Deriving Religion from Science

[Dardedar]

Such as that "water always spirals clockwise." You could journey all over half of the Earth and be pretty certain of this idea. But if you zoom your perspective of results to the whole planet, then we see that it spirals BOTH ways.

It is interesting how on the occasion when Joe does accidentally stumble into making an assertion that happens to graze a factual comment, he gets his facts wrong. The rest is just blather. (another time was when went on about the moon effect). Beneath the chatter of New Age nonsense there is no doubt a firm foundation of falsehoods holding all the crap up. But usually Joe is far to vague to get anywhere near something verifiable, except when he does and gets it wrong.

So I'm here like Jesus entering the temple that has now been...

Of course Joe sees himself as a God who has come down from the mountain to teach the rabble. If only they could grasp his Deep Truths! So that makes two gods we have on the forum right now. I wonder which one is the true one?

----------
"If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is, "Probably because of something you did." --Saturday Night Live, Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"

The simple cartoon that Joe never could deal with, although he did spend a couple hundred pages of gibberish trying, on Facebook:

[Dardedar]

...just writing a whole lot of the same thing, doesn't make it more true.

That would be a useful tattoo for your forehead.
Joe, are you truly oblivious to the fact that the communication portion of your brain is broken? Surely others have drawn this to your attention before. I know I did when you got your ass repeatedly handed to you on Facebook. You're not well in the noggin. It doesn't work in there. You've convinced yourself of an illusion that you know how to think at some high level and are communicating the chatter that goes on in your head in some profound way, but you're not doing that at all. Not even close. It's word salad language masturbation. Surely this has been pointed out to you before.
Have you even said anything in this entire thread that you can back up in a way that someone could verify it? Anything that has any substance outside of vague assertions and pious prattle? Because not only is it not apparent that you have done, it looks rather unlikely at this point that your are even capable of accomplishing something like that.

[Savonarola]

I said that these relate to different ways that we are looking at them.

The fact that you think they are different when you look at them from your preferred point of view that has your head up your ass doesn't mean that they are functionally different. I notice that you didn't accept my challenge. There's a reason for that.

Here is a practical "base 2" model put into function in the real world: a litmus test. Things in this world can only be made of acid or base (because of how all energy works; polarity). So when we conduct the litmus test, we can only get 2 possible results: "it is an acid, or it is a base."

But this is just wrong, and wrong on multiple levels. There are three functional definitions of acids and bases. They are not exclusive and they do not entirely overlap. Furthermore, the extent to which an acid behaves as an acid or a base behaves as a base differs with which substance we're talking about. There are individual substances that have the ability to act as either an acid or a base, which would require a qbit in a binary system.
You insist that it is all as simple as 0 or 1, acid or base, and that that's "polarity," but your own example (acids and bases) disproves this notion. It is not true that "all energy works on a principle of 'polarity.'" (This is a major problem for your overarching position.) Moreover, it is clear that you do not even understand how numerical systems work. Having two possibilities does not make something "base 2," otherwise we couldn't use base 10 for a standard die or for a d12.

Again, you keep insisting that there's something special about base ten, but you have failed to produce a number that you can represent in base ten that I cannot represent in any other base.

If it doesn't work, then it won't. And if it does work, then it will.

It doesn't work. You contradict yourself and can't even understand what bases are. And I mean both chemical bases and mathematical ones.

[Joeknows]

Dougy and Djaredjar, you both are lackwits with such a concrete belief in your self that you will probably never understand anything outside of it, it is no wonder that you are only resorting to ad hominem attacks on my character.

"The simple cartoon that Joe never could deal with, although he did spend a couple hundred pages of gibberish trying..." re: Could never deal with? Wow, it sounds like you are the ones having problems dealing with it. And I can completely understand how truth would sound like gibberish to someone not using their brain to comprehend it. But that says more about you than me...

Djaredjar even admits that I "make an assertion that happens to graze a factual comment;" but that makes me more wrong somehow? Because that is how you are making it sound. You say that I am "vague to get near anything verifiable," but I completely disagree. Everything I am talking about relates directly to your own science and its theories. I even connect directly to these in many ways, but you probably assumed that me giving extra examples of this was a distraction from the information? Just like how Savvy thinks the water contradicts the shore?

It's not me "grazing" upon a true concept. It is your lack of consciousness to understand more than a "quick glance" will afford you. And I can ground these subjects incredibly, because they literally came from the same things you understand already. I just have put more willpower into learning it. And as you naturally learn more things, they will fit together better and better. Unlike your splintering of science into unconnected research subjects, which are only determined by whoever is leading the institutions that fund them. You spent all your time learning these things only to use it for one thing, "your job." But I spent all my time trying to learn this same information to actually help people with its use in ANY way that it CAN. And it is no wonder that I got SO much further than you have. To the point that you are unable to even participate in a conversation about it.

You don't "win" by deciding to stop participating in the conversation, like Douggy is trying to do. You had to put effort into ignoring information about reality in order to keep your life unchanged. You devoted(/wasted) energy just to ignore information, and it will happen again, and again until you are actually WILLING to learn it.

If you actually COULD grasp these concepts enough to discuss it logically and rationally, don't you see that it would PROVE ME WRONG? I am the one who "wins" if you choose not to look at this information. Because I haven't wasted effort ignoring anything, and I still understand (derivably) how my view of it still holds up far better than the narrow scope of your own. The fact that you are unable to even "show up" to recognize these basic ideas that I describe, proves that your splintered education has failed you. And you can go back to pretending to love it, and I will keep devoting myself to being sure of where truth comes from.


You are so bent on attacking the foundation of others, and I think this would most likely come from a lack of true foundation within your own understanding. So I want to ask you, what provides a determining basis for what you say is "right?" What makes something valid enough to warrant making it an entire subject accepted as official course material and forced upon the developing brains of youth today? What defines truth, as far as you know it, to validate it even being objective or worthy of conveying in a unified way to others? Because maybe "freethinker" means to you, that you can make up your own reality and not come to terms with anyone else?

[Joeknows]

Savvy, you are the only person in this group so far that is worth half their weight as a human being. Maybe there are more, they just haven't shown themselves yet. But I propose that once we get this logical basis established, we kick douggy and djaredjar out of the group, or trade them to the confection club for someone that can think more clearly. I will take their place, not as a leader, but as another member of a group that depends on the knowledge that ALL members bring up, and not just on the established and most popular ones. I could make this group something more than just a social group. So could you, if you cared enough to find this common basis of information.


I assume your challenge was to represent a number in base 10 that wasn't representable in base 16? But while that might disprove you, it would not prove what I am saying. This isn't something that tends towards absolutes: infinity, zero (negative infinity?). So, saying that it "isn't" able to be represented does tell us whether or not it is functioning, but it doesn't tell you HOW it is functioning, or what level of efficiency it is functioning at. According to the quadrivium's four ways to look at any information:objects alone, objects combined, actions alone, actions combined; we can more accurately assess its function. Otherwise we would be looking at it from too limited a perspective to get any relevant results.

This is why we have to first learn the obvious majority of what it stands for alone, the obvious majority of configurations that it manifests when in groups, the obvious and most complete use of this object independently, and then the obvious and most complete use of this object as it depends on how other objects are used. I did say "obvious" before all 4 aspects, because it really IS obvious. You just have to devote some effort and be willing to question the validity of your own understanding; and unfortunately asking that of anyone is almost as offending as asking them to "kill a baby and eat it." As most here have only asked questions that could alleviate them of consideration, Savvy you are actually asking questions to uphold the function known by science. And I appreciate and thank you for that, at least.

The fact that you think they are different when you look at them from your preferred point of view that has your head up your ass doesn't mean that they are functionally different. I notice that you didn't accept my challenge. There's a reason for that.

(I missed your "challenge" but consider it responded to...and "there's a reason for that," because I always try to listen to what you are trying to say as best I can.)

I don't "prefer" a point of view, other than a clear one that goes "all the way" towards describing the information at hand. Not some limited scientism view that analyzes a small piece and makes up grand theories to represent this "missing link" in human evolution, or this "missing bozon particle" to explain energy, or this "missing weight" in the universe that we came up with "dark matter" to make our results fit more accurately? It's a long list, and it's a sad one. Popular science today is nothing but a splintered and dead institution that has lost all it's practical application.

You say that I didn't describe the functionality, and rather just asked you to believe me... But I don't think that is accurate at all! I have tried to state the "dynamic" that occurs when you are talking about an increasing or decreasing value of some aspect of energy. One aspect of energy would be the tendency to gravitate towards a base ph. Another expression would be the tendency to gravitate towards acid ph. These things are "single functions," or as a mathematician would describe it, a simple function that is defined on all points in which it exists. This is described by a single unchanging function, such as y=x or y= -(x) to describe the representation of ph level dictated by the energy of it either being a base, or of it being an acid. y=x doesn't mean the same thing as y=-(x), but that doesn't mean they contradict themselves even though they look like complete opposites. That is because this seeming opposing force manifests in our reality called "polarity." And we have to use polarity to describe 2 functions at once, if they influence each other. If it was y=(x) and y=(w), then those aren't related, and can't even be considered together.

So there is a force that causes things to go to base, and there is a force that causes things to become acid. And these 2 functions, which don't contradict each other on any "real" points, form a complete description of the full ph scale as we have comprehended it. I'm saying that this is the simplest and most complete way to describe this dynamic of whether something could be an acid or base.

You say there are 3 functional uses, and I completely understand how you see human usage and value painting this picture of it, but let's look at it. Obviously you mean "neutral" as the third function. Because you are describing the object only by the process. If we are working with chemistry, we either need an acid, a base, or a neutral solution to get some specific reaction. But this is just a simplification at the cost of information. If we label them only by these 3 categories, someone who needs a very specific ph or one that approaches the boundaries of either of these categories, then they are going to be unable to determine that information from these 3 categories of "use." (This totally backs up how things that are generating by some force or result always manifest in 3's; but the energy that most completely describes it is only 2 functions, or a base 2 system, and base 2 systems are always a polarity system.)

Let's look at it in one other way. This "neutral" substance is only valid as an idea or as a process. I showed in the previous paragraph that it does nothing to better describe its energy. But I have to say that this "neutral point" does not exist in this "chemical" reality. You might define it very specifically, but if we increase our vantage point we can see that our practical definition will continue to get further and further away from "actual neutral ph." So in effect, neutral really is nothing more than a label that says a substance contains neither energy of acid nor base. And scientism keeps giving us terminology that represents something that literally doesn't exist, just so that we can get more use out of it. But as a result, we have lost our connection with how it was derived.

But this is just wrong, and wrong on multiple levels

This is a major problem for your overarching position.

I just showed how your extremely limited function only describes a "human" process, just like memorizing how to count. It's not even "wrong" on this specific level of function, it is just described from a very different perspective, like a double negative [-(-1)]. But we don't need that extra complexity, it adds nothing to tell us how things work, and we get further if we use it in its simplest whole form. I showed how this functional concept you think is "necessary" to the process, doesn't even exist in reality. There is no such thing as perfect neutral, if you think that you have found a substance a neutral, just increase the sensitivity of your test to prove that it isn't "perfect." Because absolutes, like zero, don't exist as an object, they can only exist as a concept that describes how these Natural Laws govern reality; or in a sense, "limits" to our picture of reality.

