Fred56

Or maybe Lockheed wants to believe that this is all very mysterious, perhaps he thinks he's some kind of preacher man who has determined the obvious purpose to my thread? Right back atcha. -wikipedia.org

from Latin 'equivocate' aequare - to make equal, and vocare - to name or call. ...so aequivocare - to call or name the same. i.e ambiguity. 'science' (bit of a handful here) scienta: knowledge, learning, skill scire: know, be skilled in sciscere: inquire, learn, decree, approve 'believe' putare: think, believe, settle reri: regard, suppose, believe credere: trust, believe, commit confido: trust in, believe in accredere: entrust, have faith in, believe arbitrari: witness, testify, decide, believe 'verify' authenticare: verify, authenticate comperire: compare, learn, discover, verify Maybe there's a bit too much semantic breadth in some words (for some of us)...

Part of the problem, especially with a sensitive topic like religion, is the interpretation certain terminology is given by different people. "Areligious", or "asexual", does not mean anti-religion, or anti-sex, it means without, or not religious or sexual (some people are asexual, and don't enjoy it either, as I'm sure some NS readers know). Someone who claims they are areligious is not setting out to destroy religion, they just don't believe it. Also the idea of using science to analyse religion is in the same boat as a scientific analysis of some philosophy, kinda meaningless imo. Religion 'belongs' to philosophy, I would hazard, so philosophical argument is its basis, maybe (or not).

I think I will go, at least... we seem to be talking at cross-purposes here, so I'll cut my losses. as it were.

I like Lagrange (and Laplace) transforms, they're pretty cool. Or this: [math]1... (H=\sum_i \Delta_i X_i)[/math] [math]2... H=\sum_i (\Delta_i X_i + h_i Z_i) +\sum_{ij} J_ij Z_i Z_j[/math] [math]3... H=\sum_i h_i Z_i +\sum_{ij} J_ij Z_i Z_j[/math] [math]4... E=\sum_i h_i s_i +\sum_{ij} J_ij s_i s_j[/math] ..which defines a quantum 'process', apparently (and the ordering is crucial). But I only have an idea what it all means (X and Z are the Pauli matrices, at least I know what a matrix is)...

Absolutely, so what do you do if I look at your original work, then reproduce an almost exact copy (from my photographic recall), except 'it'? What will 'it' (the law) do about this? Or about the 'photographic' copy in my head?

"Il me parait plus naturel et plus conforme aux ideés qui ont toujours heureusement oriente la recherche scientifique de supposer que les transitions quantiques pourront un jour etre interpreteés, peut-etre a láide de moyens analytiques dont nous ne disposons pas encore, comme des processus tres rapides, mais en principe descriptibles en termes d'éspace et de temps, analogues a ces passages brusques d'ún cycle limite aùn autre que l'ón rencontre tres frequemment dans l'étude des phenomenes mecaniques et electromagnetiques non lineáires." --Louis de Broglie, Les ideés qui me guident dans mes recherches (1965)

My 'inner stereo' gets pretty good reception --lots of singing and chirping, gongs (now and then). But I usually listen to stuff as I play it -Elton John, Bach, Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Queen, David Bowie, Beatles, Steely Dan, the usual suspects (and nowhere near the whole list). Even a dash of Tschaikovsky and Greig (but it's bloody hard). Sometimes I can hear several tunes (without playing them) sort of simultaneously, it's a bit hard to describe. Since I learned how to "tune in" to the one I already have, I can say my musical appreciation has gone up considerably (but I haven't got a big collection of albums, just sheet music mostly) since I discovered how to listen to the inner 'music'... And I'm keen on pretty much anything melodic or emotive (external recording-wise). Interestingly, I can hear classical stuff in a lot of modern music BION P.S. And I like Radiohead (earlier), Rage against.., etc (I flatted with a boot-boy for a while once), even (some) rap. Linkin Park leaves me a bit unmoved, I prefer Chemical Bros. (and I don't think that much of them).

