Present Evidence Here II

[TheCloser]

My reaction after reading the last several pages:


Edit: 666 posts! Woot!

yeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.  And no matter how much we teach them, they will no sooner understand then a dog understands anything past

"come here boy."  or  "fetch."  But that dog controls many of the choices the owner has in life doesn't it?

[Blackleaf]

yeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.  And no matter how much we teach them, they will no sooner understand then a dog understands anything past

"come here boy."  or  "fetch."  But that dog controls many of the choices the owner has in life doesn't it?

Seems to me no one understands what the hell you're saying. You think yourself a teacher of rare knowledge? If no one understands the teacher, the fault lies with the teacher, not the students. But I don't think you have any knowledge to share. Only meaningless nonsense.

[TheCloser]

Seems to me no one understands what the hell you're saying. You think yourself a teacher of rare knowledge? If no one understands the teacher, the fault lies with the teacher, not the students. But I don't think you have any knowledge to share. Only meaningless nonsense.

seems to me I am not fighting you about this.  The information I am using is basic college level science. 

If you have a hypothesis I am willing to listen.

[Hydra009]

The words inaccurate and precision apply your measurement system.

By your measurements we can call a basket ball a planet.

Hilarious.  2/10 troll.

"the same stuff" is not what I implied or said

This is only partially correct.  While those weren't your exact words, you've repeatedly claimed that humans and the universe as a whole are alive and submitted as proof (laughably, btw) that they're both made out of atoms - i.e. the same stuff.  This erroneously assumes that the properties of a part the universe is true for the whole of the universe.

yeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Too late for that.

[TheCloser]

Hilarious.  2/10 troll.
This is only partially correct.  While those weren't your exact words, you've repeatedly claimed that humans and the universe as a whole are alive and submitted as proof (laughably, btw) that they're both made out of atoms - i.e. the same stuff.
Too late for that.

yeah, mocking without observational support does not lessen the validity of the claim.  You'll have to do a better job then cutting and pasting a fallacy from wiki.  your comparison between the the interactions that make up the earth and the interactions within a rock are inaccurate. There really is nothing to add.

Your measuring device is also flat out wrong.  By your measurement device a basketball and the earth are the same thing.  Or a rock and the earth are the same thing based on your picture.  Both of those claims are just flat out wrong.  Logical fallacy has nothing to do with it.

Come up with another hypothesis that is based on what we do know or at least using the proper comparisons.  I mean there is nothing to talk about with you until you correct the measurements. 

[Baruch]

That is the problem with materialists ... only things outside themselves is true, anything inside is false ... but that is a self judgement, not a judgement of reality.

[TheCloser]

That is the problem with materialists ... only things outside themselves is real, anything inside is false ... but that is a self judgement, not a judgement of reality.

the question is why the emotional investment in their rejection?  Basically "whats the big deal claiming the biosphere looks alive?"

The claim is not irrational but the aggressive nature of rejection is.  Unless of course he is willing to talk about why he is rejecting it so vehemently.  The facts I am using are in any high school or college science textbooks.  Degrasse, witten, even suskind, to a lessor degree, talk to these notions.
   

[Blackleaf]

seems to me I am not fighting you about this.  The information I am using is basic college level science. 

If you have a hypothesis I am willing to listen.

As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.

[Baruch]

the question is why the emotional investment in their rejection?  Basically "whats the big deal claiming the biosphere looks alive?"

The claim is not irrational but the aggressive nature of rejection is.  Unless of course he is willing to talk about why he is rejecting it so vehemently.  The facts I am using are in any high school or college science textbooks.  Degrasse, witten, even suskind, to a lessor degree, talk to these notions.
   

People aren't very introspective in general.  They don't know themselves, and don't want to know.  Also they don't like themselves or are afraid that if they know themselves, they won't feel good about it.  These are legitimate concerns.  Can one "bull" one's way past one's own inhibitions?

I find nothing controversial about what you say (in a secular sense).  But people like to not only categorize (life vs non-life), they like to keep them separate ... don't mix their peas with their carrots.  Fact is, experience is messy, it doesn't fit into neat cubicles.  And materialists are in denial that anything is alive.  They are semi-nihilists.

[Mike Cl]

As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.

Hey, Blackleaf, congratulations on your degree!!  Not easy.  My daughter has a degree in psychology, but went into education instead of the field of psychology.

[TheCloser]

As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.

Yeah, this is irrational.  I think you guys are just messing around now.  You are rejecting the idea that the biosphere alive for something other than reason, commonsense, and logic.   

Is there is a personal reason that you just smash it with claims that counter observations? 

[TheCloser]

People aren't very introspective in general.  They don't know themselves, and don't want to know.  Also they don't like themselves or are afraid that if they know themselves, they won't feel good about it.  These are legitimate concerns.  Can one "bull" one's way past one's own inhibitions?

I find nothing controversial about what you say (in a secular sense).  But people like to not only categorize (life vs non-life), they like to keep them separate ... don't mix their peas with their carrots.  Fact is, experience is messy, it doesn't fit into neat cubicles.  And materialists are in denial that anything is alive.  They are semi-nihilists.

well, the claim the biosphere matches "life" more than it matches "non life" is easy stuff.  Their rejecting of it is more do to a brain state then another thing thing.  They offered no counter claim, no observations, and no mechanisms that will make predictions.  They did mock, miss quote, and change meaning.  Errr, yeah, that's rational right there.

They must just be kids playing around because its just so nonsensical. 

They may be just trying to squash the idea because they feel it is dangerous.  But the question is, these guys are clearly in no position to make the call with arts degrees. 

why would they feel that they have enough experience to hide how the universe works?  Or why would they think that what they know is enough?

what gives with that?

[Mike Cl]

Closer, I'm confused--what is the point of your discussion?  Just that the universe itself is alive?  Or that life exists in the biosphere? 

This is what the National Geographic site has to say of the biosphere:  "The biosphere is made up of the parts of Earth where life exists. The biosphere extends from the deepest root systems of trees, to the dark environment of ocean trenches, to lush rain forests and high mountaintops.

Scientists describe the Earth in terms of spheres. The solid surface layer of the Earth is the lithosphere. The atmosphere is the layer of air that stretches above the lithosphere. The Earth’s waterâ€"on the surface, in the ground, and in the airâ€"makes up the hydrosphere.

Since life exists on the ground, in the air, and in the water, the biosphere overlaps all these spheres. Although the biosphere measures about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from top to bottom, almost all life exists between about 500 meters (1,640 feet) below the ocean’s surface to about 6 kilometers (3.75 miles) above sea level."

I would say that life exists within the biosphere; but not that the biosphere itself is alive.  Do you contend that the biosphere itself is alive?

[Blackleaf]

Yeah, this is irrational.  I think you guys are just messing around now.  You are rejecting the idea that the biosphere alive for something other than reason, commonsense, and logic.   

Is there is a personal reason that you just smash it with claims that counter observations?

Show me one peer-reviewed article that supports your argument. If your argument is supported by scientific observations, you should have no trouble.

[Blackleaf]

Hey, Blackleaf, congratulations on your degree!!  Not easy.  My daughter has a degree in psychology, but went into education instead of the field of psychology.

That's what I'm planning to do. lol

With a Masters, I qualify to teach at community college. If I get a Doctorate, I could teach at higher levels, but I'm not sure I have the energy to go for that. The Master's thesis was almost enough to kill me.