No need.More Semantic Sense is needed than found in here! (They speak of nonsense but they dont define it.)
If semantics has become the topic, then the science direction of the discussion has already been lost. Any map must give scientific directions only. Anyone prefers to look at the fancy semantics display at the side of the path ...
should get off the bus.
It was merely an illustration of point but nonetheless thank you.Originally Posted by sigurdV
How? Aside from the usual and expected annoyances, the ordinary threads here seem to have perfectly fine and normal discussions.More Semantic Sense is needed than found in here! (They speak of nonsense but they dont define it.)
Note that not all your posts are problematic, but for the ones that are, irrelevancy is the issue. They're not even strictly semantic in subject matter. Much of the time the discussion will dive into abstract philosophy quite suddenly.
And why is there any need to? Surely in a normal conversation a person assumes the conventional sense of a word without thought. It would be quite bothersome having to be so meticulous with words and logic... especially when people want to talk science, not philosophy.They speak of nonsense but they dont define it.
Lol!yesssssssssss..............!
and i thought you are already living a young and heavenly life with man's life span.
Life after death..."life span" Is that something that is off topic or not?
(If I may question the semantics so deviously introduced by devilishly clever Write4U.)
EDIT: "Doomsday scenarios" dont differ much...they may stem from a primitive concept of "entropy" or not, but doomsday is within our timeline. Christianity has an interesting variation; every human is resurrected and placed at the end of time (!?) to be judged... Just for fun: is the Christian picture presupposing at least two perpendicular timelines? (Dont answer, the thread might get closed.)
EDIT EDIT: If you care to eventually (preferably before Doomsday comes) check the "theory of life" I have the audacity to introduce somewhere, ignored by all and everyone, in the beginning of this thread you will perhaps notice that "entrophy" is a concept introduced in at least one definition of life: The inventor is Iliya Prigogine a not too wellknown and appreciated Nobel Price Winner. He was deeply involved in Chemistry and Thermodynamics (...but please dont take my comment as a suggestion this thread should be moved elsewhere ...life surely belongs to Biology! ...but...Where should we put death? (Ilya implies Thermodynamics?) (Is the taxonomy of scientific concepts in "good" order? ...Im trying to be Scientific in case you misinterprete my intentions in commenting and asking.)
Possibly you refere to my pet subjects Logic and Semantics? Well who is NOT interesting in meeting his peers to discuss internal matters?
I admit that I post too much seemingly nonsensical items in order to make my presence known to the few logicians,philosophers and metaphycians (Hi Write4U!) yawning through the Scientific posts all over the place ...containing stars like AlexG,Nighthawk or whatever...Yes Im sarcastic in that last remark.
There are many posters in here and there should be lots of interesting reading, and I think the Mathematics and Physics Departments contains a lot of intelligence and are in rather a good shape... still I find the noice and troll levels bothersome. And if you dare check the foundation of arguments insted of following the rise into the stratosphere youll get told to shut up.
Im planning to guide interested people (provided there are any) from all over the world through the juiciest posts... (Later when I find the time. Ill tell them to be silent and not feed the animals.)
It remains to visit the Human sciences, Anthropology, History and such fascinating subjects...I will get there eventually.
I dont get your point in this post, are you saying Science manages without Logic Semantics and at least elementary knowledgo of Philosophy? Especially the parts involving Scientifical methodology? Are Hume, Popper and Kuhn, to select some well known Stars, irrelevant to you?
Well perhaps we should leave the question of my behaviour and concentrate on the thread and its topic:
To be honest I think some Moderators in here are too easily offended and have difficulties in separating the Semantic content from the Manner of style used to present it. Be that as it may. Please comment the topic!
I have no idea how you would treat it in a Scientific manner. You said something of improving posters precision in making statements or sending their efforts to the trash can. Are you aquainted with the ideas of Prigogine?
