Pinnacle of evolution: Existence comprehending itself. [trollville]
Offline every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.
Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.
Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.
Words are mankinds creations, agreed?
math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?
mankind is describing itself, yes?
and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps? Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label? a name?
in which language?
If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?
How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?
Will the next generations want to know? What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?
If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?
Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works? (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)
what's the pinnacle of evolution?
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't tell if you're on drugs, stupid or just fucking with us...
I'm not even sure what your point is, you make very little sense. I'm trying to tell you that Concepts, and Objects do not exist the same way. An Object is a shape. A thing is an Object that exists because it has a location. Am I talking over you here?
So, please, clearly, do tell us wtf you are on about, or wtf you are on.
This is what I think you are trying to say. We are more evolved then every other living thing. Our children have more life then we do. Nature is god... WTF?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline your rant
I haven't ranted on anything in this topic.
Feel free to post some links so I can get a better idea of what you're attempting here. It's not making any sense at the moment.
"I asked you to define what heat is"
No, you didn't. If you had, that's what you would have said. Instead you gave me two undefined subjective terms (heat & cold) to describe the state of a material (steel), and asked me to quantify those undefined subjective terms without bothering to list any useful information to be able to do so. That rendered your request as nonsensical. As in: it makes no sense/cannot be responded to.
You want the definition of heat?
heat [heet] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of a body perceived as having or generating a relatively high degree of warmth.
2.
the condition or quality of being hot: the heat of an oven.
3.
the degree of hotness; temperature: moderate heat.
continues...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline 4.
the sensation of warmth or hotness: unpleasant heat.
5.
a bodily temperature higher than normal: the heat of a fever; the feeling of heat caused by physical exertion.
"if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut that will hold a book and claim 'here's the answer'"
Clearly you neither understand English nor physics. We'll have to fix your English problems before we can discuss your physics problems.
Abuse
verb (used with object)
1.
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.
5.
Obsolete . to deceive or mislead.
Life is incapable of 'abusing' entropy, by the definition of abuse. Accelerate, or similar terms, are the only applicable term(s).
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can't tell if you're on drugs, stupid or just fucking with us...
i was wondering the same. I posted questions and few can comprehend how a dialogue should be held before frustration.
I'm not even sure what your point is, you make very little sense. I'm trying to tell you that Concepts, and Objects do not exist the same way. An Object is a shape. A thing is an Object that exists because it has a location. Am I talking over you here?
nah...
i saw your diversion. Do you want me to just ask you, if you wear a helmit when you walk?
So, please, clearly, do tell us wtf you are on about, or wtf you are on.
answer questions, state why........... ahhhh dahhh
This is what I think you are trying to say. We are more evolved then every other living thing.
Our children have more life then we do.
That is 2 stupids imposed to your credibility. I dont interact with changing peoples opinion, just because "we" can
Nature is god... WTF?
it simplifies it all. The 'god' that all theological dieties can be attributed to, are 'it' itself; existence itself.
All other flying tweeties and cool little spagetti monsters, are manmade (description). And in 99.999999999999% of them, the underlying reason of having that diety is the pursuit of 'life', which is ALL underwritten by you know who (mother nature, itself).
From being that 'alpha/omega' (beginning/ending) of everyone of every life you ever knew, heard of, or even possible, is 'within' existence itself/nature....... or it is 'manmade', a creation of someones mind.
not a life that you know of that is not 'within the alpha/omega' (anytime).
these grounding foundations are comprehensible when being honest. I could care less what people want to speculate of utter dimensions and black holes and the garbage before and after, right this very second.
My point of these threads, is that both the sciences (the paradigm of comprehending nature) and the theological beliefs, with combine with the philosophical comprehension of life (what the fuch we are), and be certain, the PARADIGM SHIFT will rehash all three, in one rational.
in simple terms, be prepared to have your whole understanding turned upside down.
and it will be easy, simply by being honest with yourself.
'welcome to the jungle'
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline Bishadi wrote:I haven't ranted on anything in this topic. Feel free to post some links so I can get a better idea of what you're attempting here. It's not making any sense at the moment. "I asked you to define what heat is" No, you didn't. If you had, that's what you would have said. Instead you gave me two undefined subjective terms (heat & cold) to describe the state of a material (steel), and asked me to quantify those undefined subjective terms without bothering to list any useful information to be able to do so. That rendered your request as nonsensical. As in: it makes no sense/cannot be responded to. You want the definition of heat?your rant
i apologize for expecting that each person knew where the errors of the current paradigm are.
http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html
there is the pub that did it.
in english
asking you to define the difference between a 'hot' and 'cold' pieces of iron was to see if you comprehended or ever did the actual work within physics.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline "if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut"
Life is incapable of 'abusing' entropy, by the definition of abuse. Accelerate, or similar terms, are the only applicable term(s).
is a living process, its own?
what is the process at the molecular level?
