Mechanisms and Organisms

[The_Metatron]

It has been implied that I don't understand the complexities within the cell and because of the difficulties in grasping the complexities, I attribute it to higher powers and leave it at that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than ignoring the complexities, I am inspired to learn about the latest discoveries.

…

Bullshit, Charlie.

It’s a piece of magic.

Your words, Charlie.

Magic is, by definition, supernatural. If you didn’t mean that, don’t say it. But you not only said it, you repeated it. You pined on about many steps, the failure of any which would cause the death of a cell. You didn’t point this out to everyone to simply show us how impressed you are with it. No, you continue to use words like “orchestrated” to explain the process.

We know what you mean by that word, too.

You’re fooling no one.

By your definition what Penn & Teller do is supernatural. Do you actually believe this?!

Who says they are supernatural? They don’t. Clearly, you’ve never heard of their seven year Showtime series “Bullshit”.

Look up on the internets what Penn Jillette’s car licenses plates are.

Doesn’t both feet crammed into your mouth make it harder to type these stupid things you write here?

[CharlieM]

Penn & Teller are not performing "magic" tricks. They advertise it as "magic" to draw in dupes like you.

You're not making much sense.

What makes you think I'm being duped?

An innate inability to distinguish between magic and illusions. Broken bullshit filter.

A simple request to ask what I meant by 'magic' would have cleared up your misunderstanding of what I meant by the word.

This link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzHDS651Nx0 shows Penn & Teller using this word. Tell them they are unable to distinguish between magic and illusions.

[Cito di Pense]

A simple request to ask what I meant by 'magic' would have cleared up your misunderstanding of what I meant by the word.

You have it wrong, again. If you want to use a word with overloaded semantics, it is you who are obliged to clarify your usage. We;re not obliged to save you from the morass of ambiguities with which you are trying to play your audience and that are eating you alive, here. When you can demonstrate the supernatural, go elsewhere to do it. You cannot possibly become famous doing it here. I assume your whole performance here is a thinly-veiled and leaden attempt at verbal pranks. Penn & Teller are not obliged to clarify their use of the word; they're entertainers, not charlatans, like some people we could name.

[CharlieM]

By your definition what Penn & Teller do is supernatural. Do you actually believe this?!

Who says they are supernatural? They don’t. Clearly, you’ve never heard of their seven year Showtime series “Bullshit”.

Look up on the internets what Penn Jillette’s car licenses plates are...

Exactly my point. Penn never stops talking about magic but you would never say he is referring to anything that is supernatural. He would be the last person to do such a thing. Yet I mention the word in passing and you immediately jump to the conclusion that by that I mean something supernatural.

From what I have learned, the actions of complexes such as spliceosomes are just as magical as any conjuring trick of Penn and Teller. In both cases I can think about their performances and exclaim, "How on earth do they do that?"

Think again about what you think I mean. Your imagination seems to be getting the better of you.

Rather than wasting our time on pointless arguments like this I would much rather discuss the finer details of cellular processes.

[The_Metatron]

…

Rather than wasting our time on pointless arguments like this I would much rather discuss the finer details of cellular processes.

You write ambiguous shit and you dare whine to me about wasting others’ time? Fuck right off with that bullshit, Charlie. We both know exactly what you mean when you use the word “magic”. You have no credibility to suggest you mean anything other than shit too complex to explain, therefore supernatural “orchestration”. You have enough of a command of the language to choose unambiguous words, but you don’t. No, you want wiggle room, so when you get pinned down, you can claim you meant something else. Intellectual cowardice, Charlie.


To what end do you wish to “discuss” this stuff? Is this scholar.google.com? If you want to learn about cellular biology, there are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers by real scientists you can read there on the topic. You can read them as well as we can, when we get the urge. You can even get email addresses of many of those papers’ authors, and discuss their work directly. On a personal note, it is cute to see you copying and pasting shit you find as if you understand it.

What the fuck are you doing here?

I don’t think you’re here to discuss shit with any interest in learning. You’re here to try to make a point to the mean atheists here. So, get to it. What’s you’re fucking point?

[Cito di Pense]

Yet I mention the word in passing and you immediately jump to the conclusion that by that I mean something supernatural.

