mooeypoo

.... uhhhh.... haha.. OOPS... I recently bought (in black friday recently! 15 bucks instead of 90.. w00t!) HBO's "From the Earth to the Moon" the signature edition. Other than literally *sobbing* whenever they showed JFK's speech and the actual landing on the moon ("The eagle has wings! / The eagle has landed!!") I couldn't stop being so impressed at what countries *do* for their "ego". I *so* hope this happens again.. we seemed to abandoned the space race completely, and if we managed to get from *nothing at all* to LANDING - repeatedly! - on the moon within 7 years or so, think what we could do within 10 years if we have the same kind of pressure in our current day technology. Someone call the chinese....

Science doesn't "try" anything, scientists do. Science is the *system*. here we go with definitions again, you seem to have a knack in animating inanimate terms. Science is a definition for the SYSTEM of empirical evidence, observation, and how theories are devised. It's a system. Used by scientists. As for the 'borrowed from evidence' --- what? Are you suggesting science is not empirical? If you are, give examples. If you're not, explain what you mean. No, no no.. no. Don't make it what it's not. Paleontology is "the study of prehistoric life forms on Earth through the examination of plant and animal fossils." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology ) it's not experimental, and it's not quite evolution. The fact we find evidence *TO* evolution through paleontology does not make it a study OF evolution. Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, and evolutionary theory receives a lot of support (in terms of corroborating evidence and factual data) from other scientific subjects. It's not experimental science because there's not much experiments on it. You gather ancient bones; if you define that as "collecting the results" then you slightly miss the nature of "Experimental Science". The 'experiment' in experimental science is not just 'try' or 'find', it's a METHODOLOGY in devising the experiment, devising predictions, and conducting it (blind/ double-blind/ etc). Yah, I see what you're saying, but youre mixing your OWN definitions with the proper definitions of Science and "Experimental Science". No paleontologist will tell you he "believes" the bones in front of him are 210 million years ago; he will tell you he *KNOWS* they are. The information about their age -- coming from multiple sources, multiple theories, multiple tests, and from theories that are predictable and that produce results -- is SO BIG that the doubt about its age is marginal. Look. No one can tell you for SURE that there is a black hole at the middle of our galaxy, because no one was there. For all intended purposes, however, the facts that this Black Hole exists are *SO VAST*, corroborated, they work, our predictions with this Black Hole work, etc -- that no one REFERS to this as "believing".. it's refered to as CERTAIN, because the odds against it are so slim. Science, however, unlike religious/theological belief system, *can* -- and ASPIRES -- to change 'its' mind. When a fact is discovered to be false, or out of date rather, scientists actually STOP believing the old one. The stop. Theologians *don't*. That's why "Belief System" is considered to be something we should "respect" in a person.. it's his "individual" thing... whatever. You can dance around the philosophy of what we can and cannot know for sure; for that matter, our perception is inside our brain: I can't EVER be absolutely sure that your purple is my purple, or that what you perceive as "hand" is *percisely* what I perceive as "hand". And yet, for the purpose of *moving on with progress* and not getting frustrated while TALKING, we define terms, and we just use them. In philosophy you can argue the deeper meaning of whatever you want, but science is not a belief we *in our regular language* define "belief". ~moo

Right but allow me to play devil's advocate here --- when the decision needs to be made, the person in question is already dead --> the family is alive to live with the consequences... shouldn't they have a say on their OWN future? his is already gone.

