trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: A Spiraling Conversation
Instead you've decided to do some of your own. Okay, that's cool. I'd rather copnverse with someone who's whiney than somone who can't keep a civil tongue in their gob.
It is not a question that I will answer with a yes or a no, for the reasons I have already explained - it is a nonsense question. And, yet, I've already answered it, and two further related questions. Still, if you want me to answer your exact question, exactly as you've asked it, then the answer is "No. Exactly as I said above, and for exactly the reasons I gave above.
So you're now saying that the methods of reproduction aren't actually comparable after all, it's the fact of reproduction itself that is comparable?
Okay, if that's how broad the criteria you're using is, then humans are also self-similar with plants, hydra, jellyfish...you could even make a considerable case for being self-similar with clouds. I mean, I think you'd probably ultimately lose that last one, but you could make a very strong case for it.
I thought you said that you were going to stick to my exact words from now on (which you seem to think is siome kind of punishment, when it's actually what I'd prefer you had done from the start. In fact, it's something that I've asked you to do repeatedly)? That lasted all of no posts.
I said that the term "self-replicating" has a very specific meaning which is different to "self-reproducing". When I was arguing aginst what you were saying when you were using the term "self-replicating" is a different argument than you saying the same thing only with the term "self-reproducing". Yes, it's a small semantic detail, but it's quite a large one that has huge knock-on effects to the rest of the argument.
As someone who is into fractals and who works within precise scientific boundries you should know that one tiny error in the beginning of a calculation can end up throwing the end results way way off course. "God is in the details", and all of that.
Yes, that's better. That addressess all of my arguments quickly, consisely, and leaves me with one simple statement that I cannot dispute. More of this kind of thing, please.
Yes we do. As I outlined above, though, I don't think that is of great significance. We share reproduction in common with every living thing, and some non-living ones as well. In fact, "reproduction" is one of the criteria by which common wisdom determines whether something is a life-form or not.
It's kind of like saying that we have "having a physical form" in common with them, or "the ability to move". Hardly Earth-shattering.
Yes. As I said above, they are important. You're building up a big theory, starting from these little foundations, and if the foundations are wrong, then everything built up from those foundations will be wrong, too. do you not think that the details of your theories are important? That's not the sign of a basis in science, that's the sign of a basis in vague mumbo-jumbo.
So you're not claiming that we're self-similar in terms of DNA's asexual reproduction, then? Just with regards to the sexual reproduction? That would seem to contradict the idea that the fact of reproduction was enough of a similarity in itself.
I thought you were sticking to what I did actually say, not putting words in my mouth? I did not say that the primary focus had changed, I said that you've changed your position with regards to the details. We were discussing cloning. You said that it (self-replication) was something that we had in common with DNA, even before we could self-repliacte. Then you said that we didn't, and you kind of flip-flopped around the whole issue for a while. All I've been trying to get you to do is to clarify and explain what you're saying with regards to the details.
Do we, or do we not share self-replication in common with our DNA? Is the ability to clone human beings relevent to the case you are making or not? I'd just like some definitive answers, please. I'm not trying to distract from anything, I'm trying to get you to explain what exactly you mean. This is your theory, you claim a (at least partially) scientific basis for it, I assume that you've actually thought about these things, and that you have definitive positions on the issues. You cannot expect me to buy your theory if you're not even prepared to explain it except in the most broad generalities. And you certainly won't convince me that it has any scientific merit at all.
Of course it does. If I were to say G = mc^2, and you called me up on it, I couldn't just change G to E and say that it was the same thing. It's not. Arguing that we share the very general term "reproduction" is a very different thing to the more specific "self-reproduction" and even more different to the very specific "self-replication". You cannot argue that arguing one is like arguing the other, because they're worlds apart.
Why, it'd be almost like being very hung-over and tired late at night and mistakenly misusing the term "self-similar" to mean "exactly the same", wouldn't it? Excpet you'd never concentrate on details and semantics only when it suits you, would you? The difference is that when I was called out on my misuse, I simply admitted the mistake, rather than going on about you being petty or disingenuous or patronisingly telling you to go and do more research.
Yes, for the love of God, please start doing that.
