| Author |
Message |
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:23 am Post subject:
|
  |
|
| The quantum universe is a state of possibilities. Who's to say we did not create ourselves? After all, everything man has ever invented was thought crazy or impossible - and yet, it was invented and eventually accepted as "normal". We think, therefore we can. That pattern of disbelief by the masses and breakthrough by individuals continues today. Which reminds me of how little man learns from his own existence. Bully. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Octahedra
Joined: Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 149
Location: Cheshire, UK
Audio files: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| jhaible wrote: | If there is no Creator, all the creativity must lie hidden in mere matter.
It's today's most popular fallacy that the latter should be more satisfying an explanation than the former. |
Personally I do find the latter a more satisfying explanation, because it doesn't put mind or will or sentience at the root of all things. Instead I'm coming from a sort-of-Plato point of view where information is the root level of the universe/multiverse. Any physical universe, and any mind within that universe, is simply the way a set of data evolves, according to algorithm, or according to some randomness + selection process.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
I would describe a mind as a complex package of information. Some of that info is stored data - our memories, and some of it is rules for dealing with new info coming in from the world as it changes around us. So the existence and nature of information are fundamental to all things, and mind is just a phenomenon that happens to be allowed within that system.
I'd be interested to know why you classed this kind of idea as a fallacy.
Gordon
EDIT: so the point I was trying to argue was a form of Occam's razor - always go for the explanation that involves the simples set of rules.
I'm basically claiming that raw information is simpler than mind; it's easier to define. Mind is simply a tiny subset within the entire body of possible information. Mind could (if we knew enough about how it works in terms of its component parts and their actions / interactions) be defined purely in terms of information, whereas you couldn't usefully define information in terms of mind.
Our minds feel 'simple' to us because they're designed to make it so - we make intuitive decisions all the time without analysing the details. But the true complexity of this process is hidden from us by the way the brain is built. We can't rely just on our intuitive judgements about these things - when our measurements of the brain reveal levels of complexity that we can't feel directly, it's the measurements that we have to trust.
Last edited by Octahedra on Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:55 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| I like Gordy's view. I'm open to various ideas in general, with the exception of rigid Almighty-Angry-God ideas. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004
Posts: 2503
Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| audiodef wrote: | | The quantum universe is a state of possibilities. Who's to say we did not create ourselves? After all, everything man has ever invented was thought crazy or impossible - and yet, it was invented and eventually accepted as "normal". We think, therefore we can. That pattern of disbelief by the masses and breakthrough by individuals continues today. Which reminds me of how little man learns from his own existence. Bully. |
Isn't that basically what Nietchze wrote? As such, mankind can 'kill' any God simply by not believing? (take away the thought, and the existence then is taken away as well).
Uncle Krunkus -- The Dalai Lama's viewpoint is from a Buddhist one, which strictly states that first hand experience is supreme over all other forms of information, be it logically induced or otherwise transmitted. Identical to scientific postulation. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Peake
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 1113
Location: Loss Angeles
Audio files: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:20 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Uncle Krunkus wrote: | Unfortunately, I will not be there.
As there is no afterlife.  |
Ah. If only I would "go there".  Imma not even post my blog here, rofl.
_________________
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid. -mwagener
"IC 741. Sometimes you don't want fidelity." -Small Bear Electronics Catalog |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Peake
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 1113
Location: Loss Angeles
Audio files: 3
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jhaible
Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Octahedra wrote: | | jhaible wrote: | If there is no Creator, all the creativity must lie hidden in mere matter.
It's today's most popular fallacy that the latter should be more satisfying an explanation than the former. |
Personally I do find the latter a more satisfying explanation, because it doesn't put mind or will or sentience at the root of all things. Instead I'm coming from a sort-of-Plato point of view where information is the root level of the universe/multiverse. Any physical universe, and any mind within that universe, is simply the way a set of data evolves, according to algorithm, or according to some randomness + selection process.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
I would describe a mind as a complex package of information. Some of that info is stored data - our memories, and some of it is rules for dealing with new info coming in from the world as it changes around us. So the existence and nature of information are fundamental to all things, and mind is just a phenomenon that happens to be allowed within that system.
I'd be interested to know why you classed this kind of idea as a fallacy.
Gordon
EDIT: so the point I was trying to argue was a form of Occam's razor - always go for the explanation that involves the simples set of rules.
I'm basically claiming that raw information is simpler than mind; it's easier to define. Mind is simply a tiny subset within the entire body of possible information. Mind could (if we knew enough about how it works in terms of its component parts and their actions / interactions) be defined purely in terms of information, whereas you couldn't usefully define information in terms of mind.
Our minds feel 'simple' to us because they're designed to make it so - we make intuitive decisions all the time without analysing the details. But the true complexity of this process is hidden from us by the way the brain is built. We can't rely just on our intuitive judgements about these things - when our measurements of the brain reveal levels of complexity that we can't feel directly, it's the measurements that we have to trust. |
I guess I have an opposite point of view. I dnon't think my mind is simple - well, maybe compared to some truly genious people it is - but generally, I think the human mind and self-consciousness is the most stunning and complex thing on earth. And following Occam's razor, it's a lot more likely to me that all the information that went into creating human mind comes from a superior creative mind, rather than from randomness and selction.
At first glance, randomness and selection seem simple - until we learn that "random" is just another word for "we don't know why, and cannot predict the individual outcome, ant only can make statistical descriptions.
All in all, while the concept seem simple, we don't know
what energy is
what matter is
what randomness / chance is
and why the whole thing is set up in a way that complexity is created.
JH.
_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
We do know certain things, though, such as matter and energy being interchangeable.
And again, we may have created ourselves. A superior mind isn't needed in that case. And I don't believe the human mind, in practice, is the greatest thing on Earth. Humans are the most destructive element on this planet. That wins no medals from me. Now, in theory, the human mind has enormous potential, which is gleefully wasted by the masses.  |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jhaible
Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| audiodef wrote: | | We do know certain things, though, such as matter and energy being interchangeable. |
Which reminds me of a 4th thing we cannot really explain:
The origin of physical laws.
JH.
_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18522
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 266
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah, we don't know too much, but I still like looking at the pictures.
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The pictures are always awesome!
Yeah, considering the way things work on the quantum level, it's a mystery how things organized themselves into macrophysical rules. Perhaps it started with two electrons saying "Yano, if we do like so, we could achieve X!"
Then again, the whole creating-ourselves theory does not have to work in forward linear time - especially since we have no clue about the fundamental nature of time. We're only just beginning to understand that it is hardly linear in many cases and places. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Eag
Joined: Feb 14, 2007
Posts: 40
Location: Central Pennsylvania
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Antimon wrote: | One problem with a religion such as christianity, is that it takes this creator and assumes that it is capable of feeling love, which is a exclusively human or animal concept.
/Stefan |
Well, not really. There are a lot of things Christianity has a hard time explaining, but that's not one of them.
Christianity assumes that humans feel love because they are "made in the image of God".
That phrase in Hebrew, as I understand it, connotes something more like "have a similar nature", rather than "look like God". It's usually understood by Christians to mean that human emotions, creativity, and sapience, while not the same as God's, are in some way similar to His and are derived from His.
That is to say, Christians think humans have love and creativity because they're attributes God has, and He made humans to have those attributes.
It may make a bit more sense, viewed that way.
-Nate
_________________
"Anything you say can and will be used against you. We probably won't wait for a court of law to do it." |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Uncle Krunkus
Moderator
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 4761
Location: Sydney, Australia
Audio files: 52
G2 patch files: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
"In the beginning, God made man in his own image,
and man has been returning the compliment ever since."
_________________
What makes a space ours, is what we put there, and what we do there. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jhaible
Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:32 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Uncle Krunkus wrote: | "In the beginning, God made man in his own image,
and man has been returning the compliment ever since." |
I like that quote! 
Tragedy is that since we discovered the second part, we mistakenly considered the first part disproved.
JH.
_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jhaible
Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eag wrote: |
Christianity assumes that humans feel love because they are "made in the image of God".
That phrase in Hebrew, as I understand it, connotes something more like "have a similar nature", rather than "look like God". It's usually understood by Christians to mean that human emotions, creativity, and sapience, while not the same as God's, are in some way similar to His and are derived from His.
That is to say, Christians think humans have love and creativity because they're attributes God has, and He made humans to have those attributes.
It may make a bit more sense, viewed that way.
-Nate |
Makes a lot of sense, IMO.
JH.
_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Uncle Krunkus
Moderator
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 4761
Location: Sydney, Australia
Audio files: 52
G2 patch files: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry guys,
I've gotta lay off this thread for a while.
It's like being in an asylum.
_________________
What makes a space ours, is what we put there, and what we do there. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think we broke Uncle Krunkus. 
It's fascinating to watch a magnet work. Oooh, hocus-pocus. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Eag
Joined: Feb 14, 2007
Posts: 40
Location: Central Pennsylvania
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Octahedra wrote: | | Personally I do find the latter a more satisfying explanation, because it doesn't put mind or will or sentience at the root of all things. Instead I'm coming from a sort-of-Plato point of view where information is the root level of the universe/multiverse. Any physical universe, and any mind within that universe, is simply the way a set of data evolves, according to algorithm, or according to some randomness + selection process. |
Information is indeed the simplest thing inside, say, a computer system.
In our physical universe, what's running the algorithms, or the randomness + selection process?
Without some kind of computational hardware, be it a Mac or a Turing machine or a mind, information as such doesn't *exist*. There's just matter (unless you think there is more to the universe than matter).
(if you want to assume some computational device to store the data and run the algorithms that makes up the universe, the mind of an infinite being that transcends time is a pretty good one. If you assume that's what's underlying existence, it becomes easy to believe in supernatural events - aforementioned all-knower/all-maker just fires up the debugger and changes some code/data on the fly. To us tiny creatures, living inside the 'software', trying painstakingly to understand what happens without seeing the source code (if indeed we'd even understand his code), such things seem inexplicable and impossible [especially if the parts of the binary he likes to fiddle with are in parts of memory we don't have access to].)
| Octahedra wrote: | http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
I would describe a mind as a complex package of information. Some of that info is stored data - our memories, and some of it is rules for dealing with new info coming in from the world as it changes around us. So the existence and nature of information are fundamental to all things, and mind is just a phenomenon that happens to be allowed within that system.
I'd be interested to know why you classed this kind of idea as a fallacy. |
I assume he was trying to point out that, really, humans don't really have a way to know for absolutely certain whether some consciousness or the existence of matter is the fundamental basis for everything else. Something has to self-exist, if any of it exists, but what it is that self-exists hasn't been (and probably can't be) rigorously established.
Thus, it's begging the question to just decree "Information is the basis of everything, and mind develops from that."
| Octahedra wrote: | EDIT: so the point I was trying to argue was a form of Occam's razor - always go for the explanation that involves the simples set of rules.
I'm basically claiming that raw information is simpler than mind; it's easier to define. Mind is simply a tiny subset within the entire body of possible information. Mind could (if we knew enough about how it works in terms of its component parts and their actions / interactions) be defined purely in terms of information, whereas you couldn't usefully define information in terms of mind. |
Your last sentence there is the bit that probably counts as begging the question. In absentia complete understanding of mind, it's not valid to just declare "If we knew how it worked, it would work like this."
Maybe it does, but that has not been shown yet, nor will I be convinced of it until someone demonstrates actual control of mind (for instance, being able to create a human mind to spec, right down to quirks of personality having been predicted and built-to-order).
| Octahedra wrote: | | Our minds feel 'simple' to us because they're designed to make it so - we make intuitive decisions all the time without analysing the details. But the true complexity of this process is hidden from us by the way the brain is built. We can't rely just on our intuitive judgements about these things - when our measurements of the brain reveal levels of complexity that we can't feel directly, it's the measurements that we have to trust. |
I don't believe the brain is simple, but I also don't believe we understand it perfectly (certainly not well enough to show conclusively that there's nothing but biochemistry to the human mind).
| Uncle Krunkus wrote: | Sorry guys,
I've gotta lay off this thread for a while.
It's like being in an asylum. |
Life is like being in an asylum.
I've never known anyone who was perfectly rational. (most especially not me)
But I understand quite well that sometimes, someone's irrationality just annoys the heck out of you, and you need to walk away before you totally lose control and (ironically enough) get all irrational because of it... 
Bachus, that shot of the iron filings is *awesome*. It has me flashing back to undergrad physics, when I actually had a decent grasp of electromagnetism... Oh for the days...
-Nate
_________________
"Anything you say can and will be used against you. We probably won't wait for a court of law to do it." |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
nobody
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Posts: 1687
Location: Not here
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eag wrote: |
Without some kind of computational hardware, be it a Mac or a Turing machine or a mind, information as such doesn't *exist*. There's just matter (unless you think there is more to the universe than matter).
|
We don't know very much at all about the nature of the universe. We don't know that subatomic particles aren't sentient. We don't know that the quantum universe doesn't self-exist. After all, the same electron going through the same magnetic path does something different every time, and we still do not know why. It could be said that these particles have a mind of their own and self-exist. Since we are made up of these particles, it's logical to theorise that all living beings self-exist.
| Quote: |
(if you want to assume some computational device to store the data and run the algorithms that makes up the universe, the mind of an infinite being that transcends time is a pretty good one. If you assume that's what's underlying existence, it becomes easy to believe in supernatural events - aforementioned all-knower/all-maker just fires up the debugger and changes some code/data on the fly. To us tiny creatures, living inside the 'software', trying painstakingly to understand what happens without seeing the source code (if indeed we'd even understand his code), such things seem inexplicable and impossible [especially if the parts of the binary he likes to fiddle with are in parts of memory we don't have access to].)
|
But this makes an assumption for the purpose of explanation, and for no other purpose. Using that mode of thinking, I can just as logically believe in the Cosmic Turtle who created the universe by throwing up. This super-giant-infinite-mind theory flies in the face of all we have scientifically observed: that as things go from the micro to the macro-cosmic, the tendency is toward order and logic. In reverse, things go from logic to free states. So if there is an infinite mind larger than everything else, it is inherently understandable. In order to be a free mind that defies our explanation of the macro universe, it would have to exist in the quantum world. Since the macro universe is supported by the quantum universe, and we are made of the stuff of the quantum universe, I say again that we self-exist.
| Quote: |
Something has to self-exist, if any of it exists, but what it is that self-exists hasn't been (and probably can't be) rigorously established.
|
Everything self-exists, as I postulated above.
| Quote: |
Your last sentence there is the bit that probably counts as begging the question. In absentia complete understanding of mind, it's not valid to just declare "If we knew how it worked, it would work like this."
|
Yet, this is exactly what organised religion does. The religions I've found the most tolerance and compassion in acknowledge this freely. I would like to see more Christians acknowledge this, as it seems to me a very Christ-like way of thinking. Jesus was quite the liberal and free-thinker. Too many Christians today are not. It doesn't make sense at all.
| Quote: |
I don't believe the brain is simple, but I also don't believe we understand it perfectly (certainly not well enough to show conclusively that there's nothing but biochemistry to the human mind).
|
There is TONS of documented evidence pointing out that there is something beyond a biochemical basis for our entire existence.
| Quote: |
Life is like being in an asylum.
|
I will NOT argue with THAT!
| Quote: |
I've never known anyone who was perfectly rational. (most especially not me)
|
Same here!
This was fun. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Eag
Joined: Feb 14, 2007
Posts: 40
Location: Central Pennsylvania
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| audiodef wrote: | We don't know very much at all about the nature of the universe. We don't know that subatomic particles aren't sentient. We don't know that the quantum universe doesn't self-exist. After all, the same electron going through the same magnetic path does something different every time, and we still do not know why. It could be said that these particles have a mind of their own and self-exist. Since we are made up of these particles, it's logical to theorise that all living beings self-exist.
| Quote: |
(if you want to assume some computational device to store the data and run the algorithms that makes up the universe, the mind of an infinite being that transcends time is a pretty good one. If you assume that's what's underlying existence, it becomes easy to believe in supernatural events - aforementioned all-knower/all-maker just fires up the debugger and changes some code/data on the fly. To us tiny creatures, living inside the 'software', trying painstakingly to understand what happens without seeing the source code (if indeed we'd even understand his code), such things seem inexplicable and impossible [especially if the parts of the binary he likes to fiddle with are in parts of memory we don't have access to].)
|
But this makes an assumption for the purpose of explanation, and for no other purpose. Using that mode of thinking, I can just as logically believe in the Cosmic Turtle who created the universe by throwing up. This super-giant-infinite-mind theory flies in the face of all we have scientifically observed: that as things go from the micro to the macro-cosmic, the tendency is toward order and logic. In reverse, things go from logic to free states. So if there is an infinite mind larger than everything else, it is inherently understandable. In order to be a free mind that defies our explanation of the macro universe, it would have to exist in the quantum world. Since the macro universe is supported by the quantum universe, and we are made of the stuff of the quantum universe, I say again that we self-exist. |
Precisely.
No human can honestly assert that they really know how it works. Maybe the FSM really is what made everything. Maybe the Cosmic Turtle really did vomit us up. Maybe it is all just a dream (or the Matrix).
But I do know what I believe it is. For whatever reason (which I can't really explain well), the idea of everything we observe being based in the will/mind of a being beyond our understanding, who is independent from space and time, seems right to me.