But if you can validate this further, please try your best. It obviously is more of a "major problem" for your view than mine, when you start to fill in all four perspectives that the quadrivium can provide us with. And I've shown how my way describes things more specifically, and also from a whole perspective that generated every possibility just by considering 2 functions to describe it. I completely agree that you have to know the elemental makeup and so much more...but the information is still perfectly represented by this graph that IS our ph scale. Show me any substances that don't fit within this described dynamic. I doubt they exist, or it will be trying to present it from an unsimplified point of reference. But please go for it. I am only here to increase my own knowledge, so I welcome hearing anything from a considered vantage.

I just want to show you how a "base set" of information can only convey information WITHIN that "set." If I was describing something to you, and I just said "yes," then you would have very little idea of what I was talking about. But if I prefaced it with the containing information, "We are checking to see if this molecule gained an electron," then you would know both the parameters of the test, AND the result. The parameters of the test would be represented functionally by "f," and the results of the test are represented by the variable "x." So this "operation" would be written as [f of (x), or f(x)=y]. If we only knew the results, we could guess at 99% of what the test was and still be wrong. If a result is SO restricted to something like a base 2 operation where we could only reply yes or no for the "x" result, then it would take significantly more work to put that in reference to something we can actually use ("f"), without needing additional information to process it. See how these systems "gravitate" in very specific ways? We can gain things by being extremely specific, and we can gain things by looking at them in their greater function in their natural environment; but we can get the MOST practical application out of it (just like how you described getting practical use out of acids and bases), if we show value in this "neutral" zone. And neutral isn't a great way to describe it, because it describes the function by what it "isn't." So according to it's function, we should just appropriately refer to this idea as "balance" instead.

To convey information we either have to increase the value that "f" can convey, to completely put the results "x" in perspective; or we have to decrease the value of "f" to give the results of "x" specific meaning. The result of increasing or decreasing "f" will always cause the results "x" to adjust accordingly, otherwise it would be conveying too much or too little information to develop a coherent picture of anything. This is completely objective, can be determine easily and proven on this basis. But what I am postulating, is that instead of using f>x, or f<x, why don't we try f=x? Or try making the level of the results about the same level of complexity as that of the question. And as someone who has understood and considered this for a few years now, it seems like the qualities of the number "10" (or its base set "value"), go furthest in describing anything on the level that it was created from. A base system of results that doesn't need to be compressed or expanded any more to completely convey the results in their simplest form.

Because you have no true basis, or even a recognition for the qualities that could define one, the way you look at information is only on the most extreme surface of its information. Because you only care about information as it relates to how we use things, not only do you create terminology based on "negative information," you also ignore the energy that defines the ONLY way that something can manifest in reality. Only caring about the popular functional definition, you have no connection to understand anything outside of that viewpoint, and no practice in bringing fields of information together, because that's not how you learned it. You only want to talk about things in extremely narrow fields, because you are a prisoner to that information, instead of using that information to set you free, as a freethinker obviously should.

[Savonarola]

But while that might disprove you, it would not prove what I am saying.

Disproving me would go a long way toward supporting your point. Your failure to demonstrate that base ten is better than other bases doesn't instill confidence that base ten is better than other bases.

...and "there's a reason for that," because I always try to listen to what you are trying to say as best I can.

Joe, you're just proving that you can't read. The reason you didn't accept my challenge is that you know it can't be met. You know that you cannot represent a number in one base that can't be represented in another. Period. Worse, now you're claiming that I was referring to something other than your refusal to demonstrate your assertion. No, Joe, the reason you're not accepting my challenge is because you know that you will fail. Did I spell that out well enough for you?

And these 2 functions... form a complete description of the full ph scale as we have comprehended it. I'm saying that this is the simplest and most complete way to describe this dynamic of whether something could be an acid or base.

You don't comprehend this at all. The pH scale does not give a complete explanation of whether something is an acid or a base. A 0.1 M solution of HCl has a pH of 1. A 0.01 M solution of HCl has a pH of 2. The HCl is not fundamentally different in these two scenarios; in fact, in each case it is behaving exactly as it is in the other scenario, subject to the same intermolecular forces that cause HCl to behave as an acid at all. Yet the pH values of these solutions differ.
I can explain this to you using nothing but theory, or I could go into the lab and show you this without any explanation. Either way proves that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding acids, bases, and pH.

Obviously you mean "neutral" as the third function.

No, I don't. There are Arrhenius acids and bases, Bronsted-Lowry acids and bases, and Lewis acids and bases. Those are three things I was talking about, not "functions." I didn't mean "neutral" by anything. You're just not good at reading, and you made the boneheaded error of pretending that you can read a topic of which I have a particularly good understanding. And you're getting your ass handed to you on the facts.

I showed how this functional concept you think is "necessary" to the process, doesn't even exist in reality.

When you pretended that I meant something that was not even close to what I meant, you "showed" me something. That means that you showed nothing.

There is no such thing as perfect neutral

There is, actually. Neutral -- with respect to acids and bases -- has a definition: containing equal concentrations of hydronium and hydroxide. Water is perfectly neutral.
And just to further prove that your claims about pH are completely wrong:
Water at 25°C has a pH of 7.00. It is perfectly neutral.
Water at a temperature above 25°C has a pH below 7.00. It is also perfectly neutral.
Water at a temperature below 25°C has a pH above 7.00. It is also perfectly neutral.
Water acts as BOTH an acid and a base, by the B-L and Lewis definitions. It acts as neither an acid nor a base according to the Arrhenius definition.

You are, no doubt, scratching your head or thinking that I'm lying, but this is standard stuff that is taught in high school chemistry class. It can also be demonstrated both on paper and in practice. You're just plain wrong, yet again.