When you say that I'm not focusing on the other similarities you've pointed out, are we talking about the ones that I agreed with you on, and therefore that needed no further discussion? Or what? If you'd like to clarify, and feel that I've not addressed something, point it out, and I'll happily tell you what I think. Rather than, yes, whining, you could just talk to me like one adult talks to another, you know.
How is addressing the specific things that you say and have said, the specific claims that you are making changing the argument?
A subsystem of something is a completely seperate thing to the thing it's a subsystem of? So, as you didn't like my last analogy (not that you addressed it, of course), how about this one...do I share "being able to play the piano" with my hands? Is that a trait that I share in common with them? Or are my hands the mechanism by which I play the piano?
Meiosis is the process by which humans reproduce. If you want to say that it's a sepereate thing that is similar, then you might as well say that we can "walk around on two legs", similar to DNA, too.
So, let me get this absolutely clear...you are not arguing that one, single, solitary human being is self-similar with his or her DNA? Instead you are arguing that, in a very generalised way, humans in general are self-similar with human DNA? I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
So you would also agree that we are self-similar with every other living thing? From protozoa up to whales?
Not relevent to the point at hand, but I just thought I'd point out the irony that in this sentence you tell me off for both having made a semantic mistake (although you accuse me of being disingenuous with it) and for caring about your semantic mistake.
Um, well, the Tree Of Life, in my mind is purely a human construct. And I have no idea how you mean that either tha human body or DNA are a tngiable example of the Tree. What in DNA is "CHESED...THE RULER, MAJESTY, POWER & AUTHORITY, CONSOLIDATOR OF THINGS" (
The key is "seems to believe". Thus, a theory. Would you like to show proof of that theory?
[/quote]
I thought you were addressing the exact words I used, not inferring your own things from now on? I merely stated that Hawking (you're right, I got his name wrong) didn't believe that to be the case, and asked you who disagreed with him on that matter. I never said that Hawking was right. Of course he can be shown to be wrong. It'd be very foolish to simply believe something to be true because he believed it. There's no need to get all defensive about it.
Sure. But, equally, no-one can say for sure that there are. So the whole thing is conjecture. The standard of evidence I require to find something likely is a bit higher than it simply not having been disproved yet.
Speaking of "standards of evidence", you seem to have abandoned that line of inquiry. Why don't you type out a sentence showing the kind of answer you would find acceptable, with regards to what standards of evidence I would need, so I can copy the form? Or do you admit that it is a unfair and unanswerable question which simply gave you ammo to shoot down any argument Roel or I make without actually having to address any of the points we make?
You said that there were "a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks." I pointed out that Steven Hawking was not among them, that he believed that there was a finite size that you could reach. If these people think differently, then they must disagree with him on this point. It's not a loaded question at all. I'm not about to jump out from behind a bush saying "A-HA! That means ur rong, cuz Hawking is a well-respected scientist and ur not!11!! LOL!!111!"
If these people disagree with him, then they might be right and he might be wrong. I don't consider him the ultimate authority on the structure of the universe. It's simply that you made a claim about well-respected scientists, I pointed out the view of one well-respected scientists and asked you to counter the claim with evidence of your own.
Again, this is how discussions of this kind of thing work. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not trying to trap you. I am not playing the childish game you seem to think I am (and, boy, is that baseless accusation ever getting old quickly). I'm simply trying to discuss this with you, taking in your perspective and knowledge-base and offering up mine.
Exact words, please, from now on.
I see, you bring something up, make a false claim about it, I disprove your false claim and ask if you can substantiate what you've claimed, and suddenly this is a tactic of mine to change the subject? I must admit, I do kind of admire the way that you manage to make you brinigng the Drake equation up, into me changing the subject, all the while claiming it's me who twists words and subjects. But not that much.
What you said was:
Maybe you don't want me to address the words that you do say, but as I'm not psychic, I find it a little bit hard to guess what you mean when you don't actually say anything close to it. I'm sorry, but all I have to go on is what you say, so I think I'll continue addressing that, if you don't mind.
As for the Drake equation being an example of induction, my point is that it's not, as the "facts" upon which any conclusion reached from the equation are highly debateable, to put it mildly (I also personally think the equation is incomplete, but that's a debate for another thread).
Now, you can now say that you didn't mean what you said, and that you don't beleive that Drake did quantify his equation, but all I can do is address the points that you do make. With your "references to how the Drake equation is "accepted by SETI and other astronomical communities", it seemed like you were trying to show the scientific validity of the conclusions you had drawn from the equation and, indeed, by mentioning Drake's supposed quantification that you were claiming some kind of scientific basis for it.
If you don't want me to point out where you're misapplying scientific theories and principals, or falsely invoking the name of science, then don't do it. I certainly won't promise you that if you give a false pseudo-scientific example to support your case that I won't call you on it. Again, if the foundations of what you're saying are false, then anything you build on those foundations is worthless.
And my computer is more than a decade old, operating on Windows 95. It's not the cost, it's the fact that it does not work. Give me a break and stop insinuating petty, childish things about me.
I have a good reason, as explained above. If the software doesn't work on my computer, then the software doesn't work on my computer, and no amount of bullying from you will change that. You would consider quoting one single, solitary sentence from the paper (even telling me the title and author would do) so that I can find and read it too much "work"?
Incorrect unkind assumption. See how it works?
Sorry, how does this relate to comparative sizes of DNa and the universe to humans again? What average size of humans did you say you would use for the calculations? What figures am I supposed to plug in to it again?
Oh, yes I did.
If there is no causal relationship between the distance of the ratio of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the Sun on the one hand and the ratio of the Moon from the Earth and the size of the Moon, then what is it other than coincidence? that's not changing my story, it's couching the same concept in differnet language to make it clearer. obviously I managed to obfuscate what I meant, rather than making it clearer, but that was not my intention.
It is not a causal relationship between them. The distance of the Sun from the Earth is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth. The size of the Sun is not dependent on the size of the Moon. The distance of the Sun from the Earth relative to the size of the Sun is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth relative to the size of the Moon. There is no causal relationship between them. One of them does not cause the other.
Yes, they obey the same laws of physics, but that's not what I was disputing. The Sun is not the distance away from the Earth that it is because the Moon is the distance away from the Earth that it is. That's what I was saying. I hope it's clear now.
Wait, because you misunderstood what I said and posted a picture that you thought was relevent (but actually wasn't) to a side-issue to the discussion, you expect me to have right-clicked the picture, discovered the site you got it from from the URL, visited the site, and read it in it's entirety? I do have things to do other than this, you know. I'm not devoting my life to this conversation. if there's something that you feel I should look at, then I suggest that you tell me, rather than say that it's 'too much work'. You'd already been to the site and had the url of the picture in your paste buffer. Would it really have been that much work to type "I think it might be useful to you to look at the whole site" and paste the url, and editing off the ending so it was just <a href=&quot;http://www.spirasolaris.ca/?]http://www.spirasolaris.ca/? That's really too much effort?
Wouldn't the &quot;lower-level&quot; pathways be self-similar systems of the larger topic?
So, I'm controlling the conversation completely, and we can't discuss any of the issues that I think are relevent, but you alone can suggest topics which are relevent? And I'm the control freak? What about the free exchange of ideas? I discuss points you bring up, you discuss points I bring up...you know, we have an equal discussion. You should try it.
Wait, wait, wait...you're claiming that when you said I was showing &quot;who I really am&quot; that you were saying that I may be being upfront and honest about who I am as far as my &quot;consious self&quot; is concerned but that you can tell that my soul is using &quot;tactics&quot; in the words that I type that make me a control freak? You're really going to have to explain what you mean, here, because this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Please clarify exactly what you mean by the post you made that starts with the sentence &quot;Don't you worry, trollface...I won't leave you feeling lonely&quot;, because you've lost me completely.
And, no, I don't believe in a &quot;soul&quot; or &quot;spirit&quot; even slightly.
Never said it did. I just think that your so-called &quot;sarcasm&quot; (and if you think that random ad hominem attacks on me rather than addressing my arguments is &quot;sarcasm&quot;, then I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary) is counter-productive to rational debate.
Ain't that the truth? This is why I want you to debate me on the issues and address the exact words that I do say, rather than making inferrences, and assumptions about my motives and addressing them instead. Pretend I'm a scientists you're discussing this with.
