Jump to content
The Corroboree

Hagakure

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,251

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Hagakure

  1. Posted

    perhaps he was bad at sex, had a small penis, was asexual or homosexual.

    that said, i do agree male sexuality is a cause of agression. but lets not be black and white cause there are plenty of women that cheer on the deaths of the enemies of their religion, nation and knitting circle.

  2. Posted

    i think i saw something like that on that lonely planet: 6 degrees travel show. they were in new york.

    i think there were a range of resons why some people wanted to be kidnapped.

    some wanted to try and fight and escape to have a feeling that they won. im not sure if anyone ever beat the kidnappers though cause they seemed to like the approach of breaking into your house when you are sleeping and have two huge bouncer dudes that grabbed and pinned you.

    it would be interesting to devote yourself to not getting caught. wire up trip alarms through your house, change times and places you travel to each day, perhaps have some mates act as lookouts/security.

    i cant see any point in just letting yourself get caught though.

  3. Posted

    "the western concept of God is loaded with the concept of some sentience and i dont think there is any evidence for such sentience existing. if its some unknown force that everything flows according to why reinvent the wheel, just get into taoism which isnt as tainted by these anthropomorphic western concepts."

    it seems this paragraph of mine wasnt clear enough so i will elaborate.

    re: sublime

    "Says the inexplicably sentient being."

    im not saying sentience doesnt exist (i also dont think its inexplicable but there are dozens of threads in the spirituality forum about that). im talking about the concept of some higher being that is sentient in the same way we are. take a look at the bible or the koran. the god descibed is emotional and conscious in the same way humans are. i think this is the biggest flaw with the western concept of god.

    back in the bad old days people didnt understand about water evaporating then coming down as rain, or tectonic plates bumping together to produce earthquakes, or lightning being produced due to buildups of charges. so rain is gods grace to help your crops, earthquakes and lightning is when god is angry.

    clear anthropomorphism, attributing human characteristics to natural forces and inanimate objects.

    nothing in nature so far suggests any higher sentience being responsible. god has simply been a place holder through the years. we cant explain it therefore god did it. irreducible complexity claims are the same as some dude thousands of years ago complaining that we cant explain the rain therefore god does it.

    re: el dude

    "the beauty of this taoist life force as you call it, is it's perception by every individual is.. just that, individual. However anthropomorphisms are projected collectively. How one interacts with the all, can be inert and lifeless.. a cold mechanistic existence, or through myths, it is characetured. making a personal idioscyncratic sense that is also harmonised into a transcendant understanding also. Truisms we can agree on."

    let me be clear on my raising the topic of taoism.

    while in the west the concept of God is a higher being in the east the concept of the tao is a lower being if not the lowest being, and at that, not really a being.

    while the western concept of god is up in the sky looking down and controlling like a ruler the tao is said to be like water. it always sinks to the lowest point, yet without effort nourishes everything. in the book of Chuang Tzu there is a dialog between Chuang Tzu and some other dude where Chuang Tzu gives a series examples of increasingly lower standing where the tao is found with the final example being that the tao is found in shit and piss.

    such explanations are probably not as important these days with our knowledge that everything is made out of the same kinds of atoms and the atoms in shit are the same as the atoms that make a holy relic. but it is still a potent example of the different ways you can look at the forces at play in the universe.

    you can see it as something higher and controlling like a ruler or like a low, shapeless, nameless force that retreats from any type of higher status.

    my preference, quite obviously, is the latter example. i especially like the science of emergence and complexity these days cause it feels like a very taoist kind of science.

    re: woof woof woof

    "i disagree with there being no god. science has not proved or explained everything yet."

    science cant prove non existence. i cant prove there isnt an invisble dragon in your garage, i cant prove unicorns dont exist, that the loch ness monster doesnt exist or any other similar example. the best we can do is look at the evidence and see if there is any evidence for a phenomena. if tehre is no evidence for existance then why continue to believe in it? if evidence comes along should we adjust our beliefs? sure, but not until it does.

  4. Posted

    re: intelligent design

     

    boom. headshot.

    re: Nabraxas' post

    Dawkins, to be fair, is attacking the god represented by the abrahamic religions. you can move the goal posts but remember that once you cross a certain point the goal starts getting bigger again.

    a low impact god that sets things in motion and doesnt control anything it seems to be stripping back the definition to the point where it is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. at what point does it really just come down to semantics with one group calling it god and another calling it nature and physics?

    the western concept of God is loaded with the concept of some sentience and i dont think there is any evidence for such sentience existing. if its some unknown force that everything flows according to why reinvent the wheel, just get into taoism which isnt as tainted by these anthropomorphic western concepts.

