Ophiolite Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 **&$%*£*$*$**£*$%^&%&$! Mike, You gave repeated examples of what you called cleverness applied to inanimate objects, or automatic processes within living creatures. These are not literally clever. This entire ****ing thread has been about your insistence that they are clever. Cleverness is - for the umpteetnth time - related to the actions of conscious, intelligent organisms when they are behaving in a conscious, intelligent way. If all you actually wanted to say is that nature is frigging amazing then, as Acme said, you should apologise for wasting our time. We know it's frigging amazing. That's why some of us became scientists, some of us merely obtained science degrees and others of us have pursued an autodidactic route. Yes, it is amazing, intriguing, astounding, inspiring, complex and simple at the same time, beautiful, intricate, wonderful and a thousand things beside, but it is not clever. Are we done here? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 Are we done here? NO That is just a difference of definition and opinion. No apology . Our position still stands. That is if Tar is still standing , he was at the last count. Also No . Because if our proposed aspect regarding Entropy and Generative / Generation, prove to be correct, which certainly by early results , things are looking good. We could be in for a second aspect to argue out. But that may be a while off . It should be encouraging to know that it's possible the universe may not be going to run down like some burnt out candle . In other words there is the makings of a re-generative mechanism in place to avert this. That is of course if we are correct . Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 This time I really am giving up. I'm not saying you are obtuse, but you certainly do not eschew obfuscation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 This time I really am giving up. I'm not saying you are obtuse, but you certainly do not eschew obfuscation.I am sorry , I am not wishing to cause distress , but this is a very pivotal issue that I certainly Do want , to eschew obfuscation with regard to this particular point. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 It is not me that wants to change the word clever. I have always been happy with it. Do not want to change it , or mess with its use. It is a perfectly good word . To quote the Oxford English Dictionary :- ... Now you can say this is Hogg Wash if or all you want! . But I think in this instance it would be fair to say , that we ( tar and I ) have won this discussion and argument. Mike It is hogwash. Acme, ... What would be your example of "not accidental"? If you have none, then the word accidental has no opposite, no meaning, and you can not sensibly use it. Everything cannot be accidental, if there is anything that is not accidental. ... Regards, TAR It is accidental that I encountered you here, but I am purposefully responding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physica Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) What would be your example of "not accidental"? If you have none, then the word accidental has no opposite, no meaning, and you can not sensibly use it. Everything cannot be accidental, if there is anything that is not accidental. I was walking in the woods on Sunday, performing an experiment that Mike suggested in another thread. We coordinated it, so that we were both asking the universe to answer our question, at the same time, so that we could compare our results in an objective, peer reviewed fashion. Initial results were exciting and seemed magical, but I reviewed pictures I took and realized something I thought had happened "magically" had been there prior the experiment. In fact the "answer" I got to my question of the universe, was also there before I asked the question. I had defined the diamond infront of me as the area in which anything subtantial and notable happening would designate a "maybe" answer from the "observers". Anything to the right and up a yes, and to the left and up a no. I asked "Is there a direction orthogonal from here and now, that one can experience?" Nothing happened of note in any of the designated areas. After a minute or two, a moth or bug or something fluttered my left ear, but that was not too notable. I thought the experiment a bust and continued down the path. About 15 feet down the path, right at the base of the diamond I designated to my right, I saw a very interesting "answer". It is the rock, who's picture I have attached. Mike also had an interesting maybe answer to his question. We talked about our experiences and decided there was no magic, no observers, but our minds were not isolated from the universe, and used the universe to think. Left us both in a rather "its all good" state of mind. This is not an experiment. This is someone wondering in the woods and connecting dots in their own head. An experiment needs to be repeatable in turn expecting the same results every time for the theory to have any credibility. Also the "result" found in this so called experiment doesn't determine any intent so I don't know how this can be used to state that something isn't accidental. To state that something isn't accidental you have to prove that something intentionally forced that outcome. Come on guys this is basic stuff. Tar and Mike you should take on board what Acme and Ophiolite are saying, although they have been steamrolling they have been more than patient and reasonable with you, extend the courtesy. Also check out this video: Edited May 29, 2014 by physica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Acme, Then, along with Ophiolite you require conscious decisions to be purposeful, and everything else that is not a conscious decision, to be accidental. I was thinking about this distinction yesterday and the distinction was also brought up by Mike a number of posts ago, in terms of "where is one to draw the line" between that done consciously on purpose, and that done accidently with no intent. That we can make a distinction and at least start with conscious human manipulation of the world as "purposeful" and intelligent is proof enough that there is at least in the case of human intelligence and consciousness, something, however small and possibly unique in the universe, that is not accidental. But then, when one looks at the complex human organism, that is so similar in plan and parts and purpose, across 8 billion current examples and however many billion prior examples, one sees a common thread, a pattern that has survived quite independantly of any single instance. An intelligence that supercedes the individual example. That existed prior any of us here being born, and will exist no doubt, after everybody here is dead and gone. Some mitochondria holding the code and plan to pass along, that is itself just unthinking chemicals as was mentioned a few posts ago as all it takes for grass to grow straight away from the center of the Earth. There is some point at which the human race "got smart". Maybe when the first word was spoken and understood. Maybe when the first tool was used as was depicted in 2001 a space odyssey. wjere tje ape throws the stick he/she used in the air and it turns directly into the space craft. But at some point we were natural and accidental, and became natural and purposeful. Where you want to draw the line between the two is inconsequential to the fact of the matter, that there is no objective point at which the human race "fell from grace", ate the apple, and discerned the difference between good and evil, and became purposeful and "unnatural". Ophiolite would like to establish a "difference" between conscious humans and the rest of nature. That we are intelligent and nature is just not very capable or purposeful. Perhaps that we are in some way, because of our imaginations, above nature, better than nature, and a different sort of thing than nature. That is where I say that humans metabolise on purpose, and no one has to think about it. And flowers bloom to draw the bee to pollenate the fruit that houses the seed that passes the pattern of the plant on to the next instance of the plant, and that is mighty smart and purposeful and not a completely different type of thing the plant is doing, than that which the human is doing. Regards, TAR Edited May 30, 2014 by tar -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Acme, ... That is where I say that humans metabolise on purpose, and no one has to think about it. And flowers bloom to draw the bee to pollenate the fruit that houses the seed that passes the pattern of the plant on to the next instance of the plant, and that is mighty smart and purposeful and not a completely different type of thing the plant is doing, than that which the human is doing. Regards, TAR Yes well, we are all filled up with what you say and saying it ad nauseum does not make it any more right than the first utterance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Well , now there is a thing ! The purpose in doing the experiment , on either side of the Atlantic , at the same time . Same day 9. Am NY Eastern time , 2 pm uk. Time 25 the May 2014 , This was , among other things , was to see if the experiment was repeatable , by 2 different persons either side of the Atlantic Ocean . And in principle the experiment is/ was . I had exactly the same type of results in principle except with a different subject. ( different question ) . In both cases as Tar and I compared results over the week end , we were amazed at the correlation , despite different subjects and different locations. This has led us to an early conclusion , that the human brain is able to get " In Tune " with the universe, as in fact we are a very clever part of that said universe. This , even at this early stage of experimentation , has produced a repeatable result. Pictorial illustration of the human brain being . .------- . . In tune .-----. With the universe Mike Edited May 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 If you can't confuse people with cleverness, dazzle them with dissemblance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) This discussion of the laws of thermodynamics gives both sides of the view of positive and negative entropy and regenerative processes. Link.:- is from BBC ' iIn our time by. Melvin Bragg' ' Second law of thermodynamics ' Link :-http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y2bm This is 40 mins , But is worth listening to, with recognized scientists Discussing . This includes cars, steam engines, Big Bang , suns , background radiation, gravity, Carnot, lord kelvin, Evolution , life etc Illustration of. " The war between positive and negative entropy ." Mike. Edited May 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share Posted May 31, 2014 Were the war for order to have an extended front, such that life and other regenerative systems , such as gravity causing star building and life causing terra forming or the equivalent, throughout the universe. Maybe the war against entropy could be balanced.? Mike 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Acme, https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr/galleries/72157644928678005/ Mother nature is looking pretty clever in these pictures. Regards, TAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Acme, https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr/galleries/72157644928678005/ Mother nature is looking pretty clever in these pictures. Regards, TAR And you Sir are looking rather obtuse in this thread. Regards, Acme 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physica Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Acme, https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr/galleries/72157644928678005/ Mother nature is looking pretty clever in these pictures. Regards, TAR these patterns can be described by the mathematics of the golden ratio which correlates with ionic and covalent bond ratios which is why they have that structure. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6955-0_12 You should have learn't by now that just saying how something looks without really knowing anything about it is complete trash Edited June 1, 2014 by physica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 these patterns can be described by the mathematics of the golden ratio which correlates with ionic and covenant bond ratios which is why they have that structure. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6955-0_12 You should have learn't by now that just saying how something looks without really knowing anything about it is complete trash I think you meant 'covalent' if you have time still to edit. Not that math holds any sway with Mike or TAR, but it is the math that is a clever human endeavor. Whether these fellas fail to understand or simply choose to ignore that cleverness in its very definition requires sentience, it should be clear by now that they have no intention of stopping the obtuseness. More to your point physica, there is no looking at or understanding atomic structures that is predictive of what can or will arise from aggregations of those structures. To paraphrase Hofstadter, who-and-or-what is pushing who-and-or-what around? A final word Mike & TAR. You have come here presumably because of the many sharp & knowledgeable minds on which to try your ideas. Rightly so insomuch as sharp & knowledgeable minds abound here. What is not right is that when these folks -after giving fair hearing and analysis- reject your ideas on sound reasoning and per se logical grounds, you persist in arguing as if you yourselves know better. Gentlemen, you do not know better and your persistence and petulant harangues only continue to emphasize that. Kindly stop. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 1, 2014 Author Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Another one is symmetry . The bumble bee apparently uses symmetry as a means of guiding itself to the flower, to the honey, and indirectly to the pollen . Another of ( in our time by Melvyn Bragg and recognised scientists discussing this . However the BBC site seems to have crashed temporarily. Maybe demand ) . A colleague and I were discussing this subject the other day. Why do women like flowers so much.? And so do bumble bees., and we like the women. We as males like the women , who are very curved and symmetrical . They spend a lot of time and money to look symmetrical . They like the flowers partly because they are so symmetrical and beautiful. They like us if we give them flowers. . There is something there! Everybody is happy ###############. except me #######. for someone slapping a ( -2 )rep point on so hastily ) this really is a misuse on the speculation forum . You are making it impossible to have a discussion. You may as well go around poking everyone in the eye when you disagree with them or they with you . Kindly refrain, particularly as this is a cowards way , as you are hidden behind anonymity ! ################### ####################. ################# ############# Bunters .. Whoever you are , you are sick. Go and get some treatment ! THIS REALLY IS DISGRACEFUL YOU ARE MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE IDEA OF A FORUM. YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF THE GREAT DEBATING CIRCLES OF HISTORY WITH SOCRATES AND PLATO AND ARISTOTLE GO AND PLAY IN A THUGS PLAYGROUND . WHERE YOU CAN GO AROUND SMASHING UP KIDDIES TOYS . AND STEALING SWEETS OFF KIDS . YUCK YOU MAKE ME WANT TO BE ILL. Mike Edited June 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 ... Everybody is happy ###############. except me #######. for someone slapping a ( -2 )rep point on so hastily ) this really is a misuse on the speculation forum . You are making it impossible to have a discussion. You may as well go around poking everyone in the eye when you disagree with them or they with you . Kindly refrain, particularly as this is a cowards way , as you are hidden behind anonymity ! ################### ####################. ################# ############# Bunters .. Whoever you are , you are sick. Go and get some treatment ! Mike I gave you one of those minus points Mike and it is well within my purview. The anonymity is part of the board setup and if you have a complaint then take it up with the staff in the appropriate place. As to the Speculation section it has been pointed out numerous times by staff that it is no shield from the requirement of solid reasoning. My appeal to the staff is to cut to the chase and close this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 1, 2014 Author Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) I gave you one of those minus points Mike and it is well within my purview. The anonymity is part of the board setup and if you have a complaint then take it up with the staff in the appropriate place.As to the Speculation section it has been pointed out numerous times by staff that it is no shield from the requirement of solid reasoning. My appeal to the staff is to cut to the chase and close this thread.I have reported it to the management. What actually is it about this subject, that makes you want to close down one of the most beautiful areas of discussion about the universe. Namely , the order , beauty, perfection, and a thousand and one other things that show the WONDER of NATURE ,and what I would attempt to possibly show if given the space and quiet , It's CLEVERNESS . Mike Now kindly refrain from showering your -1's on someone who I thought was a friend ! Edited June 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I have reported it to the management. What actually is it about this subject, that makes you want to close down one of the most beautiful areas of discussion about the universe. Namely , the order , beauty, perfection, and a thousand and one other things that show the WONDER of NATURE ,and what I would attempt to show if given the space and quiet , It's CLEVERNESS . Mike Now kindly refrain from showering your -1's on someone who I thought was a friend ! What raises my hackles is your continuing to ignore and/or argue over basic definitions and sound logical reasoning that contradict your assertions. Your claims that you are applying science in this discussion are a farce. I'll kindly shower my reputation votes by the dictates of my conscience. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 1, 2014 Author Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) What raises my hackles is your continuing to ignore and/or argue over basic definitions and sound logical reasoning that contradict your assertions. Your claims that you are applying science in this discussion are a farce.I'll kindly shower my reputation votes by the dictates of my conscience.Well thanks a bundle ! What happened to the fond memories of you and I , and others having pleasant anecdote style conversations about art, number etc not so long ago , yet tying it all in to good science . . . The days of pleasantness . Mike You will have the moderators on our backs for conversation rather than subject matter . Edited June 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Well thanks a bundle ! Mike You're welcome. Edit: I do appreciate the bonds of friendship and we have a saying from a public service announcement here in the US that I think is an apropos metaphor for this situation. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Edited June 1, 2014 by Acme 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I have reported it to the management. ! Moderator Note And we'd appreciate it if you'd stop. The report post function is for reporting rules violations, and down-voting is not a rules violation. It's feedback. A very low-resolution form of peer-review. Since you aren't discussing the topic, and the topic lacks rigor: pending other mod confirmation, I'm closing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts