Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Actually, light is not the primary element in the governance of the human timeclock, insofar as not all parts of the earth (let's say portions of Alaska) have a standard light/darkness cycle. Some portions of the earth have several months of light and several months of darkness, for example. In this case, the natural biorhythms are more predominated by the adrenal cortex and an internal timeclock that has nothing to do with light/darkness.

Yeah, well, humans didn't evolve in the arctic or antarctic regions, and humans who do live in those regions frequently develop sleeping problems.

 

[VinceBlaze]

for there to be intelligence, there must be communication.

Okay. Agreed. Intelligence and communication are ideally coexistant. Although they may cycle in and out of phase together.

Our planet goes through its motions without being affected much at all by any other planets in the solar system.

The planets within the solar system are affected by the sun, with various moons affected by the planets. But what is the sun itself affected by? Does it just float in midspace? Or is it subtly affected by some external force? Perhaps our galaxy, for example?

Our solar system goes through its motions as if no other stars existed at all. Our galaxy goes through its motions as if no other galaxy existed.

Inconclusive. And probably not likely. We don't have enough data to positively know either way.

There is, quite simply, no basis for the communication required for intelligence.

Not within our current data framework, but this does not rule the possibility out.

For example, how can I and Pierre the random Frenchman be two parts of the same organism if we have no knowledge of one another's existence at any level?

The greater part of our communications with others is at a subconscious level. Not all communication is conscious. As far as your suggested scenario, however, we are indirectly connected to every human being on the earth. What happens in the middle east, for example, affects me in the americas, albeit indirectly.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Light is not? That is new.......Hmm, let me pull out my eco-physiology book on that one...it's been a while.....

My assumption is that your education closes your mind to alternate perspectives.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Yeah, well, humans didn't evolve in the arctic or antarctic regions,

You are focused on a single evolutionary path. I suggest that there are several.

and humans who do live in those regions frequently develop sleeping problems.

And? Sleep problems are existant within all regions.

 

[belladonic-haze]

You are focused on a single evolutionary path. I suggest that there are several.

And? Sleep problems are existant within all regions.

He meant sleep problems related to day night rhythm.

 

[VinceBlaze]

He meant sleep problems related to day night rhythm.

Rhythmic sleep problems can certainly take place when the body is subjeced to that which is unfamiliar. But I suggest that the body is also capable of adaptative reprogramming when so subjected. Athletic training falls into the same category, even being deemed 'unnaturally forced' by some. But there also exist healthy recovery methods to aid adaptative responses, despite rigorous periods of progressive overload.

 

[razzelflabben]

All things have an element of fallibility, even if I believe it to be infallible, that doesn't make it so for anyone but me: the question is do you view your belief as infallible.

My answer would be no but by nature, but,it's pretty secure since my belief is that we don't know. I would add that I don't think we will ever know in this lifetime, but that would be more of a fallable idea, we might, I just don't really see it as a very high probability that we will ever know what happened in history to create the world and life in it (I know the how the of the earth came into existance is not part of the toe)

I also believe that my belief that God created (in some way) is pretty strong, though I wouldn't necessarily say infallible, I can't concieve of any other posssibility. After all is said and done, that God has shown me personnally my belief that God did it is about as infallible as it gets, how He did it is another question.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Chalnoth]

Rhythmic sleep problems can certainly take place when the body is subjeced to that which is unfamiliar. But I suggest that the body is also capable of adaptative reprogramming when so subjected. Athletic training falls into the same category, even being deemed 'unnaturally forced' by some. But there also exist healthy recovery methods to aid adaptative responses, despite rigorous periods of progressive overload.

The typical therapy for people having issues with sleep problems in the arctic and antarctic regions is to subject them to therapy sessions which provide a consistent day/night cycle.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I just don't really see it as a very high probability that we will ever know what happened in history to create the world and life in it

I might agree, although I have my postulations about it. Thanks for sharing.

I believe that our multiverse never really had a beginning in the first place, and that it will have no end either. Individual sub-universes such as ours may have beginnings and endings, but these are only expressions of a greater multiverse anyway, in my personal perspective.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The typical therapy for people having issues with sleep problems in the arctic and antarctic regions is to subject them to therapy sessions which provide a consistent day/night cycle.

