|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:13:19 [Permalink]
|
That you won't, is not for physical reasons; it's not for intellectual reasons.
So why not? Yet most of us would'nt even think of doing it.
Like every other animal that lives in groups (packs, schools, herds) we have evolved a group dynamic. There is a whole field of science called Animal Behavior that deals with this. These behaviors tend to be simple among animals with small brains (all the sardines in a school turn at the same time) and much more complicated as the animals brain enlarges (Alpha-dog behavior amongst elephant seals) until you get to humans. We call our group dynamic "morals." They have evolved in a completely Darwinian manner and insured the packs survival. As can be witnessed by the fact that groups in different environments evolved different group dynamics (sets of morals) that fit the conditions that the group faces.
Don't tell me you thought it happened by magic, LOL.
--------------------------
Filthy, when people die their respiratory system deflates from their weight press on their lungs (and stomach). This massive exhaling was called "giving up the ghost" because the ancients didn't know what breath was. We still say "Bless you" when somebody sneezes because of this old superstition. And it's why Spirits are invisible--they are made of air. Dead people's bowels also usually evacuate, so the corpse, as you observed, actually is smaller.
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:19:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy, when people die their respiratory system deflates from their weight press on their lungs (and stomach). This massive exhaling was called "giving up the ghost" because the ancients didn't know what breath was. We still say "Bless you" when somebody sneezes because of this old superstition. And it's why Spirits are invisible--they are made of air. Dead people's bowels also usually evacuate, so the corpse, as you observed, actually is smaller.
Yes, of course. As usual, you've said it far better than I.
A corpse of somrone you know also appears shorter, but I think that can be written off to the eye seeing what it wants to see.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:25:25 [Permalink]
|
I'm suggesting that we are (at least) 10-dimensional creatures: 3-dimensions of lumpish stuff (our body); 3-dimensions of intellectual stuff (our "mind"); and 3-dimensions of 'spiritual' stuff (our "spirit" or "soul").
Okey-dokey, but that's only nine "dimensions." Three bags full for the lump, three for the soul and three for the spirit. Would number ten be time then?
I'm not going to get into why you think you are a lump, but I would like to know what the heck you think a dimension is?
--------
filthy, if rigor has had time to set in the bodies muscles would all contract. Shorter might not have been an illusion.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:46:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that we are more civilized because we have a better interface with our "spiritual side". Maybe some day we will become as civilized as Koko or as one of my dogs or even my Cavie. There are many people who would place the civility of of a Manatee or a whale or a Mountain Gorrilla
Um. I fear I must disagree. Historicly, and even today, societies that govern by the 'spriitual' tend to be highly repressive -- Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example. Even here, we see it in the ravings of Rev? Fred Phleps and all too many others.
Which is not to say that all 'spirtual' people are bad people, nor that their beliefs should be supressed. Hey, whatever takes the knot out o' yer knickers, sez I. But, to run a society by these standards ain't gittin' it.
I rather doubt that Koko of your dog worry too much about their 'spirits'. Er, what's a Cavie? Common name for a rodent, perhaps? Mmmm, rodent! I have snakes. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Sorry to regurgitate but the library computer went "ooooghh" before I could complete this posting.
 The regurgitation and its completion:
You make a (slight) distortion, Slater. I am suggesting that we are more than a 3-dimensional lump, allowed action by time.
I'm suggesting that we are (at least) 10-dimensional creatures: 3-dimensions of lumpish stuff (our body); 3-dimensions of intellectual stuff (our "mind"); and 3-dimensions of 'spiritual' stuff (our "spirit" or "soul").
As to the origin of the word "spirit" (--to which word I have NO attachment whatsoever--), I don't care. To be truthful, I think that we have advanced considerably since the ancient times, whether Greek or Chinese or whatever. I don't think that that advancement is because of "the long arm of the UNers" or the Geneva Conventions.
I think that we are more civilized because we have a better interface with our "spiritual side". Maybe some day we will become as civilized as Koko or as one of my dogs or even my Cavie. There are many people who would place the civility of of a Manatee or a whale or a Mountain Gorrilla far above the level of humanity's civility. 
When you writequote:
Originally posted by Slater
Like every other animal that lives in groups (packs, schools, herds) we have evolved a group dynamic.
I do not believe that such "group dynamics" evolved in Space-time (along with the evolution, for example, of the UltraComplex liver). I think that such complicated inter-individual behavior is rooted in the 6 dimensions that the SuperStringTheorists posit.
If it were not for String Theory, I would be saying none of this. Unlike you, though, I would be determinedly agnostic/skeptical about the origins of inter-individual behavior. I would say "I don't know how such behaviors evolved---and neither do you!" (A generic 'you'--not you personally, Slater.)
When I first read a text (--not a popularization--) on String Theory 12 or so years ago, everything suddenly seemed to "come into place".
The string theorists may be wrong, of course; at which time I'll go back to agnosticism: I don't know; and neither do you!" But today we've got string theory as a reasonably respected part of mathematical physics so such things as "group dynamics", angels, misc. spirits, individual intellectual activity, etc. are easily explainable.
I find it all to be a very nice advancement in science. (Or is it? Only time will tell.)
________________________________________
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ah, but now we're talking about simple, human decency.
I agree whole-heartedly. But what is "human decency"? I'd use a different word and call it "spirituality". 
I don't think that this is wordy nit-picking or label-quibbling. I think that there is something more than mere fluke in "decency". I think that some of us have "good spirits"; others have crummy spirits---as in those who rob poor-boxes or blind-men's cups.  My view, anyway.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:09:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I think that we are more civilized because we have a better interface with our "spiritual side". Maybe some day we will become as civilized as Koko or as one of my dogs or even my Cavie. There are many people who would place the civility of of a Manatee or a whale or a Mountain Gorrilla
Um. I fear I must disagree. Historicly, and even today, societies that govern by the 'spriitual' tend to be highly repressive -- Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example. Even here, we see it in the ravings of Rev? Fred Phleps and all too many others.
Which is not to say that all 'spirtual' people are bad people, nor that their beliefs should be supressed. Hey, whatever takes the knot out o' yer knickers, sez I. But, to run a society by these standards ain't gittin' it.
I rather doubt that Koko of your dog worry too much about their 'spirits'. Er, what's a Cavie? Common name for a rodent, perhaps? Mmmm, rodent! I have snakes.
I think that many times on this board, the words "religious" and "spiritual" are mixed up. The religious guys love this; the rest of us just follow along. I see "spiritual" measured as a kind of height (as in 5'10"). You can put on big lift shoes but your height is still 5'10". I think that many religous people put on really "big" spiritual lift-shoes.
You'd HOPE that religious guys would be very good in spirituality but that all-too-often isn't the case. (There's the money; there's the power; there's the prestige.)
_____________________________
A "Guinee Pig" was originally called a "Cavie" for living in Andes caves. I used to have lots of black snakes---and a nice bunch they were: very polite---but the neighbors didn't like snakes and they are now all gone. 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:14:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree whole-heartedly. But what is "human decency"? I'd use a different word and call it "spirituality".
I don't think that this is wordy nit-picking or label-quibbling. I think that there is something more than mere fluke in "decency". I think that some of us have "good spirits"; others have crummy spirits---as in those who rob poor-boxes or blind-men's cups. My view, anyway.
So, what we have here is just a contradiction in thems, meanless because they are basicly the same.
Oddly enough, I am a spiritual man, of sorts. Seeing the first rays of sunlight over the mountains makes me feel really good; seeing a Cottonmouth basking on a log in the swamp makes me feel the same, especally if I can got a good pic of it, but it changes my basic attitudes not at all.
Now, what I know about string theory will fit loosly in a hollow tooth, but if, as I understand it, it allows for angles and demons, why do those angles and demons, and so forth have to be the Christian verson? The theory, I think is a lot broader than that.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Koko is a wonderful person. She is the only true innocent I have ever met. Although admittedly she is spoiled shamelessly. She is a lowland gorilla and not a mountain one.
Gorillas are highly moral creatures in that their group dynamic is even more firmly imprinted on their minds than even ours are. BUT their morals are not human morals. We have to send visitors before they come a fact sheet called "Tips for a successful visit." This sheet is, in effect, gorilla morals. Behavior that we would think nothing of, in fact that we would welcome, is completely unacceptable to gorillas. There was an unfortunate incident once with a famous British naturalist who considering himself an expert in all animals ignored gorilla customs. Koko was later very upset because she knew that she had been "bad stinking devil" to her guest and she apologized profusely. But the fact remains that it was the Brit who was "immoral" (but a damned good sport and very understanding…if after the fact) by gorilla standards.
