Pinnacle of evolution: Existence comprehending itself. [trollville]

Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Pinnacle of evolution: Existence comprehending itself. [trollville]

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

 

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

 

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

 

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

 

in which language? 

 

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

 

Will the next generations want to know?  What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

 

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

 

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

 

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The pinnacle of evolution is

The pinnacle of evolution is the heat death of the universe.

I'll grant this is my opinion based on observation, but life appears to be entropy as a real-time effect. The single thing that all life has in common is that life increases entropy. It is likely that life is an inevitable consequence of entropy.

The 'pinnacle' then, would be the end stage of entropy. When evolution can no longer function as a process, and all forces are equal.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote: what's the

Bishadi wrote:

 what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

 

Dogs!   Let's face it, they have it made.

 

Evolution isn't linear, as in progression.  Very anthropocentric thinking.  Generally speaking, dinosaurs were the "pinnacle" of evolution 260 million years ago and then something happened that made them fall off the apex allowing mammals to capture the crown.  Could happen again with mammals giving the crown back to reptiles or fishes.  I have a hard time with the "progressive" model of evolution.  Homo Sapiens appear to be wearing the crown  -at the moment- but there is no guarantee that we can maintain it, considering the impact we are having on a finite planet.

 

I hope I'm contributing and not antagonizing here.

 

 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:Words are

Bishadi wrote:

Words are mankinds creations, agreed? 

Human words are mankinds creations.

But many animals have their own words.

Rhesus monkeys have certain calls for different types of predators, so they can be considered words.

Also dolphins have language which scientists are still trying to decipher.

They have determined that they have names for each other and it has even been witnessed two dolphins talking about a third dolphin that was not present.

Ants are pretty successful as are termites and krill.  By biomass they could very well win out over humans.  But bacteria are clear winners, though these are groups of species not just one single species in any one group.

If humans establish a self-sufficient colony on Mars I concede that us Humans are the top of the heap of all lifeforms we know about.  Not till then, though.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
everything is the "pinnacle" of evolution

If an organism can produce grandchildren, it is the "pinnacle" of evolution.

Evolution does not have direction - there is no "up" or "down", no best, no pinnacle.  Humans are a scruffly lot, busily pooing in our own back yards.  We won't last long at the rate we are going.  Organisms that can not move out of their waste or can not control their waste for the size of their environment do not live to reproduce.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
One vote for contributing

peto verum wrote:

I hope I'm contributing and not antagonizing here.

 


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
i aint a reductionary monkey, are you?

Vastet wrote:
The pinnacle of evolution is the heat death of the universe.
  what is the 'heat' of a hot piece of iron and a cold one.

 

quantify it!

 

what is the heat of a subject matter of mass?  (perhaps see lavoisier to get the starting point)

 

Quote:

 

I'll grant this is my opinion based on observation, but life appears to be entropy as a real-time effect. The single thing that all life has in common is that life increases entropy. It is likely that life is an inevitable consequence of entropy. The 'pinnacle' then, would be the end stage of entropy. When evolution can no longer function as a process, and all forces are equal.

 

postulate:

 

Life: abuses entropy

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Bishadi

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

 what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

 

Dogs!   Let's face it, they have it made.

 

here's a funny concept to think on.  Man created the very beast that does almost exactly what many believe god wants from them; reliance.

Quote:

Evolution isn't linear, as in progression. 

  the evolution is the path. The life is what is evolving.

ie... upon cell division, the initial life, is still living but evolved from before.

 

Quote:

 Very anthropocentric thinking.  Generally speaking, dinosaurs were the "pinnacle" of evolution 260 million years ago and then something happened that made them fall off the apex allowing mammals to capture the crown.

  at the time, life was taller but within existence, that life's variation, didnt make it.

 

Quote:
  Could happen again with mammals giving the crown back to reptiles or fishes.  I have a hard time with the "progressive" model of evolution.  Homo Sapiens appear to be wearing the crown  -at the moment- but there is no guarantee that we can maintain it, considering the impact we are having on a finite planet.

 

I hope I'm contributing and not antagonizing here.

 

 

 

it's OK...

 

i like fair questions and appreciate being questioned.  I learn from others, everyday!

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Bishadi

Watcher wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

Words are mankinds creations, agreed? 

Human words are mankinds creations.

But many animals have their own words.

Rhesus monkeys have certain calls for different types of predators, so they can be considered words.

Also dolphins have language which scientists are still trying to decipher.

They have determined that they have names for each other and it has even been witnessed two dolphins talking about a third dolphin that was not present.

Ants are pretty successful as are termites and krill.  By biomass they could very well win out over humans.  But bacteria are clear winners, though these are groups of species not just one single species in any one group.

If humans establish a self-sufficient colony on Mars I concede that us Humans are the top of the heap of all lifeforms we know about.  Not till then, though.

 

let me know when the monkeys can articulate in a literary fashion as they record their experiencing of life.

I dont question the eventual capability!

 

But as far as mankind, defining itself, being a literal truth, that it is nature's evolved life, that is doing the actual describing, with the very words, it, itself, created.

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:If an organism can

cj wrote:

If an organism can produce grandchildren, it is the "pinnacle" of evolution.

 

at its stage in life, agreed.

 

ie... the skin cells can only reproduce so many times

Quote:

Evolution does not have direction - there is no "up" or "down", no best, no pinnacle. 

  the evolution is the path, the life is evolving

this is twice that people have mentioned evolution as a thing.

 

Darwin, documented the evidence to render a pattern, he did not nor have the capability to render the 'process' to the molecular level. That chapter of evolution is what 'this' generation is doing.

