|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2005 : 14:20:46 [Permalink]
|
It's romantic thinking to see human characteristics as somehow apart from the natural world. It's a very old theme.
Humans differ from animals because of x, y, z. Well it turns out not to be the case. The more we learn about animal behavior the more it becomes clear they are on the same continuum as the human animal is.
To hold some romantic notion that pleasure centers in the brain which can enjoy smells, sights, physical stimuli, and all sorts of things is somehow a function of the soul and not of the brain is just not the case. I recommend a bit more study of brain function and physiology before drawing such naive conclusions. |
 |
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2005 : 23:57:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It's romantic thinking to see human characteristics as somehow apart from the natural world. It's a very old theme.
Humans differ from animals because of x, y, z. Well it turns out not to be the case. The more we learn about animal behavior the more it becomes clear they are on the same continuum as the human animal is.
To hold some romantic notion that pleasure centers in the brain which can enjoy smells, sights, physical stimuli, and all sorts of things is somehow a function of the soul and not of the brain is just not the case. I recommend a bit more study of brain function and physiology before drawing such naive conclusions.
I do not object to humans being related to animals, I claim the ant can make creative decisions in which direction it travels to search for food. Someone here said the shape of a mountain range is not different than the paths within an ant hill. A mountain range is created from volcanic eruptions and such. It is shaped by erosion and such. An ant CHOOSES what path the ant hill takes, thus they are not the same and separate from natural law. Bear with me for a second and think of science as all natural law. Science works with matter and cannot function in any other way. The law of gravity could be changed with anti-gravity technology. This technology is built with materials found on earth and is thus subject to natural law. The law of gravity is not broken, it is manipulated with another law. It does not eliminate gravity. Science cannot create nothing, but we can think in terms of nothing. Is thinking in terms of nothing any different than eliminating a molecule from existence? The concept is impossible for science to develop. Here's my proof. Cold does not exist it is a lack of heat. The concept of absolute zero is the complete abscence of heat. Could we make a machine that can remove all heat from a molecule? No. Here's why. You cannot take something and replace it with nothing, science won't allow it. To say that we are capable of changing something into nothing with our mind (a neuron fires but the idea of a thought can be forgotten, yet are incapable of turning something into nothing in the physical world (e.g. who was bob jones circa 2000 B.C.? That name does not exist anymore, but his skeleton remains somewhere) The logic is flawed. If evolution created creativity as a product of the process why is it impossible for science to do what evolution can do, given that evolution is founded in science. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 00:04:21 [Permalink]
|
| And before you say absolute zero is possible you would only have to stop all friction in the universe, cease all gravity in the universe, stop the universe from expanding, and create a shell larger than the universe which surrounds the universe in order to expel the heat into nothingness to avoid recirculating the heat you just took out from going back in, unless thermodynamics is bullshit. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 00:21:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
And before you say absolute zero is possible you would only have to stop all friction in the universe, cease all gravity in the universe, stop the universe from expanding, and create a shell larger than the universe which surrounds the universe in order to expel the heat into nothingness to avoid recirculating the heat you just took out from going back in, unless thermodynamics is bullshit.
And the universe is infinite since nothing cannot exist. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 00:28:31 [Permalink]
|
ASR, thinking of nothing is not "creating nothing." By thinking of nothing you are creating a thought, so something is created.
You seem to be struggling now to come up with a way to explain how consciousness arose from strictly material processes. Join the club. Some progress in the field has been made. Why not try reading up on some of it rather than trying to create your own whole theory based on changing the meanings of words around?
quote:
And the universe is infinite since nothing cannot exist.
Boy, you sure seem to like to word play. Ok, I'll go along. "Nothing" can't exist, but is possible for everything to not exist. Therefore, the Universe can be finite because it is possible for there to be places the Universe does not exist.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/01/2005 00:30:06 |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
ASR, thinking of nothing is not "creating nothing." By thinking of nothing you are creating a thought, so something is created.
It's the essence of a thought becoming nothing.
quote:
And the universe is infinite since nothing cannot exist.
quote:
Boy, you sure seem to like to word play. Ok, I'll go along. "Nothing" can't exist, but is possible for everything to not exist. Therefore, the Universe can be finite because it is possible for there to be places the Universe does not exist.
I said Nothing can't exist in the physical universe, thus it is possible for everything to not exist in a philosophical universe. If there was a creative universe before a physical universe which I am claiming, then that is possible. Therefore the physically infinite universe is only finite when you try to imagine a philosophical universe as having physical properties. (Taboo) |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:18:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Therefore, the Universe can be finite because it is possible for there to be places the Universe does not exist.
