People are expected to change and grow. the errors of the past are meant to be out grown and evolved into a life that is kinder and gentler with others coming to the forefront leaving the self centered being behind,, As I look around I am left wondering if this is what is occurring,, I see wealth being more and more concentrated in the greedy few.. I see the traditional higher power being replaced by a god of gold and wealth, that is worshiped with immense intensity.. an intensity that if applied to eliminating poverty ,, poverty would be eliminated world wide within a few short years.
I have not forgotten anything to my knowledge Neil I can remember my childhood to date in great detail recall is not the problem and fear well that is more to keep me from getting killed.. I tend to like invisibility good idea Allan On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:36 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > With memories as bad as mine and yours Allan we have to invent for > fear of remembering we have forgotten everything. > > On 21 Oct, 19:00, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> What happens when your whole concepts begin changing.. strange >> things like the entire universe becomes small and you have to go out >> side its bounds.. Being a soul being what happens if the creation >> soul is earlier than than the creation of the universe? >> Allan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Science doesn't fascinate me in the way some literature and people can >> > generally - I suspect the 'enthusiasm' of the popularisation of the >> > subjects. I concur on the predicament element rigs - insightive. It >> > seems a mistake to me to try and place god in some scientific- >> > dimensional space (though I miss Pat) and I wonder instead whether the >> > god-positions people hack out are as baseless as, say, phlogiston - we >> > need some new thinking. >> >> > Science and critical history have demonstrated much religious text is >> > fable. We repeatedly see that image management hides much that is >> > foul under 'preaching' - here our current examples would be Jimmy >> > Saville, Baby P, priestly paedophiles and Hillsborough (scouting in >> > the US etc.) - but I'd say we may be on the brink of realising >> > economics is equally vile. >> >> > I can imagine spending a few weeks with a group living human- >> > constrained lives in a collective of the future. A woman kisses me >> > goodbye. She will not see me again because I'm off to a near-space >> > terminal built off Alpha Proxima. From there I'm relativity >> > travelling to the edge of this universe to undertake genetic >> > transformation beyond the gene-splicing that has allowed me to travel >> > in space. I see in 16 colours thanks to a shrimp and can enter >> > cryostasis thanks to genes from Arctic fish. I interface with >> > machines and their learning directly. I can no longer replicate as a >> > human - etc. Now I'm off to meet and form a collective with beings >> > who perceive much of the world we can only postulate. In traditional >> > science fiction these 'dark beings' would be bastards intent on taking >> > over the human world. What I don't see is any focus on a future in >> > which the rather soppy human-emotional ties are broken - a future in >> > which ... >> >> > One might ask how the creature I have become would get his jollies. >> > One can go the other way in history and ask what religion has actually >> > done. We are not inventive enough about god. >> >> > On 21 Oct, 14:50, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And some feel science is boring unless it can be translated into >> >> everyday life in meaningful ways. >> >> >> On Oct 20, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > We travel at 60k plus miles an hour in the solar system and 500K >> >> > through the galaxy in our system. I tend to believe we can measure >> >> > this kind of thing and that we are always left with questions like >> >> > Allan's about before after and beyond. Hitch-hikers' Guide probably >> >> > gets to the irony. Quite a few of us discount priests and text- >> >> > authority without giving up on spirit. Spinoza remains the clearest >> >> > example. >> >> >> > Creation stories end up in infinite regress - scientific and otherwise >> >> > - and beg the question of 'what came before that' by positing a >> >> > fiction of something that needs no creator or origin. I don't believe >> >> > god whipped up the Grand Canyon, but in the limits of our thinking >> >> > something whipped up something that led to the evolution of our planet >> >> > etc. I tend to think science rather than literature may lead to a >> >> > different way of seeing this and surviving until this is possible. >> >> > Literature is generally bland and lacks depth - though there are great >> >> > moments. I suspect one of the key issues is raised by Gabby a lot of >> >> > the time - we need to replace current authority and know the irony is >> >> > such attempts just produce the same old business as usual (WB Yeates >> >> > was good on this). >> >> >> > The stuff on thermodynamics above is very similar in method to >> >> > Einstein and what we might now term Wittgensteinian deconstruction - >> >> > trying to find the common elements and mistakes in various competing >> >> > arguments and readdress the apparent conflict. Molly has some words >> >> > on this too. >> >> >> > On 20 Oct, 20:37, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > google books had a copy up online, it may still be there. Used book >> >> > > outlets like Alibris will allow you to put in the book you are >> >> > > searching >> >> > > for and notify you when a copy becomes available for sale by a store >> >> > > that >> >> > > uses their service. Other than that, you may find some good articles >> >> > > about >> >> > > it with excerpts online. for Einstein