anymore because they are educated enough to know the problems associated with regular use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. But in the defense of antibiotics, they saved millions of people at one point. It is the evolution of bacteria that is causing antibiotics to become a problem, which is a natural process. These bacteria may have evolved anyway, but the use of antibiotics is exacerbating the evolution. However, man is endeavouring to stay one step ahead, because there are some things that a healthy life style and good mental health can't combat, as much as we would like that to be the case. But the only thing I argue with your opinion is that you act as if holism is something new. It's not new, and in the old days we referred to it as "good for me". Do you understand what I am saying? - 23:22:44 on 12 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Did everyone go fishing? JOSH- I hope you didn't take that last question as an insult or something. I would really like to know your answer. - 3:54:53 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- We have the advantage of 100K years of understanding over our ancestors. That's alot of information that they didn't have. We didn't come to this level of understanding overnight, obviously? Time, and evolution of ideas has a lot to do with it, I would think. -- JOETTE - Medically speaking, it took the doctors over 15 years to realize I had the tumor. That's not exactly efficient or a credible statement for them. It was also brought to my attention after the surgery that patients that underwent cranial radiation at early stages in their lives had similar problems. The symptoms I was having were rationalized as signs of depression, and allergies, etc, but if just one of the doctors had taken the time to look at the whole system of problems I was having, and been more careful to understand my previous medical condition, I wouldn't have had to rely upon a sheer accident (pun intended) for them to find it- but then, of course, they took care of it. In my case, it was the doctor's radical (and effective) approach to curing my Leukemia caused the tumor. So that's where I'm pointing to the imperfectness of our current system, not to say I am not grateful for their honest efforts to fix the problems as they came about. And I am not arguing for holistic medicine as a new discovery, just a better way of solving most problems AND as the best way to observe a situtation - and maybe as a small example of this, my experiences can be benefited by others, and we can take into consideration that holistic perceptions are better for the world problems as well, seeing how isolated symptoms are only small parts of the whole problem. - 3:58:07 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:CARL-- I'm going to have trouble talking about the Kansas creationist thing without using various configurations of sentences using the word 'ignorant' so I guess I'll just say I find room for disagreement with the Kansas folks. I think quantum mechanics is responsible for the decline of society and setbacks to previous scientific advancements! (Just kidding.) - 4:03:40 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- not insulted, just busy today...(c:... - 4:04:44 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant, you kidder, you! haha. - 4:05:44 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I can't tell if you were amused or dis-amused. The perils of cold text, I guess. - 4:12:36 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:GRANT - I agree...I was accosted by a gun-wielding QM expert just the other day! LOL! - 4:15:04 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- ...more like appreciative of amusing comments. Life is too fun to not be amused by it. Thanks for reminding me. - 4:16:59 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Hi JOETTE-- Glad I bumped into you. I'm not sure I understand the last sentence of your last post, though I have the gist of it and am in agreement. The part I'm thinking of is: "...in the old days we referred to it as "good for me". - 4:31:24 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- If we were able to go back and bring a child back here from a culture of about the 100,000 years ago, and then raise that child as we would raise our own, that kid would be typing into this discussion with no problems at all. He would just have been able to learn from a larger collection of knowledge. There is no evolution in thinking. Thinking is happening in the same way as it happened 100,000 years ago. - 4:59:56 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:CARL02-- Have you noticed how few people regard scientific method, for example, as important or valuable? Things such as the Kansas creationism issue seem to be only understandable for me in terms of what the various behaviorist types have to say. I'm not speaking in the strict sense of behaviorism as this link defines it, (though it is up my street) but of those thinkers who concern themselves with human behavior such as insisting on holding beliefs which have no internal rational consistency and are contrary to any direct evidence. - 12:18:37 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:CARL03-- I happened to be reading about sculptor Jacob Epstein... says he was criticised for excessive realism. Seems ironic to me. Maybe that's the problem with evolutionary theory- excessive realism. - 12:42:22 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:CARL04-- Theologians? Why sure. Just not on the internet, it seems. - 13:02:25 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene, Marlene- We already agreed that our physical brain is not evolving so much as our thoughts/culture/knowledge are, and our use of the brain. You brought up the old hereditary/environment debate, which we're not talking about. We're talking about the evolution of thought. Knowledge is a process. They don't start teaching kids QM in kindergarten because there's a whole base of information they have to learn and discover before they can comprehend QM. In essence, that child you want to bring here would bypass what we have compressed into 5 to 12 years of school, the 100K years that separates him/her from his/her original time frame. That larger collection of knowledge is what we're talking about. It took 100K years for us to build that base so far. - 16:57:40 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: nice link, I've added it to my favorites for those quick and dirty references we sometimes find handy in discussions here, or elsewhere. Of those Kansans, maybe they will stand back and upon some reconsideration[s] they might not go atavistic and really go off in or on some very progressive pursuits. Maybe they ain't stupid nor do they really prefer ignorance. - 17:44:30 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH, Josh, Josh, again the collection of knowledge isn't evolution, it's a collection of knowledge. Our physical brain has not evolved at all. Thought again occurs the very same way it did 100,000 years ago. There is no evolution of thought. - 19:35:39 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- I just picked up that issue of SI that you mentioned. It looks like some good reading. I also picked up an issue of Free Inquiry (f i). I haven't read this one. It's put out by a humanist organization. - 19:40:02 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Well now, that knowledge is merely a collection doesn't have the look of some far fetched extrapolation. I have pondered that and to word it as being a collection is ok. I've always liked the description that it is the wealth of humanity. If that description is acceptable then as wealth, its worth might be that thing JOSH aims at. It looks like in time which we capture and call knowledge, is just a way to keep our offspring from reinventing the wheel in every generation, eh? - 19:58:52 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..I disagree with using the word "evolve" in these areas:CARL- Collections can be invalubable. I have no arguement that the knowledge humanity has aquired over the their exsistence on earth seems to be a overwhelming feat, my arguement is that we humans haven't evolved since then. Cavemen as you call them, lol, had the same capacity for thought and learning as we do. Knowledge has increased, of course and is ever increasing. For instance once we've studied and named all the mammals, there are lots of insects out there that have yet to be studied and named. Culture is also ever changing, not evolving, but changing. It's customs, arts and circumstances. - 21:01:35 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: In regard to that word in particular I understand your concern. I'm sure there is a strain to keep the word within a knowable context. Its always interesting as such strain and effort always bring to mind, for me, images of a psuedo-whatever. If you ever get a chance pickup the book titled,"Dominion". It essentially questions whether man and nature can get along with man and culture. - 21:48:18 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- Sounds interesting and I've never heard it. Who wrote it. I don't order on-line but buy from a book store here. If I have the title and author they will order it in. - 23:06:31 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Ewe Who? Josh where are you?? - 23:07:16 on 13 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- For the third time, we already agreed that our physical brain is not evolving so much as our thoughts/culture/knowledge are, and our use of the brain. 100K years ago they had an entirely different perception of the world, different spacial perceptions, different conceptual realities, different use of language. There is no comparison. A collection of knowledge is useless unless we have the ability to grow and learn with the new information. We are not robots that just process information. We use it. We learn from the past. Like Carl said (I can't believe I'm using what Carl says), we don't reinvent the wheel each generation. That is evolution of thought. --- What I don't get is why you'd be looking for me (in regard to your last post).. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If not, just please think about what I'm saying so I don't have to repeat it again. - 0:16:08 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene #$%^YOU:JOSH- Don't bother repeating it again because it's pure and simple bullshit just as Jung's collective conscious is pure and simple bullshit just as most of what you propose is pure and simple bullshit. - 0:44:01 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene losing all patience!:JOSH- We DO NOT agree that "our physical brain is not evolving so much as our thoughts/culture/knowledge are" for the third damn time! - 0:46:18 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:AND NO! Josh I don't want to agrue with you. I don't even want to discuss with you. In fact anything I will have to say about your ideas will not be addressed to you at all. I will discuss them with others or just post my opinions. It hasn't been nice! - 0:49:39 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Well now I'm convinced you make a good argument against the evolution of thought. (At least you're consistent) - 1:42:20 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene playing Josh's game:JOSH- Do you always have to have the last word? HUG - 2:10:08 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Since there is no one else here to talk to, you'll do. I surprised you have "evolved" your thought enough to "use what Carl says". In case no one has enlightened you lately, your far from all that. - 2:14:51 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:For anyone feeling I'm a total bitch, please read this review of the Unconscious Quantum. IMO this quackery is more distressing than simple religious myth. - 4:48:46 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- IMO, it is religious myth in the making. Who knows, maybe Josh is the next Joseph Smith! :-) - 13:03:11 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Before you get mad at me, I did try to explain to you why I think your views are exactly like religious ones, but you blew me off as terminally negative or something. - 13:04:46 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- Free Inquiry is the magazine Stenger writes a monthly article for. I'll be interested to hear what you think of the criticism of Stephen Jay Gould and Darwin's view of science in relation to religion in the Skeptical Inquirer. I'm suspecting, and I know that this may be a shock, that I may have actually held a mistaken view about this. I'm still puzzling it out. - 13:10:37 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- I've read Part2 of Dawkins' article in FI. I thought that was very good. I haven't had the time to really digest what I've read in SI so I think I will re-read those articles tonight. For today, I'm going to a real old-fashioned country wedding. The wedding will be in the farm house and the reception will be BBQ'd beef, baked beans etc and the party after will be an old-fashioned band playing in an implement shed. Dress is country/western which means yee hah! I can wear my jeans. - 13:35:20 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:Now children, let's get along...*hahahahaha*...GRANT..in my post where I say holism is being replaced by what we used to say in the old days as "good for me", I meant that at least when we were kids, we ate our veggies, had physical education in school, and so on because it was "good for us". I don't like this term "holism", because it is being marketed and manufactured as something new and revolutionary, and it is neither. It has given rise to a plethora of quacks (not to be confused with QUAKE) and people are falling for it. Now, I would like to say that I think that Josh and I are on the same page w.r.t. to a person needing to take care of themselves to the best of their ability, but it's just the way this is being presented to the world that I take exception to. Now, I think I'll go munch on some roots. - 18:17:35 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH/MARLENE...I've been reading your debate on evolution with great interest. I haven't entered into the discussion because I'm just not sure which of you agree with. I watched a program on TLC last week on evolution, and it was quite fascinating. If you didn't catch it (sorry, I can't remember the exact name of the program), there was a lot of time spent on how scientists can't agree on how man actual evolved. Some camps say it was "Lucy" who was the missing link in Africa, while others are certain it was "Java Man" in Indonesia. I think it is nice to hear all sides because that gives those of us on the fence to get more information. My own comments...I don't know that the actual physical brain is not evolving. There have been other parts of our body that have evolved, or devolved...like our appendics, our tonsils...other parts are changing, like the ear canal. So why wouldn't our brain be changing as well? Isn't physical evolution purely a reaction to a physical environment? If we were measured against early homo sapiens, do you think our sense of smell, our hearing and sight, might not be better then than today because it was a matter of survival for early man? In Japan, the average person is growing an inch taller than the last generation, thanks to preservatives in food. And I figure in the next few generations, as people spend more time on computers and such, our shape will change...instead of nice flat tummies and firm gluttinous maximus, we will see obvious signs of computer gut and chat butt. It's really interesting to think about these things, IMHO. - 18:27:12 on 14 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH.. not succumbed by needless opposition..:Back from a brief hiatus. *stretch* Well, I still think it a bit strange that I can spend so much time arguing for all the benefits of realizing quantum potentialities and of holism awareness in detail, which stress every bit of what would be best for humankind and our planet, in general, and all with references, and feel like people would rather things remain the way they are in spite of our destructive track record. And I will ask again... based on what? And against what? What's best for the planet and all it's inhabitants? Or for what's best for the temporary life of the individual and his/her respective theories? What does the opposition solve in this case? What do we have to lose for accepting complete world ecological responsibility onto ourselves? - 2:35:35 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Thanks for your input, but Marlene and I were discussing the evolution of thought over the last 100K years, which she dismisses. Apparently, we do not learn and grow. We just collect information. What do you think? - 2:38:21 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - you puzzle me. What, in any of these posts, leads you to the conclusion that the denizens of this site want things to stay as they are? Do you honestly believe that we just sit on our laurels and expect others to solve social problems? You seem so intent on being a "teacher" that you seem not to understand the position any one else takes. You know what your trouble is Josh? You are young, and idealistic. You seem to think that by repeating the policies and procedures of what you call holism is actually going to have an impact on society. You also try to pass off your convoluted QM jargon, when you know that it is landing on empty ears (well, eyes actually). Not because we don't understand it, but because it doesn't mean anything in the lives of more than 5 billion people. And even our inhouse expert, Rob, has asked you what relevancy your posts have, and you can't come up with any answer to that. Now, my suggestion to is, start listening instead of dismissing or reacting. - 2:43:05 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - in response to your question about your discussion with Marlene, I think you are both right. The way I see it, our knowledge base has evolved because the information we absorb now is necessary for us to lead productive lives. However, if society was the same throughout the ages, there would be no evolution. It is my thought that evolution is merely adaption. - 2:47:34 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Here are some things I'd like to clear up. I didn't say anyone sits on their laurels. I said people remain content with mechanistic temporary solutions. Something is only convoluted until you understand what it means, and yes, I did come up with an answer for Rob- but was it too convoluted for the 5 billion people, 4 of which come into this room? You think it is a trouble to be young and idealistic? It wouldn't be idealistic if everyone accepted that we have always been responsible for our decisions on this planet. That's what holism means and that's what QM has identified: We have an impact on the entire world. Understanding holism awareness and quantum mechanics makes us realize this. And we created society which means that we don't adapt to society, we make it suit our needs. Society is our own design. Which ties back into holism awareness.//// So based on your misconstrued posts, I am lead to believe that it's not the information you reject it's that someone younger than you is coming in here with idealistic views that challenge the ones you've had for so long and your automatic instinct is to dismiss them as foolish and impossible and as the stuff that dreams are made of, because obviously people like you have lived perfectly normal lives without knowing anything like this. And it doesn't matter if the current ways aren't perfect because they are of the majority opinion at this time and if holism awareness was so great it would be presented by more than just silly, young people in a discussion room...when in fact, the information has been available for decades but people like you refuse to listen. No offense, please. I just call them as I see them, especially when people think I am the one with the problems. - 3:50:44 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I have no problem with your age. I do have a problem with this know-it-all attitude which is obviously not bourne of experience. And how do you know if we are content with mechanistic temporary solutions? You've read a few books, good for you. Try taking some real responsibility for what's around you, like many of us here have. - 5:12:02 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I don't have any problems with you personally, and I know it does absolutely no good to say that I have been exactly where you are idealism-wise, or that Joette is seeing this more clearly than you, (possibly because of more experience) but I can tell you for an absolute objective fact that you are misunderstanding what is going on here. You don't have to listen. You don't have to agree. You don't have to like anything you see here. However, it won't get any easier here for you, and it doesn't matter if the reason is that we're all a bunch of old stupid cynics or worse, if you don't try to understand what others are saying. You're coming across as assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and feeling it's not necessary to substantiate your claims because as any fool can see they are self-evident. It doesn't matter if you are right or not- it's not going to work for you. - 5:32:15 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- I'm not saying we are not evolving. There is evidence to show we are. BUT Josh is claiming in his posts that we've evolved "the sixth sense" a form of ESP (or at least some of us have). There is no evidence of this claim. In fact a number of tests have been done on this and none have come up with any evidence. This claim for a radical evolutionary jump like this would be no different than someone claiming that we've developed a second heart so when one wears out the second can take over. - 14:45:12 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:One doesn't have to be young to put forth ideas formed as a result of wishful thinking, remember Bill. I just get a little impatient with those who hear the sound of one hand clapping. Another complaint I have is that it's one thing to wishful think by one's self but to teach it as fact to a bunch of gullible people can cause a problem. - 15:26:15 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:MARLENE - I agree on each point. - 17:27:33 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:I still see some misunderstandings here of what I am saying, even after I have substantiated my claims over and over for the last few weeks. So either people have chosen not to understand on purpose, or it's been one big misunderstanding. I'll say, hopefully for the last time: these theories have nothing to do with ESP or irrational claims, religion or myths, naiviety or lack of experience, mind control techniques or loss of individualism, or anything else that isn't second nature to what we already know. It's about perceptions and responsibility - and the strange thing is that most of you agree with me anyway but have taken the stance that using other sources to add claim to this is ridiculous, when in fact, the more we study QM and understand holistic values it strengthens what we already knew: That we have gotten where and who we are because of our own choices. And realizing our past potential is the key to unlocking our future potential. No magic, nothing artificial, just a better understanding of why things work the way they do. It was never an attempt to make me a leader of some fascist group. It was an attempt to discuss a few points to broaden our perspective of things. I hope, in the least, I have cancelled some of the misconceptions, because they all seemed to be nonsense and biased opinions, not insightful discussion. - 20:39:21 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Uncle - 20:57:59 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette...will take the first shift of sitting in the corner and wearing the dunce cap... :JOSH - yup, you gottit...no insightful disscussion here, only nonsense and biased opinions. GRANT - I second that motion! - 22:56:43 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:ADAM ACE - you ever look here anymore? I miss you!! - 23:00:18 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:.. and they still nit-pick with one or two details, seemingly in disregard to how I present myself. --JOETTE-- Look again. The misconceptions were 'not insightful discussion' and 'biased'.... Do you see the problem I have now with people and their misconceptions? Guess not. --GRANT-- I know how you feel, as well. I was thinking about giving up, too. - 23:34:57 on 15 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- You want to work this through? Should we begin again in a more systematic and orderly manner, or give up? Part of the problem in this type of situation, I think, is that one person has to converse simultaneously with multiple others and doesn't get to build an ordered structure of beliefs. Just a thought... - 0:14:12 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - you may not believe this, but I am quite an intelligent person. I am well educated. I have a profession, not just a job. I can usually debate with no problem, but I guess I just don't understand what it is you are talking about. Shall we invoke the KISS principle and try again? - 0:20:57 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - I should qualify my last post. I understand what you are talking about, I am just at odds at how you don't seem to get the gist of what I have said in response. - 0:23:39 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette and Grant- Just so you know, I never doubted either of your intelligences (that doesn't make sense, but I think you know what I mean). I've never even implied that I thought you were dumb. Here's the problem: When I do explain things they always seem to get misconstrued, so I explain it again, and what might seem like aggressive tendencies is an absolute frustration in having to repeat myself and then I end up having to defend against the misconceptions, and then I get labeled as 'oversensitive' for my frustrations. And now here we are. I agree, this isn't about who is right or wrong. I never told anyone they were wrong (to the contrary of certain personalities in here), just that they fail to see things from the perspective that I am trying to show, and then certain people go and put labels on me and the beliefs I discuss based on the misconceptions and/or ignorance of the details. I am certainly aware of your perspectives, because I held them before, too - that is until I realized how limiting they were. Why do I say they are limiting? Because any perspective that does not take into account a holistic (world-wide and universal) affect is subject to a limited world view instead. Let me put it this way, you can take my views as passionate requests to understand something that is only meant with and for the best intentions and future, respectively, or you can take them as silly, wishful thinking with no basis in reality. With my consistent and reference-based approach I hope you see them as the former, and not that I simply have all this extra time to make absurd requests in a discussion room. For the sake of my own original intentions and if your requests are indeed honest, I will be happy to start over. If not, I see no reason to continue in here, and I'm not expecting a petition to keep me from leaving, just so you know. As you may know already, I'm not one for light conversation. Those are exactly the little problems that don't mean much in terms of the bigger picture, the perception I'm trying to show people. - 2:49:12 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - okay, we do agree on some things. I agree that we have to look at the whole picture, and I agree that some things need changing. My difficulty with your posts may be purely semantic. - 3:24:17 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- We seem to be on a merry-go-round here but I'll post what I understand you support. If I'm wrong. I have misunderstood you. You firstly asked if we believe in synchronicity. This is what I understand from Jung. Synchronicity is a principle that has nothing to do with cause and effect. In Jung's opinion it links events having a similar meaning by their coincidence in time rather than sequentially. He claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and the phenomenal world of perception. Synchronicity provides access to the archetypes, which are located in the collective unconscious and are characterized by being universal mental predispositions not grounded in experience. Like Plato's Forms (eidos), the archetypes do not originate in the world of the senses, but exist independently of that world and are known directly by the mind. Unlike Plato, however, Jung believed that the archetypes arise spontaneously in the mind, especially in times of crisis. Just as there are meaningful coincidences, , which open the door to transcendent truths, so too a crisis opens the door of the collective unconscious and lets out an archetype to reveal some deep truth hidden from ordinary consciousness. Mythology, Jung claimed, bases its stories on the archetypes. Mythology is the reservoir of deep, hidden wondrous truths. Dreams and psychological crises, fevers and derangement, chance encounters resonating with "meaningful coincidences," all are gateways to the collective unconscious, which is ready to restore the individual psyche to health with its insights. Jung maintained that these metaphysical notions are scientifically grounded, but they are not empirically testable in any meaningful way. In short, they are not scientific at all, but pseudoscientific. - 4:38:37 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: I took a look at that RUPERT fella's site and noted a few things that could account for what strikes most, it appears, as a yapping by JOSH. RUPERT mentions influences of a hindu thing. I read the article entirely and wondered, does this RUPERT guy dabble with a non-western theory of knowledge? I thought he must, here I recalled the difficulty I had in following the examples and accounts of math as it grew in the history of the Chinese. It was a very different read. I always figgered I understood that greek guy theorm thingy, but when I saw it as the Chinese developed it, wow! It was different. One of my issues with JOSH, he seems to handle his pet peeve- holism, like it's a religion. At least, for example, when I consider a science I know any of it is falsifiable, tentative and has limitations. Are these things of the holism thing? In any case the hindu references directed me to review a piece I have by a Chinese philosopher and the RUPERT piece if it was composed under the influences of the hindu thing, then perhaps "substance" was not its thing, as it is in the western world. - 15:01:48 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
CASPARUS - if you are online, get off NOW! - 16:10:41 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I have this strange feeling that I am about to argue with another one of your cut and paste jobs since you have never been able to discuss these things in so much detail. So I can discuss these things in detail backwards and forwards only to have you resort back to generalizations for which you can only offer your own speculation. (This is that evolution of thought thing we've been talking about. I learn from my mistakes.) -- I will repeat this, however, from Sheldrake's article, "Science is a limited method of inquiry, it looks at repetitive aspects of the natural world." In an evolutionary world, things change. To say biological beings are only affected by evolution is a limiting scope of operations since we co-habitate with nature. This also means that scientific truths change, because what we thought were constants also change. In terms of causality, mechanistic views concentrate on the explicate order, or the physical world as we have accepted it, but the implicate order (of which we see in the in the world through the explicate order) is not defined by locality, and locality is not of primary significance. So what might not seem like direct cause and effect are simply non-local chains. Calling it a pseudo-science is a generalized speculation. - 16:16:05 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I will say, do not confuse religious dogma with spirituality. Try reading the last few paragraphs of Sheldrake's article again. His view of spirituality is quite different. And like I have been saying, the Western mechanistic views are very limiting. 'Substance' is very different in other areas of study. - 16:25:12 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Was not your Sheldrake article also a cut and paste? Only different in it's conclusions than mine? - 17:07:24 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Go back to Aug. 12. I only referenced Sheldrake in concordance with my own thoughts, and I made one quote from him today. They were not cut and paste. -- These are the generalized speculations I've been speaking of, and exactly the reason why I was hesitant to respond to your posts. Let's talk about the details. - 17:45:03 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I think you were the one who gave us the Sheldrake article. - 17:47:05 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Josh- I only referenced the article I posted on Jung in concordance with my thoughts too. What is the difference really to type out a quotes or to cut and paste it although I would imagine most would choose the convience of cut and paste. Really whether we copy or cut and paste has nothing to do with the claims your making. If you can't back your claims with testable evidence then your claims are just that, claims. - 17:54:51 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Upon review of RUPERT's article, what he does therein I think could be, could involve a strawman problem. One of the those things, examples, is "spirituality". He writes that its,"..the well-guarded boundary between the worlds of science and spirituality." For the philosophy o'the western-man its said to involve generally the notions of practical, speculative and the scientific. Western religion is very similar in that all it need do is replace science with religion and still claim practical and speculative for its own. Nowhere here, does either clearly account for what is spiritual. Is this the source of RUPERT's first strawman? I recall that most religious types here drag 'spirituality' in as if that is something unique to them and their point of view. RUPERT swabs the science he means to castigate by painting it religious-like saying of it, that it too is "dogmatic". Is this not just another 'strawman'? What do you know of nonwestern philosophies? - 18:38:02 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- You cut and pasted a WHOLE ARGUMENT today. None of what you said is your thoughts. I used one quote. That's the difference. Move past your generalizations and let's speak about the details. I'm still trying to figure out how you determine what is evidence and what isn't when all you make are poor generalizations without showing that you understand the details. - 18:47:18 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- For your sake I will quote something of Sheldrake's you may have missed: 'Spiritual experience would involve the limits of consciousness and the nature of consciousness. It overlaps with science in the realm of psychology to some extent. So spiritual inquiry has a broader sphere and science a narrower sphere. But I don't see any incompatibility between the two.' That's what I've been saying all along. We can't take the individual out of the experiment or the experience. Dogmatic science tends to look for objective truths about the nature of things, where there inherently can be none. Things change. Evolution happens. People have different perceptions. Non-western philosophies include experience and perception into their theories. There is a big difference. - 18:55:41 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Take notice of how I use quotes in concordance with my own thoughts in my post to Carl. The quote is a minor part of it. Anyone can cut and paste a whole article and add one generalized conclusion at the end, it's better to argue in your own words and support your argument with facts, than the other way around. - 18:59:35 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Obviously this RUPERT guy is your jc it looks like in your estimation he can do no wrong. The strawman is there until he his adherents or any religious adherent can show what is that "broader sphere" of the spritual. One of the check points of the mind and existence is materialism. Outside that is speculation and simple imagination. So, "People have different perceptions." what inna'fuck is that supposed to mean? Do you mean to say anybody and everybody is right, correct, say true, they are not falsifiable, have no limitations and nothing is tentative, that there are absolutes? If you think this then like any common silly religious adherent that hears speaks and knows a godthing, you just want me, maybe the others to, to "believe what you say" and nothing more. - 19:15:55 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:concordance???? Dictionary definition someone, please... - 19:23:02 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- Noticed that too? I thought I'd copy off Josh since he's such a winner. I have no thoughts of my own so please don't blame me. Blame the teacher. Of course the teacher could have meant concurrence but, hey that's a thought, and I don't have any. - 19:36:41 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- The only people who can do wrong in Josh's opinion are those who disagree with him, obviously. Typical religionist IMO. - 19:38:54 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: I don't know about you but JOSH is at the end o'his line o'credit with me. "Support your argument with facts." JOSH points to others when they cut and paste, but, he then says his views and that RUPERT guys are one and the same? I pointed out that I was waitin'for the real JOSH to showup, he redirects me to stuff said by his jc and says its him, what does JOSH mean? Is there a real JOSH here? - 19:43:14 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: I don't know about you but JOSH is at the end o'his line o'credit with me. "Support your argument with facts." JOSH points to others when they cut and paste, but, he then says his views and that RUPERT guys are one and the same? I pointed out that I was waitin'for the real JOSH to showup, he redirects me to stuff said by his jc and says its him, what does JOSH mean? Is there a real JOSH here, anywheres? - 19:44:20 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Just thot I'd copy and paste myself and tack on on my own word. - 19:46:11 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I see this continual pattern in you and Marlene. First you claim you don't understand something, then I explain it, then you make up a ridiculous, outrageous conclusion which makes you feel comfortable for not having to understand something. The point is, if you don't understand something- leave it at that. Your conclusions show more stubbornness that insightfulness. --- Rupert happens to be one person that we have singled out. There are thousands of others who understand what I am trying to explain to this room, and many are not religious. Like I said, you have to learn to distinguish from religious dogma and spirituality. To limit the mind to materialism is a poor speculation on your part. Do you deny that different people have different perceptions? Are some more or less reliable than others? Are some people more experienced in some areas than others? Who is right, who is wrong? Nobody. Because we don't solve problems by accusing others of being wrong. Scientists accept error and humility as part of their conclusions, that's why they are called theories. Evolution is still a theory, but it's the best explanation we have. If it was fact, would it not be undoubtable even for god-believers? God-believers believe in at least some scientific theories. That's why there are different interpretations- different perceptions. How come there are so many religions in the world? How can they all be correct? How do you tell someone else they are wrong? Where does telling someone they are wrong get you? You believe what people say based on your own experiences, perceptions, and biases - exactly like what is happening here. All I can do is provide you with the best information I have and hope you see what I mean. If not, that's your interpretation. Yes, there are no absolutes, and everything is tentative, and we are limited in many ways. I think you are looking for one answer here, and that's not the point I'm making. We decide what is right or wrong for ourselves. Argue that, and you prove my point. Agree, and you do also. - 19:49:01 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:concordance - (n.) agreement; concord; harmony. --- Man, I feel smart in here. - 19:51:50 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I'm still waiting for your own response to my response to your claimed agreement with whatever you cut and pasted. Here is what I said: 'In an evolutionary world, things change. To say biological beings are only affected by evolution is a limiting scope of operations since we co-habitate with nature. This also means that scientific truths change, because what we thought were constants also change. In terms of causality, mechanistic views concentrate on the explicate order, or the physical world as we have accepted it, but the implicate order (of which we see in the in the world through the explicate order) is not defined by locality, and locality is not of primary significance. So what might not seem like direct cause and effect are simply non-local chains. Calling it a pseudo-science is a generalized speculation.' Come on, put up or shut up.... --- JOETTE --- I'll look for your original response, too. I've been putting up mine. - 19:59:33 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:YAWN ... off to the real world for a few hours. - 20:03:39 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Right, not too far below "concoct". - 20:04:26 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: I don't accept the position you seek to put yourself. So far you've said nothing that I haven't seen or read in ways easier to understand. I don't know what MARLENE is up to. I guess that is just more of the strawman tactics I saw in that article that you figger is good thinking. You say thousands, ooh! I'm impressed. So what about that "broader sphere" of the spiritual, what is that? - 20:18:19 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I'm glad you feel smart here. Who cares what anyone else thinks. As far as your claims go, you have a right to hold whatever ideas your little mind can handle. I don't buy into them and I'm not about to become an expert on qm to prove to you that they are bogus. I'll rely on an expert's opinion and that is Vic Stenger. The onus isn't on me here, it's on you to present the evidence for your claims. I'm not the one "believing in" here, it's you. Until you can come forth with factual evidence that is testable then your no different than the religionist who comes here telling me the truth is god. - 20:35:21 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Has anyone seen a commercial on TV advertising a music CD called _Build your Baby's Brain_? - 20:58:48 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: Hey there, since we're in cahoots here, heheh, wow that JOSH! I don't kno'bout you, but I can't tell where he begins and whatever he figures he's doing ends. He is being really etherial about things. About all we can do, us being where we are, is to be reasonable. So far, except for the the matters of JOSH's points being reading material I have yet to see anything he posts of any mental worth. Stuff like "broader sphere", anyone can see such but so what. JOSH is probably a ok person, but a leader? well, : } - 21:05:30 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:I got a moment to check in again. I guess I shouldn't expect anything but consistency from this room. -- CARL -- Those thousands I speak of are the non-westerners, which you already pointed out. The broader sphere is holism, which includes consciousness. No big secret there. I already pointed that out. -- MARLENE -- I'm not gonna let you off that easy. Come on, don't pull that I'll cut-and-paste whatever I want, and I don't have to understand it as long as it appears to disagree with Josh routine again. How am I supposed to argue with your cut-and-pastes? That's just being cowardly again. Yeah, Stenger is a professional, but so are many other people with different views. Your argument is faulty. A religionist repeats whatever their text tells them to say, and as a defense they say their text is indisputable thinking they have uncontested argument. That's more like what you are doing. If you don't know something, then leave it at that. Don't make up stuff just to argue with me (which is something else religionists do). I see right through it. I have made clear arguments with factual evidence. Again, I will ask you.. how do you know what is factual if you refuse to discuss it or try to make sense of it? - 21:16:09 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: consciousness, isn't that just a theory, holism as an "ism" I didn't see your boy RUPERT get into that. Its a nice catch-all reference, but other than that its a mere abstraction. Somewhere along here you seem to get lost. It is at this point where you jump from I guess you figger is your perception of the all to concepts of the mind. Of this latter point the only gauge I have to determine that a mind is sound is relevant begins materially. From this point I speculate, however, it looks like you spin off into the imaginary. "Broader sphere is holism" do you know that factually? Or, do you imagine thats how it is in order for those terms to substantive? "Is" you know is the very nature of western philosophy. - 21:43:59 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette...always the kid in detention...:JOSH - I was not mocking you when I asked for the dictionary definition of "concordance"..I was merely not in a position to look it up in a dictionary as I am wont to do when I encounter a word that is not used often. I would have used a different word, is all. Now I have a new word to add to my repertoire. It's nice that you feel smart in here...maybe it's time to graduate and try to find those of your own intellectual level. Obviously this class just doesn't want to behave for the teacher. You know, real teachers learn how to get along with their students. It's just one of those real life skills in which you seem to be lacking. - 21:50:02 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- NO! I don't understand all the complex mathematical methods relating to quantum mechanics. I do know though that there has been no evidence for a "collective conscious" or the blue fairy. Another guy for instance, let's say Rue, may come here and tell us that the blue fairy exists because qm proves it. Rue will use all the same arguments you made and expect us to believe in his claim. Like Joette suggests, see how far you get with your qm bunk on a discussion with actual qm experts. Your not letting me off, shee-it, I never got on. - 22:12:04 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Sheldrake sort of happened along in this discussion. He is not 'my boy' as you put it. I think you are over-complicating things, either that or just looking to disagree. His point is that dogmatic scientific inquiries do not include human experience and perceptions, like I've been saying before Sheldrake was even brought up. - 23:22:34 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I know you weren't mocking me. I was being sarcastic by pointing out how Marlene so easily looks for ways to disagree with me, she jumped right on that boat thinking 'concordance' wasn't a word, or something..I dunno. I was never one to blame the teacher for unruly students, either. - 23:29:49 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- This is what I'm saying.. dogmatic scientific inquiries as you and Sheldrake call them are investigations that will or will not provide objective evidence. Start bringing in human experience and perceptions and you've got subjective factors to work with. In a previous post I stated I held with Stenger, you stated 1000's of others. Actually what is it, 6 billion people each with their own unique experiences and perceptions. I don't think so. - 23:32:12 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene didn't your mother ever tell you:JOSH- Quit your damn whining! - 23:33:47 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene, Marlene- You're making nonsensical generalizations again. You forget that the information I get IS from QM experts, and I've tried to explain my own understanding of this information. Here's the problem I face with you: First, I tried to explain things in my own terms. You didn't take me seriously. So then I provided references in my posts for my arguments and you think by cutting and pasting something different you proved me wrong by saying that I made up these theories or something, or that I plagiarized them completely giving you a reason to do the same. You say you don't understand them and then you say there is no evidence