Re: FW: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
Concern on isn't grammatical, I assume you mean concern with. Well, we were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. It is grammatical in the same sense as Senators Express Concern onReverse Mortgage Rule *s* [*not rule*] By RACHEL ABRAMShttp://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/ New York Times. *April 30, 2014, 4:00 *pm. Concern with usually implies specificity on a particular myth. Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON. Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism. 2. Is manufacturing something out of clay a myth? Not if it's a pot. (Although you are making a context error. A myth is a story, making something is a process. Unless you are asking if telling or inventing a story is like making a pot?) How about manufacturing glass? Or Freak Family by Nataly Horev? No, manufacturing glass is not a myth and the Pope is still Catholic. I don't get the point of this point. 3. Is there any non-clay mineral in human body? What is mythical about it? I will leave this to my scientific colleagues. Does clay contain iron, potassium, sodium, calcium for example? This is in any case a slightly peculiar question, unless it's intended to point out that evolution predicts that organisms will be made of the same components as inorganic material (more or less) because what else is available? Physics News. Latest physics and nanotechnology news headlines: http://www.physnews.com/bio-medicine-news/cluster739382184/ Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'. It is a theory dating back thousands of years in many cultures, though perhaps not using the same scientific explanation. The last clause of the last sentence says it all. In the myths, it is because people saw an anlogy with pottery. In science it's because clay may have helped the evolution of RNA. 4. How to justify piggy backing *factual* Natural Selection with *fictional* Trans-speciation? No idea what you mean here. Are you saying speciation doesn't occur? If so, check up on those birds which demonstrate speciation as you follow them around the world. I can't remember what they're called but the concept is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species No idea! You need not be blamed. The authoritarian (Marxist?) acade-media has no clue either!! No Trans-speciation! I have no idea what you mean. But speciation exists, demonstrably, as shown by ring species (and in other ways). 5. Are there other *real *myths in other cultures? Not sure why the emphasis on *real*. Do you mean myths which are in fact true, or just ones which really are myths? If the latter, then obviously there are loads of them. Google for fire goddess for example and you will get Pele, Mahuika, and loads more. Not sure. That is to be expected in the dumping down of America (and the West) by the fanatic, intolerant, Bible-allergic acade-media! How about these myths? Taken from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html Georgia University. 1. The Nordic Myth Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first of and ancestor of the frost-giants. As the ice dripped more, it formed a cow, and from her teats flowed four rivers of milk that fed Ymir. The cow fed on the salt of the rime ice, and as she licked a man's head began to emerge. By the end of the third day of her licking, the whole man had emerged, and his name was Buri. He had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, a daughter of one of the giants. Bor and Bestla had three sons, one of whom was Odin, the most powerful of the gods. 2. The Babylonian Myth: In the beginning, neither heaven nor earth had names. Apsu, the god of fresh waters, and Tiamat, the goddess of the salt oceans, and Mummu, the god of the mist that rises from both of them, were still mingled as one. There were no mountans, there was no pasture land, and not even a reed-marsh could be found to break the surface of the waters. It was then that Apsu and Tiamat parented two gods, and then two more who outgrew the first pair. These further parented gods, until Ea, who was the god of rivers and was Tiamat and Apsu's geat-grandson, was born. Ea was the cleverest of the gods, and with his magic Ea became the most powerful of the gods, ruling even his forebears. 3. East Indian Myth S. Radhakrishnan, (editor and translator), 1953, The Principal Upanisads: New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 958 p. (BL1120.E5 R2) In the beginning there was absolutely nothing, and what existed was covered by death and hunger. He thought, Let me have a self, and he created the mind. As he moved about in worship, water was generated. Froth formed on the water, and the froth eventually
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 4 May 2014 17:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Well, OK, I just picked that out of a hat, there have been so many religious wars after all. So just substitute ongoing Islamic aggression in the above, it doesn't change my point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
2014-05-04 6:24 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 4 May 2014 15:20, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: I have forwarded your query to an expert in Arabic Grammar. Your quote from Wikipedia is correct. What I can inform you, based on my understanding, is that the pronoun 'ha' used in the verse is for female singular with a plural masculine noun 'butuun' indicates that it is specifically about a female bee. OK. I hope you are prepared to accept that if Arabic gives genders to everything, including things which are in fact genderless (like tables), then that demolishes any claim that bees being described as female in ancient texts has any particular significance. I will look at the other claims once this one has been settled, if you don't mind. I think one at a time is best if we are attempting to establish the truth in each case. Anyway, before that, he should also show why such knowledge would have not been accessible to people of that era... because... that's what he claims. Regards, Quentin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centuries. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice between fighting for survival or succumbing. There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate its power and erase the influence of older European religions. You still find many traces of these religions if you visit the north of Portugal and Spain. You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in the Muslim world of todaymaybe once it was prouder than that, I don't know. There are several records that seem to indicate that the Muslims were a much more tolerant civilisation than the several European kingdoms at the time. For example, they had universities in the iberian peninsula and would allow non-muslims to enrol. Also, it appears that they respected local religions and never attacked or destroyed their places of worship. They were clearly more technologically advanced, had a much better understanding of mathematics and its applications and so on. Later on, Portugal initiated the Age of Discoveries by a fluke of History, thus setting in motion the chain of events that eventually lead to today's western hegemony. Both the Moors and the Chineses were much better positioned to do it, technologically and culturally. The Muslim civilisation regressed tremendously to the current times, and it's now going through some dark ages period. As usual, religious fundamentalism seems to play a big role in this. But accountability at the cultural level is not an Islamic strong suite in our time. Look at our guest right here. Bizarre that he pretends everything is ok. It isn'tEverywhere Muslims have settled in Europe is an unfolding disaster. There's no respect or regard for being in another peoples beloved lands and culture. Maybe so, but the solution is to help raise them out of poverty, not to attack them. Sharia should not be tolerated in the western world, but apart from that the solution is to increase trade and economic cooperation, not to wage wars. Religious fundamentalism festers amongst the people who have nothing to lose, and the sociopaths who explore this state of affairs. We should respect the prime directive :) Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES
Thanks, I will look it up. Mitch -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 3, 2014 4:05 pm Subject: RE: TRONNIES Take a peak. I believe I address every major issue in physics, from the internal structure of an electrons, photons, and protons to the Big Bang, inflation, gravity and anti-gravity, electricity, magnetism, what preceded the Big Bang, the recycling of universes, the Higgs boson (and the real particle that give mass to other particles), relativity, neutrinos and neutrino photons, etc. Many of my explanations are inconsistent with the Standard Model and existing relativity theories. I also make 101 predictions based on my theory. I am not sure they are all correct, but so far no one to my knowledge has proven any of them incorrect. I have been working on this thing for 13 years. If you co to amozon.com, click “books” and search for “tronnies”, then click “look inside” twice, you will see a table of contents. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:30 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES Without peaking at your books, let me ask, what issues in physics do they address or explain? -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 3, 2014 1:24 pm Subject: RE: TRONNIES Some of you may be interested in taking a look at my new book, recently made available at amazon.com. It is: TRONNIES The Source of the Coulomb Force And The Building Blocks of Universes Just go to amazon.com, click “books” and search for “tronnies”. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Liz, I am guessing the capitalism remark is undeserved, in the sense that making money is inherently evil (making goods, and providing services?), for me that is too broad a brush you paint with for that observation. Now, if you want a glaring example, we look to the millions killed by Belgium (Heart of Darkness) which was driven by the need for cheap rubber from plantations in central africa. The death toll for the rubber plantations is estimated at 8 million over 20 years. We both need to ask if the commies, nazis, and ww2 japanese, were also part-capitalists. Stalin, before ww2, and even after did capitalist (westerners) trade deals, and millions died. Was IG Farben evil because it was 'capitalist,' or because they were nazis? What about Mao, and what about North Korean trade deals? Kim sure is not capitalist is he? Maybe the fault lies not in the 'ism' strictly, but in ourselves? Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 3, 2014 7:15 pm Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Defending ourselves from the guys, today, is way different from 800 years ago. They were significantly, more tolerant then Christendom was during the same period and for centuries afterwards. More tolerant, does not mean they were tolerant, but they tended to be less murderous, then! From the end of the Crusades, onward, they became less and less tolerant, more abusive, and more aggressive. The First Crusade in its calumny against Constantinople (Eastern Christians) and European Jews, is well known. It's a matter of comparison, then. Today, we face a sort of fascism culture that is part Sharia, part, part..? It's rage ebbs and flows, and is reactive. They are funded by oil money and the hunger to achieve a place in Paradise. This, justifies dying in combat against the QuFar (Infidels). You win a ticket to upstairs by sacrificing ones self, by becoming a shaheed, a martyr. Human beings are complicated and are driven by hope, fear, and aggression. I am the same way, before my second coffee. Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice between fighting for survival or succumbing. You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in the Muslim world of todaymaybe once it was prouder than that, I don't know. But accountability at the cultural level is not an Islamic strong suite in our time. Look at our guest right here. Bizarre that he pretends everything is ok. It isn'tEverywhere Muslims have settled in Europe is an unfolding disaster. There's no respect or regard for being in another peoples beloved lands and culture. -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 4, 2014 1:15 am Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice between fighting for survival or succumbing. You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in the Muslim world of todaymaybe once it was prouder than that, I don't know. But accountability at the cultural level is not an Islamic strong suite in our time. Look at our guest right here. Bizarre that he pretends everything is ok. It isn'tEverywhere Muslims have settled in Europe is an unfolding disaster. There's no respect or regard for being in another peoples beloved lands and culture. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
saying no to the doctor...
