Jump to content

Divagating the Future

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Divagating the Future

  1. <•> Cartoons don't offend me, silly. You missed the point of my reply. ↓________↓__________↓ 1) All sciences are important. 2) Placing sciences upon a continuum in a left to right order parallels the number-line {-} ←——————→{+} 3) Negative is designated as being lower than positive. You wouldn't have a wish to have -$100-True? 4) Some may conclude {for seemingly obvious reasons} that the sciences were placed upon the continuum with a purpose. 5) Those that have concluded that the sciences were so as placed in that manner had an implication. 6) Now,considering that negative is designated as being lower than positive those individuals may perceive the cartoon as implying that sociology and math are polarized. Sociology having the most negative value upon the continuum and Mathematics having the most positive value upon the number line. 7) Negative, as I surely know from this site is regarded as {unfavourable} and positive is regarded as {favourable}. 8) So, I made written a humourous reply to make clear that all sciences are important, for the good of all... See- {ô¿ô} *Exact--Sciences* Does one exist? If so please do tell. I have taken your advice and been trying to reach the √2. I stopped. I took out an old Math book and it read→√2 is imaginary. Imaginary? Now imagine that? Then I remembered having taken a course in college titled "Imaginary Numbers." It was a tough course; only 7 or 8 students finished the course. I took it as an elective thinking since I was good in Math this course would be easy and avoiding me write another labourous term paper. Well, I was among the few that stuck out the course. We all got A's. But...? I can't think of a single thing that is exact while having imaginary components. Can you? Ushie ♥
  2. While not a climatologist I do have a graduate degree in biology. And, there is no way around the fact that biology and climate are related. I also keep to date in readings. My nature of work involves a lot of traveling so I get to learn the views of many people. Now,the very groups of people that promote human caused climate change are among those who have indicated that such events as sun spot activity have earthly effects, that there has been a shifting of the poles,that geothermal activities cause dust particles to rise into the earth's atmosphere limiting solar radition..et al. Paleontologists have come to conclusions that Antarctica at one time was tropical due to fossil findings. Geologists claim the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. {give or take a few billion} Now, I have read that in the 1970's climatologists were predicting another ice-age due to all the particles of remnants of burning fossil fuels. Now, especially after that amazing film by Mr. Gore, that humans are making the climate become warmer. Seriously? Perhaps humans may be viewed as the apex of evolution. {assumedly} But, to go as far as claiming that humans [even should they wish to] have that ability is far beyond their limits! Can't these global warming groupies see that their just may..perhaps..be some political elements to this? Can't they at least wait a few millenium before they make such claims? Can't they see economical reasons playing a part in it? Yes, humans have caused for dirty air,dirty water,deforestation,animal extinction, etc. But to claim humans have altered the earth's climate!?! To state that is not even "scientific." Climate is not as the weather; it takes a long..long time to determine a "climate." Just how can the science that is viewed as being excellent if it is 70% correct in weather predictions state claim that the earth is going to significantly rise in temperature to such drastic degree that polar caps will melt,cities underwater,violent storms violating humankind..and so on? Also,the notion of global warming is not even agreed upon among climatologists themselves; there is about a 50/50 split. The only "proof" that the earth may be warming is best depicted in this photo. amazing!
  3. I am merely trying to placate and bring it into a perspective that ..some..people are unable to grasp. Understand? ☼
  4. Fine, next time I have a headache I will just sit, take a pencil and paper, and figure out the √2. Those useless •Sociologists• that learned from cultural studies that groups of peoples as Jews,Wicca,Buddhists et al used the leaves and bark from the willow tree upon special days. Darn useless •Biologists• who figured out that the willow leaves and bark contained salicin,a substance that is like aspirin, and when metabolised it turns into salicylic acid in the human body. Darn them for learning it relieves pain and now have learned it has many other meditative uses as in heart attack prevention. Darn useless •Chemists• who figured it out just how to make salicylic acid into an easy to take form. Bless † the •Math People• for making sure buyers get the right number of aspirin pills in the bottle.
  5. ←∞→•{Infinity}-Is a Circle-No Beginning↔No Ending•←∞→

    1. rktpro


      Circle? You will definitely end up then.

