The internet philosopher Oh, the riches of the world of wisdom, how close they lie, for all to partake from: the internet. I wake up every morning to my rather dull and miserable little life, but I am quite happy and looking forward to stuff. You know why? Because there is this thing called the internent. Because I know that if once more I will have a heap of thoughts and problems and corollariums and conclusions and arguments for and against this and that in my head -and I am quite sure I will- those things that I can not really discuss with anyone I know here in the real world: I know there is the internet where I can lay out my mind and someone will lay out theirs in return. Just knowing I can do this feels good. In the real world, I don't have the chance that someone with an actual degree in philosophy would go through this or that argument or refutation with me. Nor do I often get the chance to hear a great variety of opinions and inputs on a particular matter. But here on the internet, I do, very much so. And given this oppulence of opportunities, it is so easy to get carried away – I matter. What I think, matters. I can think. I have connections. People rely on my input. In turn, I rely on theirs. We are a community. A community that has formed despite the odds of geographic distance, time zones, differences in educational, social and economic status. Ladies and gentlemen, we have got ourselves a philosophical community. Amateurs, of course, but there is always hope. We are friends in philosophy. Well, not really. All it takes is for my computer to break down, and it's all gone, and I again have noone to discuss those deep philosophical issues with. The world of the internet is a borrowed world. It's not real. It's something we get on loan and get to keep for a while, but it is not really ours. The people with whom we spend so much time here together – in the real, we probably wouldn't get past Hello. By all means, one ought to train one's mind, one ought to learn to think sharply, to think for oneself, to stand on one's own feet, however little they might be. But living on borrowed hopes of a better world that crashes as soon as the power runs out – this is not a good investment. Hoping for the internet to be the medium for one's philosophical company is like putting lit candles onto tiny boats and push them off into a tumultous river, hoping they would still shine, those little lights of hope. Of course the alternatives to the internet are quite scary and demanding: Putting in considerable effort to find people in the real world whom one could share and train one's mind with. And being willing to walk long stretches on one's own in the midst of a world hostile to one's inclinations. The world of internet philosophy is nothing but a temporary haven where one might rest for a while, but then has to move on. A temporary haven that because of all the good things it can offer, needs to be treated with respect, and with distance.
I don't care that no lasting relationships develop. I want to talk about what I want to talk about. I have friends to spend time with if I want, which I rarely do, but their interests don't always coincide with mine. This is a place where autistic people like me can get together to exchange ideas about pet interests without the problematic social interactions that in my opinion, aren't all that valuable anyway. Society is it's own kind of virtual world.
If he can't deliver it in tasty little soundbites it probably isn't worth my time. It's a fast-moving world these days. He must adapt or perish. (Oh, and that goes for you too.)
"Philosophy to me is not about knowledge and truth but more about understanding and wisdom. How this understanding can change our selves and how we live and how we interact with others. Philosophy is about lifestyle and choices and how the knowledge we accumulate throughout our lives inspires us to live lives of integrity and courage and action. In his quest to understand and comprehend his surrounding universe mankind has accumulated much knowledge but it is the philosophy that connects that knowledge to every day life." If the internet allows people to find a way of placing knowledge in context that they would not otherwise have then it is to be welcomed. It is how it enhances your life that makes it worth while. To see your surroundings with new eyes that have greater insight. To enrichen your perspective and understanding of humanity and the human dilemma. It is how it changes you, challenges you, and how it matures you...IMO
that's extremely thought restrictive If they didn't believe it, that would, (in the case of truth being said), mean they didn't read, (understand), it. ~~~~~~~~~ No Human Adversary Like Minds:m: Or Education without Confinement After quoting a saying from the Bible, her response was "that's extremely thought restrictive", to which I said "that's the purpose of writing". When a person attempts to read, an effort is being made to reconstruct the thoughts of the author. The reader allows the author to control the thoughts he has, while reading. When this is done correctly, a sharing occurs. Everything ever written offers just such sharing, such continuity between minds. Time can add difficulty to such communications, but is not a restriction. Thus, our best readers best link us, to the past. And our best authors link us, to the future. Communications between generations requires compensating for vocabulary growth, in order to ensure the proper/correct definition for each word read, or the thought reconstructed would be an error. For example, if you were to read that the son of a carpenter was going around "raising the dead", and you thought the word "dead" meant "deceased" rather than "sleeping", you would construct a false account of the carpenter rather than becoming aware of the importance of each person sleeping in a bed. After studying the story of Jesus, many conclude that he was sent by God to live and die, in such a way, that others may live a more fulfilled/better life. Isn't every man? Here's a quote from a book I recently read; "June 15, 2045 - World Government is officially installed in Sydney Australia. Boris Malinkov, a Russian, begins his first term as the first World President, having received 54 percent of the popular vote and 56 percent of electoral votes in the runoff election against South African candidate Gordon Mondeto. China, formally the most powerful nation on earth, is now the world's most powerful state. On the basis of its smaller population, however, the United States drops from second to seventh. But with complete worldwide freedom of information, political power no longer holds the significance it once did." The Truth Machine, by James L. Halperman I think the author has touched on a truthful concept. Politics and prohibition go hand-in-hand. Through/by way of prohibition, politics gains significance. Politics strives to control your access to things/stuff, and gains power as it accomplishes its goal. Equal access to/distribution of things/stuff, diminishes political corruption of constitutional rights/laws/efforts. Politics and greed are one in the same. By individuals sharing with one another, politics disintegrates. Politics claims it understands, but cannot share its understanding publicly for fear of its enemy understanding also. And for this reason the American people do not understand/remain ignorant. We the people can help each other by sharing, or help the politician by going further into debt. Recently, I was told that the politicians used Cuban exiles to do their criminal/dirty work involving Watergate. Is this true, in Iraq also? Here's another quote from the same book; "Aging's mostly a result of cell division. Cell division shortens all the chromosome tips, which are called telomeres. After about 60 divisions, the telomeres fall below critical length and the cells die." The concept of telomeres has recently been put forth by some medical researchers. If true, wouldn't it show its effects during cloning? While in the public library, about a month ago, I explained to a woman working there that I had been kicked out of the college library in town for posting my writings on the Internet. She asked why, and I said, because it would shut them down. A few days ago I was telling a family about my research into why a bird egg must be turned during incubation. After explaining that the cells of all warm-blooded animals must reorientate in the earth's magnetic field about every 10 minutes, the oldest child immediately made the statement "that means no more school". Many quit going to school in an effort to survive? Schools are more design to promote political agendas rather than an individual's good health? The faster we learn about magneto synthesis/magnetrition, the less we all suffer. In an effort to survive, politics blocks my sharing of information with others. Politics stands in the way of someone trying to help everyone equally. The concept on which the lighthouse was built, where all can benefit equally, is being replaced by a society of those having, and those not having access to; and politics deciding who has. Education reveals politics as the problem. People go to the hospital mainly because those normally around them are left so ignorant, because sharing is so politically incorrect. At the announcement of his retirement, the politician was quoted as saying, "now I can be an intellect". Must We the People retire from politics in order to become intellectual by nature? In order to survive? Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
really?i wouldnt have placed u as someone who was awkward around people.or rather i dont think you would make people feel awkward. i come to the internet because its a place where i get to meet people i would stop talking to in about a minute in real life.for example baron max,within 5 minutes in the real world i would have made my excuses and left,but here i can observe his opinions without having to feign interest.its kinda nice. there are quite a few people here that i can imagine having interesting real life conversations with,but making friends through a forum is a little creepy.
And if someones really honest, (doesn't tell lies), he'd be found not using words. To become more honest a person should talk less, and not believe in God.
I would welcome the opportunity to do so WITH A CTITICAL EYE . Thought for the day: Why does God hide himself from us ? Does he live in the land of the unicorns ?
greenberg that is bogus this shit will be more commonplace as time goes on your doom and gloom does not have any real semblance to projected trends of tech you project
Is the class half full, or half empty?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Proverbs ? ( newly discovered scrolls) He who reads the Bible sharpeneth not his wit for he stultifies his comprehension and embraceth foolishness and superstition.