The Christian church is quite emphatic about animals not having souls (or spirits for that matter) so gorilla morals show that morals aren't supernatural.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:31:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that many times on this board, the words "religious" and "spiritual" are mixed up. The religious guys love this; the rest of us just follow along. I see "spiritual" measured as a kind of height (as in 5'10"). You can put on big lift shoes but your height is still 5'10". I think that many religous people put on really "big" spiritual lift-shoes.
You'd HOPE that religious guys would be very good in spirituality but that all-too-often isn't the case. (There's the money; there's the power; there's the prestige.)
_____________________________
A "Guinee Pig" was originally called a "Cavie" for living in Andes caves. I used to have lots of black snakes---and a nice bunch they were: very polite---but the neighbors didn't like snakes and they are now all gone.
Mmmmm, guinea pig! My 4' Puff Adder (Bitis arietans) is two weeks into processing a fat one, even as I write. Sorry about your Blackies. They're neat snakes. Were they Elaphe obsoleta? I do snake removals for those every summer. Very common around here.
I think I see where you're coming from, now. Took me long enough.
Still, I feel that there is no evidence for what I consider the supernatural. Perhaps, one day I'll be proven wrong, and I can look up Slater and we'll cry in our beers. But 'till then....
Actually, I'd like to be proven wrong. I enjoy fantasies a great deal. How wonderful if some of them were real!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:36:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
There's the blind guy on a city street corner with no one else around. His cup is full of loot.
Do you mug him, taking his money, with no way of ever getting caught?
Why not? You can't get hurt; you can't get caught; it's the 'smart' thing to do since you'll end up with the loot.
That you won't, is not for physical reasons; it's not for intellectual reasons.
So why not? Yet most of us would'nt even think of doing it.
Phineas Gage would.
Morals are simply another part of the brain's function. PhDreamer can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the part of the brain responsible for our "morality" is the frontal lobe (or located somewhere up front). This is why children are cruel and rotten when they're real young (generally speaking, of course. ), because that part of the brain hasn't developed fully yet.
Another example would simply be drug effects. Give someone a hit of PCP, maybe throw in some LSD and cocaine (but not enough to kill them). Their "morals" usually take an extended vacation. How is this possible if the mind and spirit are separate? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:49:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Koko is a wonderful person. She is the only true innocent I have ever met. Although admittedly she is spoiled shamelessly. She is a lowland gorilla and not a mountain one.
Gorillas are highly moral creatures in that their group dynamic is even more firmly imprinted on their minds than even ours are. BUT their morals are not human morals. We have to send visitors before they come a fact sheet called "Tips for a successful visit." This sheet is, in effect, gorilla morals. Behavior that we would think nothing of, in fact that we would welcome, is completely unacceptable to gorillas. There was an unfortunate incident once with a famous British naturalist who considering himself an expert in all animals ignored gorilla customs. Koko was later very upset because she knew that she had been "bad stinking devil" to her guest and she apologized profusely. But the fact remains that it was the Brit who was "immoral" (but a damned good sport and very understanding…if after the fact) by gorilla standards.
The Christian church is quite emphatic about animals not having souls (or spirits for that matter) so gorilla morals show that morals aren't supernatural.
I seem to recall reading about that Koko incident some time back. Perhaps the differences between chimps, gorillas, and outselves is in large part cultural? (Not an original thought on my part, by the way.)
We are all the children of our society, great apes, elephants, whales, and even the lowly mole rats, living in a hole. The society forms us and we abide by it's rules, most of us, anyway.
Thanks, Slater for the Koko example. I would love to meet her.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:52:02 [Permalink]
|
That's why I mentioned Koko. Although knowing nothing about them beyond what I've read, I think that all Gorillas are very moral, very spiritual people.
Do you really want to cite the Catholic Church to deny Gorillas their spirituality? As I wrote, I personally think that Gorillas not only have a "soul" but are of a higher level of spirituality than we humans. (It was nice of the Brit to be a good sport, tho.)
As to "superNATURAL": If the String Theorists are right and we, in fact, exist in (at least) 10 dimensions then that is a part of nature.
___________________________________
In math, you take a straight-line and it is one-dimension.
