Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Aunty Kreist, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. Aunty Kreist

    Noah Roberts Guest

    I am trying to redirect the conversation to the only place I can think
    of where it is on-topic. If you can think of a valid reason why we
    should continue polluting c.o.l.n, s.e.d, r.p, a.r.w, and a.w ...

    If you can think of a better place to continue then ...
     
    Noah Roberts, Jan 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    If you just wanted to end the conversation, you could have stopped
    posting instead of changing the followups.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Aunty Kreist

    Parse Tree Guest

    It's perfectly on topic for ARW and AW.
     
    Parse Tree, Jan 31, 2005
  4. I made it quite clear in other posts that the area between conscious and
    non conscious was very nebulous. I made a statement that, prior to two
    months there was no chance of consciousness, and just at birth conscious
    was guaranteed. I specifically stated that I couldn't draw a line
    between those regions. My view is that consciousness is a gradual
    phenomena, with an indeterminate region of grey.

    Kevin Aylward

    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
     
    Kevin Aylward, Jan 31, 2005
  5. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Not necessarily. Since the manifestations of the miracles persist
    after the occurrence of the miracles, (Lazarus, for instance, seems to
    have become a normal human suject to our natural laws after having
    been raised from the dead.) it may mean that our laws can be locally
    manipulated by extra-universal entities in ways which we can't fathom.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  6. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    OK, then, as I understand it you believe that some time after
    conception (say at far infrared) all organisms _start_ being
    conscious, and when they reach their limit (red for lizards, violet
    for us) they become as conscious as they can be. I rather like that.

    It also seems that if that's the case, and far infrared is arbitrarily
    chosen as the starting place for the onset of consciousness, then
    there's no reason why the moment of conception couldn't also be chosen
    as that starting place. What do you think?
    ---
    ---
    I believe that evolution happens in discrete jumps caused by
    mutations, with some mutations favoring the survival of a new species
    and others causing its demise.

    I also believe that some mutations were induced by extraterrestrial or
    extrauniversal entities, with Homo sapiens being the newest runner in
    the human race.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  7. I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
    Well, good, because in fact I lost the plot a bit. I didn't propose that
    model with foetal consciousness in mind. I thought we had moved on from
    that subject. However, it appears that it has turned out not too badly.
    I can't accept that a fertilized oocyte is conscious, even if it and
    other single cells exhibit biological irritability. After all, some
    Usenet contributors are very irritable, and clearly not conscious. (;-)
    The most plausible hypothesis is that sometimes it goes slowly (like the
    evolution of the giraffe's neck) and sometimes quickly, like the malaria
    parasite, the flue virus and HIV.
    I'll allow extra-terrestrial as a hypothesis, but I'm not happy about
    extra-universal; I think that's a hypo-hypothesis (i.e. one with
    vanishingly small supporting evidence).

    One thing that puzzles me is that the 'aquatic Homo' hypothesis really
    does explain how we lost most of our hair, and acquired some more subtle
    anatomical features as well, yet there just doesn't seem to be any
    evidence from fossils at all and in fact the accepted time-scale doesn't
    allow any time for such an aquatic phase.
     
    John Woodgate, Jan 31, 2005
  8. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    OK. I got confused, Sorry.
    ---
    ---
    If you accept that there is a lapse of time between conception and the
    onset of consciousness, then time certainly becomes relevant in
    determining whether an entity has achieved that onset.
    ---
    ---
    If it doesn't matter, then why bother asking?

    I'm talking about the interval of time between conception and the
    onset of consciousness.
    ---
    ---
    The 'event' is the onset of consciousness, and the single-electron
    analogy was used to locate/define a particular place in the spectrum
    where the event took place. Say, 700nm for lizards and 400nm for us.
    ---
    ---
    Certainly true, but if you accept that life precedes the onset of
    consciousness, then that gap has to be accounted for, so what's your
    point?
    ---
    Yes, I know. I've already brought up the threshold argument by
    likening consciousness to a voltage and the threshold of consciousness
    to the reference voltage, both voltages being the inputs to a voltage
    comparator.
    ---
    ---
    No. My analogy of streets intersecting an avenue, JW's expansion of
    that to include a hill up which the avenue proceeds, and yours of a
    spectrum are all approximately equally useful for visualizing the
    concept.
    ---
    ---
    OK. Ready?

