The myth of 1%

[ratiocinator]

Life exists within nature. Mankind is conscious life within existence/nature.

Mankind is mass/energy 'aware of itself' (conciousness).

Mankind created words, math, symbols and the recording of information to written form.

As time has moved forward with the recorded information. Each generation wrote what was learned, the next picked up from there and recorded new unfolding knowledge.

Eventually, a pinnacle will be reached: Understanding.

The process is about natural but in summary: Mankind is Defining Itself.

Ah, right, so it's just a deepity. No idea what all the waffle about mass and energy was about, but whatever....

 

[Bthoth]

Intent implies conscious awareness and planning.

There it is.

About like 'natural SELECTION' what is selecting?

I don't think bacteria, mushrooms or potatoes "intend" to survive.

The living process naturally by process of being alive.

They acquire and display protective responses or behaviors naturally selected for.

What selected? What's made the choice?

Again, you, me and my cat "intend." I doubt if the weeds in my yard do.
Intent is not one of the accepted mechanisms of evolution.

Just like 'selecting' is by no choice (sourcing).

The living process is naturally in process, without ever thinking about it.

 

[Bthoth]

Ah, right, so it's just a deepity. No idea what all the waffle about mass and energy was about, but whatever....

I know.... Few see existence, like I do.

It started when I was about 13 doing quadratic equations, then to maxwell and schrodinger: I observe 'energy' completely different.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is selecting?

The environment of the relevant population. It's not a great term in many ways as Darwin himself pointed out:

"The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity. No one objects to chemists speaking of "elective affinity;" and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."​

What you need to do is stop getting hung up on the word and look at the actual science.

That backwards frame of wording is exactly what is being used against me with Life INTENDS to survive.

As others have pointed out, many organisms have no capacity to 'intend' anything.

Life is good at surviving because any organism that isn't goes extinct. It's the obvious result of evolution, not a prerequisite.

 

[ratiocinator]

It started when I was about 13 doing quadratic equations, then to maxwell and schrodinger: I observe 'energy' completely different.

Why didn't you carry on? 'Energy' has a very specific scientific meaning. If you 'observe' it differently, you are just making something up that isn't energy in the scientific sense.

 

[Bthoth]

You won't "help people" by making false statements about biological (which means chemical) thermodynamics.

I was talking about why I left physics and changed to business.

Biology is a process of energy upon mass over time. A completely different perspective.

I am just setting the record straight, for those interested to follow it.

That is what I have faced for about half a century. Folk like you just wanting to show me as wrong. Not a fricken care about observing the perspective and rational...but just to fight me and 'set the record straight'.

I make no claim to be a "know-it-all professor", but I do have a degree in chemistry from a good UK university.

Cambridge? I doubt it but I saw your method very quickly.

If there are things n my post about the thermodynamics of life that you disagree with, or don't follow, then we can certainly discuss that.

I've already said that I am not interested.

What I take issue with is the assertion of things that are clearly false.

OK..... I am aware of your method of forcing a mind to comply before ever encouraging exploration.

That mindset that you are leveling is exactly why I left the system.

 

[Bthoth]

Why didn't you carry on? 'Energy' has a very specific scientific meaning. I

Sure... 'potential difference'

Something to use............. i already know that frame

f you 'observe' it differently, you are just making something up that isn't energy in the scientific sense.

I am aware that I have my own frame and defining of 'mass/energy/time'

I have my own theorem (model) I know that and I will not publish even a single line of it.

I live on a different set of principles.

 

[Bthoth]

The environment of the relevant population. It's not a great term in many ways as Darwin himself pointed out:

"The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity. No one objects to chemists speaking of "elective affinity;" and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."​

I already knew that.

My point was exactly that fact well before you even explained it.

Life, intends to survive.

What you need to do is stop getting hung up on the word and look at the actual science.

I am not hung up. You are just wanting to win.

As others have pointed out, many organisms have no capacity to 'intend' anything.

There it is again. Notice that I was aware of both frames and the issues well before you did.

And the only claim you can levy is "look at the actual science." To remain compliant.

It's as nasty a methodology as used by the religiously complacent.

Life is good at surviving because any organism that isn't goes extinct. It's the obvious result of evolution, not a prerequisite.

