Love

[Cash]

A Barbie Dream House?

[Jestyr]

*grin* My dad is indeed the man. I'm a hapless Daddy's Girl, and proud of it.

Actually, I was talking to him about this on the phone tonight, and it segued into an interesting conversation about free will. He said he'd summarise the relevant points and email it to me, so I'll post it if and when he gets a chance to.

(Gave him the URL, too, so if he has time he might come by for a lurk. )

[Crazy Elf]

A 50/50 split /isn't/ random.

My bot bot that isn't random. If you can't tell me what something's going to do before it happens, no matter how many little things tinker with it on the way down, you know that the end result is going to be something that you couldn't acount for to begin with. That is randomness. It's all well and good to say something wasn't random and coul dhave been guessed after the fact, but that's the exact same thing as the wiccan saying that you tripped and did a boo boo to your knee knee due to a curse, ha ha ha.

I'll agree, that you can actually put down actions that have occured to a series of actions that lead up to a certain point, sometimes logically so. This doesn't mean that the actual creation of the process was not random, just traceable. In essence, in what we're dealing with, it's bloody well random, if it's not, go and win the lottery with an educated guess and prove me wrong.

Or doesn't your science work that way, Mr Techno-Wiccan?

but your point wasn't even worth taking seriously

Tell me honestly that the driveby was not funny. You can't can you! No you can't!

I was a Christian for far more of my life than I've been an atheist, and I believed in all sorts of spiritual things up until a few years ago.

And that much make you so much more forthcomming in relation to topics that you have lost faith in.

Look, I'm not a fan of great big religious structures and all the crud crappy snot that goes on in them. The reason I hate, and I do mean hate, new-age-junkies is that I used to bloody well be one. Very willing to admit that I look down apon their crystal waving bullshit as a result of my experiences, as you can tell from my non bias clasification of their practices as bullshit.

Those who fall from grace are the least willing to find it again. I do not think that we can have cool discussion about these subjects, as there is heat, my good man.

If you want to go there, we should open up another thread and start hurling shit at each other.

Ooook ooook.

Placebo, power of suggestion, and people with a too-rich fantasy life.

This in refference to three examples, ie, lay healing, remote viewing and telikinesis spelt badly.

Lay healing is when people cut open other people using a blunt finger, pull out an ofending whatever, and seal over the wound without so much as a mark. This is documented quite well, through eye witness acounts and photographs.

Remote Viewing was a project that your own government through a crapload of money into for reasearch, as had the Russians. All that money going into the one area must have dug up something, and the assassination of the primary remote viewer way back when seemed a little strange also. A lot of money was thrown into something that didn't seem to be a dead end at the time, for a fairly long time, actually.

Telekinesis. A Qi Gong (however it's spelt) practitioner came out to Australia a few years back. In order to show everyone the extent of what he was capable of, he performed several tricks, in a bar, strangely enough when he was talking to a few people who were studying Chinese medicine and therefore had a reason to talk to him. He performed a few things, one of which was to get an asprin, put it in a glass of water. Then, he pressed his fingers down on the grass on both ends and started pressing, hard. It looked like he was going to break the glass from the amount of preasure he was putting on it, and so when there was a breaking noise no one seemed suprised, until they saw what happened. Water shot out the side, and something shot across the room.

On closer inspection, there was a small hole in the side of the glass and the asprin was gone. Seemed that it had made it's exit via the side of the glass, fast.

These have been seen, yet not explained in scientific terms to date. Rich fantasy lives don't translate to film, and mass hysteria does not comunicate to cynics, not even drunken ones.

Too many acounts, too much to be seen, too many glasses with holes in them.

I've seen film that was fine develop images after the fixative was imprinted apon them, images of things that really shouldn't have been in the setting to begin with. After the fixative, after.

It's late, I don't wish to talk of these things at this hour, this one in particular.

In any case, you get the picture. There's a lot out there, my good man. Too much to dismiss simply because it's not widely accepted.

I agree that there is a lot of hype out there over so much crud, and that most of the people who claim to be spiritual giants are in fact people too weak to take responsability for their lives. Seen them, hell I've been them. But after many years of looking past I can see that there are some things that I couldn't explain to you, and you couldn't explain to me with your science. It's limiting.

I've seen faith. Not the lie that you're told to believe in, but the real thing... it is late.