Quote:

 Humans are a scruffly lot, busily pooing in our own back yards.  We won't last long at the rate we are going.  Organisms that can not move out of their waste or can not control their waste for the size of their environment do not live to reproduce.

 

 

 

but we already have sent 'life' into the beyond, not just to mars.

 

ie... we are the lives that can observe your points and actually make a difference, by choice.

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:If an organism can

cj wrote:

If an organism can produce grandchildren, it is the "pinnacle" of evolution.

Evolution does not have direction - there is no "up" or "down", no best, no pinnacle.  Humans are a scruffly lot, busily pooing in our own back yards.  We won't last long at the rate we are going.  Organisms that can not move out of their waste or can not control their waste for the size of their environment do not live to reproduce.

 

Good post jc.

As it's been pointed out, every living thing is as evolved as a human.  You are not more evolved then a monkey or a snake.  As for the rest of the post, one of us needs more, or less drugs for our coherence to be equated.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:cj wrote:If an

Ktulu wrote:

cj wrote:

If an organism can produce grandchildren, it is the "pinnacle" of evolution.

Evolution does not have direction - there is no "up" or "down", no best, no pinnacle.  Humans are a scruffly lot, busily pooing in our own back yards.  We won't last long at the rate we are going.  Organisms that can not move out of their waste or can not control their waste for the size of their environment do not live to reproduce.

 

Good post jc.

As it's been pointed out, every living thing is as evolved as a human. 

if you say so.

 

let me know when you need a visectomy so we can have monkey do the work for you.

 

 

Quote:

 

 You are not more evolved then a monkey or a snake.

you may not be more capable but i know i am

 

Am i do believe that you are religious and you assume that mankind is not capable?

 

Quote:

 As for the rest of the post, one of us needs more, or less drugs for our coherence to be equated.

  what is the coherant energy that enables a conscious mind to exist?

Perhaps sit a bit and learn, cuz i will rip your integrity apart if you want to play the rude game.

 

If this forum is on 'rational' then be certain, what many believe whether it be of science, religion and philosophical, there is always more to learn, until that 'pinnacle' is reached on comprehending the processes of nature, then all else does apply to the facts.

what i mean is that once the principles of nature (all that exists) are established to define nature (existence itself), then from that point forward, existence itself can be defined. 

 

you just so happened to have the name holder on this forum

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Hello nature's priest, . I

 Hello nature's priest, Smiling. I would love to have a discussion with you.

Exist = Object + Location

Principles = concept

Concept != object.

Principles are subjective concepts that exist relative to us.  They don't exist like your poop exists.  Your poop is an object.  If you doubt me then feel free to make a nice little ball out of your concept, and throw it at my head.  I will do the same with your poop.

 

I would love for you to rip my dignity apart, I await on the edge of my seat.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
How are you using the word life?

Bishadi wrote:

 

 the evolution is the path. The life is what is evolving.

ie... upon cell division, the initial life, is still living but evolved from before.

 

 

I must not be understanding how you are using the word life.  My children do not have more life than me.  That is not to say that they haven't undergone variation from me (obvious in that the are both female while I am male, they blond and blue eyes while I......well...gray and brown eyed).  That variation makes them individuals but doesn't really give them more life.  Evolution is the path to variation  --disparity,  if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life.  Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.

 

I find it interesting that evolution is thought to progress from bad to best. 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:what is the

Bishadi wrote:
what is the 'heat' of a hot piece of iron and a cold one.

Your question is simultaneously nonsensical and irrelevant to my comments. Not sure what you're looking for.

"Life: abuses entropy"

No. Life accelerates entropy.

"If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?"

Just because life accelerates entropy does not mean existence only operates in a certain way.

Edit:
Didn't realise that last bit was your sig (page didn't fully load properly). Feel free to ignore it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Bishadi

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

 

 the evolution is the path. The life is what is evolving.

ie... upon cell division, the initial life, is still living but evolved from before.

 

 

I must not be understanding how you are using the word life. 

  a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property' 

the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.

 

it aint your experience as when you sleep, you would be considered dead, if that be the case

ie... i consider sleeping, like practicing death (nothing to fear, no other place to go)

Quote:

 

My children do not have more life than me.

  funny.

they are you, living into the next generation, just like you are the 'life' of the ggggggrand parents and all the lineages since the beginning of time.  ie... if there was a break in the chain, you wouldnt be here.

 

YOU are alive in your procreations, literally!

Quote:

 

 

  That is not to say that they haven't undergone variation from me (obvious in that the are both female while I am male, they blond and blue eyes while I......well...gray and brown eyed).  That variation makes them individuals but doesn't really give them more life

they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.

 

if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.

 

if not, you failed

 

ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.

 

ps.... please be sure to point out, any line item that i am misrepresenting FACTS!

 

Quote:

 

Evolution is the path to variation  --disparity,  if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life. 

 what is 'more life'?

 

if you watered a tree today, giving of your life (energy) to assist that life in living longer, are you or are you not, literally a part of that trees living history?  It's longevity of life?

and you can do THAT, by choice

Quote:

 

Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.

 

not certain of your meaning there

Quote:
 

I find it interesting that evolution is thought to progress from bad to best. 

the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.

 

All life has the same INTENT; to live.

 

the good live, the other fail to extinctions.

 

For example:  on this forum, theology will probably not survive within this environment. 

 

The reason few comprehend these concepts in this fashion is most do not consider themselves a living mass (rock that can roll, by choice).

 

put yourself into the application of the honest inquiry of 'what is the life of mass' (of all existence itself)?

 

When you begin to see yourself as being a part of existence/nature/the process, then you might see the point of view.

 

Idiots believe mankind is separate from the garden (nature) and that the life of mankind is something supernatural.

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bishadi

Vastet wrote:
Bishadi wrote:
what is the 'heat' of a hot piece of iron and a cold one.
Your question is simultaneously nonsensical and irrelevant to my comments. Not sure what you're looking for

your rant is conforming to the idiots of 'walking the planck' (current paradigm of an expanding (big bang) model of representing the universe.

 

I know EXACTLY where the error is and how to assist you in opening your eyes.

 

if you want to learn and get past the stupidity posting, then do the homework.

 

otherwise, you will just get slapped around

 

Quote:

 

. "Life: abuses entropy" No. Life accelerates entropy.

sorry,

 

you got the stupid subjecting your mind to making stupid comments.

 

I asked you to define what heat is, so you can understand that 'hot' dont go to 'cold' by an 'S'

 

if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut that will hold a book and claim 'here's the answer'

 

Quote:

"If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?" Just because life accelerates entropy does not mean existence only operates in a certain way.

 

that question is a pure inquiry to any seeking mind, that if a mind can ascertain that nature (the whole of the universe) does actually have a set of rules, laws, principles and pattern that mankind can define, then in defining it will require the math as well to complete the theorem of how nature (existence itself) operates, then it will be like 'naming' existence itself.

 

for example:  einstein tried to define energy (e=mc2) and the whole of the sciences is 'seeking' to understand

 

what's 'the name to know'?

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Hello nature's

Ktulu wrote:

 Hello nature's priest, Smiling. I would love to have a discussion with you.

  priest?

a scientist could be considered natures priest

Quote:

 

Exist = Object + Location

Principles = concept

Concept != object.

Principles are subjective concepts that exist relative to us.

  and man made the words to articulate them 'principle, concepts and to describe what is found to exist or not.

 

Quote:
  They don't exist like your poop exists.  Your poop is an object.  If you doubt me then feel free to make a nice little ball out of your concept, and throw it at my head.  I will do the same with your poop.

 

if you just articulated the concept of the either/or, then it does exist

 

again, here we go with idiots forgetting to impose themselves to being relevant.

 

kind of like the pukes who hold entropy as the random reductions, then i ask what poop did the idiot randomly eat today?

Better still, when i put on a coat, because i am cold, which law am "I" breaking?

 

be honest or not!

 

I would love for you to rip my dignity apart, I await on the edge of my seat.

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I can't tell if you're on

I can't tell if you're on drugs, stupid or just fucking with us...

I'm not even sure what your point is, you make very little sense.  I'm trying to tell you that Concepts, and Objects do not exist the same way.  An Object is a shape.  A thing is an Object that exists because it has a location.  Am I talking over you here? 

So, please, clearly, do tell us wtf you are on about, or wtf you are on. 

This is what I think you are trying to say.  We are more evolved then every other living thing.  Our children have more life then we do.  Nature is god... WTF?

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:your rant I

Bishadi wrote:
your rant

I haven't ranted on anything in this topic.

Feel free to post some links so I can get a better idea of what you're attempting here. It's not making any sense at the moment.

"I asked you to define what heat is"

No, you didn't. If you had, that's what you would have said. Instead you gave me two undefined subjective terms (heat & cold) to describe the state of a material (steel), and asked me to quantify those undefined subjective terms without bothering to list any useful information to be able to do so. That rendered your request as nonsensical. As in: it makes no sense/cannot be responded to.

You want the definition of heat?

heat   [heet] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of a body perceived as having or generating a relatively high degree of warmth.
2.
the condition or quality of being hot: the heat of an oven.
3.
the degree of hotness; temperature: moderate heat.

continues...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
4. the sensation of warmth

4.
the sensation of warmth or hotness: unpleasant heat.
5.
a bodily temperature higher than normal: the heat of a fever; the feeling of heat caused by physical exertion.

"if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut that will hold a book and claim 'here's the answer'"

Clearly you neither understand English nor physics. We'll have to fix your English problems before we can discuss your physics problems.
Abuse
verb (used with object)
1.
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.
5.
Obsolete . to deceive or mislead.

Life is incapable of 'abusing' entropy, by the definition of abuse. Accelerate, or similar terms, are the only applicable term(s).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I can't tell if

Ktulu wrote:

I can't tell if you're on drugs, stupid or just fucking with us...

 

i was wondering the same. I posted questions and few can comprehend how a dialogue should be held before frustration.

Quote:

I'm not even sure what your point is, you make very little sense.  I'm trying to tell you that Concepts, and Objects do not exist the same way.  An Object is a shape.  A thing is an Object that exists because it has a location.  Am I talking over you here? 

 

nah...

 

i saw your diversion.  Do you want me to just ask you, if you wear a helmit when you walk?

Quote:

So, please, clearly, do tell us wtf you are on about, or wtf you are on. 

read the opening thread.

answer questions, state why........... ahhhh dahhh

Quote:

This is what I think you are trying to say.  We are more evolved then every other living thing. 

  i didnt say that, you perhaps did, in yur own mind.  Please, you t2o take your argument over dare..}

 

Quote:
 Our children have more life then we do.
  what?  

 

That is 2 stupids imposed to your credibility.  I dont interact with changing peoples opinion, just because "we" can  

Quote:
Nature is god... WTF?

 

it simplifies it all.  The 'god' that all theological dieties can be attributed to, are 'it' itself; existence itself.

 

All other flying tweeties and cool little spagetti monsters, are manmade (description).  And in 99.999999999999% of them, the underlying reason of having that diety is the pursuit of 'life', which is ALL underwritten by you know who (mother nature, itself).

 

From being that 'alpha/omega' (beginning/ending) of everyone of every life you ever knew, heard of, or even possible, is 'within' existence itself/nature....... or it is 'manmade', a creation of someones mind.

not a life that you know of that is not 'within the alpha/omega' (anytime).

 

these grounding foundations are comprehensible when being honest.  I could care less what people want to speculate of utter dimensions and black holes and the garbage before and after, right this very second. 

 

My point of these threads, is that both the sciences (the paradigm of comprehending nature) and the theological beliefs, with combine with the philosophical comprehension of life (what the fuch we are), and be certain, the PARADIGM SHIFT will rehash all three, in one  rational.

in simple terms, be prepared to have your whole understanding turned upside down. 

 

and it will be easy, simply by being honest with yourself.

 

 

'welcome to the jungle'

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bishadi

Vastet wrote:
Bishadi wrote:
your rant
I haven't ranted on anything in this topic. Feel free to post some links so I can get a better idea of what you're attempting here. It's not making any sense at the moment. "I asked you to define what heat is" No, you didn't. If you had, that's what you would have said. Instead you gave me two undefined subjective terms (heat & cold) to describe the state of a material (steel), and asked me to quantify those undefined subjective terms without bothering to list any useful information to be able to do so. That rendered your request as nonsensical. As in: it makes no sense/cannot be responded to. You want the definition of heat?

 

i apologize for expecting that each person knew where the errors of the current paradigm are.

http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html

 

there is the pub that did it.

 

in english

 

asking you to define the difference between a 'hot' and 'cold' pieces of iron was to see if you comprehended or ever did the actual work within physics.

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: "if you dont

Vastet wrote:
"if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut"

 

Life is incapable of 'abusing' entropy, by the definition of abuse. Accelerate, or similar terms, are the only applicable term(s).

 

is a living process, its own?

what is the process at the molecular level?

 

Is a fire consuming, sustaining its own 'procession' within a proper environment?

 

that aint a reductionary process, the fire is sustaining a 'longer' period.

 

so is your breathing for life (krebs cycle)

 

again, stop believing and just answer the questions and see the direct evidence.

 

when you are ready to get into the bohr anology of how every atom combining within any other element, must have a X, upon that mass to even raise an electron to another shell, then we can go to that level

 

but i want you to begin being directly honest with your self, first.

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:asking you to

Bishadi wrote:
asking you to define the difference between a 'hot' and 'cold' pieces of iron was to see if you comprehended or ever did the actual work within physics.

Ah but you didn't even do that. You asked for much more specific information than the simple difference between two objects with differing temperatures. You asked me to quantify the heat of two objects without any more information than that one was hotter than the other. That's like asking me to define x in x=y-z. Until or unless y and z are quantified, x remains a variable.

I'll look at your link now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:is a living

Bishadi wrote:
is a living process, its own?

Ownership is a concept that does not appear to exist unless life enforces it. Does anything really own anything?

"what is the process at the molecular level?"

Mostly chemical.

"Is a fire consuming, sustaining its own 'procession' within a proper environment?"

A good question.

"that aint a reductionary process, the fire is sustaining a 'longer' period."

It is consuming the very material that sustains it, converting it into a material unsuitable for sustaining it.

"so is your breathing for life (krebs cycle)"

The oxygen I breathe is converted to gasses unsuitable for sustaining the process of breathing.

The rest of your post had nothing worth commenting on.

And now I'll read the link, unless I'm again compelled to write a response before I can get to it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:  a physicist

Bishadi wrote:
  a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'

the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.


I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life?  Wouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?


Bishadi wrote:


 they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.



Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it.  My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.  They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have.  They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life".  Their longer life will be due to other factors.

Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me.  Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.


 
Bishadi wrote:


Evolution is the path to variation  --disparity,  if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life.
 what is 'more life'?

 


I'm not sure either.  But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse.  I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that.  It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike.  This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you.  I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.


 
Bishadi wrote:


Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there



 
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving.  Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.

 
Bishadi wrote:
   the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.

All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.



  Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die.  It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so.  No intent involved.  This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation.  No intent.  To cease existing may only mean that the combination of the genes that individual carries don't get into the next generation.  Although their individual genes may be found in other individuals and it is possible that lost combination may re-align itself at some future point.  I don't question the improbability of this.

 The point you make of  "the good live..."  does not take into consideration any contingency and is also very subjective.  Dinosaurs are a good example.  Dinosaurs are good, possibly a asteroid did them in.  (I like dinosaurs so they must be good)

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
So, you're saying that you

So, you're saying that you operate from some new, all encompassing paradigm.  And are about to blow our feeble minds by combining the scientific paradigm, with the theological paradigm, and the philosophical paradigm?  This paradigm shift will be fueled by rationality? 

Then please enlighten us.  I for one am interested.  Please try to remain coherent and define your terms of you want to proceed rationally.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I read the paper. It did not

I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument.

I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented.

" Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. "

http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
If you would like to break

If you would like to break down your argument in a one on one critical thinking led discussion, I would be more then happy to help you present it.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I read the

Vastet wrote:
I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument. I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented. " Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. " http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm
"S"  the direction to ->

of the steam engine era (2nd law to the paradigm/physics)

 

'h' is the constant to quantify energy but that potential difference is associated to its environment, just to exist

 

are you familiar with electrical theory, to the sense of broadcasting (ride the lighting) your voice.  Could you design and make a wavelength do what you want it to do?  What range of energy (see the spectrum) can you manipulate?