I ask again how this is a bad thing. Or different from what you do. The last sentence of your previous post is you explicitly stating what you think the point is, and trying to direct the conversation there. Hos is it disingenous and designed to sabotage the conversation (and evidence that I'm a control freak. Or that my soul is, anyway) when I do it, yet the correct thing to do when you do it? Again, why do you think it's right to hold yourself to a different standard of debate than you hold me to? Oh, that's right &quot;life isn't fair&quot;, right?
I argue like that with Chrono because I have a very low opinion of him, and I don't believe for a second that anything productive can come out of debating with him, or that there are intelligent points to be made with reference to him and his claims. My opinion of you is higher and, as such, I tend to address you with more respect than I afford Chrono.
If you think I should have less respect for you and your opinions, and should address you like I address Chrono, then I will. But I don't see what can productively be achieved by the pair of us sniping at each other. I think there may be something productive to come out of us addressing what each other says, so I'd rather do that. If you don't want to do that, then say so, and I'll abandon this conversation.
I'm not insulted (although you have insulted me; there's a distinction there), I just think that the pair of us being snarky with each other would be pointless and counter=productive, when we could be having a meaningful and interesting discussion instead.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Again, I'd argue that this really is dualism. It seems like the criteria are too arbitrary and, again, man-defined. E = mc^2 seems like a three-way partnership, not just two. It's true that E = mc^2, but it's equally true to say that E/m = c^2 or E/c^2 = m.
But the idea of mass vs space I don't think really counts. Space is not a thing in and of itself, it's simply defined as an absence of mass. Space is not the opposite of mass in the same way that 0 is not the negative of 4. -4 is the &quot;opposite&quot; of 4. Anti-matter, now, that would be a different story.
I can certainly see what you're saying here. But it seems to be essentially the same argument that Creationists use to &quot;disprove&quot; the theory of evolution. The honey bee produces more honey than it needs, and honey has antiseptic and other medical properties. therefore it's unthinkable that there isn't an intelligent design behind it. I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't work for me. I don't think it follows.
Instead you've decided to do some of your own. Okay, that's cool. I'd rather copnverse with someone who's whiney than somone who can't keep a civil tongue in their gob.
It is not a question that I will answer with a yes or a no, for the reasons I have already explained - it is a nonsense question. And, yet, I've already answered it, and two further related questions. Still, if you want me to answer your exact question, exactly as you've asked it, then the answer is "No. Exactly as I said above, and for exactly the reasons I gave above.
So you're now saying that the methods of reproduction aren't actually comparable after all, it's the fact of reproduction itself that is comparable?
Okay, if that's how broad the criteria you're using is, then humans are also self-similar with plants, hydra, jellyfish...you could even make a considerable case for being self-similar with clouds. I mean, I think you'd probably ultimately lose that last one, but you could make a very strong case for it.
I thought you said that you were going to stick to my exact words from now on (which you seem to think is siome kind of punishment, when it's actually what I'd prefer you had done from the start. In fact, it's something that I've asked you to do repeatedly)? That lasted all of no posts.
I said that the term "self-replicating" has a very specific meaning which is different to "self-reproducing". When I was arguing aginst what you were saying when you were using the term "self-replicating" is a different argument than you saying the same thing only with the term "self-reproducing". Yes, it's a small semantic detail, but it's quite a large one that has huge knock-on effects to the rest of the argument.
As someone who is into fractals and who works within precise scientific boundries you should know that one tiny error in the beginning of a calculation can end up throwing the end results way way off course. "God is in the details", and all of that.
Yes, that's better. That addressess all of my arguments quickly, consisely, and leaves me with one simple statement that I cannot dispute. More of this kind of thing, please.
Yes we do. As I outlined above, though, I don't think that is of great significance. We share reproduction in common with every living thing, and some non-living ones as well. In fact, "reproduction" is one of the criteria by which common wisdom determines whether something is a life-form or not.
It's kind of like saying that we have "having a physical form" in common with them, or "the ability to move". Hardly Earth-shattering.
