djsynchro wrote:Eckhart Kicks ass, and I have been very lucky to witness him speak a couple of years ago.
Me too, last year. An amazing experience.
djsynchro wrote:Eckhart Kicks ass, and I have been very lucky to witness him speak a couple of years ago.
ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.rishi wrote:The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.
leonard wrote:ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.rishi wrote:The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
then read in depth about electromagnetism, you can find the links on your own..
then read this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?qsrc=2888
then tell me again how chemical/atomic bonding is "intelligent"
except for the fact he got it completely wrong.pulsoc wrote:leonard wrote:ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.rishi wrote:The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
then read in depth about electromagnetism, you can find the links on your own..
then read this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?qsrc=2888
then tell me again how chemical/atomic bonding is "intelligent"
Thank you for attempting the always uphill battle against the new-age braindeath creep that so many feel-good hippy denialists insist on polluting philosphy with.
The 3rd option for the glass, is that it simply is. The concept of half full or empty is memory based. To experience the moment means exactly that it is not framed. If you look at a rose, and think, it is a rose, it smells good etc, you are in your memories not in the moment. The most beautiful and creative moments of my life have been when my mind is not referencing the present with comparisons from the past.gjm wrote:Again IMO, the clarification should be about how you 'frame' any moment of your life. Its always your choice to work within your uniqueness. A simple example is the glass that is either half full or half empty.
As usual, in your rush to be an Ahole you miss the point. Covalent bonding and intelligence are not related unless you want to radically change the definition of one or both. Why did he include electromegnetism? I don;t know. But he didn;t get it completely wrong.Tone Deft wrote:except for the fact he got it completely wrong.
there are 4 fundamental forces in nature, electromagentism is not the one that hold atoms together.
FAIL. want to guess again?
I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.pulsoc wrote:[
What concept did he miss??? He didn't explicitly tie covalent bonding with electromagnetism, and even if he did it wouldn't change his POINT, which was that ascribing the quality of intelligence to laws of physics expands the meaning of the term so as to render it meaningless.Tone Deft wrote:I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.pulsoc wrote:[
the point is pretty simple, no reason to point it out.
you're always a twat to me, chill out.
you, leonard and the OP are three people who are using words and concepts that you do not understand.pulsoc wrote:What concept did he miss??? He didn't explicitly tie covalent bonding with electromagnetism, and even if he did it wouldn't change his POINT, which was that ascribing the quality of intelligence to laws of physics expands the meaning of the term so as to render it meaningless.Tone Deft wrote:I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.pulsoc wrote:[
the point is pretty simple, no reason to point it out.
you're always a twat to me, chill out.
And dismissing a valid point like this with your l33tsp3x FAIL bit entitles you to twat treatment, IMHO, especially considering that it was directed to MY quote.
The way I read it, leonard was responding to the OP's reference to the chemical composition of asbestos.Tone Deft wrote: electromagetism is responsible for chemical bonding.
the strong and weak nuclear forces are the ones that hold atoms together.
we agree that implying intelligence is in the fundamental forces of nature is a hippy dippy assault on science and common sense. I take it a step further that you and leonard are wrong for using terms that you clearly do not understand. get it? the same fault you find with the OP I find with leonard's post, people using terms they don't understand.
the OP is at least well spoken and interested in discussion, leonard simply misspoke in a hypocritical fashion, an easy call out for FAIL, you're just being a dick.
In my earlier posts I mentioned 'perception.' My quote above is out of context if not partnered with perception. I tried really hard for years to subscribe to this sort of thinking, but I kept coming back to the position that a life is fundamentally memory based. There are two types of memory. The first is hard wired. Its a type of memory that passes on the essentials of a functioning life form. The second type of memory is developed or nurtured from birth. This is at its core the process of conditioning. There comes a time when a person can exercise the choice to challenge their conditioning. You can exercise your free will to not be on automatic pilot, and thus create a different outcome to a thinking process, or at least change a position held in the mind. I can see nothing in a humans life that removes them from this cycle. EVERYTHING is memory based. Even the ability to think relies on the memory to think. The ability is a recalled process.deva wrote:The 3rd option for the glass, is that it simply is. The concept of half full or empty is memory based. To experience the moment means exactly that it is not framed. If you look at a rose, and think, it is a rose, it smells good etc, you are in your memories not in the moment. The most beautiful and creative moments of my life have been when my mind is not referencing the present with comparisons from the past.gjm wrote:Again IMO, the clarification should be about how you 'frame' any moment of your life. Its always your choice to work within your uniqueness. A simple example is the glass that is either half full or half empty.