  6. ←∞→•{Infinity}-Is a Circle-No Beginning↔No Ending•←∞→

  7. Read my signature as it applies very much. I happen to not be a "theist," if anything,I would best be called a deist.
  8. I changed my screen name to Divagating the Future from Queen of Wands. The math was not mine..lol.."Eraserhead"→ I couldn't eat chicken for a year after seeing that movie! The correct answer is, there isn't any answer. Read it again and you will see. 3 men enter a hotel while the hotel manager is away. They read that a room costs $30, so they leave $30 upon the desk,get the key and enter their room for a good night's sleep. Meanwhile the hotel manager comes back, sees the 30 dollars upon the desk, and tells the bell-boy that the room is no longer $30 dollars but now only $25. He then gives the bell-boy 5 single $1 dollar bills and instructs the bell-boy to refund the $5 to the men. Upon going to the men's room the bell-boy thinks; hmm?, "No way can 3 men evenly divide 5 $1 bills." So, he decides to "help" and pockets $2 for himself. He then knocks upon the men's door and gives them each $1. Now here is the question. The men who each paid $10 for the room they thought was $30 but was only $25; each are refunded $1 by the bell-boy and 10$-1$=9$..and .. 3x9=27. So, there is now 27$ accounted for + the 2$ the bell-boy pocketed. But, $27$+2$ only = 29$.. What happened to the 1$..to account for the original $30....? Now,the 3 men gave $30. The room was only $25. The manager gave the bell-hop $5 to refund the 3 men. The bell-hop only gave them back $3 stealing $2. So the 3 men got cheated and actually paid $27 instead of the correct $25. See <ô¿ô> I phrased the question to make it rhetorical. the 3x9=27 was a nonsensensicl operation to throw the reader off. Oh!..I gave you the +1 because with the question about Joe,Rose,Harry,John, I asked for the 4 positions of each. I never told there was a dancer. I have ADD and I sometimes forget my ritalin dose. Likely this was such a time Ushie
  9. Opps CORRECT. I owe each a positive. And shall. No, I did not berate anyone; I just told them their answer was incorrect. Yes, the one you mentioned did have the correct answer. But he wrote as Joe being "ots' {i think he wrote that} not dancer. I was about to award him credit when I viewed his attachment. It was a clever method he used. If any are to be berated here, it is I for neglecting to supply the 4 positions. I believe I made mention; I may have not made mention to you that I do have ADD and it hampers me sometimes with such incidentals.
  10. Perhaps I may help. Take what you feel worthy from this. I shall present to you some possible avenues for you to pursue. Your choice of topic for your thesis is one of much debate and I would so love to learn of it upon completion. Regarding consciousness it is easy to make the presumption that only humans are conscious. It may be viewed that all other organisms, even the higher animals as essentially automatons,reacting mechanically to stimuli in such terms of innate or learned patterns. In principle so then,one could design a computer program to so simulate the behaviour of any organism! Humans alone are as said to be held conscious in the sense of being aware{consciousness}of themselves in addition to being aware a stimuli that as such impinge on them. One consequence of such as so then justifies the exploitation of other life forms in such they cannot suffer because they lack consciousness. Humans assume being the most intelligent organisms upon earth. But, may it not be so that all life forms have consciousness, albeit to varying degrees from human consciousness? If you take the perspective that consciousness can be in a variate of life forms, then consciousness is worth studying as a general principle. Whereas if you assume it is unique to but humans then it becomes exclusive to them and a special problem and possibly not as important as a more general understanding of the world. But presume that it is such; humans alone have consciousness. May it be attributed to the unique manner produced by the activity of the human brain? That through evolution the human cerebrum had to evolve to meet the challenges of survival? That would imply that consciousness is identical with the activity of the human brain. This is termed psychoneural identity thesis. Since reality is actually physical in nature,consciousness itself must be a product of that physical activity. All the intricacies and subtleties of consciousness as then represent intricate patterns of neural firing within the brain and to some extent within the nervous system generally. Also,it could be that the brain and the nervous system act as an instrument of consciousness, a factor every bit as real in its own right as physical things. This has import for if that is such then consciousness may then exist independently of the brain. There is actually excellent scientific evidence of this hypothesis,inferentially through the phenomena of extrasensory perception, and directly in out-of-body experiences. Much literature, well founded and documented exists. I hope I gave to you some thoughts to ponder. Good luck ♣ Ushie ♀
  11. My point exactly and hence my screen-name "Divagating the Future." Contrary to what some think the word means→ divagation is a noun it means a digression away from, a wandering from, to a putting aside. And, as I see it America is compromising itself. It is in the process of eliminating the middle class. Throughout all history what stood between freedom and despotism was a middle class. A middle class acts as a buffer against tyranny. Written in the American constitution {a prototype of more world government than anything else } are the amendments. The writers saw that freedom of expression was of #1 importance; it was paramount. They then wrote they second amendment. Why? To assure that not even the government shall negate amendment # 1. Fallacious lies have been made into corrupt facts. That being, guns kill people and increase crime. So wrong is that. If you have the ambition, look into the true facts! An unarmed public is negatively correlated to reduction of violent crime. Cars kill far more people than guns. Should cars be banned? The media is so eager to report any gun related crime yet ever report just how many innocent lives are saved buy firearms. I can attest to that, myself being such a case. Ushie
  12. The word forum is of Latin origin when one looks into Websters dictionary. While in high school I was taught about the Roman forum but it wasn't until I worked substituting school as one means of earning college tuition I really paid heed to its significance. In ancient Rome it was a public place; a place where causes were judicially tried and most importantly {to me} a place where orations were delivered. It was a place where there were discussions of public matters and interest. While preparing my lessons for next days lessons I could almost hear the loudness that must have existed. There must have been those who laid there claim to what they so claimed being true because it was established as being true. There were those shouting in opposition that the established truths were wrong; they claimed they had "proof" that their views were true. Then, there where those who disclaimed that either were definitely the truth; they proclaimed that the "truth" is that there just may be something else being actually the truth. Those brave individuals, I have the confidence, caused for there to be a loud outcry of opposition. Such were likely labeled soothsayers,heretics of truth,ignomouses and likely things inappropriate for this public article to make note upon. Throughout the history of human curiosity, in search of what is true, it were THOSE individuals who made some of the greatest discoveries. Examples of such brave outspoken individuals include names and discoveries, now common knowings,litter history. Those as Copernicus and Galio with their contributions to astronomy,William Harvey and the idea of blood circulating, and Krebs with his ideas of the citric acid cycle were scorned,ridiculed and even ostracized among the established scientific elite. If not for R. Goddard the moon may still likely be nothing but made of cheese. [sic] To Goddard was written→" This is so an example of the ridiculous lengths to which vicious specialisation will take those of science." [sic] Bickerton a physicist. Humans would still be dealing with having to scrub out their cast iron frying pans if not for applications of the Nobel Prize winning Shechtman,whose discovery completely altered the basic understanding of the nature of matter. For those of ambition, I am sure they could extend this list to multitudes. A forum should be one of converse not complicity. Not something in which each pats the back of those who agree with them. Yes, I have now the rather significant number of "unfavourables" attached to my profile. Some of which are due to computer malfunctions { double entries.} but mostly due to posts that are discordant to established contemporary views. Those I view with an honour. I want others to think,to contemplate. Yes, I am aware neuropsychology is a new field and its findings are not "yet" accepted by the great majority of scientists today,even though there is as now considerably greater acceptance than there was when I first studied such. To put it bluntly, this is not a matter of rational rejection of poor experimentalization and insufficient data on part of the educated scientific community, but as so a prejudice. Almost all "real" scientists are simply not erudite as to what the principles of neuropsychology { call it parapsychology if you so wish}are,and prejudiced against looking at it. This violates the true importance of what a forum is. As now I am not one whose livelihood is pendant upon conducting scientific research. I work now as a hedge fund manager for a global investment/trading firm. However,yes, my areas of formal study- { Biology + Psychology },credentials-{ past experience acting as a psychiatrist for 2+ years},personal experiences,and teachings from my family, do lend me to have a special interest in this area as well as perhaps esoteric knowings. I'm not sure where this old quote-saying has origin of, but its relevance still is pertinent..→"Today's fiction can well be tomorrow's fact. [sic] Ushie ♀
  13. Humans,unlike machines, have a will of their own↨<>

  14. Humans,unlike machines, have a will of their own↨<>

  15. To solve this puzzle is best done by setting up an array in your mind using simple process of elimination in which all possibilities are as so encompassed. By doing so it then first becomes apparent that neither Joe nor John is the singer since they were in the audience listening to the singer. Harry can't be the painter since he sat for the painter, nor can he be the writer since it is stated that both Harry and the writer had portraits of them by the painter. The writer can't be Rose since the writer wrote a biography of her. Joe can't be the writer; that is logically apparent since the writer is planning to write a biography of Joe and the writer already had written a biography of Rose. Now with such known by elimination, it is now so clear that John has to be the writer. It states that the writer and Harry had portraits done by the painter. That eliminates Joe as the painter because the painter would have known the writer {John} and Joe had never heard of John. So again by elimination Joe is the dancer, this leaves singer as the only category possible for Harry. Finally, Rose must be the painter by elimination of possibilities she can't be anything else. This completes the puzzle. John→ Writer Joe→Dancer Rose→Paints Harry→Sings See {ô¿ô} *Please stop calling me a troll. If you thought me so; I served my sentence {suspension}. Even a convicted criminal proven guilty in a court of law is given a clear new life once they had served their sentence. Further doing so, you in your heart know, is unjust and even cruel. If I made false accusations of you I apologize.♥ Soft Thoughts, Ushie
  16. Divagation does not mean what you happen to think it means. It is a noun meaning → "digression". a putting aside. As a verb"divagation"↔"divagating" means a "wandering away from." soft thoughts, Ushie ♀
  17. Humans,unlike machines, have a will of their own↨<>of their own.

