[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, This is the first part of my reply below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Response in blue, below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Because metaphysics cannot be investigated scientifically, metaphysical systems cannot be distinguished from one another scientifically unless they have a physical prediction. You cannot determine by experiment that, supposing there is a god, that it is named Zeus or YHWH or Melvin. So while it might be interesting for some scientist to study metaphysics, it cannot have much impact on their work unless they can translate certain metaphysical ideas into physical parallels which they can then investigate, but then they are not investigating the original idea. There is a lot of work going on now investigating how simple axioms and rules can create complex results. Science has Aristotle been attempting to zero in on basic axioms and rules. The work of mathematician Stephen Wolfram has been doing this for some 30 years or so. Scientific progress has often resulted from re-imagining basic axioms or ideas of how we think about the world. Euclid's geometry basically held the ground for some 2,500 years until some mathematicians questioned the reality of one of his basic axioms - that parallel lines never meet. Einstein used these new ways of doing math and questioned a particular axiom which resulted in the theory relativity. That axiom was that time was invariant. What Einstein did was to suppose time was not invariant. Stephen Wolfram is looking in the use of simple axioms and rules to generate complex intelligent looking structures, as well a chaos. This is an extension of the work of mathematician John Conway who created a simple computer program called the Game of Life that has had great influence on the thinking of how simple systems can create complex objects without any complex or vast intelligence behind it. The idea is the universe proceeds by something called implicate properties, properties that emerge from simple rules that are iterated billions, trillions of times, that could never be predicted just from examining the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conways_Game_of_Life Both metaphysics and physics employ human imagination. The difference between metaphysics and physics is, with physics the imagination is tempered by comparing it with the world, while metaphysics merrily tramples on, divorced from any rational connexion with the world. JR's Response: The main problem that I see with scientists like Hawking and Krauss is that they don't realize that matter is based on consciousness. They think that they have to measure the tiniest matter there is in the universe to prove that their work is completed in proving their theory of the universe. But their work is not complete. They have not answered the question as to why space and time exist. For matter to exist, there must be space and time. And space/time essentially requires Consciousness in order to conceive the idea of length, width, height and time. Without this consciousness, NO THING can possibly exist, and NO WHERE and NO TIME. How can a quantum fluctuation exist without space/time? The random quantum fluctuation cannot possibly create space/time on its own. If the scientists insist that it is their finding, then it's false. They are contradicting the purpose of the scientific method which is to find the truth. In the end, they would have
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Xeno, This is the first part of my reply below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Response in blue, below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Because metaphysics cannot be investigated scientifically, metaphysical systems cannot be distinguished from one another scientifically unless they have a physical prediction. You cannot determine by experiment that, supposing there is a god, that it is named Zeus or YHWH or Melvin. So while it might be interesting for some scientist to study metaphysics, it cannot have much impact on their work unless they can translate certain metaphysical ideas into physical parallels which they can then investigate, but then they are not investigating the original idea. There is a lot of work going on now investigating how simple axioms and rules can create complex results. Science has Aristotle been attempting to zero in on basic axioms and rules. The work of mathematician Stephen Wolfram has been doing this for some 30 years or so. Scientific progress has often resulted from re-imagining basic axioms or ideas of how we think about the world. Euclid's geometry basically held the ground for some 2,500 years until some mathematicians questioned the reality of one of his basic axioms - that parallel lines never meet. Einstein used these new ways of doing math and questioned a particular axiom which resulted in the theory relativity. That axiom was that time was invariant. What Einstein did was to suppose time was not invariant. Stephen Wolfram is looking in the use of simple axioms and rules to generate complex intelligent looking structures, as well a chaos. This is an extension of the work of mathematician John Conway who created a simple computer program called the Game of Life that has had great influence on the thinking of how simple systems can create complex objects without any complex or vast intelligence behind it. The idea is the universe proceeds by something called implicate properties, properties that emerge from simple rules that are iterated billions, trillions of times, that could never be predicted just from examining the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conways_Game_of_Life Both metaphysics and physics employ human imagination. The difference between metaphysics and physics is, with physics the imagination is tempered by comparing it with the world, while metaphysics merrily tramples on, divorced from any rational connexion with the world. JR's Response: The main problem that I see with scientists like Hawking and Krauss is that they don't realize that matter is based on consciousness. They think that they have to measure the tiniest matter there is in the universe to prove that their work is completed in proving their theory of the universe. But their work is not complete. They have not answered the question as to why space and time exist. For matter to exist, there must be space and time. And space/time essentially requires Consciousness in order to conceive the idea of length, width, height and time. Without this consciousness, NO THING can possibly exist, and NO WHERE and NO TIME. How can a quantum fluctuation exist without space/time? The random quantum fluctuation cannot possibly create space/time on its own. If the scientists insist that it is their finding, then it's false. They are contradicting the purpose of the scientific method which is to find the truth. In the end, they would have to address the role of consciousness in the creation
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Response in blue, below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Because metaphysics cannot be investigated scientifically, metaphysical systems cannot be distinguished from one another scientifically unless they have a physical prediction. You cannot determine by experiment that, supposing there is a god, that it is named Zeus or YHWH or Melvin. So while it might be interesting for some scientist to study metaphysics, it cannot have much impact on their work unless they can translate certain metaphysical ideas into physical parallels which they can then investigate, but then they are not investigating the original idea. There is a lot of work going on now investigating how simple axioms and rules can create complex results. Science has Aristotle been attempting to zero in on basic axioms and rules. The work of mathematician Stephen Wolfram has been doing this for some 30 years or so. Scientific progress has often resulted from re-imagining basic axioms or ideas of how we think about the world. Euclid's geometry basically held the ground for some 2,500 years until some mathematicians questioned the reality of one of his basic axioms - that parallel lines never meet. Einstein used these new ways of doing math and questioned a particular axiom which resulted in the theory relativity. That axiom was that time was invariant. What Einstein did was to suppose time was not invariant. Stephen Wolfram is looking in the use of simple axioms and rules to generate complex intelligent looking structures, as well a chaos. This is an extension of the work of mathematician John Conway who created a simple computer program called the Game of Life that has had great influence on the thinking of how simple systems can create complex objects without any complex or vast intelligence behind it. The idea is the universe proceeds by something called implicate properties, properties that emerge from simple rules that are iterated billions, trillions of times, that could never be predicted just from examining the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conways_Game_of_Life Both metaphysics and physics employ human imagination. The difference between metaphysics and physics is, with physics the imagination is tempered by comparing it with the world, while metaphysics merrily tramples on, divorced from any rational connexion with the world. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found. Nothing is wrong with thinking anthropomorphically, it is impossible to avoid, but there is a tendency to project our own ideas of who we are onto things that are quite different. Early conceptions of gods were very anthropomorphic, like a pumped up human, both physically and in intelligence. There is the idea that god is good, unlike us, like us without the crap. Then the idea god is good, a 'good' that is beyond good and bad, but by still using the word 'good' it tends to pull in the emotional human value of 'good' in relati
