Many things are best guesses.. are the foundation to many things along what has been observed .. and there is nothing wrong with that .. many ideas have evolved from the instinct for survival .. from that has come selfishness which has lead to the excessive uncaring greed we see today... sacrificing the other ant. Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light On Dec 6, 2012 11:09 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used. > > I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get back to > reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from > 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that > pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct. > > Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating > against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god. > Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science > misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The > spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history > of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn > in terms of grace and fellowship. > > On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you > > can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after > > youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone. > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning my > hands. I > > > use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more difficult > dirt on > > > my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often I wear > > > gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for the > tip. > > > I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead of > stone, > > > you're right. > > > > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote: > > > > >> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for > > >> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,, > > >> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over from > > >> fixing my maxi egg coddler. > > > > >> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it work? > > >> Allan > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God > > >> > concept > > >> > much more to the point. :) > > > > >> > I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - > > >> > though. > > >> > This sounds very man-made to me. ;) > > > > >> > As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more > > >> > vivid > > >> > than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. > But > > >> > the > > >> > children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is > really > > >> > good. > > > > >> > Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about? > > > > >> > 2012/12/4 Allan H <[email protected]> > > > > >> >> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting > > >> >> evidence.. > > >> >> Allan > > > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of > > >> >> > Creation with its series of universes. > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> >> >> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed > .. as > > >> >> >> for > > >> >> >> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to > support > > >> >> >> the > > >> >> >> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting > the > > >> >> >> spiritual > > >> >> >> realm than parallel universes > > >> >> >> Allan > > > > >> >> >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > > >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is > beginning > > >> >> >>> and > > >> >> >>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in > parallel > > >> >> >>> and > > >> >> >>> continuously many universes are being born and many are dying > , > > >> >> >>> but > > >> >> >>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , > just > > >> >> >>> like > > >> >> >>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The > difference is > > >> >> >>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is > > >> >> >>> non-dual. > > > > >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas < > [email protected]> > > >> >> >>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> > Hello Andrew, > > > > >> >> >>> > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not > > >> >> >>> > true. > > >> >> >>> > I > > >> >> >>> > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter > is > > >> >> >>> > all > > >> >> >>> > that > > >> >> >>> > is > > >> >> >>> > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. > To > > >> >> >>> > me > > >> >> >>> > there > > >> >> >>> > is > > >> >> >>> > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining > there > > >> >> >>> > was > > >> >> >>> > only > > >> >> >>> > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the > spirt > > >> >> >>> > of > > >> >> >>> > God. > > >> >> >>> > That is all matter comes from spirit. > > > > >> >> >>> > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey > wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy > component > > >> >> >>> >> to > > >> >> >>> >> it > > >> >> >>> >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in > them. > > >> >> >>> >> But I > > >> >> >>> >> could > > >> >> >>> >> also envision pure motion without involving any > atoms...like a > > >> >> >>> >> vibration in > > >> >> >>> >> the fabric of space, > > > > >> >> >>> >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas > > >> >> >>> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to > it.energy > > >> >> >>> >>> is > > >> >> >>> >>> matter > > >> >> >>> >>> and matter is energy. > > >> >> >>> >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey > wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be > > >> >> >>> >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original > creator > > >> >> >>> >>>> was > > >> >> >>> >>>> not > > >> >> >>> >>>> matter, > > >> >> >>> >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster > and > > >> >> >>> >>>> much > > >> >> >>> >>>> easier > > >> >> >>> >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy > patterns > > >> >> >>> >>>> could > > >> >> >>> >>>> have > > >> >> >>> >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by > selective > > >> >> >>> >>>> processes to > > >> >> >>> >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe > that > > >> >> >>> >>>> patterns of > > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they > > >> >> >>> >>>> manipulated > > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the > information > > >> >> >>> >>>> required > > >> >> >>> >>>> for > > >> >> >>> >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex > > >> >> >>> >>>> intelligent > > >> >> >>> >>>> beings > > >> >> >>> >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of > where > > >> >> >>> >>>> they > > >> >> >>> >>>> came > > >> >> >>> >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. > Meaning and > > >> >> >>> >>>> purpose could > > >> >> >>> >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas > > >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit > > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an > > >> >> >>> >>>>> infinite > > >> >> >>> >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in > which > > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation > > >> >> >>> >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth > > >> >> >>> >>>>> comes > > >> >> >>> >>>>> closer. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the > brain > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > live > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the > universe > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ,but > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - > time of > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > the > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > nothing > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > else. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > <[email protected]> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations > etc. We > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > already > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - > our > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > bodies > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrate > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'hope'. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Such > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence > and be > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > able to > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > re- > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > make. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > This > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > would > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what > such > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > intelligence > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such > intelligence > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > would > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being > human or > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > human > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > being > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to > live > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > free > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > again. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > part > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > of > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > our > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > behaviour now. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> Allan > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> <[email protected]> > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly > maybe' > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > then > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > (my > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > grammar and > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > though)! > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > :) > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > > > --
