Ball Lightning
in [Physics]
|
Prev: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
Next: * Iarnrod Hates US * the usenet kook makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by failing to confront prove FACT that his claims are physically impossible
From: Androcles on 27 May 2010 14:10 "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... | In article <htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, | "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: | | > .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... | > > | > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: | > > [snip] | > O Mighty Hanson! :-) | > > | > hanson wrote: | > ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many | > things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow | > onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as | > many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have | > been here on earth. | > ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== | > See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... | > It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. | > > | > So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: | > > | > All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic | > element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner | > or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant & all | > heuristic thinkers end up. | | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is | unsound. | | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the | circularity in the following: | | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or | vanish into nothing--is true. | The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false.
From: Mitchell Jones on 27 May 2010 14:50 In article <wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message > news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... > | In article <htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > | "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > | > | > .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > | > > > | > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > | > > [snip] > | > O Mighty Hanson! :-) > | > > > | > hanson wrote: > | > ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > | > things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow > | > onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as > | > many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have > | > been here on earth. > | > ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== > | > See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... > | > It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > | > > > | > So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: > | > > > | > All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic > | > element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner > | > or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant & all > | > heuristic thinkers end up. > | > | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is > | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is > | unsound. > | > | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > | circularity in the following: > | > | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > | vanish into nothing--is true. > | > > The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows that they come into existence out of something--which means: the arrangement of other existents is changed in such a way as to create a new thing with defined characteristics. Thus there is a recipe for each individual mind and, when ingredients in the physical world have been arranged in such a way that the recipe is fulfilled, that individual mind comes into the world. From that point forward, it sees through the eyes of the body which fulfills the requirements of that recipe, hears through its ears, and so on. That's how all minds come into the world, not just the minds of chickens. Hence the egg doesn't have a mind: the egg is a physical vehicle that goes through a DNA controlled developmental sequence, and, when a stage is reached where the recipe for a particular mind has been fulfilled, that mind passes from a prior state in which it existed only as a potentiality, into a state where it exists as an actuality--i.e., where it exists, perceives, and acts in the physical world. --MJ}*** ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Androcles on 27 May 2010 15:35 "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-4E5277.13500927052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... | In article <wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: | | > | > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message | > news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... | > | In article <htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, | > | "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: | > | | > | > .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... | > | > > | > | > "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: | > | > > [snip] | > | > O Mighty Hanson! :-) | > | > > | > | > hanson wrote: | > | > ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many | > | > things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow | > | > onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as | > | > many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have | > | > been here on earth. | > | > ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== | > | > See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... | > | > It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. | > | > > | > | > So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: | > | > > | > | > All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic | > | > element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner | > | > or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant & all | > | > heuristic thinkers end up. | > | | > | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is | > | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which | > | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is | > | unsound. | > | | > | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the | > | circularity in the following: | > | | > | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of | > | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or | > | vanish into nothing--is true. | > | | > | > The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come | > from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. | | ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, I just gave you a counter-example. You are fucked. End of story.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 27 May 2010 15:38 On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> >> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message >> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... >> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: >> | >> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... >> |> > >> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >> |> > [snip] >> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) >> |> > >> |> hanson wrote: >> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many >> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow >> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as >> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have >> |> been here on earth. >> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== >> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... >> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. >> |> > >> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: >> |> > >> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic >> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner >> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all >> |> heuristic thinkers end up. >> | >> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is >> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which >> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is >> | unsound. >> | >> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the >> | circularity in the following: >> | >> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of >> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or >> | vanish into nothing--is true. >> | >> >> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come >> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > > ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows > that they come into existence out of something--which means: the Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: hanson on 27 May 2010 16:39