  18. If my so expressed "tale" does not make sense or seems of arrogance then read and comprehend; you just don't understand. It is all within the parametres of logic. "Everything you may not be able to understand doesn not infer invalidaion."U.M" ♀.
  19. Allow me to augment your insightful writing. Yes, today it has so become that the "orthodox" assumption is that humans evolved by a manner of accidents { this could be referred to as "chaos" } from life on this planet, which in turn had evolved from a series of physical accidents { random? } or inevitable consequences of the physical environment. Our origin basically, is that it just,,happened..that way because that's the way it HAD to as so happen,given the prevailing conditions. Yes,,Our evolution has been in the pattern we so have deduced→ from ape to man. Some of us in the spiritual psychologies, especially those of study in neuropsychology, { some like to cast us as being named { "parapsychologists}..Whatever... have a theory. The premise of which is that even accidents have a cause. One does not merely die by accident. All deaths have a cause of death. To those wishing to argue my point. I say, fine. What caused the accidental sequences required for the human evolution? Also, effects do first have causes and they also have reason { purpose } A drunk crashing his car and dying is an example. The cause of his death {effect } was his drunken driving. And so then, what was his purpose? His death caused by driving drunk affirmed that drunken driving is more likely to result in an accident than not being drunk. One could also further declare the purpose. His purpose was to set an example, send a warning to others regarding the possible consequences of such actions. There are a number of psychologists that agree. Humans came into being via a cause { be that cause something as to an accident,} fine, and human evolution has purpose.. Some in this field of science postulate either a special creation of humans or that humans are a representative of higher levels of being acting upon the earth, rather than a product of the earth itself,even though by being physically embodied they are very much of the earth itself<•> Ushie ♀
  20. Since it is visibly easy to see that the universe appears to be nothing more than physical matters,and energies operating in a space-time framework,human experience seems as but of some sense ephemeral, and not real. Those who speak of love and of human emotions, and of beauty,and imagination are dealing with the unimportant or other derivative phenomena while the ones who construct an atomic bomb are dealing with what is real. The human "experience" so now becomes "subjective." Yes, merely subjective, a term for psychologists, who find such most prerogative, meaning unreal and totally unscientific. For it has been determined that 'good' explanations/theories are of concern which reduce to statements about matter,energy, space and time. If psychology so also wants to gain acclaim as also being "real" it must then reduce all its psychological and behavioural ideas to physical data and then to the physical data underlying physiology. But the spiritual conscious psychologists may or may not accept the reality of the physical world, but postulate that a psychological or psychical reality is just as real or even more real than physical reality. Physical reality may be seen as simply a particular manifestation of a psychological reality which is even more real. Actually, there is no need for physical justification of emotional/spiritual reality: for certain, this may be seen as an attachment to the senses which can hinder spiritual progress. What so ditates that the ultimate test of reality is a demonstration that you can build a weapon capable of ending all physical life upon our small mass of rock floating in an endless void of space? I use such an extreme example because it draws a picture so frequently viewed in the world in which we dwell, despite talk about truth and experimental validation. For the psychologies then, consciousness and experience and life become basic factors, rather then relatively unimportant derivatives in understanding the universe. Occurrences are most always products of probability, not always certainty. Even the most staunch physicist does not deny the probability that we humans are very likely not the apex of intellegence in the vastness known as the void. And, just who would be in best attire should the earth so have a visit from such a higher form of being? The psychologist, with greetings of human unseen and then so unverifiable emotion, or by physical scientists with a greeting of reality in the form of a nuclear display?
  21. If it takes twice as long for my BMW m-5 to pass your Corvette after it first overtakes it as it takes the the 2 cars to pass when going in the opposite directions, How many times faster is my car than yours? {1} guess
  22. The physical sciences so contend that we humans are but skeleton,muscle,tendon,blood,internal organ,sense receptor,and nervous system: that being humans are essentially defined by the physical parts constituting them. If we so had a different array of constitution { say different nervous system } humans would not be human as we define them. That being then→ to ultimately understand humans we must then understand the physical physiological systems that as such comprise them. No system comprising humans can so be deleted. That includes the functioning of the brain and the nervous system. Thoughts and memories can't be literally screened,measured,nor dissected. They can only be declared through instruments that indicate their being These instruments determine their being via also unseen electrical impulses that are only defined by their mere existent. So as here are negative x negative= a positive. And, that positive physical science does not dispute their existence in the least. My field of study was in neuropsychology and combined with teachings of my heritage ascertain to such see humans in a different way. Mystics refute this assumption of humans being merely physical exactly for the above reason, but always consider that humans are something more in addition to the physical body, or at th least→potentially something else, perhaps. This being the concept of soul→ some nonphysical portion, very much the essence of human, which may be able to exist independently of the physically embodied human. That instead, humans are essentially a mental being, and while humans may or may not posses a soul they are capable of contracting and as so merging with nonphysical things outside of their bodies, Or, the idea that humans may come,through proper preparation,→further evolution← to develop something other than the purely physical in themselves, which then so follows becomes very much a part of their realities. Mystics see the body as a relatively unimportant or a very large important shape of experience, but as only one component of the "total' nature of humans. Many cases indicating this is possible have valid documentation. Fascinating.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.