Is the universe alive?

[Keith&Co.]

If not also sad lack of intellectual integrity.

And you still have not defined 'complexity.' You're much better at dismissive insults than intellectual integrity.

You aren't Pahu, by any chance, are you?

 

[rrr6]

Define Complex. I Gave One Definition

But you never actually defined the word 'complex.' Or complexity. Or given the means by which one might objectively compare complexity of two different beings and possibly validate your claim

Nor did the other person, however, I did clarify for the other person, that, there is more than one definition of interpretation of the word complex.

I will have to repeat myself for you. The other person was focused only a numiercal, higher or lower count, of one specific biological body part, and Iclearly addressed that, with example so various body parts and high counts of genetic material found in salamanders.

If you or others believe as salamander, or a protist is more complex than a human, then you certainly going to have to do better than high number of body parts. imho.

So state clearly what biologicals you believe are most complex and why. Ive stated mine and why.

We can go into definitions of compplex and I offer to give a link to and example of numerical complexity. No takers.

Gotta go as I cannot contiune at this time.

r6

 

[none]

rrr6: "I know you asked me to define complexity but I am asking you since I brought it up in my insane post"

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you never actually defined the word 'complex.' Or complexity. Or given the means by which one might objectively compare complexity of two different beings and possibly validate your claim

Nor did the other person, however, I did clarify for the other person, that, there is more than one definition of interpretation of the word complex.

Which still doesn't tell us how YOU are using the word when you decide that human woman is the most.

I will have to repeat myself for you.

Until you offer a definition, yeah, probably.

The other person was focused only a numiercal, higher or lower count, of one specific biological body part, and Iclearly addressed that, with example so various body parts and high counts of genetic material found in salamanders.

An example.
Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

If you or others believe as salamander, or a protist is more complex than a human, then you certainly going to have to do better than high number of body parts. imho.

You need to supply a definition.
Maybe you need to define 'definition' first?

So state clearly what biologicals you believe are most complex and why. Ive stated mine and why.

How about you define 'complexity?' Just once?

We can go into definitions of compplex and I offer to give a link to and example of numerical complexity. No takers.

You used the word. You give examples, but you don't say how you define the word.

Should we conclude, as you do, that since you do NOT define the word, you CANNOT define the word?

 

[none]

it is a guessing game in the purest form, I guess he means "with feet like a chicken and a head like a tortoise".

 

[Keith&Co.]

it is a guessing game in the purest form, I guess he means "with feet like a chicken and a head like a tortoise".

Or maybe his definition IS to tell others 'you have to do better imho.'

 

[none]

it is a guessing game in the purest form, I guess he means "with feet like a chicken and a head like a tortoise".

Or maybe his definition IS to tell others 'you have to do better imho.'

it is just a ruse.
the punch line is his "cosmic hierarchy" manifest which he has yet to provide.
in his mind he doesn't need to define his terms because comprehension of his post rests on his "cosmic hierarchy" not the definition of the words themselves.

This latter is has better chance of being understood more so, if not comprehended, once my cosmic hierarchy has been posted

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, if everything I had to say was an extension/expansion of my Power Puff Girls fanfic, I think i'd probably lead with that, make sure THAT is understood an dcomplete, before I started telling people about one-off discussions such as Bubbles and the Ice Cream Nightmare, or Buttercup's first IUD or Mojo Jo Jo and the Grape Ape vs. Godzilla.

But of course, that's just me. _I_ think it'd flow better to review people back to stuff I already posted, not tomorrow's post.

 

[fromderinside]

.... _I_ think it'd flow better to review people back to stuff I already posted, not tomorrow's post.

Paul McCartney actually.

 

[Kharakov]

But you never actually defined the word 'complex.' Or complexity. Or given the means by which one might objectively compare complexity of two different beings and possibly validate your claim

I will have to repeat myself for you. The other person was focused only a numiercal, higher or lower count, of one specific biological body part, and Iclearly addressed that, with example so various body parts and high counts of genetic material found in salamanders.

Complex generally means composed of many interconnected parts. The connections between the parts are counted as "parts" as well.

If 2 things have the same number of elementary particles, but one is a rock with many localized (electromagnetic) connections between the particles, and one is a brain that has many localized connections and many longer range connections, the brain is more complex.

So the measure of complexity of an organism involves the number of individuated parts, the number of connections between these parts, the number of connections between the connections (which are also parts), so on and so forth.