Of course? Of course why? Although I agree we are 'conscious', I wouldn't call it an "of course". It's an ongoing philosophical discussion, so far without an answer. "Are we conscious". No, not of course at all. Consciousness is another term we humans coined to define the processes of our brains. what is it? Good question, and a fascinating discussion, but since I don't believe it's "outside" of our bodies, I would have to say that in my own opinion, it was developed in time through our brain. How and what was the process exactly? I'm not sure, it sounds like a great project to research on, and I will try to, when I'm done with my finals. But remember.. the fact we don't know (yet) the explanation for something doesn't mean that there is only one alternative for it.. in short: the fact I am not sure "where" consciousness comes from, doesn't make it a function. That said, I am not sure how evolution being a function have anything to do with consciousness? I lost the connection between the two... ? How do you know other animals are aware? How do you define "awareness"? Those are VERY deep philosophical questions. I have my own opinion on them, and though it sounds similar to yours, I would still not hurry to answer it.. we're jumping from scientific explanations (Evolution) to philosophy.... very DEEP philosophy. And I TOTALLY don't see how function gets into anything, even if what you say is an absolute truth (which, again, you're making 'absolute' claims about subjects that are highly debated, and - at the very least - are not substantiated...) You talk two different "languages" here.. it's like you're saying "A and then T, and therefore - of course - Theta".. I mean.. what? I don't get the reasoning behind what you're claiming. Don't mix philosophy with science.. unless you INTEND to argue philosophy, in which case it's speculatory, depends on personal approach, and completely irrelevant to observational science. ~moo

I didn't say it's a problem, I disagreed with you. There's a difference. When a verb, yes. When is part of "Natural Selection" the NAME of the TOOL for the PROCESS of evolution, No. It's not. To have something "perform" something, there needs to be that "agent" -- and there is no "Agent" in evolution, not the way the word "Agent" is usually used. If you mean 'perform', 'function' and 'agent' *NOT* in their COMMON usage and connotation, then you need to re-define them, so I can understand what you mean. Otherwise, I just simply disagree. Using "agent", "function" and "perform" suggests that Evolution has a 'consciousness', or that something is "behind" the process. There is nothing behind that process, no purpose, no consciousness... hence my disagreement with your choice of words. I have NO IDEA what you mean by that... what quantum levels, and who's cooperating with what..? Explain, please, I didn't understand that last part. ~moo

Not by my definition. Would you define a hammer or a screwdriver 'a function'? And uh.. aren't we bouncing around on subjects here? I believe the question was purpose, and then procees -> result, which i answered last...

Of course it doesn't, but I don't just believe, I have the definition of the Theory of Evolution to show you: ((Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html)) ((Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02)) Evolution is the PROCESS where the organism *changes* in time. Natural Selection is the *tool* that explains *WHICH* changes/anomalies/mutations are kept, and which are discarded. So: Evolution is the theory that states organisms changed through time. Humans "started out" as something that was DIFFERENT, and - in time - changed and changed and changed and today we call ourselves 'humans'. When you want to understand HOW certain changes occured, or, alternatively, when you want to figure out WHY certain changes were 'preffered' by nature at the expense of other changes, you refer to the TOOL of "Natural Selection", that defines *what* is kept, and HOW the changes are done. One says "change", the other defines "how". It's not cause and effect, and it does not have an ultimate purpose. Nature did not "plan" for human beings from the beginning of life, and it did not "say to itself" -- "oh look! Amoeba! it's going to make one HECK of a person one day a few billion years from now". I know that's not what you meant, I'm exaggerating to make my point. But I would appreciate it if you substantiate and explain the points you're making. My point about "you believing it doesn't make it so" was not meant to belittle you, it was meant to convey my confusion as to where you're getting this from. And I will repeat myself once more, here, because that's getting quite frustrating. You're arguing against a scientific definition that is pretty simply put; read Darwin, and you will see he refered to Natural Selection as a tool as well, within evolution. The reason I keep recommending Richard Dawkins' video is not to send you away from the debate; it's to show you where the proof of the explanation IS. The video is EXTREMELY well put, it's substantiating itself repeatedly, and it very simple and interesting. ~moo

Function implies purpose. It has a 'function' means it has some purpose to it. It's not *wrong* saying that, it's just not clear. Evolution is a process with no goal or purpose. It just HAPPENS, we observed it, and decided to name it. Ces tout. ~moo

I'm sorry but -- which is which? uhm.. I am not sure I got what you mean. Do you mean that Evolution is the process and Natural Selection the result? Or Natural Selection is the process and Evolution the result? Neither is neither, and both are both. They're *together*. Evolution by means of natural selection --> that's the NAME for the phenomena. Evolution is not a result. Neither is Natural Selection. If anything, Evolution is the process, and Natural Selection is the 'tool'. Again.. watch the video, you're asking things that are answered there scientifically while defining evolution in its correct manner. ~moo

