Hmmmmm . . . . blown digital one year kisses! for Ashly Allan
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Well put DW, I've had a post lingering for followup but didn't like how I > was coming across. You've summed nicely. > > It is that time of year again, yes I am starting my Hershey's Special Dark > regimen. Wow, I'm almost a 1yr ME visitor (what do I get?). > > > On 12/10/2010 10:26 AM, DarkwaterBlight wrote: > >> Surely all that is alien to us seems a bit shocking upon the interim. >> These conceptions that we are under will change and evolve over the >> course of years or hundreds or thousandsof years as required by the >> times. It all seems to be rather mystical but is quite natural as >> Tolstoy points out. >> >> On Dec 10, 6:40 am, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think I am more interested in how systems of rarefied thought >>> motivate cultures and characters. Isn't it existential thinking- >>> Sartre- that points to will and action as the highest human task?//I >>> should also correct my flip remark- humanity seems impossible rather >>> than men, alone. History is one shock after another. >>> >>> On Dec 9, 12:57 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Considering inert matter I think there is a lot of information: physical >>>> properties, spatio/temporal locale, history. History is interesting >>>> because even inert matter would leave a wake. Or under the right >>>> circumstances could play a very important role in some event present or >>>> future. The interesting part of exercising information as a higher >>>> abstraction than physical properties is that things are promoted in many >>>> more angles (sounds like a founding principle, where's my pen?!). >>>> Energy is still as useful a tool as always, I think information and >>>> energy may be synonymous on many levels (some of which should prove in >>>> favor of energy). These are all tools for the mind, just showing off my >>>> shiny new socket wrench (new to me anyways *wink). May have >>>> misunderstood your meaning. >>>> On 12/8/2010 4:22 PM, rigsy03 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Are you saying there is no such thing as inert matter?//Who pulled the >>>>> "trigger" to pure energy? >>>>> On Dec 8, 1:11 pm, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/8/2010 12:26 PM, Pat wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not to mention that "work" is also kinetic energy! ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is nothing that isn't energy. Well, to my knowledge, I, nor no >>>>>>> one of which I know, has discovered anything that isn't some form of >>>>>>> energy. The only argument I can think of that may lead someone there >>>>>>> is if someone demanded that 'nothing' had to consist of some >>>>>>> underlying substance (although I view that argument as a false >>>>>>> premiss, as nothing is simply that which does not exist and has NO >>>>>>> substance). If one conceded an underlying substance to 'nothing', >>>>>>> then that substance could be called 'non-existence' and MAY, in a >>>>>>> twisted way, be viewed as something other than energy; but, as non- >>>>>>> existence, by definition, does not exist, one would never find >>>>>>> anything--even to the inclusion of a 'nothing'--that would be made of >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> Like I said, it's the only arguent that leads anywhere close; but, I >>>>>>> thik it's a black hole of an idea in that the idea sucks so much, it >>>>>>> sucks itself to oblivion. ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> An idea I have been enjoying even more than 'all is energy' is that >>>>>> "all >>>>>> is information". In my view whereas we can say 'all is energy' we mean >>>>>> composition but abstracting any phenomena, object, interaction into >>>>>> types of information promotes a fundamentally universal layer to >>>>>> compare >>>>>> vastly divergent fields: eg the accumulation of density producing >>>>>> gravity (which could be seen as another density in space/time), and >>>>>> the >>>>>> similarities to dynamically evolving, self organizing systems of >>>>>> information (life, virii) as a higher form of information (greater >>>>>> ratio >>>>>> of potential:matter-density) as the formula to understand the >>>>>> similarities and differences of how (factors) each operates within >>>>>> their >>>>>> environments (space/time). This to me would also eventually lead to >>>>>> key >>>>>> identifiers for what we are (potentials), where we are (bounded >>>>>> attraction differentials). A consequence of this system is the >>>>>> inherent >>>>>> intelligence of the cosmos. I can't put it into words well right now, >>>>>> but I see that many earlier ideas have helped spawn this and the name >>>>>> that's stuck with me is 'super-intelligent design'. More pseudoscience >>>>>> than anything really until I can rerun my memory/experiences and get >>>>>> it >>>>>> all written down. (time, time, time...)- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> > -- ( ) I_D Allan If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