There is another measure of complexity as well, the shape (number of curves, how it self interacts) of an object in spacetime, which isn't something that we can determine exactly (now).

So back to an organisms complexity- if the organism consists of more interconnected parts (counting interconnections between parts as parts), it is more complex.

If you or others believe as salamander, or a protist is more complex than a human, then you certainly going to have to do better than high number of body parts. imho.

So state clearly what biologicals you believe are most complex and why.

The problem with naming individual organisms, is that you leave out their interconnections to the ecosystem, or other systems they are also connected to. Humans are connected to the ecosystem, which all organisms are directly connected to, so the connection to the ecosystem is a common traight.

Humans have social connections as well, which are more complex and longer range. Humans have mental patterns connecting them to the past, and also have a giant network of information exchange with one another. If the network of information exchange is more complex than the beings connected to it, this doesn't meant that the beings inherit or claim this complexity as their own.


Now think about an individual proton, or neutron- they are comprised of 3 quarks, and incredibly complex chaotic energy/spacetime patterns fluctuating between the quarks. Do we know the true complexity of one of these individual protons or neutrons, or do we only see the unitary aspect they present to the world for ease of understanding?

 

[dystopian]

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

Which would be fine, especially if English isn't your first language.

Which would be more along the lines of what bilby is saying...
If you cannot discuss the basics, you're in no position to claim superiority.

If you do not speak Klingon at all, you're in no position to correct the grammar of my Klingon death poetry.

Then again, we're talking about Klingons here... cleaving your skull in two with a bat'leth is a perfectly acceptable way to correct your grammar.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which would be fine, especially if English isn't your first language.

Which would be more along the lines of what bilby is saying...
If you cannot discuss the basics, you're in no position to claim superiority.

If you do not speak Klingon at all, you're in no position to correct the grammar of my Klingon death poetry.

Then again, we're talking about Klingons here... cleaving your skull in two with a bat'leth is a perfectly acceptable way to correct your grammar.

Well, either way would be better.
Know the basis and claim superiority,
NOT know the basics and cleave the skulls of the inferior debate combatants,
But NOT knowing the basics and claiming argument superiority without bloodshed is only acceptable on YEC forums.

 

[bilby]

Invalid statement with no evidence of such claims again ergo off-target for 2nd time.

If you don't even know what a protist is, or what the word 'extant' means, then it is unlikely that you have much to contribute to any discussion about biology, or indeed about reality.

This above yours reminds me of those who would take an error of someones else statements, and from an insignficant error generalized that everything that they say is not worthy of being stated.

However, your actions are worse than that i.e. you take and insignificant piece of knowledge--- so no even an error in my statements ---and then generalize that none of my comments are worthy of consideration. Now that is sad :--( lack of morals, respect and sincere heart.


You are the one who denies rational, logical and common sense disscussion, not I.

You make assertions that are nonsense; and you cannot even coherently address my post showing how your assertion is nonsensical.

When you actually some evidence to back your claims, please share, i,e. when you can address my comments specifically as stated, with some rational, logical and common sense comments, that invalidate my comments as stated, then please do so.

You have not because you have not. :--(

Here again, you claims of wanting to have rational and reaoned dissscussion is bogus, insincere, lacking integrity, lacking sincerity of heart and respect.

I would like to have a rational and reasoned discussion with you; but it is evident that that is not possible, so let's not waste any more time on this.

No you would not because you do not. I believe your lack any valid statements that invalidate anything Ive stated, so your defensive posture is to make false claims in my direction, so you can evade having a rational, logical and common sense disscussaion ergo the exact opposite of what you claim to desire.

Please share, when you can address my comments as stated, with any rational, logical and common sense statements, that, invalidated my comments as stated. Thx

r6

Badger, badger. Three moons; the pies, the pies. Infinite flow of the cheesemongers and the flying fish.

The fatter sow waxes on the kine's coleslaw. Twenty seven to be precise, but the fourth is carrots.

And that's final.

 

[Bronzeage]

The last few posts brought this to mind. It makes me wonder if anyone remembers the Pueblo.

You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata. Deteriorata.

Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss, and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.

Remember The Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you -
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore. It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time, call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart in the bedeepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up!

 

[Kharakov]

 Desiderata too.

 

[rrr6]

Two or or More Kinds of Complexity?

