Jump to content

Producing a hierarchy of human life .


Mike Smith Cosmos

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 Our history seems to have been ' peppered ' with this issue ! 

 

Yes - it is peppered with con men selling snake oil and false dreams to the gullible and needy too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, none of the "science" you have mentioned have anything to do with a hierarchy of an intelligence. And one more time why would you assume that individuals in a super civilization would be any more than just alien versions of us? Are you going to mention Noetic Science next?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2 August 2017 at 3:26 AM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

 researchers Nima Arkanani-Hamed and his team in the Institute of Advanced Studies  in New Jersey  is saying. They appear to have come up with a " the Amplituhedron" . Which may be getting at the root of Reality . Doing the same job as Feynman diagrams. 

Their work is being discussed in this weeks New Scientist where ' they think that this helps understand how gravity works at the smallest scales'

" Space -Time  and Quantum Mechanics , emerge as one . "  July 29 2017 New Scientist ( Page 28-31 ) by Anil - Ananthaswamy  Consultant to New Scientist. 

Suely , if things like this are going on at the smallest scales , then the researchers are getting near to understanding the issues I am raising ? Is that not so ? 

image.jpeg

New Scientist representation of the Amplituhedron.

( the proposed very core of space time , at the smallest scales) on work done by Ruth Britto, Freddy Cachazo, Bo Feng and Edward  Witten .  Twistors by Roger Penrose, 

Nima Arkani-Hamed and his team at the Institute of advanced studies New Jersey 

giving birth to  a multi-dimensional concatenation of polyhedrons :

.      The ......   AMPLITUHEDRON ...

If this is what makes up or made the universe at the smallest scales in my next HIERACHY  up , then so be it . 

"One merged space time and quantum mechanics as one and the same aspect of the underlying positive Geometry."  Quote  Arkani-Hamed. 

....

Surely this whole description of the likely nature of the universe is a testimony of clever construction and thus design originating from somewhere ? 

All I am saying is , this could not just pop out of nowhere, without any intelligence ? We as humans can hardly get our head around it, let alone , design it from scratch and then make it happen . So surely that makes us  as humans a step below or as I have had a way to say a HIERACHY BELOW    A higher intelligence , what is wrong with that . Surely that is more credible , than saying " it all sprung out of nowhere. I appreciate one could say " well where does / did this other intelligence come from ? But that is a different issue / question , which I am prepared to address , by all means . But as regards the immediate question " can there be a higher intelligence to human kind . I SAY YES . possibly by the method described in the  Current New Scientist ? 

 

Because if if that lot does not require a lot of intelligence " "I am a monkey's Uncle "  if that is not a metaphor to far ? 

 

Mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Because if if that lot does not require a lot of intelligence " "I am a monkey's Uncle "  if that is not a metaphor to far ? 

Probably more like a far distant cousin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Surely this whole description of the likely nature of the universe is a testimony of clever construction and thus design originating from somewhere ? 

No, in fact it says nothing of the sort! For all we know the universe is the way it because it could not be any other way. We currently have no idea where the universe came from and some would say that is about as logical as asking what is south of the south pole... 

 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

All I am saying is , this could not just pop out of nowhere, without any intelligence ?

Who says the universe popped out of nowhere? 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

We as humans can hardly get our head around it, let alone , design it from scratch and then make it happen .

Again you making baseless assumptions, just because a human can't do those things doesn't mean there has to have been an intelligent agent who can. 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

So surely that makes us  as humans a step below or as I have had a way to say a HIERACHY BELOW    A higher intelligence , what is wrong with that .

Other than being meaningless speculation there is nothing wrong with that. 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Surely that is more credible , than saying " it all sprung out of nowhere.

No one I am aware of says that other than people who do not understand the science. 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I appreciate one could say " well where does / did this other intelligence come from ? But that is a different issue / question , which I am prepared to address , by all means . But as regards the immediate question " can there be a higher intelligence to human kind . I SAY YES . possibly by the method described in the  Current New Scientist ?

Can there be a higher intelligence than humans, sure, there could be bigfoot's piloting UFO's too but it's so improbable as to be meaningless.. 

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

 

Because if if that lot does not require a lot of intelligence " "I am a monkey's Uncle "  if that is not a metaphor to far ? 

 

Mike 

What if I was to show you the most ordered structure in the universe would you assume an intelligent agent built it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2 August 2017 at 3:10 PM, Moontanman said:

Mike, none of the "science" you have mentioned have anything to do with a hierarchy of an intelligence. And one more time why would you assume that individuals in a super civilization would be any more than just alien versions of us? Are you going to mention Noetic Science next?  

I think there is a need to go right back to the beginning . 

We had an earlier need in this thread to establish the latest thinking on the very early Universe. The quotes from the latest think tank on this matter . Spoke of an immediate inflationary expansion ( of everything in Higgs Boson size granuals ) to the size of a marble .( in zero time ) .

I have thought about this quite hard.

If we take to owning the " Anything can happen if there is no reason for it not to happen " that I have proposed , is the way the universe started. Or as the two scientists ( .such is the case of The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen* by ..physicist Brian Cox and University of Manchester professor Jeff Forshaw — a remarkable and absorbing journey into the fundamental fabric of nature, exploring how quantum theory provides a framework for explaining everything .. ." If it can happen it will happen " then that early marble sized bundle of Higgs Bosons ( which later went on to expand to the size of the current Universe. Then we have the convenient entry point for an Intelligence. 

If there was absolutely nothing beforehand , nothing to stop things happening , then 'Anything 'and 'Everything  ' ' Goes'  . Although this happened before the need for time , which came later in phase two , ( when the Universe expanded for 13.82 Billion years ) to its present state. The ' Everything Goes' could have included intelligence, in some form or another . When the universe expanded over the following 13.82 billion years , this intelligence would be spread out IN or ACROSS  the whole universe , where it remains to this day as a major part of this upper HIERACHY.  

I genuinely think ( in view of the magnitude and complexity of the Universe , and it's requirements for oversight ) . That any spread out intelegence will be sufficiently , vastly more complex , and voluminous than mankind . It could well be , however , I could be wrong , that there are beings not dissimilar to us humans but stand to be corrected ! 

Mike 

Ps . Not sure about this " ordered structure of the universe ." And showing me something . Sure ! 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I think there is a need to go right back to the beginning . 

We had an earlier need in this thread to establish the latest thinking on the very early Universe. The quotes from the latest think tank on this matter . Spoke of an immediate inflationary expansion ( of everything in Higgs Boson size granuals ) to the size of a marble .( in zero time ) .

I have thought about this quite hard.

If we take to owning the " Anything can happen if there is no reason for it not to happen " that I have proposed , is the way the universe started. Or as the two scientists ( .such is the case of The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen* by ..physicist Brian Cox and University of Manchester professor Jeff Forshaw — a remarkable and absorbing journey into the fundamental fabric of nature, exploring how quantum theory provides a framework for explaining everything .. ." If it can happen it will happen " then that early marble sized bundle of Higgs Bosons ( which later went on to expand to the size of the current Universe. Then we have the convenient entry point for an Intelligence. 

If there was absolutely nothing beforehand , nothing to stop things happening , then 'Anything 'and 'Everything  ' ' Goes'  . Although this happened before the need for time , which came later in phase two , ( when the Universe expanded for 13.82 Billion years ) to its present state. The ' Everything Goes' could have included intelligence, in some form or another . When the universe expanded over the following 13.82 billion years , this intelligence would be spread out IN or ACROSS  the whole universe , where it remains to this day as a major part of this upper HIERACHY.  

I genuinely think ( in view of the magnitude and complexity of the Universe , and it's requirements for oversight ) . That any spread out intelegence will be sufficiently , vastly more complex , and voluminous than mankind . It could well be , however , I could be wrong , that there are beings not dissimilar to us humans but stand to be corrected ! 

Mike 

Ps . Not sure about this " ordered structure of the universe ." And showing me something . Sure ! 

 Ok Mike, this is the most ordered structure in the universe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

e81df52bf9020b0011c82b24c2496de5.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2017 at 9:55 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes , but those animals are probably , or likely , to ALL be in the same level of HIERACHY. I have picked fish  ( gold fish ) , because I have them near to hand to conduct simple experiments and observations with . So in my case at this stage the list is 1. True I could pad this out in the future should it deem necessary , with many fish and other animals to observe .  Which it would be necessary if there is a glimmer of a positive observation .

Rubbish! Your suggestion that all animals are at the same level in this heirarchy is patently wrong. The idea is easily demolished by noting two words: predator, prey. Further, if you had any knowledge of ecology at all you would not make such a silly pronouncement. The network of relationships in any environment is rich and complex and captured as a heirarchy only by gross simplification.

You like artistry. Consider the artistry of Darwin with these words from the final paragraph of Origin of Species. " It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."

You just quoted from an edition of New Scientist. Here's another from the same edition. (First item on the Letters page, p.52) "Higher plants, Earth's dominant life form, continue to develop in the face of variable and usually unpredictable environment." You see Mike, alternative views of the nature of any heirarchy. Heirarchies are  relative, not absolute. Despite repeated requests you have refused to offer any evidence to support your view. Simply repeating your beliefs not only fails to address the requests, but when done as often as you have done it becomes offensive.

FFS, provide the flaming evidence now!

 

@Moontanman, your argument is crystal clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 Ok Mike, this is the most ordered structure in the universe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

e81df52bf9020b0011c82b24c2496de5.jpg

 

 

 

What I beautiful crystal ! 

 

See comments in in following post . ( I thought the posts would combine . )  But they did not combine . So see comments in next post ! 

mike 

 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

.....

......The network of relationships in any environment is rich and complex and captured as a heirarchy only by gross simplification.

.............

You just quoted from an edition of New Scientist. Here's another from the same edition. (First item on the Letters page, p.52) "Higher plants, Earth's dominant life form, continue to develop in the face of variable and usually unpredictable environment." You see Mike, alternative views of the nature of any heirarchy. 

 

Yes. I have probably not made my use of the term HIERACHY clear enough. 

I have really been considering  MANKIND  within a Universal Hierachical context from Top to bottom . 

Namely : from 

NOTHING ....to 

GODS ........ to 

MATERIAL  UNIVERSE ........to 

MANKIND ............................to 

ANIMALS .......................to 

LOWER LIFE FORMS ......

 

In this thread concentrating on  from GODS/ Higher Intelegence beyond mankind , to Mankind, to Animals in the form of Fish , and briefly Bugs on the bottom of a pool .  My point being  :-

----------------------  ------------------------- ---------------

this general living  HIERACHY   that we find ourselves in from

GODS.   .  to    MANKIND    to    FISH  ........and briefly to bugs. 

 

---------------------- ----------------------- ------------------

In concentrating on this section of the HIERACHY ! Across the living , thinking, behaving , aspect , I thought by examining various aspects of the 'FISH - HUMAN  relationship within this PARTICULAR  chain , I might be able to see how a relationship could follow a similar pattern , going from HUMANS up the chain . 

Clearly there appears a more thorough a relationship developed DOWN the CHAIN . 

Is this reflected in the upward chain 

 

Mike 

 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

Yes. I have probably not made my use of the term HIERACHY clear enough. 

I have really been considering  MANKIND  within a Universal Hierachical context from Top to bottom . 

Namely : from 

NOTHING ....to 

GODS ........ to 

MATERIAL  UNIVERSE ........to 

MANKIND ............................to 

ANIMALS .......................to 

LOWER LIFE FORMS ......

 

In this thread concentrating on  from GODS/ Higher Intelegence beyond mankind , to Mankind, to Animals in the form of Fish , and briefly Bugs on the bottom of a pool .  My point being  :-

----------------------  ------------------------- ---------------

this general living  HIERACHY   that we find ourselves in from

GODS.   .  to    MANKIND    to    FISH  ........and briefly to bugs. 

 

---------------------- ----------------------- ------------------

In concentrating on this section of the HIERACHY ! Across the living , thinking, behaving , aspect , I thought by examining various aspects of the 'FISH - HUMAN  relationship within this PARTICULAR  chain , I might be able to see how a relationship could follow a similar pattern , going from HUMANS up the chain . 

Clearly there appears a more thorough a relationship developed DOWN the CHAIN . 

Is this reflected in the upward chain 

 

Mike 

 

 

My point would be that god has to be more complex than the universe he or it created. It still leaves us with who created god

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

Yes. I have probably not made my use of the term HIERACHY clear enough. 

I have really been considering  MANKIND  within a Universal Hierachical context from Top to bottom . 

Namely : from 

NOTHING ....to 

GODS ........ to 

MATERIAL  UNIVERSE ........to 

MANKIND ............................to 

ANIMALS .......................to 

LOWER LIFE FORMS ......

 

In this thread concentrating on  from GODS/ Higher Intelegence beyond mankind , to Mankind, to Animals in the form of Fish , and briefly Bugs on the bottom of a pool .  My point being  :-

----------------------  ------------------------- ---------------

this general living  HIERACHY   that we find ourselves in from

GODS.   .  to    MANKIND    to    FISH  ........and briefly to bugs. 

 

---------------------- ----------------------- ------------------

In concentrating on this section of the HIERACHY ! Across the living , thinking, behaving , aspect , I thought by examining various aspects of the 'FISH - HUMAN  relationship within this PARTICULAR  chain , I might be able to see how a relationship could follow a similar pattern , going from HUMANS up the chain . 

Clearly there appears a more thorough a relationship developed DOWN the CHAIN . 

Is this reflected in the upward chain 

 

Mike 

 

 

Mike, you have provided no evidence of a hierarchy, no evidence of a chain, no evidence of a god that poofed out of nothing, in fact the idea that there was at one time nothing is simply baseless assertion. 

 

Please Mike, provide some evidence of these things... Lower life forms is a meaningless assertion, how do you decide what is lower or higher? 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

My point would be that god has to be more complex than the universe he or it created. 

Yes, I think I would agree with you on that point. However that does not need to relate to size ! Yes,  m complex , more detailed , but not necessarily in the case of size or dimensions . We as humans often build big buildings or communication systems ,  far bigger  physically , or in storage capacity, as well as Physically or with information . 

38 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 It still leaves us with who created god

It has to be possible or the universe would not be here or be what is like . 

I have thought long and hard about this point . And where I got round to is ......

There would have to exist , before the advent  of any God , stuff or anything . There would need to be some possibility  , unrestrained rules , laws which would allow for a God coming into existence . The all encompassing law that would need to BE , 

IS OR WAS 

" ANYTHING OR EVERYTHING CAN OCCUR , IF THERE IS NOT A REASON FOR IT NOT TO OCCUR " 

If this rule is accepted as read ! Then something can come into existence , into , NOTHINGNESS  . As GOD . Because there is NOTHING  TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING . 

From then on , whatever  is made , OR COMES INTO EXISTANCE may have aspects or effects or rules of a sort of science that PREVENTS , OR RESTRICTS or ASSISTS certain things from happening IN THE WAY WE NOW UNDERSTAND PARTLY AS THE SCIENCES . 

But lurking about still is the opening rule . 

Provided there is nothing to prevent things happening , and there is an initiative to happen , ( say by an initiator God ) then things will happen , because it is the first law . 

As the universe builds up it gets more and more restricted by laws . Having started with no law but ONE ( anything can happen , if there is no reason for it not to happen ) .

You could see how this could unwind from a zero beginning with one law . To where we are today with many , many laws growing out of the start up . 

 

Mike 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes, I think I would agree with you on that point. However that does not need to relate to size ! Yes,  m complex , more detailed , but not necessarily in the case of size or dimensions . We as humans often build big buildings or communication systems ,  far bigger  physically , or in storage capacity, as well as Physically or with information . 

It has to be possible or the universe would not be here or be what is like . 

I have thought long and hard about this point . And where I got round to is ......

There would have to exist , before the advent  of any God , stuff or anything . There would need to be some possibility  , unrestrained rules , laws which would allow for a God coming into existence . The all encompassing law that would need to BE , 

IS OR WAS 

" ANYTHING OR EVERYTHING CAN OCCUR , IF THERE IS NOT A REASON FOR IT NOT TO OCCUR " 

If this rule is accepted as read ! Then something can come into existence , into , NOTHINGNESS  . As GOD . Because there is NOTHING  TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING . 

From then on , whatever  is made , OR COMES INTO EXISTANCE may have aspects or effects or rules of a sort of science that PREVENTS , OR RESTRICTS or ASSISTS certain things from happening IN THE WAY WE NOW UNDERSTAND PARTLY AS THE SCIENCES . 

But lurking about still is the opening rule . 

Provided there is nothing to prevent things happening , and there is an initiative to happen , ( say by an initiator God ) then things will happen , because it is the first law . 

As the universe builds up it gets more and more restricted by laws . Having started with no law but ONE ( anything can happen , if there is no reason for it not to happen ) .

You could see how this could unwind from a zero beginning with one law . To where we are today with many , many laws growing out of the start up . 

 

Mike 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike, there is no reason to assume god, any god, asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole. If there was a cause for the universe it doesn't have to be a god or any entity anymore than an uranium atom has to have an intelligence to tell it when to dekay. I see no reason to assume a god is needed or even possible. Order can arise from chaos, crystals form without an intelligence to tell them how.  More importantly we have no idea what happened at T=0, the math breaks down before we get to the point. There are some speculations but none of them require any intelligence... 

 

I'll ask you again for evidence of anything you are asserting, if you have none then we are just spinning our wheels... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Mike, there is no reason to assume god, any god, asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole. If there was a cause for the universe it doesn't have to be a god or any entity anymore than an uranium atom has to have an intelligence to tell it when to dekay. I see no reason to assume a god is needed or even possible. Order can arise from chaos, crystals form without an intelligence to tell them how.  More importantly we have no idea what happened at T=0, the math breaks down before we get to the point. There are some speculations but none of them require any intelligence... 

 

I'll ask you again for evidence of anything you are asserting, if you have none then we are just spinning our wheels... 

I am personally not spinning any wheels ! 

I have spent a lot of years , thinking , and working out . How is it possible for the whole , vast , universe , come into EXISTANCE . 

I really don't know how you can ignor , the subject of where/ how did the start of the Universe happen , and what started it . That is like a young child looking at its parents and knowing they , as a child , had a lot to do with these two adults, but how, when , where , which , what . Later , in life they understand .  It SERIOUSLY is NOW . We are grown up as a family of the Universe. We need to know where we and the whole Universe came from . Even if we do not get it right , strait away , we need to seek it out , think it through, try to understand , otherwise it is just " burying our head in the sand ! "

It helps doing the investigation , I am currently doing , coupled with some really deep thinking . 

If life breaks down easily into

( A ). ORIGINATORS

( B ). HUMANS 

( C ). ANIMALS 

( D ). MICROBES .

Then it is clear my immediate research , thinking , proposals , and inference ,

Then my attention must look to the two next to me in the HIERACHY

1. Issue 1. These are animals ( fish ) - to man , and man to fish . 

2. Issue 2. These are originators ( gods if you like ) -   to man , and man to originators (gods) .

so my first research is  (FIRSTLY  issue 3.)  Is it possible for there to be originators,)  and as we are science inclined (SECONDLY . Issue 4.)  " How did the ORIGINATORS  start the universe off. .

the (SECONDLY ) is strait forward as we can do some fancy work with the large hadron collider. You could see how that be magnified and equipped with a duplicator upon duplicator .... 

The ( FIRSTLY ) is a bit more tricky but my " something WILL HAPPEN if there is NO REASON  for it not to happen . Can cope with that issue , with a lot of lateral thinking . 

1) above . The experience fish to man and man to fish , releases a whole host of results suitable for use with ( 2) ....

2) above.  This is really interesting as we have countless , personal experiences of , seeking , relationships , lifetime experiences , world history, artefacts , etc 

these last two sections are the main thrust of this thread , namely we can use the experience with fish to give us insight HOW to research the beneficial  results we can get from this investigations . 

I am doing my personal investigations and thinking , on all four of the above described ( issues 1,2,3,4  )  I am very heartened by what I have found out , and think of very little else . ( not too much wheel spin ) . 

I have evidence or strongly reasoned (inferred ) argument for all Issues 

( issues  1,2,3,4. ) mentioned above . 

Mike 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I am personally not spinning any wheels ! 

I have spent a lot of years , thinking , and working out . How is it possible for the whole , vast , universe , come into EXISTENCE . 

The only honest answer to that question is we do not know. Anything else is not honest. 

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I really don't know how you can ignore , the subject of where/ how did the start of the Universe happen , and what started it . That is like a young child looking at its parents and knowing they , as a child , had a lot to do with these two adults, but how, when , where , which , what . Later , in life they understand .  It SERIOUSLY is NOW . We are grown up as a family of the Universe. We need to know where we and the whole Universe came from . Even if we do not get it right , strait away , we need to seek it out , think it through, try to understand , otherwise it is just " burying our head in the sand ! "

It helps doing the investigation , I am currently doing , coupled with some really deep thinking . 

Deep thinking is not a path to truth, only repeatable demonstrable evidence will do that. I am ignoring nothing, I am simply not making claims about something I cannot possibly know... 

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

If life breaks down easily into

( A ). ORIGINATORS

Define ORIGINATORS, what is the evidence for these originators?  

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

( B ). HUMANS 

HUMANS are animals, please show me a definitive way humans are not animals. 

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

( C ). ANIMALS 

Animals cannot be shown to be any less than humans in any absolute way. 

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

( D ). MICROBES .

Microbes rule the planet, they make life possible, no microbes: no plants or animals. You are made up of mostly microbes, take away all the microbes in your body and death is swift and sure.

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Then it is clear my immediate research , thinking , proposals , and inference ,

Then my attention must look to the two next to me in the HIERACHY

1. Issue 1. These are animals ( fish ) - to man , and man to fish . 

2. Issue 2. These are originators ( gods if you like ) -   to man , and man to originators (gods) .

so my first research is  (FIRSTLY  issue 3.)  Is it possible for there to be originators,)  and as we are science inclined (SECONDLY . Issue 4.)  " How did the ORIGINATORS  start the universe off. .

the (SECONDLY ) is strait forward as we can do some fancy work with the large hadron collider. You could see how that be magnified and equipped with a duplicator upon duplicator .... 

I have no idea what you are saying here, the LHC has nothing to do with Gods... 

 

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

The ( FIRSTLY ) is a bit more tricky but my " something WILL HAPPEN if there is NO REASON  for it not to happen . Can cope with that issue , with a lot of lateral thinking . 

Citation please, I have never heard that seriously claimed for any source.

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

1) above . The experience fish to man and man to fish , releases a whole host of results suitable for use with ( 2) ....

2) above.  This is really interesting as we have countless , personal experiences of , seeking , relationships , lifetime experiences , world history, artefacts , etc 

these last two sections are the main thrust of this thread , namely we can use the experience with fish to give us insight HOW to research the beneficial  results we can get from this investigations . 

Personal experiences? 

Quote

This is really interesting as we have countless , personal experiences of , seeking , relationships , lifetime experiences , world history, artefacts , etc

47 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I am doing my personal investigations and thinking , on all four of the above described ( issues 1,2,3,4  )  I am very heartened by what I have found out , and think of very little else . ( not too much wheel spin ) . 

I have evidence or strongly reasoned (inferred ) argument for all Issues 

( issues  1,2,3,4. ) mentioned above . 

Mike 

 

Personal experiences are meaningless unless you can show them to someone else. I had an experience last night, sleep paralysis no doubt, but I was in the past at a place where i used to work talking to people and trying to explain to them why what was happening wasn't real because the place no longer existed. Very real, complex conversations with others in the dream, I could smell, hear, touch, still meaningless in the grand theme of things... 

World history? Citation please

Relationships? Citation please.

Artifacts? Citation please

You don't get to just claim that stuff with no evidence, they are not evidence they are claims that require evidence! 

 

I can go right now and talk to someone who claims aliens are abducting them every night, first had accounts, far better evidence than historical claims about things that supposedly happened millenia ago yet you would have me give these claims creedence?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, what is it you don't understand about the request, from Moontanman and myself, for evidence of your heirarchy? We have both asked repeatedly and you have failed to provide such evidence. I don't like to do this, but unless your next post shows a sensible effort to meet that request I shall ask that the moderators lock this thread. (And please don;t launch into a bunch of irrelevant word salad, or I shall be forced to assume you are taking the piss. My reaction then will be even more severe.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Area54 said:

Mike, what is it you don't understand about the request, from Moontanman and myself, for evidence of your heirarchy? We have both asked repeatedly and you have failed to provide such evidence. 

I do apologise , I honestly thought that I had made substantial effort to provide , under both ( you and Moontanman's previous requests ) , to answer your questions about HIERACHY , as put up by myself . 

I obviously was not hitting the right button ! 

Perhaps we are coming from different directions .

i personally have never had any problems , believing THAT THERE ARE HIGHER BEINGS than us living somewhere in our Universe. What I have always wanted to know , was how did the FIRST ...BEING and the MATTER and FIELDS of the universe come about .

Perhaps , I have concentrated on that ONE PHENOMENON of the original issue of 

" FROM NOTHING ...HOW "

I have laboured that point , in order to set the scene for , what was to come , namely .

How  the HEIRACHY works from there. 

I think we can accept for the moment that MATTER came into the Universes, by the way I said . It could Not , 'Not come into EXISTANCE ' if this universe has as its remit what I previously stated . 

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WILL COME INTO EXISTANCE , IF THERE IS NOT A REASON FOR IT NOT TO. 

How a living HEIRACHY stems from this can only be in the way it did . 

Namely ranked Superior being first , ( God , for want of a better word ) thinking , being , caring , relating ,

dominion over matter to a science limited extent . ( as explained previously ) . 

Dominion over other living beings in the wider universe role ,

Dominion over humans on earth, 

At this juncture humans have Dominion over the animals on earth . Including microscopic life .

Now if you want citations on all of these levels of the HEIRACHY or whatever is available . I can do my best but this has been the lot of  Astronimers , Religious men , Zoologists , Biologists and the like . ( a life's work no doubt) . 

But it was my endeavour to pick out a model within the ( goldfish to human , model ,) that  I have as evidence . And relate it to the God -Human interface and see if there is a good correlation. Which I believe there is . 

Hope that makes it clearer? For the moment . 

Mike 

Ps I do not think it appropriate to threaten chastisement , when I am making genuine effort to support a very interesting subject . NAMELY 

HOW DID WE ALL GET HERE TO BEHAVE THE WAY WE DO . 

This is a LOUNGE forum after all said and done . 

 

Citations about God are many but controversial . I was trying to reason from a scientific / philosophical standpoint , which is difficult to say the least . However I have made an attempt . 

When it comes to parralel reasoning from species to species up and down the HIERARCHY that may put us on an interesting footing !

The quotations from the new scientists should count toward 'citing ' other individuals in the field , even though some of the articles are from cutting edge ideas.

One has to start somewhere when the subject is as speculative and controversial as this subject is ! 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I do apologise , I honestly thought that I had made substantial effort to provide , under both ( you and Moontanman's previous requests ) , to answer your questions about HIERACHY , as put up by myself . 

I obviously was not hitting the right button ! 

Perhaps we are coming from different directions .

i personally have never had any problems , believing THAT THERE ARE HIGHER BEINGS than us living somewhere in our Universe. What I have always wanted to know , was how did the FIRST ...BEING and the MATTER and FIELDS of the universe come about .

The problem isn't that you believe these things the problem is you believe with no evidence... 

Quote

Perhaps , I have concentrated on that ONE PHENOMENON of the original issue of 

" FROM NOTHING ...HOW "

Who says the universe came from nothing other the hype of popular media? 

Quote

I have laboured that point , in order to set the scene for , what was to come , namely .

How  the HEIRACHY works from there. 

I think we can accept for the moment that MATTER came into the Universes, by the way I said . It could Not , 'Not come into EXISTANCE ' if this universe has as its remit what I previously stated . 

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WILL COME INTO EXISTANCE , IF THERE IS NOT A REASON FOR IT NOT TO. 

Again, how do you know that, there is no reason unicorns cannot exist yet they do not... 

Quote

How a living HEIRACHY stems from this can only be in the way it did . 

Namely ranked Superior being first , ( God , for want of a better word ) thinking , being , caring , relating ,

dominion over matter to a science limited extent . ( as explained previously ) . 

Dominion over other living beings in the wider universe role ,

Dominion over humans on earth, 

At this juncture humans have Dominion over the animals on earth . Including microscopic life .

Again you definition of dominion needs and explanation. Microscopic life not only out numbers ud, it out masses us as well. And if microbes were to fie everything else would as well... 

Quote

Now if you want citations on all of these levels of the HEIRACHY or whatever is available . I can do my best but this has been the lot of  Astronimers , Religious men , Zoologists , Biologists and the like . ( a life's work no doubt) .

Citations please, simply asserting it is less than convincing. 

Quote

 

 

But it was my endeavour to pick out a model within the ( goldfish to human , model ,) that  I have as evidence . And relate it to the God -Human interface and see if there is a good correlation. Which I believe there is . 

Hope that makes it clearer? For the moment . 

Mike 

Ps I do not think it appropriate to threaten chastisement , when I am making genuine effort to support a very interesting subject . NAMELY 

HOW DID WE ALL GET HERE TO BEHAVE THE WAY WE DO . 

This is a LOUNGE forum after all said and done . 

Evolution via natural selection is how we got here, no need for a "higher" being... 

Quote

 

Citations about God are many but controversial . I was trying to reason from a scientific / philosophical standpoint , which is difficult to say the least . However I have made an attempt . 

When it comes to parralel reasoning from species to species up and down the HIERARCHY that may put us on an interesting footing !

The quotations from the new scientists should count toward 'citing ' other individuals in the field , even though some of the articles are from cutting edge ideas.

One has to start somewhere when the subject is as speculative and controversial as this subject is ! 

 

 

 

 

 

It is indeed speculative and highly improbable.  Evidence of god would appear to be completely absent...  

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight , my main goldfish has died. I am heart struck. Crushed. I cried as I buried it on its own place in the garden . Now I feel in the raw something one rung down on the Hierachy, one of my. Cared for animals has GONE !

so how is it like for whoever is in charge of the Hierarchy above when ONE PERSON DIES how much more so when 1000 people die. The feeling invoked in the HIERARCHY above must be ........ almost unbearable . We must have an END . 

 

Mike 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Tonight , my main goldfish has died. I am heart struck. Crushed. I cried as I buried it on its own place in the garden . Now I feel in the raw something one rung down on the Hierachy, one of my. Cared for animals has GONE !

so how is it like for whoever is in charge of the Hierarchy above when ONE PERSON DIES how much more so when 1000 people die. The feeling invoked in the HIERARCHY above must be ........ almost unbearable . We must have an END . 

 

Mike 

My condolences, I become very attached to my fish as well... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My condolences, I become very attached to my fish as well... 

I am getting a real feel for this ' down HIERACHY '  responsibility, and concern . 

For whatever reason , I have taken responsibility for these living things , as distinct from material objects ( like say a precious stone ) . Which I do not have the same sort of feeling for , even though stones often seem precious , not the same feeling , as for the fish . I think this would be true for all animals I have had in my care. I have kept sheep and goats and few livestock ( beasts ) before, earlier in my life for a few years. As distinct from all matter , animals engender much more care and feelings. 

This would suggest that the same would be true , coming from any superior life forms in the strata of HIERACHY  , above us .

No doubt the , care , fondness , and concern for our wellbeing , will be just as , if not more , in depth towards us human beings , than I give to my fish . I think the fish will bearly be ware of this concern on our part. This is indeed reflected in how we as human creatures , barely take as a reality that there is indeed ' ANY ' concern for us from the next up in the ' up ' HIERACHY ' above us ! 

 

Mike 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6 August 2017 at 3:13 PM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I am getting a real feel for this ' down HIERACHY '  responsibility, and concern . 

For whatever reason , I have taken responsibility for these living things , as distinct from material objects ( like say a precious stone ) .

This would suggest that the same would be true , coming from any superior life forms in the strata of HIERACHY  , above us .

 

Mike 

 

Maybe my fish died because there was a malevolent attack on this fish by an agressive bird or some other preditor at night . The wound becoming infected, festering , and ultimately killing the gold fish . 

SIMILARLY :- If there is life beyond our region , in the HIERACHY .. UP .. from us ? 

Maybe the Benign, ones might just be helping us slightly, and some more Predatory  life Forms could be stirring things up and fuelling some of the troubles currently afoot on earth. 

This could be how some of my fish are having a good time at my behest , whereas one of the prize goldfish has possibly been attacked by some predator, ending up with  ( a now dead ) goldfish ? 

Maybe predation , has a role to play , but in some circumstances , "goes over the top ? " 

Mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 'pet' spider in my lab...  It was small a few months back... now it's getting BIG!   I do have arachnophobia, so I though it would be a good idea to keep this as a pet to watch from time to time...  my reasoning is that I will get used to it being around as it grows.  I have fed it many times now by catching flies and earwigs and even a couple of moths. It has been interesting to observe it's behaviour. It lives under a piece of wood which is against the wall. The wood gives it a sheltered 'tube' to live in near the sink. After food, it tends to tidy up the remaining earwig husks and dumps them over the side of the bench into the sink. Once it put the remains out of the other end of it's tube.

This morning something interesting happened. I gave it a fly at the weekend...  when I came in this morning the husk of the fly was right in the middle of my note book on my desk! The spider's home is pretty close to my note book, but...  not really the most logical place for the sider to dump the eaten fly remains...  the sink, yes. The end of the tube, yes...  but for it to walk all the way across my desk to return the fly to me after wards was pretty weird.  -  It is probably just a coincidence that it decided to dump this one further from it's hide out, but it did seem like it was thanking me or telling me 'no more flies please'.  This could just be something similar to Pareidolia, where I have read some meaning into the carcass placement, as I am pretty sure the spider gives me no thought what so ever. Could it be that the spider views me as some kind of higher power or a provider? lol.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.