|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
 Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Philologos wrote: | Sand, this will be the last for a long time even if reasonably good reasons arise. It is simply not probable enough that communication might result. You are under no obligation to find anything I say interesting or reasonable. Not an issue - I could care less.
But since you said:
And to make a total judgment on the directional senses of your and my mind is, of course,merely an awkward putdown to defend yourself from the obligation to convey the nature of the problem. If you thereby declare yourself helpless to communicate you have my sympathy.
A. This was no more a putdown than the words you interpreted as a directive to leave PPR was that. Ny guoya waku, and I think even saying that I am safe, even though if you comprehended you could rebuke me as you did in the Frost case.
B. You are not my brother and he was totally speaking through his breeches with the bit about "saying it to justify my behavior"
C. The remark is a way of expressing the type of communicative blockage which has occurred since my undergraduate days at least both in me trying to receive communications from cerrain people and in me trying to transmit to them. In my Master';studies I came to a working understanding of the differences in mindset.
D. I am not helpless to communicate with people who have FM ears. Communication with AM minds is much harder.
E. No sympathy is required - I do notr suffer from being unable to communicate with you, and I long since got out of environments where poor communication with AM thinkers was a handicap.
F. Nor have I sympathy with you in this case - whether you understand any of us or not you always have access to your cry of idiocy. |
Your denial of a motivation to communicate with me contained within an attempt to communicate with me fits well within whatever mindset I have detected in you. Untangling the intriguing snarls of your grotesquely knotted reasoning does, I must admit, have a certain perverse attraction. Your intimation that we live in different conceptual universes does contain a certain comforting ambiance in blocking any sense of frustration on your part over communicative inadequacies. Oddly, you seem perfectly capable of discerning my meanings while information in the opposite direction is obviously stumbling through the strangest verbal constructions I have ever encountered. I have, I must admit, far less difficulty interacting with my pet sparrow than with you but then my pet sparrow does act with a reasonable amount of perceptible clear logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cave_canem
Deinonychus
Joined: Nov 15, 2009
Posts: 378
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The origin of life?
I thought that this question was answered in the series finale of Star Trek: the Next Generation. Really, does anyone need more than that??  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cave_canem wrote: | The origin of life?
I thought that this question was answered in the series finale of Star Trek: the Next Generation. Really, does anyone need more than that?? |
Sounds interesting. I don't have TV. I wonder what the solution was. It certainly didn't seem to have any impact around here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Philologos
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 22, 2010
Posts: 6977
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
On this at least we have some documentation, though even here the whole truth is not going to be determined by us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_%28magazine%29
This post is only superficially trivial. In context there is a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 11852
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philologos wrote: | On this at least we have some documentation, though even here the whole truth is not going to be determined by us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_%28magazine%29
This post is only superficially trivial. In context there is a point. |
By this information life is dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 830
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leejosepho wrote: | | 01001011 wrote: | | NobelCynic wrote: |
I'll be the first then: it seems more plausible to be that intelligent life created dumb matter than dumb matter creating intelligent life. Of course the question of is there intelligent life on earth is debatable but let's not get into that.
I have never seen the blueprints for the house I am living in. I assume there were some but I don't know that, and there is no way I can tell by looking at the house. |
The same deliberate theist ignorance....
We have seen people building houses. So when we see a house we can assume it is formed by the same manner. |
And what if one has never seen a house being built? What assumption should s/he make?
Personally, I have no big problem with people saying I merely assume things or even that I might be assuming too much ...
... but then it is completely insane to say the same can never be true on the other side of the table being surrounded and held down by mere human beings. |
You may continue to postulate what if the said person have never seen people making tools, or bees building hives. But it begs the question how can the said person come up with the idea that a house like object is 'created'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 830
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philologos wrote: | | 01001011 wrote: | | ^^^ Given Philologos' tendency to avoid any serious discussion I doubt he would say anything meaningful. |
A. I have participated with you in serious discussion.
B. It is fruitless to reiterate points whose basic premises are for whatever reason inaccessible to the recipient.
C. I do not - unlike some - enjoy debate. For discussion, there has to be some match beteen the openings of minds.
D. Do not fall into the too common trap [I still do it myself on occasion] of assuming that what you do not get is meaningless. It took me a long time to learn that TO THEM the poetry of the Schoolmen makes sense. |
Are we supposed to talk about some 'truths' that is the same for everybody? I do not see any rigorous framework where your claim can be based. So my inability to understand cannot be compared to, say, my inability to understand analytic number theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 01001011 wrote: | | leejosepho wrote: | | 01001011 wrote: | | NobelCynic wrote: |
I'll be the first then: it seems more plausible to be that intelligent life created dumb matter than dumb matter creating intelligent life. Of course the question of is there intelligent life on earth is debatable but let's not get into that.
