The Intelligent People's Thread

its too bad that buffalo are endangered species... but thats why their a delicacy I guess.

Sean Trane wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: How can you force yourself to have beliefs?  That's ridiculous.  If you don't believe in a god without deciding "well, I guess its benefitial to be a monotheist," then you are agnostic at most, as you aren't really convinced.  Besides, dont you think an omniscient being would see right through that?   Well, all beliefs are personal choices, whether you are conscious of them or not, many people choose to be atheist (which is a set of beliefs - god doesn't exist etc...).  I disagree.  I hypothesize that religious beliefs are found on non-coding DNA.  Come to think of it, that's probably the origin of the term "junk DNA." As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a Metaphysical Idealist and don't believe in matter or DNA and don't believe that science is really a worthwhile pursuit, so I'm afraid I find that meaningless... (everything is merely an idea) That doesn't mean that you can't find the idea of religious beliefs to be correlated with the idea of DNA.  DNA is illogical by my understanding; it reflects how matter is divisble and how it is assumable that it can be predicted in its many forms.  I, as a collection of ideas and processes, find that the two are unrelated.  There is just as much evidence for that as that there is a small dwarf living in my soul that causes me to dream when I desist my active thinking.   DNA seems logical enough on the process side - we start out as a small seed, we need some kind of map or blueprint to do all of the growing and mundane living stuff (such as breathing, telling ourselves we are hungry/sleepy/thirsty, etc.) that we cannot do by intellect.   That much is programming, and for a programme to run, there must be code - and also a compiler, a service that talks to a hardware abstraction layer such that it can control the hardware without user intervention, a CPU to do all the grunt work - and so on - all stuff you as a set of ideas cannot stop without extreme intervention.    So I would posit that it is your "CPU" (or rather, a "service" acting on its behalf - since all CPUs do is process information - they are not "intelligent"), runs a necessary background task at night, while your other processes are inactive, that causes dreams.    Dreams are messages from the essence of the universe (the ancient matter that you are made from), that you can either bother to work out and act upon (and possibly interpret correctly or incorrectly), or dismiss as an irrelevancy.     As I said earlier in the thread, the entire universe, multiverse, or whatever we "prove" it is with our unified theory, is just a computer simulation with fuzzy logic - artificial intelligence governed by rules. And we're all trying to work out what those rules are - but the joke in the code is that if you look to hard, they change.   And it was all made by a turtle.   That probably had/has quite a penis.           IS THERE AYMORE OF THAT 86 PAUILLAC AROUND???       I thought thiswas for intelligent people.   Discussing religions is then not part of this thread

unfortunately, all I've got is some cheap chardonnay, Firepuck walked off with the Pauillac.

But, yeah, that got pretty far out of hand;  so, I suggest a switch in topics

while, discussing religion isn't part of this thread, eating penises is!  (I made the switch to buffalo)

rileydog22 wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   That much is programming, and for a programme to run, there must be code - and also a compiler, a service that talks to a hardware abstraction layer such that it can control the hardware without user intervention, a CPU to do all the grunt work - and so on - all stuff you as a set of ideas cannot stop without extreme intervention.    So I would posit that it is your "CPU" (or rather, a "service" acting on its behalf - since all CPUs do is process information - they are not "intelligent"), runs a necessary background task at night, while your other processes are inactive, that causes dreams. That's not a very accurate statement of what DNA does.  All DNA does is show how proteins are made.  It doesn't perform any tasks or control thoughts/dreams, it merely allows the body to make the proteins that do.  BTW, I was joking about the Non-coding DNA; nobody really knows what it does, so I sometimes claim that it controls ridiculous things like religious beliefs or your sense of humor.

 

Edited by Certif1ed - May 05 2007 at 13:56

Certif1ed wrote:   That much is programming, and for a programme to run, there must be code - and also a compiler, a service that talks to a hardware abstraction layer such that it can control the hardware without user intervention, a CPU to do all the grunt work - and so on - all stuff you as a set of ideas cannot stop without extreme intervention.    So I would posit that it is your "CPU" (or rather, a "service" acting on its behalf - since all CPUs do is process information - they are not "intelligent"), runs a necessary background task at night, while your other processes are inactive, that causes dreams.

That's not a very accurate statement of what DNA does.  All DNA does is show how proteins are made.  It doesn't perform any tasks or control thoughts/dreams, it merely allows the body to make the proteins that do. 

BTW, I was joking about the Non-coding DNA; nobody really knows what it does, so I sometimes claim that it controls ridiculous things like religious beliefs or your sense of humor. 


Edited by rileydog22 - May 05 2007 at 11:25

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that) Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?  I didn't say he didn't, but if he did, it would, by human logic make more sense to advertise the fact (I wouldn't assume he would use human logic though).  It would be just as easy to assume that what I am writing is the will of God (just a pointless and meaningless assertion, because if God did so without notifying anyone, what difference would it make) I personally choose to believe that Whitman wasn't divinely inspired. Perhaps God is attempting to advertise that you wrote the previous post by his will through this post. such a claim is worthless to anyone but yourself unless you have some definitive evidence on the matter There isn't any definative evidence behind any other claim of the word of god.  Seems like my claim is as good as anyones.  except that the other claims had witnesses and miracles and other forms of "evidence" yours has you saying that it might be true - not the same There were no witnesses to Mohammed recieving the word of god, nor were there witnesses to Moses recieving the 10 commandments.  My claim is as good as either of those.

Well, I'm not a Muslim, and there were witnesses on Sinai with Moses, holding up his arms (reread your Bible).  Moses also performed miracles and had a pillar of fire following his people around and when he came down from Sinai his face was glowing like the sun.

But, yeah, what we're doing right now is facing off our bliks, which are (according to R.M. Hare) personal ideas about how the world works, which are often improvable and can't be disproven, because everything in the university (according to our senses at least) is relative to something else and based upon assumption.

So we could keep going from here (and likely not get anywhere) or eat another bull penis and go to sleep.

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that) Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?  I didn't say he didn't, but if he did, it would, by human logic make more sense to advertise the fact (I wouldn't assume he would use human logic though).  It would be just as easy to assume that what I am writing is the will of God (just a pointless and meaningless assertion, because if God did so without notifying anyone, what difference would it make) I personally choose to believe that Whitman wasn't divinely inspired. Perhaps God is attempting to advertise that you wrote the previous post by his will through this post. such a claim is worthless to anyone but yourself unless you have some definitive evidence on the matter There isn't any definative evidence behind any other claim of the word of god.  Seems like my claim is as good as anyones.

except that the other claims had witnesses and miracles and other forms of "evidence" yours has you saying that it might be true - not the same

rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that) Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?  I didn't say he didn't, but if he did, it would, by human logic make more sense to advertise the fact (I wouldn't assume he would use human logic though).  It would be just as easy to assume that what I am writing is the will of God (just a pointless and meaningless assertion, because if God did so without notifying anyone, what difference would it make) I personally choose to believe that Whitman wasn't divinely inspired. Perhaps God is attempting to advertise that you wrote the previous post by his will through this post.

such a claim is worthless to anyone but yourself unless you have some definitive evidence on the matter

Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that) Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?  I didn't say he didn't, but if he did, it would, by human logic make more sense to advertise the fact (I wouldn't assume he would use human logic though).  It would be just as easy to assume that what I am writing is the will of God (just a pointless and meaningless assertion, because if God did so without notifying anyone, what difference would it make) I personally choose to believe that Whitman wasn't divinely inspired.

Perhaps God is attempting to advertise that you wrote the previous post by his will through this post.

Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: How can you force yourself to have beliefs?  That's ridiculous.  If you don't believe in a god without deciding "well, I guess its benefitial to be a monotheist," then you are agnostic at most, as you aren't really convinced.  Besides, dont you think an omniscient being would see right through that?   Well, all beliefs are personal choices, whether you are conscious of them or not, many people choose to be atheist (which is a set of beliefs - god doesn't exist etc...).  I disagree.  I hypothesize that religious beliefs are found on non-coding DNA.  Come to think of it, that's probably the origin of the term "junk DNA." As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a Metaphysical Idealist and don't believe in matter or DNA and don't believe that science is really a worthwhile pursuit, so I'm afraid I find that meaningless... (everything is merely an idea)

That doesn't mean that you can't find the idea of religious beliefs to be correlated with the idea of DNA. 

Atomic_Rooster wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Atomic_Rooster wrote: true, true, yet I personally wouldn't base my entire set of beliefs on the ideas set forth in a poem (poetic truth is different than scientific truth and philosophical truth - and I'm a poet) Well, a majority of the people on this planet base their beliefs on a religious text of some form or another.  I don't see why it can't be in the form of a poem.  religious texts claim religious authority, while poems claim only personal authority (and not even that at times).  A poem is an expression of the self, not an expression of the divine, so if God wrote a poem, then it would be logical (in a religious fashion) to base beliefs on that)

Who says that God DIDNT write it through Walt Whitman's hands?  If he supposedly did that for the Torah, Bible, Koran, etc., why not Song of Myself?