    To start with, you claim that 2, which contains:

    "I don't believe you can support both viewpoints simultaneously, so
    when do you suppose you'll waffle back to your earlier so-firmly-held
    belief?"

    was written before 1, so clearly _my_ reference to his _earlier_ post
    could not have been written with reference to 1.

    That is, you have pretty much stated that the Shroud of Turin was
    discovered in 500BC.

    Would you care to go back and dig around some more?^)
    ---
    ---
    Two-faced would be pretending to be what I am not, and I don't see
    where telling you that I'll do what I want to do is that. Arrogant?
    Well... sometimes. Sarcastic, definitely.
    ---
    ---
    Consider what you like,

    1. ??? My comments have no "behavior", so your statement is
    nonsensical.

    2. ??? You don't identify _which_ statement you consider an admission,
    so your statement is nonsensical.

    3. Your assertion that your consideration of something makes it what
    you assert it to be is without merit, so your statement is inaccurate.

    4. Anyone can dismiss my comments for whatever reason they choose,
    with or without your "considered" opinion, so your pomposity is
    reflected in your statement.

    5. **** you.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  9. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    That was an error.
    ---
    ---
    I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, since the way you stated it
    sounds pretty circular.
    ---
    ---
    No, I'm saying that some parlor tricks might look like miracles
    because we don't know enough, yet, to tell the difference between
    them. That doesn't preclude the possibility of genuine miracles
    existing.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  10. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  11. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    But still possible in _God's_ system of logic, whether we can
    understand it or not.
    ---
    ---
    Your saying that _our_ logic prohibits the existence of God doesn't
    mean that _His_ does also.
    ---
    ---
    Basically, yes, even though we may not be able to access those ways
    directly and get a black-and-white answer.

    For example, if you pray for something and get it, that's still not
    direct proof that God exists, since it could be coincidental. But you
    _did_ get it, so who knows???
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  12. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  13. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  14. Ah, that's it! The Bible's all lies, and This Site Speake Absolute Truth!

    Kevin, you're worse of a thumper than the thumpers. You just thump your
    anti-bible, and anybody who believes anything other than what Kevin
    Declares To Be True is a fool, and a liar, and a swindler, and a thief,
    and a child molester, and a terrorist, and must be killed!

    Good Luck!
    Rich

    for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 31, 2005
  15. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    You referred to the country as a singular entity, so I replied in
    kind.

    BTW, 'it's' is a contraction for 'it is'. The possessive, 'its'
    _never_ takes an apostrophe.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  16. If time and space are discrete, how can color (wavelength) not be?
     
    Keith Williams, Jan 31, 2005
  17. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  18. In my case, I've decided to learn to do tricks. ;-)

    Other than that, ever since I was very, very small, I've wondered, howcome
    I'm so fucking miserable all the time, and everybody else is so happy?
    What's the big secret?

    Turns out, the big secret is, they're all bluffing. Everybody is just as
    miserable as I am, they just hide it better, sweep it under the carpet,
    pretend it's not there, and of course, get away with it until they die
    from the stress/strain of holding back all of that pain. )o;

    Maybe there's a better way. :)

    Cheers!
    Rich

    for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com
     
    Rich The Philosophizer, Jan 31, 2005
  19. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Yes, it was. Your argument was unspecific enough to be ambiguous,
    which led to its carrying an inherent contradiction.
    ---
    ---
    Yes, the quantities _do_ change.

    In base 10, "10" means this many periods: ..........

    In base 8, "10" means this many: ........

    Note that the symbols stayed the same, but the quantities changed.
     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
  20. Aunty Kreist

    John Fields Guest

     
    John Fields, Jan 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.