text:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:28:25 -0700, "Immortalist" <[email]>
wrote:

This is all beside the point.
I have it on good authority that God took all souls to heaven
last week.  They're all having a party up there for the rest of
eternity.  Did God miss you?  Golly how could That happen?

God can reach anywhere into time, and you exist at all points in
time, so you must really be up there too.  Aren't you?

Look to the future (and for the union label).  When the future finally
comes we can all stop holding our breath and begin to live at last.


author: Immortalist

subject: Re: Hypothesis of Immortality: Resurrection Hypothesis

text:
"stoney" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The consideration of time is relevant to alt.atheism. In that newsgroup there are
often debates about geological time and about what constitutes species in
relations to science vs biblical interpretations. Therefore you are wrong.

Often the weak epistemology that atheists pawn off has to do with the theory of
knowledge and how it is used by science. Many subjects come up about what the
universe is or how it got here. This is a subject of metaphysics.

Alt.atheism is an unmoderated group. You can complain or plonk me but you will
hardly beat me. I am that dam good little boy.

You mumbled something earlier about just pushing off the hole issue because of
some minor detail and hear you are hypocritically doing so yourself.

I merely re-pasted the original post in the thread because it was the answer to
your question.

I am afraid you just convicted yourself of stupidity. These are the very things
my post considered. I was merely interested in what atheists thought about
particular aspects of time. Maybe I should begin to hang out in order to clear
out some of the unprofessional debaters who are holding back good debates for
selfish power reasons. Shall I focus on defeating you exclusively in most of your
arguments?

take

You have commited the fallacy of the "Appeal to Ridicule." Didn't your daddy ever
teach you that ridicule combined with one premise doesn't soundly warrent
particular conclusions. Or were you from a broken family?

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description:

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted
for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the
claim).

2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that
it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's
the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of
legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to
reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad
absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to
show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result
follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group
cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a
minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males
could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacists are not racist
organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacists are not racist
organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member
of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

http://www.opifex.cnchost.com/reasoning/fallacies/appealtoridicule.htm

My posts have substance. You have asserted otherwise, therefore like the believer
in God, the one who asserts must defend and since I have challenged you proposal
how will you defend it further. If you don't answer the debate goes to my
scorecard by default.

http://inter-fan.org/history/stupid.jpg

:-)


subject: Re: Theory of Immortality: Resurrection Theory

text:
"?????" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You took that out of the subject phrase something along the lines of, "If this
guy believes that 'your subjectivity is probably the activities of nerve cells'
then..."

Therefore you are now making the claim that you have evidence that your
subjective experience is not identical to the activities of nerve cells?

You appear to have snipped the limb you are setting on right out from under
yourself but I was kind enough to break your fall one more time. Are you
thankful?


author: Bob

text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Hey, the main thing of METAPHYSICS is if you want to make unreasonable
assumptions
that have no evidence or reason for what so ever, you make the claim, and
call it
"METSPHYISICS".  Word games at it's very finest, and it means NOTHING.


author: Keynes

text:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:41:14 -0700, "Immortalist" <[email]>
wrote:

My carbohydrates are incompatible with your neurotranmitters.
(Beep)  In future, please keep your neurons from making so
much (Beep) noise around here. (Beep) It's getting harder to
keep my aggressive sections in check when they are supplied
with so much fecal stimulus. (Beep) Now look!  An entire bank
of ganglia have barfed all over their glions.  It's all the (Beeping)
fault of your freaking brain chemicals. (Beep) Please in future
keep your drips and drops of serotonin away from my chemical
(Beep) processes.  Thank you.       (Beep)         (Beep)

(Beep)


author: agray

text:
Bob wrote:

Don't take me for defending k00kery of the other poster, but give
Metaphysics a break.  It actually does mean something useful.

Metaphysics is the description of the nature of reality.  Assuming you have
a relatively coherent world-view, then you have a view of metaphysics.
Even the staunchest objectivist does --  "Objective reality exists
objectively, regardless of our ability to perceive it."

Now, most peoples' metaphysics involve the supernatural, or even outright
k00kery, which has given the word a connotation of the supernatural.  In
reality, however, one cannot escape metaphysics -- one can only say that
metaphysics based on absurd or arbitrary ideas (invisible buddies,
reincarnation, etc.) are intellectually worthless.  But even stating this
is a statement of metaphysics.


text:
"Bob" <[email]> wrote in message
news:aotgd.35288$[email]...

A valid claim in some cases but not this one since time is a subset of the branch
of philosophy known as metaphysics. Pendurantism and Endurantism are merely two
aspects of time units and interactions. Like substances in the world of
metaphysics, are they one thing or many particulars or maby composite simples
[one thing made of many parts each not the thing] etc...

You are probably becoming aroused about the resurrection part since you might
automatically associate that with a god theory. But the difference between
endurantism and pendurantism is like the theory in AI about whether a clone would
be you or just something like you that thinks its you, (or if you are a clone
that thinks it is you and all that jazz)

It is possible that I ddn't provide enough information in the original post to
make these common philosophical distinctions clear.


author: tdny

subject: Israeli teens play ball in MSG for cancer patients - Itamar Eichner, Ynetnews

text:
Israeli teens play ball in MSG for cancer patients

Tamar Fund International charity group aiding cancer patients organizes
charity game between Israeli high school students, Jewish-American teens in
New York

Itamar Eichner, Ynetnews
Published: 	03.28.10, 07:54 / Israel Activism

New York Knicks basketball players were asked to clear the Madison Square
Garden floor last week for a unique charity game. A group of teenagers from
Rishon Letzion arrived in the Big Apple to play against Jewish high school
students from Brooklyn as a gesture for cancer patients.

The game was organized by the Tamar Fund International aid group, which
supports cancer patients and their families in the US and Israel.

The Israeli team beat the Brooklyn teens 42-28 and won 10 color diamonds
worth thousands of dollars courtesy of the Israeli Briza company. The prize
will be donated to cancer patients and nursing workers in hospitals across
Israel.

The Israeli team in Madison Square Garden (Photo: Courtesy of Yad Tamar)

Retired American basketball stars Walt Frazier, John Starks and Alan Houston
attended the event and signed three basketballs, which will also be sold and
donated to Yad Tamar Israel.

The Israeli delegation was accompanied in New York by Yad Tamar chairman
Micy Wasserteil, who said, "The success of this unusual event is the first
one and we are already working on similar events for next year in three
other cities in the US with three other teams."

Ziv Erez, who trained Israeli NBA star Omri Caspi for six years served as
the Rishon Letzion team's coach.


author: Honest truth

subject: Re: Israeli teens play ball in MSG for cancer patients - Itamar Eichner, Ynetnews

text:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:54:01 -0400, tdny wrote:

Israel is always first for humanitarianism


author: dsharavi

subject:
Re: Israeli teens play ball in MSG for cancer patients - Itamar
	Eichner, Ynetnews

text:
On Apr 1, 1:19 am, Honest truth <[email]> wrote:

There are a disproportionate number of Israel/Jewish groups who
establish organizations and centres where Israelis and Palestinians
can get together in peace, or at least meet in peace. Where are those
emanating from the "Palestinian" side?

Deborah


author: Mark Probert

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Mark Probert" <Mark [email]> wrote in message news:...
Club
less.

-------------

Happy anniversary to me
Happy anniversary to me


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
Lo
I think we should go to a universal health care with the rising cost of
medical care and the increasing numbers of people out of work and
unable to afford it. What will happen to our nation without medical
care for all of it's citizens. Exactly what's happen now we have the
most advance techology but yet we have more then 47million americans
with no health insurance and most of these people work that still can't
afford it. So forget about gentic testing and all that we can't afford
basic. Yes people without insurance is charged the true price of
medical coverage for everything because they have no advocate behind
them.
Lo


author: Caledonia

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
00doc wrote:

I agree with you in principle, but there's the catch-22 where voters
without insurance (and often in lower-income brackets) don't vote as
the candidates are unconcerned with their issues, and the candidates
are unconcerned with their issues because this subset of voters don't
vote. Und so weiter. Makes me bananas....

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so quick to say that they have no one to
blame but themselves, though -- did you read the Pacificare CEO comment
the other day in the WSJ regarding insuring people who have gotten sick
in the past? I can't remember the exact quote but it was akin to saying
'health insurance is like auto insurance -- you can't expect someone to
pay for an accident you've already had.'

Caledonia


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
George Conklin wrote:

I'm not an MD (nor even play one), but I contest the 'highest incomes
in the world' comment. Average MD salary in the Boston area is $120k.
Average *starting* salary for a UPS driver in middle-of-nowhere
Pennsylvania is $80k. Average house price (Boston area) is $400k.
Average house price (middle-nowhere PA) is $50k. Medicine is not
lucrative, or at least not for the folks who are actually providing
direct care.

Caledonia


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
00doc wrote:

I'm with you, too. (Although I'm still snickering at calling The
Economist a left-wing publication.) Do you know if  risk-adjusted
payments per insured individual are paid to providers in countries with
national health insurance? I've seen it work (or not) with Medicare
HMOs here in the US, when Medicare+Choice changed from 'groups' to
individual risk adjustments based on claims experience... it's an
interesting albeit creepy model.

Caledonia


author: Nana Weedkiller

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
Congratulations, Mark.

Is the Fan Club still open for submissions?


author: LadyLollipop

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Mark Probert" <Mark [email]> wrote in message
news:q21ie.11333$[email]...
Freddie, you blew you pledge.

Where oh where can Rosenthal be?

April 7th


author: Peter Bowditch

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Mark Probert" <Mark [email]> wrote:

And me.


author: Orac

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
In article <q21ie.11333$[email]>,
 "Mark Probert" <Mark [email]> wrote:

Happy anniversary to you...


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
[email] wrote:

It'll have to get worse before it gets better. For two elections in a
row now the person who was more likely to provide increased coverage
was defeated by the person who makes litle bones about the fact that
he has not intention of changing anything (and his history suggests he
wants to make the situation worse). Both times the electiosn were
decided by less than 1%.

Elections are usually decided by narrow margins. A 5% victory is
considered a landslide. There is no reason on Earth why a voting block
of 18%, spread all through the country, should not be able to exert
theri will.

When the 18% or so of the people without insurance decide it is THEIR
priority to get it then they will vote for politicians who will make
changes. Until then nothing will happen and they have no one to blame
but themselves.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
Caledonia wrote:

In a strictly literal sense he is right. Traditionally what insurance
is about is a pool of similar risk people getting together to share
it. That is not the situation he have - at least not in a system where
people jump in and out carrying different risks with them.

What this really tells you is that it will not be possible to have
decent insurance for all without some kind of government intervention.
Mind you, I think there are other alternatives than just having the
government subsume the whole thing and run it. But healthcare in
general is not an area that should be left completely to market
forces - the financing of it least of all.


author: george conklin

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"Caledonia" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

   There is no one way the industrialized nations of the world conduct
business.  Medicine is very, very political and The Economist has also
written about the new emphasis in UK on the primary care physician.  But
shedding risk is all of what private insurance is about.  We need inclusion,
not exclusion.  How to service the pool is another issue.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
Caledonia wrote:

I'm assuming you mean HMO types of capitated models. I'm not that
familiar with many foriegn plans at that level of detail. I do believe
that in most where risk adjustment of payments are done it is at more
of a population level. If the system is fee for service the whole
problem become moot.

The problem with capitation is that it provides the doc with an
incentive to give less care and try to not attract sick patients. The
problem with fee for service is that it encourages the docs to give
more, at times uneccessary, care.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Nana Weedkiller" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4288a895$0$40403$[email]...

That would be inconsistent with the peace offer.


author: Coleah

subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xq7ie.87530$c24.42368@attbi_s72...

-------------------------------------------

And when Jan stands before the judge
and is asked for her bonafied proof of
these absolute declarations of truth........

will the judge leap from the bench and
scream 'liar, liar, liar' into her pompous face ????


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xq7ie.87530$c24.42368@attbi_s72...
in
move

I am not Freddie. While it would be convenient for me to be him, so you can
still make these spurious claims, I am not him.

Now, find a message since March 16, 2005 where MARK PROBERT violated this
pledge. When you cannot, your apology is appropriate.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Orac" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

    Did anyone see the article in the NY Times about genetic research and
universal health care?  The theme was that once it is easy to identify
genetic markers, no one will be able to buy health insurance, since everyone
has known defects of some kind.  At that point, we must have universal
health insurance to pool risks nationally.


author: George Conklin

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

  The establishment in the USA is quite happy with the current situation.
Physicians get the highest incomes in the world, and patients spend twice as
much as Canada.  The establishment tells us that any changes would be
horrible and fear, fear and fear rule the world.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

    The industrialized nations of the world have different systems, but
except for the United States, they insist that everyone be in the pool so
people cannot jump in and out depending on risk factors.  Even in
Switzerland, according to the left-wing publication "The Economist," when
they loosened up on private insurance, the businesses simply shed risk in
place of providing better care.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

   The real problem with capitation at the individual level of a private
doctor is that such a small group of people are not really a pool.  One
physician cannot assume that he/she will get an average risk group.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Mark Probert" <Mark [email]> wrote in message
news:IQ7ie.9332$[email]...

Freddie, you blew you pledge.

Where oh where can Rosenthal be?

April 7th


author: Herman Rubin

subject: Health "insurance"

text:
In article <nIFke.9743$[email]>,
george conklin <[email]> wrote:

			....................

Why?  I do not think that there should be any of the present
health anti-insurance, but rather major medical only, plus
MSAs to make medical expenses completely tax-deductible.

This way, we can have competition without the damaging effects
of government and other bureaucratic control.  We are paying
more than 20% for the horror of this control, and do not have
the rights we should have to our choice of treatment.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
george conklin wrote:

Good Gosh George !   I actually agree with you.

The traditional "shared risk" model of insurance can only work if
everyone is in the pool. That means that young healthy low risk people
need to be forced into it and older unhealthy high risk people must be
accepted.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is what we should do (and I'm not
saying it isn't) but it is the only way that the traditional shared
risk model can work. The alternative is some degree of government
regulation and probably subsidy (or do what we do now and leave large
gaping cracks in the system).


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:02bie.407$V2.160@attbi_s72...

Pointy nose dork......


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:02bie.407$V2.160@attbi_s72...
EST,
or
her
nothing

I am NOT Freddie. I know that you would like for me to be Freddie, but,
alas, I am not him. Your "proof" is nothing more than your idle conjecture
which allows you to avoid coming to grips with the fact that I have lived up
to my pledge, and your good buddy has not.

Now, find a message since March 16, 2005 where MARK PROBERT violated this
pledge. When you cannot, your apology is appropriate.

Of course you will not even attempt to find one, as you want to take the
easy way out and call me Freddie.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Ozbie.534$V2.144@attbi_s72...
EST,
or
her
nothing
this

You found Freddie's first post. Does the NNTP posting host in any manner
refer to me? Nope. You have no proof except your idle conjecture, which
allows you to avoid the fact that I lived up to my pledge for two months in
spite of her continual sniping. She was clever, though, and avoided doing
that in asbi.

messages

See above. I am not him.

WOW! Using the same words. What a fantastic proof.

See above.

My winding up in the hospital had nothing to do with anything here. Your use
of that information in this context is despicable.

BTW, and while I have your attention, you have yet to post real proof that
you owned *two* daycare *centers* for any length of time. While you claim
that the State of Indiana has the proof, there is nothing available to
conform your bare allegation.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"Herman Rubin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d6vvo0$[email]...

  You can't have a national pool one person at a time.  That is where your
MSA falls flat on its face.  As genetric knowledge continues to increase,
there will come a time when no one can get private insurance, even you
Herman.  MSA's are totally worthless if you get sick.  They are fine for the
young and the end of the world for the older groups.  Insurance involves
pooling and MSAs are anti-pooling, anti-pooling and anti-common-sense.  They
work only if you never get sick.

   Have you not noticed Herman all the current articles in the papers about
how the cash customer pays about twice as much for a procedure compared to,
say Blue Cross?  If we were all cash customers, the medical/industrial
complex would just double their fees.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

   Herman posts here a lot, and he has diabetes and state-supported health
care, but argues we should not have such a pool.  I do not feel that being
in a national pool for Herman would be a bad idea, nor do I think that the
fact that I have not had to use health insurance much at all means that I
have been 'robbed' by him either.  At some point I may need to spend some
real money on health.  I have had insurance all my life, but do not think
that now I am getting to the age where I may need some health care that it
had been a bad idea to be in a pool.  We need a national risk pool for all
ages, regardless of which plan we end up with for providing service to that
pool.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Coleah" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I guess Coleah would like to see the second post from Freddie. Oh, tis is
not Mark, of course,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant
      From: "FreddieFarkas" <[email]> - Find messages by
this author
      Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:27:18 -0400
      Local: Wed,Apr 6 2005 9:27 am
      Subject: Re: PING JESSI, PLEASE!!!
      Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Rosenthal said:

"

www.BreastImplantAwareness.orgï¿½/SandraProbert.htm
(Sandy ... I almost removed the page on you ... then saw that your hubby
is now attacking me publicly at the moment ... it's true ... but going
underground with his tactics. Too bad

.)"

I sit here lurking day after day and read all this bickering from you and
all the others. I read Probert's declaration of peace, and was hopeful
that this time at least that war could end. I have not seen him attack you
in any of the newsgroups since he declared his peace. Can you show anyone
where he has attacked you since his declaration of peace?

If you cannot, then you should rightfully remove the website you made up
about his wife. I see her as a casualty of your war.

If you do remove it, it puts him on the spot since he has the next move.
He could remove the posts in the fan club he created. If he does not, then
it proves that his offer of peace is shallow. Of course, if he does remove
the posts, then the next move is in your hands.

Make him put up or shut up. You now have that power. Use it. You cannot
lose.


author: George Lagergren

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
the
They

            Would folks with MSAs be smart enough NOT to eat junk food?  As
to never getting sick?