Yes. As I said above, they are important. You're building up a big theory, starting from these little foundations, and if the foundations are wrong, then everything built up from those foundations will be wrong, too. do you not think that the details of your theories are important? That's not the sign of a basis in science, that's the sign of a basis in vague mumbo-jumbo.
So you're not claiming that we're self-similar in terms of DNA's asexual reproduction, then? Just with regards to the sexual reproduction? That would seem to contradict the idea that the fact of reproduction was enough of a similarity in itself.
I thought you were sticking to what I did actually say, not putting words in my mouth? I did not say that the primary focus had changed, I said that you've changed your position with regards to the details. We were discussing cloning. You said that it (self-replication) was something that we had in common with DNA, even before we could self-repliacte. Then you said that we didn't, and you kind of flip-flopped around the whole issue for a while. All I've been trying to get you to do is to clarify and explain what you're saying with regards to the details.
Do we, or do we not share self-replication in common with our DNA? Is the ability to clone human beings relevent to the case you are making or not? I'd just like some definitive answers, please. I'm not trying to distract from anything, I'm trying to get you to explain what exactly you mean. This is your theory, you claim a (at least partially) scientific basis for it, I assume that you've actually thought about these things, and that you have definitive positions on the issues. You cannot expect me to buy your theory if you're not even prepared to explain it except in the most broad generalities. And you certainly won't convince me that it has any scientific merit at all.
Of course it does. If I were to say G = mc^2, and you called me up on it, I couldn't just change G to E and say that it was the same thing. It's not. Arguing that we share the very general term "reproduction" is a very different thing to the more specific "self-reproduction" and even more different to the very specific "self-replication". You cannot argue that arguing one is like arguing the other, because they're worlds apart.
Why, it'd be almost like being very hung-over and tired late at night and mistakenly misusing the term "self-similar" to mean "exactly the same", wouldn't it? Excpet you'd never concentrate on details and semantics only when it suits you, would you? The difference is that when I was called out on my misuse, I simply admitted the mistake, rather than going on about you being petty or disingenuous or patronisingly telling you to go and do more research.
Yes, for the love of God, please start doing that.
When you say that I'm not focusing on the other similarities you've pointed out, are we talking about the ones that I agreed with you on, and therefore that needed no further discussion? Or what? If you'd like to clarify, and feel that I've not addressed something, point it out, and I'll happily tell you what I think. Rather than, yes, whining, you could just talk to me like one adult talks to another, you know.
How is addressing the specific things that you say and have said, the specific claims that you are making changing the argument?
A subsystem of something is a completely seperate thing to the thing it's a subsystem of? So, as you didn't like my last analogy (not that you addressed it, of course), how about this one...do I share "being able to play the piano" with my hands? Is that a trait that I share in common with them? Or are my hands the mechanism by which I play the piano?
Meiosis is the process by which humans reproduce. If you want to say that it's a sepereate thing that is similar, then you might as well say that we can "walk around on two legs", similar to DNA, too.
So, let me get this absolutely clear...you are not arguing that one, single, solitary human being is self-similar with his or her DNA? Instead you are arguing that, in a very generalised way, humans in general are self-similar with human DNA? I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
So you would also agree that we are self-similar with every other living thing? From protozoa up to whales?
Not relevent to the point at hand, but I just thought I'd point out the irony that in this sentence you tell me off for both having made a semantic mistake (although you accuse me of being disingenuous with it) and for caring about your semantic mistake.
Um, well, the Tree Of Life, in my mind is purely a human construct. And I have no idea how you mean that either tha human body or DNA are a tngiable example of the Tree. What in DNA is "CHESED...THE RULER, MAJESTY, POWER & AUTHORITY, CONSOLIDATOR OF THINGS" (
The key is "seems to believe". Thus, a theory. Would you like to show proof of that theory?
[/quote]
I thought you were addressing the exact words I used, not inferring your own things from now on? I merely stated that Hawking (you're right, I got his name wrong) didn't believe that to be the case, and asked you who disagreed with him on that matter. I never said that Hawking was right. Of course he can be shown to be wrong. It'd be very foolish to simply believe something to be true because he believed it. There's no need to get all defensive about it.