So believing in the outcome of any investigation isn't constructing any sort of system, and nor is accumulating tested (precise) theories? Or if it is, calling it a system of beliefs is equivocating? No, I don't see why this is the case. And despite what science defines as what it believes, as opposed to what religion believes (faith in an unseeable, unknowable thing), are you saying that the belief process is different? I don't believe this conclusion can be drawn at all (both are beliefs; people --including people who study science-- believe all kinds of illogical and demonstrably false things). Also, science being a "system of evaluation" implies that something is needed for an evaluation to be made, what might this be, or do scientists simply evaluate, without any conclusions being seen as necessary? I don't think so, they believe in their conclusions to the extent that it is logical to do so, don't they (I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what I do)? What about unprovable math theories, or NP-complete problems (the halting problem)? Aren't there things we know we can never prove are true (or false)? OK, but in the rest of the world "science" doesn't mean just those first two things.What about some tribesman in the Amazon jungle who has no idea what a book or a library is, has never been in a lab? Does he know what science is (as compared to what you seem to be talking about: Western Science and its Philosophy)? Does this tribesman have theories and hypotheses that he and others investigate? What does his belief system have to do with his science --nothing? And I don't think I've said (but there's a sense, I feel, that I am implying) that science is only a system of beliefs. The collected wisdom isn't anything that anyone must believe either (plenty of people have no idea of many of the principles underlying the gadgets and machinery they use every day), but if you want to learn it, then you do need to believe some of it. The methodical aspects are closely related to (even emerge from, maybe) a set of constructed and learned things (I call these beliefs), otherwise known as Scientific Laws and Theories, although they are obviously things that people believe. What's wrong with calling it a system that includes a belief system (or saying it is a belief system therefore)? I have yet to see, as I have said, what this might be. Appeals to the correct, or usual, interpretation of these words doesn't make a lot of sense, because I don't see that I'm using an unusual or incorrect one in any case. Maybe this is the kind of thing that happens when liberal encounters conservative (semantics). (that looks like a thing that belongs in the set of "one of those": "liberal semanticist", wonder if it's valid?)

Absolutely. No worries, you'd end up with the empty list {}, finance credit is something I don't personally subscribe to (any more). I got a bit sick of being ripped off, basically, so if there's nothing to rip, I'm ok with it. And you didn't spot my palindromic semantics... oh, well. Except to achieve or ensure this, you'd need to ensure that any opportunity for it to be copied is avoided rigorously, like shutting it away in a vault forever, or burying it miles underground, or something. Alternatively remove all means of copying it from any other person who sees it, including removing any image of it from their brain...

How much of your infancy can you recall with any clarity? What's your earliest memory? What exactly is a "state of mind"? One big problem, as in any discussion about things like this, is that the terminology is overloaded with various hues of meaning. Purposefulness, as exhibited by a lion stalking it's prey, or that same prey sensing danger and running away, can arguably be said to be different from Purpose, but purpose is purposefulness, and also purposeful behaviour. With a capital P it seems to suddenly become a much broader concept. My first argument with the guy in the OP was about an objection to his claim (and the same claim some are making here) that: "Life has no purpose". Clearly this has a problem with explaining what the lion or it's prey are doing, in that case. Are they just following a script, or their DNA-determined role, and the conditioning their instincts (DNA) gave them? Comment: who thinks there's no difference between: "does Life have a purpose?", and "does Life have purpose?"

"A child is born with no state of mind, blind to the ways of mankind" -Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual. "So why do we do it?" ... looks like someone could use a course in remedial English comprehension? Also predicate logic and what a syllogism is' date=' maybe? So[b'] no-one[/b] has any idea then? Wassa madda you... you stoopid??

Maybe we should do a global search/replace of everything Albert Einstein said about his theory too (to make sure). However Isn't this even a little bit contradictory?

I believe I say the exact same thing' date=' So what is it you are disagreeing with (I'm somewhat perplexed)? How do you explain a solitary fully-grown animal doing this? Are they practising closer bonding with imaginary companions? I agree that play, like that seen in new-born lambs and calves, appears to fit your definition, this can be said to aid learning and habituation to the environment and their role in it. So why do lambs (and antelopes) exhibit "pronking"? I believe this particular behaviour is yet to be explained in such terms, particularly when it's observed in fully-grown individual members, and appears to involve only the individual (it doesn't look much like a group activity).

Have your parents been 'concerned' about your 'strangeness' at all? Have they taken you to see 'professionals', or to get tests done? I can imagine someone who goes into (great) detail as you describe, and engages in things like drumming with any available 'sticks', might get diagnosed as OCD, maybe... Has the medical profession. like, been on your case? P.S. Eccentricities and 'odd' behaviour are common among those with 'savant' type (and a history of epilepsy) conditions. Many 'above average' intelligent people often cultivate peculiar habits (of speech or other activities), because it seems (to them) to aid their thinking patterns, or it makes things easier to handle (i.e. they want to be eccentric). And there's a known (or suspected) link between OCD and eccentric behaviour, and therefore intelligence or 'genius'.