The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centurie Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a tide was turning that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having made inroads into Christian lands. Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really complex long running piece of history. I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of the crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. But not their accomplishments...those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and it is, continually and spread nice and thickly. But not the accomplishments and good things. Europeans suddenly don't exist at all when that comes up. But every other people seems to get the exact opposite. The failings are not to be mentioned, ever. The accomplishments...these must be neverendingly praised and celebrated. You don't find that unfair telmo? I mean, I said nothing about any of that...but I did use a positive word European like something like that actually has an existence. And I did simplify the other way. Maybe that did it. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice betyween fighting for r survival or succumbing. a There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate its power and erase the influence of older European religions. You still find many traces of these religions if you visit the north of Portugal and Spain. You're in a certain context, which I was already aware. But you not really right to suggest those terms should not be used. It's how things are understood now so it's reasonable. We talk about Africa, or Europe or America, like up to millions of years ago. It's alright to do that. You say it like it was the other way around. A very popular myth in the Muslim world of todaymaybe once it was prouder than that, I don't know. There are several records that seem to indicate that the Muslims were a much more tolerant civilisation than the several European kingdoms at the time. Certainly, of course. There's a lot of great architecture and art as well. I made no sweeping statements about Islam through history. Nor any sweeping statements about accomplishments of Western Civilization.but since I'm there now, it's ridiculous to suggest it doesn't sit
Re: Evolution from Scripture
The modern/recent actions of the Umah. the faithful, the Islamic Community have not been real good either. The drive for Sharia Law everywhere is on the march and from what I believe I have seen is the counter-colonization of the faithful of their former masters, be it Algerians to France, or Pakistanis to the UK. The violent Jihad is tolerated by the Umah, for the most part. There is almost no opposition to the Jihad, worldwide. My own views are, extreme, and not shared by the rulers of any country, but I am fascinated that certain fixes are never tried, even though it may have a high return on investment.* The harder part is having the political will to defend yourselves, to retaliate, to inflict unacceptable damage, to quote futurist, Herman Kahn. *Less on this, later. -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 4, 2014 9:24 am Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centurie Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a tide was turning that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having made inroads into Christian lands. Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really complex long running piece of history. I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of the crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. But not their accomplishments...those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and it is, continually and spread nice and thickly. But not the accomplishments and good things. Europeans suddenly don't exist at all when that comes up. But every other people seems to get the exact opposite. The failings are not to be mentioned, ever. The accomplishments...these must be neverendingly praised and celebrated. You don't find that unfair telmo? I mean, I said nothing about any of that...but I did use a positive word European like something like that actually has an existence. And I did simplify the other way. Maybe that did it. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice betyween fighting for r survival or succumbing. a There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate its power and erase the influence of older European religions. You still find many traces of these
Re: saying no to the doctor...
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Hi ghibbsa, On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centurie Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a tide was turning that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having made inroads into Christian lands. Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really complex long running piece of history. Ok, we can agree on this. I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. I don't feel I'm favouring Islam. I just accused them of regressing to dark ages... I am simply proposing that they had a more advanced civilisation than Europe at a certain point in history. I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of the crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. Not at all. I think that all major civilisations can be credited with a lot of good and bad things. Furthermore, I can tell you that western civilisation is by far the closest to my values in modern times. I criticise western civilisation because I care and hold it to a very high standard. But not their accomplishments... The accomplishments of western civilisation are numerous and incredible, and span centuries. I think you are assuming a disagreement that we don't have. those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and it is, continually and spread nice and thickly. But not the accomplishments and good things. Europeans suddenly don't exist at all when that comes up. But every other people seems to get the exact opposite. The failings are not to be mentioned, ever. The accomplishments...these must be neverendingly praised and celebrated. You don't find that unfair telmo? I mean, I said nothing about any of that...but I did use a positive word European like something like that actually has an existence. And I did simplify the other way. Maybe that did it. I was just saying that the Europeans were not an organised entity in that specific point in time. They were organised before under the Roman Empire and became organised again later under the Vatican. So my point was simply to question your statement that some organised entity had to take sudden action against an external aggression. They had got as far as Spain by the time the ever dosy Europeans got their act together and realized this was now a choice betyween fighting for r survival or succumbing. a There was no Spain at the time, and no unifying concept of Europeans. These things came later. In a sense, the western world as we understand it today was forged at this time. The crusades where not only a war against the arabs, they were also a strategy by the vatican to consolidate
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow. For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to compete fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. But the problem here is not the ism itself. The problem is in the human addiction to money or power. To compete fairly needs good separation of all powers, good renewing of powers, etc. Today there are powerful interest fighting against such separation, and the internet itself can be in peril. Don't hesitate to sign petitions against it. I put links on my facebook page (*). If we don't remain vigilant, we get the ism that we can tolerate until it is too late. Bruno (*) https://www.facebook.com/Bruno.Marchal24 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: saying no to the doctor...