Disagreement in science When The Facts Don't Agree!:shrug: Disinformation due to parroting others? Reporting what others may have learned, in your own words, seems to change the facts, to something simpler? Disagreement in science? What if you where asked on a test? How important is being right/correct? Source 1) The fertilized zygote inherits only the mother's mitochondria. Source 2) Consequently, the only mitochondria the new organism usually gets are from the egg its mother provided. Source 3) In mammals, 99.99% of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother. This is because the sperm carries its mitochondria around a portion of its tail and has only about 100 mitochondria compared to 100,000 in the oocyte. ~~~~~~~~~~~ http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761582165_2/Mitochondria.html Recent Mitochondrial Research The DNA in mitochondria is used to track certain genetic diseases, and to trace the ancestry of organisms that contain eukaryotic cells. In many animal species, mitochondria tend to follow a pattern of maternal inheritance. When a cell divides, the mitochondria replicate independently of the nucleus. The two daughter cells formed after cell division each receive half of the mitochondria as the cytoplasm divides. When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, the sperm's mitochondria are left outside the egg. The fertilized zygote inherits only the mother's mitochondria. This maternal inheritance creates a family tree that is not affected by the typical shuffling of genes that occurs between a mother and father. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/mitochondria.html In most animal species, mitochondria appear to be primarily inherited through the maternal lineage, though some recent evidence suggests that in rare instances mitochondria may also be inherited via a paternal route. Typically, a sperm carries mitochondria in its tail as an energy source for its long journey to the egg. When the sperm attaches to the egg during fertilization, the tail falls off. Consequently, the only mitochondria the new organism usually gets are from the egg its mother provided. Therefore, unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA doesn't get shuffled every generation, so it is presumed to change at a slower rate, which is useful for the study of human evolution. Mitochondrial DNA is also used in forensic science as a tool for identifying corpses or body parts, and has been implicated in a number of genetic diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and diabetes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mitochondrial Inheritance http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/mitoch2.htm#worn-out In mammals, 99.99% of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother. This is because the sperm carries its mitochondria around a portion of its tail and has only about 100 mitochondria compared to 100,000 in the oocyte. As the cells develop, more and more of the mtDNA from males is diluted out. Hence less than one part in 104 or 0.01% of the mtDNA is paternal. This means that mutations of mtDNA can be passed from mother to child. It also has implications if one does cloning of mammals with the use of somatic cells. The nuclear DNA would be from the donor cell, but the mtDNA would be from the host cell. This is how Dolly the sheep was cloned.
How is this relevant to the discussion at hand? That being said, though, I am all for taking the right to vote away from dames.
I agree. I suggest Alanejackson make a succinct case for how and why he is on topic or I will make the suggestion that his posts be moderated as off topic. Or perhaps others in the discussion can argue for his continued presence? He does seem to show, by example, the perils of the 'internet philosopher'.
Sharing ideas with others, by way of the web. It is a traditional philosophy. I'm not for taking anything from anyone. But the common opinion/voice of men has been taken from society, by having women vote with them. They can vote, if they see the need, but to do it with men has caused something we once had, to be no more. Girls don't have to join the boy scouts. If the did, there would be no more boy scouts. I think it would be interesting to see what most women thought on matters. In the past, I'm sure many men took into account what their wife and children thought, when voting. But as things are now, I don't think we have real voting any more. A study shows political parties are doing all kinds of things just to get their way to be thought of as new laws/ways in our country, (the US). Watergate, redistricting, and new rules saying who can vote. Making drugs and alcohol seem against the law makes most people not want to get envoled in society, or even go near the voting booth. Control over the free press, in the name of war. And new ways of becoming a felon/criminal, so some thinking differently can't participate. All being done by "gangs" to bring about "their" desired outcome. The individual's voice is not being added together to give us guidance, as it was intended originally. This has caused US to become ruled by politics, rather than our real laws. Alan Search + Share ~ Magnetrition http://www.freewebs.com/alanejackson/index.htm
Suggest all you want, but if my/anyones posts were blocked, or censored, we would all suffer. Many like yourself don't seem to have learned that, yet. It is why in the US free speech was made the law. "If a man can convince me that I do not think or act right, gladly will I change, for I search after truth. But he is harmed who abideth on still in his ignorance." - Marcus Aurelius
This isn't the US. This is Sciforums. You have a bit of free speech here as well. However, you seem to think that it means free as in free beer. You're not being censored, you're being moderated for being completely off topic. Ok. Expect some deletions then.
Alanejackson: You don't seem to be up on netiquette. WHat you are doing now is construed as wrong and disruptive and it is called "thread hijacking". If you want to speak about whatever other topic you want to, you have to make a new thread, specifically you'd want to make a new thread in the religion sub-forum. What you're doing is making a new reply in a thread all ready made. It is equivalent to going to a restaurant and asking for them to bring in food from the cafe across the way.