Hence my point. Consistent day/night cycles in these regions have nothing to do with light and darkness. Rather, the adrenal cortex is consistently programmed in the absence of light and darkness fluctuations. However, this does not rule out the potential for progressive overload within the adrenal cortex itself.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are focused on a single evolutionary path. I suggest that there are several.

Sure there are several. But most die out.

Okay. Agreed. Intelligence and communication are ideally coexistant. Although they may cycle in and out of phase together.

That's not a possibility. Try asking a computer to compute if you remove the RAM.

The planets within the solar system are affected by the sun, with various moons affected by the planets. But what is the sun itself affected by? Does it just float in midspace? Or is it subtly affected by some external force? Perhaps our galaxy, for example?

Sure, they're heated by the sun, and orbit it due to the sun's gravity, but that's not communication. And the sun does, of course, feel the gravitational attraction of everything else in the universe (gravity is an infinite range force), but that doesn't mean that the sun's behavior itself would change one iota if every other object in the universe winked out of existence entirely.

Inconclusive. And probably not likely. We don't have enough data to positively know either way.

Of course we do. There are only two forces that are infinite-range: electromagnetism and gravity. Gravity is so incredibly weak that it is highly unlikely that we could make any measurement within our own solar system that could possibly detect the nearest star through gravity alone. So there's no reasonable way that there is any communication going on due to gravity.

The electromagnetic force is much stronger, and the electromagnetic waves which we witness (light) can be seen across the full expanse of the universe. But the luminosity of the stars is so vastly overshadowed by the luminosity of the sun that stars might as well not even exist, as far as all reactions on Earth are concerned. The only thing that gives stars any importance is our own observation that they exist, and the meaning we place on them, not any actual effect they have on the biosphere.

Even if you could posit the existence of some fifth force with infinite range, that force would have to be even weaker than gravity for us to not have seen it, and thus would not change things one iota.

The greater part of our communications with others is at a subconscious level. Not all communication is conscious. As far as your suggested scenario, however, we are indirectly connected to every human being on the earth. What happens in the middle east, for example, affects me in the americas, albeit indirectly.

Yeah, there was a reason why I deleted that last statement. It is possible for us to think of the Earth as a whole as an organism. But that's because there are a huge number of highly complex interractions between different locations on the Earth.

There are no such complex interactions between the Earth and Mars, or Venus, or Saturn. Jupiter has a mild effect due to its disruption of the orbits of the asteroids, but that's about it. For the most part, the Earth wouldn't even care whether or not here was anything else in the solar system (the only difference for the Earth would be the frequency of asteroid/comet hits).

And just because there is a lot of communication that goes between people in contact on a subconscious level doesn't mean that we can communicate subconsciously with people that we don't have any contact with. The fact that a lot of communication is subconscious says nothing more than we are so used to communicating with people that we don't even bother to think how we do it. It doesn't mean the communication isn't physical: there is communication in tone of speech, in body language, in gestures.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Sure there are several. But most die out.

My, aren't we optimistic? Are you arguing in favor of nihilism now?

That's not a possibility.

That is a possibility.

Try asking a computer to compute if you remove the RAM.

Please stay within the context of the discussion. The multiverse is vastly more complex than your personal computer.

Sure, they're heated by the sun, and orbit it due to the sun's gravity, but that's not communication.

Sure it's communication.

And the sun does, of course, feel the gravitational attraction of everything else in the universe

Then that's communication.

(gravity is an infinite range force),

And?

but that doesn't mean that the sun's behavior itself would change one iota if every other object in the universe winked out of existence entirely.

Fanciful speculation. You seem to have the complexity of the multiverse all figured out. I suggest that the earth might have a problem if the rest of the universe blinked out of existence. You may be thinking of a Star Trek episode.

There are only two forces that are infinite-range: electromagnetism and gravity.

Nope. Try space and time. I believe that your perspective is much too narrow.

Gravity is so incredibly weak that it is highly unlikely that we could make any measurement within our own solar system that could possibly detect the nearest star through gravity alone. So there's no reasonable way that there is any communication going on due to gravity.

I haven't mentioned gravity. You did.

The electromagnetic force is much stronger, and the electromagnetic waves which we witness (light) can be seen across the full expanse of the universe. But the luminosity of the stars is so vastly overshadowed by the luminosity of the sun that stars might as well not even exist, as far as all reactions on Earth are concerned. The only thing that gives stars any importance is our own observation that they exist, and the meaning we place on them, not any actual effect they have on the biosphere.

Again, I haven't mentioned electromagnetic force. You did.

Even if you could posit the existence of some fifth force with infinite range,

Space and time.

that force would have to be even weaker than gravity for us to not have seen it,

Not within the context of multidimensional existence.

and thus would not change things one iota.

Not within the context of your perception, that is. Please qualify.

Yeah, there was a reason why I deleted that last statement.

I'm not certain what statement you're referring to.

It is possible for us to think of the Earth as a whole as an organism.

That's what I was suggesting, but you still offer qualms like it's bad or something.

But that's because there are a huge number of highly complex interractions between different locations on the Earth.

And you believe that this is bad.

There are no such complex interactions between the Earth and Mars, or Venus, or Saturn.

Not that you know of.

Jupiter has a mild effect due to its disruption of the orbits of the asteroids, but that's about it.

How did we get on Jupiter?

For the most part, the Earth wouldn't even care whether or not here was anything else in the solar system

I was moreso referencing the sun.

(the only difference for the Earth would be the frequency of asteroid/comet hits).

Which is virtually nil at this point. But let's spend billions on a shot in the dark, while much of the world starves from famine.

And just because there is a lot of communication that goes between people in contact on a subconscious level doesn't mean that we can communicate subconsciously with people that we don't have any contact with.

Again, as far as you know.

The fact that a lot of communication is subconscious says nothing more than we are so used to communicating with people that we don't even bother to think how we do it.

Actually, it speaks more of the low evolutionary development of our species when relatively compared against the amount of brain matter that operates consciously as opposed to subconsciously.

It doesn't mean the communication isn't physical: there is communication in tone of speech, in body language, in gestures.

That's nice. We agree on something at least. I had not suggested that subconscious communication doesn't have physical expression. But you can attempt to make your case all the same if you like.

 

[Chalnoth]

My, aren't we optimistic? Are you arguing in favor of nihilism now?

Er, no. Most species do die out, leaving no offspring. Here's a quick read on the subject:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_163/ai_101941077
The statement that most species die out has nothing to do with my outlook on life, it rather has to do with what the evidence says happened.

Now, as to communication, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Life forms on the Earth have absolutely no possible way of knowing of the existence of, for example, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, Ceres, or any of the stars without looking at them. If life forms on this Earth cannot possibly be affected by any of the motions of these celestial bodies, then how can you say gravity is a form of communication?

Now, we do know they are there because we can visually see them. But does that light have any effect? Not really. Sure, there is some very limited effect in allowing animals to see at night, and allowing humans to wonder about them, but you could substitute any light source for the exact same effect.

But what's more, there is no one single possible thing that we could ever do here on Earth that would have any effect on a single one of these celestial bodies. Not one. Not the sun, our own moon, any planets, and certainly not any stars. For communication to be occurring, it must be two-way.

Fanciful speculation. You seem to have the complexity of the multiverse all figured out. I suggest that the earth might have a problem if the rest of the universe blinked out of existence. You may be thinking of a Star Trek episode.

Scientifically we'd have a conundrum trying to explain it. But as long as the Earth, our moon, and our sun still existed, we'd have no lasting problems.

As for the sun not caring about any other stars, this is because I have some understanding of the physics of what makes stars tick.

Nope. Try space and time. I believe that your perspective is much too narrow.

Spacetime is not a force. It's simply a property of our universe.

Not within the context of multidimensional existence.

This makes no difference. Since we have not yet detected a fifth force, it must either be short range or very weak. Some of the extra forces that would arise in the context of extra dimensions would be short-range. Because it mus be either short range or very weak, it can have no tangible effect on reality today, and thus cannot provide a means of communication. This is simply because the currently-known physics describes reality to tremendous accuracy, more than enough to explain all of chemistry.

Anyway, the point is that you shouldn't go talking as if physics can't explain our universe if you don't even understand physics in the first place.

 

[belladonic-haze]

My assumption is that your education closes your mind to alternate perspectives.

