Thread: intelligent design hypothesis

(I think this belongs here)

I was wondering whether or not that the reality, social of course, that we invariably shape using our sciences can actually feedback onto us, and actually have us "adapt" to our own theories of science and technology, however advanced or disabled?

Like, if we developed a type of non-biologically compatible science, one that didn't quite explain the way we actually perceive, as a science, could we, in developing that non-biological science, in developing a non-biologically compatible reality, a synthetic reality, could we "adapt" to that, and thus evolve ourselves to adapt to that synthetic environment?

Can we, for instance, formulate for ourselves what is possible and what is not based on how entrenched we have become in set axioms of space-time, 1000's of years old?

(If no one knows what I am talking about, just ask me to be more precise).

[quote="streamSystems(If no one knows what I am talking about, just ask me to be more precise).[/quote]Please be more precise.

This is one of the most lucid and interesting posts you've made. I don't have an immediate response beyond, "Yes, I think what you're suggesting is possible."

My thoughts right now are whether anything like that is already happening. Would you consider our ability to overcome various genetic maladaptions and possible subsequent ripples through the gene pool to be examples of what you're talking about? Consider the following hypothetical argument: myopia is theorized to be genetically determined in part; people with moderate myopia, such as myself, presumably should have a higher mortality rate (unless perhaps the human tendency has always been to help along those with poor eyesight); but we've been correcting vision for centuries now; hence, myopia is no longer selected out of the gene pool. Is this an example of what you're talking about?

I understand your interpretation serpico, but this does not appear to be what SS is talking about. You are discussing our ability to adapt to the changed environment that is a consequence of the application of our scientific theories and resultant technology.
He specifically talks of "actually have us "adapt" to our own theories of science and technology". That seems to me to be quite a different matter. I await with interest his clarification.

I hear that.

I don't have an agenda or theory of my own on this one. I am looking for clarification myself on the matter: has anyone heard any ideas on such a subject. My interpretation of it is that on the negative scale, on the down-side, we could be cutting ourselves from the nature-tree, de-evolving, by employing the use of an illegitimate science, and on the up-side, on the positive scale of things, we could be refining our ability to adapt to nature. The question is, "how reasonable are the sciences we employ to our ability to be conscious". Sure, science should represent the finest talents of our ability to be aware and reasoning, but do we ever ensure the sciences we employ are justly suited, what with all our theories of new dimensions and the like, to our biological performance? I would like to read some papers on this subject. I do think we have done a service to ourselves over the millennia through the employment of certain sciences and associated axioms, but I would like to read of papers that can highlight such to be the case, "cause and effect". More to this, I would like to read some papers on the idea that we invariably adapt to our own industrial-scientific swamp.

It's a big subject, unfortunately.

First, what is the body's ability to change itself based on the conscious? (How strong is the placebo effect, for example? Can it actually grow me horns if I want them?)

Second, what level of consciousness must there be, in order to effect such a change? (If conscious adaptation were possible, why don't we see it all over the place in animals? Unless it requires a threshold level of consciousness...)

Third, what is the level at which the collective unconscious can effect the individual, and can that effect be enough to change the person?

To answer that question, those questions, we would need to standardise juman perception and behavior with an ultimate "model" of human perception and behavior, it would seem. To find that ultimate model of human perception and behavior we would need to conduct a comparative study on different models of human perception and behavior and their relationship to their respective sciences and the impact their industries associated to their sciences had on them as a people. maybe one could study the different civilisations, the sciences they employed, and thus the societies they constructed, and how that in turn impacted on the people, to their success or failure.

Isn't that more the impact of the collective unconscious on the society rather than the impact on the species? (Unless we count self-preservation as something to adapt.)

I think it is more plausible to consider that as a species we segregate our ability to survive and adapt BEST to nature based on how we decide to "reconstruct" our reality and surround ourself with that reconstruction.

We segregate our ability as a species in that there are various cultures, and associated sciences, we adopt, that set us apart from others, which then offers us a different chance of survival to others.

As a species, we would have to regard ourselves globally, and the impact that we have on nature, globally, good or bad, and the impact it in turn has on us, good or bad.

As a primary observation of humanity, us, as a species, it has only been through the last 200 or so years of our 4000-5000 year civil-evolution that we have decided to become "purely" "seperate" from space-time, in that our sciences have not presented models of ourselves as people, as an awareness, in models of the atom and the universe, as has been the case throughout our social evolution in the past.

From the ancient Egyptian civilisation where it was the purpose of the greatest citizens to link with the stars, to Medieval sciences in search of the elixer of life, and zodiac body, the emphasis was not just on pertinent observation of the geometry and mechanics of space-time, but our purpose and link within it...........until our time.




(Wolf, just out of interest, how long has your "collective unconscious" been around for there to be a scientific impact-study of that collective unconscious on the species? Has it been around for centuries, millenia, or is it onlyt a recent phenomena?)

Go read a philosophy doctrine by a metaphysicist.

Who?

Who?

Well, actually, ignore that statement.

Answer that question for me when this post is moved to pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

As a primary observation of humanity, us, as a species, it has only been through the last 200 or so years of our 4000-5000 year civil-evolution that we have decided to become "purely" "seperate" from space-time, in that our sciences have not presented models of ourselves as people, as an awareness, in models of the atom and the universe, as has been the case throughout our social evolution in the past.

I don't see this at all. In the past two hundred years we have vastly improved our understanding of the Universe, our place within it, and our own character. The difference between our current, very secure place in 'space-time', related in depth and in detail to 'atoms and the universe', and the relationship in the past, is that our current relationship is clear, more objective, more conscious of sources of misperception, more free of superstition, more realistic, than any that has gone before.

I agree.

But I do think our "objectivity" has detatched us from the "flow" we could otherwise be in with space-time.

I think previous civilisations had more "rhythm" to their place in space-time, to nature......in sacrifice of an objectivity that borders on detachment.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

But I do think our "objectivity" has detatched us from the "flow" we could otherwise be in with space-time.

Do you mean by this the sort of 'at one with nature' position of those whom, for want of a better phrase, are sometimes known as treehuggers?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

(Wolf, just out of interest, how long has your "collective unconscious" been around for there to be a scientific impact-study of that collective unconscious on the species? Has it been around for centuries, millenia, or is it onlyt a recent phenomena?)

I don't think it's really possible for it not to have existed since the dawn of society, although it's certainly possible that its effect has increased with the advent of better and more extensive communications possibilities (newspaper, telephone, cell phone, Internet, etc).

Collective Unconscious

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by streamSystems

But I do think our "objectivity" has detatched us from the "flow" we could otherwise be in with space-time.

Do you mean by this the sort of 'at one with nature' position of those whom, for want of a better phrase, are sometimes known as treehuggers?

Ophiolite, of course I am not disturbed by your not taking shots at the idea of a "collective unconscious".................but.................. ...

...............the "flow" I was referring to was our more scientific appreciation of the movement of the greater celestial structures and any potential associated farming tecniques.............to name just one, for instance.

No, OK, that sounds very "tree-hugging".

How about the flow of a theory of time that more accurately explains atomic phenomena, one that is in tune with our stream of perception?

I am allowed to propose such a thing, right?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I am allowed to propose such a thing, right?

You may propose anything that you wish, but based upon past experience I shall find your convoluted, incoherent, rambling concatenation of grammatically questionable speculations to be impenetrable in meaning and unrewarding as entertainment.
I hope others will derive more of value from your writing.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I am allowed to propose such a thing, right?

You may propose anything that you wish, but based upon past experience I shall find your convoluted, incoherent, rambling concatenation of grammatically questionable speculations to be impenetrable in meaning and unrewarding as entertainment.
I hope others will derive more of value from your writing.

I'm afraid I'm not one of those others; StreamSystems, I mean no personal offense, but I must be honest - I've followed this thread every since you started it and I still can't figure out what in the heck you're really trying to say.

The nearest I can figure is that you think there is some kind of natural flow to the universe, and that through our scientific advancements, we humans might somehow remove ourselves from that flow. Am I on the right track?

It is all still part of his/her theory. You know, the theory regarding the influence of human perception on the universe? It is still the same old thing, dressed up as something else.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It is all still part of his/her theory. You know, the theory regarding the influence of human perception on the universe? It is still the same old thing, dressed up as something else.

Oh, ok. I'm not too familiar with it - I haven't followed that many of his/her threads.

Sorry about the response delay, but the thread here, I am not trying to promote my own work. I don't even use the term "intelligent design" in my theory. I am merely asking the question of the impact we could have on ourselves using a science that may not be up to our grade of perception capability. Still, the magniloquence of Ophiolite and the "same old same old" approach others dish does highlight that even self-contrived ramblings have an impact on oneself, numbing one's mind to this new hypothesis.

The most simple point I was making was presenting the idea that we could shape our own evolution, our own biological form, by our adapting to an artificial reality and associasted science, one that is relly not that accurate in terms of the flow, for want of a better word, of space-time.

As no one undersdtands such a concept, I retire the point.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

The most simple point I was making was presenting the idea that we could shape our own evolution, our own biological form, by our adapting to an artificial reality and associasted science, one that is relly not that accurate in terms of the flow, for want of a better word, of space-time.

As no one undersdtands such a concept, I retire the point.

I see two actions from your request:

1) We create an artificial reality; a fantasy world.
2) We ignore accuracy; embrace guesswork.

So, in essence, we create a fantasy world in which guesswork rules.

Sorry, I'll pass on that one.

Q, the way you jump to conclusions and put words in the mouths of others suggests you are quite comfortable with guesswork.

The "artificial" reality I am suggesting is one that can be proven to be incompatible with the ecosystem that offers us a greater chance of survival.....and thus one quite effective in being "real", if indeed aggressive to the emphasis of the ecosystem.

SS, you still don't make sense. Requests for clarification result in further verbiage whose semantic content is less than zero.

Now just tell us what the heck this means: "The "artificial" reality I am suggesting is one that can be proven to be incompatible with the ecosystem that offers us a greater chance of survival.....and thus one quite effective in being "real", if indeed aggressive to the emphasis of the ecosystem."

Restate it in simpler terms. Break it down into its components. Make a genuine effort here, please.
Let's take it one prhase at a time, starting at the end.
What do you mean by the 'emphasis of the ecosystem'?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

(I think this belongs here)

I was wondering whether or not that the reality, social of course, that we invariably shape using our sciences can actually feedback onto us, and actually have us "adapt" to our own theories of science and technology, however advanced or disabled?

Like, if we developed a type of non-biologically compatible science, one that didn't quite explain the way we actually perceive, as a science, could we, in developing that non-biological science, in developing a non-biologically compatible reality, a synthetic reality, could we "adapt" to that, and thus evolve ourselves to adapt to that synthetic environment?

Can we, for instance, formulate for ourselves what is possible and what is not based on how entrenched we have become in set axioms of space-time, 1000's of years old?

(If no one knows what I am talking about, just ask me to be more precise).

What you are talking about here has already been done.

I mean the BBT that has already been accepted by the main constituents of science.

So you can also come to the conclusion that it is 'synthetic' since it is strictly created by the human mind (subjective creation).

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

SS, you still don't make sense. Requests for clarification result in further verbiage whose semantic content is less than zero.

Now just tell us what the heck this means: "The "artificial" reality I am suggesting is one that can be proven to be incompatible with the ecosystem that offers us a greater chance of survival.....and thus one quite effective in being "real", if indeed aggressive to the emphasis of the ecosystem."

Restate it in simpler terms. Break it down into its components. Make a genuine effort here, please.
Let's take it one prhase at a time, starting at the end.
What do you mean by the 'emphasis of the ecosystem'?

Ophiolite, you never cease to amaze me. If you don't understand something should that mean no one else does (did that make sense)?