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow. For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to compete fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. But the problem here is not the ism itself. The problem is in the human addiction to money or power. To compete fairly needs good separation of all powers, good renewing of powers, etc. Today there are powerful interest fighting against such separation, and the internet itself can be in peril. Don't hesitate to sign petitions against it. I put links on my facebook page (*). If we don't remain vigilant, we get the ism that we can tolerate until it is too late. Bruno (*) https://www.facebook.com/Bruno.Marchal24 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 7:09:27 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi ghibbsa, On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:09:10 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:14:59 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Excusing me, but the Crusades were a nick of time defensive response to a massive ongoing Islamic aggression. Not at all. The Crusades began when the tide was already turning in favor of the western kingdoms' reconquest of European territory. This had been going on for centurie Well, you have voiced a summary view of one camp of historians, and I have voiced the summary view of another. You seem to acknowledge a tide was turning that the direction was that of Islam being pushed back having made inroads into Christian lands. Of course hit is true what comes under the Crusades header is a really complex long running piece of history. Ok, we can agree on this I simplified favouring Europe, and you simplified favouring Islam. I don't feel I'm favouring Islam. I just accused them of regressing to dark ages... I am simply proposing that they had a more advanced civilisation than Europe at a certain point in history. You sort of mirrored my simplification back to me, which could've been the point right there, that would've been cool. I recognized you were as right as I was in that there really are basically two camps. It was an interesting idea if part of the point. Like a new Concept Art...remembering rthat modern art thing...the is this art or is this dog shit is that a brown bag sort of proposition...you know, things like the urinal, the dead sheep in the fish tank, the 10' motd of the plagiarized plastic child's toy; empty room flickering lightbulb that flickers out, creating the empty dark room. It wasn't art. But the so many people, art critics among them as so brilliantly exposed by loved forever for doing it Ruby Max. It was about them...they'd made the art world about themselves already...owned the art world pretty much, had got filthy rich,but the one question everyone wanted to know, and no one ever found a way to get a scientifically objective answer to, was could they know dog shit from art? Concept art was invented to finally give the answer. They didn't. That were art. sorry I digressed...suddenly gotta do something...I'll come for you man. I would say your simplification is much more typical these days, than mine. I'd also have to note that your reaction for my sin goes a lot further. Whereas I keep my simplification focused at the start of thde crusades and mention what is an unfolding disaster in Europe now, you sort of generalize your disfavour to this familiar - and lets face it pretty dominant idea that Europeans can be credited with much everything bad. Not at all. I think that all major civilisations can be credited with a lot of good and bad things. Furthermore, I can tell you that western civilisation is by far the closest to my values in modern times. I criticise western civilisation because I care and hold it to a very high standard. But not their accomplishments... The accomplishments of western civilisation are numerous and incredible, and span centuries. I think you are assuming a disagreement that we don't have. those are written off as accidents, thefts, or universalized so other peoples share equally...but strangely never have to universalize or put down to accidentsand thefts any of their own. Isn't it actually true, that Europeans currently t the opposite, only bad stuff can be associated, and it is, continually and
Re: FW: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
On 5/4/2014 1:45 AM, LizR wrote: Concern on isn't grammatical, I assume you mean concern with. Well, we were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. It is grammatical in the same sense as Senators Express Concern on Reverse Mortgage Rule/s/ [/not rule/] By RACHEL ABRAMS http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/ New York Times. /April 30, 2014, 4:00 /pm. Concern with usually implies specificity on a particular myth. Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON. Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism. No. The on goes with the express It might have read Senators speak on reverse mortgage rules. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: saying no to the doctor...
Telmo, some 2+ decades ago I think I had a reason to avert from the topic called *panpsychism* (would be hard to recall it adequately now). As I remember I called the phenomenon covered by this misnomer PANSENSITIVITY (what I would not like to defend today anymore). Psych seems to me too 'human' to be applicable to the entire world (=Mme. Nature). Why would you reduce the MWI reflexibility into ourflimsy human brainfunctions? (Even i f you extend them into human? mentality total). On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of 'ontology' (etc.) is more than what I buy. We might still *stumble* on truth, (or you do not?), what we may believe as truth and draw very important consequences upon OTHER concepts from it as well. In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not convincing. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not suggest). John M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote: Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between * stable patterns of information, e.g. perception...* and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as): * the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,* Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception. I would say ontology is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory. The same for existence, information and perception, those are words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word. (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and denote the sequence s(s(0)) by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of (; , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...). This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for that number.) Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality. We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language. Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to as we perceive something, the epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental capabilities. All right. None cuts into anything R E A L . You don't know that. WE CAN NOT. You cannot know that too. What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we cannot do it either. We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble on some truth. Why not? Bruno On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,... I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher emergent level. With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics. I like when David Mermin said once: Einstein asked if the moon still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, definitely not exist. Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon doesn't exist even when we look at it. Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely many computations exists. Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of exist. ? Are you not begging the question? I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of exists. The meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where exists is a quantifier. But that is quite a different sense of exist. It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of existence. It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms. It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE. Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that something exists or that it