Mainly, though, I want to point this out:

You say there are 3 functional uses, and I completely understand how you see human usage and value painting this picture of it, but let's look at it. Obviously you mean "neutral" as the third function.

For emphasis:

I completely understand how you see human usage and value painting this picture of it

But no, Joe, you completely misunderstood just about everything I said about acids and bases. The fact that you can boldly say that you understand this when it is extremely clear that you do not means that we have no reason to believe that you "completely understand" anything else that you claim to completely understand so well that it is beyond our comprehension. Your saying that you "completely understand" something is more likely to indicate that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

By the way, you accused me of scientism in there. I've explained multiple times that I don't ascribe to scientism. Why are you such a lying sack of crap?

[Dardedar]

Now that's some good roast right there.
Oh, I did see this.

...ad hominem attacks on my character.

This from a guy who is now reduced to spelling my screen name incorrectly. Pathetic.

"The simple cartoon that Joe never could deal with, although he did spend a couple hundred pages of gibberish trying..." re: Could never deal with?

Good to see that one still burns.

Djaredjar even admits that I "make an assertion that happens to graze a factual comment;" but that makes me more wrong somehow? Because that is how you are making it sound.

Yeah, you're wrong. I didn't need to explain it for the other readers because they would already know. I was hoping you would ask which would reveal again what everyone else knows, and that is.... "Joe don't know."
I was referring to this, dumb dumb:

Such as that "water always spirals clockwise." You could journey all over half of the Earth and be pretty certain of this idea. But if you zoom your perspective of results to the whole planet, then we see that it spirals BOTH ways.

So nice of this modern day Jesus to come down from the mountain and talk to us humans, but it is bizarre how these minor deity geniuses consistently make such basic errors when they accidentally stumble into saying something specific enough that it can't be hidden behind a wall of mindless gibberish. Just as back on Facebook you founded some of your idiotic nonsensical unintelligible indecipherable beliefs about astrology based on your mistaken belief that a full moon affects people, now you reveal your pedestrian ignorance of the Coriolis effect. Start here, Jesus:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/scienc ... eball2.htm

Everything I am talking about relates directly to your own science and its theories.

Yes, our "own science." How does that differ from the science on the planet you come from?
Joe's gibberish and delusions of grandeur resemble what I've seen in potheads before. Some time ago I asked Joe if he had perhaps damaged his thinker with drugs, probably pot or perhaps LSD, or if perhaps he just received or developed a damaged unit over time. He didn't respond. I'm thinking it's the drugs. Reefer. But it might be the harder stuff.
----------------
Delusions of Grandeur
"Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme... About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.[2]"

[Doug]

And this itself is what will prove the information true. My names don't matter, your names don't matter; all that matters is whether it effectively describes what is happening, and should be judged only on those qualities.

Wow! This looked promising. It looked like Joeknows was about to start understanding what he needs to do in order to provide evidence for his claims about the universe. If you want to see whether his explanation of whatever he's trying to explain (the origin of the universe?) is the correct explanation, we should check his description against what is actually out there in the world: facts. Sounds good.

Sadly, his very next sentence destroys any such hope that Joeknows has seen the light:

And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...

So not only does Joeknows dispel any notion that he understands how to provide an explanation of the world (hint: the explanation has to correspond to facts in the world), but Joeknows also shows us very clearly why he has steadfastly refused to provide any evidence for his claims: he thinks that an explanation is to be judged true based on its intrinsic properties, not based on any connection with the phenomenon it is trying to explain. Joeknows says, "And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology..." So Joeknows thinks that explanations are to be judged correct or incorrect based on their terminology, not based on whether there are facts that support the claims.

No wonder he refuses to provide evidence for his claims. For him, the facts of the world are irrelevant to his explanation of them.

That's why I've given up on him. He refuses on principle to support his claims about the world with evidence.

[David Franks]

Q: What is the only possible shred of evidence that Joe knows anything?
A: He calls himself "Joeknows".

Q: What is the possibility that Joe's screen name is accurate-- that is, that Joe knows anything?
A: The possibility increases from less than zero as the likelihood that his screen name refers to a different Joe increases.

[Joeknows]

Stepping on Information

This is a quick guide to how the steps connect in my "dimensional theory." It really is just common sense, but common sense explained completely, and with an understanding of how it is derived. Since each step is described in an expression, I described the movement between each of these forces to show exactly how they connect, such as 0-1 representing gaining the first step. And I hope you will start recognizing that information should be put under you, so that you can build from it, and not just to control it or claim that you are the arbiter of it. Because you are stepping on information like it is a bug you dislike, instead of standing on it like it is a step that will allow you to reach something that was previously unreachable without it.


0-1 We need to clear out the things blocking our critical view of forming rational information about reality. These things are: attachment to a belief system, attachment to a job, attachment to what is popular or socially accepted, attachment to thinking you are god and outside of the fundamental laws that apply to other humans. Any of these things can keep you from making a whole and complete approximation of anything perceived in reality. But once we have done this "self work" we can differentiate between specific things without looking at too much or too little to the point that it "skews" the results.

1-2 We need to know specifically what something is to know how much energy it can use. Just like we can't increase our weight more than what it already is, therefore we cannot "push" any harder than our mass, or generate any force greater than its capacity.

2-3 We need to know specifically how much energy something has in order to know the only potential pathway that the energy could direct itself towards any action it is capable of. If a battery is dead, it won't create any energy, other than the force of it's mass (or potential energy).

3-4 We need to know the specific direction that this energy is flowing into, to predict how it will react when it reaches its natural environment in the present moment.

4-5 We need to know specifically how it will react in the environment in order to direct it an intentional way that can be recognized in the same way each time.