Because the process is driven by the energy itself, not just the environment nor it's population.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure... 'potential difference'

No.

I am aware that I have my own frame and defining of 'mass/energy/time'

So what's the point of that?

I have my own theorem (model) I know that and I will not publish even a single line of it.

I live on a different set of principles.

You're lining in a fantasy world all of your own?

 

[ratiocinator]

Life, intends to survive.

You're just running away. Many lifeforms are incapable of intention. Until you address that, this statement is meaningless nonsense.

And the only claim you can levy is "look at the actual science."

If you don't start with the science (which is what is supported by evidence), then how do you expect to convince anybody?

It's as nasty a methodology as used by the religiously complacent.

What is?

Because the process is driven by the energy itself, not just the environment nor it's population.

Meaningless assertion. What are you even trying to say?

 

[Bthoth]

You're just running away.

NO, i have a different perspective of what the life (living process) actually is.

Many lifeforms are incapable of intention.

the process is based on the same oscillation of the energy (light) to sustain itself (electromagnetic)

Until you address that, this statement is meaningless nonsense.

Of course.............. do you know or comprehend the dipole transition of the em fields? Yes or NO?

If you don't start with the science (which is what is supported by evidence), then how do you expect to convince anybody?

Not trying to convince. I have been defending myself from YOU and the other 2.

Your method is to claim how ignorant and unscientific that I am but do you think for yourself to try and observe what is actually 'stupid easy'

Life intends to continue (survive)

What is?

What you are doing now, slamming me but not considering that you could be wrong in your rational.

Meaningless assertion. What are you even trying to say?

I said it. What is meaningless, is because you never observed in such conception or thought.

I've already said that I observe nature completely different and have about half a century of observing nature completely different.

And the fact is, i did the math, rehashed theorem and created my own set of principles without ever requiring acknowledgement or support.

 

[ratiocinator]

NO, i have a different perspective of what the life (living process) actually is.

And do you have any evidence for it?

the process is based on the same oscillation of the energy (light) to sustain itself (electromagnetic)

Utterly meaningless in the context.

Of course.............. do you know or comprehend the dipole transition of the em fields? Yes or NO?

Yes. Relevance?

Not trying to convince. I have been defending myself from YOU and the other 2.

Convincing is how one defends a position. There is no point in making assertions on a debate forum unless you can defend them.

our method is to claim how ignorant and unscientific that I am...

Because that's how your statements appear. If you're not ignorant of the science and have something new, then it should be simple for you to go from one to the other.

...but do you think for yourself to try and observe what is actually 'stupid easy'

But we only have your unargued assertions that there is something 'stupid easy'. If it's easy, why haven't you explained it?

Life intends to continue (survive)

What's the point in just asserting this again without addressing the obvious objections?

What is meaningless, is because you never observed in such conception or thought.

Then why won't you explain it?

I've already said that I observe nature completely different and have about half a century of observing nature completely different.

So explain it.

And the fact is, i did the math, rehashed theorem and created my own set of principles without ever requiring acknowledgement or support.

So why assert instead of posting your actual work? Let's see this maths!

 

[Valjean]

There it is.

About like 'natural SELECTION' what is selecting?

The environment. Variations that increase reproductive success in a given environment yield more offspring carrying that trait. Variations that decrease success tend to be weeded out, over many generations.
The percentage with the useful trait gradually increases as a percentage of the population, till the trait becomes a species norm.

What selected? What's made the choice?

Reproductive success of those variants best suited to their environment.

 

[exchemist]

I was talking about why I left physics and changed to business.

Biology is a process of energy upon mass over time. A completely different perspective.





That is what I have faced for about half a century. Folk like you just wanting to show me as wrong. Not a fricken care about observing the perspective and rational...but just to fight me and 'set the record straight'.



Cambridge? I doubt it but I saw your method very quickly.

I've already said that I am not interested.

OK..... I am aware of your method of forcing a mind to comply before ever encouraging exploration.

That mindset that you are leveling is exactly why I left the system.

Not Cambridge but the other place.

The point is you are trying to contradict well-established science here. Nobody wants to stop you speculating mystically, or poetically, or whatever, but if you say something about science that is flat out wrong, you must expect to be corrected. Established science, which most definitely includes the laws of thermodynamics, is not a matter of opinion.

