Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #595807 > unrolled thread

God created by humans

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 15:08 -0800
    Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 18:06 -0600
      Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 16:32 -0800
        Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 20:46 -0600
        Re: God created by humans "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 10:40 +0100
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 11:41 -0800
            Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:40 -0800
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:45 -0800
          Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 11:49 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 02:06 -0800
        Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 10:16 -0600
          Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:32 -0800
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:19 -0800
            Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 12:31 -0800
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:43 -0800
            Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 14:46 -0600
              Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 14:33 -0800
                Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:58 -0800
                  Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 16:28 -0800
                Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-21 23:56 -0600
                  Re: God created by humans Blake Armanni <blea@arrkare.in> - 2022-11-22 13:53 +0000
                    Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-22 12:57 -0600
                    Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-22 16:37 -0800
                  Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 07:26 -0800
    Re: God created by humans "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 17:51 -0800
      Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 22:14 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 02:34 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 07:53 -0800
        Re: God created by humans "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 10:30 -0800
          Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 12:32 -0800
    Re: God created by humans Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-23 13:51 -0600
      Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-23 15:00 -0800
        Re: God created by humans Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-23 21:04 -0600
          Re: God created by humans Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 19:31 -0800
            Re: God created by humans whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-23 22:28 -0600
              Re: God created by humans Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 22:34 -0800
            Re: God created by humans patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 20:51 -0800
          Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 09:16 +0000
            Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 20:05 +0000
              Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-24 12:42 -0800
              Re: God created by humans Forest Vaccaro <asoa@ctrsreca.vr> - 2022-11-24 21:50 +0000
          Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-24 12:05 -0800
            Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 12:52 -0800
              Re: God created by humans Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-11-25 13:23 -0800
      Re: God created by humans beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 15:50 -0800
      Re: God created by humans RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-11-28 13:59 -0800
        Re: God created by humans The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:44 -0800
          Re: God created by humans The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 16:49 -0800
    Re: God created by humans "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 14:03 -0800
      Re: God created by humans "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 14:05 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#595807 — God created by humans

>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
sylvia else
>there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
beda

The goal of intelligence in the universe may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task.
The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources  and of its natural equilibrium.

The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal.
OR
The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective.  

This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition:
IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task  will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet .

IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective  and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities.
cheers
beda pietanza
    

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#595811

On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> 
>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
> sylvia else
>> there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
> beda
> 
> The goal of intelligence in the universe

Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is
a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing
entity.

Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this
is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.



> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task.
> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources  and of its natural equilibrium.
> 
> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal.
> OR
> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective.
> 
> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition:
> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task  will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet .
> 
> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective  and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities.
> cheers
> beda pietanza
>      

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595816

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:06:41 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > 
> >>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > sylvia else 
> >> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > beda 
> > 
> > The goal of intelligence in the universe
> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> entity. 
> 
> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.
> > may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > 
> > The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > OR 
> > The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > 
> > This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > 
> > IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > cheers 
> > beda pietanza 
> >
What do YOU believe whodat?  For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent? 
i^4 = i^8
sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ]
+/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ]
+/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ]
-/+ 1 = +/- 1

Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595830

On 11/20/2022 6:32 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:06:41 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
>>> sylvia else
>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
>>> beda
>>>
>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe
>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is
>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing
>> entity.
>>
>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this
>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.
>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task.
>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium.
>>>
>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal.
>>> OR
>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective.
>>>
>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition:
>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet .
>>>
>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities.
>>> cheers
>>> beda pietanza
>>>
> What do YOU believe whodat?  For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent?
> i^4 = i^8
> sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ]
> +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ]
> +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ]
> -/+ 1 = +/- 1
> 
> Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable.

See "flight of ideas" and/or "tangential speech."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595846

Den 21.11.2022 01:32, skrev patdolan:
> For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent?
> i^4 = i^8
> sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ]
> +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ]
> +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ]
> -/+ 1 = +/- 1
> 
> Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable.

i isn't an integer.

But I can do the same blunder with integers:

2^2 = (-2)^2
sqrt(2^2) = sqrt((-2)^2)
2 = -2

Did I prove that arithmetic of integers is inconsistent?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595880

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 10:40:23 UTC+1 Paul B. Andersen ha scritto:
> Den 21.11.2022 01:32, skrev patdolan: 
> > For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent? 
> > i^4 = i^8 
> > sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ] 
> > +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ] 
> > +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ] 
> > -/+ 1 = +/- 1 
> > 
> > Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable.
> i isn't an integer. 
> 
> But I can do the same blunder with integers: 
> 
> 2^2 = (-2)^2 
> sqrt(2^2) = sqrt((-2)^2) 
> 2 = -2 
> 
> Did I prove that arithmetic of integers is inconsistent? 
> 
> -- 
> Paul 
> 
> https://paulba.no/
Surely math is a powerful tool, but as a powerful tool must be used properly.
Never confuse  or substitute the math formulae or the math models, meant to help describe physical phenomena 
with an exhaustive representation of the phenomena themselves.
This for a simple reason, that if we knew a phenomenon exhaustively then we wouldn't need a model anymore.
Indeed, math formulae and math models, when concretely put at work, need always fine and continuous adjustments , otherwise the machinery where they are applied, go rather quickly out of control.
best regards
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595889

On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 20:41:20 UTC+1, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 10:40:23 UTC+1 Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: 
> > Den 21.11.2022 01:32, skrev patdolan: 
> > > For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent? 
> > > i^4 = i^8 
> > > sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ] 
> > > +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ] 
> > > +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ] 
> > > -/+ 1 = +/- 1 
> > > 
> > > Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable. 
> > i isn't an integer. 
> > 
> > But I can do the same blunder with integers: 
> > 
> > 2^2 = (-2)^2 
> > sqrt(2^2) = sqrt((-2)^2) 
> > 2 = -2 
> > 
> > Did I prove that arithmetic of integers is inconsistent? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Paul 
> > 
> > https://paulba.no/
> Surely math is a powerful tool

Math? Well, surely Euclidean geometry, rejected 
by relativistic cult, is a powerful tool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595891

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 21:40:41 UTC+1 maluw...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 20:41:20 UTC+1, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 10:40:23 UTC+1 Paul B. Andersen ha scritto: 
> > > Den 21.11.2022 01:32, skrev patdolan: 
> > > > For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent? 
> > > > i^4 = i^8 
> > > > sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ] 
> > > > +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ] 
> > > > +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ] 
> > > > -/+ 1 = +/- 1 
> > > > 
> > > > Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable. 
> > > i isn't an integer. 
> > > 
> > > But I can do the same blunder with integers: 
> > > 
> > > 2^2 = (-2)^2 
> > > sqrt(2^2) = sqrt((-2)^2) 
> > > 2 = -2 
> > > 
> > > Did I prove that arithmetic of integers is inconsistent? 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Paul 
> > > 
> > > https://paulba.no/ 
> > Surely math is a powerful tool
> Math? Well, surely Euclidean geometry, rejected 
> by relativistic cult, is a powerful tool.
redundant, but I agree with you
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595881

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 1:40:23 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 21.11.2022 01:32, skrev patdolan: 
> > For instance, do you believe that arithmetic is consistent? 
> > i^4 = i^8 
> > sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ] 
> > +/-[ i^2 ] = +/-[ i^4 ] 
> > +/-[ -1 ] = +/-[ 1 ] 
> > -/+ 1 = +/- 1 
> > 
> > Because it is so easy to demonstrate arithmetic on the integers is inconsistent, one must profess a belief that it is otherwise dependable.
> i isn't an integer. 
> 
> But I can do the same blunder with integers: 
> 
> 2^2 = (-2)^2 
> sqrt(2^2) = sqrt((-2)^2) 
> 2 = -2 
> 
> Did I prove that arithmetic of integers is inconsistent? 
> 
> -- 
> Paul 
> 
> https://paulba.no/
Paul, you broke an iron clad rule of arithmetic.  You moved a minus sign under a radical operator.  I didn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595849

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > 
> >>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > sylvia else 
> >> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > beda 
> > 
> > The goal of intelligence in the universe
> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> entity. 
beda:
in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world,
now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into  science.
Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
full responsibility of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical
applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking.
regards
beda
> 
> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.
> > may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > 
> > The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > OR 
> > The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > 
> > This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > 
> > IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > cheers 
> > beda pietanza 
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595869

On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
>>> sylvia else
>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
>>> beda
>>>
>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe
>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is
>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing
>> entity.
> beda:
> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world,
> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into  science.


The history of "science" is not "science."


> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take
> full responsibility 

Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of
nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art."


> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical
> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking.
> regards
> beda


How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for
truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has
anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got
its start.

We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'"

This discussion has no chance of advance.


>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this
>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.
>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task.
>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium.
>>>
>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal.
>>> OR
>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective.
>>>
>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition:
>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet .
>>>
>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities.
>>> cheers
>>> beda pietanza
>>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595870

On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 17:16:28 UTC+1, whodat wrote:

> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. 

And its knights are demigods free from
weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms,
so when they say they are it must be true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595884

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> >>> sylvia else 
> >>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> >>> beda 
> >>> 
> >>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> >> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> >> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> >> entity. 
> > beda: 
> > in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> > now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science.
> The history of "science" is not "science."
> > Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> > full responsibility
> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art."
> > of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> > applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> > regards 
> > beda
> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> its start. 
> 
> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> 
> This discussion has no chance of advance.
Beda:
We may better make some order in the concepts we use,
pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake),
with the help  of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families,
friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup.
Priests help with religion,
philosophers with logic reasoning,
scientists help to understand how the physical nature works,
teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part.
Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it
then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work
(and his way of thinking) have on the social life.
Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge
and  through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the
collective way of life.
Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
and of what the future society will  became.
From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
common lay man, all are responsible  for their part, of the future of humanity.
best regards
beda pietanza 

> >> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> >> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> >>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> >>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> >>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> >>> 
> >>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> >>> OR 
> >>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> >>> 
> >>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> >>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> >>> 
> >>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> >>> cheers 
> >>> beda pietanza 
> >>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595886

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:19:30 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > >> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > >>> 
> > >>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > >>> sylvia else 
> > >>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > >>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > >>> beda 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> > >> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> > >> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> > >> entity. 
> > > beda: 
> > > in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> > > now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> > The history of "science" is not "science." 
> > > Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> > > full responsibility 
> > Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> > nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> > > of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> > > applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> > > regards 
> > > beda 
> > How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> > truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> > anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> > its start. 
> > 
> > We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> > 
> > This discussion has no chance of advance.
> Beda: 
> We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> Priests help with religion, 
> philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> (and his way of thinking) have on the social life. 
> Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> collective way of life. 
> Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
> and of what the future society will became. 
> From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
> common lay man, all are responsible for their part, of the future of humanity. 
> best regards 
> beda pietanza
> > >> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> > >> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> > >>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > >>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > >>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > >>> OR 
> > >>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > >>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > >>> 
> > >>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > >>> cheers 
> > >>> beda pietanza 
> > >>>
And where do I fit in this grand scheme, beda?  I have spent my newsgroup career relentlessly attacking relativity, both special and general.  I am certain that my Kepler vs. Einstein argument and my coordinate velocity argument will one day constitute the most powerful one-two punch ever leveled against relativity.  So what reward belongs to me?  What will be my compensation, either in this life or the next?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595890

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 21:31:17 UTC+1 patdolan ha scritto:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 12:19:30 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > >> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > > >>> sylvia else 
> > > >>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > > >>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > > >>> beda 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> > > >> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> > > >> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> > > >> entity. 
> > > > beda: 
> > > > in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> > > > now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> > > The history of "science" is not "science." 
> > > > Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> > > > full responsibility 
> > > Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> > > nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> > > > of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> > > > applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> > > > regards 
> > > > beda 
> > > How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> > > truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> > > anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> > > its start. 
> > > 
> > > We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> > > 
> > > This discussion has no chance of advance. 
> > Beda: 
> > We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> > pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> > with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> > friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> > Priests help with religion, 
> > philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> > scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> > teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> > Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> > then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> > (and his way of thinking) have on the social life. 
> > Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> > and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> > collective way of life. 
> > Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
> > and of what the future society will became. 
> > From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
> > common lay man, all are responsible for their part, of the future of humanity. 
> > best regards 
> > beda pietanza 
> > > >> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> > > >> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> > > >>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > > >>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > > >>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > > >>> OR 
> > > >>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > > >>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > > >>> cheers 
> > > >>> beda pietanza 
> > > >>>
> And where do I fit in this grand scheme, beda? I have spent my newsgroup career relentlessly attacking relativity, both special and general. I am certain that my Kepler vs. Einstein argument and my coordinate velocity argument will one day constitute the most powerful one-two punch ever leveled against relativity. So what reward belongs to me? What will be my compensation, either in this life or the next?
beda:
take pride on yourself,  what would it be if you didn't do what you felt was right???
doing one's duty is self-gratification.
cheers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595893