Ophiolite, ask Cosmo what I might mean)


Forum members, for the sake of argument, let us say I am interested in anything Opihiolite has to say about his inadequacies of communication. I am proposing that, to cut a long story short, that it could be possible that humanity is doing great harm to the ecosystem, and thus could represent a threat, something foreign, if not alien, to the ecosystem. I then made the statement (too big for some, it seems), that because we are having such a negative impact on the ecosystem, and yet because we are ecosystem entities, not alien, human, then it is the things we create with our sciences that represent a threat to the ecosystem, something alien. Thus, ergo, concordantly, visa-vie, etc etc etc (and wait for it folks, it's a little too big a concept for the likes of Ophiolite to handle), that the sciences we employ to reconstruct our reality are not essentially compatible with the ecosystem, and thus in our frame of reference as humans, not essentially compatible with space-time.

Um, if anyone can't see the "point" I am making, please send me a PM so that I do not come across as completely crushing in my criticism of you. This forum is about debating ideas relevant to our use and application and development of the sciences, not about humiliating one another.


(Just to remind ourselves, science actually "is" going through quite a thorough revision owing to the harm we seem to be doing to the ecosystem: we are seeking new sciences, new technologies, ones that have an improved survival-human factor in regard to the ecosystem.......but, does anyone know of any actual pieces of literature on this topic, on the idea that our sciences and technologies could be inaccurate based on the impact it has on the ecosystem).

I'm afraid you'll have to apply your "crushing criticism" to me as well, as half of your statements leave me thinking, "what in the HELL does that mean?!?" Your concept as you just explained it really isn't all that complicated, since now I think I understand you. But many of your previous thick, garbled sentences are much more difficult to understand. I thought I could be excessively wordy, but you put me to shame.

"I propose that humanity, through our technology and science, is having a negative impact on the environment in which we as a species evolved. Our technology is, therefore, incompatible with that environment, and is also causing humanity to be incompatible with that environment."

Isn't that what you're trying to say? All the excess wordage about foreign and alien and reconstructing our reality and in or our frame of reference etc etc clogs up what you're trying to say. Even what I wrote above could probably be simplified even further.

And finally, to comment on the actual subject - it seems to me that you're making an assumption that any change we cause in our environment is negative. Environments are not inherently stable and unchanging. I'm not a physicist but I imagine that space-time isn't stable and unchanging either. Just because we are causing it to be different than it once was does not necessarily mean we are somehow incompatible with it.

Cool, Paralith. At least you catch my drift.

As for your "suspicion" that I am being rhetorical about how negative science always seems to be, fear not...........that is not my drift. I have a faith in science, that they will improve their sciences and technologies to better adapt to our ecosystem...........booo.

But, to the point in question, do you know of anyone who presents a case similar to mine, someone obviously more educated and widely known..........any popular scientists? The case? Is science in need of a revision to better "cleave", for want of a better word, to space-time, more fundamentally though, the revision (that is) <did that make sense>, a more fundamental revision of science, given the profound effect the fruits of science, our industries, have on nature?

(once again, apologies for being convoluted).

Hmm. So when you say, "Is science in need of a revision ... given the profound effect ... of science, our industries, ... on nature?" does that mean you're primarily worried about things like habitat destruction, endangered species, global warming, etc? If that's the case, then yes, there are lots of scientists who think humans need to conduct their technological activities with greater care. And if that's what you've been talking about this whole time, then this thread is far simpler than I ever thought it was. So I'm inclined to think you mean something a little different.

You talk about "cleaving to space-time" and "adapting our technology to our ecosystem." What do you mean by this, exactly? That the structure of the universe has certain laws that we are breaking with our technology?

This point you raise is a good one, namely that our version of understanding space-time could in fact be incorrect to the point that the fruits of that science is ripping space-time apart. I haven't read any literture on that "cause and effect" scenario, but maybe you have?

I guess what I could be saying is that in not knowing completrely the laws of space-time, the use of our technology based on sciences that is not complete in it's underdstanding of space-time is damaging space-time, because it is not entirely consistent with space-time.

....maybe.

