Re: Travolta's aid

George wrote:
"Henri" <hank@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:43328baa$0$1725$626a14ce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

George wrote:


Any economic model has to take into many factors into consideration, including population size and density. All the changes in the world aren't going to help you if your population is spiraling out of control.



Population is a factor, but the economic model is a major one. Here's what I'm thinking about: the population of China has always been important; they have been well over a billion for quite some time now. But concerns over their sudden demand on energy (and therefore about China's increasing impact on global pollution and warming) is , as far as I know, relatively recent (a couple of years). Why? Because China started to open up to the occidental economic model which is capitalism (well, in China that's capitalism tempered by communism, but the capitalist model is stronger and might even end up destroying communism) which is driven by mass-production and mass-consumption of goods.

Another thing is this: America is not overpopulated, right? Yet it is the biggest energy consumer of the planet (because of it's way of life, because of mass-consumption), and that, in turn, has a major effect on global pollution.

You can think that population control is the solution, and I don't agree. It's a small part of a solution we have yet to find out.


Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto accord was the right thing to do. Kyoto isn't going to do one damned thing to prevent global warming. If you want to fight global warming, dragonian measures that punish one polllutor and rewards another is not the way to do it


That he did the right thing or not is not the point here. He sent a negative signal that is interpreted as bad will.


So we are to agree to every treaty so as not to send the 'wrong signal"? Perhaps if the treaty had been a good one in the first place...This treaty will do nothing to stop global warming. Not by a long shot. U recall another treaty that was signed by an American treaty that was subsequently rejected by the U.S. congress. It was called the SALT II treaty. People got over that one. I suggest that they get over this one.

SALT II was an Americano-Soviet initiative, and it's to put in the context of the cold-war. It was submitted to congress for ratification, but Carter requested halted this process in view of a new element: the invasion of Afghanistan by the red army. Finally, the treaty went up in flames not because of its principle (arms control and equilibrium of military forces) but because of the war in Afghanistan.

The Kyoto protocol is different in its nature. It's not about controlling mass destruction weapons or achieving a stable equilibrium between two opposing forces. It's about working on a global solution to prevent further damage on the atmosphere. By not agreeing, America seems to only care about its own interests.



It's true the Catholics believe that the soul lives on (the Jews and Muslims think so as well). But that concerns the soul, they know that body rots like everything else that dies. I don't see where is the problem with that. It's religious faith, not physics.


It is a delusion, nothing more.

Well, you keep saying that. But it is just your opinion; and it's not really convincing.



Yes it is my opinion. I'm not evangelizing here. Whether you choose to accept it or not is of no consequence to me.


That it is of no consequence to you is not the matter. The matter here is your lack of respect for an opinion that is not yours. Are people who have faith really deluded? What do you know about them? About their view of the world? As long as you do not feel threatened by them, you should be able not to look down on them (from the top the Tower of Reason) and ridicule their views. And you are just content to say they suffer from a bad case of delusion?

Science alone does not have dominion over reason and intelligence.


You are missing the point. The point is that the universe tends to move from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. That process either creates or destroys, hence the concept of cosmos and chaos, cosmos being akin to creation, chaos being akin to destruction.



Cosmos and chaos are metaphors for creation and destruction. I would have thought that you would have figured that out by now.


Your metaphors are inappropriate and therefore misleading. Chaos and cosmos are states, creation and destruction are processes.



They are both. Cosmos is both a state and a process, as is chaos. The are quite appropriate.


I beg to differ, if most people think chaos is destruction, it is because of a semantic shift due to an association of ideas. In everyday language, people ignore the distinction between the two and finally consider them to be equivalent, that is, referring to the same thing: chaos is destruction. Well, no. Destruction is the process of destroying and it results in chaos. Destruction is reduction to chaos.



Its tenents are delusions not based on reality.

So, what is not based on reality is delusion. Is that what are saying? I just want to make it clear so as to avoid any confusion.
A number of mathematical theoretical concepts (in algebra and in geometry as well as in other areas of that discipline) are not based on reality; are they delusions? Hell, mathematics as a whole is not based on reality; are they delusions? Logic is not based on reality; is it delusion? Human languages and words are not based on reality; are they delusions? I could go on.


Umm, 1+1=2. That is a reality. I challenge to to prove otherwise. If you can do that, I will concede to your argument.


Ah ah. that's an easy one!
What about -1 x -1 = 1?
What about complex numbers?
What about the infinity symbol?
What about the proposition that through one point can pass an infinity of straight lines?
What about the Fibonacci series?
What about the convention that this particular object would be called a rock, or a tree? Or do you think everything came with post-its saying "that is a rock" or "that is a tree"? Names of objects are not based on reality, does that make them invalid?
All this is arbitrary, and science as well, whether you like it or not, is arbitrary. It only attempts to describe reality, but it does not say what is reality.


The concept of right and wrong is a human one, and is not based on the laws of nature. Is it right for a lion to kill an "inocent" gazelle? If the lion doesn't, it may starve, and the gazelle may overpopulate the land, causing enviornmental degradation that affects many other species. Right or wrong does not figure into the morality of nature, but, by human
standards, nature is immoral. The problem is that nature isn't really immoral because it is obeying the laws that govern it. It can do nothing else but obey those laws.


And you think I don't know that? Goddamnit, are you the only one that has a brain and use it to think? I was clearly talking about social relationships, about human affairs. Besides, while we're at it, nature is not immoral, it is amoral. That, to make sure you understand, there is no morality in nature. But there is morality in culture. Are you understanding what I'm talking about?


Morality is also a human concept.

Morality is not "also" a human concept; IT IS a human concept, and only that. Besides, human concept is an oxymoron. Without humans, that is without reason and conscience, there would be no concepts, nor words, nor theories... whatsoever.

And it is a delusion as well. 

Justice is a concept, is it delusion? Law is a concept, is it delusion? Man!

Humans are not moral creatures by any standard of measure you care to use. Judeo-Christian tradition has it that man has dominion over the earth, that it is here for man to use as he sees fit. This absurd concept is largely responsible for the global devastation we see strangling the planet today. Until man realizes that he is not the nature's master, the destruction will likely continue.

Bull***! Man as acted as nature's master and conqueror since he realized that he could use and change his environment and even before that, when he was homo erectus roaming the earth. He does not need religion or philosophy for that. He does because he can (and sometimes because it is necessary).
His dominion over nature has increased ever since, helped both by technical progress and scientific knowledge. Now, our dominion over, and destruction of, nature is dictated by economics and greed.

So-called primitive cultures are (actually WERE) a lot more respectful vis-a-vis nature than we are, and they are (or were) a lot more spiritual than we are. And we consider ourselves civilized!





Can you reduce thought or conscience or emotions to mere physical (chemical, whatever) phenomenon? That sounds rather simplistic.


It is becoming increasingly obvious to neuroscientists that consciousness is, in fact, a chemo-electrical process.

So, in theory, we could design a machine that would reproduce those processes, and then, surprise, we would have artificial conscience and emotions. Excuse me, but I can't take that very seriously.



In reality, it is a possibility that some day in the future, it will be possible to create such a machine. 100 years ago, who would have thought that we would have a global network of computers that tie households to one another and make the world seem like such a small place? No one could have envisioned the conversation we are having today through such a medium. Who's to say what is possible in 100, 1000 years?


Entertaining science-fiction. I remain skeptical about that. Computer scientists think also that they can come up with a processor in which they can cram as many bio-chips as they are neurons in the human brain and that they'll be able to have a self-conscious bio-computer. I won't be there in 100 years to see that. Thankfully, I might say.

When Einstein died, they took his brain to check it out. Turned out it was a normal brain, with as many neurons and neuronal connexions as mine or yours. What does that mean? That genius is not a matter of how many neurons there is in the brain. We can consider that anybody had the means to think up the theory of relativity. But we had to wait about 5 centuries (since the Greeks). That means there is something else. Something that does not have to do with reason (I reassure you, I'm not thinking about You-Know-Who). There's education and training, but there's also curiosity, creativity, openness of the mind (being ready to accept stuff that contradict empiric observation, or to interpret things in novel ways), there's also socio-economic and personal history factors. So, you see, it's not just about electrical signals. What neuroscientists can monitor on the activity of the brain is nothing but the physical manifestation of thought. These brave people cannot say how it happens and what it is exactly about.