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
...damn...*such* a selection! YOU choose...though I *am* drawn to the Liz number (or is that Katy?), much more than either, 'Raggedy Annie', or, 'The Newt'...But, if I was still working in an office, it'd be, 'The Newt', fer sure - though I might try for the wig, AND hair in a can, to achieve more of a 'Jack Lord' presence - 'Book 'em, Dan-o'. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Also, does anyone have the 1-800 number, for the, 'Hair In A Can' folks, please? I checked Amazon, but all I could find was this crap: https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 and the other option I found, scrounging around, in the back of my closet, is NOT going to do it - It worked once, but no more: https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 Here, try these on for size: Last, I guess I could try compensating, in other ways: https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, again, Ann - Agreed, life *can* be tough. ...and a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a recent "selfie". I hope, sincerely, that it reassures anyone reading my recent postings: https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Also, does anyone have the 1-800 number, for the, 'Hair In A Can' folks, please? I checked Amazon, but all I could find was this crap: https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 and the other option I found, scrounging around, in the back of my closet, is NOT going to do it - It worked once, but no more: https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 Here, try these on for size: Last, I guess I could try compensating, in other ways: https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, again, Ann - Agreed, life *can* be tough. ...and a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a recent "selfie". I hope, sincerely, that it reassures anyone reading my recent postings: https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, again, Ann - Agreed, life *can* be tough. ...and a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a recent "selfie". I hope, sincerely, that it reassures anyone reading my recent postings: https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r Hee, hee. You look like a demented Jack-O-Lantern in some of them. The top left looks like Jack Nicholson. All in all, veritable visions from some kind of hell. Thanks for posting. I have a few for you! I'll post them later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Also, does anyone have the 1-800 number, for the, 'Hair In A Can' folks, please? I checked Amazon, but all I could find was this crap: https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 https://app.box.com/s/d34i8hmhxpj5pg51kpr5 and the other option I found, scrounging around, in the back of my closet, is NOT going to do it - It worked once, but no more: https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 https://app.box.com/s/qfpdo6mcpc9ry9koh9f1 Last, I guess I could try compensating, in other ways: https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 https://app.box.com/s/r81xgy88x5uc68h3qsp5 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, again, Ann - Agreed, life *can* be tough. ...and a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a recent "selfie". I hope, sincerely, that it reassures anyone reading my recent postings: https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Thanks, again, Ann - Agreed, life *can* be tough. ...and a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a recent "selfie". I hope, sincerely, that it reassures anyone reading my recent postings: https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r https://app.box.com/s/aycqjeqd7tl2mfj0l86r ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. I think many of us hit brick walls as we grow up and these are often walls made of crazy, hatred, addiction, ignorance as displayed by others towards us. But life is not easy; I don't care who you are or how much money you have or what side of the tracks you come from. This is how we learn, this is how we grow, this is how we either become beautiful and strong or how we end up bitter and angry. I don't know what determines who becomes what in the end, is it grace, is it character, is it luck? But one thing I do know, the more I know a person has suffered and who still emerges generous and giving and strong - I have bottomless respect and admiration for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Share, You said: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I really like the Thomas Merton quote. I think it's a tidy and yet almost poetic way to get around the "problem" of anthropomorphism. Which btw, I think the atheists have too (-: It also keeps some human beings humble for thinking they may know it all. On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:28 PM, "jr_esq@..." wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found. The basic fact is there is the experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. The reason why you experience is because you have the capacity to reflect on that experience. This implies that you know that you know. IOW, you can understand that you are the experiencer, the process of experiencing and the experienced. But if that's not enough for you, perhaps Thomas Merton's idea could apply. He said: God is everything that you can think of and at the same time It is NOT. :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical coherency." I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the mind.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Thanks, Ann. Yes, my mother had an incredibly negative story about me, that was unceasingly perpetuated, and spread, in the face of tests I took, and therapists I saw, who were telling her, and reporting, the direct opposite (she would lie to me about the results) -- for the first twenty years of my life . Ouch. I think she may have been a little off, and, unfortunately, also had a genius IQ (member of MENSA) - A really, really, really, >>>*bad*<<< combination! Both brilliant AND crazy. Talk about being under fire - Thankfully, I had a lot of great experiences in my life, too, though the onslaught on my being, from a parent, of all people, was very difficult to uncover, and work through. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
It's important to note, once again, that "the anthropomorphic view through time" refers to the time before Aristotle. From then on the abstract views of classical theism prevailed among theologians up until very recent times, when some theologians have begun to propose more anthropomorphic concepts, such as "theistic personalism." It's simply not correct to think of the abstract view as a recent one that has replaced anthropomorphism. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. I don't see how logic would improve or refute the maths of quantum tunnelling, are you disagreeing with it because you don't "like" it? The whole idea of science is to create an explanation of reality independent of what we think of it. If you have a working model of known feasibility that could have created the observed result then you have to accept it as more likely than one you want to be true because it fits in with the way you want things to be.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