On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
>>>>> sylvia else
>>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
>>>>> beda
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe
>>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is
>>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing
>>>> entity.
>>> beda:
>>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world,
>>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science.
>> The history of "science" is not "science."
>>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take
>>> full responsibility
>> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of
>> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art."
>>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical
>>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking.
>>> regards
>>> beda
>> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for
>> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has
>> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got
>> its start.
>>
>> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'"
>>
>> This discussion has no chance of advance.
> Beda:
> We may better make some order in the concepts we use,
> pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake),
> with the help  of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families,
> friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup.
> Priests help with religion,
> philosophers with logic reasoning,
> scientists help to understand how the physical nature works,
> teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part.
> Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it


> then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work
> (and his way of thinking) have on the social life.


Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here?



> Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge
> and  through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the
> collective way of life.


Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not
responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control.



> Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is
> and of what the future society will  became.


Again untrue. Where do you get the idea that the explorer is responsible
for the outcome of his discoveries? Columbus was only responsible for
his own direct acts, not for what others did utilizing his discoveries.

The clear reality is that there is nothing discovered by humans
that has but one use. The individual making the initial discovery
rarely, if ever, causes the myriad of implementations. Consider the
microwave, initially used as a strategic weapon to detect incoming
weaponized aircraft, but tamed for use in many kitchens (including mine)
as a cooking device.



>  From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the
> common lay man, all are responsible  for their part, of the future of humanity.
> best regards
> beda pietanza
> 
>>>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this
>>>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable.
>>>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power.
>>>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task.
>>>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium.
>>>>>
>>>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal.
>>>>> OR
>>>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition:
>>>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet .
>>>>>
>>>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities.
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda pietanza
>>>>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595902

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 20opinion of what 22 alle 21:46:37 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> >>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> >>>>> sylvia else 
> >>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> >>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> >>>>> beda 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> >>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> >>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> >>>> entity. 
> >>> beda: 
> >>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> >>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> >> The history of "science" is not "science." 
> >>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> >>> full responsibility 
> >> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> >> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> >>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> >>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> >>> regards 
> >>> beda 
> >> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> >> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> >> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> >> its start. 
> >> 
> >> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> >> 
> >> This discussion has no chance of advance. 
> > Beda: 
> > We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> > pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> > with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> > friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> > Priests help with religion, 
> > philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> > scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> > teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> > Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> 
> 
> > then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> > (and his way of thinking) have on the social life.
> Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here?
Thought crime not, but spoken out wrong ideas implies moral responsibilities,
spoken out wrong ideas, mostly, are carried on by mean convenient selfish reasons
> > Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> > and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> > collective way of life.
> Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not 
> responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control.
Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after their working time,
scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage of their work???
if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral responsibility of using their 
right, and contrast any wrong use of their work.
Many have done so, putting their tenure at risk or in some cases loosing it.
> > Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
> > and of what the future society will became.
> Again untrue. Where do you get the idea that the explorer is responsible 
> for the outcome of his discoveries? Columbus was only responsible for 
> his own direct acts, not for what others did utilizing his discoveries. 
this case don't fit
> 
> The clear reality is that there is nothing discovered by humans 
> that has but one use. The individual making the initial discovery 
> rarely, if ever, causes the myriad of implementations. Consider the 
> microwave, initially used as a strategic weapon to detect incoming 
> weaponized aircraft, but tamed for use in many kitchens (including mine) 
> as a cooking device.
if the inventor or the discoverer is not morally obliged to protest for the wrong
usage of the novelty he has introduced, just tell me, who is then, morally obliged to
contrast the damage that is, eventually, been  done, anyone else, surely,
has less moral obligations than the inventor.
I think you are lured by consumerism, and that you think that the final responsibility is 
of the consumer, which unfortunately is trapped unawarely and has no alternatives.
best regards
beda


> > From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
> > common lay man, all are responsible for their part, of the future of humanity. 
> > best regards 
> > beda pietanza 
> > 
> >>>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> >>>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> >>>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> >>>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> >>>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> >>>>> OR 
> >>>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> >>>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> >>>>> cheers 
> >>>>> beda pietanza 
> >>>>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595903