FFS, Charlie, you've been at this crap from the get-go in this thread:

the static images are transformed into dynamic ever-changing panoramas that reveal a higher unity. No beliefs or speculations need be invoked.

Make up your fucking mind. Higher unity? What the fuck is that? Simply having "higher unity" in your vocabulary to push at others involves a belief.

Oh, it could be that you just let your emotions run away with you when you think about pretty flowers, but I think you're just full of yourself, and you're inflicting that on your audience. It's fucking narcissism. Nobody but you is ever going to fix that.

[The_Metatron]

Let’s get back to that, Charlie.

Exactly what is a “higher unity”? Or, even a regular unity, let alone a lower unity? How, exactly is that measured?

You want to talk science, get with the program. Define your terms.

[Cito di Pense]

There is an inbuilt bias in what gets accepted for publication by established publishers. Even if they were willing to do so, most of them would be reluctant to publish any positive research on what they see as being classed as alternative or complimentary for fear of the criticism which will come their way. Their reputation would inevitably suffer.

You're hitting all the hot spots of alternative this, that, and the other sorts of facts, Charlie. Is ordinary, garden-variety established fact too bland for you? It's what we use in engineering. Do we really need all this fucking suggestion? Or is it just a need of yours? Who the fuck convinced you that speculation is anything but entertainment?

[The_Metatron]

Poor Charlie could stand a good listen to Tim Minchen’s “Storm”.

[CharlieM]

...Higher unity? What the fuck is that?...

...Exactly what is a “higher unity”? Or, even a regular unity, let alone a lower unity? How, exactly is that measured?.

...

The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life. We obtain knowledge from two directions, the inner and the outer.
Our senses provide us with external information and our inner thought processes and memories give us a means through which we can combine the sense impressions we receive into a unified whole.

Reality is not a collection of unconnected entities. The practice of science is a way to gradually reassemble this objective unified reality that, for our senses is a confusing disconnected world.

I hear a cuckoo calling in the distance, I see a small bird flitting about in some reeds, I find a nest with a clutch of eggs and one egg is larger and looks different. These experiences are all separate, but because I have the ability to learn though thinking I can connect and unify my experiences. Through this process I have become aware of a higher unity than my original sense impressions gave me. Eventually I come to realize that objective reality is unified and the appearance of disconnection and separation is not due to reality but is due to my limited point of view at this moment in time.

If I can hold in my mind the process of the life cycle of a rose and compare it with my sense impression of a cut rose in a vase then the latter has a higher unity than the former.


Here is an image of the Caduceus or Staff of Mercury:
.


The image will hold different meanings for everyone depending on their thoughts and previous knowledge. It is an ancient symbol and would have had a very different meaning for those who first experienced it than for me looking at it today. The connections between the elements within the image might mean nothing to some people, but there were reasons why the image has this particular form and connections can be made to the thoughts and mental images of its originators. The image wasn't discovered by any sense impression, but by an inner working and unifying of various sense impressions. The separate elements were positioned to represent a higher meaning.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on what I mean by higher unity.

[Fenrir]

Look out!

It's the world's deepest deepity!

A record for the ages

[CharlieM]

More of the deepest of deepity from here depicting Vidar overcoming Fenrir.

The same inspirational experiences of ancient peoples produced the myth of Michael and the Dragon, George and the Dragon, Marduk and Tiamat, and many more.

[Fenrir]

Oh dear

I don't even...

That's just sad

[The_Metatron]

...Higher unity? What the fuck is that?...

...Exactly what is a “higher unity”? Or, even a regular unity, let alone a lower unity? How, exactly is that measured?.

...

The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life. We obtain knowledge from two directions, the inner and the outer.
Our senses provide us with external information and our inner thought processes and memories give us a means through which we can combine the sense impressions we receive into a unified whole.

Reality is not a collection of unconnected entities. The practice of science is a way to gradually reassemble this objective unified reality that, for our senses is a confusing disconnected world.

I hear a cuckoo calling in the distance, I see a small bird flitting about in some reeds, I find a nest with a clutch of eggs and one egg is larger and looks different. These experiences are all separate, but because I have the ability to learn though thinking I can connect and unify my experiences. Through this process I have become aware of a higher unity than my original sense impressions gave me. Eventually I come to realize that objective reality is unified and the appearance of disconnection and separation is not due to reality but is due to my limited point of view at this moment in time.

If I can hold in my mind the process of the life cycle of a rose and compare it with my sense impression of a cut rose in a vase then the latter has a higher unity than the former.


Here is an image of the Caduceus or Staff of Mercury:
.


The image will hold different meanings for everyone depending on their thoughts and previous knowledge. It is an ancient symbol and would have had a very different meaning for those who first experienced it than for me looking at it today. The connections between the elements within the image might mean nothing to some people, but there were reasons why the image has this particular form and connections can be made to the thoughts and mental images of its originators. The image wasn't discovered by any sense impression, but by an inner working and unifying of various sense impressions. The separate elements were positioned to represent a higher meaning.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on what I mean by higher unity.

You answered nothing.

How high of a “higher unity”? Exactly?

What units? How is it measured?

You want to play a scientist, come on, define your terms.

You just claimed “objective reality is unified.” Really? Exactly what does that mean? Unified. Made one. One what?

You know you're just gibbering, don’t you? By all means, wax poetic until you puke. But don’t try to pass it off as anything anyone else needs to care about. There’s some unified reality for you.

You made the claim that “The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life”. Exactly how in the blue fuck do you know this to be some sort of objective reality? I’m not sure you could think your way out of a cardboard box. My border collies are better problem solvers than you. The fact here is you have no fucking idea if or what other animals think.

You also said “If I can hold in my mind the process of the life cycle of a rose and compare it with my sense impression of a cut rose in a vase then the latter has a higher unity than the former.” Oh, yeah? Tell you what, you go ahead and regard your cut rose. While you’re doing it, I’ll roll a blind between you and that cut rose, so an objective third observer wouldn’t know you’re there. That third observer should then be able to detect and measure that cut rose’s “higher unity”. Except, there is nothing there to measure.

I’ve just shown you that your “higher unity” is meaningless gibberish that exists only in your head.

Deepity.

[Fenrir]

You do know to what the term "deepity" refers right?

[CharlieM]

You answered nothing.

How high of a “higher unity”? Exactly?

What units? How is it measured?

You want to play a scientist, come on, define your terms.

You just claimed “objective reality is unified.” Really? Exactly what does that mean? Unified. Made one. One what?

You know you're just gibbering, don’t you? By all means, wax poetic until you puke. But don’t try to pass it off as anything anyone else needs to care about. There’s some unified reality for you.

You made the claim that “The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life”. Exactly how in the blue fuck do you know this to be some sort of objective reality? I’m not sure you could think your way out of a cardboard box. My border collies are better problem solvers than you. The fact here is you have no fucking idea if or what other animals think.

I leave conventional scientists to the professionals. But that doesn't mean I don't value their work. I learn a great deal from it. But this is the science of quantities. As I said, thinking is a quality. Qualities are not amenable to measurement. I also admire and follow Goethe. I would not class him as a scientist in the conventional sense. He was a scientist of qualities. Instead of taking a third person point of view and trying to exclude the observer from the picture, he regarded the observer as central. He regarded the human being, carefully and precisely using the senses, as the most perfect of scientific instruments. He wasn't interested in making lists, categorizing nature, or measuring quantities. He practiced what he called 'exact sensorial imagination'.

Goethe formed a bridge between art and science. Goethean science is not in competition with conventional science, neither is it an alternative. It is complimentary, to be followed or ignored as people see fit.

My interest in projective geometry stems from this. It deals with mobile forms without having to rely on quantification and measurement.

[CharlieM]

You do know to what the term "deepity" refers right?

You do know to what the term 'sarcasm' refers right?

[The_Metatron]

You answered nothing.

How high of a “higher unity”? Exactly?

What units? How is it measured?

You want to play a scientist, come on, define your terms.

You just claimed “objective reality is unified.” Really? Exactly what does that mean? Unified. Made one. One what?

You know you're just gibbering, don’t you? By all means, wax poetic until you puke. But don’t try to pass it off as anything anyone else needs to care about. There’s some unified reality for you.

You made the claim that “The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life”. Exactly how in the blue fuck do you know this to be some sort of objective reality? I’m not sure you could think your way out of a cardboard box. My border collies are better problem solvers than you. The fact here is you have no fucking idea if or what other animals think.

I leave conventional scientists to the professionals. But that doesn't mean I don't value their work. I learn a great deal from it. But this is the science of quantities. As I said, thinking is a quality. Qualities are not amenable to measurement. I also admire and follow Goethe. I would not class him as a scientist in the conventional sense. He was a scientist of qualities. Instead of taking a third person point of view and trying to exclude the observer from the picture, he regarded the observer as central. He regarded the human being, carefully and precisely using the senses, as the most perfect of scientific instruments. He wasn't interested in making lists, categorizing nature, or measuring quantities. He practiced what he called 'exact sensorial imagination'.

Goethe formed a bridge between art and science. Goethean science is not in competition with conventional science, neither is it an alternative. It is complimentary, to be followed or ignored as people see fit.

My interest in projective geometry stems from this. It deals with mobile forms without having to rely on quantification and measurement.

Again, I asked you specific questions. You answered nothing.

This is no discussion, it’s you gibbering.

Oh, and bullshit on your claim that qualities cannot be measured. You have a quality of evasiveness. You can’t or won’t answer questions put to you. You do it all of the time. Easy to measure.

[CharlieM]

You answered nothing.

Many of your questions are irrelevant and meaningless

How high of a “higher unity”? Exactly?

What units? How is it measured?

It's a relative quality. It doesn't have units. When Steve Winwood sang, "Bring me a higher love", did anyone ask how it is measured and in what units? No because that question would not be appropriate.

You want to play a scientist, come on, define your terms.

Why would you think I want to play a scientist?

You just claimed “objective reality is unified.” Really? Exactly what does that mean? Unified. Made one. One what?

One whole. For example my body is a unified whole. When I die my form will not hold together, it will dissipate, parts will separate.

Science is a quest for unity, just look at physics. Experts don't like it when there are gaps and differences cannot be reconciled.

A very relevant article by Rebekah Wallace entitled, "The Wholeness of Humanity: Coleridge, Cognition, and Holistic Perception can be found here.

This is for the benefit of anyone who might have an interest in the subject of organic v mechanistic, not for you who I don't suppose for one minute will be interested in the slightest degree.

You know you're just gibbering, don’t you? By all means, wax poetic until you puke. But don’t try to pass it off as anything anyone else needs to care about. There’s some unified reality for you.

You made the claim that “The human ability to think as we do is a unique quality within earthly physical life”. Exactly how in the blue fuck do you know this to be some sort of objective reality? I’m not sure you could think your way out of a cardboard box. My border collies are better problem solvers than you. The fact here is you have no fucking idea if or what other animals think.

Maybe you could post a video of your border collies solving a quadratic equation or two, or bisecting a line with a pair of compasses? Or how about a pair of them playing chess (If you don't think they are up to that, checkers will do)?

You also said “If I can hold in my mind the process of the life cycle of a rose and compare it with my sense impression of a cut rose in a vase then the latter has a higher unity than the former.” Oh, yeah? Tell you what, you go ahead and regard your cut rose. While you’re doing it, I’ll roll a blind between you and that cut rose, so an objective third observer wouldn’t know you’re there. That third observer should then be able to detect and measure that cut rose’s “higher unity”. Except, there is nothing there to measure.

I’ve just shown you that your “higher unity” is meaningless gibberish that exists only in your head.

And you accuse me of talking gibberish!?

[The_Metatron]

Yes. That’s what you do. Gibber.

Wassamatter, Charlie? Couldn’t follow how the existence of your “higher unity” can be tested? That cut rose was supposed to be a higher unity than, well, than something. But, remove ambiguity, and it’s just a cut rose.

Or, are you failing to say that the “sensing” of the cut rose is a higher unity than your imagination of something else? It still doesn’t matter, Charlie. Your “higher unity” exists solely in your head. And, as long as that’s the only place that “higher unity” exists, the rest of us can quite safely laugh at you and ignore it as meaningless gibbering.