You're reducing man to nothing but a machine whose brain is a computer processing sense data and sending electric signal to it's neurons. I like, even prefer, to think that there is more to it than that.



Umm, I'm doing nothing of the kind. I didn't create man, so I'm not respoonsible for how his brain, or any other part of his body works. Nature made man, as it did every other creature.


Well, let me rephrase, "You're 'interpreting' man as nothing but a machine whose brain is a computer processing sense data and sending electric signal to it's neurons."
That's what you're doing.


Well, technically, the neurons do that through electro-chemical means. If you don't believe me, I suggest you take a physiology course at your local college.


There's more to it than just that. But anyway. See the last part of my previous remark.
And stop being so fucking patronizing. You can stop right there. I spent more than ten years in universities, studying computer science and philosophy. You're not talking to a moron, but you're acting like one.


Who are you to tell me that I do not seek truth? The truth of the machine is how it works, how it interacts with its environment and with other 'machines residing in that same environment.

No, the truth of the machine is answered by the questions "why is there a machine?" and "why is it doing what it is doing?". Just figuring out how the machine works is not finding the truth about the machine.


The truth of man is that man evolved from an earlier, more primitive animal. Man is what he is because he evolved that way, changing to his changing environment, adapting in order to survive. There isn't a species on the planet that hasn't gone through this process. I'm not going to get into an evolution debate. I don't know if you think that evolution occurs. There is more than enough evidence for it for most rational, educated peope to understand that it occurs/has occurred. If you do, that's just great. If you don't, then you have my sympathies.



Well, there are arguments, linked to the question of randomness and of the surprisingly unique combination of conditions allowing the apparition of life. This combination (this set of conditions) is already present at the time of the big-bang, like if it was hardwired in the system. So there's the big-bang, the formation of the universe, the creation of stars and planets, then, on one of them, the apparition of life (under a multitude of forms and systems of ever increasing complexity) and then the apparition of conscience. 

I'm precisely talking about evolution here.

Some physicists admit the possibility that this may be the work of an intelligent design, of something that transcends us.


They are in a very small minority. Most physicists do admit such a possibility, as yet.


But I know you definitely rule out this possibility, that you've closed the door that leads to a different interpretation. In fact, this is about open-mindedness!!


I am always open to possibilities. When I see the evidence for it, I will evaluate that evidence on its merits, and decide one way or the other. Until that happens, I don't see it as a possibility because I've seen no evidence for it.


Patronizing.

From an epistemological point of view, you can't say that God exist or

does not exist. 


Umm, I just did.


You just did, but you can't. Because you can't prove anything either way. That's a logical and epistemological impossibility. You're the Scientist, you should think more rigorously about that.


Yeah, but prove that God does not exist. Can you? 


http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQMain.html#VIweirdthings

8. Burden of Proof
Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

You expect to drown me with that burden of proof thing. You're the one who said that God didn't exist. You can perhaps believe that God does not exist. I can't claim that God exist, I can only believe He exists. From the point of you of reason and 'classical' knowledge it's impossible to say, to show, that is, that God exists or does not exist. Believing is something else. And when it comes to beliefs or faith, you DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.


I never made the claim that God exists. 

you made the claim that God didn't exist.

It is not for me to prove or disprove it.

Cause you can't. And there is no need to prove or disprove anything when it comes to God. The only thing you need is faith. But that does not suggest that he who does not have faith (in the existence of God) is wrong. That only means the he who has faith in God can't be accused of being wrong either. You see my point?

The scientific evidence I've seen from a lifetime of study has yet to demonstrate to me that there is something in the universe that is omnipotent, all seeing, never changing, everlasting, and controling the universe from some imaginary heaven. Based on that lifetime of experience, I've come to the conclusion that God is a creation of men. That is my opionion. I don't expect others to share it. It others do, so be it. If they don't, so be it.



So, you would have us revert back to an earth-centered universe? Galileo was an old man when the church went after him. Not chickening out is for the young. He made his point, and was proven right, in the end.


Sorry, did I suggest we go back to geocentrism? 


What, exactly, were you suggesting?