What you are saying is that the universe is finite because it does not exist in places that do not exist. If it is nothing you cant say that that nothing is someplace to be. Nothing is not the vaccuum of space, it DOES NOT EXIST thus the universe can expand and always be infinite since nothing has no quality. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:20:48 [Permalink]
|
| In other words, that place of nothing does not exist yet so how can it not be there when theres no area to occupy? |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
I do not object to humans being related to animals, I claim the ant can make creative decisions in which direction it travels to search for food. Someone here said the shape of a mountain range is not different than the paths within an ant hill. A mountain range is created from volcanic eruptions and such. It is shaped by erosion and such. An ant CHOOSES what path the ant hill takes, thus they are not the same and separate from natural law. Bear with me for a second and think of science as all natural law. Science works with matter and cannot function in any other way. The law of gravity could be changed with anti-gravity technology. This technology is built with materials found on earth and is thus subject to natural law. The law of gravity is not broken, it is manipulated with another law. It does not eliminate gravity. Science cannot create nothing, but we can think in terms of nothing. Is thinking in terms of nothing any different than eliminating a molecule from existence? The concept is impossible for science to develop. Here's my proof. Cold does not exist it is a lack of heat. The concept of absolute zero is the complete abscence of heat. Could we make a machine that can remove all heat from a molecule? No. Here's why. You cannot take something and replace it with nothing, science won't allow it. To say that we are capable of changing something into nothing with our mind (a neuron fires but the idea of a thought can be forgotten, yet are incapable of turning something into nothing in the physical world (e.g. who was bob jones circa 2000 B.C.? That name does not exist anymore, but his skeleton remains somewhere) The logic is flawed. If evolution created creativity as a product of the process why is it impossible for science to do what evolution can do, given that evolution is founded in science.
What is your point? Whatever concept you are naming creativity is not clear to me from your post. Same thing with your use of the term science as if it were more than a process.
I'm sure whatever you are trying to say makes sense to you, but unless you use language where we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of the words in it, all your contemplating of the nature of the Universe will not be communicated to others reading your posts.
It isn't impossible for science to do what evolution can do, we do it all the time. And even if it were at the moment, science marches on so you can't say what is possible with science, only what is possible currently. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/01/2005 01:33:12 |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 01:53:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sure whatever you are trying to say makes sense to you, but unless you use language where we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of the words in it, all your contemplating of the nature of the Universe will not be communicated to others reading your posts.
It isn't impossible for science to do what evolution can do, we do it all the time. And even if it were at the moment, science marches on so you can't say what is possible with science, only what is possible currently.
I've already explained that I view science as natural law and creativity as nothing (nothing that can create something and turn something into nothing, unlike science (natural law) which can only turn something into something) Like I said, I developed the theory yesterday or the day before so I'm still working at it. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 02:04:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
[quote]
It isn't impossible for science to do what evolution can do, we do it all the time. And even if it were at the moment, science marches on so you can't say what is possible with science, only what is possible currently.
Absolute Zero, think about it. You would have to stop friction in an area completely. This would require you to stop gravimetric forces, eliminate all heat in the universe, otherwise it would penetrate the zone, and so on as I explained. The only conceivable way to do it would be to stop time in a specific area. This would stop all molecules from moving and create an absolute zero environment. This would cause the affected area to not move in sync with the earth and would rip a gaping whole at the speed of the rotation of the earth. This would cause friction instantly, the weight of the entire planet ripping through an immobile section and would incinerate it. Try again. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 03:58:22 [Permalink]
|
I know I shouldn't be so amused by the blathering of the clueless.... but I just can't help it. Its funny!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 09:23:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR...
I've already explained that I view science as natural law and creativity as nothing (nothing that can create something and turn something into nothing, unlike science (natural law) which can only turn something into something) Like I said, I developed the theory yesterday or the day before so I'm still working at it.
Okay, count me in for one round of this double talk. I studied the art of gibberish once a long time ago when I did a short stint as a carnival barker.
It sounds like you have a preconceived notion that god-did-it, and are pursuing a line of thought that supports that notion if you twist the definitions of certain words and concepts this way and that. If (science = natural_law) and if (creativity = 0) then these conjectures of yours seem to you to be the way things are. But...
It has already been pointed out to you that science is a field of study, not natural law, not a marshmallow, not an automobile, not a kitten, no matter what you think. It is a field of study. That is what it is, no matter how well your convoluted definition of science helps support your philosophy.
You may believe that an ant applies creativity in choosing a direction in which to dig its tunnel. (And you may, if you like, believe that an oak tree applies creativity in selecting a direction in which to send out a new branch.) In either case you may be correct. In neither case, however, has it ever been shown that creativity is a required attribute for such events to occur. At least not by any commonly accepted definition of the word, or the concept, of creativity.
Anyway, creativity is not nothing. It is usually considered an attribute, characteristic, or process, and that makes it a thing. A thing is not nothing. Really, (1 = 1), and (1 != 0). So since you are clearly wrong about your definitions of terms, your "theory" doesn't hold water, at all, in any way. Discard it. Back to the drawing board. You can't continue to tweak (1 != 0) and expect it to eventually result in 1 equaling 0. Sorry.
Oh, and about this...quote:
Absolute Zero, think about it. You would have to stop friction in an area completely. This would require you to stop gravimetric forces, eliminate all heat in the universe, otherwise it would penetrate the zone, and so on as I explained. The only conceivable way to do it would be to stop time in a specific area. This would stop all molecules from moving and create an absolute zero environment. This would cause the affected area to not move in sync with the earth and would rip a gaping whole at the speed of the rotation of the earth. This would cause friction instantly, the weight of the entire planet ripping through an immobile section and would incinerate it. Try again.
Could you explain that a bit more thoroughly. Please provide references, and if possible, some of the formulas or principles of physics you've used to come to this conclusion.
How did Dude put it, "... amused by the blathering of the clueless?" Me, too. 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2005 : 10:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've already explained that I view science as natural law and creativity as nothing (nothing that can create something and turn something into nothing, unlike science (natural law) which can only turn something into something) Like I said, I developed the theory yesterday or the day before so I'm still working at it.
I can hardly wait until ASR has had a week or so to completely refine this 'theory', just glancing at it should cause enough brain damage to lower your IQ by 10 points.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