Sure. But, equally, no-one can say for sure that there are. So the whole thing is conjecture. The standard of evidence I require to find something likely is a bit higher than it simply not having been disproved yet.
Speaking of "standards of evidence", you seem to have abandoned that line of inquiry. Why don't you type out a sentence showing the kind of answer you would find acceptable, with regards to what standards of evidence I would need, so I can copy the form? Or do you admit that it is a unfair and unanswerable question which simply gave you ammo to shoot down any argument Roel or I make without actually having to address any of the points we make?
You said that there were "a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks." I pointed out that Steven Hawking was not among them, that he believed that there was a finite size that you could reach. If these people think differently, then they must disagree with him on this point. It's not a loaded question at all. I'm not about to jump out from behind a bush saying "A-HA! That means ur rong, cuz Hawking is a well-respected scientist and ur not!11!! LOL!!111!"
If these people disagree with him, then they might be right and he might be wrong. I don't consider him the ultimate authority on the structure of the universe. It's simply that you made a claim about well-respected scientists, I pointed out the view of one well-respected scientists and asked you to counter the claim with evidence of your own.
Again, this is how discussions of this kind of thing work. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not trying to trap you. I am not playing the childish game you seem to think I am (and, boy, is that baseless accusation ever getting old quickly). I'm simply trying to discuss this with you, taking in your perspective and knowledge-base and offering up mine.
Exact words, please, from now on.
I see, you bring something up, make a false claim about it, I disprove your false claim and ask if you can substantiate what you've claimed, and suddenly this is a tactic of mine to change the subject? I must admit, I do kind of admire the way that you manage to make you brinigng the Drake equation up, into me changing the subject, all the while claiming it's me who twists words and subjects. But not that much.
What you said was:
Maybe you don't want me to address the words that you do say, but as I'm not psychic, I find it a little bit hard to guess what you mean when you don't actually say anything close to it. I'm sorry, but all I have to go on is what you say, so I think I'll continue addressing that, if you don't mind.
As for the Drake equation being an example of induction, my point is that it's not, as the "facts" upon which any conclusion reached from the equation are highly debateable, to put it mildly (I also personally think the equation is incomplete, but that's a debate for another thread).
Now, you can now say that you didn't mean what you said, and that you don't beleive that Drake did quantify his equation, but all I can do is address the points that you do make. With your "references to how the Drake equation is "accepted by SETI and other astronomical communities", it seemed like you were trying to show the scientific validity of the conclusions you had drawn from the equation and, indeed, by mentioning Drake's supposed quantification that you were claiming some kind of scientific basis for it.
If you don't want me to point out where you're misapplying scientific theories and principals, or falsely invoking the name of science, then don't do it. I certainly won't promise you that if you give a false pseudo-scientific example to support your case that I won't call you on it. Again, if the foundations of what you're saying are false, then anything you build on those foundations is worthless.
And my computer is more than a decade old, operating on Windows 95. It's not the cost, it's the fact that it does not work. Give me a break and stop insinuating petty, childish things about me.
I have a good reason, as explained above. If the software doesn't work on my computer, then the software doesn't work on my computer, and no amount of bullying from you will change that. You would consider quoting one single, solitary sentence from the paper (even telling me the title and author would do) so that I can find and read it too much "work"?
Incorrect unkind assumption. See how it works?
Sorry, how does this relate to comparative sizes of DNa and the universe to humans again? What average size of humans did you say you would use for the calculations? What figures am I supposed to plug in to it again?
Oh, yes I did.
If there is no causal relationship between the distance of the ratio of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the Sun on the one hand and the ratio of the Moon from the Earth and the size of the Moon, then what is it other than coincidence? that's not changing my story, it's couching the same concept in differnet language to make it clearer. obviously I managed to obfuscate what I meant, rather than making it clearer, but that was not my intention.
It is not a causal relationship between them. The distance of the Sun from the Earth is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth. The size of the Sun is not dependent on the size of the Moon. The distance of the Sun from the Earth relative to the size of the Sun is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth relative to the size of the Moon. There is no causal relationship between them. One of them does not cause the other.
Yes, they obey the same laws of physics, but that's not what I was disputing. The Sun is not the distance away from the Earth that it is because the Moon is the distance away from the Earth that it is. That's what I was saying. I hope it's clear now.
