beecee

So why do you belittle? Yes, agreed...the belief in the supernatural, paranormal, etc, is the world wide excuse society in general use to avoid thinking about the fact re the finality of death. No, I'm pretty well right on that score. The myth that is the bible, does have various interpretation, from claims of a flat Earth, to one that is supposedly only 6000 years old. Like I say, an obscure mythical book, written in an obscure age, by obscure men. You have it arse up my friend, (or if you like, you have it backwards 😉) It's actually totally irrational, and avoids the scientific truth of the finality of death.

Just because we can't be sure what something is, doesn't mean it is supernatural, paranormal or a UFO/UAP visitation. It means we don't know. So do I, as rationally as possible though. Ghosts, Goblins, fairies at the bottom of the garden, are at the bottom most cellar of that rationality though. UFO'S/UAP'S are real in a number of cases, but highly skeptical of any claim for them being Alien controlled vehicles. While agreeing with the above, the ironic thing is every man and his dog, are now in possession of smart phone cameras, and if we were being visited, or ghosts and goblins were doing their shit, we should have more evidence in photos of these things.....and I don't mean the usual poorly focused, grainy pictures of ghosts and UFO's that some of our gullible friends claim as genuine and real. As the great Carl Sagan often said, Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

How do you define it? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/orangutans-are-only-non-human-primates-capable-talking-about-past-180970827/ Orangutans Are the Only Non-Human Primates Capable of ‘Talking’ About the Past Mothers waited several minutes before alerting offspring to potential predators, pointing toward capacity for displaced referencing: Orangutan mothers waited an average of seven minutes before alerting infants to a potential predator's presence One of the most distinguishing features of human speech is displaced reference, or the ability to discuss objects and events not physically present at a given time. Although we tend to take this phenomenon for granted, it’s actually quite an impressive feat—for perspective, imagine your pet dog regaling a neighborhood pal with tales of a recent trip to the park by drawing on memories of long-gone ball throws and belly rubs. more at link..................... "displace reference": https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28975298.pdf 1. Displaced reference and the language evolution debate In the debate about language evolution, the fact that there is no direct evidence about the emergence of language plays an important role. Researchers from various backgrounds have developed ways to collect indirect evidence and sketch a picture of how human language came about. In this article we will focus on a phenomenon that is relevant for many aspects of language evolution: displaced reference. Below we will focus on different kinds of research in which displaced reference is studied, but let us first look at what displaced reference is, and why it is interesting to study from the perspective of evolution of language. ‘Displaced reference’ (henceforth DR) means reference to things that are not present here and now. In other words, to objects or events that are remote in space or in time. It has been indicated as interesting from the point of view of language evolution as early as the 1960’s. Charles Hockett, in an article on the origin of speech (Hockett (1960)), lists four design features that are unique (or practically unique) to human communication. ‘Displacement’ is one of them: Man is apparently almost unique in being able to talk about things that are remote in space or time (or both) from where the talking goes on. DR is present in human communication, and seems to be absent in animal communication. But, according to Hockett, it would not be in principle impossible to have displacement in simple communication systems: the paper concludes thus.......................... But the story provided here is still not completely satisfactory. The two branches of research that were presented do support each other’s conclusions, but the evolutionary path that was sketched is still not complete. A remaining issue is, for example, the question of what conditions should be fulfilled for an animal to start using displaced reference in communication. In other words, if an animal performs well on the most complex displacement tasks, what next is necessary to start using displaced reference in communication? This is an important question and to answer it, we need much more indirect evidence. The story above, however, indicates that when more indirect evidence is available, it is useful – and possible – to put together different kinds of results from different kinds of research.

I go along with that and I believe the tides and tidal interactions support it.(1) The Moon,(and the Sun to a lesser extent) attract the waters closer to it. (2) It then attracts/pulls the Earth towards it, to a lesser degree. (3) And to an even lesser extent, the waters on the opposite side.(4) The movements of the tides, create a friction on the Earth's crust, and the tides being "slightlÿ ahead" of the overhead Moon, pulls the Moon into ever increasing higher orbits at around a couple of cms per year.

In a limited sense only. We are special simply because we are probably the most intelligent life form on Earth. Yet we have only been present for a short spanse of time, with Earth being formed 4.5 billion years ago. We are made of the same elements that are found throughout the universe, whereever we have looked. We are nothing but star stuff, born in the belly of stars, and spat out again. We are no more then an accident of evolution.

Most of us anyway.......check out these weird formations, that possibly the more gullible among us may put down to "spooky" http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/files/2012/08/08_28_2012_mammatus-clouds.jpg Ball Lightning: This bizarre electrical phenomenon usually occurs during thunderstorms and lasts for up to thirty seconds. Mass lightning bolts light up night skies by the Daggett airport from monsoon storms passing over the high deserts early Wednesday, north of Barstow, California. Then we have the other "natural" weird stuff like sprites, St Elmo's Fire, mirages, illusions etc etc etc The atmosphere, storms, lightening, the brain etc can all play tricks on our imagination/s.