for a 'collective conscious'. So there's your argument, which is all but a clever guise for some stubborn pride in not trying to understand something a little different that your everyday conversations. -- When I don't know something I admit it and I don't make up outrageous conclusions about other people based on something I don't understand. Just admit you don't know something, and leave it at that. I'm not gonna play these games anymore. - 23:46:16 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Finally, something to discuss with you... You can't take the human experience out of the experiment. Each person has their own inborn and learned filters that help make up their hypothesis (a pre-conceived guess at how the experiment will turn out). You're not gonna like to hear this, but because we are related to everything and when we go out into the world we are affecting it in everything we do, so yes, the experiments have some degree of subjective bias to them. Science looks for the best theories, not absolutes. Science accepts humility, otherwise we could not learn and grow. I will ask you this: Who's objective answer is the best? - 23:52:44 on 16 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - even though you make the remark offhandedly, I have blamed teachers for unruly students from time to time. Being able to teach effectively is a difficult skill to acquire. Our educational systems may differ, so I can only speak from my own experience, but where I live, once a teacher is in the union, they are pretty much set for life. It doesn't matter if they are a good teacher or not. Now, I'm sure you have had to sit through classes where the teacher just spews out information as though they have memorized it and are tired of explaining the same thing over and over, not recognizing that each person in that room may be on a different learning curve. Those that don't "get it" may become unruly out of defiance, while those that "got it" months before may become unruly out of boredom (which was always the case for me...always in the detention room but made the honour role ;). An astute teacher would identify the problems being created for these certain students, while a poor teacher just keeps on going and then going to the staff lounge to complain about the brats in his/her room. I once taught Economics to a Grade 8 class as part of a civic project, and I had been warned by the teacher that the kids were just walking hormones, that they wouldn't pay attention to me, yada yada yada. I had those kids eating out of my hand because I made a tough subject applicable to their own young lives. The problem in that classroom was the teacher, not the kids. Now, I am telling you this purely for something to think about. If you are intent on teaching the masses about the subjects that interest you, you have to be prepared to understand where the students are coming from. as a point of interest to anyone else still reading, this was a Catholic school, and I sat while everyone else stood for prayers...an evil influence on poor children ;) - 0:15:22 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I truly appreciate you sharing your honest, real-life experience. I give you alot of credit. Thanks for giving me respect as well. My role as teacher however may better translate into the screenplays I'm writing (two are completed). Films can be a great medium to share ideas. I'm already discussing possible options with one of the producers I know. Although it may sound like a ego-trip in this room, one of the themes happens to be about the mechanistic cycles we get trapped in. (It's actually more entertaining than it sounds!) - 0:27:43 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - nothing ego-trippish about sharing what you do...I've been curious about your life's work, being a die hard movie fanatic...I hadn't heard of the one movie you named here awhile back, but I sure wish you'd talk more about it. - 0:50:14 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I agree that each person will theorize on what the out come will be of a said experiment. I agree that this is subjective. If it so happens this person's theory is wrong and the evidence doesn't support their theory then I suppose that person suffers some degree of humility. I say I suppose because that person at least had the where with all to test his hypotheses. That is why there has to be independent confirmation of the facts wherein experts with all points of view examine the evidence. - 1:53:10 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:I must have missed the facts relating to this hypotheses (if you will) of a collective conscious. I missed the experiment to test such a theory. Also it seems to me that even though Vic Stenger is an expert in qm, that you've dismissed his views on the subject. Now I would call that a very uncontrolled and poorly designed experiment. One in which the absence of evidence seems to provide the evidence. Unlike Joette, I'm not here to be your friend and wish you a jolly good on your screen plays which may or may not be very good. Someone wrote _Alien Autopsy_ and I wouldn't have given that so-called documentary any thumbs up. I'm here because I'm an atheist who values science and hates to see it reduced to the psuedo level. - 2:51:43 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..on this colllective conscious thing:ALL- Since Josh seems reluctant to repeat his evidence or quote his expert sources. I ask that you please post it in the manner you understand it. I've either not seen this post or I didn't understand it. If someone else does then I would be grateful if you would enlighten me. - 2:55:32 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Sometimes, you guys are funney! - 3:07:13 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
and sometimes we're funny too! - 3:24:38 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- That film 'Chump Change' stars a few people you might know. I've heard all good things about the final cut. I've even heard that the Tim Burton has had a private screening of it, and he loves it, and since I had a part in the film the first thing I thought of was: Tim Burton saw me act. (In case you don't know, Tim Burton directed Batman, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands...) Worse things have happened than some director watches a film and notices a rare perfomance and bequests the actor for an upcoming role! Well, it's all good fun. Like I said, I concentrate more on writing with a goal of producing and directing. - 5:26:29 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Independent third parties are still, yet, another interpretation. You think all scientists agree, that there is some objective truth to it all? Nope, not even close. Did you read my response to Vic Stenger's article? I didn't dismiss it. I said the one thing he tried to leave out what consciousness, which although is not always the primer in the events, it determined the meaning of the events in any case. Without humans, therefore, the universe remains meaningless. We are the ones who try and add meaning to it. -- I've said all this before. So it wasn't absent. Sheldrake made some points about consciousness as a whole if you look back. I don't know why you still insist any of this is pseudo, or that there is a lack of evidence, or why Vic Stenger is more professional than anyone I've listed. You need more names? How about Allan Combs, Mark Holland, David Bohm... And what does 'Alien Autopsy' have to do with anything I've said? All of these are poor generalizations on your part. It's a major stumbling block you have and it doesn't, in the least, make you desirable for future conversation. BTW, I value science, too, and I don't pretend I understand it in front of others by cutting and pasting it. - 5:44:08 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:ALL- Josh is still not making himself clear to me. I would still like to see someone else's interpretation of his claims. I'll be out all day but should be in tonight. - 12:39:51 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:FWIW-- As I've stated, my views diverge from Josh's right at the foundations. There are literally thousands of conflicting claims about reality, purpose, origins, etc. How is one to make sense of this? How can one avoid making an arbitrary choice based on personal and cultural bias? For me it seem apparent that the only way this can be done is to avoid any of the selections, and instead study and ponder the physical evidence and go wherever it leads while avoiding the temptation to go beyond it. This of course leaves many, many things unresolved, but in my view this is a conscious choice between incorrect conclusions, which then must lead to further error, and delayed conclusions. The rational choice is to make no conclusion at this premature point. Josh has made the decision, IMO, that this is not sufficient. He has stated that this is too limiting. Actually, I hope what he's saying is that it's too limiting for him, because I don't find it limiting at all for me, in fact quite the contrary. I have the very same quantity of reality to play in as he does. I prefer crossing the river on a stone bridge, even if I have to build it as I go, to hopping from floating log to floating log . It's personal preference, and it's possible that I've made an error along the way and am just as far adrift as Josh. (OK, so the metaphor falls apart. Shakespeare I ain't.) I think the decisions and choices Josh has made are of precisely the same type as the religionists make. The religionists are always saying that atheists have as much or more faith as they, and that atheism is just another religion. In the case of my views I think they are clearly mistaken. In the case of Josh's views I think they are not. This all said, I think it is valid for Josh to deal with the universe this way. It may be that he is not built to deal with it otherwise, who knows. He may be quite logical and reasonable in his study and search. I think it's all very interesting, and I don't have a problem with him operating this way. My problem is if or when he tells me that my approach is wrong without demonstrating in some way that that he is in a position to know it. I hope you don't take any of this personally, Josh. I'm only trying to clearly state my views. - 13:26:40 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH: I'm not just disagreeing nor over-complicating anything, the position you seek to establish on behalf of "holism" I find simply unacceptable. Both you and your boy- we know as RUPERT, play at arguing against strawmen. You seek to identify holism as "sphere of - 16:50:51 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH: I'm not just disagreeing nor over-complicating anything, the position you seek to establish on behalf of "holism" I find simply unacceptable. Both you and your boy- we know as RUPERT, play at arguing against strawmen. You seek to identify holism as "sphere of - 16:51:33 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: I'm not just disagreeing nor over-complicating anything, the position you seek to establish on behalf of "holism" I find simply unacceptable. Both you and your boy- we know as RUPERT, play at arguing against strawmen. You seek to identify holism as a "broader sphere" of spirituality, and so far what you've advanced here is much too airy for my acceptance. To repeat, I've seen better and clearer presentations by others, and thats to say so far your attempts here have been fruitless. But, those other accounts were philosohically in line with the guy and gal's cultural experiences. "Scientific dogma" what do you figger your boy RUPERT means? What do you mean if you also ply that phrase to the sciences? If you mean they pursue things equivalent to the pseudoscientific, whats wrong with that word? - 17:08:56 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Much in response to GRANT's post: The point is not to find who is wrong, because then we are pleasing our own interests and biases. The point is not to differentiate between which conclusions are better are worse than others, because all of them all temporary solutions. The problem with conclusions are that we have not found any absolutes. The only thing we can rely upon 100% is change. The problem with dogmatic atheism is a failed perspective that physical, repeatable evidence and reliability are stationary points in time. When we took consciousness upon ourselves we increased the rate of change drastically. We went out and manipulated our environments to suit our needs, and when our productive methods fail to continuously outway the destructive ones, it's time for us to change them. Even the Constitution has a built in safety measure for its citizens to overthrow the system that does not work for them. What I'm saying is if we continue to go wherever the physical evidence leads us, then we have let our own present-day solutions plan our future demise. We have let obsessive pursuit of growth (greed for hunger and power) decide our future, instead of our future being determined by individuals and individual need. We have to plan for the future, but we too easily get caught up in the daily events of life to worry about the 2nd or 3rd generations down the line. We spend all of our energies fixing the pieces of the problems, only to find frustrating new ones the next days forward. And for what? To please temporary needs. The only thing that matters is our success on this planet, and the success of future generations. When we failed to include them into our plans and theories, we put all living systems in jeopardy. As I can see from this room, it's certainly not gonna be the 40 and over crowd who will have the energy to want to change things. Most of your lives have been spent drained by the current system. You'll be happy with a good retirement. Fuck future generations, you'll probably say. I worked 40-some years. I care about me. Well, that's my problem in here. - 17:14:27 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:WOW!; what was that appearance of a partial post all about? - 17:14:31 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - there you again, deciding what we think. What I don't have the energy for is trying to defend myself against your implied ad hominems. You have a problem in here because you think you know what we think about the way the world is run. It's laughable. Would it impress you more if we suddenly decided to broadcast our life's story on the internet to qualify our collective existence? I, for one, don't feel the need to do that, because I know what I am about, I know what areas I have made a difference in, and continue to do so. Stop opening your mouth just to put your other foot in it. - 17:36:59 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- The civilized world is run mechanistically. That is a fact. Mechanistic solutions are limited, regardless of how much good we try to do in them - because we are only fixing PIECES OF THE PUZZLE. Don't take it personally that our efforts are limited within this system, take it personally that we can change it. From your post, I can gather that you didn't get the gist of what I was saying. - 17:49:53 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: Civilised? What does that mean? I read that that word, "civilised" is of rather recent formation. It has certain allowances current to ones comprehensions but what does it mean? - 18:34:50 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY01: of the USA types, any o'you hadda'chance to read the Kansas Board o'Ed.account for its vote to dump evolution in its state curriculum? Very wordy. As one reads it and if an open mind is or can be maintained, it reads very well. Now, if JOSH wants to get emotional about something I could see this, maybe even understand what his whine was about. Oh, a puzzle with pieces not a clear idea of what he's trying to do or say with that. A puzzle, how would that fit in with that ditty assorted folks have said that goes,"one can not step into the same river" or something so, and please amend if you know it right. - 19:04:35 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - mechanics at least are tangible and can be measured when a change is made. If all just sit around and think, nothing is going to get changed. I gather you didn't get the gist of what I've been saying. - 19:53:41 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I'd answer you if I could make sense of your comments. (We use the word 'civilized' here in the USA) - 20:42:49 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Scientific method measures the changes. Mechanistics means breaking things down into separate pieces. Holistic views measure the effects on the whole system. See the difference? You solve more by looking at the larger effects of your methods. I know what you've been saying. Now look at things a little differently. I also agree, except that sitting around and thinking are often the precursor to change. - 20:47:38 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY02: well, if the Kansans are anything they're fearless for it seems they've no fears at going on. Some areas, it looks like to me, have determined that they can do as they see fit for their curriculum. Perhaps the school board's action may not be such a bad deal. If anything it looks as though the overall the Kansan response will be one for and consequential of a political emancipation. They can choose. - 21:38:23 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Perhaps that 'political emancipation' may be a handy rallying cry against today's religious political action. Here I see that action in particular as the prayer-in-school issue or drive. The USA constitution o'course already steers the legislative body around that hole. While the religious adherents refer to their action as religious freedom I for one must reject that as sheer semantics. The flip side to this for the religious with the evolution thing as an example, the religious types could say that they reject the semantics of evolution and refer to such books as "Consciousness and Evolution". I can and do understand how the relationship for those concepts need the other, but prayer and spirits and supernatural stuff, the understanding of these ideas require some "givens". These givens are just weights burdens, neither is freedom. Think of these prayer, spirit and the suernatural ideas as best I can, I cannot allow blank spots such as prayer, holism or spirit stuff to stand as a spot for my mental abstracting processes. This means to me I can't or wouldn't know the true from the false. What if religious interests were accepted as the political interest it is? - 22:36:26 on 17 Aug 99 GMT
Old Kind-of Worn Out Looking Marlene:Hi everyone, it's me, one of the over 40 and drained. I put in 14 hours today hiring and booking training meetings for 75 people, setting up my office and put a couple of hundred kms on the car delivering packages to a few other offices. I wonder what Mr. 20Something did with his day? - 3:03:05 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- That was a very good post BTW. I thought your metaphor got across (pun intended) quite well. - 3:05:39 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:YIKES CARL- Bad enough the taxpayers are funding prayer in school let alone Ommmmmm stuff. What happened to teaching the damn basics? Religion, whether it be jesus or new age, should be a lifestyle choice not a subject to be taught in schools. - 3:12:44 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Grant: JOSH—We're getting nowhere. You're kind of soaring around on gossamer wings tossing us little tidbits of your worldview, but if anyone disagrees, fangs are revealed. You offer possibility of a thing as proof of the thing. You use ridicule and righteous indignation as defenses. You try to connect unrelated things. You take everything personally but think it contemptible when others do. You display double-standards in regard to evidence- ours versus yours. You think you have discredited naturalism but have in reality only said that you don't like it. I don't presume to believe that all people may be expected to become rational any more than that all people may be expected to become spiritual, but if you wish to attack rationality here, it may be necessary for you to do so in a rational manner. I know you'll be angry when you read this. I'll only request that you resist the temptation to post a response, say, until tomorrow? I'm trying to like you Josh, but I'm finding it more and more difficult. I don't hold your beliefs against you but you are abrasive, intolerant, and it's virtually impossible to get you to consider some slight possibility that there may be something you don't know. If you wish to continue in a discussion with me, and I hope you do, I'm going to insist on accountability for every statement, like this: JOSH: "The point is not to differentiate between which conclusions are better are worse than others, because all of them all temporary solutions." *** Grant: Conclusions are not solutions. Improper (sloppy) connection. What we think of as possible solutions for society's problems are not related to making conclusions regarding the nature of reality.--- JOSH: "The problem with conclusions are that we have not found any absolutes." *** Grant: We are attempting to come to conclusions on what the absolutes are. You have avoided conceding that there are in fact absolutes. If you do not believe that there are any absolutes, then you have cut yourself off from any position from which to argue and are wasting everyone's time. --- JOSH: "The only thing we can rely upon 100% is change." *** Grant: This is a particularly vague and unspecific statement. What is its purpose? Are your beliefs and your methods for arriving at them so fluid? --- JOSH: "The problem with dogmatic atheism is a failed perspective that physical, repeatable evidence and reliability are stationary points in time." *** Grant: How can you in good conscience refer to any of this as 'dogmatic atheism?' Can't you see the irony here, Mr. Dogma? Do you even realize how this sounds? Please explain to me why I shouldn't read this as "I don't like where evidence leads, so therefore evidence is poopy?" "Stationary points in time?" The purpose of looking at physical, repeatable (Did you skim over the word 'repeatable?) evidence is to determine patterns of actions, effects, change, etc. A major test of any theory is whether it can successfully predict future events. Wherein fits 'stationary'? --- JOSH: "When we took consciousness upon ourselves we increased the rate of change drastically." ***Grant: When we what? How did we decide to take consciousness upon ourselves before… oh never mind. Do me a favor and look up the word 'anthropomorphism'? --- JOSH: "We went out and manipulated our environments to suit our needs, and when our productive methods fail to continuously outway the destructive ones, it's time for us to change them." *** Grant: I agree with this! I really do. But what has it to do with anything you've said thus far? --- JOSH: " What I'm saying is if we continue to go wherever the physical evidence leads us, then we have let our own present-day solutions plan our future demise." *** Grant: I'm sorry Josh, but this is a nonsense statement. Looking at physical evidence is our only hope of understanding our universe. Really you should try it. It sounds precisely as if you are saying that reality has let us down; lets use something else. As for the rest of your post, which is 'gee-whiz lets all just be nice' stuff followed by some ad hominem stuff about 40 and over people, who presumably are contemptible because they have learned a few things about the world since they were 25, I'll just mention in passing that not only is this not a worthwhile tactic for persuasion or debate, but you haven't a clue what you're talking about. - 4:33:09 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: What the folks on the south side of your border want, good question. From my vantage point, its cloudy the breeze is cool and it feels like rain this a.m., I can only suppose a change is happening. You could say that I am inclined towards the opinion that its a governmental thing.The government is having real difficulty dealing with a country that is not what it was when the airy words of the USA constitution was composed. I am can see how when they drafted the words, "We the people, etc.", that such a passage had and conveyed an almost tribal value. And, if we atheists know one thing it may be that that tribal value thing appears in religion, too! [hint; ever give your life to jc?] Well, in any case if history bears any indicators, remember what happened to the Roman empire when it took on a state religion? - 15:09:01 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:HAHAHA! I wondered at first then grew curious o'what you two were referring to about the 40-thingy. Well, be nice to JOSH, probably he hasn't started to break down yet. - 16:02:57 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Still sifting through the Kansas thing I reviewed a poll, it disclosed that 46.83 clicked on the choice that they accepted creationism as the means for humans being human. The actual wording had 'believed' but for the purposes of clarity I inserted accept. That seems only right since in all the days I've been at this site and some other sites, not one religious adherent has been able to say where that godthing, jc, the v.m., the holy ghost, spirits, etc.etc.etc., where they are right now. In my protest agin'the religious adherents "to believe" is not unique nor special to their point of view. Somebody needs to start the clean up of words as ideas somewhere - 18:32:56 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Wo-wo Marlene: Don't cost a dime to say a prayer in school. How will kids know what beliefs to choose from if they don't hear arguments from both sides. I'm not saying to teach religion in schools, but don't teach evolution without giving arguments from both sides. OK? Besides, the Bible teaches standards such as love,kindness,helping your neighbor, loving your neighbor as yourself, things I don't think would hurt this generation of kids comming up know. - 22:44:19 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:RICKY - no religion whatsoever in my home, and golly gee, my daughter knows how to love, be kind and all that other christian good stuff. Now, how do you think she came about these godgiven skills? Dolt. - 23:05:59 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Man, this room is dead until I post a comment. Strange. My apologies to the room for taking a day off. -- GRANT -- I think you get the prize for Mr. Nit-Picker, but only because your attempts to invalidate me have shown nothing more than a need to find something wrong in what I say, just like you accuse me of finding something limiting in limited world views. I don't plan on continually going back and forth about this, but I do agree, we're getting nowhere. Example... 'What we think of as possible solutions for society's problems are not related to making conclusions regarding the nature of reality'? Really? Conclusions are not solutions? When people get together and conclude something, it has no other basis than information and they don't try to solve a problem based on this conclusion? And they are "not related to making conclusions regarding the nature of reality"? What are we making conclusions about, some other-worldy reality? Come on. --- And when I said, "The only thing we can rely upon 100% is change." You said, "This is a particularly vague and unspecific statement." – which is just redundant. And then you ask "What is its purpose?" I'll say go out in the world and point to something that will not change at some point in time, and you'll say, "Well, that's just vague and unspecific," like you're making a point or something different to what I just said. – And here's my favorite one. I said, "The problem with conclusions are that we have not found any absolutes." And you go, "We are attempting to come to conclusions on what the absolutes are. You have avoided conceding that there are in fact absolutes." I'll say again, go out into the world and point to something that will not change at some point in time.. and you'll say, "You have avoided conceding that there are in fact absolutes." --- So here I am accused of righteous indignation, when on the opposite end people just want to find things to argue about. You say I have discredited naturalism, when everything I've said has included the basic elements of nature and our interconnectedness in thereof as our primary concern. I don't know why you think this mechanistic way of picking apart things to find fault in them would be any more naturalistic than realizing there are some things empirical evidence doesn't have a capacity to conclude about., especially since science is a man-made tool and the universe is a lot bigger and more complex than we. You say I try to connect unrelated things, and I'll ask you to point out what is not related to us or something else in this universe? You say I offer possibility of a thing as proof of the thing, and I'll say what proof have I tried to proclaim that I haven't given reference for? So now it's my turn, and whatever I say next will be considered a double-standard, abrasive, intolerant, immature, and/or a personal revenge. Clever argument. Very limiting, too- so I'm not surprised. - 23:23:51 on 18 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - is there no end to your conceit? We all have jobs that take us away from incessant posting (you'll note you have spent more time here than any of us since you arrived). Of course, our jobs couldn't possibly be as important as your own...(if you are even working). - 0:11:36 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Byron:hello, all! This may not be an appropriate topic for this forum. If it is, I apologize. Do you guys ever debate political or economic theories of any kind? Such as, Marxism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, etc.? Do you debate them at all, or do you only debate them in the context of religion/atheism? Also, JOSH, are you a theist, pantheist, or what? I just arrived at this forum and I'm trying to figure out where you stand. Thanks, everyone! - 0:23:55 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:BYRON - welcome...politics is a favourite topic of mine..fire away! - 0:43:16 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Joette, are you saying that you would like to deprive your little girl of knowing anything about God? Not to know or hear the arguments that support religion, just to be taught that there is no God, there was no creation, the world just happen to exest because of some big bang. Sounds a little one-sided to me. Where's the freedom to hear both sides. I know, most little girls are loving and careing, it's when they grow up when those things sometimes change! - 1:31:05 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Sorry for the sarcasm. I'll take your comments the same way. Byron- Nope, I'm an atheist. Welcome to the room. - 1:33:36 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm not trying to invalidate you. I'm trying to make you understand my point of view. It's what I've been doing since you came along. It's like we're speaking different languages or something. - 2:13:18 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Hello BYRON-- I say let 'er rip. - 2:15:53 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- So saying something like, 'you haven't a clue what you're talking about' or 'I'm sorry Josh, but this is a nonsense statement' OR taking the time to try to argue against every sentence of my last paragraph was not to invalidate me? Oops, my mistake. (sarcasm) - 2:30:48 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Well, nothing else works. I thought I'd try a mallet. - 2:35:41 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- In my opinion you are using a scattergun approach. It's too easy for you to dodge objections rather than defend them. I intend to hold you accountable for your statements. My hope is that there will be fewer of them at once, and that they can then take somer scrutiny. In my view nothing is above scrutiny. You might say nothing is sacred. - 2:38:46 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant with an oopsy...:...defend your statements, that is. - 2:40:11 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:BYRON- Normally we discuss politics if it has something to do with religion. The reality is many political issues do involve religion or morality according to a religious doctrine. So as Joette says, fire away and welcome! - 2:47:40 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Still whining? Sheesh! - 2:49:43 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:BYRON- As most here will point out, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, gods or goddesses. BUT this doesn't seem to stop them from believing in a whole bunch of new-age quackery or UFO stuff. IMO these people are still looking desperately for something to believe in. I personally do not believe in anything. I do however base what I think will happen or has happened on evidence that supports it. For instance the sun has risen in the east for as long as I can remember. I'm not the only person who has seen this event, in fact most people have. The event can also be recorded etc. etc. SO if I do use the word "believe" , I will use it in the context of assuming not accepting. - 2:58:27 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- So now you say you were trying to invalidate me? - 3:20:20 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- 'SO if I do use the word "believe" , I will use it in the context of assuming not accepting.' --- So you are saying you don't accept, but you assume what is true? But before that you say, 'I personally do not believe in anything. I do however base what I think will happen or has happened on evidence that supports it.' - but you accept things based on what you assume (think) will happen? Very convincing argument. - 3:29:19 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- I forget to mention, read what I say as a defense for myself. Looks like you missed a few things. - 3:31:16 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:forget = forgot - 3:33:40 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- You really are an ass! Believe can mean.. verb: accept OR verb: assume . Is it true the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? IMO I assume it will because I've seen it rise in the east all my life. I do not accept it will because it might not. And you accuse Grant of fucking nit picking! - 3:36:21 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..BTFW:JOSH- Weren't you the one claiming there were no absolutes? - 3:38:58 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:RICKY - my "little girl" is grown up, and she was given the opportunity to learn about religion, not just christianity, but judaism, hinduism, wicca and all other types of belief systems. She has the advantage over any of your children, in that she didn't have anyone hovering over her telling her what to believe. BTW, your statement that it doesn't cost a cent to have prayer in school is malarkey. Any time taken away from TEACHING is a cost to the school system. People go to school to be educated about REALITY. The fantasy should be restricted to mythology or other artistic endeavours. No one has the right to force religion on an unsuspecting public. You want prayer in school? Then pay your own money to support your own religious schools. - 3:39:23 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I haven't got much time now, but I'd like to try to explain this. I'd like to eventually get to a point where this can be a conversational exchange. I feel like I can say nothing which you will not take as a personal affront. I don't know you Josh. This is a limited means of communication. Try to relax a little. It's okay if people don't agree with you. People are reacting to words on a screen. If you're unhappy with the reactions try to experiment with different ways of saying the same things without pushing everyone's buttons. Allow people to disagree. They're going to anyway. End of speech... end of preach. - 3:56:10 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:RICKY- I agree with Joette. I don't think our tax dollar should be funding religion at all, most especially in schools. My kids went to church. In fact even to Sunday school with all the other kids. They did so because they choose to go. One of them was assimilated for a short period of time but is now wishy-washy on religion but chooses to believe in a god. The other is really too young to know what he considers fact or fiction and is at the age where he doesn't really give a hoot. I assume he'll make some sort of decision on the issue in about five years. I also tried to inform them of other religions and beliefs. They've always known I'm atheist. My daughter, who chooses to believe in a god, doesn't like to hear that I don't believe in a heaven. I do wish though that she didn't seem to have that need to have everlasting life and a need to believe in a "happy ever after". I hope that she will just be happy to have lived this life and enjoy all the good experiences and learn from the not so good. - 4:09:29 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Just trying to make some sense of your comments. Calm down. I was pointing out that Grant just wanted to argue like you have been doing. Don't be so quick to attack without reading everything I post and trying to understand me. I'm trying to understand what you mean. What's with the potty mouth all the time? To assume something means to take for granted without proof, like a god or something. Accept means to admit as adequate or satisfactory, like you're doing with the sun rising. -- You're right, both of them are a form of believing.. but first you say you don't believe anything, and then at the end you say, if you do it will be in some other context that you seem to have made up. What's up with that? And what do your comments have to do with no absolutes? That doesn't make sense, either. - 4:15:14 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Since I just want to argue, 'vague' means not clearly stated. 'Unspecific' means not applying to or acting on a particular thing. :-) - 4:47:51 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene waving the white flag:JOSH- Okay I admit fault on this one. Instead of assume or believe, which as you pointed out can mean accept without proof I will change that to "reason". It isn't an absolute that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow is it? It is reasonable that it will though. You know Josh, I really don't think (or on the other hand I may be totally duped) that you realize how annoying your way of communicating is coming across. We all seem to be really peeved with you and I don't think this is really what you wish to be happening. I think we still can have a discussion without ending up deadlocked before we even get past square one. I suggestion (and this is only a suggestion) that we start from scratch and discuss each point you wish to make until we all understand just what it is your saying. Then we can move on to point #2. I normally get along with even the fundies here but for some strange reason (as Grant has pointed out) you end up pissing me off with what I feel is a conceited attitude and maybe you don't mean to come across this way at all. - 4:53:19 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:Look at that, I'm ending my evening on a good note (I hope?!?!). I work with two other ladies on this project I've taken on for the next few weeks. Of these two ladies, one is the head honcho of the project. Although this lady is really good at organization she really sucks in people skills. Today we lost two employees who would have been an excellent asset to the project because this lady decided to pull rank when they didn't totally agree on an issue which could have easily been worked out to accomodate both parties. I'm posting this little story because it reminds me of what is kind of going on here. We don't want to loose assets to this discussion because people are too subborn to accomodate. Anyhow that said, GOODNIGHT ATHEISTS and RICKY! - 5:07:10 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
PASSING THROUGH:-----:---HI JOSH. Have you read Hannibal by Thomas Harris. There's a lovely insult - "Trailer camp tornado bait white trash". - 11:25:54 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:I came across this atheist site from India through an Open Directory submisson. I think it's pretty interesting. - 12:49:31 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- Now that's a neat page! - 13:47:41 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Byron asked if you are pantheist. I ask this in the mosty cheery, friendly, positive, and wholesome open manner imaginable... What do you see as the difference between your views and pantheism? - 13:48:36 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:PASSING THROUGH- Here's a lovelier insult "keep on going". - 13:49:22 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- Have you checked out the atheist links on the ODP? Note the subcategories near the top. Gotta run... - 13:52:09 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:ANY: To speak of politics especially in the USA, one ought to wonder now and then what is real and what isn't real. A local moving picture house running the flick,"The Blair Witch Project" has a note attached on its ticket window. I didn't stop to read it completely, so it could have been a gag, but it said, by order of the president of the US the movie BWP has been rated R. Does one doubt this or what questions may be asked, or should one seriously be ask? - 14:42:02 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- When you ask me about the universe you're gonna get answers that are vague and unspecific. That's the point. Don't think of human conclusions as the test all to everything. We're just humans and our views and perceptions are quite limited in comparison. It's a human conceit to think that as the apparently most sophisticated, intellectual beings on this planet that we have all the answers or that we have the ability to discern all the answers. I have been saying all along that the universe is too big and too complicated to fit into absolutes. That's what I mean by holism, to see what's going on in the big picture. As evolutionary beings we only account for .33% of the entire span of the whole universe, but then you'll argue tooth and nail that our own methods of finding empirical evidence are the answers to the universe. I will stay say that's a limiting view. - 15:26:07 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH - Unless you make yourself much clearer on your views, I personally will have to accept you as a pantheist and not an atheist. You may call yourself what you want but your views, at least what I understand of them, fits in more with pantheism than atheism. - 15:35:13 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- That site is very informative. The information is clear and comprehensive. I love it! - 15:37:50 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Wow, talk about synchronicity! -- GRANT and ALL -- In response to your cheery question about pantheism, I did some investigating and I found this site about Scientific Pantheism. This is more what I had in mind. In fact, it's dead on. This is how they describe it: Scientific or natural pantheism is a modern form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers. Also, I checked out the testimonial section: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~harrison/why.htm and it's amazing how similar these people's views are to mine. In terms of the religion part of it, if we count religion simply as a deep-routed passion and devotion to something, then I will say I have the passion, but for financial and other reasons at this time I have to cut corners on the devotion part. Anyway, I think your honest questions have lead me to find out more about myself and my journey, and may have in fact found me a new home! (Well, we'll see...) --- I encourage everyone to check out this site! - 15:41:55 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:-JOSH--Good. You seem to be getting somewhat smarter. Keep reading. Keep rhinking. :-) - 16:10:30 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: I figgered JOSH figgered that he was somehow not really an angel, but he definitly figgered he was no mere mortal. And o'course now, as a mere mortal I for one maybe some of others too, will have to fend off his efforts to convert you to his way. If you don't accept "his" words well me you we simply are not right, it will look like that bible passage regarding the camel and needles eye, stuff. - 16:27:47 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:Even in our local newspaper the controversy continues as to whether prayers should be in the schools. The christians seem to continually miss few points, and it would seem that this is the result of their tendency to embrace christianity in the first place. To embrace ANY religious belief includes the element of being unable to, or refusing to look at certain issues objectively. It seems to elude the christian thought pattern that (a) the are other religions who think their beliefs are just as true as a christians. Judging by the contant pleading by the christians in this matter one must conclude that adherents of other faiths, and those who have none must be saying to themselves 'Well I believe in 'x' ( any other belief system other than christianity ), and I KNOW that christianity is really the TRUE religion, but i just don't want to believe it to be true'....Also the christians continue to erroneaously --to the point of disaster--equate 'christianity' with 'morality'. Although christianity does take a vested interest in morality, its temnets have been shown to be questionable at best--its innate chauvinism on this matter alone clearly demonstrates this. If everyone is concerned about their children being taught to do what is 'right'..why don't we all agree on what IS 'right', and them teach them THAT..instead of making the assumption that some ancient, embarassinly out-dated and inapplicable command from a number of individuals whose goal was to control large populations via fear , ignorance and guilt. For chrissakes, here we are approaching the year 2000, and we haven't even settled this? - 16:31:39 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I read almost everything on that site you left. Although I agree with many ideas there, I don't agree with all of them. I suppose I'm stuck as an atheist but I think you've found your niche. You notice though that the site hasn't mentioned some of the things you have mentioned such as synchronicity, holism and collective conscious (at least I didn't see them there). - 16:33:48 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- There you go on the GRANT bandwagon again. I noticed before how you mentioned that certain atheists will also find other things to believe in. How do you separate your belief in absolute empiricism from other beliefs? Why are your atheistic views any better or worse? The answer is that you need beliefs, too. But to say that 'true' atheists do not have any beliefs is just a plain denial that everyone has beliefs. Like you said, atheism is for people who not believe in gods, goddesses, etc. - but it's not nearly a complete explanation of what someone believes. - 16:34:43 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:PETER- What IS morally right for some isn't for others as you pointed out. For instance there are cultural differences on this issue too. The Aboriginal people (of our province anyway) think it's fine for another person to into one's home and take what they need, if they need it. It's not considered improper or theft as it would be to me. So can we really teach morals or is it "law" we have to teach. It is against the law everywhere in Canada to do this. It's considered a crime. - 16:40:44 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- I copied this quote to show you an example of what I mean: I've always felt a connection with "something" in the cosmos... but I just can't buy into the "higher power" stuff or the choreographed rituals that most of those religions contain. I'm an atheist as far as believing that humanity is on its own to sink or swim; there are no supernatural beings hovering over our shoulders. From what I read about scientific pantheism, it appears this may be what I've been searching for--it sort of mingles my atheism's rejection of supernatural deities with the acceptance of natural wonders that exist for and by their own accord. SHARON LEMAY, MINNESOTA - 16:46:06 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Do you ever stop arguing? Why DO you always have to have the "right" opinion? For me, my atheistic opinion is what works best for me. Atheism is not a belief, it's a non-belief. Your starting to sound like a theist and which you are. How can you help yourself. - 16:58:32 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I posted that last post before I read this one above. I'm agreeing with you. You've found your niche. It may not be exactly what you believe but it's close. AND IMO the pantheist belief is much more naturalistic and acceptable to me than the god belief. SO I'm not arguing with you. - 17:02:58 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- No offense, but I think you one again resorted to a quick judging of the site before you read