5-6 We need to be able to direct this energy specifically and consistently to maintain an order for more complex systems, such as communication between species allowing them to come together under the same goal of survival.

6-7 And we need to know what each thing needs to survive, in order to understand how all these systems fit logically and intuitively together. And nature proves overwhelmingly that they all fit together in ways that could not have simply "evolved" together as is the only postulation that science gives us.

Evolution is a real process, that can be recognized, and that is why so many people accept science's notion of it. Obviously objects and situations can evolve to a more functional state. But to say that we reached this state of being "human," simply by a species mutating and transforming into a completely different species, is just ludicrous! There is no evidence of this anywhere. Or to say that simply by existing we have reached a pinnacle of development that this whole planet was working towards, and there is plenty of evidence against this notion.

Just like visible light only manifests in 7 colors to our perception, reality only operates within this spectrum of 7 Laws that guide the natural flow of the universe. So any real information must be bound within this set of rules that can be known at each level, but only by developing greater perspective of it. And the current institutions upholding the paradigm of scientism don't build perspective, they only fragment it into very specialized degrees.

[Dardedar]

I sure had to read through a lot of shit to get to a substantive claim.

"a species mutating and transforming into a completely different species, is just ludicrous! There is no evidence of this anywhere."

That's true, there is no evidence of that any where, except for, you know, a few thousand examples of speciation here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
And here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
And 29 more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... html#pred4
And 139 here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

Etc.

Incidentally, we figured out that evolution is how Speciation occurs, about 150 years ago. So your understanding of science, while godlike and timeless in its childish wonder, is at least a century and a half out of date.
Again we see, when Joe stumbles into accidentally saying something specific enough that it grazes substance and facts, we find he steps on the rake and is holding the chart upside down again. The fact that he can't get the basic stuff more accurate than a fifth grader, makes me suspect the mystical vague gibberish is also not to be trusted.

[Savonarola]

Joe makes the really, really, really stupid mistake of talking about things like energy or acids and bases when real, actual, bona fide, trained scientists are around.

2-3 We need to know specifically how much energy something has in order to know the only potential pathway that the energy could direct itself towards any action it is capable of.

Blatantly wrong. When we measure energy changes for chemical reactions, we typically do so in terms of enthalpy, which can be simply described as stored energy. We can give complete descriptions of enthalpy changes of these processes despite not knowing the actual enthalpy content of the system either before the process or after the process has completed.

Here's a very, very simple analogy that even my teenage students can understand:
Suppose I throw three footballs to you, and you catch them. How many footballs have I lost? How many footballs have you gained? Both of these questions are perfectly answerable, and we can measure this change: you gained three footballs, and I lost three footballs.
Now for the tackle: How many footballs did I have before throwing any to you? or, how many footballs do I have afterward? (Alternatively, how many footballs did you have before the transfer? or, how many footballs do you have after the transfer?) This information is not available. You don't know how many footballs I have in my possession. I don't know how many footballs you have in your possession. I might be out of footballs, or I might have a thousand more that I could throw to you. Likewise, you might have just the three, or you might have a thousand more. Nobody knows, and it doesn't matter, because we can still perfectly describe that transfer of footballs.

Physical systems work the same way. We don't have a feasible way of measuring the true enthalpy content of a system, but we can most definitely measure when enthalpy enters or leaves that system. All of thermochemistry is performed measuring only changes in energy without needing absolute values of energy content.

You're just wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Terribly, stupidly wrong. Again.

Just like visible light only manifests in 7 colors to our perception

No, Little Joe, that's bullshit, too. Color is simply our brains' way of interpreting wavelength of light, which varies infinitely. The fact that you can see more than seven colors displayed on your screen to the right of the posting page shows that there are more than seven colors.

This isn't even advanced science, Little Joe. It's very basic. My teenage students learn this. You are so backward that 14-year olds make you look silly.

Joeknows tries cosmology. Fails.
Joeknows tries logic. Fails.
Joeknows tries physics. Fails.
Joeknows tries math. Fails.
Joeknows tries biology. Fails.

Joeknows doesn't know much, does he?

[Dardedar]

Excellent lesson.
I want Joe to say something stupid about pianos next. Please? How many keys on an average piano Joe? 57!

[Joeknows]

I sure had to read through a lot of shit to get to a substantive claim.

This isn't even the claim I am trying to represent here, but it IS one that will help erode some of your foundation, so I will try to show you how you are still limiting your understanding by worshiping these institutionalized models like they were a golden cow.

That's true, there is no evidence of that any where, except for, you know, a few thousand examples of speciation

The fact that every life form has an incredibly similar structure, is NOT proof that one of them became the other or vice versa. It is more likely the fact that it is simply the BEST way for life to manifest, and the uniformity of our "carbon based" common limitations of the environment here on Earth. We have never seen one or especially not two species creating a brand new one, yet we assume that every single living species was created by this bizarre method?

Again, an organized difference in simplicity and complexity does nothing to further the argument of evolution. Again, we can see that an organism that is simple will perform a simple task, and an organism that is complex will perform a complex task; both are in a perfect relation to their environment that is literally "too perfect" for it to have evolved to that point. For one example, how would everything have evolved exactly at the same time and then stop evolving when it perfectly matched with everything else that connects throughout an ecosystem? Wouldn't some pieces keep evolving and disrupt the balance achieved, evolving to a further point where they don't need the symbiosis of, lets say "insects to help pollinate itself?" Wouldn't this evolution and resulting extermination be self evident from looking at nature? To think that evidence to explain the theories of nature are hidden where we will never find them, sounds like just an excuse to keep us from spending will towards knowing it and proving till it is conclusive enough to risk our life upon a belief in it.

And the third article is basing information on more information that hasn't been legitimized. If "punctuated equilibrium" had any validity, wouldn't we be able to prove it by creating artificial stress on the environment of a species to cause it to react and "evolve?" I guess we are just really, really unlucky with our test results? Damn those fickle test results!

Incidentally, we figured out that evolution is how Speciation occurs, about 150 years ago

Woah, you were alive 150 years ago? Or do you mean that other people can define knowledge for you, regardless of your understanding of it? I agree, you are very obedient towards upholding limited perspectives. Get over your pride, and stop pretending that the only opposition to your theory believes in a "literal interpretation of the scriptures." Because all of your evidence doesn't back up the things you claim it does, and a "creationist" viewpoint that EVERYTHING was created FOR A REASON, or with a PURPOSE; works tremendously better towards understanding how greater systems work together than the blotted assumptions that your scientism tries to heap upon it.

The fact that he can't get the basic stuff more accurate than a fifth grader, makes me suspect the mystical vague gibberish is also not to be trusted.

If it is any consolation, I am beginning to feel that almost every professional "teacher" is unable to grasp each of these basics and compare how they fit together logically. I don't mean to say this without an understandable basis for why I believe this is the case. Otherwise we could just assume that your "professional" qualifications are the best judge of the material's validity. I will go into this a bit, just to help keep you "in the conversation" despite your obvious inability to work outside your focus. I also plan on finishing up the religion/science connection before I can comfortably leave this post. And if you are afraid to approach grasping the meaning of what is popularly "religious terms" in a greater context that narrows down their specific function, then I think you are just a coward to try something "new."

[Joeknows]

Joe makes the really, really, really stupid mistake of talking about things like energy or acids and bases when real, actual, bona fide, trained scientists are around.

Trained? "Trained" like a dog, if you ask me. You were given one scent to follow, and you forsook ever knowing the rest. While you are overwhelmingly proud of yourself, you are so incredibly wrong in these assumptions that you have made. Let me show you. Now, "Heel!"

Joeknows wrote:2-3 We need to know specifically how much energy something has in order to know the only potential pathway that the energy could direct itself towards any action it is capable of.

Blatantly wrong. When we measure energy changes for chemical reactions, we typically do so in terms of enthalpy, which can be simply described as stored energy. We can give complete descriptions of enthalpy changes of these processes despite not knowing the actual enthalpy content of the system either before the process or after the process has completed.

You don't even understand what I am talking about, and you assume that because I am talking about some form of "energy" that it probably isn't the same type that you have looked at from a logical perspective and KNOW for as true as you can see it. Can you try assuming just once that we are talking about the "same" reality, and see if it corresponds to your own information in a rational way? Let me show you how what I said is represented in a chemical reaction.

In the reaction: H + OH yields H2O, the "energy" that determines how much product (or basically the physical "work" accomplished) is the amount of either H or OH. There could be a whole lot of reactions or there could be just a small number; but the rate of either is determined by the specific formula that IS uniquely "H + OH." Like the definitions that we bitterly learned in calculus class, a function is only "real" if it exists on all "real" (not imaginary) points within that function. So ANY place that doesn't have an "H" to react with the respective "OH," there will be NO reaction at that point. Or in other words, the function didn't have "energy" at that point. Energy is how knowledge connects with reality, so I suggest you take a hard look at every belief you have about it. Energy is required for any "push" that effects the reality around us. It is just common sense that you can't do "work" without energy, and the amount of work done will be directly reflected by the amount of energy available to it. Starting to make sense now? Please ask for clarification on anything if you don't understand any part of it.

If the reaction were reversed, then the "enthalpy" would be the "energy" going towards breaking H2O into less stable H and OH forms. The more enthalpy given to the system, the more it could break down, like an oxidation reaction. But energy as a functional term goes further and isn't just limited to chemistry to define it, but it fits with all the rules of chemistry. So lets take a step UP the proverbial ladder and fit this smaller system into the larger one that describes it more simply and accurately.

Joeknows wrote:Just like visible light only manifests in 7 colors to our perception

No, Little Joe, that's bullshit, too. Color is simply our brains' way of interpreting wavelength of light, which varies infinitely. The fact that you can see more than seven colors displayed on your screen to the right of the posting page shows that there are more than seven colors.

I said to our "perception," so the fact that all our brains interpret wavelength of light slightly different is obvious, or even irrelevant to this argument. If you try to mathematically or even just logically represent the full visible color spectrum in the FEWEST possible differentiations, you will get 7. You can prove through pigment the amount of color represented in the changing spectrum, and it will reduce to a combination of 3 colors that can create the other 7. And understanding how something is created, tells you more about what it does than how it is expressed in seeing "more than seven colors displayed on your screen to the right..." That has pretty much been my point from the beginning.

Dougy ludicrously wrote:

Joeknows wrote:And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...



So not only does Joeknows dispel any notion that he understands how to provide an explanation of the world (hint: the explanation has to correspond to facts in the world), but Joeknows also shows us very clearly why he has steadfastly refused to provide any evidence for his claims: he thinks that an explanation is to be judged true based on its intrinsic properties, not based on any connection with the phenomenon it is trying to explain. Joeknows says, "And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology..." So Joeknows thinks that explanations are to be judged correct or incorrect based on their terminology, not based on whether there are facts that support the claims.

I didn't say that it wasn't based on evidence, in fact I just said and you quoted me that we have to depend on proving its usage. I am not contradicting myself, you are simply lacking the willpower to read a few more lines and and judge it by its whole instead of the only piece you can attack it from. These things DO prove themselves by their intrinsic properties, just as they prove themselves by their effectiveness. This is just like the bible said of "knowing the fruit by the seed." An apple seed will NEVER magically change into a pear tree. This is Truth. Things are identifiable and knowable by their qualities. If you can't get to this point of certainty, there is no point in talking about anything, because without certainty or basis you can only be a subjective relativist and never prove anything true or untrue.