😪 I'm disappointed you feel that way. really!😉 All based on variables that you can't control: And more then likley, perhaps you can t control any variable. A pig in a poke!

Spoken like a true adherent to science and the scientific methodology.😉 My own experience previously detailed, was most probably due to tiredness and somewhat fuzzy brain activity. After finding no reports of similar sightings next morning, I simply forgot about it and put it down to a brain fart. Bingo! at least while there are still obviously so many more mundane explantions for UFO/UAP sightings. I also reason that any visitation would be by Aliens vastly superior to us in intelligence and knowledge, and as such would not have too much to fear from us, other then possibly (other then as portrayed in "War of the Worlds) the most abundant and simple life forms. I reject that the comparisons would be like humans and ants...we do have evidence to show some technological advancements, (our cities, bridges etc) and that should be recognised by the Aliens, and a reason to make their visitation/s official...eg: like landing on the surrounds of the White House lawns, or in front of the Sydney Opera House. While I am confident we are not the only kids on the block, I am also resigned to the fact of the two great barriers preventing Alien contact...time and distance. I sometimes go to bed after having displeased the Mrs with her nagging ringing in my ears, and wake up later with it still ringing in my ears. Then I roll over, give her a kiss on the cheek and tell er all is forgiven!

That's OK...doesn't change the fact that you are wrong though. I'm here to help. First step is recognising facts as they stand...you know, like finding any society in the realms of human history where evil/wrong doers/misfits and criminalistic behavious does not exist. Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft". Wikipedia or if you like....Soft sciences are academic disciplines that deals with things that are inherently difficult to measure with confidence, accuracy and precision. In fact near impossible.

Yes amazing isn't it? How people are so afraid of the finality of death, that they need to interpret the bible in a way to support their terror, and wrap themselves in myth. Are you one of those? you know, deeeep down?😄 Your forgiven for raising it. (out of the goodness of my heart) 😉 Except the reason is anything but irrational to accept the supernatural, paranormal, karma and other such unscientific concepts.

God, ID, the supernatural, the paranormal are all unscientic beliefs and myths. Science while still unable to explain everything, has gone a long way into pushing God into oblivion.

Good. Then we agree that evil/wrong doers/criminals/misfits in any of its forms or definitions exists in all societies. Then you are being obtuse on many occasions. We are discussing simply the fact that misfits exist in all society. I'm really not that interested in those soft sciences, rather in the realistic defined meaning of criminal. You know what that is, as well as I.

😊 I also have that rather pleasant affinity with dogs. Children of course need to be supervised with dogs of all sizes and breeds. I have a habit of approaching nearly all dogs I see, walking with their owners, or out by themselves. As I am confident you already know, you never approach a strange dog with an arm outstretched and open hand...that may appear threatening. Always approach them with your hand closed slightly showing the dog the back of your hand and offer it to them to smell. WRONG: CORRECT: Other worthwhile tips are (1) if the dog has eyes wide opened appearing concerned and/or worried, let it be. (2) If the tail is tucked between his legs also a sign of nervousness by the dog. (3) Always approach with the hand as shown, slowly. then (4) allow the dog to take the last step or so to sniff your hand. (5) Get as close down to the dog's level as is possible. Also I failed to mention the more obvious...If the hair on the dog's back is raised, or if it is showing its teeth...these are warning signs!

God is the problem.

Well said, would be nice though to know the numbers of the misfits. Common sense. No society is perfect, as hundreds of years have shown us. Again, you are playing with words. A Rose by any other name, and all that. The point is simply that any known society is not perfect and has misfits/criminals/wrong doers/bad people. Please show a reference where it says anywhere that any society did not have bad members/wrong doers/misfits or criminals. criminal: A person who has commited a crime. misfit: a person whose behaviour or attitude sets them apart from others in an uncomfortably conspicuous way. wrong doer: a person who behaves illegally or dishonestly; an offender. The sorry part about all this Peterkin is that you continue playing games, when you know the validity of the point I am making. We'll even find criminals/misfits, wrong doers etc in the Vatican!!!

Don't be too concerned. It's nothing more then an argument between a Transcendental philosopher and a realist. Nothing to concern yourself with. Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know. Berty:

Totally agree!! And the reason why I am obsessed with "owners" when ever I hear of a Dog attack. Had a mate who had a Staffordshire Terrier, and it was the most lovable thing you could imagine. I said it once before, having over the years been an owner of a Labrador, German Shepard, two Rotty's and now two miniature Dachy's, I have never looked like having any problem with any. Funnily enough, the hardest to train was my first dog, a golden Labrador. They seem to maintain their "puppy stage" for longer periods. Easiest train? Both the Rotty's I had, and still my favourites...Incredible breed!!! My second Rotty who died at the ripe old age of 13.5 years....... Often on a Sunday arvo when the Mrs was at church, I would be sitting back in my ezi-boy, sucking on a can of VB, watching the footy, with Rocky laying at my feet, licking my toe jam! 😊 Still the best dog I have ever owned.