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:If you would

Ktulu wrote:

If you would like to break down your argument in a one on one critical thinking led discussion, I would be more then happy to help you present it.

 

 

that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.

 

It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system. 

 

as stupid as it seems.  That's it!

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:So, you're

Ktulu wrote:

So, you're saying that you operate from some new, all encompassing paradigm.  And are about to blow our feeble minds by combining the scientific paradigm, with the theological paradigm, and the philosophical paradigm?  This paradigm shift will be fueled by rationality? 

Then please enlighten us.  I for one am interested.  Please try to remain coherent and define your terms of you want to proceed rationally.  

 

 

you hit it on the head.

 

i was a quack as a kid that liked math, science, etc... to the point of defining a potential difference itself.  In application, i was jumping 386 processors, first generation and combined to write a random bouncing ball program. So from calculating the operation to the chip sets thru to design and building of the boards by 18, yes i was one of them 3 decades back.

 

Yes, i came across a mathematical concept to define the transition of mass (element), energy (light/em) and time.  I wrote a paper on how the energy conveys across the synaptic junctions 30 yrs back and told the per se 'community' to go fuch themselves.

I retired a few years back (tried too), and wrote the basics and traveled to more university compuses, than perhaps any but mary jane on this conitnent and never signed a doc

but you should see what is happening all over the world since.

 

The paradigm change is based on comprehending the energy of nature, the light.  For example: gravity itself is the entanglement caused by energy shared between mass, one wavelength at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:that the

Bishadi wrote:

that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.

 

It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system. 

 

as stupid as it seems.  That's it!

Well, a few issues with this over simplification.  First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable.  Secondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy.  The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Bishadi

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:
  a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'

the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.


I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life?
  good job

 

Quote:
  Wouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?
see craig venter
Quote:



Bishadi wrote:


 they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.



Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it.  My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.
  yes they are.  Each are the combined single cell and life (energy/wavelength) of their parent.  Then during the development the environment will be/is different than the previous generations. 

They are evolved lives from their previous and environment.  A new shade, so to speak!

Quote:

 

  They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have. 

  sure they do.  If they look like me, i am sorry about that, i was a bit of a pig once.

 

Quote:
 They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life".  Their longer life will be due to other factors.
  both evolved and evolving all day long!
Quote:


Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me.  Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.
  sorry about that.  life and death is huge when thinking of your own; did you get the point!
Quote:


 
Bishadi wrote:


Evolution is the path to variation  --disparity,  if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life. 


 

 what is 'more life'?

 



I'm not sure either.  But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse.  I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that. 
  are you better equiped with that terminal, than your pops and g parents?

 

perhaps 'more' capable than EVER before.... giggle giggle

 

and i bet they be better in the morrow, right?????

Quote:

 

 It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike. 

  what is 'godlike'?   i created this thread.  Am i god to this creation.  Will you call me the almighty salame of this universe?

 

did you do the wild thing and create (enable) life(s)?  by choice, cause it ?

 

"i brought you into this world and i can take you out'   (great quote)

Quote:

This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you.  I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.




 

ghonapsyphilherpalaids

what did that nasty STD evolve from?

Quote:

 

 

 

Bishadi wrote:


Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there



 
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving.  Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.
  not really...



 

we can nuke em.

 

Quote:
 
Bishadi wrote:
   the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.

All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.



  Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die. 
i could care less.

 

as you just pointed out the evidence

 

Quote:
It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so.  No intent involved.  This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation.  No intent.
that process of life, is to the molecular level.

This is where the divide can be bridged.  The energy itself is what is sustaining the process of the combining molecules to even be in motion.  The energy is self sustaining by consuming what is provided in its environment. 

 

The process is not just a macro consideration and that is why the majority do not comprehend evolution, the process, the physical mechanism or the life of the mass, itself

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Bishadi

Ktulu wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.

 

It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system. 

 

as stupid as it seems.  That's it!

Well, a few issues with this over simplification.  First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable. 

 

who created them?

 

are them disciplines manmade?  What do they provide to mankind?

 

now, can they combine?

 

Quote:
 Secondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy.  The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.

because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining

 

the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.

 

for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works.  Funniest conundrum on the earth.

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:who created

Bishadi wrote:


who created them?

 

are them disciplines manmade?  What do they provide to mankind?

 

now, can they combine?

 

because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining

 

the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.

 

for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works.  Funniest conundrum on the earth.

 

Dude - I can not follow you.  You do not use complete sentences.  And you can't spell.  Is English a second language for you?  Do you have some mental disability that interferes with your language functions?  Seriously, how is anyone to get any sense out of --

"idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works"

Who is the idiot?  Theists?  Atheists?  Science?  Religion?  Reductionary --- from Wiki,

Quote:

In philosophy, reduction is the process by which one object, property, concept, theory, etc., is shown to be explicable in terms of another, lower level, entity.

 

NB:  There is nothing about randomness in the definition of reduction.  I'll go with life is a random process.  How does dying make a coherence of how life works? 

The rest of your post is equally incomprehensible.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:Ktulu

Bishadi wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.

 

It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system. 

 

as stupid as it seems.  That's it!

Well, a few issues with this over simplification.  First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable. 

who created them?

are them disciplines manmade?  What do they provide to mankind?

now, can they combine?

No, the irrelevant common element of originating from mankind, doesn't make incommesurable theories commensurable.  You cannot compare apples and oranges simple because they're both fruit.  That's a category mistake. 

 

 

Bishadi wrote:

Quote:
 Secondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy.  The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.

because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining

the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.

for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works.  Funniest conundrum on the earth.

I thought we agreed to stay coherent.  Are you making this difficult on purpose?  How is causality involved now? 

Knowledge doesn't define causality,  knowledge is sourced from the caused event.  It doesn't define anything, it is an event recorded as a concept.  It is something that happens after the fact, it may or may not pertain to causality.  What epistemological principle are you referring to?

I can't even make sense of the next line.  Are you saying that if we understand mass, it will change our understanding of nature?  If so, I agree with you 100%, I will add that if we fundamentally understood a number of other great unknowns, like dark matter and dark energy, our paradigm would be shifted dramatically.  What is your point though? Do you have this knowledge?

The example is completely irrelevant and only serves confuse your state of mind.  My question to you would be... so what? let the idiot do what they want.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I think I will let this

I think I will let this simmer, trying to get anything coherent out of this is like pulling teeth.  If you think you have some great evidence, present it for scrutiny.  If not, talking in half sentences and fragmented concepts is loosing it's limited charm very quickly. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Bishadi wrote: who

cj wrote:

Bishadi wrote:


 

who created them?

 

are them disciplines manmade?  What do they provide to mankind?

 

now, can they combine?

 

because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining

 

the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.

 

for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works.  Funniest conundrum on the earth.

 

Dude - I can not follow you.  You do not use complete sentences.

   Sorry.

I am 100% american, so cal beach bum!

I fixed it.

"Idiots believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works."

Quote:
Who is the idiot?  
.
Quote:

 

  I'll go with life is a random process. 

was that inglich?

 

Quote:
 

How does dying make a coherence of how life works? 

  what do you think science, theology, philosophy does? 

 

'defines'

 

combining a group of concepts and often creating the words (math) to comprehensible form; words

 

the pursuit of knowledge is the combining of mankinds contributions to writings, that within a mind a 'coherance' of the evidence, can become a new.........'concept' (word) to define.

 

kind of cool aint it, dood?

 

Quote:

The rest of your post is equally incomprehensible.

 

learn to articulate with human beings

screw the games

 

Can the combining of recorded knowledge bring a coherance of past experiences with present experiences?

 

Yes or No!

 

Are you on this fricken forum just to bust up a few idiots for holding bs as their beliefs?

 

well you gonna love being humbled just the same!

 

ie... a coherance of 'information'

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:peto verum

Bishadi wrote:

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:
  a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'

the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.


I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life?
  good job

 

Then how come it isn't happening spontaneously in people's kitchen sink garbage disposal?  I'll shat a brick if I see a baby <anything> squirming out of the drain.
 

 

Quote:
  Wouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?
see craig venter
Quote:


When Dr. Venter synthisizes a viable, biological organism please post.  The alchemist of old had great plans too.
 


Bishadi wrote:


 they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.

Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it.  My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.

  yes they are.  Each are the combined single cell and life (energy/wavelength) of their parent.  Then during the development the environment will be/is different than the previous generations.

Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it.  My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.
  yes they are.  Each are the combined single cell and life (energy/wavelength) of their parent.  Then during the development the environment will be/is different than the previous generations. 

They are evolved lives from their previous and environment.  A new shade, so to speak!

Quote:

 

We must be using the same word in different context.   Roses of a different color bred together produce roses.  Place those seedlings in a more arid environment they may be stunted in growth but they are still roses.  Return the seeds of the stunted roses back to where their grandparent grew and you will see that they display none of the stunted growth their parents displayed.   Your use of evolve evokes the word "cope" and "adapt" in me.
 

  They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have. 

  sure they do.  If they look like me, i am sorry about that, i was a bit of a pig once.

 

Unless you delivered my mail -- you dawg!

 

Quote:
 They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life".  Their longer life will be due to other factors.
  both evolved and evolving all day long!
Quote:


Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me.  Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.
  sorry about that.  life and death is huge when thinking of your own; did you get the point!
Quote:

 

no.

 

Bishadi wrote:


Evolution is the path to variation  --disparity,  if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life. 


 

 what is 'more life'?

 



I'm not sure either.  But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse.  I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that. 
  are you better equiped with that terminal, than your pops and g parents?

 

perhaps 'more' capable than EVER before.... giggle giggle

 

and i bet they be better in the morrow, right?????

Quote:

 

Again, we are using the same word but applying a different meaning to it.

 

 It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike. 

  what is 'godlike'?   i created this thread.  Am i god to this creation.  Will you call me the almighty salame of this universe?

 

did you do the wild thing and create (enable) life(s)?  by choice, cause it ?

 

"i brought you into this world and i can take you out'   (great quote)

Quote:

This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you.  I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.




 

ghonapsyphilherpalaids

what did that nasty STD evolve from?

Quote:

 

Love   -  respect the sheep

 

 

 

Bishadi wrote:


Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there



 
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving.  Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.
  not really...



 

we can nuke em.

 

How does this reconcile "bad going extinct and good surviving."   Besides, i have a feeling nuking the fishes won't be good for any hominids.

 

Quote:
 
Bishadi wrote:
   the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.

All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.



  Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die. 
i could care less.

 

as you just pointed out the evidence

 

If Dr Venter creates insect life in a petrie dish you won't care?    I'd be amazed to say the least.

 

Quote:
It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so.  No intent involved.  This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation.  No intent.
that process of life, is to the molecular level.

This is where the divide can be bridged.  The energy itself is what is sustaining the process of the combining molecules to even be in motion.  The energy is self sustaining by consuming what is provided in its environment. 

 

The process is not just a macro consideration and that is why the majority do not comprehend evolution, the process, the physical mechanism or the life of the mass, itself

 

Hmmmm,  This is tough to address because it encompasses SO much.  Without the "macro consideration" there is no sense in worrying about evolution.  a single atom is not considered alive or living.  You are talking smaller than the atom, from my non-physicist mind, but those smaller aspects derive more elements than what life on earth derived from.  Even in those terms you are talking macro.  All those elements and Carbon was the selected foundation for life.  If this light energy is a "life" force in and of itself it seems that there should be Silicon based life forms.

 

Everyone pardon my unfamiliarity of addressing point by point.  This quote thing is awkward to me.  This is a messy looking post.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think I will

Ktulu wrote:

I think I will let this simmer, trying to get anything coherent out of this is like pulling teeth.  If you think you have some great evidence, present it for scrutiny.  If not, talking in half sentences and fragmented concepts is loosing it's limited charm very quickly. 

 

 

the thread title is easy.

 

the opening post offers a bunch of questions.

 

as i see it, if anyone reads each question and honestly answers them or has the moxy to look into the implications, will ALL come to the same conclusion of the opening title

in simple terms; 'we' are the lives, within existence comprehending itself, right now!

 

Are you 'experienced'?

 

can you define, what makes you alive, to the letter and it be fact?

 

ooops!

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think I will

Ktulu wrote:

I think I will let this simmer, trying to get anything coherent out of this is like pulling teeth.  If you think you have some great evidence, present it for scrutiny.  If not, talking in half sentences and fragmented concepts is loosing it's limited charm very quickly. 

 

 

the thread title is easy.

 

the opening post offers a bunch of questions.

 

as i see it, if anyone reads each question and honestly answers them or has the moxy to look into the implications, will ALL come to the same conclusion of the opening title

in simple terms; 'we' are the lives, within existence comprehending itself, right now!

 

Are you 'experienced'?

 

can you define, what makes you alive, to the letter and it be fact?

 

ooops!

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote: Unless

peto verum wrote:

 

Unless you delivered my mail -- you dawg!

ah ..... a person!
Quote:

Hmmmm,  This is tough to address because it encompasses SO much.  Without the "macro consideration" there is no sense in worrying about evolution. 

  how is that?  I just suggested your very children are evolved from you and the environment provided.  What does life coming from a kitchen sink have to do with it?

 

Quote:
 a single atom is not considered alive or living.
  good.  and to move, what must cause it?  see bohr for concepts/analogy

 

what is that energy?

 

Quote:
  You are talking smaller than the atom,
  no.  i dont do the particle model as i learned in practical application before observing the 'uncertainties'  of the planck-qm.  

 

Quote:
 elements than what life on earth derived from.  Even in those terms you are talking macro.  All those elements and Carbon was the selected foundation for life. 
  if you like the particle concept then see it: 

 

Carbon-12 is the more abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon; it contains 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Its abundance is due to the Triple-alpha process by which it is created in stars.

Carbon-12 is of particular importance as it is used as the standard from which atomic masses of all nuclides are measured: its mass number is 12 by definition

 

that cute little 666 thing that most all life lives upon, carbon.

 

 

 

Quote:

If this light energy is a "life" force in and of itself it seems that there should be Silicon based life forms.

 

life is all over the universe.

see how the p680 combines to store, which wavelength?  (photosynthesis)

 

Now see what 'lavoisier' was talking about before the chemical model was created?

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for cleaning my last

Thanks for cleaning my last post.  I'm still getting the hang of this point by point approach.  This is also my last round.  I enjoy learning from others but not much new coming out of this thread.  I appreciate your time, your thoughts and like to say thanks for listening to me.  I will say I'm happy with my present views of life and its origins but always open to hear others views.  Never know what I may need to incorporate into my thinking.  This thread offers nothing of extreme value to me.   My disclaimer -- I reserve the right to chime in if I read something I find enlightening or interesting.

 

Bishadi wrote:

Hmmmm,  This is tough to address because it encompasses SO much.  Without the "macro consideration" there is no sense in worrying about evolution. 

  how is that?  I just suggested your very children are evolved from you and the environment provided.  What does life coming from a kitchen sink have to do with it?

The environment doesn't cause evolution.  My children are decendant of me and my ex-wife and if our biological reproduction is without DNA replication error they express genes that have been passed down for generations either from her side(which I can't argue about genetic integrity) and mine.  If there exist a genetic mutation, regardless of cause, then there may exist a NEW phenotype.  It may not result in anything.  No matter what combination you add 3 + 4 +6 +7 you will always get 20. Unless one of those numbers mutates you will end up with the same total.  Again, sexual reproduction of roses of a different color still give you roses. 

I have taken from your statements that living things are a result of the amount of light energy given off by their mass; or is it mass giving off light energy?  In either case if enough mass (organic material) existed in the disposal in the kitchen sink then that mass should be given off enough light energy to be said to be living.

 

 

 

Quote:
 a single atom is not considered alive or living.
  good.  and to move, what must cause it?  see bohr for concepts/analogy

 

what is that energy?