it entirely, either that or you don't understand it. I'm not sure. The site does mention it's acceptance of quantum physics, which is where synchronicity has found many of its principles, and the point of the site is holism, that we are in a binding connection with the universe. The site also references the self-existence and self-organization of the universe which accounts for the collective consciousness I mentioned. A better reading might make this more understandable. I just wanted to point out that those things were expressed there. -- Also, for some reason the word empiricism was stuck in my mind- I meant absolute materialism. Sorry about that. - 17:03:26 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- And just so we are clear, I wasn't referencing atheism as a belief. I was saying that to simply call yourself an atheist is not enough, because I am one, too. I was pointing out that your trust in absolute materialism was your belief. Do you see what I mean? I'm just trying to make things clear. We both have beliefs, just different ones. - 17:15:59 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:MARLENE--I see your point. However, in order to establish a set of moral laws whose goal is to protect the individual, one can clearly see the flaws in this aboriginal custom, and reject it as such. It is all included in the process of an attempt to be become more 'civilized' - 17:36:46 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:PETER: Since we are about to embark upon a new milinium, perhaps we can, or rather an effort for sincerity- lets say, ought to be taken up to cast off that dark ages reference of the "civilised". Perhaps something more direct to matter, such as the "kinship" that the human organism has to have for its desired continued existence. - 17:50:21 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Little off the subject but, Question: People all over the world use profanity. All can agree on that. People curse, using the name of Jesus or God to swear by. If the name of Jesus don't really mean anything, nor no "power" within the name of Jesus, Why do the Hendo's and other 3rd world countries that worship buda's and other false gods, use the name of Jesus to swear by, rather than swearing in the name of buda? - 21:17:19 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: One of my main objections to religion is its lack of a key human quality, rigorous thought. Religious adherents yield, disengage, discontinue that human quality, Instead, instituted thought plans fill-in for that innate action, now on hold. Some adherents may assume some delusionary thoughts such as a 'godthing's processes' for its whatever. I'd see such abstract neural behavior as indicative of the state o'mind common folk call the "imagination". To opine in that direction is not my intent here. Elsewhere, I saw a thing that lists sex offenders. In one of the accounts I read it reports that only the offenders had objections to that internet "thing". I say thing here for about the same reason I use "godthing" I do not know the good of that word. I do not know of what is good about that internet site. It is my opinion, however, it will allow people to be lax and even lazy about those and whatever they see and know as a value to themselves. To add to why I don't see such things as good is the same as why more cops do not serve as a personal social good. More cops just make it easy for one to be less responsible. If one cares for that thing that is the self and what they value there would be fewer sex offenders and cops. Take care of yourself, help? Is this really a good idea? - 21:19:08 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:RICKY: Is a word that thing, or just a vibration in the air? - 22:29:40 on 19 Aug 99 GMT
Ricky:Definately, a thing, a real thing, a thing that unfortunately you know nothing about! - 3:43:17 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene ..attention Peter and Joette too!:Hi Everyone! I'm finally home from work and have about an hour before bed to post a bit. So I'll start with RICKY- I noticed that too. Maybe a habit or maybe somewhere deep in the brain a person finds a need for a scapegoat and why not that scapegoat be something that doesn't really exist. It's a whole lot safer that saying for instance "MARLENE da da da". If you do Marlene here won't be too happy with you for using my name in a negative context. I did notice in the last few days when I had people taking their oaths at work, 75% of them affirmed and did not choose to swear to god. My we are becoming progressive here in Canada! - 3:47:36 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:PETER- But in our "cultural mosaic" here in Canada, this might be a problem. I don't agree with this cultural stuff personally and prefer the "melting pot" as the US has as it's policy. - 3:50:37 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- Before I commit myself to materialism, I'll have to read more on that and that I will do tomorrow if I have time. I'm super busy for the next 8 days, after that I won't be so pressed for time. - 3:54:04 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:MARLENE-- In the same way that Josh has earned his scientific pantheism by arriving there without knowing where 'there' was, You have earned your materialism and/or naturalism. - 11:54:00 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:CARL--'kinship' is fine. We are NOT 'approaching a new millenium'( well this year anyway..and I've been through this before ) RICKY--'Jesus' just SOUNDS better in the commission of cursing that anything else. - 12:28:50 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:GETTING BACK TO THE 'MILLENIUM THING' ONCE AGAIN--Now I am hearing argumens about when Jesus' birth being in question..but THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with this point of contention. It is purely a mathematical matter. It has been established this this year is 1999 not 'maybe' 2000, or 2001, or 2002, or 1998--and on this fact alone, the new millenium, and the 21st century will not begin until Jan 1, 2001, dammit. - 12:35:30 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
PETER (on a roll ):RICKY--Your post to Carl referring to Jesus as 'something he knows nothing about' is the kind of sttement that perpetually sheds a negative light on the defenders of christianity. First of all, how do you know that Carl is not fully literate on the teachings of Christ? He may very well be even more than you. You seemed to have made this assumption, however it could be very possible that because Carl IS fully versed on these teachings that he rejects any divinity associated with Christ. As odd as it may seem to you, an objective assessment of biblical text can easilt demonstrate the glaring flaws. Also, this is an 'ad misercordiam' where the defender of a certain argument--in this case you and 'The power of Jesus'-- sympathyses with those who do not accept that position as a means of defending that point. Take it somewhere else my friend--it won't fly in here. - 12:45:30 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Hello PETER-- I'm sort of afraid to speak or anything in fear that you will disappear again. :-) - 13:04:40 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Shit, I knew it. He's gone! :-) - 13:20:53 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
PASSING THROUGH>>...:http://www.shtc.net/~blomberg/cbs.htm - 13:23:31 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:PETER: Yes, that millinimum horse shit was my next target. It looks like the 'PT' poster, chuckling here, wants to compete with JOSH. At looking at that site PT deposited here, I found myself shaking my head in disappointment. Like the millinium thing that site too, is just more religious propaganda. Sort of along this same line of dimthinking but real life stuff, a religious presidential candidate at voicing his opposition to gay notions, said of its supporters that they are "ramming their ways down our throats". So, how are examples as the millinium thing, that religious propaganda site, or the Kosovo thing not a ramming down the throats of others, the xtian views? These adherents- xtians, will call that civilisation. What is it? - 15:12:02 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Did you hire Peter as your Public Relations Department or is he just a fan of yours? - 15:39:56 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Still on what is it? Is religious belief real, an authentic concern or is it merely being promoted, essentially by the folks in charge? IMHO, what it is due to the latter. I must base this view on two points, I favor individualism and knowable truths. Of the latter point must I, do I hold that religion isn't real, ergo not authentic. Of those in charge, comes the view that they are in charge because they control certain aspects, such as what all people see, especially in common print. Crowd control seems always to involve a "giving" and that which is given can be anything. To cut the chase take for example, life after death. "They" just keep these words before- give to, the public and it appears to me that is done quite simply as a controlling action. I saw a poll, the poll had three options the words religious belief were inserted in all three. No real choice was available! Somebody means to keep the animals quiet. - 20:19:13 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- The way I view religion, it just means devotion and passion for a set of beliefs. Your confusing dogmatic practices and traditional superstitions for personal beliefs. I assume you are also a materialist and/or naturalist so your devotion to find truths through these means alone is your religion, if those are your beliefs. Regardless, unless we are nihilists or vegetables, we all have certain passions and devotions in our lives. That is how you can claim to be an individual. - 21:53:06 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: It would be an act of confusion, on our part, were we to dare try to account for the emotions or thoughts of the religious adherents. What they do and the sources for what they do is all that me and you can honestly attempt to understand of and for them or ourselfs. That is how we can claim to be an individual. - 22:23:18 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Religion like any other thing the human mind encapsulates in a word, it is only manmade. Like all things manmade, some humans organisms accept them and not. That word- religion, may be meaningful to your mind or whatever may be your cultural melieu, but who would be fool to say of this either point. As I inscribed before I find what the human creature does and the manners in which it is conveyed thru the generations, that is the wealth of humanity. If anything this is that "sphere" and it is one that we can understand. It is made by humans for humans. The misfortune, some seemingly want to control who taps into this sphere. What is outside it, probably just that idea called the unknown and maybe even that idea called the unconscious. - 22:48:55 on 20 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- We are not accounting for the emotions or thoughts of specific religious adherents simply by identifying what they claim. I don't know what point you are trying to make, because we all have passions and devotions that would qualify as a religion of sorts. Those are our beliefs, and that is what makes us each an individual. - 0:48:53 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Of what use is the word 'religious' if it to apply to everyone? American Heritage defines religion as 'belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.' Isn't this the thing we wish to describe when we use the word? If we're going to use 'religious' to describe everyone what word shall we then use for those with a reverence for supernatural powers and etc, and will it too be shanghaied for use on everyone who experiences some sort of positive emotion? Sounds to me like you are a little uncomfortable thinking of yourself as religious. Me thinks some passing of time is in order. It may turn out that you have some incomplete perceptions in regard to religiousness. You seem to be comfortable with 'spiritual.' Do you have a problem with calling your beliefs 'ideology'? IMO, nobody is comfortable with the thought that their religious views are like all or any others religious views in some ways, but there are always going to be conflicts like this. - 5:11:36 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
Grant (A fall from grace?):JOSH-- Have you looked much at postmodernism and such? The views regarding 'universal reason' are much like yours. Check this bit from an interview out: Question: Why do you think universal reason is a bad idea? WALSH: It doesn't acknowledge the particularity of all human thought and knowing, that all human beings think from a particular place within a particular worldview. The second problem with this doctrine of universal reason is that it doesn't take seriously the fallen character of human cognitive processes. Universal reason really does posit that we can think things straight simply on our own autonomous powers. It doesn't acknowledge our fundamental brokenness. - 5:37:04 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Since I didn't invent the word, I won't pretend to change its meaning. Here's the Webster versions: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when cosidered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons, 3. something a person believes in and follows devotedly. -- Even the first definition is compatible with non-god believers who will say that we don't know how or if everything was started at one point, so our belief is not to make any claims at this time and we will denounce all claims to the opposite of this. That is also why we use words like Christian, Jewish, dogmatic, naturalistic, etc. to identify one's distinct frame of religious reference. --- I didn't claim I was uncomfortable with the idea, but I think you might be hesitant to call your devotions a religion. 'Ideology' is just a word to describe the body of doctrine that one follows. I'm trying to be more specific about our individual devotions and passions for the ideologies that we each follow. --- I'm not sure what that WALSH guy means by a fallen character, but I agree with him about our ability to reason from our own autonomous powers, from our own particular world view. - 15:33:36 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Remember in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' when the archaeologist/Nazi-conspirator Belak confronts Indiana Jones in the bar in Cairo? He compares himself to Indiana by relating their equal passions for archaeology and he says, "You and I are very similar. We have the same passion. It is our religion." --- Just an example of the use of the word in the context I was describing. - 16:05:24 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm just trying to put my finger on a motivation for your calling the naturalism thing a religion. The religionists do it all the time and it's pretty easy to understand why. I guess I'm slow, but when somebody looks at naturalism, which I would say is easily the least religious of all things that could conceivably be religious, and proclaims "this is religious", I wonder what their agenda is. If you don't feel uncomfortable thinking of yourself as religious that's fine. The motivation is then elsewhere. I like the movie quote, but don't see the relevance, as I can't see naturalism as a passion. I see it only as the way things are; the way things look if you are willing to face some unpleasant truths. It would be like saying I'm passionate about noticing that many people are dishonest. I believe that many people are dishonest, but I don't feel like you should proclaim this to be my religion. - 21:55:32 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Some people feel passionate that creationism and Judaism are the way things are, some, like you, feel it necessary to defend that naturalism and/or materialism as the best answer, and others, like me, feel that somewhere else is a better perception. If you have a set of beliefs that you are devoted to, and certainly feel strong enough to defend, that is your passion, i.e. religion. Naturalism, by itself, is an ideology, like you mentioned, but when you argue for that as your main source for beliefs, that becomes your religion. That is the label you use to identify your passions, and if it wasn't a passion of yours, what need would you have to use it as an argument in a discussion room as the best indicator for truth? I didn't expect this to get so complicated, but I ask that you read the above definitions and think about that quote again. - 22:13:14 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- But you see, I'm not devoted to naturalism and/or materialism. I'm devoted to the process of thinking and learning, the process of eliminating contradictions and impossibilities and understanding bias and emotional influences and gaining perspective, blah blah blah. Naturalism would go out the window the very moment it became evident that something else was more accurate or reasonable or true. No brand loyalty, you see. No religion. - 22:25:45 on 21 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant, That sounds like the old Wishy Washy, Indecisive, I'll-Take-Whatever's-Trendy, but I don't want to be labeled, religion to me...(c:... You see, they do have a name for it. - 3:22:06 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:ROFL! - 3:23:30 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Movie quote: 'Eight Million Ways to Die' Andy Garcia character to character 'Chance': "Well, if it isn't the man who looks but doesn't see." - 7:35:20 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I have no body of doctrine I follow. I don't make any conclusions about anything unless it's fully supported with a whole bunch of substanial evidence. For instance, there is chlorophyll in plants. Your theory, the god theory, the blue fairy theory or the alien theory may prove to be true but to date the body of evidence to support those theories just isn't there. - 11:53:06 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:"People see hate and fear. You have to look with better eyes than that." - J. Cameron (The Abyss)...--Marlene-- What God theory? And why is it MY theory? - 15:19:43 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene and Grant- So just so I understand things here, you guys have 'no brand loyalty' and no body of doctrines that you follow, but you both claim you make all your conclusions that are only 'supported with a whole bunch of substantial evidence' while 'eliminating contradictions and impossibilities'? -- Would it be silly to say that this is a contradiction, denying you follow anything and then listing what sounds like materialism and/or naturlism as your defense? I think you guys just don't like the word religion - too many bad connotations. Really, though, some combination of those two are your religion, i.e. your set of beliefs generally agreed upon by a number of people, and it's something you believe in and follow devotedly. If there were enough evidence for something better, more accurate, or more reasonable, we'd all get on the bandwagon.. but up to now, we just have our own religions we follow. If people ask you your religious distinctions do you really think it makes sense to say, "I'm a Naturalist and/or Materialist in theory, but I have no brand loyalty and no real body of doctrine I follow" ??? Sounds like a cop-out. - 15:37:43 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Why won't you face the irrationality of your semantics. I don't think of myself as naturalist as much as rationalist. This probably isn't Hoyle, but where I make the distinction is between rationalist and spiritualist. Rationalism looks almost identical to naturalism, but the justifications as well as direction of origin is different. Now a spiritualist is one who looks for answers beyond the physical. This is the area where religion lives. There is a semantic problem if you call rationalism a religion because it is in actuality the antithesis of religion. I guess one could say that somebody adheres to rationalism in a religious-like manner, but this all seems to be the absolutely most fuzzy, imprecise imaginable way to describe rationalism. I think what you are trying to say is that I'm a hypocrite. Just fucking say that, OK? When I say you shouldn't use the word religious because it already generally means something else, you say that's why we have modifiers like 'Judaism', but then you continue to insist on defining naturalism as religious. Is naturalism more religious than Judaism? Remember the bit about jumping from floating log to floating log? I think we've about rendered this down as far as it's going to go. Looks like impasse. - 16:13:09 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
two guesses..:There is only one true religion, and it's name is MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. - 18:29:53 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Who is making the impasse? Ironically I was trying to be 'rational' about this, but okay... you're a hypocrite. Like I said, it's not my definition. I'm sure I don't have to explain that language was developed in order to universalize they way we communicate with each other, so there are certain definitions that we have to generally agree upon in order for language to work: --religion --(n.) 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons, 3. something a person believes in and follows devotedly. -- It works as a noun and an adjective, as in "religiously follows". To make this more simple, it is simply using an identifier, a label, to be distinct about one's specific devotions (like I've said a few time already). Anything, [ANY THING] you follow devotedly is your religious preference, therefore, and includes Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Naturalism, Materialism, or Rationalism, etc. (see, all in the same context)- which also means that you might have combinations of different religions which make up your beliefs. Everyone knows there are denominations of every sect of religion, including science (yes, also a set of beliefs followed devotedly (archaeology, geology, psychiatry...)). So in this case, arguing against my irrationality would make you a religious Rationalist, with previous tendencies for Naturalism and/or Materialism. You certainly show signs of devotion to all of these, so what is the real problem here? I've certainly been labeled in here....Is it that you don't like the word religion? Well, that's not very rational. (c: .... - 20:16:14 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--only pigeons live in pigeonholes--:Y'all believe what you will; I believe I'll have a cold beer. - 23:26:40 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
peanut gallery:I'll drink to that! - 23:39:07 on 22 Aug 99 GMT