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
In article <GoMke.9900$[email]>,
george conklin <[email]> wrote:

			 ....................

Only those who want to sponge on others want a "national pool".

True, you cannot have a "pool" one person at a time.  If some
people want to have bureaucrats deciding what healthcare they
will get, and want to form a VOLUNTARY pool, let them.  Their
costs will be higher.

		 As genetric knowledge continues to increase,

NOT if they were properly run.  It is the government which
limits them to peanuts.  And even if they are small, they
will cut the costs of medical care by almost 50%; take into
account the tax laws.  I pointed out before that your
employer would have to given you $1750 to get $1000 of
employer-provided prepaid medical care, or before-tax
medical care.  MSAs do this.

 		They are fine for the

I am definitely older than you.

But you totalitarian socialists cannot understand that this
is the way to progress.  You want handouts, not realizing what
this does to everything else in the economy.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
george conklin wrote:

The whole concept of insurance is that most people will lose money.
You are trading losing a relatively small regular predictable amount
of money to eliminate the risk of losing a large amount at an
unpredictable time.

In theory is it about sharing risks. You are right, that if you let
the insurers pick and choose whom to insure it quickly turns into
shedding risk. The problem is that is participatio is voluntary low
risk people will try to stay out of the system until they become high
risk and then they will try to get back in. Meanwhile the industry
tries to acocmplish exactly the opposite. There is no way that system
can provide a high level of coverage.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
Gosh Ms Pointy nose dork.....when you posted your reply
you seem to have added a several more newsgroups than the
one (1) I posted to.  That is called.....Gasp...... 'spamming'.
Complaints of [email] (Jan Drew)
in considerate spamming can be reported to [email]

"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cmcie.878$z_.228@attbi_s71...


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"George Lagergren" <[email]> wrote in message
news:0sQke.7310$[email]...
    People already are living longer than ever before.  The rap, "We have a
crisis of....." is what researchers push to get more money.  You cannot get
money for the standard diseases anymore, so they have created new ones for
funding purposes.  For example, people who weigh more than the ideal
weights, live LONGER.  Standard medical advice would lower your life
expectancy, perhaps making MSAs more profitable if you die first.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"Herman Rubin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d72lsq$[email]...

  Not so at all Herman.  In fact, the national pool is a desire NOT to have
businesses which provide no health coverage sponge of the rest of us who get
insurance.  You work for the state, and get coverage, which results in lower
income to you in order to cover those who do NOT pay into the pool.

   Voluntary means no pool.  You cannot get insurance on the voluntary
market if you have ever been sick or are expected to maybe get sick. And if
you do get sick, they cancel your policy through the simple ruse offering
everyone who does not have a claim a new policy, leaving you all alone or
with a pool of sick only.  In short, private medical insurace is also
impossible.  And don't even ask me about TIAA-CREF's extended care
insurance.  They gave it up, but they were a flat-out fraud.  You cannot
purchase such insurance privately either.  My wife was in a group plan,
which was cancelled, and they offered her a 'private' policy.  Similar
problems with the State of NC.  They dumped everyone, 100%, and then offered
them 'invididual' policies at much higher rates.  Get sick?  Get dropped.

   Herman, how can you ignore the FActs?  Indivduals paying cash pay about
TWO TIMES MORE?  You directly subsidize those outside the pool.  It is
called charity care.

    Not much that more. As people age, costs go up.  So?

  I have always had health insurance.  You work for the government.  You can
complain while having coverage.  Why do you do this?  You would need to work
for a private university to crow.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"00doc" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

     A voluntary system cannot pool riks because people stay out of the pool
until they do get sick.  You are correct.


subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary

text:
"Coleah" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Coleah, you don't know what you are doing.

FACT is you did NOT post to (1)

      Coleah   May 16, 9:38 pm     hide options

      Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, talk.politics.medicine
      From: "Coleah" <[email]> - Find messages by this author
      Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 18:38:10 -0700
      Local: Mon,May 16 2005 9:38 pm
      Subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary
      Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

"LadyLollipop" <[email]> wrote in message

news:02bie.407$V2.160@attbi_s72...

Pointy nose dork......

      LadyLollipop   May 16, 10:08 pm     hide options

      Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, talk.politics.medicine
      From: "LadyLollipop" <[email]> - Find messages by
this author
      Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 02:08:08 GMT
      Local: Mon,May 16 2005 10:08 pm
      Subject: Re: Peace Offer: Two Month Anniversary
      Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

"Coleah" <[email]> wrote in message

news:[email]...

I guess Coleah would like to see the second post from Freddie. Oh, tis is
not Mark, of course,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant
      From: "FreddieFarkas" <[email]> - Find messages by
this author
      Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:27:18 -0400
      Local: Wed,Apr 6 2005 9:27 am
      Subject: Re: PING JESSI, PLEASE!!!
      Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Rosenthal said:

"

www.BreastImplantAwareness.orgï¿½ï¿½/SandraProbert.htm
(Sandy ... I almost removed the page on you ... then saw that your hubby
is now attacking me publicly at the moment ... it's true ... but going
underground with his tactics. Too bad

.)"

I sit here lurking day after day and read all this bickering from you and
all the others. I read Probert's declaration of peace, and was hopeful
that this time at least that war could end. I have not seen him attack you
in any of the newsgroups since he declared his peace. Can you show anyone
where he has attacked you since his declaration of peace?

If you cannot, then you should rightfully remove the website you made up
about his wife. I see her as a casualty of your war.

If you do remove it, it puts him on the spot since he has the next move.
He could remove the posts in the fan club he created. If he does not, then
it proves that his offer of peace is shallow. Of course, if he does remove
the posts, then the next move is in your hands.

Make him put up or shut up. You now have that power. Use it. You cannot
lose.

That is called.....Gasp...... 'spamming'.

No, it called, you are terribly confused.

LOL. Desperation.

You just made a fool of yourself.

LL/Jan


author: Skeptic

subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"george conklin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:7AZke.10196$[email]...

Medical fact:  large BMI people have shorter life expectancies.  More heart
disease, more diabetes, shorter lives.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
In article <637le.7749$[email]>,
george conklin <[email]> wrote:

			 ....................

If 100 million people, or even 10 million, want to form a pool,
they can form a pool.  Just as labor unions can form a negotiating
body, so can a voluntary pool.

			...................

There are now medical groups offering lower prices to those
without "insurance".  MSAs are not insurance.  You would use
an MSA "debit card" or direct check to pay for the costs.

Forced pooling is nothing but direct involuntary socialism.

Pooling involves taking money from some to pay for others;
MSAs allow people to save up for their future.  You are
saying that the "ants" should pay for the future of the
"grasshoppers".  You are advocating that people not save
for their future, but rely on the government.  That is
pure Marxist.

			......................

Purdue, and other state universities, have always been in
competition with private universities.  There are few
federal universities, and they are not among the good ones
academically.  In fact, state universities are not
equivalent, do not have the same "pay scales", etc.

There has, in the past year, been ONE change in medical
coverage which involves the state directly; the state has
gone to a prescription plan which involves all state
agencies.  I do not see that this has cut drug costs at
all; some have gone up as a result of this.


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"Skeptic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:n8sle.12157$IC6.10929@attbi_s72...

   So are you contradicting the latest FActs which show that you have to be
about 60 lbs overweight before the extra weight cuts your life?  Up to that
level, it adds years to your life.  Did you memorize something else in med
school?


subject: Re: Health "insurance"

text:
"Herman Rubin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d74nkk$[email]...

     That is what we have been doing.  The problem is that huge numbers of
people are in NO pool.  Remember, Hillary really wanted to do that---pools.
You called it HillaryCare.  Harry and Louise.  ETC.

   Voluntary pooling simply means that insurance companies throw out anyone
who gets sick.  That is serfdom.

    Same here.  They get kickbacks.  It is supposed to save money.  Our
latest scheme was supposed to save about $2 million as I recall.


subject: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
Laser teeth whitening training specialists in the most advanced instant teeth whitening, cheap teeth whitening manchester, tooth whitening and teeth bleaching. Now have a wide range of zoom and power tooth whitening with business and teeth whitening training provided, ipl laser skin and hair removal from london to scotland in uk

for more info:http://www.allwhite3000.co.uk/


author: Bob Casanova

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:40:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
[email]:

Clorox used as a mouthwash is cheaper.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


author: Mike Painter

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:45:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

Cheaper still is urine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy#Rome
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig


author: *Hemidactylus*

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/20/2012 03:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

I brush my dog's teeth with enzymatic toothpaste, but a good tooth
scraping helps once in a while.


author: jillery

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:21:40 -0700, Mike Painter
<[email]> wrote:

Having tasted both (don't ask) I recommend the latter.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:04:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email]>:

At least it's not toxic, for the first three cycles anyway,
according to something I read about desert survival a few
years ago.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


author: Glenn

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
"Bob Casanova" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Depending on what is meant by "toxic" and what is in the urine. No one benefits
from drinking urine in survival situations.
But the use of urine is effective in other ways:

"Pathan women in the North-West Frontier Province (1901-1955) of Pakistan during
the Anglo-Afghan Wars used a method of execution involving urine, Pathan women
urinated into prisoner's mouths. Captured British soldiers were spread out on
the ground and fastened with restraints to the ground, then a stick or a piece
of wood was used to keep their mouth open to prevent swallowing. Pathan women,
taking turns one at a time, then squatted and urinated directly into the mouth
of the man until he drowned in the urine. This method of execution was reported
to have been practiced specifically by the women of the Afridi tribe of the
Pashtuns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urophagia


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:24:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

For those who have never experienced it, what people will do when
given a choice between that and death is simply amazing.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:44:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<[email]>:

That's not, as I said, what I read. But let it drop.

