Hi

[Cavebear]

Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?

OK, you asked for it...

https://www.google.com/search?nlpd391lnw=1&st=ds&u_ip=100.15.37.215&obt9bpdyed=1&q=charli+and+the+mta

The lyrics...

"Well, let me tell you of the story of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day
He put ten cents in his pocket, kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA
Well, did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (what a pity)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie handed in his dime at the Kendall Square station
And he changed for Jamaica Plain
When he got there the conductor told him, "one more nickel"
Charlie couldn't get off of that train!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (poor old Charlie)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Now, all night long Charlie rides through the station
Crying, "what will become of me?
How can I afford to see my sister in Chelsea
Or my cousin in Roxbury?"
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (shame and scandal)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Charlie's wife goes down to the Scollay Square station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window she hands Charlie a sandwich
As the train comes rumbling through!
But did he ever return?
No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned (he may ride forever)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
Pick it Davey
Kinda hurts my figers
Now, you citizens of Boston, don't you think it's a scandal
How the people have to pay and pay?
Fight the fare increase, vote for George O'Brian
Get poor Charlie off the MTA!
Or else he'll never return
No he'll never return and his fate is still unlearned (just like Paul Revere)
He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
He's the man who never returned
Et tu, Charlie?"

[Mike Cl]

Ah, yes--'neath the streets........................

[Baruch]

Isn't he riding the streets of Boston forever.............................?

Dilbert's father never returned from the food court at the Mall, because he was at an all-you-can-eat ... and he never got full .. he simply changed that to his place of residence ;-)

[Unbeliever]

I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.

[Unbeliever]

OK, here is the reference you were seeking.  In rabbinic theology, they build a "fence around the Torah".

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fence-around-the-Torah

In other words, to give additional guarantees that a violation isn't committed (by man or G-d).  This had to do with warning signs and fences that help to prevent inadvertent violation of the sanctity of the Temple in Herodian times.  But also, it could be used to refer to interpretation that is designed to protect G-d's reputation.  Hence the invention of the Devil in the Book of Job (the only place in orthodox Jewish scripture where the devil is mentioned) so that G-d doesn't have to take responsibility for what happens to Job.  In other words, to deal with the theodicy problem (why is there evil).

I specifically disagree with this, I see no reason to protect G-d's reputation in theory or in fact, in theology or in scripture.  Apostle Paul for instance dealt with this by simply saying like at the end of the Book of Job, that G-d is mysterious, all-powerful and you should SFTU.  St Augustine dealt with people with too many questions from the congregation with "G-d devised Hell to deal with people like that".  In other words, pagans, heretics and skeptics should be excommunicated from synagogue or church, for being annoying.

The book of Job can be summed up with 3 words: might makes right.

[Baruch]

With G-d, you bet your sweet bippy - Laugh In

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UMr469p3Mg

[Unbeliever]

Oh, good! I always wondered what a bippy was - now I know!

[trdsf]

If consciousness doesn't need the brain, then why didn't humans have a higher consciousness millions of years ago?

For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?

[Baruch]

For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?

If radio doesn't need a receiver/transmitter, why bother with developed devices?  There are natural radio waves, that aren't human caused.

[Arik]

For that matter, if consciousness doesn't need a brain, why bother with biological evolution in the first place?

Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.

Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.

I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.

[Baruch]

Next time I see Darwin around I will make sure that he will explain to everybody that small form of life such as plants and animals are guided by mother nature or what we know as instinct so plants do not need a brain and animals only need a simple brain and the brain get more and more complex as lower form of lives turn into humans.

Brain or not brain consciousness is there anyway because even plants that do not have a brain react under good or bad conditions.

I will scold Darwin for not explaining that in the first place.
I promise.

Plants do react, with means other than neurons.  But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom.  Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.

[Arik]

Plants do react, with means other than neurons.  But animals are speciesist when it comes to the nearly defenseless plant kingdom.  Liberate plants now, plant a giant Venus Fly Trap today.

I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.

[Baruch]

I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.

Materialism is a part of reductionism.  Reductionism is "over simplification".  So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity.  So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms.  Atomic bigotry perhaps?  Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex.  There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development".  Even individuals do this, not just species.  That is what you are referring to.  I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable.  But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive.  The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago.  Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.

[Baruch]

A musical summary of Arik's position and mine, even though we differ in some ways ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

The rest of you aren't cool.

[Cavebear]

I am quite puzzled by the materialists way of thinking.

On one hand they pretend to be the real believers in evolution but in reality they have no clue as the evolution works.
For them individual evolution come to an end with the physical death.
Consciousness also die when the body die.

No goal to be achieved, nothing and the consciousness that we have come thanks to previous generation.

Gee, that belief is as bad as any religious belief in which good things pop up in a mysterious way for free.

Just incredible.

I never seen anyone who give something for free.
Even pedos give candies to kids for a reason.

OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.

Second, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is.  It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.

Third, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.

Fourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence.  All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.