RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 1:01 AM On 24 Apr 2014, at 19:18, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest. Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it in the head of any (reasonable) machine. Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we are insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this effect the outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our machines as operating and the reductionist first principles we derive from our search for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious thought, awareness, self-awareness, etc? Certainly. We can only hope to be correct/sane, or at least that by introspection we can access to the part of us which is correct. Of course, to derive physics, we can limit ourselves to Platonist, correct, self-introspective machine. Agreed... and I certainly do hope that the emergent self-aware consciousness i am able to discover through introspective means is somewhere within the bell curve of correct/sane... we can access experience as it emerges (both ordinary and altered), perhaps touch it in some manner... and it may certainly feel right to us immersed within the experience stream (instream in C++ J). I am interested in understanding better what you mean by Platonist, correct, self-introspective machine; is it the internal self-consistency of mathematical structures systems? Then, yes, I do see how it could be possible to build upon the simplest non reducible set and derive everything else; including the part that is now perceiving in me and trying to find the words... J to express this. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single sample - our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we can infer about other entities by communicating with those that can communicate and studying the behavior of others. Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do. I think we can start from the generalized hypothesis. If the doctor has chosen the right substitution level, the correctness will be reduce to the arithmetical correctness, so as long as you don't believe that 0=1, there should be no problem. Not sure what you mean by the doctor? and also by substitution level? (reductionism?) The arithmetical hypostases are really coming from the study of the ideally correct machines, for the purpose of explaining constructively the belief in a physical universe, and the ideal theology of the machine. But when a machine is embedded in a long computation, it will develop a non-monotonic layer, and other logic (more like relevance logic) are at play. I don't think they play a role in physics, but they do play a big role in the everyday concrete lives. But then perhaps even God unself (if i may) is emergent from mathematical entities in a long running infinitely deep recursive parallelized self-reflective and therefore auto-catalyzing process. If everything is information... or perhaps more precisely dynamic informatique entities and layer upon layer of emergent entities (in the way that water is emergent... many of its unique properties not manifest in either hydrogen of oxygen atoms, but only emergent as the molecule H2O) Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the growth of all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but I have no proof of this statement LOL Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva will go to heaven only after every one has. Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas, but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like with the zen koans. Many classical zen masters also had the habit of slapping or striking a monk foolish enough to ask a dumb question... don't know about you, but being struck does not bring out my enlightened side... Personally I have always enjoyed zen and the irreverence it manifests,
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 24 Apr 2014, at 19:18, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest. Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it in the head of any (reasonable) machine. Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we are insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this effect the outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our machines as operating and the reductionist first principles we derive from our search for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious thought, awareness, self-awareness, etc? Certainly. We can only hope to be correct/sane, or at least that by introspection we can access to the part of us which is correct. Of course, to derive physics, we can limit ourselves to Platonist, correct, self-introspective machine. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single sample - our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we can infer about other entities by communicating with those that can communicate and studying the behavior of others. Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do. I think we can start from the generalized hypothesis. If the doctor has chosen the right substitution level, the correctness will be reduce to the arithmetical correctness, so as long as you don't believe that 0=1, there should be no problem. The arithmetical hypostases are really coming from the study of the ideally correct machines, for the purpose of explaining constructively the belief in a physical universe, and the ideal theology of the machine. But when a machine is embedded in a long computation, it will develop a non-monotonic layer, and other logic (more like relevance logic) are at play. I don't think they play a role in physics, but they do play a big role in the everyday concrete lives. Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the growth of all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but I have no proof of this statement LOL Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva will go to heaven only after every one has. Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas, but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like with the zen koans. Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as anti-personal, like killing the ego, merging with the one, becoming god, realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness, etc. Perhaps... though I believe that is not the best perspective. It is not so much about killing the ego - I would argue -- as was famously said during the early days of the psychedelic movement -- (which is a kind of egotistical thing to do grin); rather I have come to feel it is about understanding the ego and it's place. I agree very much. I could show you many link in entheogen forum where I defend that idea. I often explain that the difficulty of the path is that not only you have to kill the ego, but you have to resurrect it for the coming back in the village, which is the most difficult thing to do on the path. In the hypostases, the little ego *is* played by the beweisbar box ([]p). It is the rationalist, with all his personal 3p memories, and it is the one who really do the entire job, as all the other hypostases are defined by it. Yes, the real deep wiseness, the real killing of the ego has to go as far as even abandoning the idea of killing the ego, which has to be respected, and only, in practice, lead it to find something like its right place. If not illumination becomes equivalent with dying, which will limit the communication and the teaching (by examples). Seeing what its role is in existence and what its purpose is and why we have these self-important egos, and what these entities are, how they operate etc. The ego is your body, including the 3p memories. It is the one I call
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest. Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it in the head of any (reasonable) machine. Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we are insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this effect the outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our machines as operating and the reductionist first principles we derive from our search for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious thought, awareness, self-awareness, etc? I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single sample - our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we can infer about other entities by communicating with those that can communicate and studying the behavior of others. Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do. Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the growth of all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but I have no proof of this statement LOL Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva will go to heaven only after every one has. Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas, but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like with the zen koans. Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as anti-personal, like killing the ego, merging with the one, becoming god, realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness, etc. Perhaps... though I believe that is not the best perspective. It is not so much about killing the ego - I would argue -- as was famously said during the early days of the psychedelic movement -- (which is a kind of egotistical thing to do grin); rather I have come to feel it is about understanding the ego and it's place. Seeing what its role is in existence and what its purpose is and why we have these self-important egos, and what these entities are, how they operate etc. Once the ego is perceived - from a perspective outside of the ego, and the deeper (perhaps one more level of inner reflection going on) entity that perceives the ego for what it is makes sense of this layer of personality the ego and it's purpose can be better understood and the individual may come to realize that there exists a transcendent i (maybe less personal and more universally centered) and perhaps there is belly laughter as the ego's many foibles and funnies becomes manifest. But is it really against the ego? Isn't rather seeing the ego more clearly for what it is? Love also is personal, and cannot be enforced. There are many things like that. Agreed The definition by Theaetetus of the notion of knowledge, when applied to Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]A), and its intensional variants, suggests many such annuli, where truth not only extends the machines abilities to communicate rationally, but where the attempts to communicate them only forces or builds the counter-example(*). The notion of god maximizes the gap between use and mention. Somehow, it looks like only the devil dares the mention of god, especially in normative statements. With comp god is creative and god is destructive. Lao-tseu seems right: the foolish talks, the wise stays mute. Lao-Tseu wrote many words of wisdom and poetry. Sound rich machines say already something similar: t - ~[]t.(t = ~[]f ) Bruno (*) There are three important most obvious annuli: G* \ G, Z* \ Z, and X* \ X, and their computationalist 1 variants (with p - []p for the atomic sentences). Amazingly, for knowledge itself, the annuli is empty: S4Grz* \ S4Grz is empty (and S4Grz1* \ S4Grz1 too). I need to learn the symbolic system you are using to express yourself. Maybe once I get through reading your book ;) Cheers, Chris 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List wrote: At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest. Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it in the head of any (reasonable) machine. Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva will go to heaven only after every one has. Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas, but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like with the zen koans. Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as anti-personal, like killing the ego, merging with the one, becoming god, realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness, etc. Love also is personal, and cannot be enforced. There are many things like that. The definition by Theaetetus of the notion of knowledge, when applied to Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]A), and its intensional variants, suggests many such annuli, where truth not only extends the machines abilities to communicate rationally, but where the attempts to communicate them only forces or builds the counter- example(*). The notion of god maximizes the gap between use and mention. Somehow, it looks like only the devil dares the mention of god, especially in normative statements. With comp god is creative and god is destructive. Lao-tseu seems right: the foolish talks, the wise stays mute. Sound rich machines say already something similar: t - ~[]t. (t = ~[]f ) Bruno (*) There are three important most obvious annuli: G* \ G, Z* \ Z, and X* \ X, and their computationalist 1 variants (with p - []p for the atomic sentences). Amazingly, for knowledge itself, the annuli is empty: S4Grz* \ S4Grz is empty (and S4Grz1* \ S4Grz1 too). 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Yes, in a sense. The Chinese do the virtuous because the must, because their cities are choking. Along with looking out strictly for themselves, by installing better tech, the AGW carbon cycle can ease, although there is much more to do, its still a step. And, no gestapo governments needed to order brown-outs, or people drive circus kiddy cars while the rich and their owned politicians drive in limos and fly in private liners. If we decide to get serious about the tech, there is much to look forwards to. This won't occur if the commissars are in charge. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 11:10 pm Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and Thailand. The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program -- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of its installed solar PV base. What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has (in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by comparison has less than 5 GW. Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in Asia -- lead again by China. Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program? Chris -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:37 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production. http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/ *an environmental pun, what next? On 23 April 2014 09:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich. If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't? The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war. Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise its revolution and war. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 24 April 2014 08:52, spudboy...@aol.com via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, in a sense. The Chinese do the virtuous because the must, because their cities are choking. Along with looking out strictly for themselves, by installing better tech, the AGW carbon cycle can ease, although there is much more to do, its still a step. And, no gestapo governments needed to order brown-outs, or people drive circus kiddy cars while the rich and their owned politicians drive in limos and fly in private liners. If we decide to get serious about the tech, there is much to look forwards to. This won't occur if the commissars are in charge. I agree, except that you don't seem to have noticed that the commisars ARE in charge - in the USA, and probably in most places. Government by the 1%, of the 1%, for the 1%. http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/21/government-protection-racket-for-the-1-percent/ 35% of the nation's wealth owned by 1% of the population. How much more commisar-like can you get? -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 Apr 2014, at 17:46, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:05:20 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked with cannabis use, http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs Sounds pretty serious. Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper show is just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they talk about joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and marijuana, and it is not clear if they have verified that the person did not also drink alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that cannabis augments the number of neurons, and it is not clear in what sense those deformations constitutes a problem. You haven't been forthcoming about the evidence for serious brain damage as a result of cannabis. When I said I'd seen two friends institutionalised, you didn't acknowledge, yes there is serious evidence for brain damage of this kind. You didn't do that. I only said that two cases are not a statistics. Then the references given talk on multiuplication of neurons, and yes, both nicotine and some cannabinoids seems to have that property, but unless you show me evidence of a role in deformation or brain damage, statsitically relevant, I consider this as speculation. You are apparently making the same sort of mistake as you do over on climate threads. Taking everything into account, is not a case of any two lines of evidence, one being negative one being positive, can be compared and played off against one another. I will aske you to quote me. I don't even remember having taking part in the climate thread, except to say I am not an expert on climate, and explain that my common sense would encourage two always chose the less polluting alternative, and I illustrate that this is difficult with the corporate interests (well illustrated in the Hemp/Oil alternative last century). Evidence for serious brain damage, can be compared to evidence for serious brain enhancements...or neutral effects. In the event of neutral effects, then the median would still be in the negative, since the other evidence is for serious brain damage. Comparing to alcohol, which is already legal and embedded into society, is not a sort of, opportunity for an open season arguing for other harmful substances be embedded into society in the same way. Why, we can measure brain damage after the ingestion of one glass on wine, and the evidences are that alcohol is *far* more damaging than cannabis, at many levels. So if people are informed on the risks, cannabis can be a safer alternative. A good book written by cops of LEAP on that very point is: Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?: http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Safer-Driving-People-Drink/dp/1603581448/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top Cannabis is clearly a very mixed bag. There is clearly some very worrying evidence linking cannabis to mental illness. That point is controversial. The link might be due to the fact that cannabis seems to help people with mental illness. Again, for the illegality, we would expect a comparison with alcohol and legal medication. There is also a lot of individual testimony linking cannabis to a collapse in most interest in life, ambition, goals, responsibilities. This is something which I have stopped to believe. I know someone who took for 10 years cannabis as a sleeping pill. One day, I told him, he could also use it remain alert and awake (he got a lot of work, and search something to work the night). He tried this with success. All case of lost motivation seems to be in case of people lacking motivation, and used cannabis to pretext their lack of motivation. But of course when the adult around plays the exepected role, dramatizing the situation and glad to have a simple culprit (the drug evil). On all user, cannabis enchance the motivation, and amplifies the pleasure people can have with any pleasing thing (be it, sex, music, video, TV, movies, climbing, surfing, or doing math (for those who like), etc. It is, like alcohol, (but safer) mainly a life appetizer (unlike more typical hallucinogen or dissociative which are more afterlife appetizers). So there's a lot of really negative information and you want to sweep all that under the carpet and discredit the sources. That's very devious conduct, on the face of things. Which sources? I discredited only your statistics. But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people who will not ask the ID to their clients. On the contrary, the criminals will target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug without any price and
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich. If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't? The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war. Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise its revolution and war. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production. http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/ *an environmental pun, what next? On 23 April 2014 09:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich. If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't? The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war. Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise its revolution and war. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com?] *On Behalf Of *spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:37 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production. http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/ *an environmental pun, what next? On 23 April 2014 09:04, lt;spudboy...@aol.comgt; wrote: Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich. If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't? The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war. Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise its revolution and war. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella lt;cdemorse...@yahoo.comgt; To: everything-list lt;everything-list@googlegroups.comgt; Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -- 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Yes they're trying to reduce smog but that should still have that effect to some extent (reducing AGW). But yes, clean green energy is needed - maybe nuclear reactors (Russia is doing a good line in small portable reactors, I believe). Probably not THE best solution but needs must... On 23 April 2014 14:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and Thailand. The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program -- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of its installed solar PV base. What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has (in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by comparison has less than 5 GW. Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in Asia -- lead again by China. Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program? Chris -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:37 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production. http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/ *an environmental pun, what next? On 23 April 2014 09:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich. If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't? The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war. Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise its revolution and war. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Yes they're trying to reduce smog but that should still have that effect to some extent (reducing AGW). But yes, clean green energy is needed - maybe nuclear reactors (Russia is doing a good line in small portable reactors, I believe). Probably not THE best solution but needs must... Solar PV is on, continues to be on and has long been on a path of geometric growth and of rapidly falling prices. Within five years or so it is going to be the least expensive form of electric power generation bar none; and will have a very large existing manufacturing base able to churn out the equivalent of many new nuclear power plants per year. People need to understand geometric growth in order to understand the what is going on with PV. Already PV supplies about 1% of the world’s electricity. It’s capacity (and hence capacity to produce) is doubling every two and a half years or so. How many doublings of 1% does it take to become the dominant electric energy supply? Not that many with just five doublings it reaches 32% of total generation, which would definitely make it the dominant electric energy player. I have been hearing prognosticators pronounce solar dead every year – several times a year – for the past ten years – if I had a nickel for every “in the know” person who has told me it is dead I could at least buy myself a very nice dinner. For an alleged corpse it has proven to be remarkably dynamic…. No? The global – Asia centered – solar sector, already has a well-developed global supply chain from mine to rooftop; it has achieved the kind of scale that ensures it can and will continue to muscle its way into the world electricity markets, inexorably expanding its market share. Solar is going to win on price. And that is the reason it is going to win. On 23 April 2014 14:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 23 April 2014 15:09, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and Thailand. The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program -- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of its installed solar PV base. What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has (in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by comparison has less than 5 GW. Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in Asia -- lead again by China. Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program? You're engaged in a smog reduction programme yourself! :-) -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:28 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 23 April 2014 15:09, 'Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya moment now for anything nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less. And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and Thailand. The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program -- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of its installed solar PV base. What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has (in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by comparison has less than 5 GW. Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in Asia -- lead again by China. Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program? You're engaged in a smog reduction programme yourself! :-) LOL Yes J Information smog enables the carbon interests to continue to keep the world addicted to their product, at great profit for them, hence the motive. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood” --- Bertrand Russell :-) Indeed! Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it (The God Particle etc). Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles. I remember a well known author telling how, once when he had fallen on hard times he wrote a romance to be published under a house nome d'plume. He called it South Sea Interlude. The publisher said they should call it Captive of Temptation. He objected that there was no captive in the story and it had nothing to do with temptation, so why should they call it Captive of Temptation? The publisher patiently explained that if they called it South Sea Interlude it would sell 5000 copies. If they called it Captive of Temptation it would sell 400,000 copies. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 April 2014 18:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood” --- Bertrand Russell :-) Indeed! Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it (The God Particle etc). Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles. I remember a well known author telling how, once when he had fallen on hard times he wrote a romance to be published under a house nome d'plume. He called it South Sea Interlude. The publisher said they should call it Captive of Temptation. He objected that there was no captive in the story and it had nothing to do with temptation, so why should they call it Captive of Temptation? The publisher patiently explained that if they called it South Sea Interlude it would sell 5000 copies. If they called it Captive of Temptation it would sell 400,000 copies. Yes, it can be, although publishers aren't necessarily better at choosing titles than writers. The God Particle was (allegedly) chosen by the author (Leon Lederman), but as a joke. Hawking apparently put his famous mind of god quote in to please his wife (which is I imagine how the god-in-physics business got started - or was that God and the New Physics by Paul Davies?). I'm sure writers and publishers now realise that having God in the title sells. Ian Stewart had Does God play dice? (Any bets on who chose The God Delusion?) And now we have a phenomenon that's been named God's fingerprint... no doubt books to follow, if they haven't already ... of course the idea is in most cases probably to use God as someone here recently suggested to mean the Universe (or Multi/Mega/Omni/Uber-verse, as the case may be). And to sell more copies of course. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 21:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Thanks, Professor. You musings about God having a mother using logical consistencies is similar to what mathematical biologist and author, Clifford Pickover does frequently in his books, both fact and fiction. Perhaps God's Mother was a Boltzmann Brain? Ah! Another mystery infused with a mystery. God or the Goddess cannot be a Boltzmann brain (I know you were joking, to be sure). Why? If God is a Boltzmann brain, that would mean that comp is true, but then my mind has to be associated to an infinity of Boltzman brain and well, any programs in arithmetic or in the UD*, but then the physical reality has to be a sum on all programs, and what we see from inside will be bigger than God (which is doubtful) and not describable in any 3p way. God, even as seen as an everything, is more in the mysterious aspect of the existence and conscience of that everything. It can be the physical universe, for an aristotelian (but this needs to assume non- comp), and basically, that is an open problem. Bruno Mitch My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation). We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course). :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 2:20 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book. OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and will just refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it contains both UDA and AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist) theology is in the plotinus paper (pdf) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (HTML) + http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/ SIENA.pdf (PDF). My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation). We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course). :) Bruno Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 Apr 2014, at 01:39, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist And how could it be otherwise... religion has always been a tool of the state to mind control the slaves with promises of rewards in the thereafter in exchange for loyalty, obedience and service throughout the span of actual life; balanced with threats of eternal damnation for falling out of line. The narrative of religion after religion seems tailor made, -- by their acts shall they be known -- for the imposition of the centralized authority totalitarian mindset. Marx got it right when he compared it to Opium; and I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings who may believe in some deity or other. I think it is important to distinguish the pursuit of self- awareness, enlightenment, transcendence, spiritual self-realization... these are exquisitely personal acts and pursuits that have mostly been discouraged, frowned upon and often repressed by force and threat by the forces of organized religion. Free thinking and the spirit of questioning dogma is not something any religion tolerates (except in rare moments of flowering, say the Golden period of Moorish Cordoba) Indeed. As Einstein knew, even the religion of free-thinking generates its own dogma. Free thinking is a protagorean virtue: it obeys []p - ~p. I got evidence from Brussels university, where you have to sign an allegeance to free-thinking, and then have to defend