Religion

[indigosoul]

Isn't this thread in the off-topic section now? And it seems to be sparking quite a bit of interest, based on the number of pages it is. Besides, it seems like this thread definitely illustrates the importance of like-mindedness with regards to religious ideology, whether you are a believer or not. Can you imagine this kind of debate going on with the person you are sleeping with?

Ya, well, this seems to have started when I called someone a "moron" after they used the term foolish. Apparently, foolish isn't as much of an insult. I feel a little like the guy who gets accused of cheating b/c he kissed some girl on the cheek. NEXT time, I'll make sure there's NO ambiguity and I'll use the term "f*cking moron", for completeness... (I'm joking)


Again, says LOTS about how this topic might go with an SO, no?

[indigosoul]

Proof for being alive, I think and therefore I am (If I'm not alive I can not think)

Proof for thinking, The basic mechanics of the human mind reflect a process of pattern matching, thus if i can select two same objects from a pile of random objects (each having a mirrored pair), i prove that I can think on a basic level.

pt 1 wouldn't satisfy the "external observer" constraint I gave, nor would it satisfy the scientific method (how do _I_ know that YOU think? How do I measure this?)

pt2 can be done with a good computer program, as you are certainly aware. do computers think? If so, then combined with your proof for point 1, then computers are alive. You see the problem...

[RSK]

ok this is drunken post number one for me, illusional has inspired me, i come here with no intention, just to speak my mind, i have

a pen and paper - not really hahhahaah
and a bottle of gin, incase i don't get in

2pac lyrics llolololllolool




religion, over 90 percent of the world believes in some sort of God, superior to human powers. this is a lot of people.........

personally, i don't believe in God. well, i DO, but i don't. it is wierd, maybe i can explain. something happened to me a long time ago. to make a long and boring story short and exciting, it boils down to this.........







3 events in my life will be with me FOREVER.....................

.........ok, now i have said this, let me say i am the BIGGEST skeptic EVER.


i don't belive in the ghosts, spirits, or even a life after death. i believe in science, what is VISABLE, and what can be proven and tested. Ok, so God is not in this picture of mine. Religion and Science is like oil and water, yes.




but, a BIG BUT...............................


look around you. look at people. just WATCH them. watch lovers......




............i was in blockbuster, and i saw a couple - my age - holding hands and leaning with each other, the man was pushing playfuly the girl, and the girl kiss him back, and then they walk together.................

............i see this, and i learn something new ---> somethings CANNNOT be explained. and this is one of the things...........


............world is SO complex, it is hard for rk to imagine a world without God...........

whatever form God comes in, i don't know, but i know it or him or her is HERE with us -------> all of us, and God LOVES US ))))))))))



I JUST KNOW. so this is my philosophy. it is not much, but it is smthing....

______________________________



to my future wife,

darling, i write this letter, so you can understand me better. (rhyme is not inteded, letter and better is coinsidence).

i don't care who you are, where you are from, what you did, as long as you love me baby (this is In Sinc lyrics...........lololol)


ok, serious: religion is VERY personal thing. you have beliefs, and i respect this. tell me about your belief, i want to learn, maybe i can be a better person. maybe i can learns smthing, teach me. and let me tell you my experience. an open mind is important to me, if you have this, then we belong together --- like the syringe and the liquid - one canot be without the other ))))))))))))))

with love, rk

_________________________________________



All religions is good. All Gods are good. we are people of the same kind...
we all have the same God, but the VOICE or MUSE is maybe a little different......

...............but message is ALWAYS the same.

if someone tell you ONE religion is BAD because they make violence then they are full of SHIT, because these people make God's name BAD, or they are a small group of assholes. Don't talk bad about other peoples belief and religions, it is not in your position to say if they will go to Hell or Heaven...