Cody:I recently read an Indian creation story that was very much like the Bible. It had a Supreme Being, an evil one who brought evil on the perfect world, and a great flood. How could the Indians know all this before we tried to teach them Christianity? - 0:35:38 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I love the word 'religion.' I think it's a great word. Very useful. One doesn't need to justify ones beliefs. One need only to attempt to discredit any dissimilar beliefs, ironically by claiming they are religious like ones own. Just actively resist noticing that not everyone bases their beliefs on wishful thinking. - 0:45:39 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- Go ahead and do your last word thing, and lets move on. - 0:46:32 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:I have a huge two volume set of dictionaries. This is what my set defines religion as...religion 1. A belief in god (they capitalize it but I don't) or gods. 2. Worship of god or gods. (notice they don't include goddesses, NOT politically correct!) 3. A particular system of religious belief and worship 4. Anything done or followed with reverence or devotion. - 2:49:45 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- I never said I followed any doctrine. Nor do I do anything nor have I done anything with reverence and devotion. Look up the words reverence and devotion, no matter where you go with them they have some type of religious significance. I doubt I would call myself a materialist or a naturalist although I may agree with some of those who devote themselves to these types of "ists". - 2:55:47 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:I think one of the hardest things for a parent to go through is watching your children in pain and not being able to erase that pain. My son's grandfather died yesterday. He was very close to his grandfather as he was the only grandson of an "old country" family. I couldn't be with my son yesterday and he can't be with the family but at least we were able to talk on the phone. He's 20 years old but his age didn't help him to handle the pain of have someone so close to him die. His grandfather died of a heart attack at home. This was at least one positive thing we could talk about. His grandfather would have wished he died at home, on his farm, a place he loved. The other positive thing was that he lived to the age of 85 and was basically healthy and happy. He had lots of love for all his family and they had lots of love for him. I would have been nice if I were a theist. I could have consoled him with a fairytale and things would be happy ever after or at least not so painful. - 3:07:21 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:One more thing..at least I was able to see my son personally today and just holding him seemed to make things less painful for him as well as myself. - 3:09:28 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:MARLENE - sincere condolences on your loss. I hope your son will be over his hurt soon, and that he remembers the goodness of his grandfather to take away the pain. - 11:13:21 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--not you, too, Marlene!--:What do you mean, "if I were a theist I could have consoled him with a fairytale and things would be happy ever after or at least not so painful"? The very concept of 'pain' you give creedence to is defined by a religious outlook. If we understood death as a natural act and not some cosmic punishment we would take its occurrence much more calmly; by the same token, were we to understand life itself as a natural act and not a 'miracle' we might do more--and better, and sooner--with it. This is not to say that I am hard-hearted about your loss, however; only that mortality is a necessary component of our existence, and that the perspective of 'loss' is necessary to religion. I'm sure that Grandpa was a fine person--so it behooves your family to accept his death, remember him fondly, and integrate the lessons of his life with your own lives. - 12:49:26 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: So who holds that there are ghosts? I saw the flick, "Sixth Sense" w/B.Willis and little Forrest Gump. It was a Good story and a fun movie. If you get a chance check it out. - 14:30:39 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:CODY: What about the source of the story? You know the europeans with their guns germs and steel killed off nearly all of them. Maybe that story was uttered by some near dead indian type person who at gun point blurted out that "story" just to live some minutes more or even another day. - 14:43:20 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT/MARLENE: The further along that any communication goes with JOSH, and I rub my eyes, I think I am beginning to make-out the appearance of a theist. Sure he's come on as a fan o'holism, but of this notion muddlespeak seems to be its'only evidence. But, mostly it says nothing of or for science but delves-in touches-on the mysticism of "life", the holism types say. For the mysticism part of holism to prevail, however, like religious spitiualism, both must belittle or lessen the materialism of anyone's world. As JOSH now appears to mean to connect what and how one's thinking processes itself, must you two accept what he says of the word religion. Thereafter, he'll probably flit off into the direction that the TONY devolved to when he got into the "mind of god" stuff, remember that? - 15:36:24 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- You looked up religion and the last one said, anything followed with reverence or devotion? And then you looked up reverence or devotion and they have 'religious' significance in your description. That's what we call synonyms and doesn't really dispute what I've been saying. Believing in something only 'supported with a whole bunch of substantial evidence" is a religious devotion to rationalism. That is the doctrine you follow, according to your posts. I hope I am being clear. - 17:35:04 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Holistic medicine has nothing to do with science? Holistic world views have nothing to do with science? The word 'religion' has been redefined by myself? Holism belittles materialism? Whole world views belittle little world views?(think about this one). Spiritualism lessens the materialism of anyone's world? And I am making myself out to be a theist? -- Hmm. More outrageous and non-sensical generalities. I think next semester I'm gonna ask for the advanced students. - 17:53:28 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Did you anyone else 'The Thomas Crown Affair'? A friend of mine worked as a production assistant on this it seems like 2 years ago and he has been talking about it ever since. I finally got to see it and it's probably one of the best films I've seen in awhile, for whatever that's worth. - 19:04:44 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Did anyone else 'SEE' - 19:05:49 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--just an observation--:JOSH: Before you "ask for the advanced students", make yourself better understood by the undergraduates, please? - 19:44:30 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - a definite "renter" when it comes out for me...however, I did watch Schindler's List for about the 20th time last night. - 19:58:53 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JWILSON: Don't try to rain on JOSH's parade. - 20:35:06 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOETTE: You kno'what I can see again and again, Ferris Buelers day off. - 21:01:43 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:AND: dang, also "The Coneheads" - 21:02:58 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- You're very smart, in my opinion, but you substitute bluster for knowledge and wisdom. It's an attribute of youth. I know firsthand, for I was once imperfect. :-) - 21:43:54 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: You can "say" as you please about your holism thing. I've seen 40 books available here I grabbed one published in 1926 "Holism and Evolution". The interesting point that I've noted the majority of the books are of very recent publications, the 70s on. Not very many on medicine. Of the one I'm readin', well I'll pass on to you what I've read. I am impressed by the authors negativity. - 22:32:00 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:Am I the only one wondering why Adam doesn't come and punt God off the porch anymore? - 23:05:06 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:and where is Steven, and where is Doug? Could it be true that we don't have a life? HAR - 23:10:46 on 23 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:jaywilson...I ran across an article today by Gerald Nachman of The San Fransico Examiner, and I had hoped to find it on the net to post here...unfortunately I didn't find it, but I would like to share a few tidbits from the article as it reminded me of your post earlier today..."Death is suddenly fashionable, like some kind of ultimate weight-loss program. Grief counselling is a booming industry and seminars on death and dying are popping up like '80's self-esteem courses. An affirmative attitude toward dying is self-esteem's final triumph." "Dying, insist death's new public relations people, is just "a part of life", a transition, like graduation day, and shouldn't be feared but graciously welcomed, like an uninvited wedding guest." "Dying with dignity, maintains the pro-death faction, is less painful than regulation croaking. Instead of gasping those final breaths, one now has the option of going out with head held high, laughing at the Grim Reaper all the way to the graveyard." - 1:40:58 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Joette: I'm here!Just having fun in the sun and getting ready for fall. - 1:58:46 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOETTE-- ANY-- What do you think of what Epicurus says of death over on our very own meager 'writings' section? *** Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. So that the man speaks but idly who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation. For that which gives no trouble when it comes is but an empty pain in anticipation. So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more. - 1:59:46 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:I brought my 9 year old daughter to see the "Blair witch project" the other weekend and what a rip off! It wasn't scary, nor did it have any dialog.It might have been a good college movie for a film student but not the right stuff. I just hate the media hype pushing junk movies. - 2:02:14 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--mornin'--:JOETTE and GRANT: Thanks for the quoted material; it made me think a little more about Mr. D. - 10:27:37 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Steven :DOUG <<>> go check out "The Sixth Sense", its pretty creepy, and a good story. - 12:39:05 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Since the topic seems to be about life and death what about that loving NY mother that killed 8 of her newborne? If the news report is accurate a deal was made to allow or imprison her in her home for 5 years. An account I read had it that NOE, the mother, remembered killing only 4, of the other 4 she had no recollection. It seems that there are pockets of folks who cry for something tougher, but the official account says essentially that things- home imprisonment, are cool. The human organism, is it beast or angel, or what is it? - 15:19:28 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- If you want to read material on holistic medicine, you're not going to find it in books on evolution or so-called new age books. Most of the books on this subject, I would presume, are fairly recent. Afterall, traditional mechanistic approaches to medicine have dominated the area for so many hundreds of years. -- As far as the human organism goes, we can be beasts and we can decide to be angels. Only the realization that we might be prone to these tendencies, through progressive knowledge of ourselves and the world around us, including the people on other parts of the world, have we been able to attempt to erradicate or improve some of our tendencies. Realizing who we are, where we come from, what made us the way we are, and that we all share the same problems and triumphs and that we are all concerned in some way about the violence and successes in the world, has allowed us to understand this. Yep, holistic perceptions are the key. If we can't stop the violence in our own country, how do we expect to stop others in other parts of the world? Someone has to set the example, then hopefully, others will catch on. Any good idea that works will catch on, but people need the responsible leaders to show them how. People need a better perception of their world and to understand that the real responsibility is up to the individual. If not, we only have ourselves to blame.. well, I've said it all before.... (now I'll wait for the opposition, who will argue things are just fine the way they are) - 20:21:11 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I have not used the word 'holistic' before now. I've not said anything regarding medicine or violence. I've only said that your beliefs regarding the universe are religious in nature and then defended myself tooth and claw. In my view these holistic beliefs are fine but are social and political in nature and have no direct independant connection to your religious-type views. Do you see what I'm saying? As an example, even if the universe is concious or evolution is directed toward some end, it doesn't automatically follow that we need holistic medicine, even if we do. I've also, of course, been taking exception to your attitude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron. I think this is about the least endearing attitude a body can have. I don't recall making any qualitative judgments about the way things are. I've argued, perhaps, that things are in fact the way they are in spite of how we would like them to be, and that your idealism has caused you to see them differently. I don't know why I get drawn in. Have a good time. I'll try to stay out of it. - 21:10:04 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- My views are the same either way, socially/politically and spiritually. The responsibility for the perceptions we have and how we influence the world has always been our doing, and this by itself is very secular. I didn't mention anything solely religious (a passionate devotion). Things are the way we are BECAUSE we wanted them to be this way, but our limited perceptions of future ecological and political catastrophes have setup a very destructive system. This is what I feel people do not understand about our place in time. These happen to be my personal expressions in conjunction with other opinions I have gathered, but they are about the entire world, so really, I am responding to what I perceive. You obviously want to get drawn in enough to make some points, so don't just say them and back out. Let's talk about the issues, not my personal expressions. That's what I was doing. - 23:54:54 on 24 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Notice also how I said I'll wait for "the opposition who will argue things are just fine the way they are"... I didn't mention my personal beliefs or name anyone, but for some reason you made yourself the opposition without a definite cause except to be the catalyst for the opposition to what I say, even when you agree that "holistic beliefs are fine". Basically, we agreed anyway, but you had to find something to disagree about. So if you think I am setting out with an attitude to make people out to be morons, think again. It's not me. - 0:04:46 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm going to sit this out for a bit. You weren't referring to me anyway. :-) - 0:36:53 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Things are the way they are, you and your socially/politically spiritual self still pass gas and waste, exactly as they did way back when. Things "are fine" just the way they are because as for the organism that you and me are at this time, its not any different than some caveman. Here, I ain't saying anything new but neither are you. Jean Jacques Rousseau held that people were morally corrupted by life in a "civilised society". He was contending at the time, however, agin'the word civilisation as it's meaning was then being put together by its 'intellectual supporters'. You seem to be exercising the Quixote thing too, I thought that I fought against the symbolism of money. You inscribe "Its not me", hahah, its always just you. - 15:08:27 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- Following your example, I'll skip over your diarrhea scatter-gun approach to making a point, and step over the crap. Like I've said before, our form of life is continuous structural change, but stability in the pattern of the system of organization. Yeah, we look physically similar to cavemen, but our restructuring and development of our lives into civilization is responsible for territorial domain and superficial nationalistic pride which promote segregation, bigotry, greed, and an obsessive pursuit of growth way beyond mere subsistence living. Sure, there are some great things about society, but only if you are willing to dismiss these things first. The same organisms that were cavemen are the same organism that can learn how to make civilization work better. Let's stick to the points, and not to the bottom of a porcelain bowl, please. - 16:01:59 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: Perhaps you need a better understanding of that word, civilisation. I say that because you seem to bank a lot of your position[s] on that word. The point is what you are saying or try to say is not new. I mention the Quixote thing because as far as I can tell, that is all you do, you just want to wage war on windmills, here with us. Again, things are the way they are and it is good. - 16:37:11 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- You know what happens to things that are content in stagnation? They become obsolete. Again, I never said any of this was new news to the citizens of civilization, but people's content in remaining bystanders to the problems is a subtle denial of responsibility for them. What's that saying? oh yeah... if you're not part of the solution... Things are only good when you can convince yourself that you'll never be held accountable for the state of the world. That's what's wrong with it. Sure, people know about holistic awareness, but nobody teaches the responsibility attached to it. - 16:53:59 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JOSH: First of all "stagnation" gotta reject that idea from the start. Thats what religious adherents do for their spirituality. It looks as though you do, for the mystery of life position that I have seen said in that book I read of holism, the same for the mysticism of your holism thing. Oh now you figure to address matters of responsibility? Will you do this in your own words or will you have to lean on the holism thingy? Or will you attach connect what you say to that holism thing? If you start praying or something like that, well, I for one won't be surprised. - 17:36:35 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - where do you get the idea that society is "content in stagnation"? - 20:01:56 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--raining on JOSH's parade again--:JOSH: "Society" and "civilization" are pretty unwieldy collective nouns for the informed pundits to use, let alone you. The information, let alone knowledge, necessary to sustain your sophomoric Utopian "holistic awareness" would cripple a Cray--and still nothing of consequence would get done, if only because the knowledge necessary to foresee all possible _consequences_ of one's supposedly 'corrective' actions is even more daunting in its collection and processing. Best to mind one's own business; that's enough of a "responsibility" for each of us, and certainly not one to be confused with your deprecatory process of "stagnation". - 22:09:45 on 25 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:JOSH: I work in the biological field and holistic has a very different meaning from the one you're presenting.Holistic doesn't mean unreliable and falsified mechinisms.Your understanding of ecology isn't mathematictics is it.These pop culture veiws are no substitue for hard smart complicated go old work.Communication, and especially language, are further "key innovations" that may have lead humans into a new "adaptive zone". But literature (Lascaux cave paintings, National Inquirer; and now consider electronic transfer of literary info, e-mail, etc.) really sets us apart. Our rate of evolution is dramatic on all counts. While the beaver, in building its dam, alters the environment that surrounds it, it has evolved in this context of altering its environment in a predictable way for a long time. We are no where near "equilibrium" with respect to how we are evolving with the extensive alterations we are making to our environment.Almost all professional football players are still alive. 4% of all human beings that have ever lived are still alive. What percent of all species that have ever lived are still alive? 0.1%; thus 99.9 % are extinct. Looking ahead, things look numerically bad for humans: chances are that we will go extinct.can we treat the patterns of diversity in the fossil record as we might treat an ecological system? There are inferences that support both answers to this question. Computer models where the rates of extinction and origination (speciation) fluctuated randomly. One constraint was that the mean probability of a taxon going extinct equaled the mean probability of it speciating. Thus, diversity would fluctuate but hover about some "equilibrium" value. Results produced patterns of diversity within clades very similar to those observed in the fossil record.Data supporting the notion of regulation is the observation that rates of extinction and rates of origination are correlated. This suggests that when speciation increases diversity, extinction rates increase and bring diversity back down; similarly if extinction rates increased, speciation rates would increase and bring diversity back up (beware of using a teleological argument; these changes are effects of changes in diversity presumably occurring due to ecological pressures at the time, not for the purpose of restoring diversity). Observation of correlation of extinction and speciation rates suggest diversity dependent effects or feedback in an ecological sense. - 2:05:18 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:JOSH: The simple fact is you're confusing and/or abusing definitions of words.Religion is being used as the broader philosophy in most of your posts.Ecology and holism have scientific meanings which are being used out of context. And by the way the post above made by me contains some of my evolution notes from college many years ago.I can't post the mathematics here(I wish I could)to back it up.Mathematics is another langauge that sets humans apart.You're holistic pop volcabulary might impress the undergraduates(you're calling them graduates to try and prove your point to us)but your words are vague and hollow . - 2:27:34 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- This was my reference for mentioning stagnation, 'Again, things are the way they are and it is good'. Your own words. My words were that we actively change things, which is quite a difference. - 15:41:15 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- I was referring to Carl's comment about stagnation. - 15:42:12 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:jaywilson- 'one's own business' is primarily being a member of the world population. Accept it or deny it. Denying it is very, temporarily convenient. Worrying about 'one's own business' is alot of responsibility because of the complex system of operations we have in this part of the world. We don't have the luxury to worry about future generations when we are boggled down by the demands of society. And that's my point. It doesn't have to be so taxing (pun intended) to ensure our own futures on this planet. We've had this specific kind of system for over 200 years now. It's more destructive than productive. Let's try something else now. - 15:49:32 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Doug- Where do I start? Where did I say holism means "unreliable and falsifiable mechanisms"? I said mechanistic approaches were proved limiting. I also never argued for a final cause of events of our actions or speciations. I did argue, however, for a synthesis of all the current reasoning we have, which shows that our individual greed and pursuit of obsessive growth has more destructive qualities than positives. That is why when diversity increases, extinction rates go up… We aren't thinking about ourselves as a single human race, we think of ourselves as each a single enterprise. So if the ecological pressures of our time deem us to be doomed for extinction in this way, is that not sufficient enough reason to want to change things and consider a new thesis for survival? I could have gone through all the trouble to post your same biological findings only to arrive at the same conclusions. You post has clarified some of the reasons why I may have appeared to be vague and hollow – I was already sure of my claims. - 16:20:54 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Doug - A final cause of events of our actions from less speciation, is what I meant. - 16:24:51 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: Is JOSH nutz or what? The comparable gooblygoop that I read sorta'similar to his stuff to DOUG, those old time pope's encyclicals. Far out stuff. - 17:09:44 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Carl- I'm sure Grant will agree with you. - 17:13:40 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:On a lighter note, and in light of the recent drug and gun bust of federal officials at American Airlines, I'd just like to add as a personal experience that check-in procedures for airline personel, including pilots, mechanics, food servicers, and visitors in general - are considered a joke, especially amongst the employees. My uncle works for Miami Airlines as a flight engineer. When he arrived in Phoenix, I visited him at the hangar. After my uncle showed his ID, the guard gave both of us a visitor's pass which gave us free access to the ground level of all the planes, food areas, etc. and all with no security background checks and/or metal detection or even a look at my driver's