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 20opinion of what 22 alle 21:46:37 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
> > On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > >> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > >>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > >>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > >>>>> sylvia else 
> > >>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > >>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > >>>>> beda 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> > >>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> > >>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> > >>>> entity. 
> > >>> beda: 
> > >>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> > >>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> > >> The history of "science" is not "science." 
> > >>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> > >>> full responsibility 
> > >> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> > >> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> > >>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> > >>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> > >>> regards 
> > >>> beda 
> > >> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> > >> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> > >> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> > >> its start. 
> > >> 
> > >> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> > >> 
> > >> This discussion has no chance of advance. 
> > > Beda: 
> > > We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> > > pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> > > with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> > > friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> > > Priests help with religion, 
> > > philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> > > scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> > > teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> > > Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> > 
> > 
> > > then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> > > (and his way of thinking) have on the social life. 
> > Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here?
> Thought crime not, but spoken out wrong ideas implies moral responsibilities, 
> spoken out wrong ideas, mostly, are carried on by mean convenient selfish reasons
> > > Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> > > and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> > > collective way of life. 
> > Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not 
> > responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control.
> Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after their working time, 
> scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage of their work??? 
> if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral responsibility of using their 
> right, and contrast any wrong use of their work. 
> Many have done so, putting their tenure at risk or in some cases loosing it.
> > > Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
> > > and of what the future society will became. 
> > Again untrue. Where do you get the idea that the explorer is responsible 
> > for the outcome of his discoveries? Columbus was only responsible for 
> > his own direct acts, not for what others did utilizing his discoveries.
> this case don't fit
> > 
> > The clear reality is that there is nothing discovered by humans 
> > that has but one use. The individual making the initial discovery 
> > rarely, if ever, causes the myriad of implementations. Consider the 
> > microwave, initially used as a strategic weapon to detect incoming 
> > weaponized aircraft, but tamed for use in many kitchens (including mine) 
> > as a cooking device.
> if the inventor or the discoverer is not morally obliged to protest for the wrong 
> usage of the novelty he has introduced, just tell me, who is then, morally obliged to 
> contrast the damage that is, eventually, been done, anyone else, surely, 
> has less moral obligations than the inventor. 
> I think you are lured by consumerism, and that you think that the final responsibility is 
> of the consumer, which unfortunately is trapped unawarely and has no alternatives. 
> best regards 
> beda
> > > From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
> > > common lay man, all are responsible for their part, of the future of humanity. 
> > > best regards 
> > > beda pietanza 
> > > 
> > >>>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> > >>>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> > >>>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > >>>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > >>>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > >>>>> OR 
> > >>>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > >>>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > >>>>> cheers 
> > >>>>> beda pietanza 
> > >>>>>
The rocket engine was developed and refined specifically to kill at a distance.  Yet today it is responsible for satellite technology which makes life better for billions of people.  Same with dynamite.  But dynamite has made modern high speed roadways and rail transport systems practical; and the extraction of value minerals on a much larger scale .  The Jet engine, a product of the Second World War, has also made the world more connected and advanced travel on a level inconceivable to my grandparents.  Blood transfusions were once as lethal as the bullet wounds that necessitated them; but under wartime pressure they have become a sine qua non of every day hospital medicine.  We have much to praise war for, oh venerable Beda. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595910

Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 23:58:56 UTC+1 patrolman ha scritto:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 2:33:28 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 20opinion of what 22 alle 21:46:37 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > > Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > >> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > >>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto: 
> > > >>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact 
> > > >>>>> sylvia else 
> > > >>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis: 
> > > >>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power 
> > > >>>>> beda 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe 
> > > >>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is 
> > > >>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing 
> > > >>>> entity. 
> > > >>> beda: 
> > > >>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world, 
> > > >>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science. 
> > > >> The history of "science" is not "science." 
> > > >>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take 
> > > >>> full responsibility 
> > > >> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of 
> > > >> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art." 
> > > >>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical 
> > > >>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking. 
> > > >>> regards 
> > > >>> beda 
> > > >> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for 
> > > >> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has 
> > > >> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got 
> > > >> its start. 
> > > >> 
> > > >> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'" 
> > > >> 
> > > >> This discussion has no chance of advance. 
> > > > Beda: 
> > > > We may better make some order in the concepts we use, 
> > > > pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake), 
> > > > with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families, 
> > > > friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup. 
> > > > Priests help with religion, 
> > > > philosophers with logic reasoning, 
> > > > scientists help to understand how the physical nature works, 
> > > > teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part. 
> > > > Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work 
> > > > (and his way of thinking) have on the social life. 
> > > Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here? 
> > Thought crime not, but spoken out wrong ideas implies moral responsibilities, 
> > spoken out wrong ideas, mostly, are carried on by mean convenient selfish reasons 
> > > > Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge 
> > > > and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the 
> > > > collective way of life. 
> > > Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not 
> > > responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control. 
> > Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after their working time, 
> > scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage of their work??? 
> > if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral responsibility of using their 
> > right, and contrast any wrong use of their work. 
> > Many have done so, putting their tenure at risk or in some cases loosing it. 
> > > > Upon them is an high part of responsibility of what the actual society is 
> > > > and of what the future society will became. 
> > > Again untrue. Where do you get the idea that the explorer is responsible 
> > > for the outcome of his discoveries? Columbus was only responsible for 
> > > his own direct acts, not for what others did utilizing his discoveries. 
> > this case don't fit 
> > > 
> > > The clear reality is that there is nothing discovered by humans 
> > > that has but one use. The individual making the initial discovery 
> > > rarely, if ever, causes the myriad of implementations. Consider the 
> > > microwave, initially used as a strategic weapon to detect incoming 
> > > weaponized aircraft, but tamed for use in many kitchens (including mine) 
> > > as a cooking device. 
> > if the inventor or the discoverer is not morally obliged to protest for the wrong 
> > usage of the novelty he has introduced, just tell me, who is then, morally obliged to 
> > contrast the damage that is, eventually, been done, anyone else, surely, 
> > has less moral obligations than the inventor. 
> > I think you are lured by consumerism, and that you think that the final responsibility is 
> > of the consumer, which unfortunately is trapped unawarely and has no alternatives. 
> > best regards 
> > beda 
> > > > From up down, the shared level of responsibility: scientists, politicians, philosophers, teachers, down to the 
> > > > common lay man, all are responsible for their part, of the future of humanity. 
> > > > best regards 
> > > > beda pietanza 
> > > > 
> > > >>>> Of course you're free to *believe* anything you wish. However this 
> > > >>>> is a group in which belief based discussions are not acceptable. 
> > > >>>>> may be to reach a God like level of knowledge and power. 
> > > >>>>> In our planet the Earth, humanity may succeed in this extremely difficult task. 
> > > >>>>> The most advanced countries are in the occidental sphere, live with an high level of quality of life, personal freedom, civil right, democracy, ect, at the huge cost of depleting the planet of its resources and of its natural equilibrium. 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> The occidental countries are now at a fork, to help and to let the rest of the world reach their standard of living, then shortening the humanity future survival for the intollerable burden on the planet: So humanity will have less changes of reaching the God like evolutionary goal. 
> > > >>>>> OR 
> > > >>>>> The occidental countries egoistically ignore the rest of the world or worse, fight against it, in order to prevent their aspirations to reach the same living wealth, then the rest of the humanity will undergo famine and wars, but the occidental countries would retain their high level of living (along democracy, freedom and civil right, ect); the sole occidental population and planet will have a longer evolutionary future towards the God like prospective. 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> This is a contradiction of our humanity actual condition: 
> > > >>>>> IF THE GOODNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the future of humanity and its universal task will likely fail, for the unsustainable human pressure on a limitate planet . 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> IF THE EVILNESS of the rich and strong prevails, then the triumphant part of the humanity will enjoy a better and longer future prospective and will have better chances of fulfilling the task of reaching the God like divine abilities. 
> > > >>>>> cheers 
> > > >>>>> beda pietanza 
> > > >>>>>
> The rocket engine was developed and refined specifically to kill at a distance. Yet today it is responsible for satellite technology which makes life better for billions of people. Same with dynamite. But dynamite has made modern high speed roadways and rail transport systems practical; and the extraction of value minerals on a much larger scale . The Jet engine, a product of the Second World War, has also made the world more connected and advanced travel on a level inconceivable to my grandparents. Blood transfusions were once as lethal as the bullet wounds that necessitated them; but under wartime pressure they have become a sine qua non of every day hospital medicine. We have much to praise war for, oh venerable Beda.
beda:
We swim in our environment, like fishes, unaware of the water we are in.
And the water in which some people swim is very different of the water some other swim
And the difference is very very great.
The riches want peace, they want peacefully enjoy their wealth, but cannot share it, so they are well armed
The poor are appalled by the rich way of life, they would fight to obtain that.
No, I don't share you vision of progress.
Democracy, civil right, individual freedom,  the right to reach the personal happiness are privileges of few, 20% of the world population consuming 80%  of the resource, tons of fuel per capita, adjust my figures, but you won't go far from them.  
Extend this way of living to the rest or just to a larger part of the world population is just suicidal for the planet.
So dear patrolman, let me not share your positive opinion of this progress, no personal responsibility, we just keep swimming 
in the water that happen for each us to be swimming in.
Sadly, but with regards 
beda


