Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

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 ...

 

If you just wanted to end the conversation, you could have stopped
posting instead of changing the followups.

 

It's perfectly on topic for ARW and AW.

 

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.

 

---
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.

 

---
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.

 

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <[email protected]

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.

 

---
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.

 

---
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.

 

---
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???

 

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

 

---
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.

 

If time and space are discrete, how can color (wavelength) not be?

 

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

 

---
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.