Note that in this case urine is irrelevant; the same effect
would have been achieved with water. Or with Chateau Lafite
Rothschild. Or, for that matter, with Budweiser.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:55:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email]>:

Yep. And even sometimes for those who have, looking back.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


author: Walter Bushell

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Bob Casanova <[email]> wrote:

Budweiser urine what's the difference?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
"Bob Casanova" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
benefits
during
women
piece
women,
mouth
reported
No thanks, I'm not thirsty.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/22/2012 09:13 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:

Budweiser isn't *that* bad. At least it's not Fosters.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:13:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <[email]>:

Well, we were discussing human urine, not that of horses.

But point taken.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


author: Burkhard

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Oct 23, 2:18ï¿½am, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

You know the old joke of the bloke who send a sample of bud to a local
lab for testing, as he thought it tastes funny, and got as a result:
we are sorry to inform you that your horse has diabetes.


author: SkyEyes

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Oct 22, 6:18ï¿½pm, Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

Know why beer goes through your body so quickly?

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It doesn't have to slow down to change color.

Thank you, thank you very much!  I'll be here through the 15th.  Try
the veal, and remember to tip your waitperson!

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
skyeyes [email] OR
skyeyes [email]


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:53:44 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<[email]> wrote:

Logic:

Snow beer. About 61.0 million.

Top selling beers in the world.
Bud Light, 55.6 million hectoliters (hl) or 47.38 million barrels.
Budweiser, 43.4 million hl, or 36.98 million barrels.
Skol (Brazil), 35.4 million hl; 30.16 million barrels.
Corona, 32.7 million hl; 27.86 million barrels.
Heineken, 29.1million hl; 24.79 million barrels.

I know nothing about beer but if I drank it, it would have to be
Corona.

I wore a pager 24x7x365 for over 15 years and their ad showing someone
skipping stones, then a pager, made me a worshipper.

Then there is also the mysterious 2 M beer.
A friend's wife was asking for it one evening and it took probably 20
minutes to realize that 2 M beer was Dos Equis.

Nope, she had not been drinking.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
"*Hemidactylus*" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
You'd rather be killed by having urine forced into your mouth than Fosters?


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Bob Casanova <[email]> wrote:

"So that makes Budweiser actually better since in comes from the noble
horse', said Walter, Swiftly.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
"Bob Casanova" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
It has the same effect?


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/25/2012 10:43 PM, Mike Painter wrote:

I don't like Corona. For Mexican beer I always liked Negra Modelo.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:43:07 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<[email]>:

These numbers seem appropriate, considering the taste of a
large percentage of the public... ;-)

Microbreweries and minibreweries brew some of the best
beers, in my experience. At one time Coors wasn't too bad,
even though the ads usually compared it with beers like Bud,
which is like comparing an early-model Hyundai with a Yugo;
against some competition *anything* looks good...

But considering only major brands, I'll stick to St. Pauli
Girl, Beck's and Guinness (all dark).

Can I do that with the cellphone belonging to the idiot who
refuses to STFU and put it away?

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:12:09 -0400, Walter Bushell <[email]>
wrote:

As they say, straight from the horse's... umm... you get the point.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:12:09 -0400, Walter Bushell <[email]>
wrote:

Just last week something triggered the memory of Tom Swifties and now
they start anew.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:42:37 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<[email]>:

Damfino, never having tried either. But if horse urine
actually does taste like Bud I'll continue to avoid it.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 28 Oct, 14:18, *Hemidactylus* <[email]> wrote:

Me too. I tried to introduce "Cubana" made with Modelo in Scotland
after I got hooked on the stuff when in Mexico, but for some reason it
was an utter disaster - maybe you need the right temperature before
you can enjoy beer with salt.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:31:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

You could but skipping the idiot would make more sense.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<[email]>:

"Pineapples upset my digestion", said Tom, dolefully.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


author: Earle Jones

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Burkhard <[email]> wrote:

*
I generally buy Anchor Steam Beer, made in San Francisco by Fritz Maytag
(fourth generation of the washing-machine family.)

I think it has changed hands recently.

The small-brewery Oregon beers are also fine.  Full Sail is one.

earle
*


author: John S. Wilkins

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
Mike Painter <[email]> wrote:

It's really hard to get anyone weighing more than 60lbs to skip on
water.

Uhhhh... so I'm told. I wouldn't know personally of course, no.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:41:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<[email]>:

Point...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:41:04 -0700, Mike Painter
<[email]> wrote:

Except substantially more challenging.


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:51:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

"Was Darwin saved?" asked Tom Hopefully.

(That just now popped into my head.)

Warning if this goes on for very long I will start "Why do
elephants..."
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:38:26 +1100, [email] (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

Sometimes it helps when you tie them to a very fast boat.


author: Mark Isaak

subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/25/12 7:37 PM, Mike Painter wrote:

"There's more study to be done on those finches after Darwin," Tom granted.

--
Mark Isaak          [email]
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
  honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
  pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
jillery <[email]> wrote:

Well if you are going to allow more than personal strength, sure.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/26/12 2:17 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

"The multiple strata of Sphagnum moss cannot be created by a global
flood," Tom said repeatedly.

--
Mark Isaak          [email]
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
  honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
  pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On 10/28/2012 06:25 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:

Some people do this for fun. It's called wake boarding (I think):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakeboarding


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:18:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<[email]>:

We did that when I was in my early teens on South River off
the Chesapeake, back in the late '50s. Being fairly
ignorant, we called it "surfboarding". The boats and boards
were quite a bit more primitive than modern ones; the
boards, for instance, were usually sheets of 1/2-inch
plywood, about 2' x 4', and the boats used *really* powerful
outboards, some as much as 25hp. ;-)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless


subject: Re: Cheap Teeth Whitening UK Nationwide

text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:26:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

What I had in mind has the 'skippee' skimmimg on his feet, or more
likely some other part of his anatomy.  I have never tried it, and I
have only seens video clips.


author: Loirbaj

subject: Mr.Budikka HOAXES Darwin's Predictions

text:
Mr.Budikka said that Darwin had a host of predictions
in his theory and that none were proven wrong. Ian
Wood aka "Mr.Budikka" says that one of those always
infallible predictions was "evolution implies a means of
passing on information from a parent organism to its
offspring." But, Mr.Budikka is clearly lying in his entire
posting #629 about Darwin. In fact, as Dr.Steven Gould
wrote on the subject, Darwin was spectacularly wrong
in his prediction and his entire "Theory of Inheritance"
was wrong in its entirety. Darwin's Theory was called
Pangenesis and he certainly did have "predictions"
there. He claimed there were mysterious "gemmules"
of inheritance that developed in the parent's various
organs and were passed to offspring. For instance,
a blacksmith who exercised his arm muscles would
pass on "gemmules for stronger arm muscles" to
offspring. Mr.Budikka lied in his posting #629 about
this, either out of total ignorance or from a strange
compulsion to whitewash Darwin's true "science". In
his posting #629, Budikka (why is Ian Wood calling
himself "Mr.Budikka", what is that about?) then
switches topic to the Platypus and he concludes,

"Oncer again creationism is proven to be useless".

No, once again, when Mr.Budikka's claims are
examined, they crumble to dust and reveal the
whitewashed tomb, and the decay of Darwinism.


text:
Re: Mr.Budikka HOAXES Darwin's Predictions

Mr.Budikka said that Darwin had a host of predictions
in his theory and that none were proven wrong. Ian
Wood aka "Mr.Budikka" says that one of those always
infallible predictions was "evolution implies a means of
passing on information from a parent organism to its
offspring." But, Mr.Budikka is clearly lying in his entire
posting #629 about Darwin. In fact, as Dr.Steven Gould
wrote on the subject, Darwin was spectacularly wrong
in his prediction and his entire "Theory of Inheritance"
was wrong in its entirety. Darwin's Theory was called
Pangenesis and he certainly did have "predictions"
there. He claimed there were mysterious "gemmules"
of inheritance that developed in the parent's various
organs and were passed to offspring. For instance,
a blacksmith who exercised his arm muscles would
pass on "gemmules for stronger arm muscles" to
offspring. Mr.Budikka lied in his posting #629 about
this, either out of total ignorance or from a strange
compulsion to whitewash Darwin's true "science". In
his posting #629, Budikka (why is Ian Wood calling
himself "Mr.Budikka", what is that about?) then
switches topic to the Platypus and he concludes,

"Oncer again creationism is proven to be useless".

