I think the level of sophistication of our biological universe precludes an accidental collusion of elements to form life. Taken further, I also feel that awareness is a lot more than an accident of chemistry and random mutation.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 02-26-2018).]
This is exactly why I put it in small print, and why I compared it to the thought experiment of living in a simulation. Let's say I decide we are living in a simulation (I don't actually think this). Okay, what do I then do with that information? It's useless. So I buy in to the simulated world and live exactly the same way. Same with this: I think all rights are just social constructs. Okay, now what? Nothing is right, nothing is wrong? I'm just a collection of elements--so I don't matter? No, I consciously buy in to the social contract and concept of inalienable rights and live exactly the same way, because that brings the most value to me and my life.
You seem to be saying it doesn't matter.
The problem with that is the social contract is just that, an agreement.
Like I said "Its kind of where the rubber meets the road with belief systems. When they are tested." "we humans -set up flawed systems and get enough people to go along with them that we forget about reality over generations."
Think it matters if no one thinks there is an actual reason for something?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-26-2018).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: I think the level of sophistication of our biological universe precludes an accidental collusion of elements to form life. Taken further, I also feel that awareness is a lot more than an accident of chemistry and random mutation.
I think that humans, with everything that we could loosely describe as "human brain power", are the least random phenomenon that is known to us, above everything else that has been described to us as part of the cosmos or entire observable universe, from the unfathomably small--the subatomic scale--to the unfathomably large--the super-galactic scale.
But I don't believe that forces us to any acceptance of the idea that we are the direct products of any superhuman intelligence or God.
I believe in abiogenesis, which is the emergence of life from non-living chemicals.
If we had all the evidence--and we don't, because so much of it has been wiped from current existence by the processes of new species evolving and ancestor species going extinct--we could, in theory, trace our evolution all the way back to some very simple life forms that are not even as complex or as intricate as the most "elemental" living organisms that are known to us today. These organisms were the first life to evolve on earth. They were more primitive than any single cell of the human body. It wasn't DNA-based life. Perhaps not even RNA-based life. "Metabolism First." Freeman Dyson.
Central to the definition of any living organism is the possibility of evolution. So life evolved, developing in complexity from its most primitive forms. But there was no guiding hand, no intelligent designer, no God that was directly orchestrating the process.
Not only did life evolve, but it evolved to evolve, because the more capable of evolving, the more likely the process of speciation: one species giving rise to a new species by the process of evolution. The more capable of evolution, the more likely the process of speciation persists, overcoming any and all changes in the environment. "Survival of the Fittest."
That, I believe, is "our story."
Here's a "read", if anyone wants some of Freeman Dyson:
Central to the definition of any living organism is the possibility of evolution. So life evolved, developing in complexity from its most primitive forms.
Technically not a living organism, but a genetic family of organisms... over generations, assuming most of the mutations were not detrimental and thus the genetic family line dies off, reducing the pool size. Right?
Gaining more and more complexity, from non living to living. Less becoming more, a gene pool growing larger, becoming more sophisticated, from primitive to complex? Devoloping male and female, developing sight, hearing, healing, reproduction, consciousness?
A question arises...... Modern science has observed that mutation is almost always detrimental to the organism. Very few instances are documented to be beneficial. Are we to believe that early mutation was more often beneficial than today? If so, what caused the ratio change? If not, how did mutation, a process that is almost always non beneficial, achieve such staggeringly complex and highly evolved biosystems, and organisms?
Random mutations of genes are not the only evolutionary mechanism or process known to science.
There are other ways that organisms, or the DNA within organisms, has evolved.
Horizontal gene transfers, which means that one species incorporated segments of DNA from another species into its own DNA.
Mitochondria, which are kind of like the batteries or power generators inside of human cells. The mitochondria evolved as independent organisms and then, at a later stage of evolution, were incorporated--engulfed, I would say--by another organism, giving rise to single cell organisms with internalized mitochondria. So, a step up in the complexity or structural organization of life.
I am guilty of polluting this thread with critiques of the belief systems of some respondents, which was not my intent when starting this thread. I apologize for that, but will leave my posts intact, and request other commenters to refrain from critiques or arguments. I intended this thread to serve as a knowledge source or 'window' that we could share in an effort to understand each other and to communicate better.
Originally posted by olejoedad: I am studied in biology, microbiology and biological chemistry. Just that easy to form our biosphere, hey?