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:17:29 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow you're absolutely right . For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. On the money Bruno. Hey this might be were we finally touch heads man! It's amazing the dogma and self-serving ideological bolt ons currently crept already fully into the conception what a free market is. It's barely recognizable as it stands at the moment. A large part of the reason this is possible to happen is because there's no scientific theory of economy. . The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to com fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. I don't think so Bruno, and even if there was, there's no place for morality in a theory of economy, not as primary operator...because all that will ever get us, is philosophy-guru's into the market next, to tell us about the morality...and among them will be even more bad guys, Which'd be a magnet for yet more. There are bad guys in practice, but the scientific theory of economy...it won't just be a theory on paper. The day for that is nearly over now. The shape of things to come are theories that no longer embody human guesses any more, but instead embody that which can be anticipated once discovered...which will always be at the methodological level. And that which must be discovered as part of an ongoing unfolding process. All which will attach, to economy, technology, physical theory, mathematics, a problem...whatever we wantattachment by translation from more abstracted form, attachment by intersection, discovery as the product, within in a feedback and other ways ever more complex organism. The theory of economy work its way through markets and industries and nations and individuals and abstract theories...discovering principles and strategies and corruption..discovering all the time, and correcting. The 2nd Scientific Revolution.that's what it will be. We might not get there thoughbut if we could it be every dream cometh true. But there's a limited window, and if we fail, it's hive and hell...the end of us, but with time in the middle plenty to have a go at being animals u But the problem here is not the ism itself. The problem is in the human addiction to money or power. . Yep, and all these excellent points, represent manifestations that put a drag on maret dynamismso in effect they are examples of the true character of a 'regulation'. Not to say some we have now are not crucial unlike what the faux free marketers say. They are crucial in a lot of cases because they moderate even worse corruption. But any barrier to entry, or disincentive, any kind of corruption.are all directly related to fundamental market properties, All of them..all properties. Corruption creates wonders for the people on the inside, but across the market as a whole, efficiciency has gone down as the inverse exponential. Not efficiency as it gets defined, because that's not fundamental. Efficiency
Re: Evolution from Scripture
Somebody wrote (Liz?): *For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society.* Who is that *YOU?? *Power and force are in the hands of the plutocrats. They do whatever they see fit. Money does not 'vote': people (stupid and 'for sale' voters do. Capitalism, BTW, as I wrote many times, died in the 1970s to give it over to some Economical Global Feudalism, (including corporatism and monopolism) - not less brutal than the Medieval Feudalism was, only with higher sophistication and pretension. The lords OWN things (including Nature) and the serfs work for money (for them) - sometimes for many many money, like bankers, lawyers, legislators, enforcers, scientists, etc. Serfs are disregardable chattel - fodder for wars, work-slaves, etc. I did try to live in pre- and real nazism, in a (mock) communism and in capiatlism, in all of them as an underdog (scientist), twice arrested - but survived. JM On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 8:17:29 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 01:14, LizR wrote: On 4 May 2014 07:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: I shan't defend the behaviors of the Abe religions over the centuries, but you couldn't term the Hindu faith as pacifist either. In the 20th century the political movement that had atheism at its core, was the Marxist ideology, and how many tens of millions did it destroy, 70 mil, 100? Not a bad catchup I'd say. The pagan faiths, previous to, and coexistent with the Abe religions were not pacifist either and were hungry for land, slaves, and murder, just like the Abe's, and even worse. Pagan Rome employed crucifixion, remember? The ancient Chinese, were plenty, murderous, as well. In the Americas and Africa, as far as archaeologists and physical anthropologists, have determined, and were, what I term as being 'genocide friendly.' None of the species were really nice guys for much of the time.. Yep, the religions known as Stalinism and Nazism were just as destructive as the Crusades, etc. In fact anything ending in Ism seems to be a justification for murder or cruelty. (It looks like Capitalism is catching up with the others, and may soon surpass all of them if we aren't careful.) Some ism can be good and nice, but even in that case, after a while, some people will use it and pervert it for special/personal interest. Always. Then criticizing the ism protects them, somehow you're absolutely right . For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society. On the money Bruno. Hey this might be were we finally touch heads man! It's amazing the dogma and self-serving ideological bolt ons currently crept already fully into the conception what a free market is. It's barely recognizable as it stands at the moment. A large part of the reason this is possible to happen is because there's no scientific theory of economy. . The real war is between the good guy and the bad guy. There is no ism capable of guaranty the good, but allowing some ism to com fairly, allow them to evolve and this is harm reduction. Now, if some same ism lasts too long, it get rotten and as good as it could have been, it will be perverted by some special interest. I don't think so Bruno, and even if there was, there's no place for morality in a theory of economy, not as primary operator...because all that will ever get us, is philosophy-guru's into the market next, to tell us about the morality...and among them will be even more bad guys, Which'd be a magnet for yet more. There are bad guys in practice, but the scientific theory of economy...it won't just be a theory on paper. The day for that is nearly over now. The shape of things to come are theories that no longer embody human guesses any more, but instead embody that which can be anticipated once discovered...which will always be at the methodological level. And that which must be discovered as part of an ongoing unfolding process. All which will attach, to economy, technology, physical theory, mathematics, a problem...whatever we wantattachment by translation from more abstracted form, attachment by intersection, discovery as the product, within in a feedback and other ways ever more complex organism. The theory of economy work its way through markets and industries and nations and individuals and abstract theories...discovering principles and strategies and corruption..discovering all
