Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:21am PT
|
Military grade nano - thermite can be spray painted or brushed on.
No need to jackhammer anything.
Not saying this how it was done or not.
But big wannabee smart guy Adam, you really don't know everything and just do a lot of guessing.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:53am PT
|
Hey, please take the 911 stuff to one of those many threads.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 12:20pm PT
|
Healyje- So you think H. sapiens will ever get around to it: to developing a narrative based on the so-called Scientific Story that might rival the Abrahamic narrative in popularity? in the pop cultures of humanity?
If so what themes do you think it will cover? e.g., inspirational heroic efforts, heroes, human goals and ambitions, creative pursuits, life guidance for the young and old, different kinds of prescriptions based on interests, goals... What would you like to see it cover for it to be meaningful to you?
Would you like to see it push for growth, not necessariy economic growth but other forms of growth, say higher achievement in the "practice" of livng or perhaps not push for growth at all but push for life satisfaction in simple or not so simple Pacific Island-like subsistence living.
Curious as to your thoughts.
"...will ever get around to it..." I mean, in the next 100 years, where it could do our generations some good.
Or, is the Abrahamic narrative just too powerful (with its appealing elements of a God Father, Judgment Day, eternal life, absolute morality, etc.) to ever be supplanted as the pop story (of belief discipline practice).
Not really looking for anything complete here, just a factor or two to consider, for consideration, in a list of possible thematic elements that might characterize a competitive narrative.
Food for thought: how about the heroic effort to "fly solo" or to "live unroped" in the Cosmos, to define our own direction? at the species level, at group and community even individual levels too. (In the Abrahamic narrative, of course, this has often been deemed "arrogant" or "playing God Jehovah" or "insulting to God Jehovah".) Just watched the film, Agora. At least in the film, Hypatia (played by Rachel Weisz) was killed for her "ungodliness" (i.e. disbelief). "Heroic" instead of "arrogant" in regard to self-determination and flying solo could be honored, valued; perhaps this thematic element would be a breath of fresh air for some.
EDIT
Reminder: My view is that the Scientific Story- as powerful as it is- is not good enough, it is incomplete, in this role. The Scientific Story is a "what is" narrative. It is expressed in terms of facts. ("Just the facts, Ma'am.") It is not a "what matters" narrative; it is not a human narrative that touches upon what humans, many, think about- including what Largo alluded to a couple pages ago: Where are we, what are we doing, and where do want to go? in this adventure or riddle we call life.
|
|
pa
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 01:19pm PT
|
HFCS,
someone asked you to explain the mechanistic origin of beauty. You answered:
As far as beauty goes, nature, evolution and natural selection did a good job of it.
Yes, I think we can all agree on that, but it is an explanation that doesn't explain much:
Nature, Evolution, Natural Selection are words, descriptions which convey a concept, a process, traceable to the point of DNA structure and the amino acids it is composed of, the carbon and hydrogen and oxygen...but what assembles them?
The elements that make up the DNA of a cockroach or a tree or a human are the same, it is the gaps in the sequences that determine differentiation of form.
So, what is the force that assembles, such that coherence and cohesion follow?
What assembles input to create cogent thought? Intelligence?
Why does a Coltrane riff move someone to tears and irritate someone else?
Why does the photo you posted as an example of beauty strike me as vaguely disturbing?
You say:
...beauty is an evolved function. (Again, designed by evolution for attraction).
Again, evolution may explain the process, but says nothing about the origin. Or, put in another way, it says what it does, not what it is.
You could insert God in its place, or the Great Elephant on a Disk, or whatever, it's still a mistery.
"Designed by evolution"...implies a designer, or, who/what is evolution?
Just like your other statement:
...the emotional reactions relating to beauty keep us engaged in life...
So, why do people have such a hard time controlling their emotions?
When somebody pisses you off, that INITIAL spark of anger, where does it come from?
And I don't mean the circuitry you mentioned. That's just the surface layer, the manifest.
And what exactly is an emotion?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 01:47pm PT
|
From wikipedia:
"Qualia" (pronounced /ˈkwɑːliə/ or pronounced /ˈkweɪliə/), singular "quale" (pronounced /ˈkwɑːleɪ/, roughly KWAH-leh), from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."[1]
The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that they are often seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their existence hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties. Believers in qualia are known as qualophiles; non-believers as qualophobes.[2]
|
|
pa
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
|
Dr. F.
I am not saying anything at all, I am asking...because I don't know.
I notice beauty, intelligence, beings (human or otherwise), language (verbal or otherwise) and wonder...what brings it all together?