My assumption is that you refuse to listen to other idea's but your own...

We are living beings and our whole life depends on our genes AND surroundings (environment). Adaption to these surroundings (environment) take ages...depending on the species and the lifetime. for some generations follow each other in weeks, others take decades.....

We depend on the influence of the moon, the sun.....light and dark...summer and winter (caused by the distance of the sun from the north and south hemisphere) temperature, humidity and so on and so on....and all is connected to sunlight. You cannot expect to evolve just because you want too.

I am from planet Earth by the way.....

 

[AV1611VET]

We are living beings and our whole life depends on our genes...

Haze,

That mindset can ruin peoples' lives.

I've read of mothers (and fathers) who insist that their children marry only those who have "superior genes", only to watch in horror as Johnny wants to be a ballerina, or Suzie wants to join the armed forces.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Haze,

That mindset can ruin peoples' lives.

I've read of mothers (and fathers) who insist that their children marry only those who have "superior genes", only to watch in horror as Johnny wants to be a ballerina, or Suzie wants to join the armed forces.

Wait a second. DON'T you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said:our whole life depends on our genes AND surroundings How dare you to imply that I am for surperior genes. I have a congenital disorder myself and yes, these genes and my surroudings the environment made me who I am....and I am darn proud of who I am......

I said genes and the surroundings......you [censor - wash my mouth]!

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait a second. DON'T you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said:our whole life depends on our genes AND surroundings How dare you to imply that I am for surperior genes. I have a congenital disorder myself and yes, these genes and my surroudings the environment made me who I am....and I am darn proud of who I am......

I said genes and the surroundings......you [censor - wash my mouth]!

Just chill out! I wasn't talking about you (or anyone in particular). I looked for the article so I could post it, but couldn't find it.

I agree with you that our lives depend on our genes - like that's a mystery?

Heaven forbid I should imply you're for superior genes.

I have a nephew myself who is going on 12 years old and has a 2nd-grade mentality. He can't do anything on his own and is very destructive - requiring attention 24/7. The doctors say he has autism or something.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Just chill out! I wasn't talking about you (or anyone in particular). I looked for the article so I could post it, but couldn't find it.

I agree with you that our lives depend on our genes - like that's a mystery?

Heaven forbid I should imply you're for superior genes.

I have a nephew myself who is going on 12 years old and has a 2nd-grade mentality. He can't do anything on his own and is very destructive - requiring attention 24/7. The doctors say he has autism or something.

Oh. so you didn't reply to my post and said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by belladonic-haze
We are living beings and our whole life depends on our genes...


Haze,

That mindset can ruin peoples' lives.

I've read of mothers (and fathers) who insist that their children marry only those who have "superior genes", only to watch in horror as Johnny wants to be a ballerina, or Suzie wants to join the armed forces.

and now I am a lair?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think this has turned into a bit of a flame war! Let's get back on topic, ya?

VinceBlaze, you completely dissected that post (quite impressively, I might add), but most of what you said was simple 'So you believe' 'nu'uh' 'so what?'. You didn't add anything. We cannot have a proper discussion if one of the parties prefers the 'yes it is' 'no it isnt' 'yes it is' no it isnt' dialogues. There is a standard procedure, yeah?

Besides, the spacetime continuum really isn't a force There are four forces: gracity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear. There may be others, in the other dimensions, that do not affect us in any observable way, and we can only therefore postulate about. But spacetime isn't one of them! Your perspective is too narrow, I'm afraid

I've read of mothers (and fathers) who insist that their children marry only those who have "superior genes", only to watch in horror as Johnny wants to be a ballerina, or Suzie wants to join the armed forces.

While non-essential gene therapy in prenatals is quite unethical, I'm confused as to why parents are horrified at an acrobatic son, or a patriotic and incredibly brave daughter?
Also, are Johnny and Suzie the aforementioned children, or the children of the 'superior parents'?
What is the relevence to genetics in your conclusion anyway? You go from one thing to another, with no real link.

Of course I'm aware of the homophobic undertones in your post. Such an attack on an unrelated minority group is, if nothing else, pathetic.
I suppose you believe that homosexuals can be 'cured'?

 

[VinceBlaze]

-