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 00:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Liz, I am guessing the capitalism remark is undeserved, in the sense that making money is inherently evil (making goods, and providing services?), for me that is It's only undeserved if everyone is paid fairly for their work, which is manifestly not so when all the hard labour is outsourced to the third world to be carried out by workers who are effectively slaves. And it is only undeserved if everyone pays the full price for the things they produce, rather than offloading some of the cost into the environment for the entire human race to clean up later. too broad a brush you paint with for that observation. Now, if you want a glaring example, we look to the millions killed by Belgium (Heart of Darkness) which was driven by the need for cheap rubber from plantations in central africa. The death toll for the rubber plantations is estimated at 8 million over 20 years. We both need to ask if the commies, nazis, and ww2 japanese, were also part-capitalists. Stalin, before ww2, and even after did capitalist (westerners) trade deals, and The Nazis were of course hand in hand with big business (have you seen or read The resistable rise of Arturo Ui ?) The Stalinist system (which only paid lip service to being communist of course) was one vast state-owned corporation (which used slavery, just like the modern capitalist system). Maybe the fault lies not in the 'ism' strictly, but in ourselves? Yes, dear Brutus, but the fact is our selves are the product of an education system which inculcates certain values - like the death penalty being OK in the USA, despite having been abolished in most civilised countries for decades. Note its racial bias too, as Leonard Cohen put it Old black Joe still pickin' cotton to make your ribbons and bows indeed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 07:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. This is true, however real capitalism - free market capitalism - doesn't work because it doesn't pay the full (i.e. environmental) price of production. At least it hasn't to date, which means so far it's just been a bubble / ponzi scheme. A system that paid fair wages and the full costs of production, and had a free market and a government limited to providing infrastructure could be called successful capitalism (or it could equally be called successful communism) but we don't have it yet, and until we do we can't claim that we've *ever* had a system that works. Hence my earlier comments about (what we've been calling) capitalism heading towards the greatest death toll of all, unless we sort out the encironmental aspects p.d.q. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 07:42, Philip Benjamin medinucl...@hotmail.com wrote: [*lizj...@gmail.com* lizj...@gmail.com] Maybe you should attempt to explain your position in a standalone post rather than making - to me rather confusing - comments which allude to it. [*Philip Benjamin*] *Testability:* There is no testability of any of these, except perhaps a trans-speciation experiment with reproduction of bacteria *ad infinitum *in a human size drum and see if a professor of Trans-speciation will jump out of that drum!! OK, I *meant* explain it in a way that anyone with reasonable intelligence can understand, which you are not doing yet. Start from first principles. What position is the above (weird-sounding) paragraph supposed to prove? How does it prove it? Or is it a joke? If so it seems to be an attempt to debunk some weird idea of how evolution works, or something like that. You need to explain what you're talking about. (All I can think is that this Is a whirlwind in a junkyard type idea, as per Fred Hoyle's famously flawed thought experiment?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: FW: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 1:45 AM, LizR wrote: Concern on isn't grammatical, I assume you mean concern with. Well, we were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. It is grammatical in the same sense as Senators Express Concern onReverse Mortgage Rule *s* [*not rule*] By RACHEL ABRAMShttp://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/ New York Times. *April 30, 2014, 4:00 *pm. Concern with usually implies specificity on a particular myth. Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON. Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism. No. The on goes with the express It might have read Senators speak on reverse mortgage rules. Well speaking as an editor it reads VERY clunkily to me. I would normally say speak about - or just discuss. To say that someone speaks on something sounds as though it comes from a long-gone era of formal diction. It *could* work, in some restricted contexts, to give a sense of formality / artificiality, but I wouldn't use it in general speech or writing. What is this concern on [whatever it was] just read to me like someone who can't be bothered to express themselves properly. And as the OP said, Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON - so why not use the former, which is far more normally used, reads far better, sounds more natural, doesn't sound like it comes out the 1800s, etc? (Unless, as I said, it's an Americanism.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
PS did I get that right about the queen being fed special stuff? My knowledge is also badly informed on many things...) On 5 May 2014 10:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for mathematical realism - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be just a bunch of equations, then there will be no reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, how they look from the inside ? Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet. But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?) The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not suggest). Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: saying no to the doctor...
I'm back! I lost my desire to post due to an existential crisis, but now I've regained it thanks to the above comic. On 5 May 2014 08:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, some 2+ decades ago I think I had a reason to avert from the topic called *panpsychism* (would be hard to recall it adequately now). As I remember I called the phenomenon covered by this misnomer PANSENSITIVITY (what I would not like to defend today anymore). Psych seems to me too 'human' to be applicable to the entire world (=Mme. Nature). Why would you reduce the MWI reflexibility into ourflimsy human brainfunctions? (Even i f you extend them into human? mentality total). On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:43:12 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 Cheers, Telmo. So where do you stand on this Telmo? I suppose I've rather raised my hopes that your answer, like mine, is not straight forward. I have no explanation for consciousness. My current inclination is panpsychism. Maybe just because I'm just lonely since Liz walked out on me...this vague cloud of abstraction never seemed so cavernous when she was around, her 70's punk echoing through the theory of nothing that - well you know itt wasn't a theory, but maybe it wasn't nuthin' neither. Hey, I like 70's punk rock too! Seriously, I saw a hint of scientific realism in something you said at some point. Nearly vanished but managed to block my ears when you started talking about consciousness not between the ears. Don't do that. I believe that science is the only valid tool we have to understand public reality. If you have a good consciousness between the ears theory then... I'm all ears. Other theories are ok too. My position is that what makes a theory scientific is it's falsifiability, that's all. It doesn't matter how weird the theory sounds, it only matters if it makes valid predictions or not. Common sense has been shown to be misleading many times, and to an amazing degree with quantum mechanics. I am not sure that consciousness will ever be investigated by science, because I'm not sure it will ever be possible to measure it or test for it's presence. In this case (or meanwhile), we have to make do with thought experiments and introspection on private reality. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 09:34, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Somebody wrote (Liz?): *For example there is no problem with capitalism per se, unless you allow money to vote. Lobbying can be permitted, but not through financial helps. If you allow this, you kill capitalism, and transform it into corporatism and monopolism, which kill the genuine competition and eventually the society.* It wasn't me. And I agree with what you said in answer to whoever it was. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5/4/2014 12:38 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. I think that confuses financialism with capitalism. If you can invest in labor and equipment and produce something that returns a profit, you're a capitalist. Bitcoin looks to me like just another attempt to manipulate the medium of exchange and profit from it - a role traditionally taken by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The British Comedian's Joke