dogmatically Aristotelian theology, i.e. the belief in a *primitive* physical universe. So genuine free thinker will think freely without ever saying that they are thinking freely. They will simply never use such an expression, except in meta-debate where free-thinking is the object of discussion. Note that believing in the God of comp entails the practice of free- thinking, as faith, here, will invite reason to not fear any argument. Only bad faith hides data and fear theories. Bruno Chris -- 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. It can't be both. Wasn't hemp production temporarily encouraged by the government in the context of the second world war with the Hemp for Victory video? https://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942 The video says at some point: Careful with your seeds. To grow help legally you must have a federal registration and tax stamp. This appear to be a reference to the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, that allowed the government to issue tax stamps, which is to say licenses to grow hemp at it's discretion. In fact, Wikipedia mentions: After the Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Army urged farmers to grow fiber hemphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp. Tax stamps for cultivation of fiber hemp began to be issued to farmers. Without any change in the marijuana Tax Act, 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) were cultivated with hemp between 1942 and 1945. The last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Operation_of_the_Act This seems to suggest that industrial hemp regulation introduced inefficiencies in the industrial system, and that these inefficiencies could not be tolerated in the context of the war effort. When it's just the citizen's welfare that is at stake, then lobby interests win. I have no doubt that religious and fearful ladies campaigned for banning cannabis, purely because they believed it was an evil substance. My point is: misguided people campaign for misguided things all the time. Sometimes they are useful idiots, because their demands are coincidentally aligned with the interests of some more powerful group. Still according to Wikipedia, but with citations: Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-7 [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-8[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-under-influence-55-9 largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon , Randolph Hearst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Hearst, and the Du Pont family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont_family.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-7 [9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-under-influence-55-9 The same parties have argued that with the invention of the decorticatorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorticator, hemp had become a very cheap substitute for the paper pulphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pulp that was used in the newspaper industry.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-7 [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-10 These parties argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_the_Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family's new synthetic fiber, nylon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon, a fiber that was competing with hemp.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-7 Telmo. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the oil industry or lumber? 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:01 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God. Maybe you should just call it the Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. The Tao that can be named... Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking about. The Jewish mystics of the Moorish flowering wrote of the Sephirot Kether (the crown) that it is that which is manifest, but cannot be defined, described or named. It is perhaps that ineffable sense of being that precedes and underlies our own perception of our self- being, but whatever... Yes. the awe of mystery, would say Einstein. Only one way to find out though, and that is to look for yourself, Exactly. that is if you are lucky and wise and don't fall for one or another of the well packaged stories that are seeking souls to corral. You need to be a universal machine, ... knowing that she is universal (= Löbian), and willing to stay universal and exploits the inconceivable freedom of the universal machine. But most humans prefer to let other machines to think for them, as this gives an illusion of social security. Bruno Chris -- 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 Apr 2014, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the oil industry or lumber? I don't see why going hemp was any threat for conservative christians, before it was illegal. There were just no complains, and hemp was a useful plant (for industry and medicine, since 3000 years in the world, and hundreds of years in america). Going hemp was a threat for those investing in the OIl synthetical pharma, for Oil's plastic fiber, for steel, etc. There were no complain on Hemp. Not one. The danger was a set-up. 100%. The idea that drugs are bad became a conservative idea *only after drug prohibition*. (Conservative like law enforcement). Here is very good video, which summarizes well this at the beginning, and then shows the *many* medicinal virtues, and the progress in the why and how that is possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Md2WNqqxTQ There are infinitely more overdose with water each year (some hundreds) than overdose with cannabis (0). The fear of cannabis raised *only* from propaganda movies (you can find all of them on youtube). It is like antisemitism and racist in europa: lies and lies and lies, and then people believe that there is no smoke without some fire. Bruno 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Did ja know that Martin Gardner was a god-believer? He had a sort of logic behind it, and nobody need agree with him. Safe to say that if Tegmark was a religious believer, and he is not, Gardner would be there with him. On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State Building? (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...) With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find number coincidences in anything. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 8:26 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State Building? (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...) With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find number coincidences in anything. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Back to our favorite topic, AGW, take a peak at this article or study from the US federales- http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming Observations: 1. The science of climate is likely massively complicated, obviously. 2. Even good ideas end up making no difference or making things worse. 3. In this study, it's transportation fuel we are comparing and not fuels used to power homes, factories,etc. Applesand Pumpkins comparison. 4. The technology we use is essential to success. So half-assed government programs probably won't transform our world. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 2:45 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 21 April 2014 18:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood” --- Bertrand Russell :-) Indeed! Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it (The God Particle etc). Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles. Iremember a well known author telling how, once when he had fallen onhard times he wrote a romance to be published under a house nomed'plume. He called it South Sea Interlude. The publisher saidthey should call it Captive of Temptation. He objected that therewas no captive in the story and it had nothing to do withtemptation, so why should they call it Captive of Temptation? Thepublisher patiently explained that if they called it South SeaInterlude it would sell 5000 copies. If they called it Captive ofTemptation it would sell 400,000 copies. Yes, it can be, although publishers aren't necessarily better at choosing titles than writers. The God Particle was (allegedly) chosen by the author (Leon Lederman), but as a joke. Hawking apparently put his famous mind of god quote in to please his wife (which is I imagine how the god-in-physics business got started - or was that God and the New Physics by Paul Davies?). I'm sure writers and publishers now realise that having God in the title sells. Ian Stewart had Does God play dice? (Any bets on who chose The God Delusion?) And now we have a phenomenon that's been named God's fingerprint... no doubt books to follow, if they haven't already ... of course the idea is in most cases probably to use God as someone here recently suggested to mean the Universe (or Multi/Mega/Omni/Uber-verse, as the case may be). And to sell more copies of course. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:05:20 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked with cannabis use, http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs Sounds pretty serious. Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper show is just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they talk about joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and marijuana, and it is not clear if they have verified that the person did not also drink alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that cannabis augments the number of neurons, and it is not clear in what sense those deformations constitutes a problem. You haven't been forthcoming about the evidence for serious brain damage as a result of cannabis. When I said I'd seen two friends institutionalised, you didn't acknowledge, yes there is serious evidence for brain damage of this kind. You didn't do that. You are apparently making the same sort of mistake as you do over on climate threads. Taking everything into account, is not a case of any two lines of evidence, one being negative one being positive, can be compared and played off against one another. Evidence for serious brain damage, can be compared to evidence for serious brain enhancements...or neutral effects. In the event of neutral effects, then the median would still be in the negative, since the other evidence is for serious brain damage. Comparing to alcohol, which is already legal and embedded into society, is not a sort of, opportunity for an open season arguing for other harmful substances be embedded into society in the same way. Cannabis is clearly a very mixed bag. There is clearly some very worrying evidence linking cannabis to mental illness. There is also a lot of individual testimony linking cannabis to a collapse in most interest in life, ambition, goals, responsibilities. So there's a lot of really negative information and you want to sweep all that under the carpet and discredit the sources. That's very devious conduct, on the face of things. But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people who will not ask the ID to their clients. On the contrary, the criminals will target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug without any price and quality control. So a proof that cannabis *is* bad for the health is automatically a reason more to make it legal: to protect the kids. I agree that legalization is the only solution, because of the serious problem of corruption now mainstream in society as a result of organized crime. I think the only safe way to legalize would be to ramp up individual and company rightsspecifically allowing one person to require another person does not use ...certain drugs, ever, or at certain times...as a condition of a legal contract...including employment, marriage, membership of a club..whatever. People wouldn't have to require that, but they'd have the right. I think it would be safe to legalize drugs in that sort of situation, because drugs use would immediately be swept to the periphery. But organized crime would be killed off at the same time. It would also probably have to be multilateral in implementation. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Hi, Of course, if the FDA hides that cannabis can possibly cure some cancers, why should it not hide other possible successful procedure(s). The following documentary shows that this happened/ happens indeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGwkt1CWhhw Bruno 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 22 April 2014 06:48, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Recently the earth-like planet Kepler 186f was discovered. I believe SETI is already listening in its direction with great attention. If we hear something, I'll become more optimistic. Me too! Sadly, the chances are rather low. But I wouldn't draw any conclusions from SETI failing here of course! Consider Earth 200 years ago... -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Seconded. The money spent on the Iraq war, or the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs could in each case easily have been used for something worthwhile, e.g. to provide clean water and medical assistance to the millions of people still living in poverty and dying of preventable diseases. How about a War on Poverty or a War on Preventable Disease ? Our so-called leaders having such a medieval mindset is shameful in the Age of Reason. On 22 April 2014 14:08, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *spudboy...@aol.com Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do. You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror -- that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs. Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal On 21 Apr 2014, at 01:39, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist And how could it be otherwise. religion has always been a tool of the state to mind control the slaves with promises of rewards in the thereafter in exchange for loyalty, obedience and service throughout the span of actual life; balanced with threats of eternal damnation for falling out of line. The narrative of religion after religion seems tailor made, -- by their acts shall they be known -- for the imposition of the centralized authority totalitarian mindset. Marx got it right when he compared it to Opium; and I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings who may believe in some deity or other. I think it is important to distinguish the pursuit of self-awareness, enlightenment, transcendence, spiritual self-realization. these are exquisitely personal acts and pursuits that have mostly been discouraged, frowned upon and often repressed by force and threat by the forces of organized religion. Free thinking and the spirit of questioning dogma is not something any religion tolerates (except in rare moments of flowering, say the Golden period of Moorish Cordoba) Indeed. As Einstein knew, even the religion of free-thinking generates its own dogma. Free thinking is a protagorean virtue: it obeys []p - ~p. I got evidence from Brussels university, where you have to sign an allegeance to free-thinking, and then have to defend dogmatically Aristotelian theology, i.e. the belief in a *primitive* physical universe. Hehe how exquisitely ironic J -- and emphatically yes I agree LOL the cult of free thinking is every bit as much of a mind fuck as any other dogma. These people sound like they aspire to become clowns I hope at least they are funny. nothing sadder than a clown who can't get a laugh. People reveal themselves, far more, by their actions than they do by their professions. So genuine free thinker will think freely without ever saying that they are thinking freely. They will simply never use such an expression, except in meta-debate where free-thinking is the object of discussion. Agreed. in a similar way those who proclaim that they know, most often do not! As those who - at least know better grin -- simply smile and say nothing. American culture has this somewhat annoying phrase think outside of the box. annoying to me often, because it is tossed out there. often in a rote learned manner, empty of any real spontaneous thought or actual real intent to put what has been verbally proclaimed into practice.. A formulaic waste of mind space. Even if the words do point at something; it is the use and the robotic mandatory throw it out there kind of way in which it is tossed into discourse. often, in my experience by mediocre mid-level corporate bureaucrats who seem to feel that they - by this empty act - anoint themselves with the tag of one who thinks outside of the box Note that believing in the God of comp entails the practice of free-thinking, as faith, here, will invite reason to not fear any argument. Only bad faith hides data and fear theories. At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest. Chris Bruno Chris -- 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
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 1:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 21 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:01 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God. Maybe you should just call it the Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. The Tao that can be named... Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking about. The Jewish mystics of the Moorish flowering wrote of the Sephirot Kether (the crown) that it is that which is manifest, but cannot be defined, described or named. It is perhaps that ineffable sense of being that precedes and underlies our own perception of our self-being, but whatever... Yes. the awe of mystery, would say Einstein. There is that sense of something behind the curtain... of something there just before we perceive it. Perhaps it is just a kind of brain echo of the ghostly mechanics characterizing the chaotic emergence of awareness out from the vast and very lively electric sea of chirping neurons From whence it emerges. Only one way to find out though, and that is to look for yourself, Exactly. And even then No guarantees J that is if you are lucky and wise and don't fall for one or another of the well packaged stories that are seeking souls to corral. You need to be a universal machine, ... knowing that she is universal (= Löbian), and willing to stay universal and exploits the inconceivable freedom of the universal machine. But most humans prefer to let other machines to think for them, as this gives an illusion of social security. Humans are easily herded; we are special that way. Chris Bruno Chris -- 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Swines/conversations/messages/14959 Anyone who reads the Qur'an in translation, if he has half an eye for style, can very easily divide the suras into three groups; 1/ those proclaimed in Mecca, 2/ those proclaimed in Medina during a state of war and full of hellfire and brimstone, and 3/ penned after Mohammed became the tyrant of all Arabia and peace prevailed for a very short time. The Meccan suras are gentle and good, such that any Christian or Jew could find them quite acceptable, noting that much of this material was obviously transcribed from the Old and New testaments. The Medinan suras were penned in the fog of war, and were violent and cruel in the extreme. Lastly, the third part is mostly legalese as the Sharia is developed by the tyrant warlord, whose very words were regarded as sacred, but in which there are multiple and rather confusing rules relating to sex and marriage that indirectly reflected his own private sexual kinks and quirks. It is this section that Muslims claim as their right to subjugate women. Mohammed was at the very least a devoted misogynist, but one who nonetheless delighted in using women for sex. According to the hadiths he was a randy beast who could do anything that took his fancy, such as cross dressing, and of course his most heinous crime, the penetration of a nine year old child. The story I've been told, so I can't vouch for its truth, is that the Followers kept the Prophet's utterances in a large chest that was carried around wherever they went. The contents were the results of scribing onto any surface available, whenever the Prophet was seen as speaking for Allah. These could be pottery shards, even stones, if parchment or papyrus was not available. These all went into the chest, so all chronology was lost. And it resulted in the earliest compilations varying widely, so one of the Caliphs, [Omar or Othman I think] decided to regularise the Qur'an by assembling all the pieces into what he regarded as a suitable order (such as placing contradictory suras side by side).* but here comes the crunch; He ordered *all previous material** destroyed*, and his compilation became the one and only version - for all time. So, when a Muslim claims the Qur'an is changeless, he is referrring to this version, probably in complete ignorance of its origin, and quite unknowing that the original Qur'an has been lost forever and no longer exists! mac http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/04/09/islamic-jihad-and-the-doctrine-of-abrogation/ On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.comwrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:59 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:24 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control). The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less. So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. :) -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein He then went on to say... The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a childish superstition. The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this, Einstein wrote. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? I don't think anybody has the answer to that. The mind keeps going back to who created the world, and who created the universe, and what was before that, and who created what was before it, and before it, till we are either left with nothing and chance and chaos, or an unexplained, incomprehensible, initiator we call God. For those who think its nothing and chance and chaos that we come from, then the question is settled as far as they themselves are concerned. But for those of us who think that there is this God, and everything has been created, the question arises: why? That is the answer we search for. So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 2:15 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, 18 April 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 08:41, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:02 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:03:09 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi, A good sum up of the how and why cannabis might cure cancers. You can understand the mechanism and the probabilities. It is a pretty good movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMt83_IWkE We knew this since 1974. Promising research on cancer treatment were purposefully broke down. How could we hope rational decisions with respect to climate when we tolerate brainwashing, even a sort of revisionism, on cannabis/hemp, and cancers? The problem is not stupid politicians, it is clever bandits. The prohibition of cannabis deserves truly the Nobel Prize, in Crime. But it might also be their fatal error, I think. I think the world will get closer to paradise when the humans will stop confuse p - q with q - p. That confusion is exploited by the fear sellers (pseudo-religious or not). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ It's a load of rubbish Bruno. Cannabis ha sorry...it sorry again. It's a load of old cobblers because cannabis has been available to researchers throughout. When I read Jack Herer a long time ago, I leave the book away when I came to the chapter where he claimed that cannabis cures might cancer (and did cure some cancer for mice in 1974). I thought the hippies was going crackpot on this. That was to gross. But when in 2009 a spanish team rediscovered that fact(*), I have scrutinized both the allegation of cure, and the allegation that rserach on cannabis was discouraged. That second point is rather clear in the US where cannabis is schedule one, making research quite difficult from the administrative perspective (virtually impossible in most universities). The first point is now accepted in the mainstream, but the media and the doctors ignore it, probably because cannabis is illegal. You might read: (*) http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948 (original spanish paper) http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html You can find many papers on cannabis and cancer here: http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm Why would anyone want to obstruct a cure for cancer? No one would care what it was. olu Those who profits from selling expensive treatment for cancer. Those many who want hemp staying illegal. But it isn't a cure for cancer. Nothing is a cure for cancer in this way. Cancer survival rates are up on 30 years ago. Controlling for earlier intervention do you know how much lung cancer survival rates have changed ? They haven't. Nothing has changed. catch it early and you've got a chance. Leave it just a few more weeks and now that cancer is evolving. It's made up of more and more descendent cell lines...each one mutating, now different ancestries are fighting and destroying,. Now a week later there are millions more., You might kill one line but the next one is immune because now it's multiple mutations later and it's totally different and the colour is maybe green. In the firs or few weeks it's just a few descrendent lines..they are young, they aren't mutating like crazy yet. Nothing is going to cure cancer. Not in this scientific revolution. They'll fix maybe the cancerous non-encoding dna. But that'll be a symptom...cancerous cells are multiply disfigured...and more keep showing up. Smoke dope fuck the pope but it'll give you cancer before it cures anything. Those who have tried to prove this are those who discovered the benefices instead. I let you search on the links above. thi By the way I know at least 2 people that got institutionalised with schizophrenia as a direct outcome of dependent pot smoking. That's the only thing either of them ever did anyway 2 people is not a statistics, and when the statistics are done properly, it seems only that people with schizophrenia, or potential schizophrenia, tend to medicate themselves with cannabis, explaining some previous correlations. If you have a reference on cannabis leading to schizophrenia, containing serious statistics, I would be interested to know. I did not find any. There is some debate as to whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but there isn't much doubt that it can cause drug-induced psychosis (ie. which resolves when the drug is withdrawn) OK. We call that the experience. You learn how much your brain can trick you, and it asks for a good user-manual, some ritual, like Kim said, and a notion that it is not a banal thing to
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous game of imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being or an entity. God is a concept. God is: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:15, Samiya Illias wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. I read many sacred texts, including different translations of the Quran. But I found some text more convincing, or more heart-vibrating than others. I studied three years of classical chinese to be more at ease with the taoist proses, notably. For the Quran, some verses are formidable and can talk to my heart, but not so for other verses, and muslim scholars were a bit contradictory on how to interpret it. But the main reason why we stop at scripture is only that they are scripture. They are human very imperfect way to address the divine, and, by my own faith, contradicts the deepest intuition I have on that matter, which is that religion cannot be normative and allow authorities to think for me, or intercede between me and the good lord. Some people seems to accept that intercession, and I don't want to judge them. May be it can make sense in some survival strategies, but it is no more religion to me. Bruno To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Samiya - Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:55, Samiya Illias wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over the centuries. That might not necessarily be a good sign. What do you mean? I have less problem when religious text allow comments (like the torah, or the buddhists and taoists). In human matter, including their relation with the divine, I find unanimity suspect. They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger, transmitting the revelation as received. Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs. Fair enough Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end? You are not reassuring me, here. Just pointing out a unique miracle that I know not of any other book. I do not understand your comment. In North Korea, it seems all kids have to know by heart the life of the tyrant. Knowing by heart is close to brainwashing. Again I would prefer that the kids could resume it critically, and add personal comments. Ideally, I would like the kids not even knowing the religion (or even the political opinions) of their parents, and I would like them having at school a broad view on all religion, and good course in logic and argumentation. In 99,9% of the case, people get the religion of their parents, and I don't find this quite sane. I am aware it is a sort of obligatory passage, and I give time to time. This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation... My question is: what if a young person tells you, I don't want to study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad- Gita? Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood? The question is besides the point: can the Bhagavad-Gita or any other book be memorized by heart, from beginning till end, word by word, in the original language? Yes, but I am not sure it is a quite good idea. Only theater and poem should be learned by heart. Do millions of people already know it by heart, so that the authenticity of the original text can be verified by cross-checking various sources? Why is that authenticity needed in the first place? It looks more like a quest of self-identity than a trust in god. It looks more like crutches for the one who lack faith. Again, if it can help some people, why not, but I don't believe in literal account of the divine. The divine is subtle and the human hands can lead his soul astray. Like you said, a good sacred text is a good intoxicant, and my experience is that some plant might be less nocive, with respect to open your mind to the authentic inconceiable freedom, to borrow an expression to the Vimalakirti-Nirdesa. There are many decent people on all communities and societies who have different sets of beliefs and religions, as well as different sects within the same religion. I have Hindu and Christian neighbours, and that's fine. That's very nice. Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc. The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43]
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Steven Weinberg wrote On 20 Apr 2014, at 06:59, LizR wrote: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg Of course, we can guess that he meant that takes institutionalized religion. I can conceive a religion which takes seriously the non-naming attribute of god, defended in theory by many religion, but of course in theory only the day they are institutionalized. Tradition and institutions are for the non-believer only, and eventually it kill the rest of faith that some people can have. For good people doing bad things, you need misinformation (like in Rwanda, or in Europa), you need propaganda (like with prohibition). You need some brainwashing, you need manipulation, authoritative argument, fear exploitation, violence, ... All things that many would qualify as non-religious in the extreme. Bruno On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist -- 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:12, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein He then went on to say... The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a childish superstition. The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this, Einstein wrote. I really would like to suggest you reading the quite deep book by Jammer on Einstein's religion(*). You have to be careful when quoting Einstein on this. I think Einstein was very deeply and authentically religious, like Gödel. Like often in such case, such person are also the most shocked by the institutionalized religion, and very often Einstein made clear that his condemnation of religion relate to that. All his life Einstein insisted that he is a believer, and that he despises the atheists and so called free-thinker, but also all the churches and religious institution. I would say that the more you genuinely believe in God, the more you are shocked by what humans do with the notion. I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part which can be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to Einstein. Bruno http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X A good amazon abstract: The philosophy of religion and the quest for spiritual truth preoccupied Albert Einstein--so much that it has been said one might suspect he was a disguised theologian. Nevertheless, the literature on the life and work of Einstein, extensive as it is, does not provide an adequate account of his religious conception and sentiments. Only fragmentarily known, Einstein's ideas about religion have been often distorted both by atheists and by religious groups eager to claim him as one of their own. But what exactly was Einstein's religious credo? In this fascinating book, the distinguished physicist and philosopher Max Jammer offers an unbiased and well-documented answer to this question. -- 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.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous game of imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being or an entity. God is a concept. By which we measure our pain. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. Bruno 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for you (e.g. tobacco smoking) the actions necessary for suppression: searches, police surveillance, fines, imprisonment - may be worse than the effects of consumption. Yes. cannabis prohibition has destroyed much life than cannabis would ever did if it could have been remained legal. Bruno 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. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records too. It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be legal. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. I have no clue why you say this. Because it's true. The people may have been mistaken - particularly about the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for them. Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In The Netherlands, a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned, and considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is illegal, he is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this. The Netherlands is the country were kids smoke pots the less, and countries with severe repression are those where kids smoke the most. For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost all ambition and interest in other things. One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he lost all ambition and interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because he lost all ambition and interest, for some different reason. When I was a young teacher, being still brainwashed, I was dramatizing when kids were druggy, and unconsciously provided to pot the justification of the kids problem. But then I realize that by saying something like smoke as much as you want but don't use that as a pretext to not study for the exams was much more productive. They stopped the druggy play when I stopped to see them as druggie, but just as lazy kids searching reason to not study. And even aside from such effects, there has been a strong Puritan ethic in the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as sinful and bad for one's character. Yes. That is part of the problem, perhaps even more so for protestants than catholics which have the right to take as much fun in whatever they want as long as they confess to the local authority (!). I tend to believe the contrary. It is a quasi duty to enjoy life fully, as long as we don't interfere with other people ways to enjoy themselves. Pseudo-religion uses sin as a manipulative tool. The christian message according to which we have to love god, or to fear him is everything but religious. It is an inconsistent psychological constraint making impossible to develop genuine love. Bruno 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God. Maybe you should just call it the Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. The Tao that can be named... Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking about. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records too. It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be legal. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. I have no clue why you say this. Because it's true. The people may have been mistaken - particularly about the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for them. Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In The Netherlands, a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned, and considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is illegal, he is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this. The Netherlands is the country were kids smoke pots the less, and countries with severe repression are those where kids smoke the most. For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost all ambition and interest in other things. One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he lost all ambition and interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because he lost all ambition and interest, for some different reason. Yes. This was the point I was trying to make with ghibbsa before he took offense. Notice the cultural biases: it is common to tell the story of someone who starts drinking because something in their life is not going well*. With illegal substances we assume causality the other way around: someone's life is not going well because of some drug. Even with substances that most people don't see as drugs, like sugar, the bias is displayed. Here we have the archetype of the woman who gets fat from eating too much chocolate or ice cream because her boyfriend left her. If we replace chocolate with cannabis, then people assume that the boyfriend left her because she became a pothead. Prohibition reinforces the bias because successful people are not usually at liberty to discuss their illegal drug use. We make a curious exception for artists, but that's all. Of course none of this falsifies the hypothesis that the guy lost ambition and interest in other things because of his pot habit. It just tells us that we should remain agnostic on causality, unless we gain a deeper understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms involved. * to be fair, in some cases people also claim alcohol as the cause of problems, but the point is that causality is not automatically assumed with legal substances, but is automatically assumed with illegal ones. This strikes me as strong evidence of an irrational bias in our culture. When I was a young teacher, being still brainwashed, I was dramatizing when kids were druggy, and unconsciously provided to pot the justification of the kids problem. But then I realize that by saying something like smoke as much as you want but don't use that as a pretext to not study for the exams was much more productive. They stopped the druggy play when I stopped to see them as druggie, but just as lazy kids searching reason to not study. And even aside from such effects, there has been a strong Puritan ethic in the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as sinful and bad for one's character. Yes. That is part of the problem, perhaps even more so for protestants than catholics which have the right to take as much fun in whatever they want as long as they confess to the local authority (!). I tend to believe the contrary. It is a quasi duty to enjoy life fully, as long as we don't interfere with other people ways to enjoy themselves. Pseudo-religion uses sin as a manipulative tool. The christian message according to which we have to love god, or to fear him is everything but religious. It is an inconsistent psychological constraint making impossible to
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
It's just that we simply cannot read one's soul, but can judge behavior. The Christians, for example, not so long ago performed imperialist violence, for stated national interests, but the Churches never objected to this. So, judgmentally, we can say that the behavior of the religious, in Europe was useless, or approving, of their government's behavior. Behaviorally, again, they were malefactors, if you needed a non-Islamic example. Right now, to this hour, there is no opposition to Jihadist actions from amongst the Ummah. Perhaps it will happen soon? Perhaps centuries in arrival. Nobody is marching in the streets, amongst the faithful, in opposing the great Jihad in the attempt to restore the Caliphate, to impose shariah. The faithful are either uncaring, fatalistic, fearful of retribution, or support the jihad. Yes, there are always fanatics within religions, but now it's only one that has set their sites on the world. It's a real problem and not a false complaint or accusation. -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:15 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Weinberg is wrong, Liz. It might have been an affront to Weinberg's dignity if and when he tried it, but not everybody. Weinberg might agree with the statement that, let us say, Transhumanism, or the Universal Dovetailer Argument is also such an indignity. I don't know why Weinberg would, but he might. There are religious scientists and engineers all over the place, so are they subjected to a great indignity? Who shall save them of this suffering, that they, themselves, are obviously, having no luck in letting go of? Just because Weinberg hates banana daiquiris, does not mean that I should. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 12:59 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people whowant to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, thepeople trying to sell me something from Nigeria, theLoch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and soon - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, butlife's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if thereis a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more tolife after death, and if this short life is but a test, whoseresult is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult,yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
You are closest to Frank Tipler, or astronomer, Bernard Carr, on this matter. Or, for that matter Michio Kaku, if you read his latest book. I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part which can be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to Einstein. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:28 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:12, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein He then went on to say... The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a childish superstition. The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this, Einstein wrote. I really would like to suggest you reading the quite deep book by Jammer on Einstein's religion(*). You have to be careful when quoting Einstein on this. I think Einstein was very deeply and authentically religious, like Gödel. Like often in such case, such person are also the most shocked by the institutionalized religion, and very often Einstein made clear that his condemnation of religion relate to that. All his life Einstein insisted that he is a believer, and that he despises the atheists and so called free-thinker, but also all the churches and religious institution. I would say that the more you genuinely believe in God, the more you are shocked by what humans do with the notion. I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part which can be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to Einstein. Bruno http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X A good amazon abstract: The philosophy of religion and the quest for spiritual truth preoccupied Albert Einstein--so much that it has been said one might suspect he was a disguised theologian. Nevertheless, the literature on the life and work of Einstein, extensive as it is, does not provide an adequate account of his religious conception and sentiments. Only fragmentarily known, Einstein's ideas about religion have been often distorted both by atheists and by religious groups eager to claim him as one of their own. But what exactly was Einstein's religious credo? In this fascinating book, the distinguished physicist and philosopher Max Jammer offers an unbiased and well-documented answer to this question. -- 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. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book. Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Since the list is in a proselytizing mood -- I guess it's appropriate for the season -- I leave you my favourite religious book. Principia Discordia or How I found Goddess and What I did to Her when I found Her http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Principia%20Discordia.pdf (the good stuff starts on page 28) The good news is that, in Discordianism, we are all Popes. Hail Eris! Telmo. On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Liz, Pascal's wager is not good enough. Its not as simple as placing a bet. We are fairly warned that those who claim to be Muslims will be tried and tested. To hear how Yusuf Estes was tested: Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTIBC80cBAQ Relevant verses: [Quran 29:2] Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: We believe, and will not be tested [Quran 76:2] Lo! We create human from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing Samiya On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control). The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less. So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Ok, I didn't really read it carefully, because: a) I am lazy b) I am at work now. Both of these are good excuses, and I shall use them now. So my evaluation of Discordia is one word, Apostasy! Why is this an apostasy? Because: a) It is Easter Sunday. b) It is fun to yell out the word, Apostasy! I did like Robert Anton Wilson's writings, in previous years, and it's good to see that his work is remembered. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 9:36 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. Since the list is in a proselytizing mood -- I guess it's appropriate for the season -- I leave you my favourite religious book. Principia Discordia or How I found Goddess and What I did to Her when I found Her http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Principia%20Discordia.pdf (the good stuff starts on page 28) The good news is that, in Discordianism, we are all Popes. Hail Eris! Telmo. On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 12:33, Kim Jones wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 2:15 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: snip and that it can exacerbate or precipitate psychosis in patients who already have schizophrenia. I agree. I might think that this is a good thing, as it will point on the problem and help to manage a treatment. In some case cannabis can be enough as a treatment; in other case cannabis would be not indicated and should be avoided. Personally, I don't think that cannabis, nor tobacco, should be allowed, without medical prescription, to minors. But to make it illegal to sell it to a minor, you have to legalize it. For adult, I do think that recreational cannabis is *far* safer than alcohol, on many level (from the liver to the social problem or the car crash). Bruno Cannabis makes the user more sensitive to inputs of all kinds. It kind of invokes an enormous range of qualia which can be disturbing to some subjects. When stoned, you have intense reactions to whatever you are presented with. The well-known feeling of paranoia that often accompanies this is IMO the brain's natural panic reaction to having so many parallel streams of qualia maxed-out at the same time. I wish this is true, but it is hard to dismantle it from the fact that the fruit is forbidden. I think the panic reaction occurs with people who can't let it go and want to control everything. This is normal under the circumstances and why I insist that cannabis use must be ritualised. Consider what a ritual is: a series of actions performed in a special space at a special time with like- minded participants all of whom understand the process involved. You undergo the experience in a protected space. To become stoned amongst people who are not is a very dangerous thing to do because the others will almost certainly make an uninformed judgement about your behaviour. I would separate the entheogenic use of cannabis from its recreative use. A well known fact is that after years of consumption of cannabis, it becomes essentially a relaxant time-slowing machine. The entheogenic teaching get null. Its medicinal virtues continues, though. It remains better compared to most legal tranquilizers or antidepressant products. The euphoric mind senses this, even though in an altered state of consciousness, and paranoia is the result, because the mind feels helpless when faced with the threat of outsiders who may be negative toward the altered state you are in. If only alcoholic could be like that! Therefore, cannabis use is best confined to the indoors sensory experiences that you can either do alone or with a few trusted friends. Reading, writing, cooking, eating, listening to or creating/ performing music, painting, sculpting - anything creative that does not involve much movement through space are all suitable activities. The king-daddy experience of them all is, of course, sex. OK. Unsuitable experiences would be driving a car, ascending in a hot- air balloon etc. this last was the fate of a group last year in New Zealand (Liz may recall this) where the entire group got stoned whilst aloft. When something went wrong with the mechanism of the helium delivery to the burner, nobody was in a baseline state of consciousness able to perform the necessary actions to save the situation and the result was that all perished in a fireball. If they all perished, how to you know that nobody was in a baseline state of consciousness able to perform the needed actions? I certainly not applaud the idea of doing that, but I am not sure about your inference. There are many accidents with balloon, sometimes even with sober people. This is the antithesis of ritualised action performed in a protected space. Accidents are due to irresponsibility, not products. Common sense indicates to not alter your mind when you know you will have to use it, but irresponsible people will get the accident, in any possible ways. I love cannabis myself, but I am the first to proclaim that a stoned driver is quite as dangerous as a drunk driver. I never said that I love cannabis, to be precise. I might have said that I love salvia. But salvia is quite different and is actually sort of anti-drug, including cannabis. And now, my dear Kim, I am not sure about any problem about driving and cannabis. Again, when you look at the literature, you can see many papers showing that cannabis is dangerous when driving, but when you do the math, there are simply wrong. Their numbers proves nothing. Yet two serious studies have been done, in France and in the Netherlands, and have concluded, astonishingly enough, that cannabis use diminishes the number of car accidents. Eventually an explanation is that young smoker - young driver are to paranoid to take the car, or
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 12:41, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous game of imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being or an entity. God is a concept. God is: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. I can agree with this, with the open mind if that everything is a person or not, has a will or not, reflects itself in itself or not, etc. It is truth which attracts us, although in some state of mind we can fear that too. It is mainly an unknown, even if computationalism simplifies the picture conceptually, because ontologically the everything can be only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc. (or K, S, KK, KS, SK, ...). The rest are infinities of dreams which recovers, or not, in the transfinite (which exists from the inside or internal relative view). Like God, or Sense, Everything is still a word. It does not tell us what it is, nor where that comes from. The comparison/identification between God, Everything, is interesting only as far as it helps us also to better understand the theologian, and the mystical or altered mind state reports. In this case perhaps everything is more like the NOùS. In Plotinus (and comp through the lexicon) the noùs is still an emanation of something simpler, the one. But that is just some nuance. The only God who has clearly a will, is the Universal Soul, the third hypostase, which is also the universal person (in Heaven, I think, with []p p, and on earth, With []p p t (I would say)). Bruno Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- 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.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records too. It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be legal. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. I have no clue why you say this. Because it's true. The people may have been mistaken - particularly about the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for them. Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In The Netherlands, a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned, and considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is illegal, he is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this. The Netherlands is the country were kids smoke pots the less, and countries with severe repression are those where kids smoke the most. For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost all ambition and interest in other things. One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he lost all ambition and interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because he lost all ambition and interest, for some different reason. Yes. This was the point I was trying to make with ghibbsa before he took offense. Notice the cultural biases: it is common to tell the story of someone who starts drinking because something in their life is not going well*. With illegal substances we assume causality the other way around: someone's life is not going well because of some drug. Even with substances that most people don't see as drugs, like sugar, the bias is displayed. Here we have the archetype of the woman who gets fat from eating too much chocolate or ice cream because her boyfriend left her. If we replace chocolate with cannabis, then people assume that the boyfriend left her because she became a pothead. It is always a confusion between a in b and b in a, when you look close. It explains why cultural prejudices are easy to create, and hard to revise. In the short run, if you have to act, that confusion can be helpful, and our associative memories exploits this. If you are raped by a guy 42 km high, you will fear all guy 42 km high, by a simple association, which is not a logical valid one, but locally it makes sense. Prohibition reinforces the bias because successful people are not usually at liberty to discuss their illegal drug use. We make a curious exception for artists, but that's all. Of course none of this falsifies the hypothesis that the guy lost ambition and interest in other things because of his pot habit. Indeed. It just tells us that we should remain agnostic on causality, Absolutely. In all domains, on all matter. But we can try theories. Causalities are well captured in modal logic by expression like [](p- q). There are transfinities of different modal logics, but there are as much notion of causality. unless we gain a deeper understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms involved. There is also a nocebo effect. If someone has already a tendency of being lazy, and is told that cannabis makes people lazy, he might use cannabis to explain (and most plausibly aggravate) his laziness. To find an easy culprit which deviates from its original laziness. * to be fair, in some cases people also claim alcohol as the cause of problems, but the point is that causality is not automatically assumed with legal substances, but is automatically assumed with illegal ones. This strikes me as strong evidence of an irrational bias in our culture. People want to hear what other people want them to want to hear. I am not sure it is just our culture. It is very
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book. OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and will just refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it contains both UDA and AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist) theology is in the plotinus paper (pdf) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (HTML) + http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf (PDF). My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation). We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course). :) Bruno Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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- l...@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. -- 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.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Thanks, Professor. You musings about God having a mother using logical consistencies is similar to what mathematical biologist and author, Clifford Pickover does frequently in his books, both fact and fiction. Perhaps God's Mother was a Boltzmann Brain? Ah! Another mystery infused with a mystery. Mitch My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation). We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course). :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 2:20 pm Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book. OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and will just refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it contains both UDA and AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist) theology is in the plotinus paper (pdf) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (HTML) + http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf (PDF). My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation). We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course). :) Bruno Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ? The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from? Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :) But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that is the usual authoritative don't ask, don't search attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them. God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. At least not in any public way. Bruno So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's theory of nothing or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:15 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. I agree we all must face death alone. The realization that our personal destiny is to die, to perish, to be forever gone… is exceedingly hard to accept and is the fuel that drives all faiths. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. Samiya I am going to stand by my statement that Islam has also been spread by the sword. For example, the conquest of Sassanid Persia and the, that began with the conquest of Mesopotamia by Arab forces led by Khalid ibn Walidin 633 AD. The Moghul conquest into India another example. I am also aware of the golden age of Islam, and am especially in awe of Moorish Spain at its flowering height of poetry, thought, science, philosophy (including in its scope one of the most important flowering of Judaism and Jewish culture ever, a fact few Americans are aware of.) Sure Islam suffered the Crusades, but, for example the Ottoman’s almost took Vienna and would have swept down through into the heartland of the Rhine river, if the logistical bottleneck of trying to provision their massive invasion force (it was huge even by modern standards) had not brought about supply collapse and plague onto its own forces. Christianity converted just as bloodily by the sword, all I am pointing out is that Islam – and Islamic underpinned empires such as the Ottoman or Moghul Empires have been just as enthusiastic in conquest as their Abrahamic cousins. Chris PS I will look at the links you gave. To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to prove Einstein wrong, Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes! Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist And how could it be otherwise… religion has always been a tool of the state to mind control the slaves with promises of rewards in the thereafter in exchange for loyalty, obedience and service throughout the span of actual life; balanced with threats of eternal damnation for falling out of line. The narrative of religion after religion seems tailor made, -- by their acts shall they be known -- for the imposition of the centralized authority totalitarian mindset. Marx got it right when he compared it to Opium; and I apologize for hurting anyone’s feelings who may believe in some deity or other. I think it is important to distinguish the pursuit of self-awareness, enlightenment, transcendence, spiritual self-realization… these are exquisitely personal acts and pursuits that have mostly been discouraged, frowned upon and often repressed by force and threat by the forces of organized religion. Free thinking and the spirit of questioning dogma is not something any religion tolerates (except in rare moments of flowering, say the Golden period of Moorish Cordoba) Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:54 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:15, Samiya Illias wrote: Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. I read many sacred texts, including different translations of the Quran. But I found some text more convincing, or more heart-vibrating than others. I studied three years of classical chinese to be more at ease with the taoist proses, notably. For the Quran, some verses are formidable and can talk to my heart, but not so for other verses, and muslim scholars were a bit contradictory on how to interpret it. But the main reason why we stop at scripture is only that they are scripture. They are human very imperfect way to address the divine, and, by my own faith, contradicts the deepest intuition I have on that matter, which is that religion cannot be normative and allow authorities to think for me, or intercede between me and the good lord. Precisely! This is my principal objection to all religions as well. No authority is my bridge. the meaning of the Pope is in Italian il Pontefice - e.g. the One who is the bridge. the separation of the individual from their own spiritual existence by means of this intercession of a central gate keeper authority - i.e. the church (or equivalent) is at the root of all religions, and especially of the Abrahamic monotheist brands. Only the i that has the - perhaps one can say, self-emergent -- humility to see (without imprisoning, what is seen, in pre-existing notional constructs of the mind's world-model) can ever be the bridge to transcendent self-awareness. Chris Some people seems to accept that intercession, and I don't want to judge them. May be it can make sense in some survival strategies, but it is no more religion to me. Bruno To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Samiya - Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:01 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God. Maybe you should just call it the Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity. The Tao that can be named... Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking about. The Jewish mystics of the Moorish flowering wrote of the Sephirot Kether (the crown) that it is that which is manifest, but cannot be defined, described or named. It is perhaps that ineffable sense of being that precedes and underlies our own perception of our self-being, but whatever… Only one way to find out though, and that is to look for yourself, that is if you are lucky and wise and don’t fall for one or another of the well packaged stories that are seeking souls to corral. Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State Building? (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...) With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find number coincidences in anything. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Liz, I gather from some of your posts that you're an author? Is it humanly possible for you to author a book spread over 23 years, writing 'occasion/event-relevant' sentences, and then compiling it, such that the book is tightly bound in a grid of a prime number, to protect it from any alterations? On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State Building? (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...) With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find number coincidences in anything. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the oil industry or lumber? 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/20/2014 5:00 AM, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Everything we know Everything we know that we know Everything we do not know Everything we suspect we do not know Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid brains/minds) Everything that was, is or will be In short, God is - wait for it: The Everything. I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God. Maybe you should just call it the Everything. “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood” --- Bertrand Russell -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood” --- Bertrand Russell :-) Indeed! Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it (The God Particle etc). -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 April 2014 15:24, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, I gather from some of your posts that you're an author? Is it humanly possible for you to author a book spread over 23 years, writing 'occasion/event-relevant' sentences, and then compiling it, such that the book is tightly bound in a grid of a prime number, to protect it from any alterations? Yes, of course it is, if a bunch of scholars treat it as a Holy book and pore over it for centuries looking for such connections. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 21 April 2014 15:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor. It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the oil industry or lumber? I don't know much about it but I would guess there were both a bunch of self-interested people who stood to gain, and a load of righteously indignant people who couldn't stand the idea that someone, somewhere might be enjoying themselves. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked with cannabis use, http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs Sounds pretty serious. Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper show is just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they talk about joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and marijuana, and it is not clear if they have verified that the person did not also drink alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that cannabis augments the number of neurons, and it is not clear in what sense those deformations constitutes a problem. But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people who will not ask the ID to their clients. On the contrary, the criminals will target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug without any price and quality control. So a proof that cannabis *is* bad for the health is automatically a reason more to make it legal: to protect the kids. As a teacher, the statistics on the bad effect of alcohol matches the personal experience, but this is not true with cannabis. Having taught more than 40 years, I have never seen any problem with cannabis, but a lot with mixture cannabis/tobacco, and the worst: cannabis + alcohol. My point is not that cannabis is an innocent drug. None are, but my point is based with the comparative dangers between all drugs in the matter of banning them (assuming that makes sense). Cannabis does not kill, unlike aspirin, sugar, chocolate, etc. That comparative aspect needs to be present in all papers on which a political decision can be inspired. In that respect, cannsbis seems the safest psychotropic known today. You link contains a link which relativize such findings: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-association-frequency-marijuana-health-healthcare.html It is like the discovery that marijuana tar is much more carcinogenic than tobacco tar. That is verified in the laboratory, but not reflected in the population studies, and the reason is that the cancer protection of cannabis might compensate largely its carcinogenic effect. There were no reason to make cannabis illegal at the start, and there is no reason today. Smoking cannabis remains infinitely less dangerous than breathing in urban environment, or eating non-bio fruits, etc. There are just many things which should be banned before cannabis. But again, the danger of a drug is not a reason to ban it, but to legalize it. In my country, they have tested free distribution of heroin and needles, and the result were positive: its consumption diminishes, the violence diminishes, the number of AID case diminishes, etc. Bruno -- 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.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records too. It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be legal. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. I have no clue why you say this. In many cases they had personal experience. The first year of use of consumption of marjuana can be impressive, and by its paranoid effect, enhance in case of illegality. I don't know people complaining about cannabis, I mean in the statistical sense, compared to other products. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. I have stopped to believe that prohibition has anything to do with drug problem. Google on youtube marijuana history. Its origin is in racism (Anslinger) + unfair competition with oil, and I get evidence it was orchestrated by criminals, in fact as a recycling of the alcohol prohibitionist machinery. Drugs must be regulated, and we know today that illegality is what which makes them dangerous. You can also look at the site of LEAP (an organization of war on drug cops veteran who understood the complete nonsense and the perverse effect of prohibition: http://www.leap.cc/ You will find many references which explains the non sense of prohibition of drugs, and its real motivation. Bruno 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. I never claimed that any data was wrong. What I said was that correlations are weak evidence, and that many studies show correlation for all sorts of things. Furthermore, these correlations are used selectively when it comes to legislating. For this we have hard evidence: there is much stronger scientific evidence against alcohol and tobacco than cannabis, yet the former are legal while the latter is illegal. In the UK, Professor David Nutt was sacked from his position as chairman of the government advisory board on the misuse of drugs for analysing scientific evidence and coming to the conclusion that alcohol was more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? Telmo. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. Sure. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching sufi drug use. For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect, but discover it. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Conventional religion have a tradition of forbidding anything which can lead to psychotropic experience, if not mystic experience, because they have decided of what is truth, and psychotropic experience are able to question it, and usually leads to making the doubt greater. In the religious matter, even more than in science, I think we cannot let other people think for you. In my religion, you can caricature the prophets, even God, and you can burn the sacred text without blaspheming, but then you *do* a genuine blasphem when you dare to talk in its name. You can only trust God to talk directly to the heart of the people. You can't suggest any action or inaction in its name, as it becomes the worst authoritative and manipulative argument. There are just no human intermediate between you and God. Contemplation community, and dances, prayers, can be allowed, but nobody can decide actions and inactions, and normalize behavior in Its Name. If you believe in God, trust him. To be sure, there is no problem liking sacred texts, but not for any normative action. Some intoxicant can help to understand this, and that is why, I think, some tradition and societies wanting to control you, are condemning them. Of course, in the Abramanic religion, God can be seen as the first prohibitionist, and the first to suggest that prohibition can't work. Explain me how God, with his infinite power, has not been able to control a population having only two individuals, Adam and Eve. How could He not prevent them to consume the illicit fruit of knowledge? Answer: he planned them to have the choice and get the knowledge. He might permit the shortcut between Earth and Heaven, but not the use of it to manipulate the others and talk in His name. Bruno Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong.
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Agree to disagree :) However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. Sure. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching sufi drug use. For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect, but discover it. I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in the memory of millions of human beings till this day. If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet been discovered? ;) In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether or not to 'use the drug'?? It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over the centuries. They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger, transmitting the revelation as received. Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end? This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Conventional religion have a tradition of forbidding anything which can lead to psychotropic experience, if not mystic experience, because they have decided of what is truth, and psychotropic experience are able to question it, and usually leads to making the doubt greater. In the religious matter, even more than in science, I think we cannot let other people think for you. Exactly! That is why we must not be under the influence of any intoxicant so as to be able to think clearly! In my religion, you can caricature the prophets, even God, and you can burn the sacred text without blaspheming, but then you *do* a genuine blasphem when you dare to talk in its name. If I'm misguided, then you are right. However, I earnestly believe that the Quran is God-sent and it helps us understand our purpose here on Earth, and where we are headed. You can only trust God to talk directly to the heart of the people. You can't suggest any action or inaction in its name, as it becomes
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
No wonder you guys are so enthusiastic about anthropogenic warming ( I concur but not like you do) cause you been rock'in the Ganj!! Y'all voted for Bob Marley for PM, and he's been off-planet for 25 years. Irae mon. Your ears hearing the skankin sounds while yer butt be feeling those spanking sounds. On the other hand in the US we elected a constitutional lawyer and head of the choom gang our president. See, the climate gets warmed up by all yer bongs. That's it. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 18, 2014 8:45 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. If one places Cannabis' danger into perspective of danger of other poisons, you can however point to relative safety and potential efficacy as medication for a variety of ailments. See Prof. David Nutts research that was brought up on this list in the past. And yet nobody states seriously that any poison is harmless; we just seem to live in a world that can't do without them on a variety of levels at this time. From fossil fuels to heroin. PGC On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: The causes schizophrenia is correlation based conjecture. Not strongly convincing, because I bet all the subjects consumed sugar and were involved in variety of other behaviors and consumptions. People don't live in test tube and the results of questionnaires and tests of this sort should be taken with a large grain of salt. It's just easy science to make money with and get funds for, from appropriate interests. To be able to single out that it was the Cannabis in all these people's lives as exclusive cause, and not merely trigger of latent tendency, is too strong. You can say we suppose, correlation, because reason x, sample size y. A lot of things can precipitate psychosis in patients that already have some predisposition. We're talking poison, so ghibbsa, you're barking up the wrong tree if you're claiming that some people claim it innocent. But you're right: it's more the world that people live in than the poison itself. If your perspective is a dead end job of being mechanically exploited and underpaid below ability to survive and make a living, and no exit is palpable, then you have increased poison use; without that, I think we'd see more breakdowns, psychosis, and crimes happening. It is asking too much to expect that segment of society to function properly while being shafted. PGC On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 8:52:50 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 08:41, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:02 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:03:09 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi, A good sum up of the how and why cannabis might cure cancers. You can understand the mechanism and the probabilities. It is a pretty good movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMt83_IWkE We knew this since 1974. Promising research on cancer treatment were purposefully broke down. How could we hope rational decisions with respect to climate when we tolerate brainwashing, even a sort of revisionism, on cannabis/hemp, and cancers? The problem is not stupid politicians, it is clever bandits. The prohibition of cannabis deserves truly the Nobel Prize, in Crime. But it might also be their fatal error, I think. I think the world will get closer to paradise when the humans will stop confuse p - q with q - p. That confusion is exploited by the fear sellers (pseudo-religious or not). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ It's a load of rubbish Bruno. Cannabis ha sorry...it sorry again. It's a load of old cobblers because cannabis has been available to researchers throughout. When I read Jack Herer a long time ago, I leave the book away when I came to the chapter where he claimed that cannabis cures might cancer (and did cure some cancer for mice in 1974). I thought the hippies was going crackpot on this. That was to gross. But when in 2009 a spanish team rediscovered that fact(*), I have scrutinized both the allegation of cure, and the allegation that rserach on cannabis was discouraged. That second point is rather clear in the US where cannabis is schedule one, making research quite difficult from the administrative perspective (virtually impossible in most universities). The first point is now accepted in the mainstream, but the media and the doctors ignore it, probably because cannabis is illegal. You might read: (*) http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948 (original spanish paper) http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html You can find many papers on cannabis and cancer here: http