John, I really like the Thomas Merton quote. I think it's a tidy and yet almost poetic way to get around the "problem" of anthropomorphism. Which btw, I think the atheists have too (-: On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:28 PM, "jr_...@yahoo.com" wrote: Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. Itend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found. The basic fact is there is the experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. The reason why you experience is because you have the capacity to reflect on that experience. This implies that you know that you know. IOW, you can understand that you are the experiencer, the process of experiencing and the experienced. But if that's not enough for you, perhaps Thomas Merton's idea could apply. He said: God is everything that you can think of and at the same time It is NOT. :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > >Xeno, > > >You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to >explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a >god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. >It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived >of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether >this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced >depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, >there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience >is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the >experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives >space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious >way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of >logical coherency." > > >I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If >that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which >basically says the universe came from nothing. > > >At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the >mind. > >
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Xeno, My reply is highlighted in red below: anartaxius@...> wrote: The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. I tend to agree with this scenario. That's how Aquinas thought the universe was created. Al-Ghazali had similar ideas when he proposed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It appears logical to me. What's wrong with their rationale? In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. I have problems with this rationale as mentioned earlier. The scientists who proposed these theories probably should have taken the basic philosophy courses in college, particularly logic and metaphysics. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. We are human beings and, as such, we can't help thinking of the universe in terms of the human experience. What's wrong with that? If some of the anthropomorphic ideas can be proved wrong, then it should be corrected when a more logical and true answer is found. The basic fact is there is the experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. The reason why you experience is because you have the capacity to reflect on that experience. This implies that you know that you know. IOW, you can understand that you are the experiencer, the process of experiencing and the experienced. But if that's not enough for you, perhaps Thomas Merton's idea could apply. He said: God is everything that you can think of and at the same time It is NOT. :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical coherency." I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
There is no such thing as 'cosmic mind', cause there is no one to "think" of any thoughts. If 'beingness' or consciousness is like electricity, then 'beings' or entities are like light bulbs. I think Ramana gave that analogy. The rules that govern the universe seems more like a computer code, which is more of an impersonal intelligence. Theists are basicaly of two types, impersonalistic theists and personalistic theists. If one goes by what Judy says, classical theism is a more ambiguous category. > --- anartaxius wrote: > > jr_esq, > > The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe > came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not > mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such > thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two > general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the > first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed > by an intelligence. In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes > into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both > scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that > somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of > simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. > Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to > parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view > through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that > in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and > the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. The basic fact is there is the > experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine > results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience > happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering > and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. > > > --- John wrote: > > > > Xeno, > > > > You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to > > explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' > > without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of > > space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' > > might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. > > consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or > > identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual > > quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the > > experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there > > is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience > > simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the > > consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but > > separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical > > coherency." > > > > I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. > > If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you > > attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. > > > > At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and > > the mind. > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On 02/25/2014 09:36 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:noozguru@... wrote: On 02/25/2014 06:52 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote: From: "awoelflebater@..." mailto:awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works every time. :-) Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-) Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God* seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the lame get...uh...even lamer. :-) Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around *real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves. People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some G.K. Chesterton and lighten up. P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following," have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps to one of the cult followers here, except that she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not, and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen. Just sayin'... Oh nonsense, silly. You aren't interesting, original or clever enough for me to get reactive over. Most of what you say at FFL is either pure fluff or so ill thought out that it is only worthy of a passing dismissal. Because you are so out in left field somewhere picking daisies when the rest of the team is playing serious ball I only pay any attention to you because you are so fun to pick apart. You are a really irresistible target but only because you continue to stumble onto the shooting range. See you soon, you are bound to keep posting similar hilarities - I would predict you'll come up with at least two more today. Now have a lovely evening. What is really hilarious is "the rest of the team is playing serious ball". The coven takes itself way too seriously. :-D "Serious ball" is an extremely relative term. Let's just say Barry is Daffy Duck serious and you are Gomer Pyle serious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAA2Unb0B4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAA2Unb0B4 Guess that makes Ann Roseanne Roseanna Danna serious. :-D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_ooIClNoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_ooIClNoQ I'm cool with that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
On 02/25/2014 09:36 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
On 02/25/2014 06:52 AM, awoelflebater@... <mailto:awoelflebater@...>
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<mailto:turquoiseb@...> wrote:
*From:* "awoelflebater@..." <mailto:awoelflebater@...>
<mailto:awoelflebater@...>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<mailto:jr_esq@...> wrote:
Barry,
You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't
handle the infinite wonder of reality."
Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How
do you know what is reality?
John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness
and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he
attributes false characteristics to others in order to make
himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us
here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence
or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel
stupid and inadequate for doing so.
Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized
idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by
getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works
every time. :-)
Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do
is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized
things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-)
Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage
and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God*
seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and
how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as
a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the
lame get...uh...even lamer. :-)
Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around
*real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves.
People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone
challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some
G.K. Chesterton and lighten up.
P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following,"
have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps
to one of the cult followers here, except that
she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not,
and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl
who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen.
Just sayin'...
*/
/*
/Oh nonsense, silly. You aren't interesting, original or clever
enough for me to get reactive over. Most of what you say at FFL
is either pure fluff or so ill thought out that it is only worthy
of a passing dismissal. Because you are so out in left field
somewhere picking daisies when the rest of the team is playing
serious ball I only pay any attention to you because you are so
fun to pick apart. You are a really irresistible target but only
because you continue to stumble onto the shooting range. See you
soon, you are bound to keep posting similar hilarities - I would
predict you'll come up with at least two more today. Now have a
lovely evening.
/
/
/What is really hilarious is "/the rest of the team is playing
serious ball". /The coven takes itself way too seriously/. /:-D
"Serious ball" is an extremely relative term. Let's just say Barry
is Daffy Duck serious and you are Gomer Pyle serious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAA2Unb0B4
Guess that makes Ann Roseanne Roseanna Danna serious. :-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_ooIClNoQ
/
///
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On 02/25/2014 06:52 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote: From: "awoelflebater@..." mailto:awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works every time. :-) Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-) Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God* seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the lame get...uh...even lamer. :-) Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around *real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves. People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some G.K. Chesterton and lighten up. P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following," have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps to one of the cult followers here, except that she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not, and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen. Just sayin'... Oh nonsense, silly. You aren't interesting, original or clever enough for me to get reactive over. Most of what you say at FFL is either pure fluff or so ill thought out that it is only worthy of a passing dismissal. Because you are so out in left field somewhere picking daisies when the rest of the team is playing serious ball I only pay any attention to you because you are so fun to pick apart. You are a really irresistible target but only because you continue to stumble onto the shooting range. See you soon, you are bound to keep posting similar hilarities - I would predict you'll come up with at least two more today. Now have a lovely evening. What is really hilarious is "the rest of the team is playing serious ball". The coven takes itself way too seriously. :-D "Serious ball" is an extremely relative term. Let's just say Barry is Daffy Duck serious and you are Gomer Pyle serious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAA2Unb0B4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAA2Unb0B4
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
On 02/25/2014 06:52 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: *From:* "awoelflebater@..." *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works every time. :-) Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-) Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God* seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the lame get...uh...even lamer. :-) Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around *real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves. People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some G.K. Chesterton and lighten up. P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following," have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps to one of the cult followers here, except that she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not, and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen. Just sayin'... */ /* /Oh nonsense, silly. You aren't interesting, original or clever enough for me to get reactive over. Most of what you say at FFL is either pure fluff or so ill thought out that it is only worthy of a passing dismissal. Because you are so out in left field somewhere picking daisies when the rest of the team is playing serious ball I only pay any attention to you because you are so fun to pick apart. You are a really irresistible target but only because you continue to stumble onto the shooting range. See you soon, you are bound to keep posting similar hilarities - I would predict you'll come up with at least two more today. Now have a lovely evening. / / /What is really hilarious is "/the rest of the team is playing serious ball". /The coven takes itself way too seriously/. /:-D / ///
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
