Personally, I believe that if there were an intelligent designer we wouldn't have to search so hard for evidence.
Maybe the problem is more along the lines of "How do I explain the last computer program I wrote to my pet chimpanzee?" Though I suppose that given enough time, 7000 chimps might actually come up with better code than mine. Of course, I wouldn't really say that in reference to God because if I did, I mmighyaw.a w wt/iy haep/.
I'm curious. We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly. Those colors are the primary colors R, G, and B. Do you suppose that it might be possible that there exists a creature whos retina is only binary sensitive and yet capable of rendering all possible visual colors? Correct me if I am wrong, but what we see dervives from the combination of what we physically detect and how our brains process that data. So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum (which is objectively determinable using electronic sensors).
It also seems to me that having seven channels of vision does not necessarily imply that one's sight is better than one who has only three channels of vision. In other words, it might be that we have a brain that can process three input signals better than the brain of the creature that has 7 input signals. Likewise we know that having a larger number of eyes doesn't necessarily imply better vision. For example, the human brain is far more capable than that of a fly.
Lacking concrete scientific and qualitative data, it seems to me that "the most advanced vision" would be in the eye of the beholder.;)
And - I'm no football junkie - but is this even a significant rivalry? I always figured the Redskins were rivals mainly with the Dallas Cowboys.
Yup that's right. Green Bay's chief rival is Tampa bay, or at least it was while they were in the same division. Now I suppose it's the Vikes. But speaking of Tampabay, I'm sure there's an "every year the Bucs win a superbowl..." joke in here somewhere. How about after every year the Bucs win a superbowl, they kick Keyshawn Johnson off the team, which could actually become reality.;)
If you go into the sun you are toast, but that doesn't mean it couldn't act as a slingshot. The mere existance of black holes, seems to suggest that faster than speed of light travel is a possibility. The trick is in using one's immagination.
At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.
You mean finding new applications for existing tech? Have you considered the basic principles themselves might evolve in new spheres?
At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.
But even the pool of knowlegde of 'basic principles' is not static, let alone our ability to apply them. In my estimation it would be unwise to place unnecessary limits on thier growth. Science and human history seem to suggest that evolution is an eternal possibility.
I'm sure that after the discovery of the sail, ocean travel and its benefits increased exponentially for a time--before finally the basic innovation ran its course, and was as fully understood as it could be.
And then came the steam engine, nuclear power, etc...
Why place unnecessary limits on the scope of your consideration? The basic principle can be applied in multiple technological spheres -- solar sails for example. And who knows what new frontiers might be revealed if man is permitted to advance sufficiently?
Multiple core principles doubtless build upon each other, but eventually the rate of "invention" will decrease and slow.
Only if one places unnecessary limits on the capabilities of human imagination, and that is something that is outside of human control.
As the evidence suggests the contrary, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you.
What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.
That's an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure we would be able to find such noise. I mean, if the spectrum that an alien race might use is broad enough, how would we be able to pick out the signal from backround emmissions? Intimmately related to that problem would be the problem of being able to decode intelligence from the transmissions. How would we be able to distinguish between say, hopping communications signals and oh, a solar burst somewhere, or whatever else?
Some other considerations come to mind. Specifically, the assumption we are using is that aliens are using radio waves to communicate rather than other things. There would have to be some kind of limiting factor to the Drake Equation that would take into consideration that such communication is likely not going to be detectable from noise beyond a certain distance.
You mentioned the possibility that we might evolve our own communications capabilities using newer technologies such as to make everything indistinguishable from white noise. So then time might also be a limiting factor to the equation.
Say for example, we evolve to the point where we've learned that there is another intelligent civ developing in the galaxy next door, or that we might be the subjects of observation. I suppose that might impact our communications policies on a global level. Assuming the same of the alien societies, it's likely we might only be able to discover aliens within a specific and relatively narrow frame of time.
In addition, technology might also influence the the probability of SETI discovering anything. Really, radio waves are a highly inefficient means of communication. I'm not sure we're even technologically close to being able to conceptualize methods of interstellar commnication. For example, what if we are able to develop "warp" technology? I'm sure we aould use it to packetize communications for the long haul, possibly deploying low level radio transmissions at the final destination. However, I suppose that if we were to develop in that manner, then we might also be able to take advantage of advances in quantum electronics to communicate in ways we don't even know exist presently. Just so, our ability to find intelligent life in outerspace might be severly limited in ways that the Drake Equation does not take into effect.
It seems to me, that any civilization that is united in it's organization, such that technology and politics are married throughout is going to have an advantage in the universal pool of development, and once they get that advange, barring unfortunate circumstances, they will probably be able to keep it. If I were such intelligent life from another system looking at this earth today, I would probably make sure that I follow something similar to the prime directive.
This is the argument put forth in the book of James. Too bad it doesn't jive with Paul's argument (who argued that faith and faith alone would save, and that there is no work that will save). It also conflicts with Jesus at some point, who also argued faith and faith alone. But Jesus wasn't consistent on the issue of salvation at all.
I've found that the Bible becomes a whole lot less contradictory the more I work to understand what it says.
Take this example you've addressed here. In order to understand Jesus, Paul, James, and the various Apostles and their biblical teachings you have to know a fair amount about who they were, that is to say, the environments they came from and the missions they were called to fulfill.
I'll start with Jesus himself. Jesus' ministry was primarily to the Jews. In Jesus' time the Jews were the ancestors of God's chosen people Israel. It was correctly assumed that the Jews would the ones through whom the commandments of God and their teaching would be practiced and perpetuated. However, as it turned out, and this not unforeseen by God, Jesus found more evidence of faith in the Gentiles (read -- people excluded from God and the old covenant) than he did in Jews.
When I talk about faith or belief as Jesus did, I mean to do so in the context of what Jesus meant in identifying believers. Specifically, Jesus expected people to recognize him as being from God not in an unreasoned or necessarily blind manner as is commonly taught by many Christian religious of today, but rather as of evidenced by the healing, supportive, and often corrective nature of the works he performed. The fact that these works were often miraculous was really of secondary importance in that regard. Jesus spoke ill of the Jews when they attempted to castigate him as demonic on the basis of their extremely limited understanding of the Scriptures they were entrusted with. That, and of course, they wanted to kill him. So when modern 'Christians' tell people that they are going to hell because they are unbelievers, they usually don't know what they are talking about any better than the old Jewish authorities did.
So since Jesus ministered to both Jews and Gentiles, you have to interpret what he said to those very different audiences accordingly. Please stay with here; I think it will become more clear later what I mean.
Jesus called the Apostles to minister almost exclusively to the Jews. Paul is the only Apostle, aside from Peter perhaps, who had any significant presence among the Gentiles. And there was good reason Paul was chosen to minister to the Gentiles. Understand that the Gentiles had been throughout history excluded from participation in God's covenant relationship with Israel. This meant they did not even have the law let alone any assistance in obeying the commandments. As a result, Gentile societies evolved such that murder, theft, trickery, sexual perversion, coveting and venerating supernatural power (be it holy or not), and other evils became not just an aspect of their civilization, but an integral part of their culture. As a result, the typical Gentile couldn't even hope to identify a good work from an evil one let alone perform one. And these were the kind of people Paul was called to minister to. Now why would God have chosen Paul?
Paul himself was a Pharisee, a Jewish religious authority descendent from a line of Jewish authorities. As a Pharisee, Paul sought out and persecuted Christians. In fact, in God's eyes, he was no better than the Gentiles and understood who God was little more than they did. At least that was so until the Lord appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. That was the turning point Paul's life - Paul's experience of justification and the beginning of his salvation. So here we have a Jew that by his own experience of salvation, could relate with and teach Gentiles who were as 'dead' in the faith he once was. If your traditional enemy comes to you with a different message than his forebea
It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.
It's interesting to note that even the oldest known civilizations give evidence that they believed that some higher power was responsible for life in their world. I wonder where this curiousity came from. I'm sure there was very little understanding about how the world worked back then which would leave much to speculation. But why atribute observations to a higher power?
Even in more advanced civilizations that give evidence of reasoning capabilities on a level closer to modern man, some type of divine belief system existed. It seems to me unlikely that a belief system could exist without rational basis for its foundation. I suspect that, as was the case when Christianity began, it was often motivated by forces determined to assert thier dominance over the less gifted. However, I would not expect such systems of belief to survive very long under such circumstances. Yet Christianity has its roots in a Hebrew culture that lasted far longer than any other known culture throughout the history of the world. To me that's more than just significant.
Growing up my view on religion developed from analysis from the perspective of things that I had learned in a very limited system. Specifically, I mean I employed the methodologies that I was familiar with through school -- that which seeks knowledge through scientific method. Science seeks knowledge through testable observation with repeatable results. It is a valid approach to understanding the truth of what we see, but the perspective is very limited. Typically science doesn't seek to answer "Why isn't it this way instead of this other way?", and it doesn't look outside of its own domain for understanding. Science simply seeks to understand why something is the way it appears to be based upon what it already knows.
Alfred Hitchcock's character Sherlock Holmes often solved mysteries by ask why things weren't they way he would have expected them to be. The detectives methods impressed me as revoltionary and not just evolutionary in that the solutions came as a result of asking questions that one wouldn't normally think to ask. Therein was my introduction to faith based upon reason. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think belief without strong rationality behind it could survive long in society, and I tend to believe that it true on an individual basis as well since there are always those around that would have you believing in anything else but a god, particularly when that god encourages its followers to live in a way that is not productive to powerful self interests.
My own personal acceptance of the existance of God developed as a result of many things that had happened to me all coming together in a rational picture I had never thought to study previously. This thinking was sparked by seriously considering things I had learned to reject previously because my mindset had sought to work forward from where I was in a very technical way and not logically back from what could be with an open mind. For example in the movie 2001: A Space Oddessy there is a monolith that appears in the film wherever some major advance occurs in earthly civilization. That got me thinking, well if I were God, I would probably put 'monoliths' in my creation such that they would be recognizable (but not obvious -- I am God after all -- I want to make things interesting for my people). At least one of these signatures should be constant throughout the 'life expectancy' of my creation. I found what I was looking for (or perhaps it f
As a youngster, every once and a while I would hear about someone who spontaneously combusted. I came to believe that these stories were just urban legend. Now I'm starting to wonder if they were just people who wore braces and who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Seriously though, I think it's bogus. I can't fathom how something like this would fail to gain mention in any major media outlet.
"Papa Legba is the voodoo god of the crossroads; all communication falls into his domain and he is displeased.
I used a ballpoint pen to mark some arcane-looking but utterly meaningless symbols on the disk's medium, then had her tape it to the side of her monitor. I told her to try it again.
Of course, when she tried again it printed with no problem.
My toaster stopped communicating with my microwave. Do you remember exactly what those arcane symbols looked like?
How on earth can you describe an analog watch as more intuitive than a digital watch?
Once you learn it, it becomes straightforward and easy,...
You answered your own question. My guess is the person who posted the article is in the over 40 crowd. Such people grew up in the analog world, and so for them, it's cake to glance at the face of analog watch and know instantly both the time of day, and an intuitive sense of how much time they have left without having to do the math.
I'm curious to know if we ask this question again 50 years from now, if the response would be the same. My guess is most people don't own more elegant pieces like grandfather clocks, the older stuff in kind of 'artsy' and technological evolution seems to take us towards more practical solutions at the expense of art.
I bet I know why women prefer analog watches... because thier fathers wore them. This is another area where girls and guys are fundamentally different. Girls like guys who smell like barbecue, where the same cologne their dad did, an anonlog watch, have grey acents in thier hair, etc...
But if a girl reminds a guy of his mother, the relationship'll never get really serious.
Sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming seem to be similar in that they're "sleep states gone bad". I'm often lucid prior to slipping into a hypnogogic state, which means I'm fully aware that I'm becoming paralyzed. Then with this awareness, I can break the paralysis by "fighting" off the fear.
My experience was different, and yet no so different. I remember when I was about 8 years old. I thought I was fortunate in that woke in the middle of the night just as I was slipping into a nightmare. It was an easy state for me to identify, as it always seemed to happen the same way. Kind of a fast sinking feeling like dipping over air currents in an airplane. Accompanied by a darkening of and/or shrinking from whatever half-dream environment I was in.
However, as soon as I snapped out of this, I immediately glanced over my feet and just past the end of my bed I saw what I thought for sure was a ghost. So that residual fear turn into paralysis very quickly. I was so afraid that all I could manage for a cry for help was a faint exhale that even I could barely hear.