At this level of discussion, we're talking philosophy and personal axioms. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and logic takes you nowhere without first premises.
Obviously we have different premises, but I can deal with that.
| audiodef wrote: | | Quote: |
Something has to self-exist, if any of it exists, but what it is that self-exists hasn't been (and probably can't be) rigorously established.
|
Everything self-exists, as I postulated above. |
Totally valid postulate, but not one I personally agree with. As mentioned, I personally lean towards a Maker being self-existent, who made a bunch more stuff. Again, I'm not quite sure why that makes more sense to me - it just does.
| audiodef wrote: | | Quote: |
Your last sentence there is the bit that probably counts as begging the question. In absentia complete understanding of mind, it's not valid to just declare "If we knew how it worked, it would work like this."
|
Yet, this is exactly what organised religion does. The religions I've found the most tolerance and compassion in acknowledge this freely. I would like to see more Christians acknowledge this, as it seems to me a very Christ-like way of thinking. Jesus was quite the liberal and free-thinker. Too many Christians today are not. It doesn't make sense at all. |
Jesus definitely had some really harsh things to say about the organized religion of His day.
I don't think much has really changed since He died. Humans still basically suck, and do what makes them feel good without regard for others. Self-righteous arrogance is just as personally gratifying now as it was then, and it's still around in spades, both in- and outside of religions.
One of the things that for me marks Christ as more than just a man (if you accept the Bible's accounts as honest eyewitness testimony) is the way He related to sinners. He rejected the sins, and accepted the sinners. How many people do you know who actually love and take care of people who do things they hate? I sure don't manage that - I barely take care of the people I'm in total agreement with. He was a seriously different guy, one of a kind.
And boy howdy, I'd *love* to see more Christians admit how much we don't know. If you think *you're* annoyed by Christians doing bad reasoning and skipping steps, try being identified with ones who do that every time you say, "I'm a Christian."
| audiodef wrote: | | Quote: |
I don't believe the brain is simple, but I also don't believe we understand it perfectly (certainly not well enough to show conclusively that there's nothing but biochemistry to the human mind).
|
There is TONS of documented evidence pointing out that there is something beyond a biochemical basis for our entire existence. |
Yeah, I'm with you on that. It's a part of why I feel the Maker postulate makes sense, I think - if everything just is, why would there be more than matter?
| audiodef wrote: | | Quote: |
Life is like being in an asylum.
|
I will NOT argue with THAT! |
Glad to hear it. I find that people who accept this deal with life a lot better (especially if they realize that they're one of the inmates, too).
It's actually one of Christianity's fundamental postulates, that humans are inconsistent and crazy and don't just do what makes sense (in formal doctrine, it gets called "sin").
| audiodef wrote: | | Quote: |
I've never known anyone who was perfectly rational. (most especially not me)
|
Same here!
This was fun. |
Indeed.
-Nate
_________________
"Anything you say can and will be used against you. We probably won't wait for a court of law to do it." |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18522
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 266
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | mosc wrote: | | Yeah, we don't know too much, but I still like looking at the pictures. |
Strange, but some portions of the sun's disk look like iron filings in a magnetic field. |
I tried to find some web site to source. There was a Science Channel special about the Sun. Unfortunately, it isn't available as a free download. Anyway, to paraphrase what I remember from that program, it turns out that the Sun's equatorial regions rotate at a faster rate than the polar regions. This causes the Sun's magnetic field to twist and break up into many parts that we can see in the outer visible regions near the surface and in in the corona, the visible atmosphere. These fields twist up and relax in the well-know Sun spot cycle of approximately 11 years. So, the wispy filaments we see on the Sun are the result of the magnetic field lines, just as are the iron filings show the magnetic field lines of a bar magnet.
But, you knew that.
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
DrJustice
Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2112
Location: Morokulien
Audio files: 4
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:06 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The Sun is mindboggling. In every way. Every time.
Perhaps I should try a bit of Sun worship? It makes a lot more sense than many other things; after all, it created the solar system and life on earth.
DJ
-- |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | ...But, you knew that. |
Na, I've stopped believing all that science stuff. The sun is clearly heated by plasma friction caused by the vigourus flapping of angel's wings. How else could there be solar wind?
Just try to answer that you science geeks!
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| DrJustice wrote: | The Sun is mindboggling. In every way. Every time.
-- |
I don't know. I found that without the calming thought of all those angels flapping away, it was, you know, a little scary.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