... You make a statement that I disagree with, which is fine, but since I don't understand where you bring this from (substantiate? uhm.. something?) I am having trouble even addressing it. The fact *YOU* believe that all forms of life are derivatives of evolutionary "function" doesn't make it so.. unless I misunderstood you, in which case please explain and bring examples to what you're saying. And then you finish up with this statement,which seems to me to be contradicting your first one... Evolution is a name for a process. Just like "raining" is a name of a phenomena, and growth is a name of another process... it can't have meaning just because you "want" it to.. Explain please, I am not sure I understood what you mean here. ~moo

Okay, here's another perspective: My EX-Boyfriend is an escapee of a VERY orthodox upbringing in the deep-insides of orthodox-jewish Israel. When he 'came out' as an Atheist (took him a while) he was kicked out with only the cloths on his body. Since then, he became a humanist, and unsurprisingly, signing a donor card is one of the first thing he did, as a moral conviction. God forbid something happens to him, and instead of his organs to be used to save someone else -- as he wanted from his MORAL convictions -- his family declines, because of THEIR religious views which forbid this. Not only is this against his will, it is against his *moral value* if they do that. And yet -- they have the power to, and most undeniably will, if having the chance. Is it still moral?

I watched your other vids and the construction of the observatory, and it's just amazing. I doubt I'll ever have the time (or place!) to put one in, but if I do, you're DEFINITELY my inspiration. BTW, I love the hebrew lettering in the corner there Happy Hanukka ~moo

Why messed up? It's not like we're talking about nuclear weapons or anything... it's science, and it's about damn time, too. It took the U.S.A some pressure from Russia and the cold war to invest in the importance of Space Exploration in the first place. Maybe some pressure from China will FINALLY get the U.S.A to invest funds and resources in continuing Space exploration. I could only hope.

YET. Artificial Intelligence may prove to think for itself, accumulate data and spit out conclusions. We can go into a philosophical argument of whether or not this is 'humanlike' or not, or if they ever get to 'the level' of us humans, but the bottom line is that if you think about it, we ARE a sort of computers: we have inputs (eyes: visual, skin: sensory, ears: auditory, etc), we analyze it (sometimes not too well, considering the brain's tendency to fall into illusions, most famous are the visual illusions) and we output our results. We kinda are computers, just very advanced. And about the Original Post --> I think you're confusing the different definitions of "belief". When we say "Belief System", we don't mean "I believe that I am not going to go through the wall, even though I might according to Quantum Theory"; that would make every fact, theory or observation a "belief". Continuing my point about computers -- we can't really trust our own sensory systems sometimes, which means that a lot of things are "beliefs". But those are much different than the religious/theological/philosophical "Belief System" for which this term *usually* refers to, and is raising the direct connotation for. The reason is mainly because Science requires beliefs that are *based upon proof* while a personal philosophical/theological "Belief System" just requires faith and belief, sometimes *despite* of evidence. In science, if you say "I believe that if I drop a ball it will fall to the ground" your belief is valid not because you "said so", or because it is written somewhere, or because you hold it with conviction, or because so many other people believe it, it's valid because every time you try it - that's what happens, *AND* because you explain it with a scientific empirically-proved theory that works and is able to predict. When that theory fails (for whatever reason) you *abandon* this belief, and move on to a new one. In other "Belief Systems" that we usually refer to when we *say* "Belief System", that rarely (if ever) happens, and it is NOT based on empirical proof, or scientific method, or trials and experiments. So yes and no: Science is a belief just like my own existence is a belief. Science is not a "Belief System" in the way the term is commonly used. ~moo