  6. Posted

    well, blizznshot's post goes into some detail about the development of early life, i also think panspermia theories (microscopic life crash-landing on a meteorite) are quite probable (an article on nasa's website, some time back, said that the necessary chemistry was abundant on meteors).

    yeah just to nit pick they havent found any microscopic life itself on incoming meteorites yet but they have found meteorites rich in building blocks (which to be fair you clarify later in your post).

    some of you may have heard of the miller-urey experiment where these dudes tried to replicate the sea and atmosphere of earth way back before life and then sparked it with electricity to simulate lighting. this experiment was hailed as a success as it produced amino acids which proteins are made out of.

    the concentration of the parent compounds, however, was massive compared to what there would have been back in those days so it was later discredited. amino acids and other building blocks coming from meteorites is a much stronger theory.

    it also produces a nice image of the big egg of earth being fertilised by a sperm like meteorite.

  7. Posted

    what you seem to be saying is that all of Dawkins work hinges on a refusal to believe in an eternal superhuman designer. isnt that dawkins whole point? LOL

    i dont think a biologist's bias prevents the belief in anything eternal. sure its the physicists realm to deal with all that but it shouldnt get in the way. the biologist is better positioned to see how unecessary a DESIGNER is, eternal or not.

    and if there is some eternal force underlying everything i would be more inclined to describe it (or not bother to try to describe it) like the concept of the Tao or Brahman before getting remotely close to the abrahamic god who MADE this world rather than IS this world like the previous two concepts.

  8. Posted

    Holy shit, I can't believe this is going downhill so fast, can anyone with half a brain just answer the one or two points I started this thread to discuss? :o

    lol dude i was referring to other peoples posts, will make a post on yours in a sec

    havent heard christians make the same argument as yours so i'm not dismissing it yet

  9. Posted

    re: flagella

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    and....

    ""scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc"

    ..And then you wake up!"

    you miss my point completely. there seems to be this conception in various parts of the mainstream that science is some large conspiracy that is only researching stuff they want to be true. this is definately true for some individual scientists. but in regards to the field as a whole, it is incorrect.

    if you can prove the theory of evolution to be false i guarantee that you will make it to the cover of Nature, Science not to mention front page of every newspaper that counts. that means huge fame and huge rewards. it is in every scientists interest to prove evolution is false if they can do so. of course not many scientists spend much time trying to prove the theory of gravity wrong because its pretty clear gravity happens. the same goes for evolution.

    just remember you can get fame and resources making theories and claims in science but you can get just as many rewards from breaking them.

  10. Posted

    "Why can't people reconcile the ideas of a superior consciousness and natural selection both being true?"

    if complexity can emmerge from simplicity then why is a superior consciousness required? this superior conciousness was invented by man to explain things they didnt understand. im not saying we understand everything but we sure dont yet see anything that suggests a designer is required. plus if a designer is required then who designed the designer?

    "I don't think they like re writing science books either for some reason even when they know they should."

    dude, whats that based on? ill mention one thing. free markets. if you have a science book that you dont update, while your competitors update theirs then which book is going to be used in universities etc.

    "Until the narrow minded science community realizes and admits that they don't know anywhere near as much as they thought they did and can't explain everything and they may have been wrong about certain things for a very long time then they will continue to be humiliated by a bunch of FKN nutters with microscopes."

    scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc. show me a case where a religious group's work has humiliated science. i can show you thousands of examples of the opposite.

    "The sad thing is that when these deluded morons find out that modern science is based on a flawed/incomplete theory (Darwins) and they have far less answers than they claim to they use it as PROOF that their deluded views are the truth and teach it in schools. The scientific method is one of the best things that ever happened to this world but Darwin was an underacheiver at best and modern science is in a lot of shit if they don't realise and admit this then move on!"

    Darwin was an absolute genius. his work was incredibly meticulous due to him having a certain amount of fear in releasing a work that went against the establishment to such a degree and his perfectionist attitude. i think it was something like 10 years he worked on origin of species and he only released when he got wind of some other scientist developing a similar idea. but darwin didnt know about DNA and many other recent developments. he lays the foundation for the field of evolutionary biology but others have progressed his work to levels he wouldnt have been able to imagine.

    dissing Darwin in such a matter is like looking at quantum physics or something and calling Newton an underachiever for not understanding it.

  11. Posted

    i have heard some podcasts of christians attacking dawkins (can you tell im a podcast fanatic yet?) and they generally sound pathetic. he is pretty rock solid in his logic.

    i havent heard a convincing argument against him but appeals to quantom physics might just do it for me

  12. Posted

    Dawkins logic is terrific and he is a very smart cookie. but calling religious people idiots isnt going to result in big enough changes. people just get defensive and stuck in their ways (though i have no doubt it shakes some people from the fringes)

    i recently listened to an excellent podcast entitiled "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kaufman.

    http://feeds.conversationsnetwork.org/~r/c...-2008.06.06.mp3

    He is a complexity scientist who was involved in the early days of the Santa Fe institute which is basically responsible for the development of the whole field of complexity theory. his take on the relationship between spirituality and science is really nice IMHO.

    if the field of complexity and emergence interests you then take a look here for a pop science introduction

    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2005/02/18

  14. Posted · Edited by Hagakure

    yep you are correct, i do have it backwards. it was a merging event and not a splitting event.

    i assumed your statement "Physiologically speaking, the last evolution was from 44 chromosomes to 46" was talking about that event and didnt look it up to check the details. went through this stuff 4 years ago and my recollection of the specific is hazy. was also a bit of a stoner when i learnt this.

    basically there is this great experiment where they developed a way of marking specific chromosomes with some type of flourescent marking. through this technique they were able to show that one of our chromosomes is made up of two chimp chromosomes that merged. (edit: they may have worked this out previously before and this study just had the sexiest pictures and was hence taught to us, im not sure)

    so basically our common ancestor with chimps had 48 chromosomes and somewhere after the split two of our chromosomes merged to create one. here is a link with a picture http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm

    sorry bout the mixup in the previous post.

