Area54

Agreed. If an event, for example, is one that tends to make you angry, you have the option of allowing yourself to become angry or deciding not to do so. I think this is what you are referring to. If so I agree it takes a little practice, but can then become quite natural.

A careful reading of your posts inlcines me to accept the reality of extraterrestrial life, as you are certainly on another planet. That borders on the fatuous. The key word in that statement is "If" and my point is that the evidence to turn that "if" into an "is" is most certainly incomplete, ambigous and insufficient. Making confident pronouncements to the contrary, vigorously expressing opionions, referencing third and fourth hand anecdotes, simply does not cut it. It need not belong to anyone. Why do you insist that such must be the case? Why do you demand that there be a creator? What makes you think I - or anyone - is claiming the it all came out of nothing. (Setting aside that "things" come out of nothing all the time. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ Do you deny their existence?) Unsubstantiated anecdotes from the gullible are hardly the basis for a sound belief system. Do you understand what real evidence is? To date I see little evidence that you do and a great deal to the contrary. As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own beliefs, but not our own facts. This has all the hallmarks of Christian indoctrination - man given dominion over the animals. It's anthropocentric claptrap. If it were true it's a pretty sorry mess we are making of it. I'd rather run with inow's view that we are animals. At least that way we can use the excuse of having been driven by instinct, committed to personal short-term survival and sufficiency. Asimov had little or no predictive elements in his stories. In proposing the Three Laws of Robotics he highlighted a future problem and a possible solution. Other than that most of his "predictions" are plot devices. He was, above all, a superb story teller. From Darwin onward, almost every investigator into the origin of life viewed the sea as the birthplace of life. His writings reflect that view. It is most certainly not a view original to him in any way. He was a great lover of the sea - I refer you to his book(s) on diving, called IIRC, The Reefs of Taprobane. The fish - man interface is the only one supported by evidence and lots of it. Meanwhile, I think your own passionate belief system, based on an extrapolation of your personal experience with other lifeforms, does provide an interesting illustration of how early man's religious beliefs may have emerged. I thank you for that insight.

You may recall that steel did not react well to heat in the twin towers. Form the appropriate conclusion. More to the point the initial investment would be vast and never recouped. Try some back of the envelope calculations to satisfy yourself.

That sounds perilously like a circular argument. Probably because it is. The first statement is demonstrably correct. Because that is the case the second statement is consequently false. Many people, perhaps all people, do some of their conscious thinking without the use of language. I believe there was a thread about this here a couple of months ago.

There seems to be a lot of implicit judgement here. As a Christian Crusader you would be aware of the passage, I think in Mathew, 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.

The evidence for a GOD is incomplete, ambiguous and insufficient (hence the need for faith). The evidence for angels is practically non-existent, without abandoning all critical thinking. While I shall readily agree with you that humans exist you have still failed to offer anything other than opinion an anecdote to justify their alleged position above all other known life forms. Do you intend to continue to ignore this central weakness of your argument? See previous point. No. If I concede, temporarily, that all these four levels exist it does not mean we can necessarily interact with them. You pulled that one out of a vacuum. Several minor, technical points here. Are you unsure about it being a whale? If not, why the question mark? While technically the museum you refer to is (or was at one time) the British Museum of Natural History, it has been known for some time simply as the Natural History Muesum. The British Museum is located on the other side of town and has now whales, unless there are carvings of them in the Elgin Marbles. The whale has long been on display in the museum. It was certainly there when I visited a few decades ago. The museum is simply relocating it to pride of place in the central hall. And, less technically, so what? I don't catch how this is relevant to your argument. His story was not intended to be predictive. Nor were his thoughts on the possibility of life on Europa original. I just fail to see where you are trying to go with this. I don't think so.

Can you confirm this is just an opinion and lacks any broad support in the relevant scientific communities?

Just not on this occasion.

This view requires an assumption that humans are smart enough to know what makes sense.There is very clear and abundant evidence that, in the past, the smartest minds have had decidedly faulty ideas and that today the common sense of the majority of humans is often wrong. So, working on what "seems" to make sense doesn't appear to be a sound, or a logical, or a justifiable, or a defensible basis for a worldview.

On the contrary. It is apparent to anyone who cares to think about it carefully that hierarchies, inasmuch as they exist, are relative and contigent upon perspective. At the risk of being thought offensive, I believe, Mike, your views would benefit from paying more attention to the thoughts of others, rather than cherry picking their observations to support your (questionable) world view.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. Rather, the concern is that anyone's rights were violated. Justice is blind. If his rights were violated without redress yesterday, yours can be violated without redress tomorrow.

Koti, it is well understood in educational circles that people differ in their preferences for absorbing knowledge. Some require a strong visual component, others are strongly oriented towards words and so on. Your tendency to visualize is similar to my own approach, but I have met many people who do almost no visulization. I am surprised that, given your background in teaching, you were unaware of this. I believe it is a cornerstone of any form of teacher training.

But wouldn't that simply be the heirarchy as perceived by humans. It would surely be different from any heirarchy perceived by cougars, penguins, or rose bushes? And if that is the case, would it be of any particular value?

knowledge + imagination + good judgment = wisdom

You seem to be expressing personal views that exist independently of reality. Just because you believe something to be absurd does not make it so. What evidence do you have that is is "pretty safe to say that something has always existed"? Do you not realise that Big Bang theory does not preclude something always having existed?

Absolutely is quite a large word. (Especially in your chosen font.) Do you have any evidence that in all the exams, on all the science courses, in every year, at every university, in every country, there is no frequent attention to problem solving in the examinations? If so, I would be interested in seeing the evidence. If not, I can treat it as an unvalidated opinion.

How do you know, with certainty, that this is the case? How do you know, with certainty, that it has always been the case? Why do you think that the alternative explantion to your own belief requires that "things appeared by themselves"?

The origin of the matter/energy that consitutes the universe remains unknown. Numerous possibilities have been proposed, with more or less support. Your position on the matter seems erroneous, inasmuch as you seem to favour only a single explanation. What is your justification for that?