I don't know.

Do you know of any popular or famous scientists who have proposed a similar possibility?

Maybe then when sciences become global, their proximity to real science, nature, is revealed.

Should we be worried as a people or as scientists?

I also think that if scientists are too stubborn to consider tihs possibility, as a people we are in serious trouble, because we continue to grow.

I also think that this forum should look at the potential power it has, take some responsibility, and debate new theories of space-time relevant to not just more ecofriendly technologies, but progenitor sciences.....maybe sciences of space-time, explanations of space-time, we have yet to seriously consider, but of course ones that have the depth of inquiry to earn sufficient merit for genuine debate.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

(once again, apologies for being convoluted).

Don't ****ing apologise for it. Just ****ing stop it. If you had a genuine interest in communicating, rather than just mentally masturbating to the sounds of your own incoherence, you would have addressed your lack of communication skills long ago.

troll alert.


Ophiolite, sometimes you come across as the spoilt brat who asked mummy to pay your way in A-english to impress your friends, failing to genuinely take interest in the greater depths of the english language.

May I suggest you take a course in latin to better familiarise yourself with the complexities of all the depths the english language should provide.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

troll alert.


Ophiolite, sometimes you come across as the spoilt brat who asked mummy to pay your way in A-english to impress your friends.

I have absolutely no interest in how you think I come across. I am interested in cogent, productive communication. You appear to have dedicated your life to the antithesis of this. I shall not apologise for condenming utterly your persistent failure to write in a coherent, comprehensible fashion. Cut it out.

Originally Posted by paralith

Hmm. So when you say, "Is science in need of a revision ... given the profound effect ... of science, our industries, ... on nature?" does that mean you're primarily worried about things like habitat destruction, endangered species, global warming, etc? If that's the case, then yes, there are lots of scientists who think humans need to conduct their technological activities with greater care. And if that's what you've been talking about this whole time, then this thread is far simpler than I ever thought it was. So I'm inclined to think you mean something a little different.

You talk about "cleaving to space-time" and "adapting our technology to our ecosystem." What do you mean by this, exactly? That the structure of the universe has certain laws that we are breaking with our technology?

And now allow me to cut ad paste my response (as it seems you can't read):

This point you raise is a good one, namely that our version of understanding space-time could in fact be incorrect to the point that the fruits of that science is ripping space-time apart. I haven't read any literture on that "cause and effect" scenario, but maybe you have?

I guess what I could be saying is that in not knowing completrely the laws of space-time, the use of our technology based on sciences that is not complete in it's underdstanding of space-time is damaging space-time, because it is not entirely consistent with space-time.

....maybe.

I don't know.

Do you know of any popular or famous scientists who have proposed a similar possibility?

Maybe then when sciences become global, their proximity to real science, nature, is revealed.

Should we be worried as a people or as scientists?

I also think that if scientists are too stubborn to consider tihs possibility, as a people we are in serious trouble, because we continue to grow.

I also think that this forum should look at the potential power it has, take some responsibility, and debate new theories of space-time relevant to not just more ecofriendly technologies, but progenitor sciences.....maybe sciences of space-time, explanations of space-time, we have yet to seriously consider, but of course ones that have the depth of inquiry to earn sufficient merit for genuine debate.


What do you have the problem with?

Do you really speak for the forum members?

Maybe you should deal wiyth your drug problem, if that is your problem, because the chances are if you are the only one who doesn't understand the above, as a concept, you are the one with the problem.
\

I think I know how we differ: I am not an info-slut........I present "next level" ideas........

Communication is best executed by making moves that aim to take yiur sovereign, moves you don't see coming, moves that are not taught at a University.............let alone exist as a web-link.

Moves that stun you into hiding.

If therefore you want to incessantly spit the dummy and say "but I don't understand", you make yourself weak in the greater game of communication..............childish even. I think you feel you have much to prove, and yet that blinds you from the real game of communication......the code.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

And now allow me to cut ad paste my response (as it seems you can't read):

Official Warning:
While I will tolerate a very large volume of mindless, inane rambling on your part, and endless amount of personal insult (since I place no value on your opinion) I will not tolerate deliberate insults directed at other members, especially members who make a serious contribution to the forum.
Cease and desist this behaviour at once.