Well, it looked like the ghost hadn't noticed me yet. Good. I wanted to pull the covers over my head but my arms wouldn't move, then I thought it's better that I don't 'cause then the ghost would know I was there and touch me through the covers anyway.
So I lay there in the bed for nearly 5 minutes in a paralytic state of fear. Then my senses started to stabilize and I focused in on the ghost, and I realized that it was just shirt that was hung over my chair. Then that fear quickly vanished, and I no longer had any trouble breathing.
I'd like to add that the succubi and incubi in medieval mythology were likely also inspired by sleep paralysis attacks. Similarly, in Chinese culture, sleep paralysis is known as "being sat on by a ghost".
I wonder how many people would actually think of this as a nightmare. Actually, when I hear the term, what comes to mind is something that looks like what a LOTR ring wraith might ride on. I guess a pegasus might be the opposite.
Interestingly enough, I had a dream about these too when I was about 8. One night soon after I had had surgery, I was sleeping on my stomache (I often do this to ward off nausea). I remember dreaming about winged white horses flying under my stomache, where I had the operation, and ascending on the other side. It was accompanied by a strange floating/tingling feeling -- and this is before I even heard about the myth.
Higher temperatures increase the chances of strange stuff happening during sleep. For example, getting under a heavy blanket after taking a hot shower. I think it has something to do with the body being a bit too hot for consistent REM sleep.
Interesting. Maybe that's why our parish priest likes to crank up the AC overnight on retreat weekends. I never did asked him why he does that.
Since you asked, though, I'll tell you that the one I was taking, protriptyline, would make for very restless nights with lots of "twilight dreams" (you know, those endless threaded dreams that seem to continue all night long, with repeating motifs or conundrums you simply can't solve no matter how hard you try).
You should have taken both the red pill *and* the blue pill. Then you'd have been able to figure out those dreams!
Someone was once joking about sending Bill Gates a letter with a $5 bill inside, and a note "by opening this letter, you agree to sell me your car for $5. Please forward your keys and title to..."
I always thought he got rich by selling software. Now it all makes sense.
I spent a summer basicly attached to my
computer playing TF.
It's not something I'm proud of, but I spent about 2 years attached to my computer because of TF.
I agree with everything you said. I migrated from Quake fairly quickly. Starting out in TF as an HPB I was amazed at what I saw and picked up various techniques from others. The best players seemed to be the ones who had both technical skill and "map smarts" and knew how to combine them to their advantage real time.
Were you in the Fifth Element when Sacrifice was? I remember playing against him while I was in [APR] and IQ. Sac was probably the single best all around player I've seen in TF. Irrespective of whether he cheated or not, I believe his mastery of technical and strategic skills was beyond the abilities of even a good bot program. As I recall, >V< also had some great map creators.
I thought the Admiral was trying to warn the recruit the only way he could: "You don't want a crappy job like that, and I'm not going to give it to you unless you demonstrate extreme stupidity." After all, who is going to be affected by a nuclear accident that happens in a thick metal tube 300 meters beneath the sea?
I have a Dell laptop with S-Video out capabilities. I can get it to display on the LCD, and the TV using the S-Video cable. However, if both displays are left on, DVD video does not display on the TV. The trick for me is to disable the laptop display after booting up and before playing any video. I do this through my ATI driver utility.
The cynic in me beleives that Bush is simply trying to hedge his political position (distract people from the fact that we haven't actually caught much in the way of actual terror LEADERS) instead of any real belief in Iraqs ability to inflict harm on anyone.
The Kurds, Kuwait? Let's not forget this guy is a proven terrorist both inside and outside of his own borders. He doesn't develop weapons as a deterent, he develops weapons to use them -- and he has.
Slashdot Mirror
Emacs or Vi, it doesn't matter which OS you choose, your planet is doomed! - Kang
Personally, I believe that if there were an intelligent designer we wouldn't have to search so hard for evidence.
/iy haep/.
Maybe the problem is more along the lines of "How do I explain the last computer program I wrote to my pet chimpanzee?" Though I suppose that given enough time, 7000 chimps might actually come up with better code than mine. Of course, I wouldn't really say that in reference to God because if I did, I mmighyaw.a w wt
I'm curious. We only need three colors to form all other colors in the visible spectrum provided the colors are processed correctly. Those colors are the primary colors R, G, and B. Do you suppose that it might be possible that there exists a creature whos retina is only binary sensitive and yet capable of rendering all possible visual colors? Correct me if I am wrong, but what we see dervives from the combination of what we physically detect and how our brains process that data. So the most advanced vision would seem to be that which employs the fewest detectors to represent the full range of the visible spectrum (which is objectively determinable using electronic sensors).
;)
It also seems to me that having seven channels of vision does not necessarily imply that one's sight is better than one who has only three channels of vision. In other words, it might be that we have a brain that can process three input signals better than the brain of the creature that has 7 input signals. Likewise we know that having a larger number of eyes doesn't necessarily imply better vision. For example, the human brain is far more capable than that of a fly.
Lacking concrete scientific and qualitative data, it seems to me that "the most advanced vision" would be in the eye of the beholder.
And - I'm no football junkie - but is this even a significant rivalry? I always figured the Redskins were rivals mainly with the Dallas Cowboys.
;)
Yup that's right. Green Bay's chief rival is Tampa bay, or at least it was while they were in the same division. Now I suppose it's the Vikes. But speaking of Tampabay, I'm sure there's an "every year the Bucs win a superbowl..." joke in here somewhere. How about after every year the Bucs win a superbowl, they kick Keyshawn Johnson off the team, which could actually become reality.
I have Win98SE and it won't recognize any other partitions on my hard, not even the fat32 ones.
If you go into the sun you are toast, but that doesn't mean it couldn't act as a slingshot. The mere existance of black holes, seems to suggest that faster than speed of light travel is a possibility. The trick is in using one's immagination.
At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.
You mean finding new applications for existing tech? Have you considered the basic principles themselves might evolve in new spheres?
At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.
But even the pool of knowlegde of 'basic principles' is not static, let alone our ability to apply them. In my estimation it would be unwise to place unnecessary limits on thier growth. Science and human history seem to suggest that evolution is an eternal possibility.
I'm sure that after the discovery of the sail, ocean travel and its benefits increased exponentially for a time--before finally the basic innovation ran its course, and was as fully understood as it could be.
And then came the steam engine, nuclear power, etc...
Why place unnecessary limits on the scope of your consideration? The basic principle can be applied in multiple technological spheres -- solar sails for example. And who knows what new frontiers might be revealed if man is permitted to advance sufficiently?
Multiple core principles doubtless build upon each other, but eventually the rate of "invention" will decrease and slow.
Only if one places unnecessary limits on the capabilities of human imagination, and that is something that is outside of human control.
As the evidence suggests the contrary, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you.
What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.
That's an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure we would be able to find such noise. I mean, if the spectrum that an alien race might use is broad enough, how would we be able to pick out the signal from backround emmissions? Intimmately related to that problem would be the problem of being able to decode intelligence from the transmissions. How would we be able to distinguish between say, hopping communications signals and oh, a solar burst somewhere, or whatever else?
Some other considerations come to mind. Specifically, the assumption we are using is that aliens are using radio waves to communicate rather than other things. There would have to be some kind of limiting factor to the Drake Equation that would take into consideration that such communication is likely not going to be detectable from noise beyond a certain distance. You mentioned the possibility that we might evolve our own communications capabilities using newer technologies such as to make everything indistinguishable from white noise. So then time might also be a limiting factor to the equation.
Say for example, we evolve to the point where we've learned that there is another intelligent civ developing in the galaxy next door, or that we might be the subjects of observation. I suppose that might impact our communications policies on a global level. Assuming the same of the alien societies, it's likely we might only be able to discover aliens within a specific and relatively narrow frame of time.
In addition, technology might also influence the the probability of SETI discovering anything. Really, radio waves are a highly inefficient means of communication. I'm not sure we're even technologically close to being able to conceptualize methods of interstellar commnication. For example, what if we are able to develop "warp" technology? I'm sure we aould use it to packetize communications for the long haul, possibly deploying low level radio transmissions at the final destination. However, I suppose that if we were to develop in that manner, then we might also be able to take advantage of advances in quantum electronics to communicate in ways we don't even know exist presently. Just so, our ability to find intelligent life in outerspace might be severly limited in ways that the Drake Equation does not take into effect.
It seems to me, that any civilization that is united in it's organization, such that technology and politics are married throughout is going to have an advantage in the universal pool of development, and once they get that advange, barring unfortunate circumstances, they will probably be able to keep it. If I were such intelligent life from another system looking at this earth today, I would probably make sure that I follow something similar to the prime directive.
but at least food is a necessity and there are few proctical alternatives.
You mean like "drink"? Oh wait, that was a typo wasn't it?
This is the argument put forth in the book of James. Too bad it doesn't jive with Paul's argument (who argued that faith and faith alone would save, and that there is no work that will save). It also conflicts with Jesus at some point, who also argued faith and faith alone. But Jesus wasn't consistent on the issue of salvation at all.
I've found that the Bible becomes a whole lot less contradictory the more I work to understand what it says.
Take this example you've addressed here. In order to understand Jesus, Paul, James, and the various Apostles and their biblical teachings you have to know a fair amount about who they were, that is to say, the environments they came from and the missions they were called to fulfill.
I'll start with Jesus himself. Jesus' ministry was primarily to the Jews. In Jesus' time the Jews were the ancestors of God's chosen people Israel. It was correctly assumed that the Jews would the ones through whom the commandments of God and their teaching would be practiced and perpetuated. However, as it turned out, and this not unforeseen by God, Jesus found more evidence of faith in the Gentiles (read -- people excluded from God and the old covenant) than he did in Jews.
When I talk about faith or belief as Jesus did, I mean to do so in the context of what Jesus meant in identifying believers. Specifically, Jesus expected people to recognize him as being from God not in an unreasoned or necessarily blind manner as is commonly taught by many Christian religious of today, but rather as of evidenced by the healing, supportive, and often corrective nature of the works he performed. The fact that these works were often miraculous was really of secondary importance in that regard. Jesus spoke ill of the Jews when they attempted to castigate him as demonic on the basis of their extremely limited understanding of the Scriptures they were entrusted with. That, and of course, they wanted to kill him. So when modern 'Christians' tell people that they are going to hell because they are unbelievers, they usually don't know what they are talking about any better than the old Jewish authorities did.
So since Jesus ministered to both Jews and Gentiles, you have to interpret what he said to those very different audiences accordingly. Please stay with here; I think it will become more clear later what I mean.
Jesus called the Apostles to minister almost exclusively to the Jews. Paul is the only Apostle, aside from Peter perhaps, who had any significant presence among the Gentiles. And there was good reason Paul was chosen to minister to the Gentiles. Understand that the Gentiles had been throughout history excluded from participation in God's covenant relationship with Israel. This meant they did not even have the law let alone any assistance in obeying the commandments. As a result, Gentile societies evolved such that murder, theft, trickery, sexual perversion, coveting and venerating supernatural power (be it holy or not), and other evils became not just an aspect of their civilization, but an integral part of their culture. As a result, the typical Gentile couldn't even hope to identify a good work from an evil one let alone perform one. And these were the kind of people Paul was called to minister to. Now why would God have chosen Paul?
Paul himself was a Pharisee, a Jewish religious authority descendent from a line of Jewish authorities. As a Pharisee, Paul sought out and persecuted Christians. In fact, in God's eyes, he was no better than the Gentiles and understood who God was little more than they did. At least that was so until the Lord appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. That was the turning point Paul's life - Paul's experience of justification and the beginning of his salvation. So here we have a Jew that by his own experience of salvation, could relate with and teach Gentiles who were as 'dead' in the faith he once was. If your traditional enemy comes to you with a different message than his forebea
It is the desire to understand God that has driven virtually all of scientific history, from Galileo to Planck, and only recently has science been transformed into only the desire to undersand our world. And even then, anyone with half a brain would see that we're really juyst trying to understand what God has given us, if you believe in God (see below). Of the viewpoint that I'm trying to expouse in this paragraph, I can't think of anything that can articulate it better the the end of the movie Contact.
It's interesting to note that even the oldest known civilizations give evidence that they believed that some higher power was responsible for life in their world. I wonder where this curiousity came from. I'm sure there was very little understanding about how the world worked back then which would leave much to speculation. But why atribute observations to a higher power?
Even in more advanced civilizations that give evidence of reasoning capabilities on a level closer to modern man, some type of divine belief system existed. It seems to me unlikely that a belief system could exist without rational basis for its foundation. I suspect that, as was the case when Christianity began, it was often motivated by forces determined to assert thier dominance over the less gifted. However, I would not expect such systems of belief to survive very long under such circumstances. Yet Christianity has its roots in a Hebrew culture that lasted far longer than any other known culture throughout the history of the world. To me that's more than just significant.
Growing up my view on religion developed from analysis from the perspective of things that I had learned in a very limited system. Specifically, I mean I employed the methodologies that I was familiar with through school -- that which seeks knowledge through scientific method. Science seeks knowledge through testable observation with repeatable results. It is a valid approach to understanding the truth of what we see, but the perspective is very limited. Typically science doesn't seek to answer "Why isn't it this way instead of this other way?", and it doesn't look outside of its own domain for understanding. Science simply seeks to understand why something is the way it appears to be based upon what it already knows.
Alfred Hitchcock's character Sherlock Holmes often solved mysteries by ask why things weren't they way he would have expected them to be. The detectives methods impressed me as revoltionary and not just evolutionary in that the solutions came as a result of asking questions that one wouldn't normally think to ask. Therein was my introduction to faith based upon reason. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think belief without strong rationality behind it could survive long in society, and I tend to believe that it true on an individual basis as well since there are always those around that would have you believing in anything else but a god, particularly when that god encourages its followers to live in a way that is not productive to powerful self interests.
My own personal acceptance of the existance of God developed as a result of many things that had happened to me all coming together in a rational picture I had never thought to study previously. This thinking was sparked by seriously considering things I had learned to reject previously because my mindset had sought to work forward from where I was in a very technical way and not logically back from what could be with an open mind. For example in the movie 2001: A Space Oddessy there is a monolith that appears in the film wherever some major advance occurs in earthly civilization. That got me thinking, well if I were God, I would probably put 'monoliths' in my creation such that they would be recognizable (but not obvious -- I am God after all -- I want to make things interesting for my people). At least one of these signatures should be constant throughout the 'life expectancy' of my creation. I found what I was looking for (or perhaps it f
As a youngster, every once and a while I would hear about someone who spontaneously combusted. I came to believe that these stories were just urban legend. Now I'm starting to wonder if they were just people who wore braces and who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Seriously though, I think it's bogus. I can't fathom how something like this would fail to gain mention in any major media outlet.
"Papa Legba is the voodoo god of the crossroads; all communication falls into his domain and he is displeased.
I used a ballpoint pen to mark some arcane-looking but utterly meaningless symbols on the disk's medium, then had her tape it to the side of her monitor. I told her to try it again.
Of course, when she tried again it printed with no problem.
My toaster stopped communicating with my microwave. Do you remember exactly what those arcane symbols looked like?
Great, now I have to haul my ass all the way to where?
Forget it. It already belongs to God's wife; she just picked Valentine's Day to show it off.
How on earth can you describe an analog watch as more intuitive than a digital watch?
...
Once you learn it, it becomes straightforward and easy,
You answered your own question. My guess is the person who posted the article is in the over 40 crowd. Such people grew up in the analog world, and so for them, it's cake to glance at the face of analog watch and know instantly both the time of day, and an intuitive sense of how much time they have left without having to do the math.
I'm curious to know if we ask this question again 50 years from now, if the response would be the same. My guess is most people don't own more elegant pieces like grandfather clocks, the older stuff in kind of 'artsy' and technological evolution seems to take us towards more practical solutions at the expense of art.
I bet I know why women prefer analog watches... because thier fathers wore them. This is another area where girls and guys are fundamentally different. Girls like guys who smell like barbecue, where the same cologne their dad did, an anonlog watch, have grey acents in thier hair, etc... But if a girl reminds a guy of his mother, the relationship'll never get really serious.
Sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming seem to be similar in that they're "sleep states gone bad". I'm often lucid prior to slipping into a hypnogogic state, which means I'm fully aware that I'm becoming paralyzed. Then with this awareness, I can break the paralysis by "fighting" off the fear.
My experience was different, and yet no so different. I remember when I was about 8 years old. I thought I was fortunate in that woke in the middle of the night just as I was slipping into a nightmare. It was an easy state for me to identify, as it always seemed to happen the same way. Kind of a fast sinking feeling like dipping over air currents in an airplane. Accompanied by a darkening of and/or shrinking from whatever half-dream environment I was in.
However, as soon as I snapped out of this, I immediately glanced over my feet and just past the end of my bed I saw what I thought for sure was a ghost. So that residual fear turn into paralysis very quickly. I was so afraid that all I could manage for a cry for help was a faint exhale that even I could barely hear.
Well, it looked like the ghost hadn't noticed me yet. Good. I wanted to pull the covers over my head but my arms wouldn't move, then I thought it's better that I don't 'cause then the ghost would know I was there and touch me through the covers anyway.
So I lay there in the bed for nearly 5 minutes in a paralytic state of fear. Then my senses started to stabilize and I focused in on the ghost, and I realized that it was just shirt that was hung over my chair. Then that fear quickly vanished, and I no longer had any trouble breathing.
I'd like to add that the succubi and incubi in medieval mythology were likely also inspired by sleep paralysis attacks. Similarly, in Chinese culture, sleep paralysis is known as "being sat on by a ghost".
I wonder how many people would actually think of this as a nightmare. Actually, when I hear the term, what comes to mind is something that looks like what a LOTR ring wraith might ride on. I guess a pegasus might be the opposite.
Interestingly enough, I had a dream about these too when I was about 8. One night soon after I had had surgery, I was sleeping on my stomache (I often do this to ward off nausea). I remember dreaming about winged white horses flying under my stomache, where I had the operation, and ascending on the other side. It was accompanied by a strange floating/tingling feeling -- and this is before I even heard about the myth.
Higher temperatures increase the chances of strange stuff happening during sleep. For example, getting under a heavy blanket after taking a hot shower. I think it has something to do with the body being a bit too hot for consistent REM sleep.
Interesting. Maybe that's why our parish priest likes to crank up the AC overnight on retreat weekends. I never did asked him why he does that.
Sweet dreams!
Since you asked, though, I'll tell you that the one I was taking, protriptyline, would make for very restless nights with lots of "twilight dreams" (you know, those endless threaded dreams that seem to continue all night long, with repeating motifs or conundrums you simply can't solve no matter how hard you try).
You should have taken both the red pill *and* the blue pill. Then you'd have been able to figure out those dreams!
Someone was once joking about sending Bill Gates a letter with a $5 bill inside, and a note "by opening this letter, you agree to sell me your car for $5. Please forward your keys and title to..."
I always thought he got rich by selling software. Now it all makes sense.
I spent a summer basicly attached to my
computer playing TF.
It's not something I'm proud of, but I spent about 2 years attached to my computer because of TF.
I agree with everything you said. I migrated from Quake fairly quickly. Starting out in TF as an HPB I was amazed at what I saw and picked up various techniques from others. The best players seemed to be the ones who had both technical skill and "map smarts" and knew how to combine them to their advantage real time.
Were you in the Fifth Element when Sacrifice was? I remember playing against him while I was in [APR] and IQ. Sac was probably the single best all around player I've seen in TF. Irrespective of whether he cheated or not, I believe his mastery of technical and strategic skills was beyond the abilities of even a good bot program. As I recall, >V< also had some great map creators.
- SC
I thought the Admiral was trying to warn the recruit the only way he could: "You don't want a crappy job like that, and I'm not going to give it to you unless you demonstrate extreme stupidity." After all, who is going to be affected by a nuclear accident that happens in a thick metal tube 300 meters beneath the sea?
I have a Dell laptop with S-Video out capabilities. I can get it to display on the LCD, and the TV using the S-Video cable. However, if both displays are left on, DVD video does not display on the TV. The trick for me is to disable the laptop display after booting up and before playing any video. I do this through my ATI driver utility.
Beans beans, the musical fruit.
The more you eat, the more you toot.
The more you toot, the better you feel.
So eat beans for every meal!
And it will make that doughnut taste like a dill pickle. So you'll have to wait for that. Fortunately I'm not related to Homer Simpson.
The cynic in me beleives that Bush is simply trying to hedge his political position (distract people from the fact that we haven't actually caught much in the way of actual terror LEADERS) instead of any real belief in Iraqs ability to inflict harm on anyone.
The Kurds, Kuwait? Let's not forget this guy is a proven terrorist both inside and outside of his own borders. He doesn't develop weapons as a deterent, he develops weapons to use them -- and he has.