Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
I don't recall "Screamers" exactly, but doesn't it involve some creatures that look like humans (one of them was a child?)
On the space exploration, I was specifically pondering what would be necessary to survive enormous amounts of time in space under hostile conditions - to locate a viable planet, prepare it and colonize it before our own sun burns off.
And a video of an interview with a 12 year about her death experience.
Wonderful, thanks, you walking, talking education-Girl. I'll look at these if you check out 
for me. ;-) It's a fine little movie on many levels, by Dan O'Bannon, the guy who came up with "Alien," which in turn lead to a story by Philip K. Dick of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ("Bladerunner") fame.
(Not a paid endorsement.)
I'm always hopeful about the future and the ultimate wisdom of the Amercian voters.
On the space exploration, I was specifically pondering what would be necessary to survive enormous amounts of time in space under hostile conditions - to locate a viable planet, prepare it and colonize it before our own sun burns off.
And we should care about that project? :-)
For instance, the Bible records many prophecies and their fulfillment. Much of it is confirmed by other archeological evidence and historical documents.
As I recall, one of the tests of a Jewish prophet was that he had to be 100% accurate all the time. Therefore, the prophecies had a present day fulfillment during the prophet's life and a future fulfillment.
Also, the many prophecies of Christ appearing as the suffering lamb are fulfilled. The prophecies of His returning as the conquering lion will be next.
There are also promises in the Word which are fulfilled personally (I've experienced many of these!)
On the space exploration, I imagine there are people who are pondering that very thing. After all, an asteroid might wipe this planet out before the sun - or so the thinking goes. But the closest planets are too far to travel in the flesh, so a colony must begin anew from the test tube - hence the need for strong A.I.
I think I'll be doing a serious reconsideration of Ouspensky very soon, just as soon as I finish the three or so books I've got going right now (including the Penrose).... Sigh, so much to read, so little time!!! (I've got a date with Attila Grandpierre this weekend -- another Platonist, it seems to me, on the basis of a cursury flip through his pages....)
Thank you so much, A-G, for the link, the information, and for all you do in general. This has been a marvelously informative thread so far.
Indeed, this thread has been very informative - I couldn't have asked for better dialogue! I'm also very pleased with the demeanor; people seem to be genuinely interested in sharing information and insight!
Yeehaw!!!
Texan for: "quite remarkable"
Now, many can and will accept this as “well, that’s life”, but the point is they have established what many would consider a religion. ‘Truth’ as only defined by man and the formation of an individual’s worldview around this ‘truth’. We know that morality as only defined by man is relative so why not ‘truth’? Science has not always been defined as metaphysical naturalism.
Many would say here that I have made a leap between science (as currently defined) and religion so let me clarify:
religion:Obviously one can state that ‘some’ who believe in a supernatural entity have shut the door to science. Can the believer in a supernatural entity say the same about those who base their worldview on the metaphysical naturalism that they consider to be the only ‘truth’? Beyond this, which individual’s ‘truth and morality’ is relative and which is stationary?
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
(Obvious emphasis mine)
Before one considers arguing this post, I would hope they consider why… Is it because it conflicts with a worldview?
Note: This is for discussion only as Alamo-Girl has a civil thread and it would be nice to keep it that way…
Well, after learning that Sufi isn't something vegans spread on toast or celery, is it part of a Sufolutionary Mythos? Sounds very taxonomic and reincarnationy of course, but as such I suppose one would have to say it is evolutionary, now wouldn't one? That being the case, I wonder if 'age of reason' evolution theory isn't truly a grandchild of animist reincarnation dogma, in its own evolution. Hmmm.... I wouldn't be surprised. I'm glad the poor soul lucked out though and didn't get stuck at the mineral 'phase' aren't you? Wouldn't be able to say much for his poetry, then.
1400's? I'd be curious to know if A-G's Kabbalah evolution ideas had hit by that time? When did those guys start with their "just so stories?"
Greaaaaat... {{8-| ...bb & A-G, my new friends at whose feet I so often sit are into Sufi and Kabbalah respectively.... I'm going to talk to Linus now. At least lean on his blanket.
;-`
That sure shows me why so many Christians and I don't like that word (prefering "relationship" or "communion" for what we have, with adjectives such as "loving," "intimate," and "devout" and "transcendent.") Surely, it is a corruption of whatever Scriptural words in Hebrew, Greek and perhaps Aramaic are used, when it becomes the translation.
Funny thing though, how apt a word it so very often and tragically has been.
Before one considers arguing this post, I would hope they consider why… Is it because it conflicts with a worldview?
;-`
[You are one very "dangerous" man!!!]
'Nite guy. :^)
Indeed, A-G, and most welcome....
There are a lot of brilliant people who correspond here; and my assessment of "personal brilliance" doesn't depend on whether they "agree with me" or not. My stock of information and experience is enriched by their arguments, and I hope all friends of disparate viewpoint will continue to advance their theories in good faith, here on this thread, and at FR in general.
After more than five years' involvement with this site, it is (simply) still amazing to me, how much we all can -- and do -- learn here, from each other, in this particular venue.
[May God Bless JimRob!]
Indeed evolutionists have been implying that the future can cut the chances of something occurring in the past.
Nonsense, but keep believing that if it gives you some strange kind of satisfaction.
This is the basic argument of natural selection as well as the new argument of pathways.
Gosh, biologists must have "missed" that aspect of natural selection over the past 150 years, perhaps you could go explain it to them.
I am glad you realize that such arguments are silly like I do.
Indeed, since they're *your* arguments.
The future cannot in any way make what happens in the past more likely.
Bravo. Here's a cookie. (There's hope for Gore yet!)
In the same way selection cannot cut down the tries that must occur for a favorable outcome
Actually it can, because that involves altering the *future* (by changing *current* conditions which have future implications), not the *past*.
Selection can indeed "cut down the tries that must occur for a favorable outcome" because it works like this:
random change -> select -> random change -> select -> random change -> select (etc.)In this way, each selection pass "improves the field" so that *later* random changes have more to build on than they would have without selection. This drastically reduces the number of "tries" necessary. Any number of evolutionary simulations (and mathematical analyses) prove this quite clearly. Selection is a very efficient reducer of effort.
For example, if your computer were to just try random strings of 27 letters until it lucked upon the string, "Methinks it is like a weasel", your computer would literally rust away before it got lucky (there are 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,376 possible strings of that length). HOWEVER, if you use selection to preferentially retain the random strings that were closer to the favorable outcome (than other attempts in the pool) before each new random change, your computer would find the Shakespeare quote in *seconds*. Try it for yourself here.
Selection *does* hugely decrease the number of trials necessary -- whether you understand it or not.
In fact the pathway idea is a contradiction of what evolution has been saying for 150 years.
No, it isn't.
Evolution has been claiming that from one species we have gotten numerous diverse species.
Yup.
The idea of pathways is that it constrains the variety of species in the future
Yeah, so? This in no way contradicts the statement that "from one species we have gotten numerous diverse species".
and therefore is totally contrary to what evolution has been saying.
Nope. Partially constraining the paths that evolution can (or is more likely to) follow in no way prevents it from producing new species. In fact, it may *help*, depending on whether the likely/unlikely pathways are more/less likely to produce "good" evolutionary results.
Even more important it contradicts the known facts. If one is to say that a certain type arose some 500 million years ago as we have been discussing then it would preclude the arising of vastly different types from that original in the future.
I sure wish you'd make sense. No, it doesn't preclude that at all.
The first vertebrates were certainly fish.
No they weren't, but thanks for playing. The first vertebrate were simple wormlike creatures.
If the pathways idea were correct, then all that we would have nowadays would be different kinds of fish but certainly we would not have had reptiles, dinosaurs or mammals because of the constraints set by the supposed pathways.
Where on *earth* do you get the bizarre notion that just because *some* evolutionary pathways might be more/less likely than others, that there would remain only *ONE* possible path? You've grossly misunderstood the entire discussion.
The "paths" analysis simply says, "not all possible outcomes are equally likely, some are more likely to occur than others (and a few may be impossible to achieve)".
It does *NOT* say, "there's only one road, period, end of story, all others are locked out", as you try to make it say.
So clearly evolutionists have realized that intelligent design has posed serious questions to evolution and in desperation they are contradicting their own theory.
So "clearly" your non sequitur conclusion does not follow. Not only does it not follow from what he was *actually* saying, it doesn't even follow from your own misunderstanding of it.
I suspect that the most devout enthusiasts of practices in the "collective unconscious" or "collective conscious" have similar dances with devils. As for myself, to be honest, I tend to have enough trouble with my own conscious and unconscious little self, but I'm interested in Sheldrake's research.Jung's Spirit Guide
Because Jung turned psychoanalysis into a type of religion, he is also considered to be a transpersonal psychologist as well as a psychoanalytical theorist. He delved deeply into the occult, practiced necromancy, and had daily contact with disembodied spirits, which he called archetypes. Much of what he wrote was inspired by such entities. Jung had his own familiar spirit whom he called Philemon. At first he thought Philemon was part of his own psyche, but later on he found that Philemon was more than an expression of his own inner self. Jung says:
Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself. In my fantasies I held conversations with him, and he said things which I had not consciously thought. For I observed clearly that it was he who spoke, not I. . . . Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight. He was a mysterious figure to me. At times he seemed to me quite real, as if he were a living personality. I went walking up and down the garden with him, and to me he was what the Indians call a guru.8
One can see why Jung is so very popular among New Agers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.