There is a big issue we need to address here, I think, and that is the natural tendency of human beings to search for "purpose". We are the only animals that think of "why we are here" philosophically. Thinking about it, though, doesn't mean life has a *purpose* in nature. It all comes down to how you define 'purpose'. If you define it psychologically or philosophically, then yea - sure - we all have our own purpose in life, according to our belief system (not necessarily religious), our morality, our understanding of our surroundings, etc. If you ask the question *biologically* then I am not sure it is even valid to ask. The purpose of life is to live and multiply.. perhaps that would be a close definition, but then again, that's not quite 'purpose', it's more of a 'function'. Purpose relates more to the individual's sense of worth, and in nature that's not quite much. That doesn't mean we aren't worth anything, but it means that the question should be clarified as to what exactly you mean by 'purpose'. As for evolution, I believe there is a fundamental error here as well. You seem to relate to evolution as a purpose towards advancement, when in reality, it is nothing more than what humans call this process of change. Evolution always comes with "Natural Selection"; it is a common mistake to think that evolution is a 'planned' change towards the incredible beings we are today, but that is mostly because of our psyche and ego. Truth is, we have a lot of flaws, and we keep changing, but the change is not a 'path' you can accurately predict - it is the adaptation to our invironment. If our invironment changes (and it is), the path could twist, twirl, U-turn, climb-up, fall or split. It has happened before. Many times Yes, of course we appear to have a purpose, or that the process appears to be purposeful, but that's JUST what it is -- an appearance. Seriously, check this out, it explains this ENTIRE debate with visual aids and the awesomeness of Richard Dawkins' eloquence. It's also free and online, and legal: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse What you're saying is answered there in the beginning, and then proved throughout the entire series. It's WELL worth it. Very interesting. ~moo

Evolution works *through* natural selection. It's not "random" mutations, it's "random mutations" chosen by natural selection. So it's a selective process, according to the environment. It's not a ladder, as there is no "climbing up" or "going down", it's a process, with no "target" or "end goal". The fact we are what we are is because our environment selected specific mutations as benefitial; if our environment changes, other mutations may be discovered as beneficial and the process will change. There is no "goal" to it, so it can't really be a ladder. It's more of a 'tree'. By the way, I strongly suggest watching Dawkins' fascinating lecture "Growing up in the Universe" (containing his famous "climbing up mount improbable" lecture) available *officially* (hence, not 'hacked' or 'stolen' ) through his website: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse He explains very very eloquently about the process of evolution, and how organs were created, animals developed certain attributes, and the bunk of 'irreducible complexity'. Worth-a-watchin'. ~moo

That's a slippery-slope fallacy. We can devise better laws to make sure that doesn't happen. In any case, it can also happen with the family giving permission to donate organs OR with the family's refusal.. but that also doesn't answer the moral questsion -- is it MORAL to disregard the individual's personal decision? ~moo

Hey, I have a donator's card; When I die, whatever organs are good enough to save people's lives or improve their lives, would be taken for that purpose. However, I recently heard of a law that exists in my country - and not sure if it exists in the US/Europe as well. Regardless of the little 'donator' card I signed on, my family has the last word. now, my family is open minded and agrees with my decision, so if anything happens and they're left after me, they'll respect my wishes. However.. do you think it's ethical for a family to go against their family-member's decision as to donation of organs? I mean.. what is the donator-card FOR if not to make your *own* decision..? On the other hand, the family is the one left after death.. they are the ones to live with the decision.. so.. your thoughts? ~moo

In an ironic way, that's actually quite funny.... do Microsoft people know about this problem?