jr_esq, The reason I posted the link is that it took the position that the universe came from nothing, is essentially nothing. No idea of cosmic mind. I did not mention cosmic mind. I took the position for the post that there is no such thing. The question of how things came to be seems to break down into two general scenarios. The top down scenario or the bottom up scenario. In the first the universe somehow comes into existence as the result of being formed by an intelligence. In the bottom up scenario, the universe somehow comes into being by the unfolding of a few simple autonomous rules and axioms. Both scenarios have problems. Science tends to use the second scenario, that somehow, some random fluctuation results in creation of a small number of simple relationships and everything happens automatically from there. Religious thought seems to favour the top down scenario, which seems to parallel the way we view our own human creativity. This anthropomorphic view through time gets abstracted until you eventually get conceptions like that in classic theism, conceptions like an abstract god or cosmic mind etc., and the anthropomorphic origins are forgotten. The basic fact is there is the experience of the universe (at least this is what this frail body of mine results in - perhaps you are a non-conscious robot). Why that experience happens is an interesting question, and perhaps in spite of all our pondering and experimentation on it, maybe there is no answer at all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Xeno, You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical coherency." I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the mind.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure. And thanks for your analysis of Barry earlier. I, fortunately, wouldn't know about abuse as I have had an incredibly blessed life filled with loving, caring people. But if you are any example of someone who has moved past their past, moved beyond the pain of their upbringing, then Barry needs to pay attention. You seem like one of the most balanced, interesting and kind people here at FFL. Well done, Doc. Barry needs to take notes and inspiration from your very full and happy and diverse life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: From: "awoelflebater@..." To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works every time. :-) Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-) Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God* seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the lame get...uh...even lamer. :-) Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around *real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves. People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some G.K. Chesterton and lighten up. P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following," have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps to one of the cult followers here, except that she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not, and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen. Just sayin'... Oh nonsense, silly. You aren't interesting, original or clever enough for me to get reactive over. Most of what you say at FFL is either pure fluff or so ill thought out that it is only worthy of a passing dismissal. Because you are so out in left field somewhere picking daisies when the rest of the team is playing serious ball I only pay any attention to you because you are so fun to pick apart. You are a really irresistible target but only because you continue to stumble onto the shooting range. See you soon, you are bound to keep posting similar hilarities - I would predict you'll come up with at least two more today. Now have a lovely evening.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
It would be much better if your words didn't have such a hollow ring to them. Why so lonely and angry? FYI, those who have suffered emotional abuse often have a difficult time sustaining personal and social relationships. As I said to Ann earlier, about you, no one really wants to be an asshole all the time. That still holds, I am sure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:40 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Nonsense. Barry merely says generalized things about generalized idiots, and then allows *them* to "self-identify" *as* idiots by getting their buttons pushed and becoming totally reactive. Works every time. :-) Why bother to say much about such people, when all you have to do is push their buttons and allow them to *prove* the generalized things you would have said? Do less, accomplish more. :-) Seriously, how could anyone take someone who flies into a rage and gets all defensive about such a tiny thing as *belief in God* seriously? It's like a demonstration of feeble-mindedness, and how much the "defender of God" really uses the concept of God as a crutch. Insult the crutch by denying its existence, and the lame get...uh...even lamer. :-) Hint to the "God defenders" here -- spend a little time around *real* believers, as opposed to poseurs such as yourselves. People with real faith never get angry and reactive when someone challenges it. Only people with faux faith do that. Read some G.K. Chesterton and lighten up. P.S. for Bhairitu: If you're still following "The Following," have you noticed how much like FFL it is? Emma pretty much maps to one of the cult followers here, except that she's...uh...attractive and her FFL counterpart is decidedly not, and Lily maps almost perfectly to Ann -- spoiled little rich girl who reacts to rejection by becoming a vindictive drama queen. Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality? John, Barry loves to seek out in others what he deems is weakness and feeble-mindedness. If he can'f find such a thing he attributes false characteristics to others in order to make himself feel superior. He is banking on the fact that most of us here might just believe in God or other such supreme intelligence or entity. He then proceeds to try and make these people feel stupid and inadequate for doing so. Of course, in haste to find a way to "dismiss" others he misses the complexity and nuance of the whole thing. He is like this guy who claims he has no interest in being a part of a large and convivial gathering so spends his time by himself in his basement all the while telling himself all the people at the party are stupid for having a good time at the party. As far as Barry, of all people, to claim he understands "the infinite wonder of reality" is simply preposterous. Anyone who writes what he does, acts in the way that he does and believes the things he supposedly believes in can not possibly understand the "wonder" let alone "reality".
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Barry, You said: "My version is: "God is a crutch for those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." Your statement appears to say that you know what reality is. How do you know what is reality?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Xeno, You said: "The following link is to a page where the attempt is made to explain, or at least illuminate the idea of creation from 'nothing' without a god. I debate the sentence 'It takes a Knower to conceive of space and time'. It takes a mind to conceive of space and time. A 'knower' might be conceived of as being required for experience (i.e. consciousness). But as to whether this consciousness is separate from or identical with what is experienced depends on whatever that perceptual quality of experience is. If the latter, there is no Knower, only the experience. The more integrated one's experience is, the less room there is for a knower, or something that *has* the experience, the experience simply exists, and that is that. The mind conceives space and time, the consciousness makes that an experience, in some mysterious way, but separating out these things as various facets creates problems of logical coherency." I can accept the fact that the Cosmic Mind conceives of space and time. If that is so, then you should be disagreeing with the article you attached which basically says the universe came from nothing. At this time, I don't want to debate the difference between the knower and the mind.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Bhairitu, You said: "But then their is Jr's interest in finding other humanoid species to communicate with. What about learning to communicate with the other intelligent species we have right here on earth? We know that dolphins and whales are very intelligent and I don't think they are our inferiors just because they don't build tall buildings or use computers (though given a proper interface they might). And then there was the news item the other day that dogs brains are wired like human brains. Or that cats see humans as just bigger cats. IOW, we are just beginning to understand our fellow creatures." I'm not saying that animals like dolphins and whales are inferior or superior than humans. However, I can accept that they do have a form of consciousness. But they are not human consciousness. If you can prove that they know that they know, then you should publish a scientific paper to disclose your findings. Then you'll have to make logical rebuttals to other scientists who may have problems with your methodologies and conclusions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Jedi, If you're a TMer you'll understand transcendental consciousness can be achieved and experienced by anyone. And that one can experience TC along with the waking, dreaming and sleeping consciousness. If you read the Shiva Sutras, the slokas are also talking about the same experiences that is taught by MMY. So, TC is the same as samadhi. This is the difference that TM teaches as compared to the other Indian gurus or even books that you've read. As far as spacial dimensions are concerned, it is my own theory that the various states of consciousness are really the extended higher dimensions from the basic space-time continuum. I've talked about this idea several times in this forum. This is why I believe the scientists at CERN are probably NOT going to discover any higher dimensions with their sophisticated giant machines in Switzerland.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
One more time: Classical theists do not believe in God as "a being," good or bad. They believe in God as Beingness Itself. Could you elaborate on that please? "Classical theists say that God wills the good of the creatures. Human beings, however, do not always will their own good, or the good of other people. In those cases, on the classical view, God brings it about that people freely decide not to will the good of others. This makes God responsible for evil and suffering in a way that contradicts divine goodness. On the classical view, for example, the crimes that disfigure human history are the fault of human beings, but they are also God's doing." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ "Classical theists believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being. The problem is that while their standard arguments (cosmological, design etc.) may establish the existence of a creator God, they do nothing to establish that the creator is all-good. Hence they must do something more to show that the creator is all-good. This brings the EGC challenge into play since it suggests that the case for an Evil God is just as strong as the case for a Good God. This is where things get interesting. When confronted with the idea of an Evil God, most classical theists will be inclined to simply dismiss it as being absurd. But if all other arguments fail to support the existence of a Good God, and if the evidential problem of good is just as strong as the evidential problem of evil, shouldn’t they then accept that idea of a Good God is absurd too" http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-can-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.htmlhttp://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-c http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-c an-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.html > -- authfriend wrote: > > Not classical theists. wrote: Nature throws a wide range of mutations into the environment. Many fail to make it, in the process, but some always survive. This gives evolution the versatility and the flexibility to deal with the capricious and erratic, fluctuations in the environment. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit. More than 99% percent of species that ever existed on earth are already extinct. The extinction rate is so high that many evolutionary biologists state that extinction is a natural process in evolution. In that sense, evolution and nature's systems are anti-fragile. You spray DDT, nature immediately spawns the next Gen mosquitos resistant to DDT. You treat an infection with penicillin, and nature immediately spawns the next Gen bacteria resistant to penicillin. > --- salyavin mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > You can't say that it won't happen again but it was a fluke on this planet, but then with so many bacteria sliming about maybe it was bound to happen sooner or later? But it wasn't necessary, there is no grand plan unless it's one that does its best not to look like one! > > This holographic idea that John has got fixed on doesn't explain how it looks like undirected genetic meandering. Think how many hominid types there have been, they dig up a new one each week, but we are the only survivors with just a slight edge over the Neanderthals. If the ice age were still in full flow would they be the majority humans still? Evolution is as much luck as superiority, being in the right place at the right time goes a long way to survival. > > > Share wrote: > > > > John, I wish I could find a post from salyavin somewhat recently. It had to do with how life started, the combining of something with something else and it was a random happening, will never happen again kind of thing. Anyway, it speaks to this point about life and its pure randomness. But I also like the holographic idea. > > > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:14 PM, "jr_esq@..." wrote: > > > > > > Share, > > > > > > I was thinking along the lines of life, including the existence of human beings, as a reflection of the abundance of life in the universe. If this is so, then what are the mechanisms for making this happen at such disparate places. Perhaps the holographic theory of the universe may be true. > > > Also, even if we can detect the existence of humanoids in these exoplanets, is it possible for us to communicate with them or even visit th
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Dude, can you press the message history button at the bottom of the reply box before you post or I won't know what post you are commenting on. But whatever it was, making arguments against a theory is fine, especially if you know something about it or know where someone else has gone wrong about it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Salyavin, You are making arguments against a theory. We'll find the true answer when the theory is proved correct or incorrect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
What you quoted from MMY contradicts all that I read about yoga and philosophy by other authors, some of them much older than MMY. In samadhi, you trancend everything including spatial dimensions. > --- John wrote: > > Jedi, > > How do you know that you're saying is correct and that MMY is wrong? Who is > the source of your information? > > And, no, I'm not the old do.rflex.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Jedi, How do you know that you're saying is correct and that MMY is wrong? Who is the source of your information? And, no, I'm not the old do.rflx.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Could you elaborate on that please? "Classical theists say that God wills the good of the creatures. Human beings, however, do not always will their own good, or the good of other people. In those cases, on the classical view, God brings it about that people freely decide not to will the good of others. This makes God responsible for evil and suffering in a way that contradicts divine goodness. On the classical view, for example, the crimes that disfigure human history are the fault of human beings, but they are also God's doing." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ "Classical theists believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being. The problem is that while their standard arguments (cosmological, design etc.) may establish the existence of a creator God, they do nothing to establish that the creator is all-good. Hence they must do something more to show that the creator is all-good. This brings the EGC challenge into play since it suggests that the case for an Evil God is just as strong as the case for a Good God. This is where things get interesting. When confronted with the idea of an Evil God, most classical theists will be inclined to simply dismiss it as being absurd. But if all other arguments fail to support the existence of a Good God, and if the evidential problem of good is just as strong as the evidential problem of evil, shouldn’t they then accept that idea of a Good God is absurd too" http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-c an-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.html http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-can-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.html > -- authfriend wrote: > > Not classical theists. wrote: Nature throws a wide range of mutations into the environment. Many fail to make it, in the process, but some always survive. This gives evolution the versatility and the flexibility to deal with the capricious and erratic, fluctuations in the environment. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit. More than 99% percent of species that ever existed on earth are already extinct. The extinction rate is so high that many evolutionary biologists state that extinction is a natural process in evolution. In that sense, evolution and nature's systems are anti-fragile. You spray DDT, nature immediately spawns the next Gen mosquitos resistant to DDT. You treat an infection with penicillin, and nature immediately spawns the next Gen bacteria resistant to penicillin. > --- salyavin wrote: > > You can't say that it won't happen again but it was a fluke on this planet, but then with so many bacteria sliming about maybe it was bound to happen sooner or later? But it wasn't necessary, there is no grand plan unless it's one that does its best not to look like one! > > This holographic idea that John has got fixed on doesn't explain how it looks like undirected genetic meandering. Think how many hominid types there have been, they dig up a new one each week, but we are the only survivors with just a slight edge over the Neanderthals. If the ice age were still in full flow would they be the majority humans still? Evolution is as much luck as superiority, being in the right place at the right time goes a long way to survival. > > > Share wrote: > > > > John, I wish I could find a post from salyavin somewhat recently. It had to do with how life started, the combining of something with something else and it was a random happening, will never happen again kind of thing. Anyway, it speaks to this point about life and its pure randomness. But I also like the holographic idea. > > > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:14 PM, "jr_esq@..." wrote: > > > > > > Share, > > > > > > I was thinking along the lines of life, including the existence of human beings, as a reflection of the abundance of life in the universe. If this is so, then what are the mechanisms for making this happen at such disparate places. Perhaps the holographic theory of the universe may be true. > > > Also, even if we can detect the existence of humanoids in these exoplanets, is it possible for us to communicate with them or even visit their worlds? At this time, our technology is not advanced enough to make this happen. > > >
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Salyavin, You are making arguments against a theory. We'll find the true answer when the theory is proved correct or incorrect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Could you cite some examples? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Not classical theists. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
I am talking about what are commonly known as classical theists, the mainstream theologians from Aristotle to very recent times. You are talking about the impersonalistic theists. > --- authfriend wrote: > > Actually, classical theists (about the only theologians who were around "of > old") would have been wowed by the latest cosmological knowledge, but they > wouldn't have felt their theism to be the least bit threatened by it. > > Salyavin wrote: > > The total perspective vortex that cosmology has turned into would have > > shocked the theists of old utterly rigid, which is why I feel honoured to > > be around now when all this stuff is being discovered, it's so much better > > for being just what it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
You are talking about the impersonalistic theists. > --- authfriend wrote: > > Actually, classical theists (about the only theologians who were around "of > old") would have been wowed by the latest cosmological knowledge, but they > wouldn't have felt their theism to be the least bit threatened by it. > > Salyavin wrote: > > The total perspective vortex that cosmology has turned into would have > > shocked the theists of old utterly rigid, which is why I feel honoured to > > be around now when all this stuff is being discovered, it's so much better > > for being just what it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Not classical theists. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
Nature throws a wide range of mutations into the environment. Many fail to make it, in the process, but some always survive. This gives evolution the versatility and the flexibility to deal with the capricious and erratic, fluctuations in the environment. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit. More than 99% percent of species that ever existed on earth are already extinct. The extinction rate is so high that many evolutionary biologists state that extinction is a natural process in evolution. In that sense, evolution and nature's systems are anti-fragile. You spray DDT, nature immediately spawns the next Gen mosquitos resistant to DDT. You treat an infection with penicillin, and nature immediately spawns the next Gen bacteria resistant to penicillin. > --- salyavin wrote: > > You can't say that it won't happen again but it was a fluke on this planet, > but then with so many bacteria sliming about maybe it was bound to happen > sooner or later? But it wasn't necessary, there is no grand plan unless it's > one that does its best not to look like one! > > This holographic idea that John has got fixed on doesn't explain how it > looks like undirected genetic meandering. Think how many hominid types there > have been, they dig up a new one each week, but we are the only survivors > with just a slight edge over the Neanderthals. If the ice age were still in > full flow would they be the majority humans still? Evolution is as much luck > as superiority, being in the right place at the right time goes a long way > to survival. > > > Share wrote: > > > > John, I wish I could find a post from salyavin somewhat recently. It had > > to do with how life started, the combining of something with something > > else and it was a random happening, will never happen again kind of thing. > > Anyway, it speaks to this point about life and its pure randomness. But I > > also like the holographic idea. > > > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:14 PM, "jr_esq@..." wrote: > > > > > > Share, > > > > > > I was thinking along the lines of life, including the existence of human > > > beings, as a reflection of the abundance of life in the universe. If > > > this is so, then what are the mechanisms for making this happen at such > > > disparate places. Perhaps the holographic theory of the universe may be > > > true. > > > Also, even if we can detect the existence of humanoids in these exoplanets, is it possible for us to communicate with them or even visit their worlds? At this time, our technology is not advanced enough to make this happen. > > >
[FairfieldLife] RE: Alien Earths Could be Weird
> --- turquoiseb wrote: > > I completely agree. I feel completely *inspired* by the randomness of it > all, and the fact that it all evolved on its own into as fun a mystery as it > did. > > I honestly don't "get" those who seem to live for the fantasy that they > "understand" the mystery, or that they've "figured it out." Pure unicorn > crap, IMO. They don't have any more of a clue than anyone else on this planet > ever has, or will ever have. They just like to believe they have because it > makes them feel important and keeps their existential angst at bay. > > But that's the kicker that I really don't understand. WHY would anyone want > to be "important?" What about the grand mystery that is everyday life is "not > enough" for them? All of their attempts to make life seem like "more" seem to > *diminish* the wonder, not celebrate it. Go figure. > The right word is marvel. > Especially the idea that all of this was "designed" or "planned" by > someone/something that is wise and all-knowing and benevolent? Give me a > fuckin' break. If the universe we see around us on planet Earth was designed > by someone/something, God is either a total incompetent or a sadist or both. > > I always liked the old counterculture witticism from the 60s: "Reality is a > crutch for those who can't handle drugs." My version is: "God is a crutch for > those who can't handle the infinite wonder of reality." :-) > > > From: salyavin808 > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:16 AM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Alien Earths Could be Weird > > Yes, I love the idea that we are insignificant specks that won't even be noticed by of the rest of the universe. Life on Earth will be a light that flared briefly before returning to darkness, the second law of thermodynamics in all its sinister and inevitable glory. > > > > And it makes it all seem so much more precious to me that we seem to have > > got here self propelled and without any interference from gods or aliens, > > I get a sense of wonder that is probably the same as everyone elses but > > don't like ascribing it to whatever without good reason The total > > perspective vortex that cosmology has turned into would have shocked the > > theists of old utterly rigid, which is why I feel honoured to be around > > now when all this stuff is being discovered, it's so much better for being > > just what it is. > > > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > > > > Exactly where the people who prefer to believe in God and Woo Woo never > > > want to go. > > > > > > What I've never understood is why so many people react so strongly to > > > being considered what they are -- insignificant and ordinary. Seems to > > > me that's the very essence of enlightenment, if it exists. > > > > From: salyavin808 > > > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:15 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Alien Earths Could be Weird > > > > Where does the theory get us? It gets us to reality. > > > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > > > You are placing too much value on the human species. We are > > > > > probably just a blip in Earth's history. A million years from now > > > > > something else maybe better will have taken our place. They may only > > > > > find fossils of our existence. So it goes. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sure, and where does this theory get us?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Alien Earths Could be Weird
> --- John wrote: > > Bhairitu, > > IMO, human beings already have the physiology to inherit the earth, if not > the universe. The key to this inheritance is the ability to gain samadhi > and to maintain it at the various lower states of consciousness. A sloka in > the Shiva sutras confirms this statement as well as the statements of MMY. > > This is the reason why MMY stated that TMers can gain the support of Nature > in all their activities. IMO, he's saying that, in scientific terms, the > human being who is able to function at the highest spacial dimension can > attain an automatic command of Nature's operations. As such, whatever he or > she wishes and wants come true. IOW, the highest spacial dimension is > equivalent to the highest state of consciousness. > What MMY has told you is nonsense. Even the highest spatial dimension is not the highest state of consciousness, but just an illusion. Enlightenment is trancending into samadhi which is dimensionless. I bet emptybill knows more than MMY. BTW, are you the old do.rflex??