...you are NOT the decider, God is....



my Mother tells me a bed time story when i grow up: RK (well, she say my real name), she says:

RK, if you find yourself one day in a Temple, or Church, or Mosque, or Synagogue, or anyother places of Worship, she tell me to remember I am in Gods home... and i must NEVER be afraid to enter and pray in my own way...

........this is me today. diversity is important to me. i learn from other people with open mind. i wish my friends are same way.



i end with this: muslim, christian, jew, hindu, athiest, and any other religion i forget ------------> when i judge a person, we must learn to look PAST this. if you look hard enough, we have MORE in common than differnces















...............

[Mish]

pt 1 wouldn't satisfy the "external observer" constraint I gave, nor would it satisfy the scientific method (how do _I_ know that YOU think? How do I measure this?)

pt2 can be done with a good computer program, as you are certainly aware. do computers think? If so, then combined with your proof for point 1, then computers are alive. You see the problem...

Here we go again

One at a time, you ask for proof of being alive, me being able to think is one proof of me being alive, because if I wasn't alive I wouldn't be thinking. That's the answer to the first question. You didn't ask to prove that I am able to think in the first question did you? So, if you wanted to know my answer to both questions in one go you should have specified so. Examiner error

You asked to prove that I am able to think not whether or not my thinking is based on a basic mechanical level (Motor sensory skills) or whether or not my thinking is based on philosophical discussion or problem solving level. You asked to prove that I can think and I created a model via which my motor sensory thinking abillity can be proven

Here is an interesting one for you, if a computer is intelligent enough to be able to repropgram itself to adopt to its new environments and thus have an awareness of self is it still dead or is it alive?

Oh, here is another one, do you view bacteria as dead or alive?

[Mish]

Ohhh, once again, my post above has been defeated by cool and creatively positive drible from RK

Now, I think it's about time you get out there and find yourself a nice Gf RK, I think it will be very easy for you if you really open up and speak your mind the way you do here on LF

[indigosoul]

You didn't ask to prove that I am able to think in the first question did you? So, if you wanted to know my answer to both questions in one go you should have specified so. Examiner error

You asked to prove that I am able to think not whether or not my thinking is based on a basic mechanical level (Motor sensory skills) or whether or not my thinking is based on philosophical discussion or problem solving level. You asked to prove that I can think and I created a model via which my motor sensory thinking abillity can be proven

Did I ask that? I deliberately kept the framework open except that your response would need to satisfy an "outside observer". Anyway, go ahead and answer YOUR phrasing of the question, then, Mish.

Here is an interesting one for you, if a computer is intelligent enough to be able to repropgram itself to adopt to its new environments and thus have an awareness of self is it still dead or is it alive?

A river will adapt to its environment (say, reroute due to an earthquake). It does not follow that the river is "aware" or alive or dead. At this level of info, I would have to say that your computer is only as alive as the river. Its an interesting computer science question, tho. The sticking pt with these arguments is still the lack of self replication aspect to computers, leading to longterm evolutionary changes. Now, the internet is a whole different can of worms. There are some who argue that the web is "alive" and "evolving", and I have a hard time refuting those claims (based on simple analogy to the definition of living things), which starts to sound scarily like an Orson Scott Card novel.

[Mish]

A river will adapt to its environment (say, reroute due to an earthquake). It does not follow that the river is "aware" or alive or dead. At this level of info, I would have to say that your computer is only as alive as the river. Its an interesting computer science question, tho. The sticking pt with these arguments is still the lack of self replication aspect to computers, leading to longterm evolutionary changes. Now, the internet is a whole different can of worms. There are some who argue that the web is "alive" and "evolving", and I have a hard time refuting those claims (based on simple analogy to the definition of living things), which starts to sound scarily like an Orson Scott Card novel.

Uh uh

A river does not adopt to its environement, it simply flows through it. A river relies on the externalities to govern it's flow, its direction, it's speed or it's mass. A river can not for example change direction into a more pleasant location, where it knows that it will have fewer chances of becoming extinct due to barren environment or worse weather conditions.

Today's progress in Artificail Intelligence can be broken into two parts
1. Conventional AI
2. Computational Intelligence.

Conventional AI applies to Expert systems which apply Reasoning Capabillities to reach a conclusion. Other models include case based reasoning and Bayesian networks (Bayesian networks are used for modelling knowledge in gene regulatory networks, medicine, engineering, text analysis, image processing, data fusion, and decision support systems)

Computational Intelligence involves iterative development or learning (e.g. parameter tuning in connectionist systems). Learning is based on empirical data. Evolutionary Computation applies biologically inspired concepts such as populations, mutation and survival of the fittest to generate increasingly better solutions to the problem. Other parts include Neural networks (Artificial intelligence and cognitive modeling try to simulate some properties of neural networks. While similar in their techniques, the former has the aim of solving particular tasks, while the latter aims to build mathematical models of biological neural systems) and Fuzzy systems (Reasoning under uncertainty)

Thus, if you definition of life is simply for an object to be able to reproduce itself then a computer is completely able to achieve that even today. A machine programmed to build machines just like itself are already operating in the factories. They or other machines on the production line can even program other machines with the same code as themselves, and program their clones to look for updates to their software or even for alternative power sources. A computer by the way can also be programmed to be partly self aware or at least aware of the parts that need replacement by reading data of various sensory mechanisms. Where further advancements in AI will lead us, who knows... Everything comes back to your definition of what life is. Do you consider a bacteria that reproduces itself as alive and machine that reproduces itself as dead?

Btw, the net is only as alive as the radial servers that keep connection between various computers and as people who input data into these servers. In other words, the internet is billions of computers connected together. If you think internet "Might be" alive, then you have to acknowledge that computers which run it just "Might be" alive as well.

[RSK]

i have TWO WORDS




NERD ALERT

[RSK]

ok, the above post is a joke, because i'm about to go NUTS on the current topics, like a tornado throught your computer screen.................

[shh!]

Let it loose, RSK. I'm ready!

[RSK]

ok, mish and indi ---> i'm about to BREAK IT DOWN!


__________________________________________
rivers DO adapt to the enviornment: FACT

just as mountains do. Here is an example ----> why are the himalayers so TALL? it's because of the tectonic movements of continental 'shove'...

...therefore, just as rivers adapt to THEIR enviornment, so do Mountains.

are the above Alive? NO...
__________________________________________

Next example: are computers/the internet alive? NO...

however, can a computer reproduce itself. i say NO, but according to the above 'highly skewed' reasoning, i will leave room for a VERY VERY thin, maybe (but JUST for now)...

...ok, i see how you say the internet can 'evolve', humans control the internet, and the 'substance' of the internet is indirectly controlled this way...

are the above alive? NO....
___________________________________________




What makes somethings alive, and NOT others? Well, lets take a scientific approach:

does the item in question have orgainized structures arranged in unit cell(s)?

is the subject in question, capable of chemical and energy transformations?

can the subject in question maintain homeostasis in a changing external enviornment?

can the entity GROW? as to obtain aquisitions in the form of energy from the enviornment, and incoporate it into highly ordered structures?


can the entity respond to external stimuli as to elicit a physiological or behavioral response?

is the subject in question, capable of making copies of itself in the mechanism of dna transfer, as a reproduction?

can the entity evolve? as to change it's form, function or both. or even adapt to new enviornments, through the aquistion of these new forms or functions of the mutating and/or aquired forms?


using the biological perspective, a LIVING ENTITY must satisfy the above requirements...........ALL OF THEM.

Sure, maybe the examples above satisfy one or two, maybe three by a stretch, but does it satisfy ALL of them?

the REAL question, is whether or not a virus should be considered alive or not.....

[RSK]

thx shh!

by the way, this is what i got from dictionary dot com....

life (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

1) The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2) The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
3) Living organisms considered as a group.
4) A living being, especially a person.


i highlighted key words

[Mish]

ok, mish and indi ---> i'm about to BREAK IT DOWN!


__________________________________________
rivers DO adapt to the enviornment: FACT

just as mountains do. Here is an example ----> why are the himalayers so TALL? it's because of the tectonic movements of continental 'shove'...

...therefore, just as rivers adapt to THEIR enviornment, so do Mountains.

are the above Alive? NO...
__________________________________________

Next example: are computers/the internet alive? NO...

however, can a computer reproduce itself. i say NO, but according to the above 'highly skewed' reasoning, i will leave room for a VERY VERY thin, maybe (but JUST for now)...

...ok, i see how you say the internet can 'evolve', humans control the internet, and the 'substance' of the internet is indirectly controlled this way...

are the above alive? NO....
___________________________________________




What makes somethings alive, and NOT others? Well, lets take a scientific approach:

does the item in question have orgainized structures arranged in unit cell(s)?

is the subject in question, capable of chemical and energy transformations?

can the subject in question maintain homeostasis in a changing external enviornment?

can the entity GROW? as to obtain aquisitions in the form of energy from the enviornment, and incoporate it into highly ordered structures?


can the entity respond to external stimuli as to elicit a physiological or behavioral response?

is the subject in question, capable of making copies of itself in the mechanism of dna transfer, as a reproduction?

can the entity evolve? as to change it's form, function or both. or even adapt to new enviornments, through the aquistion of these new forms or functions of the mutating and/or aquired forms?


using the biological perspective, a LIVING ENTITY must satisfy the above requirements...........ALL OF THEM.

Sure, maybe the examples above satisfy one or two, maybe three by a stretch, but does it satisfy ALL of them?

the REAL question, is whether or not a virus should be considered alive or not.....

Okay finished?

Now I will break it down:

1. Rivers and mountains DO NOT adopt to their environement, but rely on externalities as you already mentioned yourself E.g. Tectonic plates to govern their formation. Is this formation formulated or random? This formation is dectated by the direction of the tectonic plates which in turn is affected by other extrenalities such as the magma beneath the earth's crust. So in effect the mountains do no adopt but simply are pushed by extrenalities into shape.

2. Computers alive? Bacteria alive? If bacteria is alive and computers are dead, what do you clasify as being alive? Obviously both can perform similar tasks.

3. Computers can reporduce themselves by creating their clones or replicas.

4. RK, your concepts of life are flawed. Read what the SCIENTISTS have to say about this subject matter:

Life is a multi-faceted concept that may refer to

* the ongoing process of which living things are a part
* the period between the conception (the point at which the entity can be considered to be an individualized being) and death of an organism
* the condition of an entity between conception and death
* that which makes a living thing alive.

Defining the concept of life
How can one tell when an entity is a lifeform? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life[/url]

[Mish]

What makes somethings alive, and NOT others? Well, lets take a scientific approach:

does the item in question have orgainized structures arranged in unit cell(s)?

is the subject in question, capable of chemical and energy transformations?

can the subject in question maintain homeostasis in a changing external enviornment?

can the entity GROW? as to obtain aquisitions in the form of energy from the enviornment, and incoporate it into highly ordered structures?


can the entity respond to external stimuli as to elicit a physiological or behavioral response?

is the subject in question, capable of making copies of itself in the mechanism of dna transfer, as a reproduction?

can the entity evolve? as to change it's form, function or both. or even adapt to new enviornments, through the aquistion of these new forms or functions of the mutating and/or aquired forms?


using the biological perspective, a LIVING ENTITY must satisfy the above requirements...........ALL OF THEM.

Sure, maybe the examples above satisfy one or two, maybe three by a stretch, but does it satisfy ALL of them?

the REAL question, is whether or not a virus should be considered alive or not.....

Here is why your Concepts of life are flawed RK

You have just classified a person in recoverable Coma as officially and clinically dead

(I hope you never become a doctor)

[RSK]

see the next post