I know that the earth revolves both on itself and around the earth, but that's not what my sense data tell me, so to me that does not make any practical difference. Either way, the way I live is not different. Sun rises East, goes to sleep West, I'm no constantly reminding myself that it's the earth that moves and not sun. In the same order, I could very well consider that the earth is flat although I know it's not. If I go on a boat in the middle of the ocean and the sea is calm, then I can see that the horizon is curved. I can also see that when I'm on a plane and looking at the horizon thru the window. But, practically there's not a fucking difference. Likewise, the fact that I'm made of molecules which in turn are combinations of atoms that behave in certain ways is not of any practical importance to me.
So, some guy says to me "the earth is not revolving around the sun", retract yourself or I'll burn you. I say "yeah, whatever, man, have it your way" and escape a horrible death. I did not accept to die because it does not really matter.
However, if I were to be decapitated for believing in something that is of much more importance to me and that affects my whole life, then I'd probably accept to fight for what I believe, even if that means I risk death. Thomas More defended himself vigorously, but was beheaded. Which is sad but it shows Galileo deemed that his theory was not worth dying for, More did.


Sure they can. Ever hear of the phrase "love is blind"?

But would you accept that? That was the point.


Would I accept that love is blind? It isn't a matter of accepting or not accepting. It is a simple maxim.


No. Would you accept that someone came to you and said to you "you don't love". In fact nobody could convince you that what you are feeling is a load of crap.
That "love is blind" has nothing to do with this particular point.


Whether or not I experience love is not an issue. It has nothing to do with the existence of a God, so the point is irrelevant. I am happily married, with 2 children, and three grandchildren, by the way.

Good for you, but I don't see how this got to do with our topic. You're missing my point. I made an analogy between love and faith.
The point is that you do not need to prove to yourself that you love. You could give me the reasons why you love your wife and your kids. But, to you, those reasons don't require any proof. They are sufficient. Love needs only to be experienced, or felt. That you do love (I am not talking about the capacity to love but about the actual fact that you love) is only what matters. See what I mean?
It is the same for faith. It does not demand to be proved, but only experienced.
And if somebody comes trying to convince you the your love, or your faith, is only delusions, well, you just won't care.

Somehow, love is akin to a leap of faith. Deep down inside, you must both have faith in your love and in the person you love. There's element of risk which requires something like faith.


This is nonsense. You're telling me that because I am a scientist that I cannot know love, or find happiness and meaning in a relationship with another human being?

No, I'm not saying that. Read carefully. I said that faith is as good as scientific knowledge, it is equally important. It has the same strength although the forces that drive them are different. 


And what is faith but:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

I can have loyalty to my work, fidelity of a promise, or sincerity of intentions. I cannot in all honesty belief or have trust in something for which there is no proof of existence, or even of concept.


No proof of existence nor proof of inexistence, to be correct, and the concept exists, we are talking about it. But that's the way you see things.


No, I think that is the way you see things. I see no proof of the existence of a god, which implies that I see proof of non-existence.


Anybody! is there a buzzer somewhere?


This is not true, no matter how hard you try to deny it. If science and religion do not exist in similar territories, are not trying to explain many of the same phenomenon, why is it that religious types feel so threatened by science? Why is it that religious zealots are attacking science, making up crap like intelligent design in order to counter scientific discovery? The fact is that science and religion are looking for explanations for the same phenomenon.

Religion is not the study of physical phenomenons, where did you get that idea?


Umm, religions have studied physical phenomenons for centuries in order to validate themselves. The Catholic religion has studied the stars and the physical world since its inception. So has Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam. Religion has always attempted to explain the world in which we live. The Catholic church denied Galileo's concept of a sun-centered solar system because it was contrary to what they held true since Aristotle's time. This entire argument about evolution and creationism is exactly about religious fanatics trying to use psuedo-science in order to disprove evolution. If you think that religious people are not attempting to study physical phenomenon,

I know some religious people studied physics. That does not mean that religion is about the study of physics. Don't be that simplistic.

I suggest you do a little more study on the subject matter.


Ditto


Religion is not even a discipline. Religion is about things that are beyond the restricted world of physics (and science in general); can't you at least understand that?


The difference is that science is rational, logical, and based on empericism, while religion is irrational, illogical, and based on dogmatic reasoning. 

Whatever.


--

The Dude once said,
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." 





--

The Dude once said,
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
.