No, once again, when Mr.Budikka's claims are
examined, they crumble to dust and reveal the
whitewashed tomb, and the decay of Darwinism.

Still no apology from Mr Budikka?


subject: Mr.Budikka HOAXES Darwin's Predictions

text:
Mr.Budikka HOAXES Darwin's Predictions

Mr.Budikka said that Darwin had a host of predictions
in his theory and that none were proven wrong. Ian
Wood aka "Mr.Budikka" says that one of those always
infallible predictions was "evolution implies a means of
passing on information from a parent organism to its
offspring." But, Mr.Budikka is clearly lying in his entire
posting #629 about Darwin. In fact, as Dr.Steven Gould
wrote on the subject, Darwin was spectacularly wrong
in his prediction and his entire "Theory of Inheritance"
was wrong in its entirety. Darwin's Theory was called
Pangenesis and he certainly did have "predictions"
there. He claimed there were mysterious "gemmules"
of inheritance that developed in the parent's various
organs and were passed to offspring. For instance,
a blacksmith who exercised his arm muscles would
pass on "gemmules for stronger arm muscles" to
offspring. Mr.Budikka lied in his posting #629 about
this, either out of total ignorance or from a strange
compulsion to whitewash Darwin's true "science". In
his posting #629, Budikka (why is Ian Wood calling
himself "Mr.Budikka", what is that about?) then
switches topic to the Platypus and he concludes,

"Oncer again creationism is proven to be useless".

No, once again, when Mr.Budikka's claims are
examined, they crumble to dust and reveal the
whitewashed tomb, and the decay of Darwinism.

fake Nym "DaveJ" tries to switch Header and topic

DaveJ pretends not to notice that Darwin HAD a Theory of Inheritance

Darwin's very well known, and very laughable theory was
Pangenesis. Odd that "DaveJ" was unable to read that
clearly said, and the cite to Dr.Steven Gould either. Keep
trying to switch headers..uh.."for Mr.Budikka" --try to keep
folks from seeing that Ian Wood "Budikka" lied blatantly
about Darwin's predictions, his theory.


author: Davej

subject: Lo-irbaj Lo-ki ?

text:
On Mar 1, 9:40 pm, Loirbaj <[email]> wrote:

I have to repeatedly wonder if you are perhaps a Loki-troll. In other
words you are presenting creationist arguments that are so utterly
mindless that they are ridiculous. Yes, since Darwin published his
theory before the basic rules of genetics were known to science I have
no doubt that he could not accurately describe the actual scheme by
which traits were passed from parent to child, but he did strongly
state that such a scheme must exist. Mendel first published his work
on genetics in 1866 but no one at the time grasped the relevance of
his theories since they were looking for mechanisms which would
provide gradual changes while Mendel's hybrid pea experiments showed
dramatic changes in one or a few generations. It is thought that
Darwin had a copy of Mendel's paper but it was written in German, a
language Darwin was not proficient at, and apparently was never read
or translated or comprehended.


text:
Re: Mr.Budikka HOAXES Darwin's Predictions

Mr.Budikka said that Darwin had a host of predictions
in his theory and that none were proven wrong. Ian
Wood aka "Mr.Budikka" says that one of those always
infallible predictions was "evolution implies a means of
passing on information from a parent organism to its
offspring." But, Mr.Budikka is clearly lying in his entire
posting #629 about Darwin. In fact, as Dr.Steven Gould
wrote on the subject, Darwin was spectacularly wrong
in his prediction and his entire "Theory of Inheritance"
was wrong in its entirety. Darwin's Theory was called
Pangenesis and he certainly did have "predictions"
there. He claimed there were mysterious "gemmules"
of inheritance that developed in the parent's various
organs and were passed to offspring. For instance,
a blacksmith who exercised his arm muscles would
pass on "gemmules for stronger arm muscles" to
offspring. Mr.Budikka lied in his posting #629 about
this, either out of total ignorance or from a strange
compulsion to whitewash Darwin's true "science". In
his posting #629, Budikka (why is Ian Wood calling
himself "Mr.Budikka", what is that about?) then
switches topic to the Platypus and he concludes,

"Oncer again creationism is proven to be useless".

No, once again, when Mr.Budikka's claims are
examined, they crumble to dust and reveal the
whitewashed tomb, and the decay of Darwinism.

Still no apology from Mr Budikka? LOL. No surprise.


author: kevindotcar

subject: Sensitivity training

text:
She could have been a ladybug-  born
   On a sunny day in the shade of
   Indian summer.

She could have been a Robin
   Flying low, looking down at her reflection
   On the glassy lake.

But she was born
   A Black Widow
   On my doorstep.

And then she disappeared
   Under the foot of
   My big angry foot.

kDot


author: Kent Paul Dolan

subject: Re: Sensitivity training

text:
"kevindotcar" <[email]> wrote:

1) Your foot has foots?

2) How reactionary. I managed to live in a
cottage with always at least one black
widow in residence, and when the next egg
sack hatched, hundreds, for about 1.5 years,
and never once felt the urge to murder or
evict an arachnid that had no particular
good or bad designs on my well being.

Tolerance is all. That's why your parents
let you live, and why Cordelia is already
a young woman about to leave the "reason
for publishing" business.

xanthian, spid-boy.


subject: Re: Sensitivity training

text:
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

   Such is my life:   Hastily written 2-minute verses....

 [---]

   ...Written about actions of mine that I regret ...

kDot- Captain impulsive


author: Immortalist

subject: You're a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world

text:
Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we see in
conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a miniature
virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal representation.
Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as Indirect Perception,
and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.

1. It is impossible to have experience beyond the sensory surface.

2. Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the
world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.

3. The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate that
the world of experience is not the same as the external world that it
represents.

4. Perception operates like a guided hallucination that is as much a matter
of active construction or generation, as it is a matter of passive detection
or recognition.

---------------------------

Therefore; Representationalism is the only alternative that is consistent
with the facts of perception.

---------------------------

5. The Dimensions of Conscious Experience reveals the visual world to be
composed of, solid volumes, bounded by colored surfaces, embedded in a
spatial void.

Every point on every visible surface is experienced as a separate entity,
all of which are perceived simultaneously in the form of continuous surfaces
in depth. The phenomena of transparency, as well as the perception of empty
space between the observer and a visible object demonstrate that multiple
depth values can be experienced at every point in visual space. In other
words, perceptual experience is like a museum diorama, or theatre set, in
which continuous colored surfaces bound volumetric objects embedded in a
spatial void.

Whatever the neurophysiological mechanism underlying this perceptual
experience, the information content explicitly encoded in that perceptual
representation cannot be any less than the information content of the
corresponding subjective experience.

---------------------------
6. Four Initial Objections;

Return to Representationalist Site

The Homunculus Objection: This "picture-in-the-head" or "Cartesian theatre"
concept of visual representation has been criticized on the grounds that
there would have to be a miniature observer to view this miniature internal
scene, resulting in an infinite regress of observers within observers.

But this argument is invalid. For in fact there is no need for an internal
observer of the scene, since the internal representation is simply a data
structure like any other data in a computer, except that this data is
expressed in spatial form. For if a picture in the head required a
homunculus to view it, then the same argument would hold for any other form
of information in the brain, which would also require a homunculus to read
or interpret that information. In fact any information encoded in the brain
needs only to be available to other internal processes rather than to a
miniature copy of the whole brain.

The fact that the brain does go to the trouble of constructing a full
spatial analog of the external environment merely suggests that it has ways
to make use of this spatial data. In other words, the brain employes an
analogical paradigm of perceptual computation to make use of the analogical
data in spatial perception.

Phenomenology presents the mind as a three-dimensional colored structure or
analogical representation, while neurophysiology presents the brain as an
assembly of billions of discrete quasi-independent local processors
interconnected in a massively parallel network.
Where in that mass of neural circuitry are the three-dimensional volumetric
real-time moving pictures that we know so well in conscious experience?

The object of our phenomenological investigation is conscious experience
itself and knowledge of that particular entity is very certain. Knowledge of
our own conscious state is more certain and reliable than any other
knowledge we can possibly have, even when our conscious experience is itself
only a hallucination.

The mind is identically equal to physical patterns of energy in the physical
brain. To claim otherwise is to relegate the elaborate structure of
conscious experience to a mystical state beyond the bounds of science. The
dimensions of conscious experience, such as phenomenal color and phenomenal
space, are a direct manifestation of certain physical states of our physical
brain.

Things appear as they do because that is the way the world is represented in
the neurophysiological mechanism of our physical brain. The world of
conscious experience therefore is in principle accessible to scientific
scrutiny after all, both internally through introspection, and externally
through neurophysiological recording.

If we accept the materialist view that mind is a physical process taking
place in the physical mechanism of the brain, and since we know that mind is
conscious, then that already is direct and incontrovertible evidence that a
physical process taking place in a physical mechanism can under certain
conditions be conscious.

Now it it true that the brain is a very special kind of mechanism. But what
makes the brain so special is not its substance, for it is made of the
ordinary substance of matter and energy. What sets the brain apart from
normal matter is its complex organization. The most likely explanation
therefore is that what makes our consciousness special is not its substance,
but its complex organization.

So the simplest, most parsimonious explanation is that our own conscious
qualia evolved from those of our animal ancestors, and differ from those
earlier forms more in its level of complex organization rather than in its
fundamental nature.

-------------------------

THEREFORE: Unless we wish to believe in some magical nomological dangler
that extends mind half way into the spirit world, we must face the
observational fact that there is a spatial representation in the brain.

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html

Numerically Predicalationally Epistemologisized by Reanimater


subject: Re: You're a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world

text:
Your premises take for granted the existence of an independently existing
external world, which operates by laws that your observers understand and
that these laws are immutable.  How would one refute idealist objections, if
experience is isolated from the reality it represents?  Why wouldn't
representationalism reduce to phenomenology?  Furthermore, how are we to
resolve whether we are not brains in vats being fed a tape of Earth 2004
(i.e. the Matrix).

You also seem to take for granted that your spatial faculty of the brain is
an accurate representation of the external spatial reality which you
presuppose.  However, if you are suggesting something closer to Kant's
transcendentalism, you must address why it is that visual illusions are not
real if representations are internal.

"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Edgar Svendsen

text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

What does this mean?  No. 2, below, seems to contradict this. Aren't dreams
experience beyond the sensory surface?

Only if you define a "world" in which there are no dreams or hallucinations.
Of course, in *this* world there are dreams and hallucinations as well as
mountains and keyboards.  I have dreams, my wife has dreams, so does my dog.
The dog clearly has dreams, he twitches and moves his feet as if running
during parts of his sleep. Dreams and hallucinations merely indicate that
some phenomena look odd when viewed from "the inside".  I experience the
fact of his dreams pretty much the same way I experience other parts of 'the
world itself'.

Of course not!  One is a data structure, the other is the world, how could
they be the same?

matter
detection

Without the capitalization, representationalism merely says that information
is not the same thing as the thing the information is about, seems obvious
to the computer generation.

surfaces
empty
theatre"
internal
form
brain
ways
analogical
or
volumetric
of
itself
physical
phenomenal
physical
in
is
a
what
substance,


author: Keynes

text:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:34:40 -0700, "Immortalist" <[email]>
wrote:

Virtually this whole argument begs the question for brain-only materialism,
and it not subtly insults any other position, as if the materialist thesis were
proven beyond doubt, or that it actually had a Logical foundation.

(None of that logic or proof need appear in the article, right?
It refutes Cartesian dualism in favor of material monism, but no
support for that sort of monism is given, in spite of the fact that
material monism is absurd in the face of all human mental experience.)

Therefor, beware mortals, we have 'the emperor's new clothes' here,
and only a fool can't see them.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a fool.
But I'm not so foolish as to declare half-assed conjecture as proof.


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
matter
detection
surfaces
empty
theatre"
internal
form
brain
ways
analogical
or
volumetric
of
itself
physical
phenomenal
physical
in
is
a
what
substance,

I sometimes think I'm living in the body of giant me.
What I perceive of my body is a replication of the big
guy. The entire universe is a replication of his universe.
I don't have free will because I'm a replication of him and
whatever he does, I do. So right now he's thinking that
he's a replication of an even bigger guy. No actually
he's thinking that his big guy is thinking that he's a
replication of an even bigger guy....


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The mind is the activities of some parts of the world?


text:
"Edgar Svendsen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cI%fc.11278$[email]...
in
miniature
Perception,
dreams

The original author means by "beyond" external to the body but subjective
experience is within?

the
hallucinations.
dog.
'the

I agree that humans and animals dream, its pretty obvious as you say. And of
course dreams and hallucinations most likely take place as the activities of
nerve cells firing in the world.

But the original author is talking about how dreams at least sometimes
differ from what is going on external to the body and inner subjective
experience. He uses this distinction as some sort of evidence in support of
the common subject of representationalism.

that

You sound very critical for one who seems to be agreeing with the posters
views on representationalism. But to harken beack to one of your own points
these data structures occur in the world so they share that at least with
what they represent.

consistent
information

The proposition after the "therefore;" is a complete sentence alone. But
when I copied and pasted it I cold have changed the R to an r. How is that
important?

And you claimed earlier that the representations are in the world and if
that is the case then if the representation represents the representation
wouldn't the representation be in that case the same as what it represents
in the world?

entity,
multiple
in
perceptual
internal
data
read
an
Knowledge
The
represented
externally
mind
that
its


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
in
materialism,
were

Does "representationalism" need to be proven to be beyond doubt to be
categorized as a materialist theory?

But actually I didn't see where the statement said anything about materials.
Can you point that out for me?

Is this definition necessarily materialistic in reference to Kant's notion
of representations;

REPRESENTATION  [A320/B376] "There is no lack of terms suitable for each
kind of representation...Their serial arrangement is as follows. The genus
is representation in general (repreaesentatio). Subordinate to it stands
representation with consciousness (perceptio}. A perception which relates
solely to the subject as the modification of its state is sensation
(sensatio), an objective perception is knowledge (cognitio). This is either
intuition or concept (intuitus vel conceptus)". In addition to concepts,
intuitions, sensations, and perceptions, Kant holds that appearances are
representations. He maintains all judgments, and thus all acts of knowledge,
involve the representations of representations. [Bxl] However, Kant also
suggests that we are not only conscious of different types of
representations; the Preface to B he asserts that "I am conscious of my
existence in time...and this is more than to be conscious merely of my
representation".

Could you point out where it mentioned Cartesian dualism? And I didn't see
the word material in what wasn't snipped.

I feel nakedness for sure, but it seems to be as concerns the opaqueness of
your refutation.


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
in
materialism,
were

All logic is based on premises. Premises can't be proven.
So nothing can be proven, only validated... ie the logic is
correct. So if no premises can be proven then we can make
any cockeyed premises we want. No one can prove that the
scientific method proves anything because no one can prove
that the observations of any experiment are real. No one can
prove that anything exists at all, not that I exist, not that life
exists, not that time exists (in any form). So to say that we can
take solipsistic point of view is perfectly logical and I think
insane by the definition that the man who makes incorrect
conclusions from correct premises is stupid and the man who
makes correct deductions from incorrect premises is insane.
Not really insane but saying things that lead to doubt, shed no
light, and could conceivably confuse people by leading them
into a dead end philosophical wasteland with no light and
no hope.


text:
"717" <[email]> wrote in message
news:1R3gc.13076$ec1.11158@okepread01...
in
miniature
Perception,
the
that
consistent
entity,
multiple
in
perceptual
internal
data
read
an
Knowledge
The
represented
externally
mind
that
its

Interesting idea but i wouldn't bet my life on the determinism part since it
goes out beyond our possible experience so far in history. But the little
guy as feeling things happening to the body and running feeling things,
yaaaaaaaaaaarrrrriiiieeeeeeeee-huh!

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=homunculus&spell=1


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Other people's minds are in the world. Your mind, to
you contains the world. It's that simple, isn't it.... ?


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
see
as
that
of
of
of
could
points
obvious
Good one!

It depends on what you mean by 'the same'.  How about if we call what's in
the brain (or the mind) a description instead of a representation?  A
description is not usually regarded as a replica of the thing described.
Since what's in the brain/mind is a data structure, it seems to make more
sense to call it a description.   This seems to obviate some of the
complications of calling what's in the brain/mind a 'representation'.
Descriptions are like representations but there is the idea that they have a
different form or structure then what they describe; whereas representations
are identical in form to the thing they represent.

Ed


text:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:56:45 -0700, "Immortalist" <[email]>
wrote:

'Virtual reality' is the Very Premise of materialist brain-only
philosophy, isn't it?  Materialism is the unspoken first premise.

Brian this, brain that, etc. etc. etc.
In the article, why are we always outside the Brain looking in?
It's salted throughout the article, but you can just look at it's
closing statment for an example.

There's a section that claims that representations are due to
the complex nerve structure of the BRAIN.  It's configuration
at any time is supposed to represent spacial reality, and that
configuration alone is imagined to account for consciousness!
If that's so, then all the world is in a complex configuration
and must therefore be Conscious as well.  As if mere position
was any sort of explanation for consciousness.

Science fiddles with matter exclusively. Why don't scientists
look inside their own minds instead of stand outside of
brains and look in?  The mind is available even to scientists,
and much easier to acquire than naked brains you'd think.

Your articles and mine contain a whole lot of duplication.
Occasionally I get tidy and snip stuff.

There's a moon out tonight...


text:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:15:38 -0700, "717" <[email]> wrote:

The problem with materialism AND logic is that the
solipsistic proposition is absolutely logical and irrefutable.
If we don't like that, then maybe there's something wrong
with materialism or with logic, or possibly both.  Or maybe
the problem is that we just don't like it.

I don't think logic is a magic wand, a panacea, or the only
valid door to knowledge.  We Must step outside of logic
even to live moment to moment.

A truly objective view of human existence would be to look
at human existence directly in ourselves, that method that scientific
materialists hate and call 'subjectivity'.  But as long as we look for
mind in matter we are moving deeper and deeper into irrelevant
complications.  It's like looking for your keys under the lamp post
because the light is better there.

If you don't doubt then you aren't thinking.  You're just
a passive sponge that others can piss on with impunity.

If you put your hope in 'matter in space-time' then
all you can hope for is diminishing returns and inevitable death.


text:
"717" <[email]> wrote in message
news:SJUgc.51533$ec1.36337@okepread01...

You tryin' to sell me some over-extended monoism, sunny side up with a soft
yoke?

I contain a part of the world and I am a part in the whole. and of course
there is a whole in the part (but don't take it back you can fiddle with
your part-whole relationships!)

Mereology (from the Greek ï¿½e???, ï¿½partï¿½) is the theory of parthood
relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to
part within a whole.

Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning with
the Presocratic atomists and continuing throughout the writings of Plato
(especially the Parmenides and the Thaetetus), Aristotle (especially the
Metaphysics, but also the Physics, the Topics, and De partibus animalium),
and Boethius (especially In Ciceronis Topica).

Mereology has also occupied a prominent role in the writings of medieval
ontologists and scholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist, Peter
Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, and Albert of Saxony, as well as in
Jungius's Logica Hamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de arte
combinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant's early writings (the
Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologia physica of 1756).

As a formal theory of parthood relations, however, mereology made its way
into modern philosophy mainly through the work of Franz Brentano and of his
pupils, especially Husserl's third Logical Investigation (1901). The latter
may rightly be considered the first attempt at a rigorous formulation of the
theory, though in a format that makes it difficult to disentagle the
analysis of mereological concepts from that of other ontologically relevant
notions (such as the relation of ontological dependence). It is not until
Lesniewski's Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds (1916, in Polish)
that the pure theory of part-relations as we know it today was given an
exact formulation. And because Lesniewski's work was largely inaccessible to
non-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard and
Goodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940) that this theory has become a
chapter of central interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Branch of logic, founded by Stanislaw Lesniewski, that studies class
expressions and the relations between parts and wholes.

It rejects the hierarchy of sets generated in set theory through the
member-of relation and instead proposes a part-whole relationship. It has
attracted philosophers of logic and mathematics who are nominalists (see
universal), those who suspect set theory of being inherently Platonistic,
and those who are otherwise suspicious of the complex entities proposed by,
and the complicated assumptions needed for, set theory.

jj http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=397203


text:
"Edgar Svendsen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Oo9gc.12446$[email]...
subjective
that
my
running
the
of
And
activities
indicate
it
posters
with
that
representation
represents
a
representations

I can go with that but it gets kinda hard when neurosurgeons have to deal
with real time scan movies of brain activities while asking the patient
questions, while preparing to operate so as not to cut out anything vital.

And neurologists have been calling what goes on in the brains
representations for more than 50 years. They could change their language but
then they synch out from Kant.


author: Gray asphalt

text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:15:38 -0700, "717" <[email]> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
: >news:[email]...
: >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:34:40 -0700, "Immortalist"
: ><[email]>
: >> wrote:
: >>
: >> >Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we
see
: >in
: >> >conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature
: >> >virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal representation.
: >> >Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as Indirect
Perception,
: >> >and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.
: >> >
: >>
: >> Virtually this whole argument begs the question for brain-only
: >materialism,
: >> and it not subtly insults any other position, as if the materialist
thesis
: >were
: >> proven beyond doubt, or that it actually had a Logical foundation.
: >>
: >> (None of that logic or proof need appear in the article, right?
: >> It refutes Cartesian dualism in favor of material monism, but no
: >> support for that sort of monism is given, in spite of the fact that
: >> material monism is absurd in the face of all human mental experience.)
: >>
: >> Therefor, beware mortals, we have 'the emperor's new clothes' here,
: >> and only a fool can't see them.
: >>
: >> I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a fool.
: >> But I'm not so foolish as to declare half-assed conjecture as proof.
: >
: >All logic is based on premises. Premises can't be proven.
: >So nothing can be proven, only validated... ie the logic is
: >correct. So if no premises can be proven then we can make
: >any cockeyed premises we want. No one can prove that the
: >scientific method proves anything because no one can prove
: >that the observations of any experiment are real. No one can
: >prove that anything exists at all, not that I exist, not that life
: >exists, not that time exists (in any form). So to say that we can
: >take solipsistic point of view is perfectly logical and I think
:
: The problem with materialism AND logic is that the
: solipsistic proposition is absolutely logical and irrefutable.
: If we don't like that, then maybe there's something wrong
: with materialism or with logic, or possibly both.  Or maybe
: the problem is that we just don't like it.
:
: I don't think logic is a magic wand, a panacea, or the only
: valid door to knowledge.  We Must step outside of logic
: even to live moment to moment.
:
: A truly objective view of human existence would be to look
: at human existence directly in ourselves, that method that scientific
: materialists hate and call 'subjectivity'.  But as long as we look for
: mind in matter we are moving deeper and deeper into irrelevant
: complications.  It's like looking for your keys under the lamp post
: because the light is better there.
:
: >insane by the definition that the man who makes incorrect
: >conclusions from correct premises is stupid and the man who
: >makes correct deductions from incorrect premises is insane.
: >Not really insane but saying things that lead to doubt, shed no
:
: If you don't doubt then you aren't thinking.  You're just
: a passive sponge that others can piss on with impunity.
:
: >light, and could conceivably confuse people by leading them
: >into a dead end philosophical wasteland with no light and
: >no hope.
:
: If you put your hope in 'matter in space-time' then
: all you can hope for is diminishing returns and inevitable death.

Isn't solipsism nihilistic? I mean that since you can not
believe in anything, ie state that nothing is real and that
the self is not real, what is there? Solipsists don't usually
deny that the self is real but that the self is self-contained
and the only known, ie the only given. Perception is
reality. But the real truth is that you act on things as if
you believed them to be real and actions speak louder
than words. It this case especially. If you sat in a corner
and changed the world by changing your mind and if
you were happy with the altered state of consciousness
that you achieved then I would be interested in hearing
how you did it and what you got. But we've got some-
thing like that from Eastern Religion but they don't claim
that the world doesn't exist.


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
:
: "717" <[email]> wrote in message
: news:SJUgc.51533$ec1.36337@okepread01...
: >
: > "Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
: > news:[email]...
: > >
: > > "Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
: > > news:[email]...
: > > >
: > > >
: > > > Is the mind in the world or is the world in the mind?
: > > >
: > >
: > > The mind is the activities of some parts of the world?
: > >
: > > >
: > > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: > Other people's minds are in the world. Your mind, to
: > you contains the world. It's that simple, isn't it.... ?
: >
:
: You tryin' to sell me some over-extended monoism, sunny side up with a
soft
: yoke?
:
: I contain a part of the world and I am a part in the whole. and of course
: there is a whole in the part (but don't take it back you can fiddle with
: your part-whole relationships!)
:
: Mereology (from the Greek ï¿½e???, 'part') is the theory of parthood
: relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to
: part within a whole.
:
: Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning
with
: the Presocratic atomists and continuing throughout the writings of Plato
: (especially the Parmenides and the Thaetetus), Aristotle (especially the
: Metaphysics, but also the Physics, the Topics, and De partibus animalium),
: and Boethius (especially In Ciceronis Topica).
:
: Mereology has also occupied a prominent role in the writings of medieval
: ontologists and scholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist,
Peter
: Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, and Albert of Saxony, as well as in
: Jungius's Logica Hamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de arte
: combinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant's early writings (the
: Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologia physica of 1756).
:
: As a formal theory of parthood relations, however, mereology made its way
: into modern philosophy mainly through the work of Franz Brentano and of
his
: pupils, especially Husserl's third Logical Investigation (1901). The
latter
: may rightly be considered the first attempt at a rigorous formulation of
the
: theory, though in a format that makes it difficult to disentagle the
: analysis of mereological concepts from that of other ontologically
relevant
: notions (such as the relation of ontological dependence). It is not until
: Lesniewski's Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds (1916, in
Polish)
: that the pure theory of part-relations as we know it today was given an
: exact formulation. And because Lesniewski's work was largely inaccessible
to
: non-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard and
: Goodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940) that this theory has become a
: chapter of central interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.
:
: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
:
:
: Branch of logic, founded by Stanislaw Lesniewski, that studies class
: expressions and the relations between parts and wholes.
:
: It rejects the hierarchy of sets generated in set theory through the
: member-of relation and instead proposes a part-whole relationship. It has
: attracted philosophers of logic and mathematics who are nominalists (see
: universal), those who suspect set theory of being inherently Platonistic,
: and those who are otherwise suspicious of the complex entities proposed
by,
: and the complicated assumptions needed for, set theory.
:
: jj http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=397203
:
:
: >
:
:

I think that what I said makes sense.


text:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:46:19 -0700, "Immortalist" <[email]>
wrote:

I suspect all theories apart from solipsism invoke the practicality
of assuming an 'external reality', without logically accounting for it.


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
soft
with
Peter
his
latter
the
relevant
Polish)
to
by,

That wasn't exactly a precise dissection of my simplistic
yet peaceful view of the mind/world relationship.


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
we
representation.
Dualism.
well
support
a
But
if
in
more
have
but


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:46:19 -0700, "Immortalist"
<[email]>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"717" <[email]> wrote in message
: >news:SJUgc.51533$ec1.36337@okepread01...
: >>
: >> "Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
: >> news:[email]...
: >> >
: >> > "Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
: >> > news:[email]...
: >> > >
: >> > >
: >> > > Is the mind in the world or is the world in the mind?
: >> > >
: >> >
: >> > The mind is the activities of some parts of the world?
: >> >
: >> > >
: >> > >
: >> >
: >> >
: >>
: >> Other people's minds are in the world. Your mind, to
: >> you contains the world. It's that simple, isn't it.... ?
: >>
: >
: >You tryin' to sell me some over-extended monoism, sunny side up with a
soft
: >yoke?
: >
: >I contain a part of the world and I am a part in the whole. and of course
: >there is a whole in the part (but don't take it back you can fiddle with
: >your part-whole relationships!)
: >
: >Mereology (from the Greek ï¿½e???, 'part') is the theory of parthood
: >relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to
: >part within a whole.
: >
:
: I suspect all theories apart from solipsism invoke the practicality
: of assuming an 'external reality', without logically accounting for it.

A true solipsist would not posit self since there is nothing
else and therefore self has no meaning. Only the one thing...
with nothing to contrast it to. I can see this in a sense but
the body has to be part of the self as does the brain. And
yes it is weird to consider the body without the brain...

but even more common is considering the brain without the
body, as if we could know something without sense organs
and that your sex hormones don't affect your thinking and
your perception of the world. On a horny day the world is
filled with tits, no question (for a non-homosexual guy)...


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
soft

Transendental Idealism also invokes external reality as necessary for even
invokin' loceee dokeeeee...

Now, also, we are in a position to determine more adequately
our concept of an object in general. All representations
have, as representations, their object, and can themselves in
turn become objects of other representations. Appearances are
the sole objects which can be given to us immediately, and A109
that in them which relates immediately to the object is called
intuition. But these appearances are not things in themselves;
they are only representations, which in turn have their object
-- an object which cannot itself be intuited by us, and which
may, therefore, be named the non-empirical, that is,
transcendental object = x.
The pure concept of this transcendental object, which in
reality throughout all our knowledge is always one and the
same, is what can alone confer upon all our empirical concepts
in general relation to an object, that is, objective reality.
This concept cannot contain any determinate intuition, and
therefore refers only to that unity which must be met with
in any manifold of knowledge which stands in relation to an
object. This relation is nothing but the necessary unity of
consciousness, and therefore also of the synthesis of the
manifold, through a common function of the mind, which combines
it in one representation. Since this unity must be regarded
as necessary a priori -- otherwise knowledge would
be without an object -- the relation to a transcendental object,
that is, the objective reality of our empirical knowledge, rests A110
on the transcendental law, that all appearances, in so far as
through them objects are to be given to us, must stand under
those a priori rules of synthetical unity whereby the
P 138
interrelating of these appearances in empirical intuition is alone
possible. In other words, appearances in experience must
stand under the conditions of the necessary unity of apperception,
just as in mere intuition they must be subject to the
formal conditions of space and of time. Only thus can any
knowledge become possible at all.

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/07td-a.htm#137

page 137
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/


text:
"717" <[email]> wrote in message
news:nf4hc.59334$ec1.45635@okepread01...

"to me" is a hypothesis and may or may not correspond to the notion of other
minds in a world external to me body.


text:
"717" <[email]> wrote in message
news:mGUgc.51476$ec1.14994@okepread01...
surface.
Aren't
does
indicate
experience
parts
say.
sometimes
subjective
that
how
much
passive
is
and
what's
described.
deal
vital.

You mean what it feels like for my body to do such and such and feel
sensations such and such?


text:
"Gray asphalt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:_Xhjc.613$Qy.610@fed1read04...
course
with
to

Wouldn't a true solipsist like Kant merely claim that he cannot be
completely certain about the external world or other people though there is
much necessity of the external world and others for the sake of simple logic
and consistency?


text:
"Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
:
: "Gray asphalt" <[email]> wrote in message
: news:_Xhjc.613$Qy.610@fed1read04...
: >
: > "Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
: > news:[email]...
: > : On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:46:19 -0700, "Immortalist"
: > <[email]>
: > : wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : >"717" <[email]> wrote in message
: > : >news:SJUgc.51533$ec1.36337@okepread01...
: > : >>
: > : >> "Immortalist" <[email]> wrote in message
: > : >> news:[email]...
: > : >> >
: > : >> > "Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
: > : >> > news:[email]...
: > : >> > >
: > : >> > >
: > : >> > > Is the mind in the world or is the world in the mind?
: > : >> > >
: > : >> >
: > : >> > The mind is the activities of some parts of the world?
: > : >> >
: > : >> > >
: > : >> > >
: > : >> >
: > : >> >
: > : >>
: > : >> Other people's minds are in the world. Your mind, to
: > : >> you contains the world. It's that simple, isn't it.... ?
: > : >>
: > : >
: > : >You tryin' to sell me some over-extended monoism, sunny side up with
a
: > soft
: > : >yoke?
: > : >
: > : >I contain a part of the world and I am a part in the whole. and of
: course
: > : >there is a whole in the part (but don't take it back you can fiddle
: with
: > : >your part-whole relationships!)
: > : >
: > : >Mereology (from the Greek ï¿½e???, 'part') is the theory of parthood
: > : >relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of
part
: to
: > : >part within a whole.
: > : >
: > :
: > : I suspect all theories apart from solipsism invoke the practicality
: > : of assuming an 'external reality', without logically accounting for
it.
: >
: > A true solipsist would not posit self since there is nothing
: > else and therefore self has no meaning.
:
: Wouldn't a true solipsist like Kant merely claim that he cannot be
: completely certain about the external world or other people though there
is
: much necessity of the external world and others for the sake of simple
logic
: and consistency?
:
: > Only the one thing...
: > with nothing to contrast it to. I can see this in a sense but
: > the body has to be part of the self as does the brain. And
: > yes it is weird to consider the body without the brain...
: >
: > but even more common is considering the brain without the
: > body, as if we could know something without sense organs
: > and that your sex hormones don't affect your thinking and
: > your perception of the world. On a horny day the world is
: > filled with tits, no question (for a non-homosexual guy)...

Perhaps it would be better to say an extreme solipsist.
Or a solipsist that carries his argument to its logical
conclusion, maybe?


author: Z

subject: Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus

text:
Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus

We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below,
expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author
is numbered among the friends of The Sun:
"Dear Editor--I am 8 years old. "Some of my little friends say there is no
Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in The Sun, it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
Virginia O'Hanlon 115 West Ninety-fifth Street

Virginia, your little friends are right. They have been blessed to be able
to think for themselves in this age of truth. They do not believe or follow
blindly, but require proof and logic for their worldview. They do not accept
that the universe is too incomprehensible for the minds of humans to
understand. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's, women's, or
children's are great. In this great universe of ours humans are the only
species we know of that has the intellect, to start to understand boundless
world about us, so far only we have the intelligence capable of grasping the
whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. He
does not exist. The love and generosity, attributed to him that abounds and
gives life its highest beauty and joy, comes from normal everyday people
like you and me. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there was a Santa
Claus with unexplainable powers and only he provided the generosity of the
season! It would be as dreary as if there were no warm hearted and generous
Virginias. We would be reduced to a dependence on child-like faith then,
gladly ignorant of the world around us; no poetry, no romance, no truth, or
human kindness to make tolerable this existence. We should have no
enjoyment, except in obedience and conformity. The eternal light with which
childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Believe in Santa Claus! You
might as well believe in pink unicorns! We must base our beliefs on facts.
You could get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on
Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, if you did not see Santa Claus coming
down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, this is sign that
there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that
children and adults can see, or deduce through the scientific method. Did
you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, and the burden of
proof is required from those who claim that they are there. Virginia, beware
of those that claim you must prove that imaginary things are not there.
Usually these people have a hidden agenda of power and control. We still can
't conceive or imagine all the wonders there are yet to be discovered and
understood in the world, but with patience and logic we will discover them.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but
there is a veil ignorance covering the world, which not the strongest man,
nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could
tear apart. Only the scientific method, human generosity, truth, poetry,
love, and art, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the natural
beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world
there is nothing else real and abiding. A Santa Claus! Truth! Kindness,
generosity, goodness, it all comes from us - people like you and me. Not
some supernatural fairy tale. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten
times ten thousand years from now, people like us will continue to make glad
the heart of childhood, and joy that comes from embracing the truth.
Merry Solstice and a Happy New Year!


author: Marvin Edwards

subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus

text:
Ho ho ho!

"Z" <[email]> wrote in message news:arbb5i$rt9$[email]...
author
follow
accept
boundless
the
and
generous
or
which
You
beware
can
them.
could
natural
ten
glad