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... Senior Honess aka "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: >> "Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >> > [snip] >> O Mighty Hanson! :-) >> > >> hanson wrote: >> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many >> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow >> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as >> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have >> been here on earth. >> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== >> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... >> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. >> > >> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: >> > >> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic >> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner >> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant & all >> heuristic thinkers end up. > Addressing hanson, Senior Honess wrote: > ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is > also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is > unsound. > Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > circularity in the following: > (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > vanish into nothing--is true. > Calling Jones, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come from an egg's mind. Senior Honess, Your "reasoning" is false. > Senior Honess wrote: > (2) The possible answers to that question are two: it is either true, or > it is false. > (3) Doubt is a state of mind. Hence the claim to doubt that one has a > mind is a contradiction in terms. Hence the existence of one's mind is a > self-evident fact. But the mind is more than consciousness: it is that > which, by receiving sensations, IS conscious, and by sourcing > sensations, acts. If, however, we assume that the principle of > continuity is false, we must doubt that anything exists to receive > sensations: they may be simply vanishing into nothing; and we must doubt > that anything exists to act as a source of sensations: they may be > simply leaping into existence out of nothing. To say, therefore, that > the principle of continuity is false, or even that it may be false, is > to say that we doubt the existence of anything outside of the field of > consciousness, including the existence of the mind. But that is a > contradiction: we cannot doubt the existence of the mind, because doubt > is a state of mind. Therefore we can eliminate the possibility that the > principle of continuity is false from our consideration, and, when we do > so, we find that only one possibility remains: that the principle of > continuity is true. > (4) Since only one possibility remains, we must accept it as the truth, > until and unless we find an error in steps (1) through (3) above. > If an error exists in the above reasoning, whether involving circularity > or not, what is it? > --Mitchell Jones}*** > hanson wrote: >> The subject line, Ball Lightning, is ironic but on the mark. It >> takes Balls to get to the Light. It is not easy to let go of the Id, >> the Self and the Ego and make the jump to discuss the issue >> from a purely chemical and physical aspect. > Senior Honess wrote: > ***{I can see why you are concerned by possible circularity, since the > above statement demonstrates that you are enmeshed in its coils > yourself. Thought may very well be an electrochemical reaction in the > physical brain, but attempts to use physics and chemistry to answer > fundamental philosophical questions such as whether the mind exists or > whether the physical world exists are inescapably circular. All of the > knowledge acquired by science is based on the presumption that the > external world exists, that scientists exist, that experimental > apparatus exists, and so on. Hence if there is a basis for believing in > the existence of any of those things, it cannot lie in science, and the > notion that it does is as crudely circular as anything can ever be. You > can't decide whether the external world exists by doing an experiment or > by analyzing experimental results, because if the external world does > not exist, then science, experiments, and experimental results do not > exist either. --MJ}*** > hanson wrote: >> It's like in medicine, for treating maladies, where/when only the >> obvious and manifest Symptoms are treated... to no avail...but >> insight and remedy came only when the situation was addressed >> at the chemical/physical level of the DNA... > Senior Honess wrote: > ***{If the external world does not exist, DNA does not exist. Hence any > attempted proof of the existence of the external world that makes > reference to DNA, or to science, or to experimental results, etc., would > be circular. You would be assuming that which is to be proven. --MJ}*** > hanson wrote: >> The same MO holds for the problem of treating the issue/malady >> of reality... which is always ending up with ** Mental Mugging** >> unless you go into the EM/chemistry "therapy" of the DNA or >> Protein folding to solve the problem of ** What is reality** > Senior Honess wrote: > ***{The question "Does an external world--a world outside of the > mind--exist?" must be answered before we can do science. Only if that > question has been answered in the affirmative, can we then proceed to > investigate the nature of the world. The gathering of empirical > knowledge, hence science, is based on the presumed existence of a world > outside the mind. But the existence of a world outside the mind is based > on the epistemological validity of the principle of continuity, which > can only be demonstrated by philosophical reasoning of the sort that I > have sketched out for you above. --MJ}*** > hanson wrote: , cuz >> [][][] Consider that ALL our experiences and interactions with >> [][][] our environment are nothing but ELECTRO MAGNETIC >> [][][] phenomena, (barring gravity that keeps us on the ground) > Senior Honess wrote: > ***{All the phenomena of science are presumed manifestations of an > external world, a world outside the mind. They all assume the existence > of that world, and, as a result, any attempt to use them to prove the > existence of that world is inescapably circular. --MJ}*** > hanson wrote: ....ahahahaha... You are right. You have recognized that because of EM in its many manifestations "proves, that the existence of that world is inescapably circular", and you have just demonstrated that wonderfully, & not even mentioning that you are an integral part of it, cuz... [][][] Consider that ALL our experiences and interactions with [][][] our environment are nothing but ELECTRO MAGNETIC [][][] phenomena, (barring gravity that keeps us on the ground) > Your "mighty Hanson" has left the building. He will talk to you again after a number of quasi circular celestial planetary movements. Till then please wait, otherwise you may become a victim of the all too common practice of **Mental Sui-Mugging**, a particularly sinister form of the malady of anthropic verbal circularity ... ahahaha... > hanson wrote: >> ..."mighty Hanson" will leave the building now. .... But truly, >> Thanks for he laughs, Mitch... ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson > |