Stosh

Ill make you a deal , if you stop 'yelling' with the giant letters, I will just leave that standing unmolested, because I like the problem solving approach you're using. Deal?

It is a common thread , to suggest that the real aspect of our lives is the one in our head. Even in western philosophy 'I think, therefore I am' is fundamental. With no ear to hear it , a melody is not music , it is compression waves , and light without eyes to see , it is electromagnetic waves. While a mind has a brain associated with it , the mind is not simply unoccupied matter , there is a life in there , or at least some sort of witness which apprehends the world through its interactions. If one replaces the atoms of ones bones with 'outsourced inorganic' atoms of the same types , one simply has bones identical to the ones it had , and so, the living body of a person is essentially the same as inorganic materials aggregated in a particular style. Therefore the aspect of the person which could have meaning , as we mean it , would have to be the transient assemblage , not the raw materials ( because the raw materials are not unique ,and are not aware ). People are born , live, grow and change , eventually we meet an end- (to the extent that we are recognizable and know of ourselves as discrete.) However, the cascade progressing from that which we did , what we felt , and thought , ripples through time onward. Same as we were born, a ripple from events that have passed leading forward. Identity , meaning , value and discreteness, are immaterial aspects of the Universe, but those are the things that say 'I think things , therefore I am' and so the material world is the unchanging ,mute ,soup we ripple through. That rain forest is a web of living things , just a thin smear on the face of the globe , yet within, is the very existence of meaning , that which has it, that which is aware, and incomprehensibly complex. We know beauty and therefore create the beauty of that which is beautiful. Likewise, the forest has its own meaning , and importance, we just need to understand that this is the basis of spirituality. To see and recognize and uphold , the beauty and importance of ourselves and things like forests or mountains. That Native American paying respects to the deer he killed, or Hawaiian venerating a mountain , these guys, are demonstrating a true spirituality , that we forgot .

No , that's wrong again, enzymes can be either ' handed' in form. Much as in M. C. Escher's famous lithograph, novel RNA enzymes can assemble mirror image versions of themselves. OLAF JAINZ/AGE FOTOSTOCK/SUPERSTOCK Mirror image RNA enzymes may hold clues to origin of life By Robert F. ServiceOct. 30, 2014 , 3:00 PM Like a pair of hands that appear as mirror images of one another, biomolecules, such as DNA and RNA, come in left-handed and right-handed forms. Normally, enzymes that recognize one mirror image form won’t touch the other. But researchers have isolated RNA enzymes, known as ribozymes, that synthesize RNAs of the opposite handedness. As esoteric as this may sound, similar mirror image–making RNAs may have played a role in the early evolution of life. "This is a wrong view. You don't have any evidence to back this up at all. Instead that's a reductionist view of reality." Well , it is the spiritual view , its not an issue to which evidence is available, so you are correct , I may have no evidence you would accept. It doesn't really mean that the world itself is simpler than it is , and I am not sure that the view I expressed ,is typical of all reductionists. However , as a means of understanding what being spiritual is , of understanding what Lao and Chuang were trying to pass on ,, then I think its on -the money, whether provable in a materialist manner, or not.

Yes I truly do see a difference , and would agree that this is destruction of the rainforest. I hope you come over to us reasonable folks ,who do not believe the anthropogenic nature of global climate change, before you burn the place to the ground, and instead ,wish to halt the destruction of our natural world, in accord with spiritual a understanding of what is going on. The atoms and molecules are not the life , not the 'way'. They are those things which manifest ,life , they do not store meaning or value. What has value , is the ineffable magical dance and sparkling interplay of life. The fragile networks of fungal hyphae , loves and triumphs and all those mystical things which leave no trace. Creatures such as us , down to even worms and algae , are just transient assemblages and vortices , passing through the inorganic molecules which carry our essence , for a time ,and then blink back to the primordial source. ( and its not biochar)

Brilliant! your solution to destruction of the rainforest , is,, is ,, to burn the rainforest !

Saharan dust feeds Amazon rainforest, perfectly | Earth | EarthSky Since the article says that the nutrients are largely retained in living plants and soils, it kind of makes sense that, that which drifts in as dust , is approx. that which washes out the Amazon, because its not being used by the plant cover. So if dust is redirected out to sea, then the nutrients washing into the sea from the Amazon will drop.

If burning was good for the soils, you wouldn't have to keep doing the slashing. I think it just liberates potash, but the organics are blowing away on smoke. I have to check on that. But I totally ! agree that the systems are tremendously complex, and is generally beyond the simplicity a computer can crunch. I found this burnt soil.pdf on the properties of burnt soil, note, that the bio-assessment was done on shade intolerant trees and plants , not the type of trees which compose the mature forest . Also , there was a decrease in water retention , and the soil was made harder. There were lasting effects to soil , and any increase in nutrient was sourced in the tree canopy burnt. ( When they stripped plots , there was no appreciable change in the soil structure or content.) So fires do not create nutrients , they 'liberate' them from the existing trees and plants, that fragile skin of life drifts away as windblown ash , and the character of the forest shifts from old growth shade tolerant trees, to shade intolerant trees and plants ( or crops) . The water begins to wash off the surface of the land ,creating additional local erosion issues. The low intensity burns were not as destructive to the soil but they still change the character of the forest, and soils. Therefore , the burning in these forests is not regenerative of the old growth forest that burned, it destroys that magnificent multi-tier complex canopy and web of living creatures , replacing it with a temporary cover of shade intolerant weeds, or farm.

I love their argument so far. Anthropogenic Global Warming is causing droughts, which are rejuvenating the Amazon rain forest by causing forest fires! 😂

If the droughts are from gw, then gw could be considered destructive. If the forest was being rejuvenated, then gw wouldn't be destructive here, rather it would be causing rejuvenation!

The parts of the land which have not burned, in a long long time, still perpetuate without burning. They become old growth mature forest. The parts that burn repeatedly would be a different canopy and different from the old growth forest. Forests that require burning , are adapted for the conditions caused by fire. The old growth forests have non fire- adapted canopies un- like that which eucalypts have. The very first line suggests that outside of droughts, most of the burns are intentional, but,true, you wouldn't exactly be thinning, because the trees can't handle the burns,,, not to mention the destruction of the thin clayey and organic soils they require.

I didn't say forest fires didn't ever happen in the Amazon basin, they are just not required to perpetuate that type of forest. The intended burns are done to get rid of the mature forest,not perpetuate it. So if my statement is flawed, you didn't find it.😊

He is wrong again, there are plenty of forests that do not burn and yet maintain the canopy over time. Think Amazon.

"So he never solved the problems he was addressing" = Failed , bombed , has nothing to offer , (whether or not you choose the world fail. ) If I was cutting a tree for firewood , and never actually got the tree to come down , people would describe that as a failure , and I wouldn't have the wood to sell or burn. According to your idea, I would still be able to make use of the wasted time, and sell all that wood still standing! In mathematical terms , when , 1+1= ????????????, it = failure

No answer in five days.

Here is the fact, there are no paradoxes , he didn't solve the 'problems' , and so he has nothing to teach. That's like me teaching you to ride a motorcycle , when I never got it figured out! He failed ! he wanted to come away with some credit, wanted to still be the 'smart guy' and have everybody follow him in his failure! If we copy him , in his thoughts , we are not going to be advised of where he went wrong , we will simply go over the same cliff and waste a lot of time wrestling with an idea that there are paradoxes , when what happened was he was simply what we in grade school called -wrong. You don't get to reinvent science , it's a defined methodology. When one takes a wrong turn , that is not 'redrawing the maps'. The only thing this has to do with climate change , is the guy decided to throw logic and common sense out the window, and engage in some kind of hallucination to get approval..

I am not saying this to be politically correct. Its really pretty much acceptable to badmouth the stupid. It isnt one of the legally protected subgroups that one is not supposed to discriminate against, like .., marital status, ethnicity , or race. In lieu of thinking for onesself , one may abdicate critical thinking and just use a legal definition. For instance , race is actually a blurry grouping based on the impression of phenotype that a person has of themself. Same as it is for ethnicity. There should in fact be no way to prove a persons race or ethnicity, most people have some mix of ancestral phenotype ,and social context... and so there should be no way to prove that a discriminatory act was perpetrated against the 'protected' minority. But anyway , it is fine to discriminate against people one considers stupid. Like by calling them stupid. However , intelligence is also a subjective standard , and again , it should not be possible to factually decide if a person was indeed stupid or not. We have all done things we deem dumb, but may ,or may not ,consider ourselves to be properly labeled as stupid. What really matters is to have 'zigged' when one should have 'zigged', and to have not 'zagged'. In light of not actually being able to see the future , we are all making guesses. Some guesses pan out, and we might win the lottery , OR we might not want to waste the dollar on such an improbable gain. Often people get divorces now-a-days, were all those people 'smart' , 'dumb', or taking a gamble? The stupid move , is essentially , defined by context ,and consequence.

Yeah it could happen ,'Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending me the book anyway' . So you would have to read the book , understand it ,disagree with it ,and still tell me to read the same bogus book. (The tricky part is that yet in there. I think the yet applies to the whole sentence.) I think its strange, very strange, to use a straw man argument on my grammar. . Is your point here to have conversation , or win a discussion. My grammar is about the level of importance as finding out someones father coined a phrase.

I do not have to read the book , since there is no such existing thing as a paradox, outside of a poorly constructed mental model. Besides , I am not going to read every book that someone else thought was good. ( I don't even read all the books that I think would be good.) Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending me the book anyway And if Ralis approves of it , it probably is all about hating america. well, He is often looking for authors who he can point at so as to lend credibility that he doesn't think he has. ( although I attribute him or you more than.. some guy who I cannot confront. if the author wants to back up his ideas, let 'im show up.) For instance , I produced a geometry 'experiment' showing that in an expanding universe of unknown limit, one cannot trace a pair of vectors back to the origin- center, because any spot could be construed as the 'center'. I presented how this conclusion can be arrived at with so simple as a single sheet of paper in a two dimensional format. But one could determine the center relative to the boundaries etc. Nobody showed up to dispute it , because they like thinking its a miraculous paradox PROVEN by science.

Well how the heck am I supposed to respond, if you are both saying that, truth is subjective and that it's not? There are folks here that do not think there is truth. I have wished more than once, that everyone had to make some sort of statement of their stances , to which they could be held. Like, "I am a Hindu," is simple, or "I believe that we have free will".

Agreed, It doesn't really make sense. I think it's a case of jumbling his words. The sentiment being to play down the seriousness of the event, which a lawyer is supposed to do. Our courts are adversarial in nature, and everyone gets a defense. Plain and simple.

Dude! You could be a robot!

Yknow,,,Plain vanilla,,, vs banana fudge.;)

Affirmative.

Fine ,Here is a crumb,you just don't get everything by all your own rules , lay out tests , ignore conversational questions and so forth and have any right to expect cooperation you don't wish to extend.

I have standards which don't include that sort of thing.