Ha, how funny. This turns up in a thread that is all about the wonders of love, and I argue that it's more than chemicals when you argue it is less than this when I don't believe in it and you clearly do! Ha ha! I laugh because ideals have strange champions.

Sleep, or at least no thought of this for now.

[Eva]

Waves at Elle´s dad.

[3278]

A 50/50 split /isn't/ random.

My bot bot that isn't random. If you can't tell me what something's going to do before it happens, no matter how many little things tinker with it on the way down, you know that the end result is going to be something that you couldn't acount for to begin with. That is randomness.

Okay, then we have a problem; you're defining "randomness" the way I would define "unpredictability." When I say "random," I mean, "without cause." Not "without knowable cause," but simply, "without cause."

Simply because we can't or don't know the cause of a thing doesn't mean that there isn't a cause, particularly when we can prove /why/ we can't or don't know it. No one can tell you the result of /anything,/ because at the heart of everything lies atomic interaction, which we know - a la Heisenberg - that we can't know precisely. But we have no reason to believe that those interactions happen for /no reason,/ just that we're unable to observe them as they're happening. Which is one reason we keep whacking particles into each other; so we can observe the behavior of these things so that we can project, then, what they're doing when we're not looking.

A coin flip isn't predictable, because you can't know everything about everything. But unpredictability is not randomness.

Lay healing is when people cut open other people using a blunt finger, pull out an ofending whatever, and seal over the wound without so much as a mark. This is documented quite well, through eye witness acounts and photographs.

Oh, good. If it's well-documented, I should be able to find plenty of pictures and films of it happening, as well as a large number of medical experts who are busily rewriting everything they know about science.

...

Okay. A bunch of minutes on google later, I don't find /any/ films or images. I do find some loonies that I'll try not to lump you in with.

Show me a film of someone cutting someone else open with a blunt finger. Bizarrely, I'm apparently too stupid to find one.

Remote Viewing was a project that your own government through a crapload of money into for reasearch, as had the Russians. All that money going into the one area must have dug up something, and the assassination of the primary remote viewer way back when seemed a little strange also. A lot of money was thrown into something that didn't seem to be a dead end at the time, for a fairly long time, actually.

Yeah, and several of our presidents have gone to psycics, too. That doesn't mean it's real. Hell, all of our presidents have been Christian.

I'm sorry, but I just can't seriously accept an argument whose primary point is, "Well, the US government spent a lot of money on it, so /something/ must have turned up."

Telekinesis. A Qi Gong (however it's spelt) practitioner came out to Australia a few years back. In order to show everyone the extent of what he was capable of, he performed several tricks, in a bar, strangely enough when he was talking to a few people who were studying Chinese medicine and therefore had a reason to talk to him. He performed a few things, one of which was to get an asprin, put it in a glass of water. Then, he pressed his fingers down on the grass on both ends and started pressing, hard. It looked like he was going to break the glass from the amount of preasure he was putting on it, and so when there was a breaking noise no one seemed suprised, until they saw what happened. Water shot out the side, and something shot across the room.

Wouldn't mind seeing some film of this, either. Then again, I've seen film of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear. Are you saying that's real? We should really put him on the goverment payroll; he'd be an incredible weapon. Waves his hands and whole armies just disappear.

Hey, why do you suppose that mystical armies aren't part of the battle plan of /any/ organized force in the world? Is that because governments are too closed-minded to fund research into telekinesis?

In any case, you get the picture. There's a lot out there, my good man. Too much to dismiss simply because it's not widely accepted.

Huh? That's "too much to dismiss?" There's more evidence there were aliens at Roswell! Vague stories of people cutting each other open with their fingers, government spending, and an anecdotal story about a bar. This is the foundation of your opinion that mysticism is valid?

[Crazy Elf]

Okay, then we have a problem; you're defining "randomness" the way I would define "unpredictability." When I say "random," I mean, "without cause." Not "without knowable cause," but simply, "without cause."

Causes so vast that you cannot trace them back to the original sources cannot be said to be more than random when you do not know all the factors. If life is random at a quantum level, then it's random on all levels. Neither of us has the information required to make that judgement.

Until we gain that information, which won't happen until we can heat a quasiparticle to 10^32 kelvin, ten million billion times hotter than anything we've ever done, we won't see the base components, or at least the next fold of the base components, that make up everything.

I don't think that's going to happen any time soon, so let's just understand that we use termology differently and be done with it.

Oh, good. If it's well-documented, I should be able to find plenty of pictures...

I've seen them. Now if I could be arse associating with the monkey heads that I would have to associate with in order to look at the pictures and scan the bastards, then I would no longer be the hate filled violent elf that you all know and love.

I am never associating with the sort of new-age-junkie scum that harbour what I saw last time.

I'm sorry, but I just can't seriously accept an argument whose primary point is, "Well, the US government spent a lot of money on it, so /something/ must have turned up."

Although it's trying to sell something, this site gives an overview of the RV thing in light of funding and projects. It can all be checked again if you have doubts about the funding.

Personally, 20 years of funding seems like more than enough circumstantial evidence to say that something was going on, and that some results were being gleamed from the project.

Wouldn't mind seeing some film of this, either.

Didn't have a camera on me at the time. Very sorry.

This is the foundation of your opinion that mysticism is valid?

Yes, my eyes have seen, my eyes or whatever I am experiencing these sensations and working through are what experience this. You will doubt my eyes, however, and so there is no real point in going any further into my explainations of what I've seen. I tapped the surface, and you did exactally what I said you would do and baulked at it without so much as giving it a second thought. There is no point in this conversation, because you will not think for one second that someone else may have seen something that you have not.

There is no point to this discussion, you have already made up your mind.

[3278]

Okay, then we have a problem; you're defining "randomness" the way I would define "unpredictability." When I say "random," I mean, "without cause." Not "without knowable cause," but simply, "without cause."

Causes so vast that you cannot trace them back to the original sources cannot be said to be more than random when you do not know all the factors. If life is random at a quantum level, then it's random on all levels. Neither of us has the information required to make that judgement.

Causes so vast that you cannot trace them back to the original sources cannot be said to be more than unpredictable when you do not know all the factors.

Life is not random at a quantum level, so it's not random on any levels.

You simply do not have enough information to make that judgement.

Until we gain that information, which won't happen until we can heat a quasiparticle to 10^32 kelvin, ten million billion times hotter than anything we've ever done, we won't see the base components, or at least the next fold of the base components, that make up everything.

Uh, not so much. If everything in particle physics had to be done with experiments, we'd be screwed. An accelerator that will let us test the GUT, for instance, would need to be the size of the solar system and need to produce temperatures on the order of a thousand million million GeV. We're not going to get one of those. Ever. So we use - and I know you don't like this - math.

I don't think that's going to happen any time soon, so let's just understand that we use termology differently and be done with it.

That's fine. So long as you don't mind that every time you say "random," I'm going to quote you as saying, "unpredictable."

Oh, good. If it's well-documented, I should be able to find plenty of pictures...

I've seen them. Now if I could be arse associating with the monkey heads that I would have to associate with in order to look at the pictures and scan the bastards, then I would no longer be the hate filled violent elf that you all know and love.

Wow. Well, then. So, no pictures? How strange. 10 years of asking for pictures - film, preferably - and no one can ever give me any. Or quote a documented time and place that something like this happened. Or ever give any evidence beyond, "I saw it." That's a little strange, don't you think?

I'm sorry, but I just can't seriously accept an argument whose primary point is, "Well, the US government spent a lot of money on it, so /something/ must have turned up."

Personally, 20 years of funding seems like more than enough circumstantial evidence to say that something was going on, and that some results were being gleamed from the project.

Uh-huh. So, if the government were to fund SETI for ten years, then it /must/ have found extra-terrestrials.

CE, if the government funds a search for pink elephants in my trousers for a million years, they're not going to find anything if there aren't pink elephants in my trousers. /If/ they spent 20 years researching remote viewing, all it proves is that my government is adept at wasting money.

This is the foundation of your opinion that mysticism is valid?

There is no point to this discussion, you have already made up your mind.

Elf, I've made up my mind about a lot of things. But people have often changed my mind. Since I joined this board, my opinions about government, logic, physics, abortion, capital punishement, and gun ownership have all changed due to things other people have said. But you know what they did? They provided reason and logic and evidence. If I were to attempt to prove God exists by saying, "I had a drink with him down at the pub one night," I don't think that'd be terribly convincing.

I'm not holding to my conviction because I've made up my mind; I'm holding to my conviction because nothing better has been presented.

[Crazy Elf]

Life is not random at a quantum level, so it's not random on any levels.

Prove it.

10 years of asking for pictures - film, preferably - and no one can ever give me any.

We I managed to get it so you were looking in the wrong places, obviously.

...all it proves is that my government is adept at wasting money.

Although your government is as stupid as your people, I doubt very much that it's stupid enough to fund a pointless project for 20 years. To continue funding, typically you need to get results. If this suddenly changed in light of projects that never get anywhere, then the rest of the "I have to provide results for funding" community really have a raw deal.

But you know what they did? They provided reason and logic and evidence

And you define logic as anything that isn't inexplicable and completely beyond comprehension. Seeing that the very nature of what I've seen is both, how the hell am I supposed to back it up further than, "I saw it".

I sure as hell can't explain it, but it sure as hell happened, or suddenly myself and large chunks of the waking populace that I've had dealings with are suffering from mass halucinations which are completely identical.

As for the Qi Gong explaination on a "logical" level, go here and learn the basics of Qi Gong so that you get a base understanding of a system of workings that fall outside of western science for the most part.

Remote viewing, go here to see some aspects of the research that has gone into the area.

Can I provide you with a logical explaination as to why someone can cut open another by running a hand over an area and then seal it by running it back the other way? No, no I bloody well can't! But am I going to deny that it happens, where there are bundles of people who've seen and can attest to its workings? Hell no. I've seen before and after people, the results are beyond anything I could explain "logically".

Let me tell you a story. I remember landing heavily on my hand, spraining the wrist quite badly. Hurt to move it, but I had places to go and people to do.

"Let me look at it", said this woman who claimed to be a witch. I humoured her.

She took it in her hands, and just held it, putting her fingers over the areas that hurt the most. After a few moments of this, the pain was gone, completely. I couldn't tell you why, I just know that it happened. On another occasion, a boy had his arm slammed in a car door. She took his arm, did pretty much the same thing, and when she was done she had bruising where the door would have slammed on her if she were the boy. The boy was fine.

I can't explain it, I know only that it happened. These eyes saw these things, and I don't doubt them. My hand felt that, and I don't doubt that, either. It wasn't me wanting to beleive there was no pain, either, as I didn't believe she was doing anything or that she could. But she did.

I'm supposed to disbelieve what happened, because it can't be explained? That, my good man, is stupidity.

[3278]

Life is not random at a quantum level, so it's not random on any levels.

Prove it.

Sure. While I'm doing that, you prove that the universe is random.

What will it take for me to effectively prove the ordered nature of the universe? I'm asking, so I can do it. I can't guarantee that I can, but I can give it a shot.

...all it proves is that my government is adept at wasting money.

Although your government is as stupid as your people, I doubt very much that it's stupid enough to fund a pointless project for 20 years.

Okay. Prove it. Show me some of the results.

I sure as hell can't explain it, but it sure as hell happened, or suddenly myself and large chunks of the waking populace that I've had dealings with are suffering from mass halucinations which are completely identical.

Wow. I'm totally convinced.[/s]

As for the Qi Gong explaination on a "logical" level, go here and learn the basics of Qi Gong so that you get a base understanding of a system of workings that fall outside of western science for the most part.

Remote viewing, go here to see some aspects of the research that has gone into the area.

Great. For an excellent precis on how to heal the bleeding bodies of angels, go here.

[Nightsky]

Here is a simple question to bring to the surface of this thread:

Do you believe in love at first sight?

[Salvation122]

Define "Love" and I'll give you a meaningful answer, Jet and Nightsky.

32: The universe is random on some level, though, because of Heisenberg, right? So, as much as I hate to say it, it appears as though the Elf is correct.

(Feel free to correct me on Hesienburg's Uncertainty, as I'm not entirely certain that I'm remembering it correctly. I think that it basically said that the spin of electrons is random, but my father - an electrical engineer - says that that doesn't really matter, so you two could both be right.)

[CykoSpin]

When I say "random," I mean, "without cause." Not "without knowable cause," but simply, "without cause."

...then you would be using the term "random" incorrectly.

Random: action without definite object

definite = knowable
object = cause
Therefore,
Random: action without knowable cause
CE is correct.

[3278]

32: The universe is random on some level, though, because of Heisenberg, right? So, as much as I hate to say it, it appears as though the Elf is correct.

It all depends on what you mean by random; I'll address both your post and Cyko's at once on that count.

There are two definitions of "random," as I stated before.

1. Without cause.
2. Without known or knowable cause.

Webster's definition, as quoted by Cyko, would be 2. The American Heritage definition - "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements." would be 1. Sort of.

The problem is, our opinions of the universe's randomness have changed over the years, back and forth, and the definition has come to mean one or the other or both.

So I guess the only thing to do is to acknowledge both terms, and find a way to express them - Oh, that we could do that with "Christian" in the other thread! So here:

1. True Random: Without pattern, order, or cause.
2. Apparent Random: Without known or knowable pattern, order, or cause.

In that way, Elf is right that this is an Apparently Random universe; we don't know the causes of everything, and it's possible that we can't, ever. But I don't believe that the universe is True Random; I believe there is a cause for all things, just not necessarily a cause that is known.

Heisenberg works like this: Imagine if you had a pool table, and were blind. The only way you could tell where the other pool balls were was to take your own cue ball and roll it over the table, listening for the click of balls touching. Once you heard a click, you'd know where the other ball was. The problem is, once you've struck the ball with your cue ball, it's no longer where it used to be. So you can never know where a ball is, just where it used to be. That's Heisenberg, in the simplest possible sense.

As such, Heisenberg states that the universe is Apparently Random. In reality, I think we'll find a way to surpass Heisenberg someday, but that won't ever really make it untrue; it'll just get around it. If we can find a way to see the pool table without throwing any mass around, then we'll be able to beat him. I think application of string theories may prove to be our route for that, but I'm mostly just hoping, there.

What Heisenberg doesn't say, or even imply, is that the universe is True Random; it's a little like agnosticism doesn't claim that god is impossible; rather, he is unknowable. If you could devise a means, in this case, there is nothing stopping you from beholding the face of god.

[Crazy Elf]

But I don't believe that the universe is True Random; I believe there is a cause for all things, just not necessarily a cause that is known.

Then you're taking it on faith.

[Salvation122]

Do you believe in predestination, 32?

[Harley667]

I'm reminded of a particular passage from a favourite author of mine. Its not particularly on topic or very logical...or in fact very cheery. But I like it, in a rather twisted way.

***

"Have you ever been in love?

Horrible, isn't it?

It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens your heart and it means someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses. You build up this whole armour, for years, so nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They don't ask for it. They do something dumb one day like kiss you, or smile at you, and your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so a simple phrase like "Maybe we should just be friends" or "How perceptive" turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart.

It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul hurt, a body hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. Nothing should be able to do that. Especially not love.

I hate love."

-Rose Walker, Neil Gaimans "Sandman"

[Adam]

fuckin' yoda.

[JetPlane]

Define "Love" and I'll give you a meaningful answer, Jet and Nightsky.

I'm no one to ask to define love, Sal.

But, I will include the dictionary definition and hope this will help you somewhat.

The first definition given(#1) is the one I'm leaning towards the most. I was leaning more towards romantic love in this case(love held between lovers, etc.), but the question was left open-ended.

Maybe we should reserve the actual "definition" of love for another thread.


1.A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2.A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a.Sexual passion.
b.Sexual intercourse.
c.A love affair.
4.An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5.A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6.An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

7.A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
8.The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
9.Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
10.Sports. A zero score in tennis.

[Coyote]

"Love is for poets."

-Connor MacLeod, The Highlander

[paladin2019]

The request for a definition of love was brought up. To this, I must refer to a series of definitions from a high school theology class (Jesuit high school, sorry) that categorizes different categories of love. If anyone wants them, I'll see if have notes from more than ten years ago (doubtful), otherwise, I'll post what I can remember of Fr. Pilgram's lecture.


And Coyote,

"Love is the poet"

-Johnette Napolitano, The Beast

[Coyote]

I stand firmly by my Christopher Lambert quote. It would be stupid not to

[3278]

But I don't believe that the universe is True Random; I believe there is a cause for all things, just not necessarily a cause that is known.

Then you're taking it on faith.

Of course. It's all we can do. Extrapolate what we don't know from what we do. Reality only comes at the end of a long equation that may or may not bear any resemblance to the truth. It's all any of us ever do. But I have more faith in an equation than I do in human guessing. At least the extrapolation is /trying/ to compare reality with the equation.

[3278]

Do you believe in predestination, 32?

Predestination implies sentient planning, so I'll say "no." What I do believe is that there is but one possible course for all the events of the universe. It's an inescapable conclusion of my ultimately Newtonian worldview.

[paladin2019]

Don't know if any of the rest of you read this, but check out www.sinfest.net, specifically today's comic. Kinda relates to the curent 32/CE thing.