 

Again, I'm not a physicist but I still fail to see how the energy of an atom is cumulative to a point that at some point it could be considered living.  Your restatement of the a.m.u of carbon is good but why doesn't an accumulation of silicon molecules give off the "life light"?  Why is the light energy of cyanide so lethal (I understand cyanides patho-physiology so this is rhetorical) when the light energy of oxygen so important to aerobic respiration?  Why does stontium 90 replace Ca in our bones so readily.  If you say because these elements give off different amount of energy then I can work with that.  Then this becomes a discussion not about light energy but of chemistry.  Bio-chemistry is something I can relate too.  The bio-chemical theory has a very high probability to explain emergence of life. 

 

 

Quote:

 life is all over the universe.

see how the p680 combines to store, which wavelength?  (photosynthesis)

 Now see what 'lavoisier' was talking about before the chemical model was created?

 

 

Life may be all over the universe but what conditions have to exist for life to emerge.  If it is just the right mass plus energy then we should have life on the planets in our solar system.  They are approximately close in age, same sun, although distance undoubtable would play a role.  Those atoms on Venus, Mars or anywhere in the universe should have the same energy and a similar ability to react with other atoms.

 

P.S.  My ex-wife was/is a larcenous psychopath.  Have at her.  I sound like I harbor a lot of animosity; I don't.  The mailman was suppose to have a smiley face but it got lost somewhere.  I tell my daughters that they look like the mailman.  Our inside family joke.   Been several years, I look back upon that time as though dispassionately reading a history book.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:I am 100%

Bishadi wrote:

I am 100% american, so cal beach bum!

 

Your writing style does not appear to support this claim.

 

Bishadi wrote:

I fixed it.

"Idiots believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works."

 

That isn't much help, let me explain why it isn't making sense.  Reductionary is not a real word.  Reduction is a real word and it means to determine the basis, the causes, for a concept/idea/theory.  Random means events that happen by chance.  If you wish to find the reasons or causes for an event, the event must NOT be random.  The two concepts are contradictory.

 

Bishadi wrote:

cj wrote:

I'll go with life is a random process. 

 

Bishadi wrote:

was that inglich?

 

Yes, that was English.  I believe life is a random process from the random chance of any one sperm fertilizing any one ova to the chance of living to an old age.  There is no reason or cause, and death happens when it happens.  I am very fatalistic.

 

Bishadi wrote:

Quote:
 

How does dying make a coherence of how life works? 

  what do you think science, theology, philosophy does? 

'defines' 

combining a group of concepts and often creating the words (math) to comprehensible form; words

the pursuit of knowledge is the combining of mankinds contributions to writings, that within a mind a 'coherance' of the evidence, can become a new.........'concept' (word) to define.

kind of cool aint it, dood?

 

Yeah, that is one way of thinking about how we gain knowledge.  It doesn't explain how death gives us a "coherence" or "knowledge" or "concept" of life.

 

Bishadi wrote:

learn to articulate with human beings

screw the games

Can the combining of recorded knowledge bring a coherance of past experiences with present experiences?

Yes or No!

Are you on this fricken forum just to bust up a few idiots for holding bs as their beliefs?

well you gonna love being humbled just the same!

ie... a coherance of 'information'

 

I am a pragmatic realist.  Bring me real, measurable, quantifiable evidence and I will think about your idea.  Give me a bunch of philosophical bull pucky and I will follow David Hume's advice - "Throw it all on the fire!"

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Thanks for

peto verum wrote:

Thanks for cleaning my last post. 

  You need more help.   

 

you said???????????? 

The environment doesn't cause evolution.  My children are decendant of me and my ex-wife and if our biological reproduction is without DNA replication error

 

that was enough stupid for me

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:peto verum

Bishadi wrote:

peto verum wrote:

Thanks for cleaning my last post. 

  You need more help.   

 

you said???????????? 

The environment doesn't cause evolution.  My children are decendant of me and my ex-wife and if our biological reproduction is without DNA replication error

 

that was enough stupid for me

The environment is the benchmark against which competing mutated (evolved) organisms are tested against.  If they are better adapted to the environment, they will prevail and out-breed the original organism, conversely, they will die out.

I agree with you on this point Bishadi, but you still have yet to answer my post.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Bishadi wrote:I am

cj wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

I am 100% american, so cal beach bum!

 

Your writing style does not appear to support this claim.

  how is that?

not many can be lazier than a beach bum.

 

if i was all punctual and careful, people might like me

 

Quote:

 

Yes, that was English.  I believe life is a random process from the random chance of any one sperm fertilizing any one ova to the chance of living to an old age.  There is no reason or cause, and death happens when it happens.  I am very fatalistic.

 

and about as random as i could be your childrens father, right?

 

Quote:

Yeah, that is one way of thinking about how we gain knowledge.

  most read

 

Quote:
  It doesn't explain how death gives us a "coherence" or "knowledge" or "concept" of life.
  when did death ever give you that idea

Quote:
 

I am a pragmatic realist.  Bring me real, measurable, quantifiable evidence and I will think about your idea.  Give me a bunch of philosophical bull pucky and I will follow David Hume's advice - "Throw it all on the fire!"

 

 

i said, existence comprehending itself, is the pinnacle of evolution.

is it, or is it not?

 

why?

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think I will

Ktulu wrote:

I think I will let this simmer, trying to get anything coherent out of this is like pulling teeth.  If you think you have some great evidence, present it for scrutiny.  If not, talking in half sentences and fragmented concepts is loosing it's limited charm very quickly. 

 

you and I

 

no half sentence about it, we have choice. 

 

Think of finally realizing the world aint flat.   Well, likewise 'life; abuses entropy'.    You can reproduce by choice!

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
@Bishadi Holy God! You know

@Bishadi

Holy God! You know you can put your replies into one post, right?