What assembles form, what turns random carbon/hydrogen/oxygen molecules into cohesive, individual, "evolved" systems?
What is the force of aggregation and dispersal?
In Chinese medicine they call it Qi. In the religions they call it God. In Science they call it Evolution.
Do those answers satisfy you? I would guess not, given the drift of your posts.
Me either.
Have to go now. Will check in later.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
|
When belief masquerades as reason the debate isn't going anywhere.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
|
To answer your question, EVIOLUTION, 4.5 billion years of it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
Healyje- Did you see my post? You referenced the Abrahamic narrative the other day, e.g., in regard to promoting "anthropic chauvinism," thought you might have something more to add about belief narratives. For example, if we could do better. I'd be interested in your input.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 03:37pm PT
|
Dr. F., I'm not attacking you, personally, and if it came off like that I apologize. I only binge on this site and just dash stuff off owing to work. But when I hear you claiming to have an open mind, while at the same time insisting that you already and definately KNOW about spiritual matters, I am compelled to comment. For instance, I asked you to posit one, HONEST question about something that you did not know, but very much wanted to know. Your response was:
//I want to know how God created the universe, and how Jesus was born from a virgin mother, and how he was resurrected, and how Jesus talks to Lynne, and another 100,000 souls at the same time.
and how God can keep track of all the possible souls on a planet 100,000 light years from here, and the other 100000 possible planets with life forms
and how he was able to make evolution work, without making it look like he has any effect on it, or did he just create the earth 6,000 years ago, and then put the fossils in the ground as the work of the devil, please tell me about this one Largo, I must find out what the answer is??
So Largo, go ahead and tell me how God did these things??//
Asking you to "ask a question" was a trick question because I knew beforehand what you would do - and of course you did it exactly.
What you have listed above are not "HONEST question(s) about something that you do not know, but very much want to know." You see, Dr. F., you already have the "correct" answer to these "questions" in your head, and you have repeatedly answered these questions with catagorical responses to the effect that anyone believing in such nonsense in a fool and deluded and so forth. So your questions are not questions at all. They are set-ups to summon responses that you can shoot down according to your beliefs, which you believe are not beliefs at all, rather they are plain facts, and you're daring anyone to argue otherwise. Of course only a fool would enter such an argument.
What's more is that I don't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin mother and yada yada so I have nothing invested in proving this is so or is not so. What does a virgin birth, or not, have to do with my life, right this second? Nothing.
With these questions, you are arguing against a "God" that I don't subscribe to in any form whatsoever. My sense of where you are stuck, and where your mind is not as open as it might be, is in considering "God" in other terms than the Old Testament model. My feel of it here is that you are something of a fanatic about the Old testament God, meaning that "you won't change your mind and you won't change the subject" per "God."
God either is exactly how the Old Testament or there is no God at all. Can you see the all-or-nothing thinking here? Is it possible for you to imagine some other "God" beside the one you are certain is jibberish? Like they say in the recovery movement, if your God is not working, design another one. And no, this does NOT (imo) mean that you are "creating" God by trying to imagine Him/Her according to your own understanding.
Back to work. I'll try and answer John Standards question later.
JL
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 03:49pm PT
|
Largo, that was a great reply. I hope the Good Dr. F responds after thinking about what you said. It would be nice to see more of those around here. I'd really like to jump into this right now, but I'd like to go back and read a couple hundred posts. This discussion fascinates me.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 04:09pm PT
|
Tony Bird. My goal is to respect all human beings and what they believe. I merely share my own beliefs as do others here on ST.
Everything you talk about in your last post to lynnie is incorrect and erroneous. Please never put your words in other peoples mouths or try and interprete how they think, act or feel or what their particular life experience is. I stated the facts of lynnes life. Let them stand as they are. :D Peace from lynnie
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 04:46pm PT
|
pa:
The question what makes all this happen or who is doing it is very interesting. For some of the phenomena in question the answer is relatively simple.
Chemistry.
I think we all are familiar with how the processes of meosis and mitosis proceed naturally in biological systems. The physical pairing/separation of appropriate chromosomes takes place almost as a form of self-assembly – simply because of the chemistry amidst the assembled components.
The question of how it is these components came to be together appears to be – by accident. Over billions of years the successful accidents have accumulated and changed. One model has it that clay and the silicon-oxide bond formed an environment catalyzing the formation of the very first structures of carbon,hydrogen, and oxygen in a way eerily similar to our use of silicon microchips in the laboratory over just the last few years to perform DNA and other biological assays.