The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The British Comedian's Joke
I remember him. You're right he wasn't trendy. But going by that joke he was quite funny. On 5 May 2014 12:49, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
I don't know much about bitcoin, except you can mine bitcoins at some expense - to your power bill, your time and the environment. What's the point? (And how does it manipulate the medium of exchange?) On 5 May 2014 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 12:38 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. I think that confuses financialism with capitalism. If you can invest in labor and equipment and produce something that returns a profit, you're a capitalist. Bitcoin looks to me like just another attempt to manipulate the medium of exchange and profit from it - a role traditionally taken by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: FW: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
On 5/4/2014 3:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 1:45 AM, LizR wrote: Concern on isn't grammatical, I assume you mean concern with. Well, we were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. It is grammatical in the same sense as Senators Express Concern on Reverse Mortgage Rule/s/ [/not rule/] By RACHEL ABRAMS http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/ New York Times. /April 30, 2014, 4:00 /pm. Concern with usually implies specificity on a particular myth. Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON. Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism. No. The on goes with the express It might have read Senators speak on reverse mortgage rules. Well speaking as an editor it reads VERY clunkily to me. I would normally say speak about - or just discuss. Normally; but to speak on a topic is common in describing a lecture or political speech. To say that someone speaks on something sounds as though it comes from a long-gone era of formal diction. It /could/ work, in some restricted contexts, to give a sense of formality / artificiality, but I wouldn't use it in general speech or writing. What is this concern on [whatever it was] just read to me like someone who can't be bothered to express themselves properly. And as the OP said, Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON - No, it's not an Americanism as far as I know, but headline writers sometimes chose a short word to fit the space even if it's not the most common usage. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 5/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote: PS did I get that right about the queen being fed special stuff? My knowledge is also badly informed on many things...) It think she's fed the special stuff, royal jelly, as a larva; so it would be hard ascertain she started as a normal worker just by observation. Brent On 5 May 2014 10:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Brent On 5/4/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote: I don't know much about bitcoin, except you can mine bitcoins at some expense - to your power bill, your time and the environment. What's the point? (And how does it manipulate the medium of exchange?) On 5 May 2014 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 12:38 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. I think that confuses financialism with capitalism. If you can invest in labor and equipment and produce something that returns a profit, you're a capitalist. Bitcoin looks to me like just another attempt to manipulate the medium of exchange and profit from it - a role traditionally taken by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 5 May 2014 13:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 3:25 PM, LizR wrote: PS did I get that right about the queen being fed special stuff? My knowledge is also badly informed on many things...) It think she's fed the special stuff, royal jelly, as a larva; so it would be hard ascertain she started as a normal worker just by observation. That blows that theory out of the water. So could ancient people have known, or surmised, that worker bees were female somehow? Or should we ascribe it to divine inspiration? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:24:15AM +1200, LizR wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). Plus to confound things, in many languages, nouns have a gender that needn't imply anything about the gender of the referrant. For example, ant in French is la fourmi, and is referred as she/her, regardless whether it is a male or female ant you are talking about. In extreme cases, the genders do not match at all - an example in German is das Mädchen, meaning girl, a neuter noun. Perhaps we need to ask what the state of mind was when the Bible was translated into English - perhaps people knew by the 17th century when the bible was first translated into English (probably from latin, where ant is likely to be feminine) that ants were usually females. Or perhaps the gender is simply a bit of a hangover from the translation - just like we refer to ships in the feminine, even today. I have no knowledge of Arabic, but could it be that ants are feminine in Arabic? Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: FW: [Mind and Brain] RE: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 13:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 3:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 1:45 AM, LizR wrote: Concern on isn't grammatical, I assume you mean concern with. Well, we were discussing creation myths vs science, hence the concern. It is grammatical in the same sense as Senators Express Concern onReverse Mortgage Rule *s* [*not rule*] By RACHEL ABRAMShttp://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/rachel-abrams/ New York Times. *April 30, 2014, 4:00 *pm. Concern with usually implies specificity on a particular myth. Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON. Hmm, OK, maybe it's an Americanism. No. The on goes with the express It might have read Senators speak on reverse mortgage rules. Well speaking as an editor it reads VERY clunkily to me. I would normally say speak about - or just discuss. Normally; but to speak on a topic is common in describing a lecture or political speech. Yes, I agree with that, but it still read very badly in the post in question. To say that someone speaks on something sounds as though it comes from a long-gone era of formal diction. It *could* work, in some restricted contexts, to give a sense of formality / artificiality, but I wouldn't use it in general speech or writing. What is this concern on [whatever it was] just read to me like someone who can't be bothered to express themselves properly. And as the OP said, Concern ABOUT is what is meant by concern ON - No, it's not an Americanism as far as I know, but headline writers sometimes chose a short word to fit the space even if it's not the most common usage. In my opinion, people posting on forums shouldn't attempt to copy headline writers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution from Scripture