Then you draw another straight line perpendicular to the first. You cannot get to any spot on the second line (except their intersection) by referencing the first line----and vice versa. Yet you can reference a spot on the first and a spot on the second. The set of all such referenced spots (--said spots usually denoted by "(x,y)"--) makes something called a two-dimensional space.
Do the same with a third line, perpendicular/orthogonal to each of the other two and you have a three-dimensional space (--all of the spots/points (x,y,z) being the space).
Do the with a fourth line--orthogonal to each of the first three--and you get a four-dimensional space. Etc.
In Statistics the common thing is an "n-dimensional space"----the "n" being the number of one dimensional ["Euclidean"] spaces, all orthogonal to each other, resulting in the "Cartesian cross product"------the n-dim space made up of the points "(x1, x2, . . . xn)". (Those are really subscripts, each "xi" being a "real number".) Mathematically, it's a very common structure.
I've never dealt with things other than n-dimensional Cartesian cross products (--which are, in fact, usually just the "n" statistical samples--) but there is no reason whatsoever (--other than that statisticians and probability theorists don't use them  ) why the dimensions in the cross product must be one-dimensional Euclidean spaces (--straight lines, sort of). Such a creature might turn a Measure Theorist's stomach but I don't think that a Topologist would be bothered in the least---he might even experience a moment of pure, unadulterated joy at the thought.
(Sorry: I hope this doesn't sound like gibberish----you asked. )
I don't know how math physicists see the multi-dimensional picture. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 12:00:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Phineas Gage would.
Morals are simply another part of the brain's function. PhDreamer can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the part of the brain responsible for our "morality" is the frontal lobe (or located somewhere up front). This is why children are cruel and rotten when they're real young (generally speaking, of course. ), because that part of the brain hasn't developed fully yet.
Another example would simply be drug effects. Give someone a hit of PCP, maybe throw in some LSD and cocaine (but not enough to kill them). Their "morals" usually take an extended vacation. How is this possible if the mind and spirit are separate?
I read the Phineas Gage story many years ago----it, in fact, was one of the major factors to my thoughts on the subject.
I view the brain in two primary functions: - electronic control for certain parts of the body and
- as an interface with the "mental/intellectual space"----screw up the interface and, uhhh....
Young children are "cruel and rotten"? No! No!, I say. I may get into trouble with the anthropologists who study 'primitive' peoples but I think that such behavior is due (mostly) to toilet training and other demands of modern 'civilization'.
We need to segregate out those ugly things that are strictly due to our style of 'civilization'; maybe the ugly results are worth the gain; and then maybe they're not and it's time to redo our social structure.
(edited to complete the post)
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 03/07/2003 12:24:38 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 12:22:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Phineas Gage would.
I've read about Gage (it was required in the demolition course I took in the service). Pretty amazing that he survived at all.
The explosive used was dynamite, which is nitroglycern with a stabilizer (sawdust has been used), mixed either 40 or 60 percent nitro. Hit it hard enough with anything, and it will go off. Using an iron tamping bar, not uncommon in those days, was asking for trouble. It should have been made of wood.
Gage's brain damage certainly put him outside of expected, social behavior. And he was once an efficent foreman, popular with his crew. I don't know if he'd go so far as to rob a blind man and bust his gituar, but I'd not be suprised.
Incidently, Nobels great contribution to the world was NOT dymamite, but the blasting cap. Although dynamite was where the money was.
Sorry 'bout the hijack (ashamed smiley here). Couldn't let it alone.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 12:48:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Now, what I know about string theory will fit loosly in a hollow tooth, but if, as I understand it, it allows for angles and demons, why do those angles and demons, and so forth have to be the Christian verson? The theory, I think is a lot broader than that.
I think that if a string theorist were to even HEAR any of the words "angels", "spirits", etc. in connection with their theory, they would RUN to their office and slam the door in disgust.
String theory is something that just evolved in (Mathematical) Physics to solve some problems/difficulties. So far as I know, no one has ever seen even an indication of a string or a brane but without them there's a lot of unanswered questions in theoretical physics. The BadAstronomer would be a much better person to get into the technical details of string theory, I think.
I think that you can rest absolutely assured that it will be a TRULY COLD day in hell before you hear the first string theorist even mention spirits----or even speculate on what might 'live' in those 6 curled up dimensions.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