I didn't describe it as "Easy." I think, according to what I see and hear, that the prevailing idea is that life on Earth evolved in a very primitive form, not long after the Earth itself was formed. Life on Earth was very primitive for the first 3 or 3.5 billion years. Evolving very slowly. Life on Earth may have gone completely extinct and then started up again. A second episode of abiogenesis. Two or even more such episodes, until the species evolved that gave rise to the evolutionary lineage that finally gave rise to modern humans.
Just about 540 million years ago, this little fellow--measuring only a single millimeter, if that--had evolved. And that was on the evolutionary lineage that finally produced "us."
Originally posted by olejoedad: I am guilty of polluting this thread with critiques of the belief systems of some respondents, which was not my intent when starting this thread. I apologize for that, but will leave my posts intact, and request other commenters to refrain from critiques or arguments.
There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. And it's OK to disagree with someone... as long as you're not a jerk about it. Seems to me like you've been pretty polite so far.
I am guilty of polluting this thread with critiques of the belief systems of some respondents, which was not my intent when starting this thread. I apologize for that, but will leave my posts intact, and request other commenters to refrain from critiques or arguments. I intended this thread to serve as a knowledge source or 'window' that we could share in an effort to understand each other and to communicate better.
I don't think there is any "guilt" to be found in critiquing or questioning anyone's stated beliefs, particularly in a forum like this that innately invites it.
Despite irresponsible notions to "never discriminate in any way", the objective fact is that not all "belief systems" are equally valid. Many of them are ill-considered and foolish. Some of them are even reprehensible or evil.
If someone cannot, or will not, defend their "beliefs" in open, rational discussion, especially without becoming hostile or name calling, then it is appropriate to question their validity and sincerity. Simply saying "That's what I believe and if you don't agree then go f**k yourself" isn't a philosophical stance, it's a juvenile rant and should be treated as such. If your "beliefs" won't withstand even casual scrutiny or discussion then perhaps it's time for some serious reevaluation on your part.
You are almost never going to open a topic on an internet forum such as spiritual or political beliefs without it invariably devolving into heated emotions and wounded fragile egos.
The simple fact is that not all the participants in a forum like this are experienced in, or capable of, direct, vigorous, unemotional debate.
.................................................
“You can never be really sure of how much you believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life or death to you.” ― C.S. Lewis
“Welcome those who question your beliefs, for it is an opportunity to reinforce them. If your beliefs are strong, the words of others can't change or damage them.” ― Stewart Stafford
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-27-2018).]
I think the level of sophistication of our biological universe precludes an accidental collusion of elements to form life. Taken further, I also feel that awareness is a lot more than an accident of chemistry and random mutation.
Relatively infinite time and infinite space give a lot of room for incredible accidents.
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
You seem to be saying it doesn't matter.
The problem with that is the social contract is just that, an agreement.
Like I said "Its kind of where the rubber meets the road with belief systems. When they are tested." "we humans -set up flawed systems and get enough people to go along with them that we forget about reality over generations."
Think it matters if no one thinks there is an actual reason for something?
I do think it matters, and that's where I think religion has a powerful and necessary place in society. I think many people do need that reason.
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. And it's OK to disagree with someone... as long as you're not a jerk about it. Seems to me like you've been pretty polite so far.
At least, that's my opinion.
I agree! Pleasant discussion is always... pleasant
I am guilty of polluting this thread with critiques of the belief systems of some respondents, which was not my intent when starting this thread. I apologize for that, but will leave my posts intact, and request other commenters to refrain from critiques or arguments. I intended this thread to serve as a knowledge source or 'window' that we could share in an effort to understand each other and to communicate better.
I believe I will visit this small commercial establishment in the not too distant future.
SPOILER ALERT It's not far away from where I reside. I don't think it has any real connection to Fiero, the car, but I would be surprised if noone who works there is not at least aware of Fiero, the car. They have a website that reveals that their Fiero Caffe sign is well lit at night. Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-27-2018).]
xistentialism is not a philosophy, but a mood embracing a number of disparate philosophies; the differences among them are more basic than the temper which unites them. This temper can be described as a reaction against the static, the abstract, the purely rational, the merely irrational, in favor of the dynamic and concrete, personal involvement and engagement, action, choice and commitment, the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence, and the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. Beyond this the so-called existentialists divide according to their views on such matters as phenomenological analysis, the existential subject, the intersubjective relation between selves, religion, and the implications of existentialism for psychotherapy ...
Insofar as one can define existentialism, it is a movement from the abstract and the general to the particular and the concrete.
xistentialism is not a philosophy, but a mood embracing a number of disparate philosophies; the differences among them are more basic than the temper which unites them. This temper can be described as a reaction against the static, the abstract, the purely rational, the merely irrational, in favor of the dynamic and concrete, personal involvement and engagement, action, choice and commitment, the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence, and the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. Beyond this the so-called existentialists divide according to their views on such matters as phenomenological analysis, the existential subject, the intersubjective relation between selves, religion, and the implications of existentialism for psychotherapy ...
Insofar as one can define existentialism, it is a movement from the abstract and the general to the particular and the concrete.
Even after you got called out for plagiarism and you were spoon fed resources to educate you on the subject to help you avoid it, you still can't figure out how quotations work. Quotations go around the quoted text.
Oh please. I gave the source for that text about existentialism.
The quotes around Works For Me are for irony. For semi-seriousness, as distinct from total seriousness.
Is there an underlying concern here, on your part? Something I am missing? There must be a lot of text that's been copied and pasted into this forum with even less effort to attribute it properly, than I just did.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-02-2018).]
Oh please. I gave the source for that text about existentalism..
Giving the source doesn't replace propper quotation. Believe it or not, if you don't put the quoted text in quotations, it's still plagiarism, sources or not. I'm just doing you a favor since writing seems important enough that you start threads about member's poor writing skills.
That thread (you know which one) really wasn't about anyone's writing skills.
Quotation marks or the Quoted Text Format for that Existentialism text... can't see it. It would detract from the aesthetics of it, as it is displayed to online browsers by their online browsing software.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-02-2018).]
I beg to differ. I think Existentialism is a philosophy and shares similarities to Eastern Zen Buddhism. Just as Zen is a religion with only an odd appeal to the most deserved and disciplined person, the same can be said of Existentialism. Existentialism has it's origins in rejecting the status quo (Kierkegaard), and was followed up by great thinkers (Nietzsche). Both foresaw the continued problem and erroneous belief that pure rationale thought (science and technology) would solve the human condition. Most of all it did not provide a more moral human, but gave birth to a greater problem. Whereas all those philosophical systems prior believed pure rational thought would silence all idols and gods, and provide a more civilized man, it only magnified the inherent flaws in man. Existentialism is attempting to rescue us from that false belief, but bringing us back to ourselves.
Originally posted by RotrexFiero: I beg to differ. I think Existentialism is a philosophy and shares similarities to Eastern Zen Buddhism. Just as Zen is a religion with only an odd appeal to the most deserved and disciplined person, the same can be said of Existentialism. Existentialism has it's origins in rejecting the status quo (Kierkegaard), and was followed up by great thinkers (Nietzsche). Both foresaw the continued problem and erroneous belief that pure rationale thought (science and technology) would solve the human condition. Most of all it did not provide a more moral human, but gave birth to a greater problem. Whereas all those philosophical systems prior believed pure rational thought would silence all idols and gods, and provide a more civilized man, it only magnified the inherent flaws in man. Existentialism is attempting to rescue us from that false belief, but bringing us back to ourselves.
Google "Knights of Faith and Ubermensch"
I can't argue with that. But I did add quotation marks, where I believe they are helpful, after the word Google, at the very end. Quotation marks around the Google search engine input data "Knights of Faith and Ubermensch".
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: Plagiarism is plagiarism, whether you think it's warranted for aesthetics or not.
I just edited my "little baby." Go back seven (7) messages before this one. I have compromised on aesthetics, for the sake of the proper way to use quoted material.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-06-2018).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Bahia doesn't seem to have tenets other than everone get along and I'm ok you're ok.
That (from 2.5) is from some other discussion, but it reminds me of a story that the Irish-born comedian Dave Allen (1936-2005) worked into one of his comedic monologues on the BBC's "Dave Allen At Large."
A poor Irish sod from one of the many wrong sides of the fence that are known in Dublin was looking for the secret of happiness. So he went all around the world and again, making no progress, until someone told him to climb one of the highest mountains in the Himalayas and seek out the cave of an unfathomably old and wise Tibetan monk. Finally, the hapless Irishman reaches this cave. He's just about half-dead from the cold and the exertion of the climb. Summoning all of the energy that is still within him, he puts the question to the mysterious old monk
quote
What's the secret of happiness?
The monk answers
quote
The secret of happiness is never to disagree, no matter what you are confronted with. Seek harmony with everyone and everything around you. Always maintain the utmost in amiableness and agreeability.
Now the questioning Irishman is not just thoroughly exhuasted, but thoroughly exasperated. After traveling for so long and so far--having literally scoured the ends of the earth to discover the secret of happiness--he cannot accept the simplicity and the seeming banality of this answer. He shouts back
Genetic coding (DNA) and the relationship between genetic mutations and Darwinian evolution... it's a subtext that emerges within this Pennock's Off Topic discussion about Belief Systems. A subtext that can be identified by reviewing the messages on this thread from myself, and from olejoedad.
It's with this in mind that I present a new report that I just stumbled upon. It's a brief report. Just a few paragraphs. I don't have the background to seriously understand it, but it attests to some of the latest research that's being published about these questions.
Study pinpoints type of gene regulation essential to evolution "New forms of regulation are crucial for a lot of new features of life," evolutionary biologist Andreas Wagner said. Brooks Hays for UPI(.com); April 12, 2018.
quote
It's not new genetic coding, but how genes are regulated and expressed, that enables new adaptions, which are the physiological experiments that enable evolution and spawn new species.
Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute believe they've identified the kind of gene regulation most likely to produce evolutionary change.
. . . . . .
Researchers surmise the improved evolvability offered by the use of transcriptional regulation likely explains why most living organisms abandoned the use of RNA for genetic storage some 4 billion years ago -- opting for DNA and proteins, instead.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think that humans, with everything that we could loosely describe as "human brain power", are the least random phenomenon that is known to us, ...
But I don't believe that forces us to any acceptance of the idea that we are the direct products of any superhuman intelligence or God.
Of course it doesn't.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I believe in abiogenesis, which is the emergence of life from non-living chemicals.
Where did these come from, and who mixed them ? Don't say the "big bang". If you do I will ask you how and explosion happened from nothing and how it was the only explosion which did not destroy.
I would also ask of you, "where are the missing links ? What stopped this 'evolution' ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Central to the definition of any living organism is the possibility of evolution. So life evolved, developing in complexity from its most primitive forms. But there was no guiding hand, no intelligent designer, no God that was directly orchestrating the process.
How do you KNOW no guiding hand, no intelligent designer, no God that was directly orchestrating the process.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: That, I believe, is "our story."
I believe that later today, I will have another beer.
I "kind of understand" the concept of abiogenesis--of how life could have emerged spontaneously from an environment that consisted of various chemicals (water, amino acids... what have you) but nothing that was already "alive." I don't think that scientists are hard put to explain how these chemicals--the precursors of life--were likely created and came to be part of the planet Earth, and early on in the Earth's history. The chemicals were the end products of the life cycles of stars.
The nuclear reactions that power the stars and cause the stars to be luminous are what created all the heavier elements (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Silicon and beyond that, Iron and Gold and all the others) from the least complicated of all the elements--Hydrogen atoms--that formed in an understandable way from the more primitive forms of matter that were created by the Big Bang. Before that, there was Hydrogen gas, distributed throughout space, but not in a perfectly even or uniform distribution--more Hydrogen "here", less Hydrogen "there"--and that caused the first generation of stars to be created by the force of gravity.
So as the Cosmos (or universe) continued, the processes of Chemistry created molecules from atoms and various chemical compounds from the different elements that were getting mixed together in space. As if the universe were a giant test tube. The chemical reactions were helped along by the energy that was being propagated into space by the luminosity of stars.
I don't believe that evolution has (been) "stopped." Some species--the more primitive species, from a human perspective--become so well adapted, and so very adaptable to changes in their environments, that they perhaps are no longer evolving at any perceptible rate of change. I believe that humans and all of what are often called the "higher" organisms continue to evolve, but it's usually not apparent to observers who are only looking upon it within the time scale that is consistent with the longevity of an individual human life.
As far as the "missing links", I believe that the process of evolution for any given lineage has not held to a steady or gradual pace. On any lineage that leads from the earliest life to one of the higher organisms of today--humans, whales, bears, trout, lobsters-- there have been periods of relatively rapid evolution, and periods of much slower evolution. It's driven by the changes in the environments. Rapidly changing environments, or slowly changing environments.
A missing link could be missing from the fossil record because it was an intermediate species during a period of rapid evolution. It was a species that only persisted for a relatively brief time, before it evolved into the next species on the lineage. Each individual of a given species is unlikely to became preserved in the fossil record. The species that are known to science from the fossil record were the species that thrived for a long enough span and gave rise to such a large number of individuals of their kind that some fossils were created, even though the odds that any individual would be fossilized were very small odds.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-16-2018).]
My my my, what a quaint name. "Abiogenesis". Who coined that phrase ? You do realize that the first book in the Bible is Genesis, right ?
I had to look up abiogenesis. Coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870. It's a miracle ! It is now a discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. It is a miracle I tell you, evolution does exist. For some. Others not so much.
Who is T. H. Huxley ?
Thomas Henry Huxley PC PRS FLS was an English biologist specializing in comparative anatomy. He is known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. T. H. Huxle was also an agnostic, . Nope, no agenda there. Oops, yes there was. Trying to come up with an explanation of a more plausible reason of the existence of man, animals, plants, and ... did gravity evolve ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I "kind of understand" the concept of abiogenesis--of how life could have emerged spontaneously from an environment that consisted of various chemicals (water, amino acids... what have you) but nothing that was already "alive." I don't think that scientists are hard put to explain how these chemicals--the precursors of life--were likely created and came to be part of the planet Earth, and early on in the Earth's history. The chemicals were the end products of the life cycles of stars.
I was edumacating you on the first book of the Bible. The first ten words in the first book of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". How did you know that God made these chemicals - the the precursors of life ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I "kind of understand" the concept of abiogenesis--of how life could have emerged spontaneously from an environment that consisted of various chemicals (water, amino acids... what have you) but nothing that was already "alive." I don't think that scientists are hard put to explain how these chemicals--the precursors of life--were likely created and came to be part of the planet Earth, and early on in the Earth's history. The chemicals were the end products of the life cycles of stars.
Kind of understand ? I am speechless ! You sound like James Comey and his tell all book about Donald Trump. Let me switch gears. Comey could have written a good book about his tenure at the FBI. I guess not.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The nuclear reactions that power the stars and cause the stars to be luminous are what created all the heavier elements (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Silicon and beyond that, Iron and Gold and all the others) from the least complicated of all the elements--Hydrogen atoms--that formed in an understandable way from the more primitive forms of matter that were created by the Big Bang. Before that, there was Hydrogen gas, distributed throughout space, but not in a perfectly even or uniform distribution--more Hydrogen "here", less Hydrogen "there"--and that caused the first generation of stars to be created by the force of gravity.
What,
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have no explanation for the "Big Bang."
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: So as the Cosmos (or universe) continued, the processes of Chemistry created molecules from atoms and various chemical compounds from the different elements that were getting mixed together in space.
Amazing. The different elements of dumbs and repugs are at war with each other.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't believe that evolution has (been) "stopped." Some species--the more primitive species, from a human perspective--become so well adapted, and so very adaptable to changes in their environments, that they perhaps are no longer evolving at any perceptible rate of change. I believe that humans and all of what are often called the "higher" organisms continue to evolve, but it's usually not apparent to observers who are only looking upon it within the time scale that is consistent with the longevity of an individual human life.
Did you actually say "time scale" ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: As far as the "missing links", I believe that the process of evolution for any given lineage has not held to a steady or gradual pace. On any lineage that leads from the earliest life to one of the higher organisms of today--humans, whales, bears, trout, lobsters-- there have been periods of relatively rapid evolution, and periods of much slower evolution. It's driven by the changes in the environments. Rapidly changing environments, or slowly changing environments.
Was it global warming or the new ice age ? I know I evolved when that hottie moved in next to me.
I am glad I believed I would have a beer later today. I am glad I had beer with that hottie.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-17-2018).]
Klee Irwin, director of Quantum Gravity Research, talks [for almost three minutes] about the Tetrahedron, the most fundamental building block of our 3D Reality-- according to Emergence theory.
A Regular Tetrahedron of the absolute minimum size: The three-dimensional volume enclosed within four equidistant vertices, each vertex separated from each of the three other vertices by a distance of exactly one Planck Length: as small as "it" gets.
If a single hydrogen atom could be magnified to become as large as the entire observable universe, a Planck length, magnified in the same proportion, would be about the distance between the foundation and the roof of a single story home.
The Planck Length Regular Tetrahedron could be the most fundamental or indivisible aspect of the three-dimensional Reality that we experience, in the same way as a single luminous pixel is the most fundamental or indivisible aspect of the two-dimensional images on television screens and video monitors.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Interesting, but the one that interests me "Dont Give A F*ckism". I still haven't found a proper definition for that one. Any leads ?
I'd help you out with that, if I actually gave a fsck.
Originally posted by rinselberg: A Regular Tetrahedron of the absolute minimum size: The 3D volume enclosed within 4 equidistant vertices, each vertex separated from each of the 3 other vertices by a distance of exactly one Planck Length: as small as "it" gets.
If a single hydrogen atom could be magnified to become as large as the entire observable universe, a Planck length, magnified in the same proportion, would be about the distance between the foundation and the roof of a single story home.
The Planck Length Regular Tetrahedron could be the most fundamental or indivisible aspect of the 3D Reality that we experience, in the same way as a single luminous pixel is the most fundamental or indivisible aspect of the image that is presented to our eyes from a television screen or a computer video monitor.
Wow ! You explained that so well.
If you can't dazzel with brilliance, baffle them with bullzhit.
Originally posted by cliffw: Wow ! You explained that so well. If you can't dazzel with brilliance, baffle them with bullzhit.
How much of your time might you decide to invest, in order to have a new topic to play around with at the neighborhood backyard BBQ parties and Texas-style armadillo roasts?
There's a 30-minute video segment on YouTube. It's labeled as "Official Film: What is Reality?", although just 24 or 48 hours ago, it was being billed as "Layman's Guide to Emergence Theory." It's narrated by a "cutie"--the 30s-something actress Marion Kerr. Parts of it are cartoonish and overdone--way too corny--but there are even less engaging ways of p*ssing away another 30 minutes of the quasi-Biblical "three score and ten" that was once more commonly used as a description of the human life expectancy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU
I don't know whether this "Emergence Theory" that is being promoted by this self-declared "Quantum Gravity Research" group is being respected within the larger realm of reputable and fully accredited scientists--maybe not, if these Readers Comments or Viewers Comments are reliable indications:
quote
[Quantum Gravity Research group] is a donation scam- simpliciter! It's not even pseudoscience. Take a sqiz at Irwin's recent history; from snake oil salesman to cutting edge quantum physicist- yer right! I've been booted off the comments section on their YouTube channel for raising what anyone should see is patently obvious. It's the oldest trick in the book. Talk like you're saying something meaningful and watch those ponies trot right in,...
And this:
quote
I'm not a physics expert (I don't know any of the math associated with general relativity/standard model/QCD etc) but I do vaguely understand the overarching principles of modern physics. So when I watched the video before completely reading this article first, I was kind of struck by the hate messages embedded in the video (towards Einstein). This was also done without much context. But naive as I am, I decided to watch another video of theirs to get a better understanding of this e8 quasi-crystal.
The "Scientific Clues That We Are Living In the Matrix" was an interesting title, but instead I realized that these were pseudoscientists. The speaker starts with an interesting concept, but you can hear the desperation in his voice throughout the entire lecture where he is trying to convince you that there is a higher conscious 'something' out there somewhere. And the approach was not through a scientific investigative method of explanation either.
I'm pretty sure these guys are trying to become the next scientologists and create a religion.
So, Dr (and Ms) Fang Fang... I wondered about that, as soon as I saw it.
I believe that the prior posting by Ronald is the most difficult read that I have encountered on this forum. Possibly in life. I can usually grasp things quite easily, but after attempting several reads, I failed to come up with any cemented thoughts? Am I the one slipping?
xistentialism is not a philosophy, but a mood embracing a number of disparate philosophies; the differences among them are more basic than the temper which unites them. This temper can be described as a reaction against the static, the abstract, the purely rational, the merely irrational, in favor of the dynamic and concrete, personal involvement and engagement, action, choice and commitment, the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence, and the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. Beyond this the so-called existentialists divide according to their views on such matters as phenomenological analysis, the existential subject, the intersubjective relation between selves, religion, and the implications of existentialism for psychotherapy ...
. Nope, no agenda there. Oops, yes there was. Trying to come up with an explanation of a more plausible reason of the existence of man, animals, plants, and ... did gravity evolve ?