"Pure terminology" isn't the only way to prove or know this information. However it is the only way that YOU can understand it. Because it is simply a development process of your GRAMMAR. You lack the overall knowledge to fit it into what you are used to working with (despite being a philosophy teacher, lol!) So what you have to do is DEVELOP a more complete set of grammar that will allow you to consider these aspects clearly. They aren't "judged on terminology," but if the judge doesn't have the grammar to work with it, they will be completely lost in the information. Most of this stuff is incredibly simple, so if you don't see already how it is proven, then you just aren't even looking at it. Which was obvious by your evasive excuses like, "That's why I've given up on him. He refuses on principle to support his claims about the world with evidence."

I want to develop this common grammar, but you have A LOT of issues working against your ability to grasp this information. You just blew off the "stepping on information" and the "self work" stuff I mentioned, and you probably had no clue what I even meant by it. But I meant that you have an AGENDA that comes before your willpower towards learning something new. In fact you have a TON of "agendas" that get in the way of you being able to learn this. (and not just douggy)

These "agendas" that you put before a willingness to look at new information can be either conscious or subconscious. But they block information the same either way. You say that you are a philosopher, or a scientist, or a freethinker, but trying to force it to your theories instead of letting the value of the information represent itself has been the "belief system" that has caused you to create a wall to block off anything new or divergent/unexplained by the assembled knowledge you believe in.

Everyone has a belief system if they are a human. But I try not to let my beliefs dictate how I use the information. Or at least as little as humanly possible. You on the other hand have so many agendas that you can barely keep up with them all. Let's take a loot at the things you would make you ignore the information

1:Popularity: If all your friends said that you shouldn't consider something, or a notable article, or even somebody who just sounded "very official," then you would probably avoid looking at it instead of risking the disapproval of your friends, family, or peers. Contrastingly if someone you knew was religious was supporting something, then you would naturally react towards supporting the opposite side, instead of knowing it by what it is.
2:Government: If the leaders of America conveyed to you that it might be detrimental to the good of the country (namely the profit of the corporations) or even "illegal" to consider or own information that depicts these ideas; then you would burn and abandon any piece of it just like you were told to do.
3:Position/Status: You can't look at the laws that govern reality, because you are already governed by a set of "moral" codes handed to you by your employer. And to "question" anything that could detract from the place that gives you the money to eat with, would be a direct threat to your survival. And so you will refuse to look at any information that could call this in to question.
4:Time/Effort: You have dedicated your whole life to getting a degree towards the goal of teaching this specific information. But in this disconnected education/work system that only teaches information to be "sold" through its narrowest usage, you didn't get a complete education. You only got "one degree" apart from all the rest of the information that you could have learned or connected it to. You think this gives you some qualifications, but instead of this legitimizing your information, it rather shows that you are missing "359 degrees" if you want to get any "whole" answers. Having only 1 degree of workable information is like saying you know practically nothing about reality. But after putting your entire life behind achieving this goal, do you think you would easily question its legitimacy after all it has provided for you? You may even say that are still willing to put information foremost, but that is a belief that isn't backed up by your actions. And these unrecognized discrepancies between what we know, what we want, and what we act upon; are what causes us to subconsciously react instead of consciously learning from it.

These are just some of the general guidelines that your "agendas" or "belief systems" fit into. But if you are too scared to consider something fully because of the consequences that you may or may not suffer as a result, then you will ALWAYS end up with a limited and limiting view that has to rely on incorrect assumptions to try and fit the pieces in an "artificial" order. I understand that you are paralyzed from trying so hard to hold on to your beliefs, just like almost any member of a religion. So I am hoping that you will find someone within your group that isn't bounded by what they "CAN" say in order to appease the demands of their job. And you can help guide their response, so that we can actually go further with this information, and you also won't get fired for considering something you were told to ignore.

[Doug]

Previously:

And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...

Now he writes:

"Pure terminology" isn't the only way to prove or know this information...They aren't "judged on terminology"

This is just a parade of ad hoc nonsense. It's not funny anymore, and that was the only reason to read it.

Previously, Joeknows at least had a few gems that were so stupid it was funny, like:

If you actually COULD grasp these concepts enough to discuss it logically and rationally, don't you see that it would PROVE ME WRONG?

So he's saying that if I could understand what he's saying, I'd be able to see that he's wrong.

Hilarious!

But he's just tedious now. Not worth the time.

[Dardedar]

[Savonarola]

The fact that every life form has an incredibly similar structure, is NOT proof that one of them became the other or vice versa.

Actually, it's pretty good evidence that there was a single life form from which all earthly life arose.

It is more likely the fact that it is simply the BEST way for life to manifest

No, that's blatantly wrong. That's like saying that because we have eyes like our eyes, our eyes must be the best way to get visual information about the world around us. That's simply not true.

We have never seen one or especially not two species creating a brand new one

Blatantly wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

If "punctuated equilibrium" had any validity, wouldn't we be able to prove it by creating artificial stress on the environment of a species to cause it to react and "evolve?"

Cichlids. Next?

You don't even understand what I am talking about

You think this only because I have more understanding than you have. When you say, "But I'm talking about a different kind of energy," that doesn't mean that the rules that apply to all forms of energy don't apply. It doesn't solve your problem. The fact your example uses energy form #1436 but not #1435 or #1437 doesn't escape the fact that energy rules apply to all forms of energy.

I am talking about some form of "energy" that it probably isn't the same type that you have looked at from a logical perspective and KNOW for as true as you can see it.

So you've looked, and you KNOW that your energy is not energy but it's energy that isn't energy like my energy as long as it's still energy.
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You're making up a new form of energy that doesn't follow the rules of energy. You're a nut.

Energy is how knowledge connects with reality

That's a bare assertion thrown in with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. No, energy is not how knowledge connects with reality. Energy is a state function that represents the amount of matter present and its ability to do work or create heat based on its current form. It has nothing to do with "knowledge."

the amount of work done will be directly reflected by the amount of energy available to it

Wrong again. A mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has a lot of potential energy, but the mixture can sit stably for an extraordinarily long time without doing any work or producing any heat. Zero work, yet lots of energy available.

So lets take a step UP the proverbial ladder and fit this smaller system into the larger one

I did that. I took your cockamamie idea of "super-special Joestrology brand energy" and applied energy rules to it. I went up the ladder. And you cried foul. You said that I can't apply the bigger rules to your specific example. Now you want to apply the bigger rules to your specific example. Well I already did that, and it pissed you off.
You truly have no clue what's going on, even in this conversation. No wonder you don't know what's going on in the world.

If you try to mathematically or even just logically represent the full visible color spectrum in the FEWEST possible differentiations, you will get 7.

No, you don't. It's entirely arbitrary. We often refer to that range as the "visible spectrum." That's ONE "differentiation," not seven.
Here's the real irony: Newton decided that there ought to be seven colors because he felt that seven had some sort of natural meaning. We now kind of laugh at the idea of indigo. In modern science that involves colors, such as colorimetry and spectrometry, we don't refer to indigo. Color wheels don't have indigo; there's no place for it. We have three types of cones in our eyes that each discern two colors for a total of six colors, not seven, yet we see the color that we call "indigo" just fine. You howl and whine and stamp your feet that we're blinded by historical science, but here's an example of the exact opposite: Science has gotten past Newton's baseless assertion and has settled on six colors -- colors which are entirely qualitative based on our eyes, not qualitative based on the physical world -- but you insist on keeping the old, defunct, baseless version.
You are a laughingstock, Joe.

[David Franks]

Based on the tone, content and immaturity of his posts, I'm guessing that Joeknows started smoking marijuana at the age of twelve and became addicted by the age of fourteen. His aggressive ill temper tends to indicate that he often abuses alcohol as well, also starting at a young age.

Of course he could just be a troll who expertly emulates the posts of an egotistical, drug-addled wanna-be who is developmentally arrested at the adolescent level. But, like Doug Thorburn, I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that his behavior arises from being an addict rather than from his being an asshole.

[Joeknows]

Wanting or acting to gain knowledge CAN directly block actually gaining knowledge. This may sound like a contradiction, so I will put it into an example so you can see how putting effort towards knowing something, can literally, "cause you to miss other information."

If your main task was to watch for burglars that wanted to come rob you because you own a gold mine, then you would spend most of your time guarding the front entrance to your house. But if you hear a noise from behind the house, and go check on it. Your focus hasn't changed. You still have the same goal, and you are still accomplishing your mission by investigating anything suspicious that might end up being a "gold thief." But despite wanting to protect your gold, your efforts to obtain information about what is happening in the backyard is directly preventing you from seeing what is ongoing in the front yard. Your devotion that led you to even be sure that no thieves were invading from the backyard, directly caused you to miss any information about what was currently happening in the front. You think that you are putting even more effort towards being secure. But putting more and more effort to know more, will cause you to walk back and forth between the front and the back, more and more, until eventually you care SO much that all you are doing is walking back and forth between two points that you don't even have time to examine the information from. Nobody doubts that you really, really want to protect your gold. But the more you try, the less effective you are at it!

This is because information is directly limited by the environment, or more specifically, our PERSPECTIVE OF it. The only way to look at something clearly to understand it, is to actually put effort towards being sure that your feelings aren't getting in the way of your effort to see it. And if they are subconscious reasons keeping you from looking at information, it takes effort to bring that into a conscious understanding from which you can change it. But devoting time to something like this is the most offensive thing you could possibly say to another person. Especially one who has been acknowledged, accredited, and even rewarded for their effort from using this information in their own limited way. This is why most of you won't be able to talk about or understand this information. Because you don't want to. Because it could jeopardize the systems of information that you have already invested into.

This is why the valedictorian speech of the girl, who was speaking out against public education, related this story about a master and an apprentice trying to learn from him. "'Why is it that each time I say that I will work harder, you say that it will take longer?' Replied the Master, 'when you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path.'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4tdMsg3ts

We need to become willing to look at the goal until we are certain of its validity, and then devote all our attention to the path that will actually bring it about.

Because you aren't approaching information with a willingness to learn from it. You still harbor feelings that keep you from looking at the information clearly. You still have fears that prevent you from "risking" a change to the information you get your survival from. You are looking only at the goal, and none at the path to create it. You are letting the social status of "what is popular" decide for you what to consider.

And for a few of you to call yourself a "teacher," after all the effort you put towards refusing information, is just about the lowest thing I can imagine from someone in your position. "We could have fought against child abuse?" Your "teaching" is more appropriately an "abuse" of your position and authority, than anything close to true education. There is an entire world of information that proves you wrong. And I know that you are afraid to look at it, but I'm not. And I plan to show you from every single angle, why your education is closer to a "bratty child claiming they are smarter than anyone else." You aren't a Freethinker, you are the opposite of it. You aren't a teacher, you are the opposite of it. You aren't even much of a human, as a dog would be a better way to describe the way you fearfully take your orders from above. The best thing you can do for yourself, is to give up on trying to be "God over what is true," and "stop forcing" information to uphold whatever makes your life easiest. Are you really having SUCH a tough time surviving that you can't even stand to consider something that you don't know?