  15. Posted

    Physiologically speaking, the last evolution was from 44 chromosomes to 46, and the next evolution will be 48 chromosomes (who knows what the new pair will control).

    this statement is incorrect. the switch from 44 to 46 was due to the ends of one chromosome splitting off and seperating to form a new one.

    chimps have one single chromosome with regions that match our equivalent two.

    split off it is doing the same thing as it was when it was connected. same genes etc prior to mutation and what not.

    more chromosomes isnt necessarily more advanced. some ferns have more than 1000 chromosomes.

    in regards to humans having 48 chromosomes i dont think tool mean it literally. there are big complications when one mating partner has a different number of chromosomes to the other partner. the offspring can be deformed, sterlie or may abort before any great development.

    in regards for 2012 i heard an interesting podcast about china the other day that highlighted some real big problems their economy is facing. the speaker highlighted 2012 as a possible date for one serious crunch.

    im curious to see what happens but no more than i am curious about the near future in general. big stuff is always around the corner.

  17. Posted

    bump

    putting an order in for some books to be bought online

    looking for more ideas. so far got a few things ordered including a book of rick griffin's art. was a book at my library i used to get all the time as a kid. really spun out amazing stuff.

  18. Posted

    Too right. In fact I'm going to draw a square in the dirt around my house with a stick, and consider any information outside of this boundary to be irrelevant to personal growth :rolleyes:

    Why don't some charities get together and pay for shipping these pigs to poverty-stricken countries ? Obviously Afghanistan won't be interested though.

    ive heard they have been shipping a lot out to third world countries etc. i guess there is a limit they have hit though in terms of the cost.

  19. Posted

    I don't understand how this austion closed at $14.95, but elsewhere on his vendor site there's an active bid at $102.00 !

    must be the condition it is in

    quality looks different to the other one

    hard to make a decision based on photograph though

  25. Posted

    hell no i didnt buy the article. this the internet, i shouldnt have to pay for anything :D

    i heard about this on a podcast a while ago. it has been featured in many articles so there is bound to be more info out there for free.

    yeah i agree there is a headstart there but still think its an interesting and good result.

    after all these robots havent evolved up from a single cell like we did, they are functioning bodies and the code is providing the interface with those bodies. it would be interesting to have code evolve up from something even more limited and let it find the light sensors etc and learn how to use em. not sure how easy it would be to select for from that point though.

    all the robots arent gonna eat for a very long time so their initial fitness is gonna be zero across the board. hard to select for any progress.

    Speaking of which, as everyone probably realizes, computers cannot actually produce true randomness as they are built and programmed logically...

    its true you cant get true randomness but you can get outputs from certain types of code that are essentially as good as random. enough randomness for experiments that depend on a bit to generate a mixed population to select for, thats for sure.

    if ever it reaches a point where this isnt random enough, hoever, you can hook a computer up to a geiger counter or some other random input and use that. but yeah, pseudo-randomness would be enough for this kind of experiment.

    it just seems to me that the sheer amount of intelligent code and constant control and direction by humans required for the entire AI venture to succeed sort of lets down the idea that it has anything to do with evolution.

    i disagree completely. we humans are still evolving yet we already have our however many genes etc. evolution is a bit of randomness and selection. its not getting something from nothing, its generally building upon already existing frameworks. with these robots some had their genes selected for because the behavior they developed was sneaky and tricked others into dying while letting their own genes continue on. others behaved honestly and worked together with a group and passed on their behaviour that way. these behaviours were still emergent even though a framework was provided. if the code was setup to bias these outcomes, however, then it would be a unexciting result. hmmm mnow i really want to find out more about that code as well. will have a search for some more info.

    the development of hard AI could be similar to this example. if we had computers generate code completely randomly, there is going to be a lot of bullshit and messing around before we can even get something that will display something on the screen.

    by setting up a basic intelligence, however, then allowing for a certain amount of randomness in every aspect of it, testing all of em, selecting for the ability to meet some requirement, and repeat, then you are going to get more and more complex thoughts and behaviours in ways we wouldnt think of coding.

    those robots started out following a completely nonsense type of behaviour and developed effective food finding and communicating techniques simply by selecting for survivors, "breeding" the survivors together, and adding a bit of randomness. thats evolution.

×