The above warning was completed before I had finished your entire post. I now read this:

Originally Posted by StreamSystems

"What do you have the problem with?

Do you really speak for the forum members?

Maybe you should deal wiyth your drug problem, if that is your problem, because the chances are if you are the only one who doesn't understand the above, as a concept, you are the one with the problem."

.StreamSystems, this is wholly unacceptable behaviour. It will no longer be tolerated

For the sake of other forum members, exactly where did I insult another forum member more than you have insulted me repeatedly.

I have read many of your posts and responsers to the posts of others, and kept my remarks to myself.................

You seem to want to go after me with decided interest.

Could you please explain this pattern of behavior to ther forum members.

Also, I used the word "if" in regard to any potential problem you had............I never accused you.

Please read slowly and carefully............carve every word before you let it fall.

This is a forum of many members, not thunderdome..........please observe that for the sake of those woh wish to join this forum.\\


My intention is not to insult anyone, but your approach to asking for further clarification on posts and associated responses has one feeling quite struck from behind at times.

I am sure that given your commkand of the english language, many take interest in your ability to route web-information. But, take note of the chess-theme to the written world also.............for the sake of chess players/
\


Ophiolite, I don't see any of my so-called ranting a perversion of the potential truths of human expression. You yourself may live in your own box of truths, but that should not blind you to possibilities that more than often entertain the thoughts of the more recent arrivals to the planet, making science a thing of wonder, and not necessarily submission.

Lets keep this forum open and honest to the planet of people, and not the rooms of self-styled elites who think they have it won.



Anyone who suffers from autism should not be mocked, and so I stop short from being entirely critical. What does an autistic person know, right. I am not capable of being critical, right.........?

Stream, you need to understand this is a forum of professionals, professional scientists. You come across like a new kid from shellybeville in a schoolyard; not entirely your fault, of course.

If science is the deck of cards, you are like the joker (your ideas are "that out-there")

..so I thought..until you made that anaolgy about chess.

I am thinking that you are suggesting things that high-priced science-types who want to adjudicate see as a recession: they're afraid you are the rust in their system: they don't want to see you as any upper 1% outside the square, but the lower crap they have been use to eliminating while at schoool.

Wow.

Without metal-work (and concreting), this society would be screwed. If I therefore were a vulcan, I would say, given your insight (response), "live long and prosper"
.

There is more metal work at CERN than europe's 2008 biker-convention.

As a percentage basis, metal-work does more than physics-theory alone........as a reason to turn up to work according to Government checks.

Streamsystems, I submit to you that nobody understand your posts. You seem completely unable to say something in a straightforward manner. You willy-nilly assign subjective meaning to words and think presenting them like this, “blah, blah, blah”, fixes it somehow. Please understand that we have NO idea what subjective meanings you assign to words and so mostly have no idea what you are talking about. What Ophiolite is commenting on, is this lack of lucidity of your posts and your unshaken refusal to fix it. They can only be seen as insults if they are not true. Despite your denial of it, YOU are the one who have been spitting insults! Ophiolite in his capacity as moderator has been desperately trying to get you to make an effort in this department for a LONG TIME with no cooperation from you. If I was a moderator you would have long ago been banned.

If ever i can think of a way t5o highlight my own DUNSE........i WILL.............i will towards your passionjs, like science is at foot.


]

Originally Posted by streamSystems

This point you raise is a good one, namely that our version of understanding space-time could in fact be incorrect to the point that the fruits of that science is ripping space-time apart. I haven't read any literture on that "cause and effect" scenario, but maybe you have?

I guess what I could be saying is that in not knowing completrely the laws of space-time, the use of our technology based on sciences that is not complete in it's underdstanding of space-time is damaging space-time, because it is not entirely consistent with space-time.

....maybe.

I don't know.