license. I also had access to all parts of the plane, including the cockpit and luggage compartments. Within reason, I could have brought a bomb through the gate with the help of one of the employees. In this case with American, the employees needed absolutely no encouragement to help out for a small sum. Granted, other facilities are a little more secure, but not much. Should we be surprised if more drugs or guns are found being smuggled, or that terrorist bombings can occur more frequently than we imagine? Just something else to think about in the wake of the US's recent campaigns to bring security to other nations. - 17:42:20 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - if the lack of security in your own experience is troubling, what's stopping you from reporting that particular airport to the federal agency governing such things in your country? This is how things get changed, so as to avoid social stagnation. - 18:21:06 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: To bad STEVEN ain't here. Just saw an interesting news report outta'some Indian reservation. A wite dude was killed by supposedly some young 'Indian' bucks. The report says the authority types thereabouts are considering or are going to toss in the 'Hate-crime' aspect and proceed along that line. A 'hate-crime' by an Indian against a wite dude? Hmmm? Lets see the wite folks killed off all but an infinitly small number of whatever number that the Indians were. The wite folks took the lands and totally destroyed whatever the Indians valued. Now if there is a scenario for shere utter hatred, isn't only to be expected from an Indian type, be they as whatever wherever they are today? Hate-crimes; is this simply an attempt at thought control? - 19:08:22 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Joette- Great idea. Very idealistic, too. Maybe you are not familiar with the bureaucracy we face here, but writing a letter to a federal agency is like composing a letter about the excessively humid season we are having here in the southwest; there's nobody to answer the problem. Like I said, it wasn't just my own experience. Airline employees knew about it for years and nothing was fixed. I've also seen various media "investigative stories" which showed the same crisis. Now that it's receiving national coverage, we'll watch it turn from scandalous to epidemic. I'll also add here that it's just as bad in other countries. Customs officials send plane crews through the "backdoors" of security, giving them immunity to the scrutiny of safety check-in procedures. How would one civilian report change the entire system of operations? We would all (the people of the world) have to decide to change the system of operations together. What would fixing United States procedures do to fix the world-wide problem? We'd still just be fixing pieces of the puzzle. Why do we even need safety precautions in the first place? Because excessive growth of wealth and power over others in other countrues force them to revolt. People attack when they feel their rights are threatened. People are also proned to greed and wealth to manage the stakeholds of their rights, so smuggling drugs and guns is no less comparable. Yep, so going to the source of the real problem, arguing for the lack of airline safety procedures is futile. It's something a lot bigger- the state of the world needs a serious makeover. - 19:10:58 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: At another atheist chat site I frequent, the ROSEANNE show is using it for a show. It is to bad I can't think of a thing a ask. - 22:51:06 on 26 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:HI EVERYONE...Just dropped in to see what condition the addition was in..and I see Josh is still a popular guy! JOSH- Yes! since your on about responsibility, why aren't you being responsible enough to report to your uncle's superiors about the lax security? You may end up being responsible for hundreds of lives when someone else's uncle decides to take them on a tour and that someone else plants a bomb or hijacks an aircraft. Give me the name of that particular airline, your name, your uncle's name and I'll be responsible enough to report the incident. - 3:42:10 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- What ole god-fearing Roseanne is going to take on all we nasty atheists? - 3:44:01 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene- Like I said, it's a problem at all the airlines. Read my posts. - 4:28:45 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Carl: the old time pope's encyclicals certainly are freaky. But the infallability of the pope is very recent.The twisting of words to give the illusion of science and authority is at it's greatest down home in Rome. - 4:30:38 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh: you still don't explain the misuse of the word religion, and ecology. - 4:33:35 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh; there again you missed the point of diversity and extinction.It is refering to all species not just within human species.You have not explained, nor backed up this hypothsis of your's.How are segregation, bigotry, greed, and an obsessive pursuit of growth way beyond mere subsistence living going to promote or allow greater species diversity?Within an individual species different rules apply which you have failed to understand. - 4:56:08 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Doug- After I went through all the trouble to read and answer your long, unnecessary post, you're still gonna hassle me about what words you think I misuse? I'm not going to post the 'religion' definition for the 4th time. I think people are tired of it. Why don't you explain what you think 'ecology' is and I'll explain why you think I misuse it, just like I corrected certain other misunderstandings in this room over and over (most of it has to do with people jumping to conclusions taken out of context, so see if that's the problem first, please). This is starting not to be fun anymore.... - 5:00:37 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Doug- Those things that refer to the certain members of the human species, i.e. segregation, greed... promote superficial individualist qualities designed to divide people into separate, economical and social corporations. It's the every man/woman for him/herself philosophy. Breaking away from each other creates more diversity and promotes separatism. Yes, there are people that don't live by these rules as well, and they do not 'succeed' according to the rules of the game. What don't you get? - 5:15:59 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - well, I am disappointed in your attitude. You obviously don't practise what you preach. YOU saw the problem, YOU should be doing something about it. YOU could make a change, whether or not there is a huge beaurocracy to contend with. Your sitting back and let it happen just shows that you are not capable of making changes. You sit, you whine, but you don't act. Not a good. I guess it's true when "they" say: "Those who can, do...those who can't, teach" - 11:46:51 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- YOU read my posts. You claim no one but wonderful you is taking responsibility so YOU do your job son. Otherwise your just as irresponsible as the next guy who plants the bomb. Either put up or shutup! - 12:27:57 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Grant :JOSH-- I don't think you've "corrected certain other misunderstandings in this room." You've only repeated dogmatic assertions. Do you understand what 'dogmatic' means? Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. As for faith, {edit: intended to say "religion"} you adjusted and altered the definitions throughout the argument until at the end it pretty much meant 'enthusiasm,' then declared victory, apparently without noticing the irrelevance your statement then held. I believe that you see my posts as personal attacks, which they aren't. You frequently accuse people of nitpicking and jumping to conclusions when what they are doing is trying to insist on following certain rules of reason, and of verifiability and justification. I've linked an essay on intellectual integrity here. The context of the essay is a little off, but I think it's an excellent presentation of intellectual integrity. If you are interested in talking about this, hopefully in a non-combative manor, lets have a go. - 12:53:23 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE\JOETTE: It looks to me like JOSH's and his understanding, if he understands anything at all, of holism does not include action[is he stagnant?] or responsibility[see Airport and uncle are they is JOSH part of a whole?]. Well we know already of at least one kind of human critter that can go on and on about good bad, right wrong, and a peace/pie in the sky. I wonder what he'd say of his whole and holism ideas in the example of a car engine? It is a whole, and due to its wholeness it can go places, so it is in effect a greater thing than the sum of its parts, is that too his "holism"? If it is is it mechanistic? Or, what about artificial intelligence[AI]? So like any religion, 'others' have to be good and accept what the chosen few know[interestingly they call themselves teachers too!], while these few can do or not do whatever. Is this holism religion just bullshit or what? - 14:43:25 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:GRANT: I like that sorta'stuff of your link, I'll pass it on to my 9th grader. He likes that kinda stuff. - 14:48:03 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:DOUG: If you've read some of those old encyclicals then you too must have noted the similaritys'twixt them and JOSH's stuff. In a word its 'muddlespeak'. Kinda'like what is 'is' or what is 'alone'. I guess that is the trend nowadays, say things as etherially as possible, maybe it can be called disconnect talk. - 16:39:17 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
PETER:Oh fer chrissakes JOSH, the occaisional use of well-placed humbleness goes a long way sometimes.. - 17:10:29 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - getting back to your inability to make changes, I am going to give you an example, from my own personal experience, where one person with a concern can make changes....a couple of years ago, a certain person on this very site (Adam) cajoled Marlene and I because the word GOD is mentioned in our national anthem. We Canadians are somewhat smug about our secular country, but it got me to thinking. Not only is God mentioned in our anthem, but he/she/it is also first and foremost in our Act of Rights and Freedoms, a prelude to our Constitution. I began a one-woman campaign, visiting Members of Parliament, and other people who may be in a position to make changes to these things. I went online with my campaign, and eventually found other Canadians who had the same concern...we practice secularism, but we don't preach it, you see. So, while I don't take any credit, the idea of having our Constitution changed caught fire among like-minded individuals, and it was presented as a Private Member's Bill in our last sitting of Parliament. Mind you, the poor MP that presented it has been demoted and castigated (that's another advocacy story I won't bore you with right now), but since then it has become a NATIONAL DEBATE. People who took it for granted are now thinking about it, more people are joining in and having their opinions aired. People are talking about it, and I know that one day there will be a change made. Now, if a simple little gal from a small town in Ontario can get the bandwagon rolling about something like this, what makes you think you can't do something about airport security, especially since there are millions of people out there with the same concerns? It's a matter of working at it. It isn't easy, in fact it's downright frustrating, and you'll lose a lot of sleep over it, but if you feel strongly about any issue, you have to be the one to say "ENOUGH". - 18:35:25 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:an interesting bit of science - 18:38:54 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:HMM?: According to a report on the Drudge, WJC supports a 1980 something or other that is against teaching creationism in schools. Now why would a low life scum as WJC not want something that makes the mindless one happy? These mindless ones have been behind him the whole way, - 22:41:34 on 27 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOETTE- That IS an interesting piece of science! Also, isn't it a shame that political parties don't practice what they preach. I, personally, am not an NDP fan, actually far from it. BUT they are the party, if any party is, that would address this issue. I can't see any other party wanting to take the risk. The NDP have taken risks before and run with them and I really don't understand why they aren't running with this one. Hell, I may even have chosen this issue over the others I don't agree with and voted for them. - 4:06:05 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- I keep getting the message that the server doesn't have a DNS entry when I try your link. Maybe it's just that the server is down right now. - 4:08:45 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:DOUG- Seems to me that Josh is using pseudoscience to me,non? - 4:15:22 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene: He isn't communicating right or at all.Using words and phrases improperly to impress and argue from authority falls apart when his statements are dissected.This "holism" thing is a code word for the supernatural.Ecology and environment are so abused that the original and proper meanings are scoffed at.Faith is another word that is really a religous word directed to a god/gods.In xianity faith is opposite of sin. So not to have faith is opposing deity. I use the words certainty,confidence and probibility.See, your xain will try to get you to agree that we all have faith(certainty,confidence and probibility)and then when you agree, pull the religous rabbit(definition) out of the hat. - 4:38:45 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Notice how I NEVER said I didn't report anything to the airline company. Boy, people sure jump to hysterical conclusions in here, and then take on this bandwagon approach where you each get pats on the back from each other, as if you get points for passing notes to each other behind the teacher's back. It's like a cult or some demented club. Just my observation. - 5:24:04 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Doug- You made alot of assumptions, too. I'm still waiting for you to explain how I misused certain words amidst your claims. - 5:32:12 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Grant- Funny, I meant dogmatic as in "asserting opinions in a dictatorial manner; opinionated". I also posted the definition for religion I was referring to over 3 times. In addition, I sent you several emails offering to answer questions on a one-to-one basis (like you suggested), as opposed to this kind of format. Based on your (lack of) response and deliberate assertions without the right for me to explain things to your understanding, what am I to assume but that you made conclusions based upon ignorant and hypocritical conclusions of what I intended? (like a few others in here) - 5:38:31 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
JOSH:Marlene and Joette- Next time, read what I post more clearly. My post was in response to this nonsense: 'if the lack of security in your own experience is troubling, what's stopping you from reporting that particular airport to the federal agency governing such things in your country?' and this 'Give me the name of that particular airline' --- Because you didn't read that I said this was a major problem of all the airlines!!!! and then I explained why the real problem doesn't really rest with airline security, because that is only a piece of a much larger puzzle!!! (I put the exclamation points in so you can go back and re-read my post to understand what I mean by these things). All of this was in light, by the way, of the American Airlines incident which revealed as the larger problem of all the airlines. But why should I bother repeating myself again when you continually and almost purposely misconstrue what I post? Again, I never said I didn't address my complaint to the FAA, and I will still leave that up to your discretion... and look what happened... hysterical conclusions made by both of you. Which shows that you don't care to read what I say, because it's much easier to rely on criticism. There's a lot you should take note of in the way you present yourselves in here. I'm guessing we'd get along better in real life, but I can't tell. - 6:05:21 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh:Religion in its simplest form implies the notion of being bound to God; the same notion is uppermost in the word religion in its most specific sense, as applied to the life of poverty, chastity, and obedience to which individuals voluntarily bind themselves by vows more or less solemn. Hence those who are thus bound are known as religious.Catholic Encyclopedia****ecologist - a scientist concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environment. ecology - a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environment. ecosystem - an interconnected and symbiotic grouping of animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms.****Term: Ecology Definition: The study of the interaction of organisms with one another and with their physical and chemical environments. - 7:27:08 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh: and holistic the word is the opposite reductionist. When used with ecology it is to include all the ecology. Term: Ecology Definition: The study of the interaction of organisms with one another and with their physical and chemical environments.****not the spiritual or other quartz crystal garbarge, just the real world.Does "Simpsons index" mean anything to you or "boot strapping", how about "monte carlo"? - 7:33:46 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh:religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers. - 7:41:07 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh:A Dictionary of Ecology Second Edition Edited by MICHAEL ALLABY From acid rain, CFC's, and the greenhouse effect to the food-chain and the gene bank, Oxford's thoroughly revised Dictionary of Ecology, Second Edition provides 5,000 up-to-date entries on all aspects of ecology and the environmental sciences. Offering direct access to the most accurate and up-to-date information available, the dictionary covers a vast range of subjects, from plant and animal physiology, animal behavior, evolution, environmental pollution, and conservation to climatology, meteorology, geomorphology, and oceanography. The Dictionary of Ecology, Second Edition, has been fully updated to incorporate developments in this rapidly evolving field, particularly in the areas of molecular ecology, conservation, and the management of habitats. Also included are biographical notes on eminent ecologists and other scientists, as well as helpful cross-references that make this volume an invaluable reference tool for students, professionals, and anyone with an interest in the natural world and our environment. "Comprehensive coverage of ecology and the environmental sciences."--BBC Wildlife. New edition fully updated No Penguin competition Illustrated for the first time Oxford Paperback Reference - 7:52:51 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Josh: a shorterned Dictionary of Ecology A Abiotic: The physical,or abiotic, part of the environment includes the temperature, moisture, light, altitude and chemical interactions affecting the habitat, the availability of essential nutrients, and the level of oxygen and carbon dioxide. These abiotic features limit the types of organisms which are present in the habitat. Adaptation: The adjustments that organisms make to become better suited to their environment. Atmosphere: The layer of gases, also called air, surrounding the earth. The air consists of a mixture of gases: 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, and .02 percent carbon dioxide. Autotrophs: Organisms which make organic materials from inorganic substances by means of energy coming from outside the organism. Autotrophs is a term applied to some bacteria and plants with chlorophyll. B Biomass: Biomass is the total amount of living organic material in an ecosystem. See also food pyramid. Biosphere: The part of the earth in which living species are found is called the biosphere. Most organisms are found within a few metres of the earth's surface, either in the soil, water or atmosphere. Biotic: The living,or biotic, part of the environment includes the various populations of living plants, animals and microbes which together form the communities of the environment. C Carbon cycle: Carbon is a part of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Green plants get carbon from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Through photosynthesis the carbon is changed into carbohydrates. The carbon is transferred to animals when the plants are eaten. Carbon is returned to the atmosphere through animal respiration and through decomposition when the plants or animals die. Carnivores: Animals that eat other animals are called flesh-eaters, or carnivores. The carnivores that feed on plant-eating animals (herbivores) are known as first-order carnivores. Carnivores that feed on other carnivores are called second-order carnivores. A frog that eats an insect is a first-order carnivore. The red fox is a second-order carnivore when it eats the frog. Carnivores are often larger and stronger than the herbivores they prey upon, or they hunt in groups that allow them to overpower a large herbivore. Carrying Capacity: The carrying capacity is the maximum population of an individual plant or animal species that a community can support. Cellulose: The cellulose is a complex carbohydrate that is the major component of the cell walls of plants. Chlorophyll: The green pigment of plants which converts light energy into chemical energy is called chlorophyll. Chloroplast: Chloroplasts are the tiny, spherical bodies containing chlorophyll. They are the centre of photosynthesis in a plant. Coniferous:Coniferous means cone-bearing. Conifers are cone-bearing trees or bushes. They are also known as evergreens, needle-leafed trees or softwood trees. The leaves of conifers are very narrow and long or small and scale-like with straight veins. The leaves remain on the tree for two or more years, with the exception of the tarmack which loses its leaves each fall. Many tropical trees are also evergreens. Coniferous trees do not produce true flowers; rather the stamens and ovules are found in separate male and female cones. Both kinds of cones occur on the same tree except in juniper and yews where the male and female cones are on separate trees. Pollination is by the wind. Consumers: Any organism that feeds on other plants or animals is a consumer. All consumers are directly or indirectly dependent on producers (plants) for food. Consumers are also called heterotrophs which means other feeders. D Deciduous: Deciduous trees are also known as broad-leafed, or hardwood trees. The leaves are wide or broad compared to their length and have net-like or branching veins. Leaves are on the tree for a single growing season. In the autumn the leaves change colour and are shed from the tree before winter. Deciduous trees produce true flowers. Both anther and pistils are commonly found in the same flower although in some cases they are found in separate flowers on the same tree or on different trees. Pollination is by wind or insects. The seeds mature within the growing season and are shed when ripe. Decomposers: Decomposers are organisms in an ecosystem which obtain energy by breaking down dead organic matter, such as dead plants, dead animals, and animal waste, into more simple substances. These organisms are mainly bacteria and fungi. As decomposers feed on the organic matter, they return valuable nutrients to the soil where they can be used again. E Ecological Niche: A style of life that is unique to a species of plant or animal. A species niche includes its place in the food chain, relationships with the other species in its habitat, habitat requirements, special adaptations to life in the ecosystem, and daily and seasonal periods of activity. Only one species can occupy a niche at a time. Ecology: The study of how all plants and animals interact with each other in their non-living environment. Ecosystem: The living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) parts of the environment. The ecosystem includes plant and animal communities along with factors such as climate, altitude, temperature, moisture, light, and the chemical cycles. Environment: All the external factors to which an organism is exposed. Includes all abiotic and biotic factors that may influence the organism. F Food Chain: A food chain describes the transfer of energy from one organism to another. Food chains begin with the sun, the source of all energy on earth. Since only plants can produce food from the sun's energy the first link in a food chain is always a plant. The second link in the chain is a plant eater and the third link a meat eater. A typical food chain might be diagrammed as: grass ----> rabbit ----> red fox Food Pyramid: A food pyramid is a diagram that gives an estimate of the amount of energy available at each trophic or feeding level. The amount of stored energy is calculated by weighing all living things at each feeding level and the result is called a pyramid of biomass. Food Web: A food web is a diagram which shows all the feeding relationships within a community. The diagram, which shows how the various food chains are interlinked, should include the scavengers, decomposers, and producers as well as the herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores. G H Habitat: Habitat is the place where an organism lives. The habitat must allow the organism to meet its basic needs for shelter, space and food. See also: environment, ecological niche, range. Herbivores: A herbivore is an animal that feeds directly on plants. Herbivores or plant eaters cannot produce their own food. Since herbivores feed directly on producers (plants) they are first-order consumers and are at the second energy level in a food chain. Herbivores have adapted to a diet of cellulose. They have specialized stomachs, teeth, and intestines which allow them to consume plant material and convert the fibre into energy. Herbivores are necessary in an ecosystem because they are the only animals that break down the plant fibre into animal tissue. Without herbivores, carnivores would not exist in the ecosystem. Heterotrophic: A heterotrophic organism cannot produce its own food. All animals are heterotrophic and obtain their food from plants. Horizon: A horizon is a layer of soil running more or less parallel to the soil surface. The different soil horizons are the result of the actions of living organisms on the original parent materials. Organic matter is added to the soil gradually by the plants and animals living in the soil. Over a long period of time, this organic material or humus builds up. The largest amounts of organic material are near the surface in what is known as the topsoil. Below the topsoil is the subsoil which contains many of the nutrients washed out of the topsoil by rain. The final layer contains the parent material but no humus. Humus: Humus is decaying organic matter such as dead plants, leaf litter and the remains of dead animals in an advanced state of decomposition. Humus is usually dark in colour and rich in nitrogen. (IJK) L Life Processes: Life processes are those factors that separate living organisms from non-living things. The life processes shared by all living things are: the ability to move, the eating and digestion of food, the ability to sense change, the removal of waste from their bodies, respiration, growth and reproduction. (M) N Nitrogen Cycle: Plants can use nitrogen only after it has been converted into a nitrate. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil and on the nodes on the roots of plants such as clover and beans are able to form these nitrates. The nitrates are absorbed in water by the roots and used by the plants to build plant tissue. Animals receive nitrogen by eating plants. When plants or animals die, bacteria and fungi return the nitrogen compounds back into the soil. Other bacteria break down these compounds and release free nitrogen back into the atmosphere. O Omnivore: Omnivores are animals that eat plants and other animals. Organism: An organism is a living creature such as a plant or animal. See also life processes. P Parent Material: Parent material consists of rock that has been broken down as a result of a physical, chemical or biological weathering. In physical weathering, the rocks are broken down into smaller and smaller pieces as a result of wind, water, ice or temperature changes. Chemical weathering involves a chemical change to the rock resulting in the further break-down of the parent material. Biological weathering occurs as a result of the actions of plants. The roots of plants might crack and break apart rock as the roots grow. Plants, such as lichens, produce chemicals that form a layer of crumbled rock or mineral soil. Phosphorus Cycle: Phosphorus is mainly found in phosphorous rocks. As a result of erosion caused by rainfall and runoff water, the phosphorus is dissolved in the water. Then these phosphorous compounds are absorbed by plants through their roots and used to build plant tissue. When animals eat plants, the phosphorus is passed on to them. Phosphorus is returned to the soil in animal droppings and in the remains of plants and animals. The organic forms of phosphorus are converted back into inorganic phosphorus by bacteria. Photosynthesis: Photosynthesis is the chemical process during which green plants convert light energy, carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll into carbohydrates. Oxygen is produced as a by-product. Predator: A predator is a carnivore that feeds on live animals. The animals eaten by the carnivore are called prey. Producer: Plants contain chlorophyll, which allows them to manufacture food though the process of photosynthesis. Only plants can make or produce their own food and therefore are called producers. Producers are also called autotrophs which means self-feeders. Population: The number of organisms of the same species that are living and breeding together in the same area at the same time is called a population. (Q) R Respiration: The cells of all living things need a steady supply of energy to carry on essential cell processes such as growth, repair, and reproduction. This energy comes from burning or oxidizing a fuel. This fuel is a simple sugar called glucose. To allow oxidization at temperatures that do not harm the organism, the cell uses a catalyst. This lowers the temperature at which the glucose oxidizes. These organic catalysts are also called enzymes. The oxidization of glucose in living cells results in the release of energy. Carbon dioxide and water are formed as by-products of respiration. S Scavenger: Scavengers are animals which feed on dead plants and animals. Species: A species is a group of similar individuals having a common origin and the ability to interbreed freely with one another. Succession: Succession is the gradual replacement of one plant community by another plant community as a result of changes in the environment. The process of succession results from changes in the climate, and from fires, earthquakes, wind storms, floods, and human activities. Changes are also made by the community's previous organisms, which make the habitat suitable to a new plant community. T Transpiration: Excess water is given off by the plant as water vapour through the leaf's pores.This process is called transpiration. Trophic Level: The species position in a food chain is called the trophic level.It provides the level occupied by the species in the process of energy transfer through the ecosystem. Plants occupy the first feeding or trophic level as they make food directly from the sun's energy. Herbivores eat the plants and are at the second trophic level. A raccoon is at the second feeding or trophic level when consuming nuts and at the third trophic level when eating a crayfish. (UV) W Water Cycle: An ecosystem reuses water through the water cycle. Water enters the atmosphere as vapour from bodies of water and from the soil. Plants lose water through the pores in their leaves. Water vapour in the atmosphere condenses and forms clouds. The water droplets return to the earth as rain, snow, sleet, or hail and are used again by plants and animals and the cycle continues. --END OF DICTIONARY-- - 7:59:49 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOSH-- I'm being completely honest with you. I hope you can read this as being said in a calm conversational tone. I don't know you except for the few e-mails. I like your material, which we have put up here on this site, especially the quotes page. I'm uncomfortable with you speaking of the other posters, who I consider friends, in e-mail. I believe I mentioned this in e-mail. No matter. That is the reason I decided to keep the dialog here. (In fairness to Josh I should say that he was only venting frustration, which I feel is natural in such circumstances.) I think I've understood you from the beginning, but I recognize some possibility that I don't. I think I have grounds for saying you do not fully understand what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you why I have a problem with your posts, Josh. I'm going to try to say it in the most dispassionate and objective manner I can. This honestly is not intended as personal insult. I don't think you recognize implicit respect demonstrated by openly explaining to someone why and what ones problems with their beliefs and statements are. It is often easier just to dismiss or ignore them. I've argued with a few religious zealots in my life. I'm not using the term as an insult, but as the most accurate dictionary-type description. Please try to see this from my position for the moment. They have an ideology. Beliefs about many issues and topics are interrelated. Consequently an individual topic or issue can't be challenged without jeopardizing much or all of the ideology. This tends to make dispassionate and objective examination difficult and unlikely. They reduce discussion down to an us versus them situation, in which nothing negative to their position is allowed, and nothing positive to the other. The person, having an ideology already, is not interested in exploring or understanding other, and especially opposing views. They already have what they want and only desire that others accept it too. This makes for a preachy situation rather than a discussion. I don't always wish to be preached to but am always open to a discussion. The religious zealot feels that their cause justifies for them the use of any tactics in supporting and promoting their views, such as using nonstandard definitions of words and playing word games, personal attacks including sarcasm and ridicule as defense, shifting of position as necessary within a dialog, and etc. They are generally not interested in Truth as an end in itself, which I am. I'm sure that you took the intellectual integrity link as a personal insult but it really wasn't. I'm trying to make clear to you my views on the importance of seeking truth whatever it happens to be and however unpleasant. This relates directly to the increasingly popular religionist claims that atheism is just a religion and requires as much or more faith as xtianity, which is precisely the argument you have been trying to make. I'm sure you can see where this is going. I'm not trying to call you names. I'm trying to explain why your posts strike me as of the same type made by religious zealots. Let me ask you this: Am I not justified in seeing in your statement "I sent you several emails offering to answer questions on a one-to-one basis (like you suggested), as opposed to this kind of format." as dogmatic in nature? Your offering to answer questions is presumptuous. Why did you not instead offer to discuss this, or even to ask me questions? Again this is not an attack. I'm trying to make you see why I'm taking your posts as dogmatic and see them as manifestation of the same type of outlook as those of religious zealots. Can you see that this is intended as honest criticism rather than insult? - 9:23:07 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:JOSH - have you ever seen the movie "Peewee's Big Adventure"? The reason I ask this is because you seem to have resorted to the school of "I know you are, so what am I...infinity" debate. I read your posts clearly. I usually end up shaking my head in wonder, and your last post addressed to me is no exception. You tell me to use my discretion as to how I should surmise what your actions were in dealing with your concern for airport security. First you tell of your experience, then you tell us that by your lodging a complaint about it would be the same as complaining about the letter, so it isn't any wonder that I am led to believe that you did nothing. Then you come back with a juvenile statement saying that maybe you did complain, or maybe you didn't. Yes, what you encountered is just a small piece of a large puzzle, but by addressing each small piece of a problem, the big problems go away. Does it surprise you that Marlene would offer to lodge a complaint instead? Do you understand why she would want to do this? Because she recognizes a problem, and has no qualms about addressing it. It's actions such as this that show that people refuse to sit back and let problems manifest themselves. Possibly this has become a blow to your ego, as you have accused most of us as being content with the status quo, and then you suddenly realize that we aren't. We DO things, Josh, we aren't content just to sit back and wring our hands in frustration. We don't just go to weekly meetings and rue the state of mankind at the moment, we actually take action. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? - 18:18:26 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:" I'm uncomfortable with you speaking of the other posters, who I consider friends, in e-mail." (I think this is interesting...I would like to know what Josh is saying about myself. Maybe he will be grown up enough to post his sentiments here) - 18:22:19 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Grant"other posters, can we see can, we see (wants the low down dirt).LOL! - 19:21:10 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOETTE-- It is really not a thing to be concerned with or offended by. Josh knows none of us well enough yet to do more than vent frustration. We all have emotions to deal with, whether we are in the wrong or in the right. :-) - 19:24:56 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:DOUG-- LOL! I only said that here because I'm not sure I'm willing to take it to e-mail still. I hope it was not a mistake. - 19:29:59 on 28 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JOSH- When you can't deal with me say so! Don't go tell mom! Like I mentioned previously, quit whining! In addition, grow up! Take the responsibility you preach of! Now with that over, can we got back to actually discussing your beliefs, point by point? - 3:11:28 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:DOUG- I appreciate your knowledge on the ecology of this planet. I love to learn about how everything tics! - 4:10:45 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:GRANT- I really couldn't care less if Josh is venting his frustration with me. Maybe when he's a little older and wiser he can handle the kitchen. - 4:13:29 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene:You come from the right country. What I mean by that is Canada is doing a biological survey of all the flora and fauna.With this are identification keys(books) on just about every living species in the boreal ecotone of the nearctic. And from IDing a species, studies will reveal the life habits and roles in their ecosystems. - 6:31:02 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene:Alot of the technical books I purchace come from Canadian sources.Here are some links to Canadian info forgive me if you already have seen them: **http://www.ec.gc.ca/**http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hww-fap/eng_ind.html**http://publications.pwgsc.gc.ca/publishing/pubindex-e.html**and of course if you like lichens like I do this will help you ID some of the foliose species in your area ID's great for the genus most anywhere.**http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Srs/Srs08.htm**the ocean of course (Atlantic)http://www.gfc.dfo.ca/habitat/posterhab/elements/espece.htm**this site is from the US and has lots of goodies to download or browse; everything from plant books to fish books it's in the prairie region so you will find it most usefull.**http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/resource.htm**here is another for birds and bird songs **http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ident.html** - 7:12:17 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene:Poisonous Plants of Canada***http://res.agr.ca/brd/pub/1842/english/html/t1842_e.html***http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~doctorof/index.html**http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~wbuhay/ManGeol.htm**http://www.wilds.mb.ca/mns/index.html#mnscontent tag**http://www.brandonu.ca/CNSC/welcome.htm**the flora of manitoba**http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~burchil/plants/**http://www.escape.ca/~mapb/links.html**http://www2.gov.mb.ca/natres/db/** - 8:31:22 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene: Author** Bird, C. D. (Charles Durham), 1932- **Title** A new catalogue of the bryophytes reported from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba by C. D. Bird.** Imprint Calgary : Dept. of Biology, University of Calgary, 1973. Description 63 p. ; 28 cm.***QK533.84.C35 B57 *** Bird, CD 1972: A Catalog of the Lichens Reported from ALberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Revided August 17, 1972. - Department of Biology, University of Calgary, Calgary. 49 pp. ALBERTA/ MANITOBA/ SASKATCHEWAN/ CANADA/ CHECKLIST [Processed publication. 542 species.]***http://www.naturenorth.com/front.html - 8:42:20 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
EXIT JOSH SOON...:please... - 12:28:00 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Joette:who's the jerk that put that EXIT post there? - 19:01:23 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Marlene:you can download this site for a list of MANITOBA PLANTS AND ANIMALS This section lists scientific names and common names (if any) of all higher plants and animals in the province. Scientific names, rather than common names, are cited first for each species because many plants do not have common names, or if they do, their common names may apply to more than one species (e.g., Gentiana andrewsii and Gentiana linearis have both been called Closed Gentian). The list is organized under eight major headings, from lichens to mammals. Under most major headings, families are listed in their accepted order, and then under each family, genera and species are listed alphabetically, to make it easier to locate individual species. If you are not accustomed to reading a list of this type, it may help to focus on common names which are set in bold type down the right-hand side of each column, starting with ferns on page 173. **http://www.gov.mb.ca/environ/pages/soe91/***home page - 19:08:56 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:DOUG-- MARLENE-- ANY-- I've put Doug's links here for ease of access. Any of ya'll may do this sort of thing here. DOUG-- You can fancy this page up, add to it, and leave it on this site if you wish. - 19:29:18 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:JOETTE-- I checked the "exit" poster's IP number. No one has posted from it previously since we put the security stuff in place. It wasn't one of us usual suspects. - 19:34:14 on 29 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:DOUG- Thank you for all the links and GRANT the special link page is a great idea! - 0:12:16 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Grant and Marlene:thanks I didn't know you could do that on this site. - 2:15:14 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:DOUG-- We have 50 megs of space. We're using about 14 megs now, the largest chunk being discussion page archives since we do most things in straight HTML for speed of loading and so it will work in any browser. I'd love to put up submitted content. Link pages would be good. Personal essays and original art would be welcomed. One doesn't even have to be a participant here to submit content. I personally would like to see many different points of view here. I'd put up religious content or arguments against skepticism or rationalism or naturalism if fair minded, thoughtful, and relevant. - 3:10:25 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
and naked pictures too???? - 3:26:23 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Doug:Grant:that's great because most of the good stuff on the web doesn't even show up on the search engines.And I always forget to bookmark everything.I found a killer page on evolution; actually it's a graduate course outline.just about all the page mathematics too! is in HTML.All or just about all the courses here have terrific outlines that are by far superior to most web sites.About the only ones that are protected are the geology and astronomy outlines. ***http://webpub.brown.edu/cgi-ets/cpub/list*** - 5:16:19 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:DOUG-- Nice find. So we may anticipate a links page from you? This is your chance to have your work seen by literally dozens of people in the course of a year! :-) - 13:26:37 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Grant:BTW, submissions need not be all HTML. That was just an unnecessary explanation of general site philosophy. But absolutely no dancing babies! ANON-- Naked pictures? What a service that would be. They're so difficult to find on the internet now. :-) - 13:32:41 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:WOW!: You folks are just too loving understanding giving thoughtful and kind to JOSH. Will he fully grasp and maybe appreciate any of this? Methinks he may become the spoiled child with his reaction to all this goodness being shed on him. - 16:46:43 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:OPEN: Of a previous post regarding "thought control", it turns out, the young fella'wasn't dead. While I may have spiced up the post, my point was then and remains yet, the thought control which I hold to be the actual issue of the 'Hate crime' law. The article itself reported stuff only, was it real? For now, it looks like to me, that the hate crime law serves a concern of only, not wider a very narrow prurient interest. Hate is just one of all the inner contents stuff accumulated by all people in a lifetime. Things good and bad that go in and comprise one's mind, yes these things are there. Is it a healthy thing to choke off restrain these aspects we all have? Is it a crime or just something that is politically hot, for now? - 22:14:43 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- Like you, I don't really too sorry for Josh. He has done his fair share of dishing it out too. I don't dare ask where he is or else he'll come back with the same type of response as he did last time. - 22:15:58 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene..Josh was getting Borg-ing anyway:Maybe Josh's exit poster was calling him back to the collective, assimilation for we type of atheists was futile. - 22:18:20 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:CARL- Did you watch 60 Minutes last night? I find it hard to believe a man like Cash could be so crass about the murder and his obvious lack of compassion. He was horrible! I understand he just started at Berkley. Have you seen any of the demostrations? - 22:38:29 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:MARLENE: I've seen one before but not last night's show. To see that individual, well, if you ever read the account of when A.Eichman was caught in S.America, the accounts say, he was so insignificant to see. Its about like that with this Cash. He is so insignificant, one wonders, is that what this fuss is all about? - 22:50:20 on 30 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson---Cash or charge?--:MARLENE: Actually, Mr. Cash is starting his junior year at Berkeley. He joins O.J. Simpson among the loneliest people in America--and rightly so. What a jerk. - 21:00:51 on 31 Aug 99 GMT
Marlene:JAYWILSON- Cash or charge, that's a good one. I do understand though that the law will now be changed. If someone witnesses a child being hurt, that someone is now legally responsible to report it. I don't understand why the law doesn't include adults as well. - 21:32:33 on 31 Aug 99 GMT
Carl:JWILSON: lonely? There are more than a few guys and gals out there who ain't got no problems with Cash's behavior. In these times, well the character of anyone, well such thinking of others is what folks "used" to do. Nowadays it seems that such stuff...., it must be something else. - 22:37:23 on 31 Aug 99 GMT
jaywilson--it's a fact, Jack--:CARL: Jerks thrown together are lonelier than you realize. - 23:04:43 on 31 Aug 99 GMT