😉

☺️ Funny you raise that. We had Chinese neighbours who had a Chow Chow. I would often pat it through our common fence, when "it felt like it" Other times it would give me a smug look of nonchalance, ignore me and walk away. A beautiful animal that as far as I know, the owners had no problem with. Perhaps I may have over stated my assertion, but I really get bloody annoyed with some people and the way they treat their dogs.

I'm not rejecting the facts that genetics and the combination of genes etc do not predict behaviour. I am simply saying that some people should not own dogs (any dogs!) as they have no idea how to raise and train them. I'm also saying that even the most known aggressive breeds like say as an example, the American Pit Bull, in the right hands of an owner that assumes from puppy stage training noting who is the alpha in the relationship, along with plenty of TLC and common sense, will more then likely see a trouble free relationship.

You can interpret it any way you like. No skin off my nose. Again, there is good and bad in any and all known societies, including American Indians. Whether you chose to call them bad people, wrong-doers, or criminals is irrelevant. And they had wars! FACT. War is evil, bad, and should be avoided. Sometimes though we have no choice against a belligerent foe. Your rhetorical challenge is noted and rejected. Again, you misinterpret as seems the go often with you. Firstly York was not a killer in the usual sense of the word and the circumstances involved. He was in a sanctioned war according to the laws of that country, and was practising self defence. Secondly, despite your feigned ignorance about my often expressed opposition to wars in general, in some we have no choice, which again you strangely ignore. Instead of your continued waxing lyrically, why not tell us all your alternative to have avoided the second world war and the actions of the greatest war criminal ever known? Thirdly I objected with actions to the Vietnam war, among thousands of others, but I did it legally. I also along with the majority of sensible folk who objected with me, had compassion and respect for those that essentially obeyed the laws of the land and went to that disastrious war, which we along with the US of course lost. And of course the marching did work, ( far better then rhetoric alone)and we along with the US, withdrew our troops in defeat. It was an unjust war as compared to the nil choice the world had with going to war against the aggression of Hitler and Japan. But I don't expect you to really address any of those valid points, other then perhaps some sarcastic philsophical comment. And as always, as I say, there was also wrong doers, and bad American Indians, despite your protests.

Fact: The bible was written in an obscure age, by obscure men, in an obscure manner. Yes, I have told you that more then once. While Isacc was somewhat astray with his obsession with alchemy and particularly the "philosopher's stone", the table of elements and nucleosynthesis, or if you like nuclear transmutation is of course now part of science. The LHC and other Particle accelerators are used to smash atoms or particles together, which can result in nuclear transmutation.....or if you like, the converting of one element to another. One could say there was a method in his madness. 😉 (Not to forget nuclear fission and fusion bombs.)

😊 There are a couple here who often target perfection, when it suits there agenda. I respectfully disagree with you and Zapatos for the reasons given.

Not for your lack of trying on your part of course! But then again, all you have is rhetoric. You may see fit to ignore my advice about doing something practical about the laws of the society you belong to, so the consequnces are you grin and bare it, with the inevitable whinge here. Let me repeat.... If you believe a law is wrong or unjust, do something about it, within the laws of the land. Waxing philsophically and rhetorically about it, on a remote science forum, won't get you anywhere. Or would you be in the minority in your society if you did do something practical reflecting your opposition? I took part in two anti Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney in the sixties. But I still respected those troops that were conscripted and sent away, some never to return. We show them respect on a special day we call ANZAC Day in my country...a solemn day of rememberence, reflection, and honour.

He has a point as I said. Your point though, imo of course, goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. Perhaps you may like to try for another analogy? I mean that the evidence for a global world is conclusive without a doubt, the same way that evolution is also a fact. I found this..... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/ One of Buddhism's biggest selling points for lapsed Catholics like me is that it supposedly dispenses with God and other supernatural claptrap. This claim is disingenuous. Buddhism, at least in its traditional forms, is functionally theistic, even if it doesn't invoke a supreme deity. The doctrines of karma and reincarnation imply the existence of some sort of cosmic moral judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with nirvana or rebirth as a cockroach. Those who emphasize Buddhism's compatibility with science usually downplay or disavow its supernatural elements (and even the Dalai Lama has doubts about reincarnation, a philosopher who discussed the issue with him once told me). The mystical philosopher Ken Wilber, when I interviewed him, compared meditation to a scientific instrument such as a microscope or telescope, through which you can glimpse spiritual truth. This analogy is bogus. Anyone can peer through a telescope and see the moons of Jupiter, or squint through a microscope and see cells divide. But ask 10 meditators what they see, feel or learn and you will get 10 different answers. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::