I have never seen the blueprints for the house I am living in. I assume there were some but I don't know that, and there is no way I can tell by looking at the house. |
The same deliberate theist ignorance....
We have seen people building houses. So when we see a house we can assume it is formed by the same manner. |
And what if one has never seen a house being built? What assumption should s/he make?
Personally, I have no big problem with people saying I merely assume things or even that I might be assuming too much ...
... but then it is completely insane to say the same can never be true on the other side of the table being surrounded and held down by mere human beings. |
You may continue to postulate what if the said person have never seen people making tools, or bees building hives. But it begs the question how can the said person come up with the idea that a house like object is 'created'. |
I thank you for your permission there ... 
In my own case, I think/suspect/guess both the bee hive and the human habitat would eventually appear to be the fabrications of their respective inhabitants they actually are ...
... and yet I must admit I have here lost sight of the original question.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheBicyclingGuitarist
Phoenix
Joined: May 28, 2007
Posts: 1021
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whoever or whatever caused the universe to exist with the chemicals it has having the properties they do is one thing. The existence of the universe is a separate question from the origin of life, albeit related.
Once those chemicals exist with the properties they have in a universe that has the physical laws it has, then life is almost certainly the result of high-probability chemical reactions. While humans have not successfully explained abiogenesis yet, scientists are getting closer and closer. The line between living systems and non-living systems is a fuzzy one, and it may also be that we may someday find life that is not based on carbon.
As it is, major components of living cells (membranes, proteins, nucleic acids) have been shown to form naturally given certain ingredients in certain environments, so it seems quite likely that life arose as a series of quite natural physical and chemical processes. Of course once it started, we have overwhelming evidence of many different types that clearly show life evolved.
Evolution (another question separate from abiogenesis yet related) is quite possibly the most well-proven fact known to modern man, yet many people are badly misinformed about what it is and how much evidence exists. One problem is many people lump the creation of the universe and the origin of life in with evolution, and complain that evolution can't explain those when, of course, it never claims to and asking it to do so is like asking for it to be a theory of everything.
_________________
“When you ride over sharps, you get flats!”--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote: | ... the universe ... with the chemicals it has having the properties they do is one thing.
The existence of the universe is a separate question from the origin of life, albeit related ...
Evolution ... many people are badly misinformed ... many people lump the creation of the universe and the origin of life in with evolution, and complain that evolution can't explain those when, of course, it never claims to and asking it to do so is like asking for it to be a theory of everything. |
I never could have made those clarifications, but I do definitely agree: Origin of "life", day-to-day operation and evolution are separate-though-possibly/likely-related matters.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29336
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leejosepho wrote: |
I never could have made those clarifications, but I do definitely agree: Origin of "life", day-to-day operation and evolution are separate-though-possibly/likely-related matters. |
Indeed. Life must first exist in order to change and evolve.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ShamelessGit
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Age: 21
Posts: 590
Location: Kansas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ValentineWiggin
Yup.
Joined: May 16, 2011
Posts: 4879
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
So the OP asked for a "theory" of abiogenesis, the empirical nature of which was pointed out by Ruveyn in the very first reply in referencing Miller-Urey (SIXTY. YEAR. OLD. RESEARCH. which has been reproduced and subsequently yielded greater and greater numbers of detectable organic compounds than originally thought, in the meantime).
Oh, and OP- atheists lack belief in god- that's their one commonality.
If you mean proponents of abiogenesis, that would be.... proponents of abiogenesis, whose views are what the EVIDENCE actually shows, so no "assumption" is necessary
Circle Jerk time? 
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest." |
|
| Back to top |
|
leejosepho
life student
Joined: Sep 15, 2009
Age: 63
Posts: 8118
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ValentineWiggin wrote: | So the OP asked for a "theory" of abiogenesis, the empirical nature of which was pointed out by Ruveyn in the very first reply in referencing Miller-Urey (SIXTY. YEAR. OLD. RESEARCH. which has been reproduced and subsequently yielded greater and greater numbers of detectable organic compounds than originally thought, in the meantime).
Oh, and OP- atheists lack belief in god- that's their one commonality.
If you mean proponents of abiogenesis, that would be.... proponents of abiogenesis, whose views are what the EVIDENCE actually shows, so no "assumption" is necessary
Circle Jerk time? |
Only when you pop into the center of it all.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
========================================
Each of us serves like a maid-mod
in life, keeping our own slates clean.
=========================== |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 830
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leejosepho wrote: |
I thank you for your permission there ...
In my own case, I think/suspect/guess both the bee hive and the human habitat would eventually appear to be the fabrications of their respective inhabitants they actually are ...
... and yet I must admit I have here lost sight of the original question. |
By seeing people building houses one establishes that
1) 'Building house' is a meaningful description of the process where the object called a house is formed.
2) A house looks different from a rock _because_ a rock is not formed by the same way.
So what do you mean by things like life to be created and based on what difference between life and things that are not created? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