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On Friday, April 18, 2014 11:52:59 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. Brent To the part about personal experience...Right - I had personal experience, like presumably a lot of people. I actually mentioned seeing two personal friends starting to smoke pot in their early teens and being institutionalized a few years later. Like...oddballs shambling up and down the street for the rest of their lives, I imagine. I wasn't looking for a violin, but the response by some people on this thread, was pretty fucking insulting. Bruno all but accused me of lying in his scare quotes experience he puts it down to. PGC blurbs out this pompous indifferent padded life twallop, and telmo jumps in with a load of projection about ghastly politically motivated people that hide behind spurious scientific veneers - and basically anything else they find useful - to continually push some twisted self-serving inconsiderate agenda. All this when there is hard scientific evidence my experience was probably well to be expectedhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-marijuana-adolescence-permanent-brain-abnormalities.html#inlRlv. What a bunch of cunts. OK...I'm over it now. All forgiven. Big hugs :o) -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2from_verse=218to_verse=220mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 4:43] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4from_verse=42to_verse=44mac=translation_setting=1show_yusufali=1show_shakir=1show_pickthal=1show_mkhan=1show_urdu=1 [Quran 5:90] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5from_verse=89to_verse=92mac
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 09:37, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. I never claimed that any data was wrong. What I said was that correlations are weak evidence, It is worth than that. The danger of cannabis is a set up. It is a case where politics just ignore the real data, and the real correlation, made in the valid direction. What I say is mainstream: there are no expert on cannabis which know this, except fake expert paid by corporatist societies. The first proof by Nihas that cannabis lead to brain problems was based on rabbits brain smoking 27 (I think) cigarettes of tobacco + cannabis 24h/24h. They died of lack of oxygen. Of course all drugs have dangers, but comparatively to tobacco, alcohol, or even aspirin, sugar, etc., cannabis is less toxic, as far as we know today. The danger is a myth created by the collusion of racists (anti-mexicans), Oil barons, and drug dealers. and that many studies show correlation for all sorts of things. Furthermore, these correlations are used selectively when it comes to legislating. For this we have hard evidence: there is much stronger scientific evidence against alcohol and tobacco than cannabis, yet the former are legal while the latter is illegal. That was the lesson of prohibition of alcohol. Make a safe medication illegal, because the danger of a drug augments by prohibition, like alcohol. In the UK, Professor David Nutt was sacked from his position as chairman of the government advisory board on the misuse of drugs for analysing scientific evidence and coming to the conclusion that alcohol was more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Yes, you can find video of old people confessing having fight for the illegality of the dangerous Mexican killer drug known as marijuana, without having the slighest idea that it was hemp. It was a set up. We have all the detailed informations. Anyone taking the time can look at what happened. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? Cannabis has been made illegal about the same day they build the first harvester machines dedicated to hemp. It was a conspiracy against Hemp. We known the name, we know the set- up, we know everything about that. We just ignore it, probably because we fear the other lies (Kennedy, and the way americans and non american get hostages of corporatism who defend special interest, and black market which finance criminals and terrorism. It is a good news, as bandits always lose power. My hope is that they will be clever enough to abandon it pacifically little bit by little bit, instead of trying to stay in power by force and violence. All lover of the free land should stand against the NDAA, as it allows break in the human rights, which I was told we were fighting for. I can understand such break for a very limited period, in war and crisis, not in any vague indeterminate way. Bruno 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219] http
RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy100@aol.com7 No wonder you guys are so enthusiastic about anthropogenic warming ( I concur but not like you do) cause you been rock'in the Ganj!! Y'all voted for Bob Marley for PM, and he's been off-planet for 25 years. Irae mon. Your ears hearing the skankin sounds while yer butt be feeling those spanking sounds. On the other hand in the US we elected a constitutional lawyer and head of the choom gang our president. See, the climate gets warmed up by all yer bongs. That's it. May I ask.. what are you smoking? Chris -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records too. It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be legal. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. I have no clue why you say this. Because it's true. The people may have been mistaken - particularly about the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for them. For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost all ambition and interest in other things. And even aside from such effects, there has been a strong Puritan ethic in the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as sinful and bad for one's character. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:38 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group. That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of their origin. I never claimed that any data was wrong. What I said was that correlations are weak evidence, and that many studies show correlation for all sorts of things. Furthermore, these correlations are used selectively when it comes to legislating. For this we have hard evidence: there is much stronger scientific evidence against alcohol and tobacco than cannabis, yet the former are legal while the latter is illegal. Exactly - weak correlations can be found for almost anything if you look hard enough. Chris In the UK, Professor David Nutt was sacked from his position as chairman of the government advisory board on the misuse of drugs for analysing scientific evidence and coming to the conclusion that alcohol was more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sac ked http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-cal l?guni=Article:in%20body%20link Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? Telmo. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that? How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then? 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for you (e.g. tobacco smoking) the actions necessary for suppression: searches, police surveillance, fines, imprisonment - may be worse than the effects of consumption. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for you (e.g. tobacco smoking) the actions necessary for suppression: searches, police surveillance, fines, imprisonment - may be worse than the effects of consumption. Besides which - if left alone - the effects of something that is bad for you ultimately result in bad outcomes for the individuals with the bad habits. Over time cultures begin to recognize the correlation between some habit and bad outcomes and a natural balance is achieved without state intervention. For example - to use a non drug behavior - the practice of safe sex (i.e. using a condom) has markedly reduced the transmission rates of many deadly diseases, such as hiv, amongst sexually active populations. This cultural behavioral change - from not using condoms to using condoms, has not been achieved through state enforcement (also highly impractical perhaps), but through the spread of the awareness and consequent cultural adaptation. It is legal in many places - Italy for example - for hard alcohol to be sold to a four year old, but it does not happen in practice - all without the need for the repressive enforcement of any laws, regulations, but rather through the more benign method of custom and basic common sense. It is through learned cultural adaptation that most things can and should be handled. State intervention should be reserved for acute types of acts, such as say murder, or massive toxic pollution that are intolerable for general well-being. The need to make laws, to prohibit (also religiously-politically, in say how Islam prohibits - by force -- the consumption of pork or alcohol) against perceived moral or behavioral wrongs is ultimately a grand waste of energy and a powerful enabler of organized criminality and widespread corruption that achieves nothing except driving certain proscribed behaviors underground into the shadow world of the organized crime syndicate central intelligence agency dominated black world. the world that effectively rules - or at the very least powerfully influences -- the visible official world that is publicly represented as being the entire story. There is no need for the cure; the cure is worse than the disease because dangerous behavior self corrects in that those who engage in it are removed from the gene pool and provide teachable moments to other individuals who witness their trajectories. As amongst mountain climbers it is well known that there are no old free climbers.. Because they die young! By a similar parallel kind of mechanism the ultimate trajectories that various drug habits (or any habit for that matter: gambling say, or over-eating, bad diet, or lack of exercise. etc.) lead people's lives on becomes part of our cultural repertoire, without the need for any state intervention. Junkies, like free climbers (who climb rock faces without pitons or rope) also tend to die young. There will always be some individuals who are drawn into these habits or pursuits, but the percentages will always be small because the vast majority of people can draw on their cultural knowledge and wisely avoid these habits or risk intense pursuits. Why not just let Darwinian evolution do its job? Culture should attempt to educate and encourage, and offer means of rehabilitation for junkies and alcoholics, and for a host of other impulse driven bad behavior. I very much support that, but I see - as the evidence from the fifty plus failed example of the drug war proves - that state repression is not an answer. Rather it is the profit engine of the global crime syndicates whose immense profits over time corrupt all institutions in society (the stock exchanges, the banks, the legal system itself) and whose black world intersects in a perverse and corrupting manner with the world of state central intelligence agencies (which also operate largely outside the law, and which do business with the crime syndicates) Chris 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
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote: On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote: The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest. This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired. Agree to disagree :) Even when a turkish sultana condemned smoking tobacco by having the head off, the consumption of tobacco grew. Now, when a religion is related to the state, some religious prohibition might work, but I was thinking to laic multi-confessional countries. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial use of them, as well as the side-effects. Sure. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged. Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching sufi drug use. For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect, but discover it. I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in the memory of millions of human beings till this day. The muslims I know disagree on many verses. I am not sure such text are easy to interpret. Even arithmetic is not that easy to interpret. If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet been discovered? ;) It can be a reminiscence :) In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether or not to 'use the drug'?? The decision has to be done before taking the drug. Yes, there is always a risk, and nobody should push you, and that is another reason to make it legal, at least in laïc countries. To avoid unscrupulous street dealers pushing weak people to buy rotten psychotropic. (and to avoid legal drug dealer not trying to cure you). It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit... That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran. How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God? The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over the centuries. That might not necessarily be a good sign. They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger, transmitting the revelation as received. Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs. Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end? You are not reassuring me, here. This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation... My question is: what if a young person tells you, I don't want to study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-Gita? Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood? Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc. The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,... Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. References: [Quran 2:219]
Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! More proof of the danger of drugs. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! More proof of the danger of drugs. Or of falling in love. -- 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! More proof of the danger of drugs. Or of falling in love. Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…. Paracelsus (1493-1541) Paracelsus did a fair job with those few words. Indeed love, theology, belief, water, books, and a large variety of concepts and behaviors could qualify as substance here. What isn't poisonous or would disqualify the statement? PGC On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:07 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! More proof of the danger of drugs. Or of falling in love. Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
I agree. (Even chocolate may be a poison, although I haven't yet completed my investigations.) On 20 April 2014 12:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote: All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…. Paracelsus (1493-1541) Paracelsus did a fair job with those few words. Indeed love, theology, belief, water, books, and a large variety of concepts and behaviors could qualify as substance here. What isn't poisonous or would disqualify the statement? PGC On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:07 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! More proof of the danger of drugs. Or of falling in love. Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot. 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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore everything. To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from what you may know about Muslim conquests: http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/ http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ Samiya On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; in conquest? Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in human history. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message. Samiya spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a holy violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate. There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look beyond the prejudices. The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! Samiya On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful. In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list