Hm. Let's see... The world was created out of nothing at all in a closed system God created -- hence completely against the laws of thermodynamics that creationists always claim 'big bang' is disobeying, ha for them -- in a 'wave of a wand' of God's mighty powers. He created light and darkness before creating the sun, made man and woman together - with their incredible biological system - in an instant (and then got confused when he told the story again, and decided to create man out of dirt and woman out of man, just for creativity sake?) The animals were whooped into existence in a mere few hours - all 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, not counting the thousands of species of invertibrate animals (all of these and their mates, by the way, would find their way into the ark at the flood, but we will ignore that for now). For whatever divine reason, he decided to be creative and made a bunch of species *just like humans* in every respect other than about 0.1% of their Genes; hence creating the illusion of humanity being closely related to the great ape. Divine humor, lack of creativity, repeated experimentation or just sheer lack of creativity? Then, God took less than a half peep (about 3-4 words in the biblical story) to create the billions and billions of diverse stars, galaxies and celestial objects, including black holes, varied galaxies, etc, and the illusion that they are farther away than creation itself. Apparantly, he intentionally slowed down the speed of light after creation (yes, I heard creationists claim that, but then again, why not? He *is* the almighty God. He is more than capable). And after all of this, the infinite, all powerful God - who is outside the normal laws of physics - got so tired that he had to rest for a full day - longer than the time it took him to create the entire universe surrounding the earth plus the animals and plants. And aaaaaall of this happened 4000-6000 years ago, depending on the individual belief, and is also a COMPLETE contradiction *everything* we know about astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, zoology and geology. Let me think.. mmmmm.... weighing... considering... looking around me at observational science.... hmmmmmmmm.... Yup. I'd call it delusional thinking. I've studied the Old Testament for 10 years in its original language (Hebrew/Aramaic) and I must say: No, it doesn't. It's very -VERY- vague in many things, but in the story of creation one thing is VERY VERY clear: God created all in a roll of 'poofs', so-to-speak. You need to remember that the english version is translated, so taking it literally is quite against the point. I'll show you the example. "Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters." (Gen 1:2) The hebrew original, however, does NOT have "formed" or anything close to it. "וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם." Literal translation (my best attempt): And the earth was chaotic, and darkness on the face of the abyss; and the spirit of God, floating above the water I literally translated literal words; if the sentence gives out a different meaning, it's probably because the translators give it their own meaning because the bible is vague. In any case, the bible does NOT say the earth was 'formed' out of something else; it was CREATED by god, out of "chaos". And this, too, comes *after* God created "Heaven and Earth" (in Gen 2:1); the 'chaos' seems to refer to the state of the earth before God decided to make it "ordered". ~moo --- EDIT --- Btw, I just noticed I may have sounded a bit (extra..) condescending through my cynicism. If my post came accross as an attack or personal insult, I appologize.. this is a subject I spent a large sum of my life arguing, and I sometimes get a bit enthusiastic. I really didn't mean to talk down on anyone, just convey my thoughts. Don't let my cynicism destroy my argument.. sometimes cynicism isn't that bad.. ~moo

Though this sounds silly, it's for my job, so.. help will be REALLY appreciated.. it's not just my own desire to 'experiment' with a social-networking website.. books? no? yes? help ~moo

i don't have Vista myself, but my roomate does. As a very 'simple' user (she's not a programmer or net-kiddie.. she needs internet, music, movies and office for school work) she didn't have too many problems. She did notice, however, that sometimes the "automatic functions" are annoying.. it's a bit "too" automatic (even for her!) .. we had a problem with th WIFI connection and it took me about an hour to try and convince Vista to stop 'discovering the settings itself' (it was WRONG) but rather accept *my* settings. So.. uhm.. though it's not QUITE first hand experience, it's another point. It's also quite heavy.. the requirements of 1GB memory is something I find bizzar and quite worrying from an OS.. ~moo

I'm not sure that relating to evolution as something with an 'end' -- as in a 'target' or something like that - is valid. Evolution is simply the CHANGE of an organism in relation to its environment, so I can't imagine what sort of 'cap' there can be. I think it would be perfectly viable for the process of evolution that a certain species 'reverts' back a few "stages" in its evolution, if its environment changes back to what it used to be. For that matter, heres an 'example' idea -- let's say an organism longer fingers because its environment had food that required narrow-access, and therefore creatures with longer fingers had more chance of getting food -> had more chance of living and multiplying --> the species developed longer fingers. But then, after a long long time evolutionary-wise, another food became abundant that didn't require any of the use of long fingers.. or even was 'best' accessed with bulky hands. The evolutionary process would 'preffer' creatures with shorter fingers, which - in our view - would 'revert' the evolution "back". But the true way of looking at it is that the creatures evolved BOTH times.. evolution is the CHANGE of an organism, not necessarily this 'ladder' with a 'target' to get to. ~moo

roflmao I was *wondering* what the heck disney had to do with anything...

Actually, I think there's a fault in the system as well.. if you quote someone quoting someone else, you end up with 1 quote.. (like.. if I would have quoted your post, I'd get the part of "originally posted by mooeypoo" gone, and as if you were the one saying it all..). It didn't used to be like this.. Anyways, no problems, let's just try to quote properly -- as in link to the original post where the quote is taken from - so we can have things in context ~moo