Is a fire consuming, sustaining its own 'procession' within a proper environment?
that aint a reductionary process, the fire is sustaining a 'longer' period.
so is your breathing for life (krebs cycle)
again, stop believing and just answer the questions and see the direct evidence.
when you are ready to get into the bohr anology of how every atom combining within any other element, must have a X, upon that mass to even raise an electron to another shell, then we can go to that level
but i want you to begin being directly honest with your self, first.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline asking you to define the difference between a 'hot' and 'cold' pieces of iron was to see if you comprehended or ever did the actual work within physics.
Ah but you didn't even do that. You asked for much more specific information than the simple difference between two objects with differing temperatures. You asked me to quantify the heat of two objects without any more information than that one was hotter than the other. That's like asking me to define x in x=y-z. Until or unless y and z are quantified, x remains a variable.
I'll look at your link now.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline is a living process, its own?
Ownership is a concept that does not appear to exist unless life enforces it. Does anything really own anything?
"what is the process at the molecular level?"
Mostly chemical.
"Is a fire consuming, sustaining its own 'procession' within a proper environment?"
A good question.
"that aint a reductionary process, the fire is sustaining a 'longer' period."
It is consuming the very material that sustains it, converting it into a material unsuitable for sustaining it.
"so is your breathing for life (krebs cycle)"
The oxygen I breathe is converted to gasses unsuitable for sustaining the process of breathing.
The rest of your post had nothing worth commenting on.
And now I'll read the link, unless I'm again compelled to write a response before I can get to it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'
the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.
I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life? Wouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?
they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.
Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it. My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life. They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have. They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life". Their longer life will be due to other factors.
Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me. Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.
Evolution is the path to variation --disparity, if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life.
what is 'more life'?
I'm not sure either. But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse. I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that. It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike. This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you. I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.
Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving. Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.
the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.
All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.
Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die. It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so. No intent involved. This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation. No intent. To cease existing may only mean that the combination of the genes that individual carries don't get into the next generation. Although their individual genes may be found in other individuals and it is possible that lost combination may re-align itself at some future point. I don't question the improbability of this.
The point you make of "the good live..." does not take into consideration any contingency and is also very subjective. Dinosaurs are a good example. Dinosaurs are good, possibly a asteroid did them in. (I like dinosaurs so they must be good)
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
- Login to post comments
Offline So, you're saying that you operate from some new, all encompassing paradigm. And are about to blow our feeble minds by combining the scientific paradigm, with the theological paradigm, and the philosophical paradigm? This paradigm shift will be fueled by rationality?
Then please enlighten us. I for one am interested. Please try to remain coherent and define your terms of you want to proceed rationally.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument.
I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented.
" Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. "
http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline If you would like to break down your argument in a one on one critical thinking led discussion, I would be more then happy to help you present it.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument. I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented. " Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. " http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm
of the steam engine era (2nd law to the paradigm/physics)
'h' is the constant to quantify energy but that potential difference is associated to its environment, just to exist
are you familiar with electrical theory, to the sense of broadcasting (ride the lighting) your voice. Could you design and make a wavelength do what you want it to do? What range of energy (see the spectrum) can you manipulate?
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline If you would like to break down your argument in a one on one critical thinking led discussion, I would be more then happy to help you present it.
that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.
It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system.
as stupid as it seems. That's it!
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline So, you're saying that you operate from some new, all encompassing paradigm. And are about to blow our feeble minds by combining the scientific paradigm, with the theological paradigm, and the philosophical paradigm? This paradigm shift will be fueled by rationality?
Then please enlighten us. I for one am interested. Please try to remain coherent and define your terms of you want to proceed rationally.
you hit it on the head.
i was a quack as a kid that liked math, science, etc... to the point of defining a potential difference itself. In application, i was jumping 386 processors, first generation and combined to write a random bouncing ball program. So from calculating the operation to the chip sets thru to design and building of the boards by 18, yes i was one of them 3 decades back.
Yes, i came across a mathematical concept to define the transition of mass (element), energy (light/em) and time. I wrote a paper on how the energy conveys across the synaptic junctions 30 yrs back and told the per se 'community' to go fuch themselves.
I retired a few years back (tried too), and wrote the basics and traveled to more university compuses, than perhaps any but mary jane on this conitnent and never signed a doc
but you should see what is happening all over the world since.
The paradigm change is based on comprehending the energy of nature, the light. For example: gravity itself is the entanglement caused by energy shared between mass, one wavelength at a time.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.
It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system.
as stupid as it seems. That's it!
Well, a few issues with this over simplification. First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable. Secondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy. The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline Bishadi wrote:a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'
the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.
I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life?
Wouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?
Bishadi wrote:
they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.
Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it. My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.
They are evolved lives from their previous and environment. A new shade, so to speak!
They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have.
They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life". Their longer life will be due to other factors.
Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me. Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.
Bishadi wrote:
Evolution is the path to variation --disparity, if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life.
what is 'more life'?
I'm not sure either. But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse. I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that.
perhaps 'more' capable than EVER before.... giggle giggle
and i bet they be better in the morrow, right?????
It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike.
did you do the wild thing and create (enable) life(s)? by choice, cause it ?
"i brought you into this world and i can take you out' (great quote)
This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you. I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.
ghonapsyphilherpalaids
what did that nasty STD evolve from?
Bishadi wrote:
Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving. Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.
we can nuke em.
Bishadi wrote:the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.
All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.
Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die.
as you just pointed out the evidence
It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so. No intent involved. This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation. No intent.
This is where the divide can be bridged. The energy itself is what is sustaining the process of the combining molecules to even be in motion. The energy is self sustaining by consuming what is provided in its environment.
The process is not just a macro consideration and that is why the majority do not comprehend evolution, the process, the physical mechanism or the life of the mass, itself
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline Bishadi wrote:that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.
It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system.
as stupid as it seems. That's it!
Well, a few issues with this over simplification. First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable.
who created them?
are them disciplines manmade? What do they provide to mankind?
now, can they combine?
Secondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy. The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.
the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.
for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works. Funniest conundrum on the earth.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline who created them?
are them disciplines manmade? What do they provide to mankind?
now, can they combine?
because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining
the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.
for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works. Funniest conundrum on the earth.
Dude - I can not follow you. You do not use complete sentences. And you can't spell. Is English a second language for you? Do you have some mental disability that interferes with your language functions? Seriously, how is anyone to get any sense out of --
"idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works"
Who is the idiot? Theists? Atheists? Science? Religion? Reductionary --- from Wiki,
In philosophy, reduction is the process by which one object, property, concept, theory, etc., is shown to be explicable in terms of another, lower level, entity.
NB: There is nothing about randomness in the definition of reduction. I'll go with life is a random process. How does dying make a coherence of how life works?
The rest of your post is equally incomprehensible.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ktulu wrote:Bishadi wrote:that the energy of the existing paradigm is incorrectly defined.
It is easy to combine all three disciplines, simply by observing em (light/see spectrum) as the 'energy' of a system.
as stupid as it seems. That's it!
Well, a few issues with this over simplification. First of all, the three disciplines are fundamentally incommensurable.
who created them?
are them disciplines manmade? What do they provide to mankind?
now, can they combine?
No, the irrelevant common element of originating from mankind, doesn't make incommesurable theories commensurable. You cannot compare apples and oranges simple because they're both fruit. That's a category mistake.
Quote:because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is definingSecondly, you need to elaborate on how nature (the system), is influenced by any discipline, in order for 'energy' to be a good analogy. The disciplines are our subjective interpretation of the system.the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.
for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works. Funniest conundrum on the earth.
I thought we agreed to stay coherent. Are you making this difficult on purpose? How is causality involved now?
Knowledge doesn't define causality, knowledge is sourced from the caused event. It doesn't define anything, it is an event recorded as a concept. It is something that happens after the fact, it may or may not pertain to causality. What epistemological principle are you referring to?
I can't even make sense of the next line. Are you saying that if we understand mass, it will change our understanding of nature? If so, I agree with you 100%, I will add that if we fundamentally understood a number of other great unknowns, like dark matter and dark energy, our paradigm would be shifted dramatically. What is your point though? Do you have this knowledge?
The example is completely irrelevant and only serves confuse your state of mind. My question to you would be... so what? let the idiot do what they want.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline I think I will let this simmer, trying to get anything coherent out of this is like pulling teeth. If you think you have some great evidence, present it for scrutiny. If not, talking in half sentences and fragmented concepts is loosing it's limited charm very quickly.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline Bishadi wrote:
who created them?
are them disciplines manmade? What do they provide to mankind?
now, can they combine?
because comprehending the causality is what knowledge is defining
the change to comprehend what the 'energy' (life) of mass is, completely changes the comprehension of reason to the phenomenon of nature.
for example: idiot believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works. Funniest conundrum on the earth.
Dude - I can not follow you. You do not use complete sentences.
I am 100% american, so cal beach bum!
I fixed it.
"Idiots believe a life is a reductionary (random) process but dying to make a coherance of how it works."
Who is the idiot?
I'll go with life is a random process.
was that inglich?
How does dying make a coherence of how life works?
'defines'
combining a group of concepts and often creating the words (math) to comprehensible form; words
the pursuit of knowledge is the combining of mankinds contributions to writings, that within a mind a 'coherance' of the evidence, can become a new.........'concept' (word) to define.
kind of cool aint it, dood?
The rest of your post is equally incomprehensible.
learn to articulate with human beings
screw the games
Can the combining of recorded knowledge bring a coherance of past experiences with present experiences?
Yes or No!
Are you on this fricken forum just to bust up a few idiots for holding bs as their beliefs?
well you gonna love being humbled just the same!
ie... a coherance of 'information'
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
- Login to post comments
Offline peto verum wrote:good jobBishadi wrote:a physicist might consider it the 'emergent property'
the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.
I'm not a physicist, bear with me, are you saying that the energy(light) of each and every atom(mass) that make up a living cell is cumulative with the total and end result causing life?
Then how come it isn't happening spontaneously in people's kitchen sink garbage disposal? I'll shat a brick if I see a baby <anything> squirming out of the drain.
Quote:see craig venterWouldn't it follow that if I added enough phospholipid, glycerides and carbohydrates to a petrie dish that I could, by inference, create life?Quote:yes they are. Each are the combined single cell and life (energy/wavelength) of their parent. Then during the development the environment will be/is different than the previous generations.
When Dr. Venter synthisizes a viable, biological organism please post. The alchemist of old had great plans too.
Bishadi wrote:
they are the evolved life of you and your spouse, within the environment, you raised them.
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it. My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.
Here I run into the word evolve used in a way that goes against how I think of it. My daughters lives are not changed from that which gave them life.
They are evolved lives from their previous and environment. A new shade, so to speak!
We must be using the same word in different context. Roses of a different color bred together produce roses. Place those seedlings in a more arid environment they may be stunted in growth but they are still roses. Return the seeds of the stunted roses back to where their grandparent grew and you will see that they display none of the stunted growth their parents displayed. Your use of evolve evokes the word "cope" and "adapt" in me.
They have neither more or less life (mass+energy : size) than I or my ex-spouse () have.
Unless you delivered my mail -- you dawg!
They are individuals that live and I don't deny that they may be better than me but not because they were endowed with a better evolved "life". Their longer life will be due to other factors.
Hopefully, no contigency happens that would cause my children to pre-decease me. Thinking about it is bad enough, realizing must be a pain worse than hell.
no.
Bishadi wrote:
Evolution is the path to variation --disparity, if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life.
what is 'more life'?
I'm not sure either. But to imply "life" evolves means that it changes; for better or worse. I take you to mean toward and ultimately more human self-aware consciousness, I may be wrong in that.
perhaps 'more' capable than EVER before.... giggle giggle
and i bet they be better in the morrow, right?????
Again, we are using the same word but applying a different meaning to it.
It is almost as if you are saying that more "life" will make humans godlike.
did you do the wild thing and create (enable) life(s)? by choice, cause it ?
"i brought you into this world and i can take you out' (great quote)
This is a challenge only in the sense that it is the way I'm perceiving you. I do believe that the progression of knowledge may lead us in that direction but not evolution.
ghonapsyphilherpalaids
what did that nasty STD evolve from?
Love - respect the sheep
Bishadi wrote:
Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
not certain of your meaning there
Consciousness and the degrees of it may make a species better suited to survive in their present situation but in no way does consciousness imply superiority in surviving. Fishes for example are more numerous than people, therefore more existing individuals may lead one to conclude that they must be better suited to surviving.
we can nuke em.
How does this reconcile "bad going extinct and good surviving." Besides, i have a feeling nuking the fishes won't be good for any hominids.
Bishadi wrote:the INTENT of the LIFE, instinctively is to survive.
All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.
Insects are not believed to have any intent, live or die.
as you just pointed out the evidence
If Dr Venter creates insect life in a petrie dish you won't care? I'd be amazed to say the least.
It may be said that these living organism only have offspring because they are programmed by DNA to do so. No intent involved. This is an evolutionary process that ensures that the genes get into the next generation. No intent.
This is where the divide can be bridged. The energy itself is what is sustaining the process of the combining molecules to even be in motion. The energy is self sustaining by consuming what is provided in its environment.
The process is not just a macro consideration and that is why the majority do not comprehend evolution, the process, the physical mechanism or the life of the mass, itself
Hmmmm, This is tough to address because it encompasses SO much. Without the "macro consideration" there is no sense in worrying about evolution. a single atom is not considered alive or living. You are talking smaller than the atom, from my non-physicist mind, but those smaller aspects derive more elements than what life on earth derived from. Even in those terms you are talking macro. All those elements and Carbon was the selected foundation for life. If this light energy is a "life" force in and of itself it seems that there should be Silicon based life forms.
Everyone pardon my unfamiliarity of addressing point by point. This quote thing is awkward to me. This is a messy looking post.
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
- Login to post comments
The pinnacle of evolution is the heat death of the universe.
I'll grant this is my opinion based on observation, but life appears to be entropy as a real-time effect. The single thing that all life has in common is that life increases entropy. It is likely that life is an inevitable consequence of entropy.
The 'pinnacle' then, would be the end stage of entropy. When evolution can no longer function as a process, and all forces are equal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Dogs! Let's face it, they have it made.
Evolution isn't linear, as in progression. Very anthropocentric thinking. Generally speaking, dinosaurs were the "pinnacle" of evolution 260 million years ago and then something happened that made them fall off the apex allowing mammals to capture the crown. Could happen again with mammals giving the crown back to reptiles or fishes. I have a hard time with the "progressive" model of evolution. Homo Sapiens appear to be wearing the crown -at the moment- but there is no guarantee that we can maintain it, considering the impact we are having on a finite planet.
I hope I'm contributing and not antagonizing here.
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
Human words are mankinds creations.
But many animals have their own words.
Rhesus monkeys have certain calls for different types of predators, so they can be considered words.
Also dolphins have language which scientists are still trying to decipher.
They have determined that they have names for each other and it has even been witnessed two dolphins talking about a third dolphin that was not present.
Ants are pretty successful as are termites and krill. By biomass they could very well win out over humans. But bacteria are clear winners, though these are groups of species not just one single species in any one group.
If humans establish a self-sufficient colony on Mars I concede that us Humans are the top of the heap of all lifeforms we know about. Not till then, though.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
If an organism can produce grandchildren, it is the "pinnacle" of evolution.
Evolution does not have direction - there is no "up" or "down", no best, no pinnacle. Humans are a scruffly lot, busily pooing in our own back yards. We won't last long at the rate we are going. Organisms that can not move out of their waste or can not control their waste for the size of their environment do not live to reproduce.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
quantify it!
what is the heat of a subject matter of mass? (perhaps see lavoisier to get the starting point)
postulate:
Life: abuses entropy
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
here's a funny concept to think on. Man created the very beast that does almost exactly what many believe god wants from them; reliance.
ie... upon cell division, the initial life, is still living but evolved from before.
it's OK...
i like fair questions and appreciate being questioned. I learn from others, everyday!
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
let me know when the monkeys can articulate in a literary fashion as they record their experiencing of life.
I dont question the eventual capability!
But as far as mankind, defining itself, being a literal truth, that it is nature's evolved life, that is doing the actual describing, with the very words, it, itself, created.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
at its stage in life, agreed.
ie... the skin cells can only reproduce so many times
this is twice that people have mentioned evolution as a thing.
Darwin, documented the evidence to render a pattern, he did not nor have the capability to render the 'process' to the molecular level. That chapter of evolution is what 'this' generation is doing.
but we already have sent 'life' into the beyond, not just to mars.
ie... we are the lives that can observe your points and actually make a difference, by choice.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
Good post jc.
As it's been pointed out, every living thing is as evolved as a human. You are not more evolved then a monkey or a snake. As for the rest of the post, one of us needs more, or less drugs for our coherence to be equated.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
if you say so.
let me know when you need a visectomy so we can have monkey do the work for you.
you may not be more capable but i know i am
Am i do believe that you are religious and you assume that mankind is not capable?