Do you know of any popular or famous scientists who have proposed a similar possibility?

Maybe then when sciences become global, their proximity to real science, nature, is revealed.

Should we be worried as a people or as scientists?

I also think that if scientists are too stubborn to consider tihs possibility, as a people we are in serious trouble, because we continue to grow.

I also think that this forum should look at the potential power it has, take some responsibility, and debate new theories of space-time relevant to not just more ecofriendly technologies, but progenitor sciences.....maybe sciences of space-time, explanations of space-time, we have yet to seriously consider, but of course ones that have the depth of inquiry to earn sufficient merit for genuine debate.

SS - what kind of response is that? You didn't even answer my questions. The only point I made was that I still might not be understanding you correctly. I stand by Ophiolite in that I believe if you're going to have a thread like this it is important that you communicate your ideas to others as clearly as possible so there are no misunderstandings and the discussion can actually GO somewhere. I asked you some relatively simple questions and you went whizzing off into ramblings about space-time. I am trying to understand you and you are not helping me.

Now. Clearly you think that human activities are actively damaging space-time, or at least could be damaging space-time, since we don't understand it completely and could be having some effects on it that are not yet visible to us.

Up until this point I've assumed that by saying "space-time" you were just referring to the universe in general - to the entirety of the environment we live in, and not just the biosphere on earth. Is this correct? Or do you really mean that somehow humans could actually disrupt time itself?

At this point, please just tell me whether or not I'm understanding you correctly. I'm trying to use simpler language to rephrase your ideas in a way that I, and hopefully other forum members, will easier understand them.

Well, believe it or not, i undersstand you.

But,. sadly, you may not understand me (and how sad is that).

......

....

(i don't know your "dot" language, right?)

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Well, believe it or not, i undersstand you.

But,. sadly, you may not understand me (and how sad is that).

......

....

(i don't know your "dot" language, right?)

Hmm. Alright - even when someone makes the effort to have a real conversation with you, you turn them down. Yes, that is pretty sad.

(dot language? The three periods, or ellipsis, are inserted in sentences you quote from another source to indicate that you are skipping some of the original words. For example, "Robins, as well as many other birds, are red" becomes "Robins ... are red.")

Originally Posted by streamSystems

For the sake of other forum members, exactly where did I insult another forum member more than you have insulted me repeatedly.

It is quite irrelevant whether or not I have insulted you, or the comparative extent of any such insults. You insulted paralith. That is what you have been warned about.

For the record, I have repeatedly urged, begged, advised, suggested, demanded, requested, and pleaded that you make an effort to be better understood. Some of the responses on this thread make it clear that I am not the only person bemused by your ramblings. (Please note that calling them ramblings is not an insult. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, it is best called a duck.)
Despite this you greet such criticism with a defensive barrage of insults. Well, tough luck, fella. You wish to engage with adults you can learn to take the rough with the smooth; and accept criticism where it is due.
If I had any sense at all I would have had you banned months ago. Instead I have persevered, in an effort to help you put forward anything that might be of value in your apparently bizarre suite of paradigms. All to no avail.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

You seem to want to go after me with decided interest.

I am interested in protecting the forum and the members from waffle and waste. I am interested in helping you to get your point across. I appear to be more interested in helping you get your point across than you are.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Also, I used the word "if" in regard to any potential problem you had............I never accused you.

Read your post again SS. You are responding to a post from paralith. Part way through that response you say "Maybe you should deal wiyth your drug problem, if that is your problem." If that was meant to be directed towards me, then once again you have failed uterly to convey it. Nowhere in that post do you mention my name. You begin talking to paralith and, as far as anyone can tell, you continue talking to paralith. Or, to be more precise, insulting paralith.
Be very clear, I shall not issue any warnings, or require any action against you, for anything you say about me. However, I shall not tolerate your abuse of other members.

My intention is not to insult anyone, but your approach to asking for further clarification on posts and associated responses has one feeling quite struck from behind at times.

Then you need very seriously and very quickly to learn some maturity. Your posts are dense, obscure, unintelligble rambles. I think so, and so do the majority of those who read them. Do you wish me to pretend it is not so? To pretend that you make sense? To applaud your skills with language? What good would that do you?
None at all. My actions are intended to get you to take your ****ing finger outof your ass and make a genuine effort to be understood. If I have to scream, to swear, to plead, to badger, to implode, in order to get this done, so be it. If you want the comments to stop then you have to start communicating. Clear?

Anyone who suffers from autism should not be mocked, and so I stop short from being entirely critical. What does an autistic person know, right. I am not capable of being critical, right.........?

Are you claiming to be autistic. A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

Let us then mourn together..........for those who obviously may have an answer.............in just of your jest, yes?

(ask me my jest, otherwise, right?)

(i have no time, yet the day after you make your own point).

Are you claiming to be autistic. A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

If I was autistic, wouild you take that,.....that.....as your own vernacular.....should I consider be taken?

Since there isn't any science being discussed here, but perhaps a type of pseudoscience, this thread is moved to a more appropriate venue.

Because of his/her insults and trollish nature in spite of more than one warning or request otherwise, StreamSystems is banned for 1 week.

Stream, I would go, because the stench of your own "ideas" ranks more highly than anything already experienced by forum-memebers: GET LOST.
]

Ophiolite,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have seen the effect you have had, and, wow...........encourage yourself, right.

(you are weak-minded XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......................hope your mother still likes u (knowing u, she probably does)).

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

(you are weak-minded XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......................hope your mother still likes u (knowing u, she probably does)).

My mother is dead. Thank you for your interest.

I think you are a spineless prick, Ophiolite.

You have banned streamSystems because it seems you have lost one too many arguments for your liking.

Forum members, no great mention has been made about streamSystems banning...........

I would like to suggest forum members that they closely inspect this post of streamSystems and the fairness that has been offered.

Ophiolite, you forgot to ban s/s's sock puppets.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Since there isn't any science being discussed here, but perhaps a type of pseudoscience, this thread is moved to a more appropriate venue.

Is this even pseudoscience? Anyone?...?

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

I think you are a spineless prick, Ophiolite.

I thought they banned max for being a nutcase? Or have I just been overlooking his presence for several months now?

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

You have banned streamSystems because it seems you have lost one too many arguments for your liking.

Me and Oph don't always see eye to eye, but I gotta lean on his side this time. SS hasn't ever really made much sense with his ideas, or his explanations...but at least he's relatively harmless. He tends not to blast threads with incoherent jumbles of random and repeating characters, seemingly for the sake of his own amusement. (Although that's probably questionable...)

Originally Posted by maxHeadroom

I would like to suggest forum members that they closely inspect this post of streamSystems and the fairness that has been offered.

If the sum of his posts and disposition were in this thread alone, that argument might hold...but they aren't, this doesn't, and if I could, for once, step out of character, and do something unlike me:

*claps* hear, hear!

I for one don't particularly care if streamsystems felt the childish need to insult me or not, but his simple unwillingness to be clear rather astounds me. This is a discussion forum, after all, and if we're not all speaking the same language (so to speak), what's the point? If this has been his pattern of behavior, he deserves the ban insults or not.

How come he gets banned and Minxy had to work so damn hard to get banned?

Originally Posted by Selene

How come he gets banned and Minxy had to work so damn hard to get banned?

Depends on what you consider "work."

My apologies everyone. I intended to move this thread to Pseudoscience but was on my way to work & it slipped my mind.

I've moved the thread and banned both of slipStream's 2 sock puppets. These are definitely perma-banned but I'm thinking of perma-banning slipStream based on the sock-puppet use to get past a ban and the PM he/she sent to me.

You know, I kinda got where SS was heading with this one, this time, but the way it was put together and how he kept skirting my points, kept me from really going at it....and I'm sure some of you know how rare that is. :P

Originally Posted by Wolf

Originally Posted by Selene

How come he gets banned and Minxy had to work so damn hard to get banned?

Depends on what you consider "work."

Sigh

Can you smell the roses?