Wait, because you misunderstood what I said and posted a picture that you thought was relevent (but actually wasn't) to a side-issue to the discussion, you expect me to have right-clicked the picture, discovered the site you got it from from the URL, visited the site, and read it in it's entirety? I do have things to do other than this, you know. I'm not devoting my life to this conversation. if there's something that you feel I should look at, then I suggest that you tell me, rather than say that it's 'too much work'. You'd already been to the site and had the url of the picture in your paste buffer. Would it really have been that much work to type "I think it might be useful to you to look at the whole site" and paste the url, and editing off the ending so it was just <a href=&quot;http://www.spirasolaris.ca/?]http://www.spirasolaris.ca/? That's really too much effort?
Wouldn't the &quot;lower-level&quot; pathways be self-similar systems of the larger topic?
So, I'm controlling the conversation completely, and we can't discuss any of the issues that I think are relevent, but you alone can suggest topics which are relevent? And I'm the control freak? What about the free exchange of ideas? I discuss points you bring up, you discuss points I bring up...you know, we have an equal discussion. You should try it.
Wait, wait, wait...you're claiming that when you said I was showing &quot;who I really am&quot; that you were saying that I may be being upfront and honest about who I am as far as my &quot;consious self&quot; is concerned but that you can tell that my soul is using &quot;tactics&quot; in the words that I type that make me a control freak? You're really going to have to explain what you mean, here, because this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Please clarify exactly what you mean by the post you made that starts with the sentence &quot;Don't you worry, trollface...I won't leave you feeling lonely&quot;, because you've lost me completely.
And, no, I don't believe in a &quot;soul&quot; or &quot;spirit&quot; even slightly.
Never said it did. I just think that your so-called &quot;sarcasm&quot; (and if you think that random ad hominem attacks on me rather than addressing my arguments is &quot;sarcasm&quot;, then I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary) is counter-productive to rational debate.
Ain't that the truth? This is why I want you to debate me on the issues and address the exact words that I do say, rather than making inferrences, and assumptions about my motives and addressing them instead. Pretend I'm a scientists you're discussing this with.
I ask again how this is a bad thing. Or different from what you do. The last sentence of your previous post is you explicitly stating what you think the point is, and trying to direct the conversation there. Hos is it disingenous and designed to sabotage the conversation (and evidence that I'm a control freak. Or that my soul is, anyway) when I do it, yet the correct thing to do when you do it? Again, why do you think it's right to hold yourself to a different standard of debate than you hold me to? Oh, that's right &quot;life isn't fair&quot;, right?
I argue like that with Chrono because I have a very low opinion of him, and I don't believe for a second that anything productive can come out of debating with him, or that there are intelligent points to be made with reference to him and his claims. My opinion of you is higher and, as such, I tend to address you with more respect than I afford Chrono.
If you think I should have less respect for you and your opinions, and should address you like I address Chrono, then I will. But I don't see what can productively be achieved by the pair of us sniping at each other. I think there may be something productive to come out of us addressing what each other says, so I'd rather do that. If you don't want to do that, then say so, and I'll abandon this conversation.
I'm not insulted (although you have insulted me; there's a distinction there), I just think that the pair of us being snarky with each other would be pointless and counter=productive, when we could be having a meaningful and interesting discussion instead.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Again, I'd argue that this really is dualism. It seems like the criteria are too arbitrary and, again, man-defined. E = mc^2 seems like a three-way partnership, not just two. It's true that E = mc^2, but it's equally true to say that E/m = c^2 or E/c^2 = m.
But the idea of mass vs space I don't think really counts. Space is not a thing in and of itself, it's simply defined as an absence of mass. Space is not the opposite of mass in the same way that 0 is not the negative of 4. -4 is the &quot;opposite&quot; of 4. Anti-matter, now, that would be a different story.
I can certainly see what you're saying here. But it seems to be essentially the same argument that Creationists use to &quot;disprove&quot; the theory of evolution. The honey bee produces more honey than it needs, and honey has antiseptic and other medical properties. therefore it's unthinkable that there isn't an intelligent design behind it. I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't work for me. I don't think it follows.