It is not just a matter of opinion that biological processes obey the laws of thermodynamics. It is a fact that they do. As I say, if it were otherwise, it would be a matter of urgent and extreme concern to biochemists and biologists to get to the bottom of what was going on. But there is no mystery here, as there is nothing odd to explain, where the thermodynamics are concerned.

 

[Bthoth]

And do you have any evidence for it?

Life, not just the sciences which are doing exactly what I mentioned; mankind is defining itself.

Utterly meaningless in the context.

Of course, as you do not see that nature has specific processes, not just to explain what you want to know.

Yes. Relevance?

The em fields are more important to comprehend nature than entropy

Convincing is how one defends a position. There is no point in making assertions on a debate forum unless you can defend them.

RF is not just as debate forum. And science is to comprehend nature, not just business.

Because that's how your statements appear. If you're not ignorant of the science and have something new, then it should be simple for you to go from one to the other.

To me is it closer to simple, than dealing with the obtuse.

But we only have your unargued assertions that there is something 'stupid easy'. If it's easy, why haven't you explained it?

I am aware of my impatience. But I do not have the arrogance of requiring myself to be right.

What's the point in just asserting this again without addressing the obvious objections?

Obvious? Life does intent to survive. It's about universal and natural. I do not have to explain to you if you care nothing of observing the obvious.

Then why won't you explain it?

Because like religions, many are too rude to be patient with

So explain it.

I keep trying but I cannot make a person check themselves before arguing.

So why assert instead of posting your actual work? Let's see this maths!

Never! Not gonna happen. I am aware of how people use actual theorem to create aweful things.

Hate me if you like, but I prefer just forgetting than trying to prove to someone like you, that cares nothing of mankind.

 

[Bthoth]

The environment. Variations that increase reproductive success in a given environment yield more offspring carrying that trait. Variations that decrease success tend to be weeded out, over many generation.

The life is surviving, nature is not selecting. A complete difference of perspective. Which is exactly what I focus on, the life!

The living process is what is changing to survive (within a given environment)

Reproductive success of those variants best suited to their environment.

Exactly, the living system is surviving in a given environment and capable of change/adaption.

Nature is not selecting anything!

 

[Bthoth]

Not Cambridge but the other place.

Lots of other places to learn

The point is you are trying to contradict well-established science here.

Such is most developments

Nobody wants to stop you speculating mystically, or poetically, or whatever, but if you say something about science that is flat out wrong, you must expect to be corrected.

Impossible. Do not even try.

Established science, which most definitely includes the laws of thermodynamics, is not a matter of opinion.

Always has been, but you consider your accepted model as absolute. Just like the religiously obtuse (the pope)

It is not just a matter of opinion that biological processes obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Sure it is. But you do not observe the possibility of the model being incorrect.

It is a fact that they do.

No it is not. To put on a coat when cold is against the law per 2LOT but you just dont see it that way.

As I say, if it were otherwise, it would a matter of urgent and extreme concern to biochemists and biologists to get to the bottom of what was going on.

I agree. So why argue with me?

But there is no mystery here, as there is nothing odd to explain, where the thermodynamics are concerned.

Of course not, because what I write contradicts your ideology but are you checking on the process of living systems before arguing with me because i mention an opposition to what you have accepted?

What have you done to check yourself?

I remember when I wrote photo neuron conduction (PNC theory) in 1982, I was ticked at the ridicule as I understood that light (em) is held upon mass (molecules). And CAL Tech (peer review) tried to tell me, that you can't hold a photon (EM) on mass. I knew that the reaction by the respondent was wrong then as now.

Just as i am well aware that no matter how you wish to argue, that twisting up the debate to fit what you want to define, is not relevant. For example: the double slit experiment. The mass (receiving plate) is sharing the reaction point, not that the photons are point particles.

 

[exchemist]

Lots of other places to learn

Such is most developments

Impossible. Do not even try.

Always has been, but you consider your accepted model as absolute. Just like the religiously obtuse (the pope)

Sure it is. But you do not observe the possibility of the model being incorrect.

No it is not. To put on a coat when cold is against the law per 2LOT but you just dont see it that way.

I agree. So why argue with me?

Of course not, because what I write contradicts your ideology but are you checking on the process of living systems before arguing with me because i mention an opposition to what you have accepted?