I think it interesting to consider that the exploratory processes leading to first life billions of years ago, may still be taking place daily now. Changes in the atmosphere’s makeup such as the increased oxygen content may make it more difficult
but the fundamental mechanisms and materials are all still here.
The following link is to a DARPA study proposing that we can use chemistry in a similar fashion to create nano-scale structures other than those serving biological purposes. The link and the introduction.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA243530&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
'Molecular self-'assembly is the spontaneous association of molecules under equilibrium conditions into stable, structurally well-defined aggregates Joined by non-covalent bonds. Molecular self-assembly is ubiquitous in biological systems, and underlies the formation of a wide variety of complex biological structures. Understanding self-assembly and the associated non-covalent
interactions that connect complementary interacting molecular surfaces in biological aggregates Is a central concern in structural biochemistry. Self- assembly is also emerging as a new strategy in chemical synthesis, with the potential of generating non-biological structures having dimensions of 1-102 nanometers (with molecular weights of i0,4-10]0 Daltons)> Structures in the upper part of this range--of--s-izes .are-.presintly inaccessible through chemical
synthesis, and the ability to prepare them would open a route to structures comparable in size (and perhaps complementary in function) to those that can be prepared by microlithography and other techniques of microfabrication.
Edit:
JL's post raises a point I think is critical. I and others have been unafraid to show our skepticism regarding numerous unsupported claims being made. So much unfounded material has received uncritical adherence the atmosphere has frankly become toxic. It feels like one is talking to a machine. What is needed is for people publicly to point out those portions of the popular boiler plate they find implausible.
John has done this and it is a relief to know one is not, after all, talking to the hand.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 05:15pm PT
|
no, lynne, you decided to save my soul due to something i said way back up the thread. you've got jesus there as your best friend in the whole world, and i would never intrude in such a relationship, but i think he's also telling you, go pick on tony. i know jesus too. we aren't friends, and he can be this way. so i have to make up a story about kanchenjunga, illusion dweller, and the beetlejuice used car dealership. hey, what the heaven, we're having fun. you're also keeping me off the 9/11 sauce, which i'm sure certain others appreciate.
:-D
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 05:26pm PT
|
let's gang up on largo here and see if we can flush a rabbit out of the bushes.
largo is a "process" theologian. this bunk was made up by an english academic named alfred north whitehead to try to salvage mainstream anglicanism in places like oxford and cambridge, trick it out in effete mumbo-jumbo, and feed it to hardworking church pastors just trying to make a living the way they did when charles dickens wrote a lot more interesting things.
if you want to know what process theology is about, you'll find it in old fart carl rogers' book on touchy-feely psychotherapy called "on becoming a person". now even god gets to become a person. god "isn't", god "becomes".
we have a little doo in the san fernando valley for stuff like this. the vals hold one hand in a fist, let it dangle from the wrist, then turn it inward and beat their sternums with it rapidly, while chanting, "big wow".
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 05:35pm PT
|
Dr F you believe there is no god. But you don't know. If you reject any possibilty of god your mind is closed. I'm 99.9% sure there's no anthropomorphic god but I can't prove it
so I allow that it's a possibilty.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
|
Tony Bird....regarding Largo
I am a great believer in Not putting labels on people or their beliefs. When people are labeled into neat little catagories I feel you:
1) diminish the individual
2) make the Labeler appear to be better than the other human they are putting into the labeler's own neat little box
I have read many of Largo's Threads and Posts on a variety of topics. My take is that he is an explorer of ideas and life. It's great we have so many "takes" on ST. It makes me think and rethink all I deem real and hold dear. It's a process like skimming the foam off the jars of fresh jam you've taken an awful lot of time to make thus creating the very best you can. Peace Today....which is the only day we have, lynnie
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 05:46pm PT
|
Dr. F " Doth too much protest Methinks." :D William S.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010 - 06:27pm PT
|
The link provided leads to information that ardipithecus ramidus(4.4mmybp) was female and only 1.2m high. Females are called "gracile" which means small or lightly built. Lucy's(3.2mmybp) short leg bones unlike those of the present find(3.6mmybp) were quite short. The present male find, sparse though it is, suggests we don't as yet know when we became fully adapted to the erect posture. Prior australopithecus finds typically had robust large toes which argued for bipedal locomotion.
If one has properly developed musculature and goes out walking to see what gait is the most efficient, it becomes clear the large toe reduces energy consumption. Quite simply we need to find more bones from the feet.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!