fans, it is a favorite. >> >> >> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: >> >> >> > > > how does a person get a hold of the original text..?? >> >> > > > Allan >> >> >> > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <[email protected] >> >> > > > <javascript:>>wrote: >> >> >> > > >> The Einstein "The World As I See It," originally began as his >> >> > > >> ponderance >> >> > > >> of something greater than science, and acknowledgement of spirit >> >> > > >> in action. >> >> > > >> The original edition is the best, as his editors put together >> >> > > >> texts with >> >> > > >> lectures for him under the same name, and those books have an >> >> > > >> entirely >> >> > > >> different flavor. >> >> >> > > >> From my view, "knowing" is not the end of it, but the beginning. >> >> >> > > >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:09:19 AM UTC-4, gabbydott wrote: >> >> >> > > >>> Honestly, Vam, I don't think that it was Einstein's lack of >> >> > > >>> knowledge >> >> > > >>> that made him pose such a daft (in the sense of limited) >> >> > > >>> question. I read >> >> > > >>> this as a description of the state of occidental science at his >> >> > > >>> time - the >> >> > > >>> conflict between the ontological and the constructivist >> >> > > >>> explanatory models >> >> > > >>> of the nature of knowledge. >> >> >> > > >>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>> You spoke of Einstein, about his ” only ” interest being whether >> >> > > >>>> God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had >> >> > > >>>> any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed >> >> > > >>>> creation. >> >> >> > > >>>> My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will >> >> > > >>>> always think >> >> > > >>>> along those lines. >> >> >> > > >>>> To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be >> >> > > >>>> thinking >> >> > > >>>> entities ... >> >> >> > > >>>> *So, do we know enough ?* >> >> >> > > >>>> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0...> >> >> >> > > >>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>> I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the >> >> > > >>>>> mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not >> >> > > >>>>> understand humanism? Other works involved included various >> >> > > >>>>> essays and >> >> > > >>>>> books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski >> >> > > >>>>> ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and >> >> > > >>>>> dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when >> >> > > >>>>> considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart >> >> > > >>>>> weapons, etc. >> >> > > >>>>> as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various >> >> > > >>>>> nations/ >> >> > > >>>>> political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi >> >> > > >>>>> scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon >> >> > > >>>>> survived. >> >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of >> >> > > >>>>> > the >> >> > > >>>>> > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years >> >> > > >>>>> > ago, we >> >> > > >>>>> > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the >> >> > > >>>>> > 2nd law >> >> > > >>>>> of >> >> > > >>>>> > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The >> >> > > >>>>> > 2nd law >> >> > > >>>>> > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his >> >> > > >>>>> > walk, is >> >> > > >>>>> > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist. >> >> >> > > >>>>> > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph >> >> > > >>>>> > Clausius >> >> > > >>>>> > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising >> >> > > >>>>> > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the >> >> > > >>>>> > universe works >> >> > > >>>>> > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example >> >> > > >>>>> > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and >> >> > > >>>>> > therefore >> >> > > >>>>> > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That >> >> > > >>>>> > predicts a >> >> > > >>>>> grim >> >> > > >>>>> > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally >> >> > > >>>>> > dissipated, >> >> > > >>>>> > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat >> >> > > >>>>> > death". >> >> > > >>>>> A >> >> > > >>>>> > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic >> >> > > >>>>> > history, >> >> > > >>>>> too. >> >> > > >>>>> > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why >> >> > > >>>>> > did the >> >> > > >>>>> > universe start in a state that seems to have been of >> >> > > >>>>> > comparatively >> >> > > >>>>> low >> >> > > >>>>> > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an >> >> > > >>>>> > intriguing >> >> > > >>>>> > alternative view. >> >> >> > > >>>>> > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the >> >> > > >>>>> > legitimacy of >> >> > > >>>>> > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was >> >> > > >>>>> > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish >> >> > > >>>>> > physicist >> >> > > >>>>> > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate >> >> > > >>>>> > matter >> >> > > >>>>> > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated >> >> > > >>>>> > system, >> >> > > >>>>> > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat >> >> > > >>>>> > clump >> >> > > >>>>> of >> >> > > >>>>> > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses >> >> > > >>>>> > randomly, >> >> > > >>>>> never >> >> > > >>>>> > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does >> >> > > >>>>> > always >> >> > > >>>>> > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have >> >> > > >>>>> > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things >> >> > > >>>>> > to >> >> > > >>>>> make >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