if the inventor or the discoverer is not morally obliged to protest for the wrong
usage of the novelty he has introduced, just tell me, who is then morally obliged to
contrast the damage that is, eventually, been  done, anyone else surely has less obligation than
him.
I think you are lured by consumerism, and that you think that the final responsibility is 
of the consumer, which unfortunately is trapped unaware and has no alternatives 
if the inventor or the discoverer is not morally obliged to protest for the wrong
usage of the novelty he has introduced, just tell me, who is then morally obliged to
contrast the damage that is, eventually, been  done, anyone else surely has less obligation than
him.
I think you are lured by consumerism, and that you think that the final responsibility is 
of the consumer, which unfortunately is trapped unaware and has no alternatives 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#595913

On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 20opinion of what 22 alle 21:46:37 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>> On 11/21/2022 2:19 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 17:16:28 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>> On 11/21/2022 4:06 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>> Il giorno lunedì 21 novembre 2022 alle 01:06:41 UTC+1 whodat ha scritto:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2022 5:08 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either God exists, or He doesn't. One way or another, it's a fact
>>>>>>> sylvia else
>>>>>>>> there is a more realistic hypothesis:
>>>>>>>> the evolution of human intelligence into God like power
>>>>>>> beda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The goal of intelligence in the universe
>>>>>> Whoa. Begin at the beginning without presuming. AFAIK intelligence is
>>>>>> a characteristic, not an entity and certainly not a free standing
>>>>>> entity.
>>>>> beda:
>>>>> in the far past religion, then after, religion and philosophy, explained the world,
>>>>> now both of them have dealt and shifted partly into science.
>>>> The history of "science" is not "science."
>>>>> Nowadays science fallouts are so important that scientists should take
>>>>> full responsibility
>>>> Sorry, this makes no sense. Those in pursuit of the true nature of
>>>> nature are in no way responsible for the "state of the art."
>>>>> of the social impacts and consequences of scientifical
>>>>> applications, in everyday's life and in the common people way of thinking.
>>>>> regards
>>>>> beda
>>>> How can I tell you this so you'll understand it, science is a search for
>>>> truth and has nothing to do with social impacts. And none of this has
>>>> anything to do with "intelligence" which is where this discussion got
>>>> its start.
>>>>
>>>> We're still stuck at "see 'flight of ideas' and/or 'tangential speech.'"
>>>>
>>>> This discussion has no chance of advance.
>>> Beda:
>>> We may better make some order in the concepts we use,
>>> pursuing the truth is a task for everyone (for his own sake),
>>> with the help of priests, philosophers, scientists, teachers, families,
>>> friends, and at last one may make good use of this newsgroup.
>>> Priests help with religion,
>>> philosophers with logic reasoning,
>>> scientists help to understand how the physical nature works,
>>> teachers,family,friends ....., do their helping part.
>>> Each person for the social relevance of his work gets payed and gets merit for it
>>
>>
>>> then he is obliged to take his responsibility for the effects that his work
>>> (and his way of thinking) have on the social life.
>> Aren't you advocating "thought crime" here?
> Thought crime not, but spoken out wrong ideas implies moral responsibilities,
> spoken out wrong ideas, mostly, are carried on by mean convenient selfish reasons
>>> Most of all the scientists, whose work forge the collective progress of knowledge
>>> and through the practical application of their scientific discoveries, forge the
>>> collective way of life.
>> Untrue. Scientists only deal in understanding of nature. They are not
>> responsible for any implementation over which they had/have no control.





> Strange ideas you have about responsibilities, you mean that after their working time,
> scientists have not the right to speak out their opinion on the usage of their work???
> if they have the right to speak out, then there is their moral responsibility of using their
> right, and contrast any wrong use of their work.



You are somewhere way out in left field with this. Responsibility is
solely in the hands of those who implement. I'm now finished with this
discussion because your grasp on reality is completely absent. Good
luck with your adventures, because adventures is all they are.

<snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web