When I use the word "belief", I'm referring to the way we all believe (things). "belief in something without evidence", sounds like belief in something like the sun rising sometime tomorrow (hopefully at dawn, or damn near it). You can't define belief out of science because both are human institutions, and humans believe things (like the sun will 'most probably' come up tomorrow, and this will happen when it's 'meant to'), and are also scientists of some kind (we all have an individual science). (I'm assuming this is what you meant by 'they'). What does verifiable actually mean, though. How is this different from turning on the lights, or starting a car, or powering up some bench equipment? Answer: it isn't. Science is a set, or a system, of things that are 'beliefs' (verifiable principles, and various other terminology), therefore it must be a 'belief system', a system of verifiable principles. No you didn't, you pointed out that you are thinking that I'm equivocating, and being fallacious, let's have another look: I'm saying that despite the scientific method, a human mind requires a belief system to be able to function (especially nowadays). I don't mean that you can't use something if you don't know how it works, what I mean is everyone has a set of beliefs (a belief system, and I insist that any religious or fanatical attachments that anyone makes to this term is very much their own choice; for 'scientists', this attachment would be a belief that is not much use to them, I would have thought), and scientists actually require a belief system to investigate the world using anything (including their eyesight). The method, or mental technique employed, is to attempt an objective viewpoint, by only acquiring, or considering, information that is relevant. This is only possible because of what the user of this method believes (or chooses to ignore). I can't see why there is such a big issue with saying this either, and I have yet to see any definitive refutation of it. (Hint: I would say there isn't one, but let's see how much fun we can have trying to find it) Nothing anyone has said so far in THIS thread (please at least try to leave the religious theme behind) has convinced me that Science is not a system of beliefs (a collection of theories and learning, or established knowledge). That is what it is, I'm sorry to inform you all. Accusing this of being equivocal, fallacious, and so on looks like posturing, so that's what I'll call it (what the hey?). But you might want to try a different pos.. er, stance, maybe. This sort of thing won't cut much of anything either: How thoughtful... It would be interesting, but is hardly the point of this thread. Also hardly any point then, in asking this in the first place? viz:

jedah: your header indicates that you aren't especially anxious about other's opinions (imo) of you or your 'oddness', if that's how you might see it. I don't mean strange oddness, but more 'odd man out'-ness. How about music? Are you able to 'visualise', as it were more than one melody at a time? Do you play an instrument? Also (this is a little bit personal) do you find yourself frustrated by other's apparent inability to 'follow' your thinking or anything like that (because you seem to be able to visualise a solution to some problem before others)?

Perhaps eventually there will be only original-only 'copies' eventually perhaps, with no way to reproduce them. and we won't discard so much stuff as we do now, because it will all be worth a lot more, like binning a Van Gogh, or a Picasso, say, no-one would do that. And all published info will be essentially 'free', at least money-wise. Maybe money will become redundant (like the concept of owning words).

So, ultimately the only conclusion about life and purpose we can make here is that reproduction is the only (the ultimate) purpose or goal of all lifeforms, and all other purposeful behaviour (trophism, metabolism, extension, motility), are all towards this. Evolution's purpose is to produce lifeforms that are more efficient at 'gene-mixing' or measurement of the 'gene-space', and ultimately will produce a lifeform with 'ultimate reproductive ability'? Except that we, and other animals, also appear to be able to behave (expend energy) doing things that cannot possibly be related to reproductive success, and the eventual juxtaposition of haploid germ cells and formation of a zygote (or 'simple' budding for most single-cell or 'single-capsule' lifeforms). We're unable to explain, say, why fully-grown horses gallop around a field, leaping, prancing and kicking (as do many other animals), and expend energy doing nothing more purposeful than 'letting off steam' (expending energy to expend it), apparently. We call this "play" (and there are gaming theories related to this sort of activity), but I doubt that anyone can successfully assign a reproductive behaviour label to this (or do the converse). Why do we philosophise, or think about anything other than immediate concerns? Is it really all devoted to an ultimate reproductive goal and survival? Where does the search for, say the godhead, or godhood, fit in? P.S. If there's any perception that I have suddenly turned this thread into a religious discussion after all, first have a think about Sir Isaac, or Siddhartha (who abandoned his young wife and child to find something 'else'), rather than what you might think the word 'godhood' means.

We generally give greater credence to the opinion of a group than that of any individual. We assign greater authority or status to an idea or theory that a group agrees with, rather than accepting without question any individual's theories or observations. This seems to be contrary to the idea of elected leadership and military authoritism and heirarchy. So how come we accept both of the latter, but still question (our own) individual observation or conclusion?

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual. Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual. So why do we do it?

What happened was the surface topology of the eggshell of the cosmic egg would no longer commute with the normal Hamiltonian because it had reached a stasis equilibrium state, obviously. Thus the universe had nowhere left to go but out of the egg itself. (this is as good as any other explanation for how something arose out of 'nothing')

In Australia, a canneloni is usually understood to mean someone drinking by themselves. "An accident at sea can ruin your entire day" --1st century B.C. Sicilian Roman general I just remembered this one: Two neutrinos go through a bar...

Knowledge isn't the accumulated facts so much as the accumulation of facts. We expend energy to acquire it (energy or food), just as with any observation. So we, in that sense, are the sum total of the observation we have done since we started to observe, so to speak. This statement is directly true of any individual life, as of the metaphorical sense of the entire group. This kind of explains evolution and teleology, methinks, thinks me. You think?