What have you done to check yourself?

I remember when I wrote photo neuron conduction (PNC theory) in 1982, I was ticked at the ridicule as I understood that light (em) is held upon mass (molecules). And CAL Tech (peer review) tried to tell me, that you can't hold a photon (EM) on mass. I knew that the reaction by the respondent was wrong then as now.

Just as i am well aware that no matter how you wish to argue, that twisting up the debate to fit what you want to define, is not relevant. For example: the double slit experiment. The mass (receiving plate) is sharing the reaction point, not that the photons are point particles.

This is close to word salad. I think there must be something wrong with you. I'm out of this discussion.

But if you make more wrong assertions about science, I may intervene to point out for other readers that what you write is rubbish.

 

[siti]

@Bthoth ... I am trying very hard to see what you are driving at, because despite the impenetrably abstruse language you use and your propensity for insulting posters who question what you have written, I actually think (unless I am still not reading very well) you might have an interesting way of viewing reality. Please let me know if any of the following is anywhere close:

1. I note that you identify as a "pantheist" - that implies that "all is God" and may possibly entail (depending on what exactly one means by "pantheist") that there is some level of universal or cosmic consciousness...am I right so far? (I know a lot of people around here on both sides of the theist/atheist divide would poo-poo that idea as a load of old woo-woo, but I don't necessarily - again depending on what exactly one means by "consciousness" - personally I prefer the word "experiential" but again that can be wildly misinterpreted).

2. Anyway, with 1 in mind, would I be correct in taking your repeated "life intends to survive" implies the idea that at some level, somehow, the universe (aka "god", aka "pantheos", aka the whole thing as a whole, aka...) has produced life "on purpose" - as it were - and is "intent" - as it were - on ensuring that life continues?

3. Would I also be correct in taking your repeated mentions of how you see "energy" and "light" differently than most people to be indicative of the idea that electromagnetic radiation is how the "living, conscious universe" (aka "god" etc.) mediates that "intent" to propagate and sustain life?

Before I continue, am I anywhere close so far?

 

[Bthoth]

@Bthoth ... I am trying very hard to see what you are driving at, because despite the impenetrably abstruse language you use and your propensity for insulting posters who question what you have written, I actually think (unless I am still not reading very well) you might have an interesting way of viewing reality. Please let me know if any of the following is anywhere close:

Close, but I try not to insult anyone.

1. I note that you identify as a "pantheist" - that implies that "all is God" and may possibly entail (depending on what exactly one means by "pantheist")

All mass, all energy, all time...... The universe as 1. "WE" live within it.

that there is some level of universal or cosmic consciousness...am I right so far?

"WE" mankind are conscious of itself. I have not taken on the idea of a universal consciousness. That one is a bit far reaching for me personally.

(I know a lot of people around here on both sides of the theist/atheist divide would poo-poo that idea as a load of old woo-woo, but I don't necessarily - again depending on what exactly one means by "consciousness"

You and I are conscious. Capable of articulating the position of an 'aye'.

- personally I prefer the word "experiential" but again that can be wildly misinterpreted).

2. Anyway, with 1 in mind, would I be correct in taking your repeated "life intends to survive" implies the idea that at some level, somehow, the universe (aka "god", aka "pantheos", aka the whole thing as a whole, aka...) has produced life "on purpose" - as it were - and is "intent" - as it were - on ensuring that life continues?

Not by me. In fact, that is the first time that I have ever observed that framing of a purpose.

3. Would I also be correct in taking your repeated mentions of how you see "energy" and "light" differently

Sure, energy is described as a potential difference thru to usable potential. I see em (light) as the scope of energy between points. Closer to Lavoisier and the coloric of energy as a unit of stuff (light) em in one wavelength or another. For example even the bohr analogy. For an electron to even jump a shell it must capture(take on) a qubit (photon) light. The spectrum of em is huge.

than most people to be indicative of the idea that electromagnetic radiation

Radiation is propagation Most see light as moving thru space. I find that no 2 elements on the chart can even combine to become a molecule without em(light) in one wavelength or another, all cases, every time.

is how the "living, conscious universe" (aka "god" etc.) mediates that "intent" to propagate and sustain life?

The em is oscillating upon mass, sustaining itself.

Before I continue, am I anywhere close so far?

Close but still a bit off.