NORTH-AMERICAN RAELIAN SEMINAR : 23 Mar 2008 - 29 Mar 2008

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: 3NF
2 + 2 = 4

Yes?

Does that mean that 2 is whole, or can we say that

(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4

?

Huh???

2 is layer ... you can except it as it is, or question it ...

To take it one step further...

you could say 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... =4

Really!

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: 3NF
2 + 2 = 4

Yes?

Does that mean that 2 is whole, or can we say that

(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4

?

Huh???

2 is layer ... you can except it as it is, or question it ...

To take it one step further...

you could say 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... =4

Really!

I think that proves my point even more .. you're providing another way to say why "4" is.

Now the harsh question is this ... if 4 is really (1+1) + (1+1), rather than 2+2, which society ACCEPTS, do those people deserve to benefit from what (1+1) + (1+1) can provide to society, even though they think 2+2 is the answer?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: 3NF
We can't regenerate lost limbs? Are you serious? You aren't a scientist .. it's going to happen .. or should I say, already has? The problem is that you read ANANDTECH everyday, and you think you are smarter because of it ...

The truth isn't going to come to you .... you NEED to find it yourself.

Good luck ...

um, we can't regenerate lost limbs. You seriously want to argue that we can?

If we ever gain the ability to, then we are intervening in our own way and are putting our problem-solving and tool-using skills to work. That is all.

We are a dumb creature, but we have all these things around us that makes us appear smart. Books, the ability to master tools and technology. We simply figured out how to manipulate things to do the work we want done. Probably started with an ape figuring out a bone could be used as a club to kill (as seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey).

We are an emotive species, which is our downfall. We have created society, morality, and religion. These things are our worst products. Society is great, mind you, but is a breeding ground for the worst of man. Religion. Do we really need to worship something we can't see? Why not just live life like every other creature, in which life means 3 things: you will be born, you'll procreate, and you'll die. Oh, because that's just wrong. We can't be here for the sole purpose of making babies. That's a boring life. So we have morals. Sex is a pleasure-driven event for humans, which there is a reason for that: to persuade life to reproduce, so that life can continue. But, it's wrong to have sex as much as we want, or out of wedlock, as so many argue. It's also morally wrong to put someone out of their misery. It's wrong to wish death upon people, or kill people, or so many other things. And it's wrong to refuse medical treatment to people who 'need it'. Modern medicine is another problem of life these days. People who, in nature, would be dying, are now able to survive and reproduce further. We are diluting the gene pool, not to mention further preserving the very genes we as a creature DON'T want to exist. Hell, that 8-limbed girl of recent. How the hell do we know that those extra limbs wouldn't have proven useful for a human. Because it goes against what we are now, it is deemed wrong. There could be so many good things that could happen to humans through the course of future evolution, but we are preventing that from even happening. Because, as a species, we are effing retarded. And I bet any other intelligent life that would view us, would say the same damned thing. Look at those retarded life forms... what the hell are they doing?

The creation of life is a random event, and in reality, the Universe has no benefits to even allowing life to exist. It's a disease. But since the Universe is structured and operates the way it does, life can exist if it can find a way to maintain its own survival. Possibilities are endless. Once life begins though, and receives the benefit of having a way to pass on its genetic coding to future offspring, it innately wants to continue to live. The world is a harsh place, and life either adapts to survive, or dies. Successful lifeforms adapt completely from within, and can live with no assistance. Most humans would perish without artificial assistance that we have created. Sure, it can be argued we have provided ourselves with the tools to survive. That's neat and all, and proves how good we are with using tools and problem solving, because that's our only tricks in life, but education provides the ability to continually build on the work of our predecessors and things grow more and more complicated.

+

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: 3NF
2 + 2 = 4

Yes?

Does that mean that 2 is whole, or can we say that

(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4

?

Huh???

2 is layer ... you can except it as it is, or question it ...

To take it one step further...

you could say 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... =4

Really!

I think that proves my point even more .. you're providing another way to say why "4" is.

Now the harsh question is this ... if 4 is really (1+1) + (1+1), rather than 2+2, which society ACCEPTS, do those people deserve to benefit from what (1+1) + (1+1) can provide to society, even though they think 2+2 is the answer?

because all math is based on the ability to quantify in the most simplest means...

Why the hell would you write (1+1)+(1+1) when you could write 2+2? That logic continues when you get into the more advanced maths. Sure, it doesn't mean much as the most simple level, but if you want to unsimplify math, have fun working with complicated equations.

math is about quantities. Everything is some kind of quantity in relation to something else. How many degrees are in a circle? That's a quantity, in which a reliable and consistent quantity exists.
That is another reason why it could be written as 2+2 or 1+1+1+1. Is it four quantities of 1 that are being added together? Or is it two quantities of 2? When you add more characters to 2+2 to make it (1+1)+(1+1), you are using more characters than necessary. Right there, it says two quantities, of which both equal 2. Since math works in such a way that you solve the parenthesis first, you are merely creating MORE work than needs to be done, and adding more characters than necessary. You're argument would have been sooo much better if you stated 1+1+1+1 instead of using parenthesis, but you'd still have been wrong except for the single situation where it would be correct.

+

your logic is flawed and makes my head hurt.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: 3NF
2 + 2 = 4

Yes?

Does that mean that 2 is whole, or can we say that

(1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4

?

Huh???

2 is layer ... you can except it as it is, or question it ...

To take it one step further...

you could say 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... + 0.999... =4

Really!

I think that proves my point even more .. you're providing another way to say why "4" is.

Now the harsh question is this ... if 4 is really (1+1) + (1+1), rather than 2+2, which society ACCEPTS, do those people deserve to benefit from what (1+1) + (1+1) can provide to society, even though they think 2+2 is the answer?

You sound like the journalist guy from apocalypse now... hope you wake up from whatever you're doing at the moment. For the record, the above is nothing but incoherent drivel, as are most of our arguments. You basically are going off some whacko theory that has no evidence/proof/basis, but the idea that ET will come and get *YOU* makes you feel good about yourself.

""do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"..."

 

[Jeff7]

Destrekor - impressive writeup, as usual.

This is probably an exercise in futility, as such threads generally are.

Originally posted by: destrekor
The creation of life is a random event, and in reality, the Universe has no benefits to even allowing life to exist. It's a disease. But since the Universe is structured and operates the way it does, life can exist if it can find a way to maintain its own survival. Possibilities are endless. Once life begins though, and receives the benefit of having a way to pass on its genetic coding to future offspring, it innately wants to continue to live. The world is a harsh place, and life either adapts to survive, or dies. Successful lifeforms adapt completely from within, and can live with no assistance. Most humans would perish without artificial assistance that we have created. Sure, it can be argued we have provided ourselves with the tools to survive. That's neat and all, and proves how good we are with using tools and problem solving, because that's our only tricks in life, but education provides the ability to continually build on the work of our predecessors and things grow more and more complicated.

+

Life is a disease. I like that.
It infects a world, and the infection cannot be easily cured, despite it only being a coating on the planet.
Soon, it will evolve the ability to move beyond that one rockball, taking a little bubble of its own environment with it, and make its way to another rockball in some other part of space, and soon the thin film of life will develop there as well.



Concerning the (1+1) bit, I don't even know what the argument there is supposed to be. "2 is layer" -
"1+1" and "2" are simply two ways of describing the same thing. Mathematics is nothing more than a language used to describe the way reality works.

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Destrekor - impressive writeup, as usual.

This is probably an exercise in futility, as such threads generally are.

Originally posted by: destrekor
The creation of life is a random event, and in reality, the Universe has no benefits to even allowing life to exist. It's a disease. But since the Universe is structured and operates the way it does, life can exist if it can find a way to maintain its own survival. Possibilities are endless. Once life begins though, and receives the benefit of having a way to pass on its genetic coding to future offspring, it innately wants to continue to live. The world is a harsh place, and life either adapts to survive, or dies. Successful lifeforms adapt completely from within, and can live with no assistance. Most humans would perish without artificial assistance that we have created. Sure, it can be argued we have provided ourselves with the tools to survive. That's neat and all, and proves how good we are with using tools and problem solving, because that's our only tricks in life, but education provides the ability to continually build on the work of our predecessors and things grow more and more complicated.

+

Life is a disease. I like that.
It infects a world, and the infection cannot be easily cured, despite it only being a coating on the planet.
Soon, it will evolve the ability to move beyond that one rockball, taking a little bubble of its own environment with it, and make its way to another rockball in some other part of space, and soon the thin film of life will develop there as well.



Concerning the (1+1) bit, I don't even know what the argument there is supposed to be. "2 is layer" -
"1+1" and "2" are simply two ways of describing the same thing. Mathematics is nothing more than a language used to describe the way reality works.

Impressive? Not. The creation of life is a random event? Will you say the same thing when we create life ourselves? Take a look at the work of Dr. Craig Venter, where his team is creating chromosomes synthetically out of nothing other than chemicals. I wouldn't be surprised that if by the end of this century we will be creating life completely from the ground up.

The (1+1) versus 2 is meant to be an analogy, obviously. The observation is 4, the explanation can either be 2+2 or (1+1)+(1+1). Comparing this to evolution, the observation is that the genetic makeup of all species is strikingly similar, even down to the simplest forms of life. The explanation is then we all started from this simple form of life, which evolved through random mutations and natural selection to what we see today.

But let's propose a different explanation. What if that first form of life was designed and created, by a species similar to us? Then, they discover if they tweak that or this, they get something a bit different? Similar to computer code where I have function written to "GrowMeAFin". However, if I tweak that function just a bit I have "GrowMeAnArm". On the surface, both are incredibly similar but only a small part of the code is different. Similar to genetic code. So my explanation is saying that life is an evolution of science and art - an evolution in the techniques of creation.

Going back to Venter's work, one of their potential applications of the process they've created is to design a form of bacteria that could be used to suck up CO2. The DNA to do that is completely artificial, although it does have to be injected into a host of which most of its DNA has been removed. The end result is a synthetic life form.

Now suppose a team of evolutionists come across this synthetic life form and assume this team has never heard of Venter's work nor the ability to create life synthetically. From their point of view, they will find it easy to say that this bacteria evolved in response to the excessive build up of CO2 on the planet, when in reality that's not the case at all. How do you tell the difference between evolution by chance versus evolution of design and creation?

If you want to believe that all the life around us is nothing more than random events, so be it. That's your choice. I on the other hand want to be one of those, like Venter, that is creating life. Life that serves a purpose, combined with a sense of art to make it aesthetically pleasing Well, my first application would be to create some form of bacteria, maybe a nanobot instead, that attaches itself to grass blades. The purpose of this bacteria will be to chew the grass, keeping its length at precisely X inches, similar to how goats never quite eat all of the grass. I'm getting tired of mowing

 

[jpeyton]

I'm not going to comment on Raelians, but as a biochemistry graduate with university research experience, I'll echo what was said about the upcoming advances of this century.

If, and only if, humanity doesn't allow war to destroy society and turn back the clock on scientific research, we'll be able to cure or prevent against most diseases by 2050. HIV/AIDS, most types of cancer, diabetes, etc.

DNA is the essence of life. Remember that a completed map of the human genome was only released 5 years ago. Computing power is increasing at a geometric rate, and so will the speed at which we can run genetic engineering simulations. The "biological" revolution is the next big undertaking for humanity; it's the quest to make ourselves a more perfect species.