Perhaps sit a bit and learn, cuz i will rip your integrity apart if you want to play the rude game.
If this forum is on 'rational' then be certain, what many believe whether it be of science, religion and philosophical, there is always more to learn, until that 'pinnacle' is reached on comprehending the processes of nature, then all else does apply to the facts.
what i mean is that once the principles of nature (all that exists) are established to define nature (existence itself), then from that point forward, existence itself can be defined.
you just so happened to have the name holder on this forum
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
Hello nature's priest,
. I would love to have a discussion with you.
Exist = Object + Location
Principles = concept
Concept != object.
Principles are subjective concepts that exist relative to us. They don't exist like your poop exists. Your poop is an object. If you doubt me then feel free to make a nice little ball out of your concept, and throw it at my head. I will do the same with your poop.
I would love for you to rip my dignity apart, I await on the edge of my seat.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I must not be understanding how you are using the word life. My children do not have more life than me. That is not to say that they haven't undergone variation from me (obvious in that the are both female while I am male, they blond and blue eyes while I......well...gray and brown eyed). That variation makes them individuals but doesn't really give them more life. Evolution is the path to variation --disparity, if you like Stephen Jay Gould , not more Life. Consciousness could be said of many animals but i don't see the difference in the claim to life.
I find it interesting that evolution is thought to progress from bad to best.
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
Your question is simultaneously nonsensical and irrelevant to my comments. Not sure what you're looking for.
"Life: abuses entropy"
No. Life accelerates entropy.
"If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?"
Just because life accelerates entropy does not mean existence only operates in a certain way.
Edit:
Didn't realise that last bit was your sig (page didn't fully load properly). Feel free to ignore it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
the 'life' of mass is the energy (light) upon that mass.
it aint your experience as when you sleep, you would be considered dead, if that be the case
ie... i consider sleeping, like practicing death (nothing to fear, no other place to go)
they are you, living into the next generation, just like you are the 'life' of the ggggggrand parents and all the lineages since the beginning of time. ie... if there was a break in the chain, you wouldnt be here.
YOU are alive in your procreations, literally!
if you did 'good' they should live, well beyond you.
if not, you failed
ie... teach them that when they procreate, they are giving you and your whole lineage another generation to survive.
ps.... please be sure to point out, any line item that i am misrepresenting FACTS!
what is 'more life'?
if you watered a tree today, giving of your life (energy) to assist that life in living longer, are you or are you not, literally a part of that trees living history? It's longevity of life?
and you can do THAT, by choice
not certain of your meaning there
All life has the same INTENT; to live.
the good live, the other fail to extinctions.
For example: on this forum, theology will probably not survive within this environment.
The reason few comprehend these concepts in this fashion is most do not consider themselves a living mass (rock that can roll, by choice).
put yourself into the application of the honest inquiry of 'what is the life of mass' (of all existence itself)?
When you begin to see yourself as being a part of existence/nature/the process, then you might see the point of view.
Idiots believe mankind is separate from the garden (nature) and that the life of mankind is something supernatural.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
your rant is conforming to the idiots of 'walking the planck' (current paradigm of an expanding (big bang) model of representing the universe.
I know EXACTLY where the error is and how to assist you in opening your eyes.
if you want to learn and get past the stupidity posting, then do the homework.
otherwise, you will just get slapped around
sorry,
you got the stupid subjecting your mind to making stupid comments.
I asked you to define what heat is, so you can understand that 'hot' dont go to 'cold' by an 'S'
if you dont comprehend the physics, nature and that life abuses the sheet out of entropy it is because you dont actually do the work and perhaps more like a religious wingnut that will hold a book and claim 'here's the answer'
that question is a pure inquiry to any seeking mind, that if a mind can ascertain that nature (the whole of the universe) does actually have a set of rules, laws, principles and pattern that mankind can define, then in defining it will require the math as well to complete the theorem of how nature (existence itself) operates, then it will be like 'naming' existence itself.
for example: einstein tried to define energy (e=mc2) and the whole of the sciences is 'seeking' to understand
what's 'the name to know'?
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?
a scientist could be considered natures priest
if you just articulated the concept of the either/or, then it does exist
again, here we go with idiots forgetting to impose themselves to being relevant.
kind of like the pukes who hold entropy as the random reductions, then i ask what poop did the idiot randomly eat today?
Better still, when i put on a coat, because i am cold, which law am "I" breaking?
be honest or not!
I would love for you to rip my dignity apart, I await on the edge of my seat.
If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?