On 5 May 2014 13:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It creates a parallel medium of exchange in which those who make bitcoins first hope to profit from their appreciation. Hm. It all sounds a bit Ponzi-like to me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 5 May 2014 14:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:24:15AM +1200, LizR wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). Plus to confound things, in many languages, nouns have a gender that needn't imply anything about the gender of the referrant. For example, ant in French is la fourmi, and is referred as she/her, regardless whether it is a male or female ant you are talking about. In extreme cases, the genders do not match at all - an example in German is das Mädchen, meaning girl, a neuter noun. Perhaps we need to ask what the state of mind was when the Bible was translated into English - perhaps people knew by the 17th century when the bible was first translated into English (probably from latin, where ant is likely to be feminine) that ants were usually females. Or perhaps the gender is simply a bit of a hangover from the translation - just like we refer to ships in the feminine, even today. I have no knowledge of Arabic, but could it be that ants are feminine in Arabic? Yes indeed, that question is apparently with an expert at the moment, who is supposed to be getting back to Samiya and me on that very question. (See my earlier posts on gendered nouns in Arabic.) Good point about when the text was translated. I don't know about the Quran but I think the first Bible that wasn't in Latin was the King James? No, Wikipedia has put me right! It was an earlier one in 1535. I doubt the gender of worker ants and bees was common knowledge then. Apparently Latin also has gendered nouns, however. formica, formicaehttp://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/20892/formica-formicae noun - declension: 1st declension - gender: feminine *Definitions:* 1. ant Apis Translation *Bee* -- *Main Forms*: Apis, Apis *Gender*: Feminine *Declension*: Third So Latin, at least, has female bees *and* ants! (So the feminisation of ant in Proverbs isn't so surprising if it went via Latin.) I suspect that people observed the queen bee / ant and thought She's obviously the boss (apparently modern genetic says otherwise) and made bees and ants female by association. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Evolution from Scripture
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 6:12 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evolution from Scripture I don't know much about bitcoin, except you can mine bitcoins at some expense - to your power bill, your time and the environment. What's the point? (And how does it manipulate the medium of exchange?) I’d like to see a study done on the carbon footprint of bitcoin J On 5 May 2014 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2014 12:38 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, and this already happened. I would add that capitalism is not catching up with anything because it doesn't even exist at the moment. The money supply itself is not under the control of the market, so the system is non-capitalist at its core. Bitcoin is an attempt at real capitalism, it remains to be seen if it can survive. I think that confuses financialism with capitalism. If you can invest in labor and equipment and produce something that returns a profit, you're a capitalist. Bitcoin looks to me like just another attempt to manipulate the medium of exchange and profit from it - a role traditionally taken by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The British Comedian's Joke
On Monday, May 5, 2014 2:09:31 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I remember him. You're right he wasn't trendy. But going by that joke he was quite funny. On 5 May 2014 12:49, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: The late Bob Monkhouse was way before my time and never trendy. But aft er he died they looked at his jokes, which were just simple and so funny they decided he was a genius. Here is one of his jokes that makes me laugh every time: He's a stand up comedian and he says to the audience: When I told them I wanted to be a comedian they laughed in my face. Well no one's laughing now -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. e The other one I can remember was like When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming and terrified - like his passengers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. [Quran 27:18] Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an (female) ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). I believe the scriptures were revealed by Divine decree. By sharing verses of scientific relevance from the Quran, I hope to establish that it is factually correct, and without any human errors, so that anyone who wishes may include it in their quest for scientific knowledge. Do my posts give an impression of being from a man, or do you also employ the general style of the Quran, of speaking in the male tense about living things, unless specifically speaking about a female? Not that I mind, but in the interest of being factually correct, the feminine pronoun will be more appropriate when referring to Samiya :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Honey Bee
On 5 May 2014 16:16, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good point. It seems likely to me that people would notice that there was a queen bee who laid all the eggs, and perhaps make some assumptions based on that. If they noticed that the queen started as a normal worker but was fed special stuff to make her into the queen... well, people weren't stupid in those days! (Just badly informed on many matters).. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also quote the Bible. Proverbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Proverbs, Chapter 6, verse 6: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider *her *ways, and be wise. [Quran 27:18] Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an (female) ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving. If scientists discover that ants can speak, you will definitely be onto something! Worker ants are indeed female... and they too have queens... but as you say Samiya needs to show that this couldn't be ascertained, or reasonably assumed, by ancient people before he makes any claims about it being provided by divine inspiration (which I assume is his aim). I believe the scriptures were revealed by Divine decree. By sharing verses of scientific relevance from the Quran, I hope to establish that it is factually correct, and without any human errors, so that anyone who wishes may include it in their quest for scientific knowledge. In my opinion we have a long way to go on this front. Do my posts give an impression of being from a man, or do you also employ the general style of the Quran, of speaking in the male tense about living things, unless specifically speaking about a female? Not that I mind, but in the interest of being factually correct, the feminine pronoun will be more appropriate when referring to Samiya :) Oops, sorry. Most of the people who post here are male (or I should say, they have male names and / or avatars :) so I tend to assume people on this forum are male unless told otherwise. (PS - You have won the Turing Test, or is it the imitation game? You probably know the one I mean?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The British Comedian's Joke
On 5 May 2014 16:07, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: The other one I can remember was like When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming and terrified - like his passengers I always thought that was Emo Phillips! We're collecting nukes, the Russians and the Chinese and the Koreans are collecting nukes. Everyone's collecting nuclear weapons like there's no... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: saying no to the doctor...
On 04 May 2014, at 14:43, Telmo Menezes wrote: The machine: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Bad news from the doctor: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 Turing test: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/15 LOL. Not bad. Actually I made myself comic trips to explain UDA in the earlier version. I was used to draw a lot. Comics are pretty to use to describe that type of thought experiment. Have you seen if that author tackles the duplication theme? (Like in UDA or in the movie prestige). Let us know if and when (that should exist) you find one. I might scan my own comics and send it here. Cheers, Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
