Prev: GetModuleFileNameEx on Win7-64-bit?
Next: Windows 7 Qualification and VB6 (RMTool)
From: Kevin Provance on 4 Jul 2010 22:55
TL;DR

All your other posturing aside, the truth as I described it is obvious to
every living human being. You are born, you live for a while and you die.
Hardly up for debate since it happens every day.


"Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote in message
news:i0qske$p28$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
:
: | > In that respect science is a religion
: | >like any other....albeit not a very serviceable one,
: |
: | So, be very careful when you call science a religion. Science is
proven,
: | religion is unproven. They are opposites.
: |
:
: I guess that starts to get into the definition of
: science. Can we say that it's a systematic tool
: involving tests and observations, in order to learn
: information for later practical application? (Saying
: it's proven or that it's the opposite of religion is
: getting into murky territory. There's no commonly
: agreed upon "uber-paradigm" to look at both science
: and religion in a single context.)
:
: OK, so science is a tool. We can use science to
: figure out how much heat we need to make coffee
: and then we'll be able to have our breakfast. That's
: very handy.
:
: But you left out the first part of my comment --
: science as a belief system. It's fine as a tool. But
: by nature we like to think we know what's going on...
: or at least that we can find out. We begin to believe.
: Then we forget that our beliefs are themselves tools.
: Thus Kevin referred to his beliefs as truth, implying
: that there's one fundamental truth that defines reality.
:
: Most modern people have a similar outlook. We
: apply scientific notions far beyond the realm of
: science. *We make value judgements based on
: science* without even realizing it. That's not science.
: It's dogma...which is what scientific view thinks
: religion is.
:
: There's a giant irony there: According to the
: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (science), there's
: really no such thing as objective observation. The
: act of observation affects what is observed. Yet
: the myth of objectivity is the cornerstone of
: science. The *religion* of science *believes* in
: objectivity.
:
: When you go to bed tonight you might dream
: about discussing insurance rates with a zebra. Is
: that "just a dream"? How can you know? Where's
: objective observation there? If you say, "Of course
: it's just a dream!" then you've made an unscientific
: value judgement with no objective data to back it
: up.
:
: There's a well known experiment psychologists
: have done where they do something like send a man
: in a gorilla suit, riding a unicycle, onto a basketball
: court. Nobody in the stands notices the man because
: that perception is simply too discordant with what
: they think is happening. (Some of those people are
: no doubt scientists, too. They're the ones who KNOW
: what they saw. :)
:
:
:
:
:

From: Kevin Provance on 4 Jul 2010 22:56

"Viken Cerpovna" <viken(a)spam.com> wrote in message
news:i0rbq5$p8j$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
: That would explain a lot.
:
: He's right about the bully part. I don't know much about you but I've read
a
: number of your posts. You're one caustic individual.

And?

From: Larry Serflaten on 5 Jul 2010 01:40

"Kevin Provance" <k(a)p.c> wrote
>
> All your other posturing aside, the truth as I described it is obvious to
> every living human being. You are born, you live for a while and you die.
> Hardly up for debate since it happens every day.


Doesn't that invalidate the conservation of energy? The law of conservation
of energy is also observable to every living human being. It states that
energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Even while some people are
more energetic than others, (:-) where does that life force go when it no
longer energises the dead body?

There is obviously a difference between a living person and a dead
corpse, so the question is how to describe that difference, without
including some form of energy? As soon as energy is involved, you
are faced with the emphirical evidense of the law of conservation
and have to admit that energy must go somewhere....

I thought I would just toss that into the mix....

<g>
LFS







From: Michael Cole on 5 Jul 2010 02:33
Larry Serflaten wrote on 5/07/2010 :
> "Kevin Provance" <k(a)p.c> wrote
>>
>> All your other posturing aside, the truth as I described it is obvious to
>> every living human being. You are born, you live for a while and you die.
>> Hardly up for debate since it happens every day.
>
>
> Doesn't that invalidate the conservation of energy? The law of conservation
> of energy is also observable to every living human being. It states that
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Even while some people are
> more energetic than others, (:-) where does that life force go when it no
> longer energises the dead body?
>
> There is obviously a difference between a living person and a dead
> corpse, so the question is how to describe that difference, without
> including some form of energy? As soon as energy is involved, you
> are faced with the emphirical evidense of the law of conservation
> and have to admit that energy must go somewhere....
>
> I thought I would just toss that into the mix....

Ah, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. People are not closed systems. The energy can
either go up in smoke, or act to energise worms, depending on how the
corpse is treated.

Or are you inferring that there is some sort of mystical energy that
powers us?

--
Michael Cole


From: Larry Serflaten on 5 Jul 2010 04:45

"Michael Cole" <invalid(a)microsoft.com> wrote

> > There is obviously a difference between a living person and a dead
> > corpse, so the question is how to describe that difference, without
> > including some form of energy?
>
> Ah, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. People are not closed systems. The energy can
> either go up in smoke, or act to energise worms, depending on how the
> corpse is treated.
>
> Or are you inferring that there is some sort of mystical energy that
> powers us?


I don't know about mystical, I like things more black and white. Either
it can be explained, or it can't, and 'mystical' is some gray area between
the two.

Energise worms? That would mean the worms would have to be gnawing
on the flesh at the moment of death! I'm thinking about typical natural
causes; a guy goes to sleep and never wakes up. One minute he's breathing,
the next, not. What was lost in the transition?

LFS


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: GetModuleFileNameEx on Win7-64-bit?
Next: Windows 7 Qualification and VB6 (RMTool)