dimreepr

I didn't say society would be destroyed. I said destroying which is incremental, it doesn't imply all stages of the complete destruction of our society would be atchieved.

The second law forbids perpetual motion.

Yes it's the structure of dna.

Thanks I'll look it up.

So nobody here thinks western society is in trouble. Seriously??

It seems you miss the point of a forum.

The reason science is destroying our society, because science has allowed the moraly corrupt to have no accountability. The excess' of these people have no checks therefore the extrems are bigger and far more damaging to society. The religions grew up with a set of ideals and beliefs based on a bible of some description. This contains mans best atempt at explaining the universe at the time of writing, this leaves no room for flexibilty, consiquently you have a rigid set of believes that must be true. This flaw means science explains to us this book isn't the absolute truth how can it be etc... I can see nothing to stop a religion allowing flexability by haveing fundamental rules, basic morals and allow the stories to change with our increased knowledge.

I only choose dogs for this example because there my primary source of observation. perhaps a better example would be; When I'm out walking them we have various routes all ofwhich have junctions that are sometimes taken, just to vary things further. One of my dogs all ways at a specific junction, stop and wait in anticipation of taking this one route, we rarely take. When we do take that route she gets very excited, for me this shows happiness further muddying the waters of this debate.

The double helix is the fundamenal of life. This idea means we would have more than one solution to this fundamental, and the only solution we have found is the double helix.This means it is very unlikely that this is true. It doesn't rule out the idea just makes it much less likely.

The only problem maths has is a workable hypothesis to give it direction.

Start with powley's exclusion principle then go onto hiesenburg's uncertancy principle.

Read "The pearl" by John Stienbeck this is the reason western society is in the trouble it's in. Its a novella so wont take long.

Yes

An excellent assesment, having just had such an arguement, I can only concure. I dont have this desire to controll others (whats the point) so have no refrence to understand this concept. I did however start to get angry but not because I wanted to controll her, more the stubborness to accept evidence based conclusions (white isnt black) spoilt what was otherwise an interesting debate.

I think most often in people the general reason for anger in an arguement comes down to articulation. Pesonally my eloquence often lets me down. If I don't have enough time to formulate a responce, anger will often result. This however shouldn't happen on a forum as time isn't relavent. So, is it anger or is it resentment?

I think its powered by the same thing that keeps the international money markets going, imagination.

I think the best way to describe this is by way of powley's exclusion principle. For this to work I think the universe, or our region of it* is in a positive ground state. The creation of an atom is caused, when the negative energy standing waves grip a tiny region of space/time and condences it into a proton. This would stretch space/time creating gravity. * This would violate durac's equation, if you dont allow for a negative ground state to excist in other regions of space/time thus allowing for the excistance of antimatter. These regions may excist now or maybe was destroyed soon after the universal inflation.

The thing is its range of possible positions, is everywhere in the universe. I think we have to thank hub for refuting determinism, as the exclusion principle would go along way to prooving it.

This is the point of the post.

This would result in a suit of armour containing human soup. You would not only, need a material to withstand the impact, but you would need a way to dissipate the engry without impacting the wearer

Whilst I love dogs and would be happy to discuss this all day, Its not really the point. My question ask's for an animal that can be considered just self aware.

this is what i feared I really dont have the eloquence to explain any further. I've had fun on this forum but this question is the reason I've joined. It's very frustrating to have a question that few can even understand.Due I know to my explanation.

A recent post got me thinking. The mirror test of self awareness can't be considered an absolute test for self awareness, as the only conclusion you can take from an animals inability to recognise its self is that it failed the test. My dog for instance, hates the rain, if when she gets to the door and it's raining she refuses to go for a walk. I may be wrong here, but for me this implies she's makeing a choice, based on a future event. Given that there are animals that are definately not aware, a duck for instance. This would automatically mean we can create a linear graph, unaware at the begining and humans (conceted I know but what else) at the finnish. My question is this, what type of animal is just aware. My thinking is perhaps an octopus it's a problem solveing animal but has to relearn the problem however many times it's presented.

Thats partly why I've started this post, testing, I've done as much as my knowledge will allow and was hoping, it would be taken up by somebody much smarter than myself. The other reason is, if this doesn't happen then atleast its destroyed, because my family and friends are fedup with my ponderings in this. The implications are possibley unification