Theres lots of popularising of what began in Chemistry and Weather forecasting... In novels we have Jurassic park as a nice example... There are easily accessed pop science works even by FEMALES...Well well ... I wont bother you with an over all picture of the field...I think ill take a stroll through Biology to see what they are up to while you decide if you have any stimulating comments on relevant and irrelevant theories of life. Im slightly tired of singlehandedly adressing such a huge subject...sorry dear interested laymen I refuse to work... at least for the moment... IBB! Why dont you prepare some questions while Im away? CYA
...
duplication
It depends on where you place the concept of death vs the concept of life.Lol!yesssssssssss..............!
and i thought you are already living a young and heavenly life with man's life span.
Life after death..."life span" Is that something that is off topic or not?
(If I may question the semantics so deviously introduced by devilishly clever [U]Write4U.)
but...Where should we put death? (Ilya implies Thermodynamics?) (Is the taxonomy of scientific concepts in "good" order? ...Im trying to be Scientific in case you misinterprete my intentions in commenting and asking.)
And so it is with both Life and Death. The bell curve of levels of life _/\_ and levels of death. Interestingly it is represents a wave function, a fractal geometry, and a veritable symphony of relativistic and harmonic potentials becoming explicate in our subjective reality.When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.
Perhaps one might argue that life began with the first sensation of pain that caused the organism to learn animation in order to "avoid" the painful object/enemy. The first neural network that was causal to sensation and emotional response.
If science is yawn inducing for you, perhaps you need another forum.I admit that I post too much seemingly nonsensical items in order to make my presence known to the few logicians,philosophers and metaphycians (Hi Write4U!) yawning through the Scientific posts all over the place
I find philosophy of science very interesting. I cannot see that chipping away at the edges of semantics has any link to that branch of philosophy nor to any of its distinguished practitioners, let alone to any given scientist like say... Prigogine.Are Hume, Popper and Kuhn, to select some well known Stars, irrelevant to you?
Im not sure you understand how to read!
I didnt say I was yawning...
I was describing the behaviour of a few persons characterised by NOT being me.
I called them "a few logicians, philosophers and metaphycians".
How on internet CAN you identify a group of people as one single person?
Are you annoyed with me? Do you feel insulted? Are you angry?
Are you determined to find faults in anything I say? Are you persecuting me?
Can you function in your work if somebody effects you so intensively?
Dont you need a vacation? Are you now a good representative of the Science Forum?
Perhaps you are overworked?
Why does almost every statement you make express a wish that I leave?
What if I dont?
I am NOT yawning at all: the CONDITIONS IN HERE ARE FASCINATING!
[QUOTE=adelady;380103]
I find philosophy of science very interesting. I cannot see that chipping away at the edges of semantics has any link to that branch of philosophy nor to any of its distinguished practitioners, let alone to any given scientist like say... Prigogine.[/QUOTE]"chipping away at the edges of semantics"Are Hume, Popper and Kuhn, to select some well known Stars, irrelevant to you?
Why do you feel the need to diminish me? To insult me professionally? Dont you understand I must defend myself...or should I permit any bully to have his/her way with me...Damn! This is almost intolerable. But for the last time: stop harassing me or I will prove my worth!
I will do something "impossible", say: find at least as many never before defined sentences as there are sentences now...doubling the meaningful different sentences in the English language! Hmmm...perhaps I will let you try first...to show you can read! Im in no hurry, think it over. We can end this now.(Yawn!)
You mean "mind" I take it?It depends on where you place the concept of death vs the concept of life.Lol!yesssssssssss..............!
and i thought you are already living a young and heavenly life with man's life span.
Life after death..."life span" Is that something that is off topic or not?
(If I may question the semantics so deviously introduced by devilishly clever [U]Write4U.)
but...Where should we put death? (Ilya implies Thermodynamics?) (Is the taxonomy of scientific concepts in "good" order? ...Im trying to be Scientific in case you misinterprete my intentions in commenting and asking.)
And so it is with both Life and Death. The bell curve of levels of life _/\_ and levels of death. Interestingly it is represents a wave function, a fractal geometry, and a veritable symphony of relativistic and harmonic potentials becoming explicate in our subjective reality.When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.
Perhaps one might argue that life began with the first sensation of pain that caused the organism to learn animation in order to "avoid" the painful object/enemy. The first neural network that was causal to sensation and emotional response.
Are you sure one cant dig deeper into the "homeostasis" or whatever they call the inner workings of a cell.
Better go all the way just to check remember tha age of the earth;: From minus 4004 by usher the 100millionyears (if i remember the number" and far later in a (unknown to me) series of steps close to 5 billion years. Arent we overcautios sometimes.
[QUOTE=Write4U;380101]It depends on where you place the concept of death vs the concept of life.Lol!yesssssssssss..............!
and i thought you are already living a young and heavenly life with man's life span.
Where should we put death? (Ilya implies Thermodynamics?) (Is the taxonomy of scientific concepts in "good" order? ...Im trying to be Scientific in case you misinterprete my intentions in commenting and asking.)
[QUOTE]Death is equilibrium.
"highly coloured portions changed to white. highlight with cursor if you want to read them" The Moderator says...Thank you very much for telling the reader that YOU censored the text but why didnt you place a contasting background? How can he find the text? What is wrong with color... I notice Moderateors are fond of red...Are colors only a moderating tool? I suggest that unless your motivation is to hide text you use black instead of white. Thank you!
Last edited by sigurdV; December 29th, 2012 at 09:47 AM. Reason: Searchin for censored text. Asking WHY its censored.
On the origin of life:
We are not sure of where it is found.
We can yet not in detail describe the conditions that produces life.
I doubt (as I openly declare) that such conditions will remain stable on earth.
They occur here...they may occur there ...but gravity together with other "earthly causes"
destroys the conditions as soon as they form.
What do you want to say by this?
Do you mean the conditions from which life originates are present on earth at this very moment?
It didnt occur to me to look at our present situation: I am accustomed to look far back into our past and the question if new original lifeWhat do you want to say by this?
Do you mean the conditions from which life originates are present on earth at this very moment?
might arise today, (Why not?) somewhere on earth, would never have been raised by myself.
YES! ... For instance in a laboratory... where scientists may guard it against threats from standard earthly life.
Outside the laboratory the chances for newly created original life to remain alive is zero. Original life should be rather simple...
as simple as life possibly can be. It takes time for it to evolve defence and it would be nothing but dinner for any hungry microbe.
But, as I did once Myself object ... this threat of getting consumed by hostile life surely didnt exist for the FIRST original life on earth? True ... but my opinion is that life is organisation of parts, and that its first parts are not protected by, say , a cell membrane and original life will on creation soon (in evolutional terms) be separated into fragments that only constitutes life if the fragments are brought together again. Those fragments will in separation undergo change and were they by any chance reassembled they would no longer fit together in the original necessary manner.
But Yours Truly dont surrender easily: What if original life arised continuously, everywhere and faster than weather, winds, waves, gravity, dissolution,absorbtion ...whatever...could separate the fragments?
HI! Myself! Where did you come from and how silly can you be? How can you believe your scenario could have taken place on Earth: A "soup" of functional fragments, all over the place, patiently waiting for evolutional improvements? Perhaps such a soup could have existed before the planet was formed? But...NO!...Space is not a promising environment for original life surely?
UDAY: WHAT WILL YOUR NEXT QUESTION BE?
I will consider it carefully
and answer if I am able.
Trolls stay away please!
I cannot cope up with your ability to part with important and new information. First please let me absorb it then understand it and digest it. Then only it may be that I will think of any further question.
But Thanks for the info. I am trying to grasp it.
Take the time you need:
So far your questions
has been first class!
Forcing me to think twice.
Lol!
Dont lower your standards!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381
Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon
(Submitted on 28 Mar 2013)
An extrapolation of the genetic complexity of organisms
to earlier times suggests that
life began before the Earth was formed.
| « Fish Experiment | Rapid acceleration in technological advancement via time travel? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
19Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