You aren't Pahu, by any chance, are you?

r6--I have no idea what a Pahu is. I was raised Christian Scientist

Which still doesn't tell us how YOU are using the word when you decide that human woman is the most.

r6--I told the other person how a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander. You have not not address those comments as stated. Designing a computer, automobile, train, rocket and them driving them to market or moon, or allowing us to see macro-outward and micro-inward, and process amazing amounts of associated data.

A salamander can in no way do any of that, so it is ridiculus{ imho } to infer, or to believe, that, because an animal, that, has more more genetic material in each of its cell some how makes them more complex overall, than some animals that do not have as much genetic material may only be works numerically significant and for that specific body, not overall complexity associated with each animal.

There Ive repeated it again. For the ignorant and those who repeatedly ignore rational, logical and common sense thoughts. imho


[/quote]An example. Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

Yes I do, and you still do not address my comments as stated to the other person, as to why a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander or a bacteria.

You need to supply a definition. Maybe you need to define 'definition' first?

Ive already stated one definition of complex, in regards to numerically higher and lower. You ignore that definition, that, I elaborated upon it and offered link to and example of. So I repeat again, as my offer to help understand numerical complexity is repeatedly ignored as are all of my rational, looical and common sense statements.

How about you define 'complexity?' Just once?

Ditto the above, and when you want to acknowledge numerical complexity as I laid out and repeated offered a link too, then we can move onto other definitions of complex. imho

You used the word. You give examples, but you don't say how you define the word.

Yes I gave rationally logical examples and you have ignored my explanations regarding numerical complexity and a link to example of such. No takers some umpteen emails later.

Should we conclude, as you do, that since you do NOT define the word, you CANNOT define the word?

I did define and elaborate on numerical complexity and offered link to example of such numerical complexity. No takers.

When you want to come some agreement about how I have already defined numerical complexity then when can go onto another kind of complexity.

So when your ready to see the web site Ive repeatedly offered to clarify numerical complex please let me know.

So one more time, I told you what biological I believe is more complex and why.

Now you have refused to do the same. The other dude somehow inferred that he believes a protist is more complex than a human but he never really stated it that way.

1) tell us what you believe the most complex biological is, as I have done,

2) acknowledge that you would like to see clarifying example of numerical complexity, beyond just any ole biological body part,

3) then we can move onto another kind of complexity. Thx

r6

 

[rrr6]

Two or or More Kinds of Complexity?

You aren't Pahu, by any chance, are you?

I have no idea what a Pahu is. I was raised Christian Scientist

[/QUOTE]Which still doesn't tell us how YOU are using the word when you decide that human woman is the most.

I told the other person how a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander. You have not not address those comments as stated. Designing a computer, automobile, train, rocket and them driving them to market or moon, or allowing us to see macro-outward and micro-inward, and process amazing amounts of associated data.

A salamander can in no way do any of that, so it is ridiculus{ imho } to infer, or to believe, that, because an animal, that, has more more genetic material in each of its cell some how makes them more complex overall, than some animals that do not have as much genetic material may only be works numerically significant and for that specific body, not overall complexity associated with each animal.

There Ive repeated it again. For the ignorant and those who repeatedly ignore rational, logical and common sense thoughts. imho

An example. Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

r6---Yes I do, and you still do not address my comments as stated to the other person, as to why a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander or a bacteria.

You need to supply a definition. Maybe you need to define 'definition' first?

Ive already stated one definition of complexity in regards to numerically higher and lower. You ignore that definition, that, I elaborated upon it and offered link to and example of. So I repeat again, as my offer to help understand numerical complexity is repeatedly ignored as are all of my rational, looical and common sense statements.

How about you define 'complexity?' Just once?

Ditto the above, and when you want to acknowledge numerical complexity as I laid out and repeated offered a link too, then we can move onto other definitions of complex. imho

You used the word. You give examples, but you don't say how you define the word.

Yes I gave rationally logical examples and you have ignored my explanations regarding numerical complexity and a link to example of such. No takers some umpteen emails later.

Should we conclude, as you do, that since you do NOT define the word, you CANNOT define the word?

I did define and elaborate on numerical complexity and offered link to example of such numerical complexity. No takers.

When you want to come some agreement about how I have already defined numerical complexity then when can go onto another kind of complexity.

So when your ready to see the web site Ive repeatedly offered to clarify numerical complex please let me know.

So one more time, I told you what biological I believe is more complex and why.

Now you have refused to do the same. The other dude somehow inferred that he believes a protist is more complex than a human but he never really stated it that way.

1) tell us what you believe the most complex biological is, as I have done,

2) acknowledge that you would like to see clarifying example of numerical complexity, beyond just any ole biological body part,

3) then we can move onto another kind of complexity. Thx

r6

 

[rrr6]

Two or or More Kinds of Complexity?

You aren't Pahu, by any chance, are you?

r6--I have no idea what a Pahu is. I was raised Christian Scientist

Which still doesn't tell us how YOU are using the word when you decide that human woman is the most.

r6--I told the other person how a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander. You have not not address those comments as stated. Designing a computer, automobile, train, rocket and them driving them to market or moon, or allowing us to see macro-outward and micro-inward, and process amazing amounts of associated data.

A salamander can in no way do any of that, so it is ridiculus{ imho } to infer, or to believe, that, because an animal, that, has more more genetic material in each of its cell some how makes them more complex overall, than some animals that do not have as much genetic material may only be works numerically significant and for that specific body, not overall complexity associated with each animal.

There Ive repeated it again. For the ignorant and those who repeatedly ignore rational, logical and common sense thoughts. imho

An example. Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

r6---Yes I do, and you still do not address my comments as stated to the other person, as to why a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander or a bacteria.

You need to supply a definition. Maybe you need to define 'definition' first?

r6--Ive already stated one definition of complexity in regards to numerically higher and lower. You ignore that definition, that, I elaborated upon it and offered link to and example of. So I repeat again, as my offer to help understand numerical complexity is repeatedly ignored as are all of my rational, looical and common sense statements.

How about you define 'complexity?' Just once?

Ditto the above, and when you want to acknowledge numerical complexity as I laid out and repeated offered a link too, then we can move onto other definitions of complex. imho

You used the word. You give examples, but you don't say how you define the word.

Yes I gave rationally logical examples and you have ignored my explanations regarding numerical complexity and a link to example of such. No takers some umpteen emails later.

Should we conclude, as you do, that since you do NOT define the word, you CANNOT define the word?

I did define and elaborate on numerical complexity and offered link to example of such numerical complexity. No takers.

When you want to come some agreement about how I have already defined numerical complexity then when can go onto another kind of complexity.

So when your ready to see the web site Ive repeatedly offered to clarify numerical complex please let me know.

So one more time, I told you what biological I believe is more complex and why.

Now you have refused to do the same. The other dude somehow inferred that he believes a protist is more complex than a human but he never really stated it that way.

1) tell us what you believe the most complex biological is, as I have done,

2) acknowledge that you would like to see clarifying example of numerical complexity, beyond just any ole biological body part,

3) then we can move onto another kind of complexity. Thx

r6

 

[Keith&Co.]

r6--I told the other person how a human has the potential to be more complex than a salamander. You have not not address those comments as stated. Designing a computer, automobile, train, rocket and them driving them to market or moon, or allowing us to see macro-outward and micro-inward, and process amazing amounts of associated data.

A salamander can in no way do any of that, so it is ridiculus{ imho } to infer, or to believe, that, because an animal, that, has more more genetic material in each of its cell some how makes them more complex overall, than some animals that do not have as much genetic material may only be works numerically significant and for that specific body, not overall complexity associated with each animal.

Well, if you won't DEFINE complexity, then there's no reason to think that any single fucking thing is 'ridiculus' (sic) as an example of supreme or excess complexity.
At least bilby gave a rationale for his choice.

There Ive repeated it again.

Still not a definition.

For the ignorant and those who repeatedly ignore rational, logical and common sense thoughts. imho

You've given your thoughts, sure.
You haven't defined complexity.

An example. Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

Yes I do,

Evidence suggests you do not.

 

[rrr6]

Keith&C--Well, if you won't DEFINE complexity, then there's no reason to think that any single fucking thing is 'ridiculus' (sic) as an example of supreme or excess complexity.

You continue to ignore my definintion of numerical complexity along with explanations.

When you want to see the link to an example of purely numerically complexity and we can agree upon that definition, then we can go to other kinds of complexity.

Still not a definition.

Address numerical as Ive asked of you and then we can move on. You and others are obvious afraid of disscussing numerical complexity as all refuse to acknowledge as Ive laid and offered a link to more.

You've given your thoughts, sure.

And you have not addressed them with any sinficant acknowledgment for there value. What a sad lack of moral and intellectual integrity around here :--(

You haven't defined complexity. An example. Do you not understand the word 'definition?'

I have defined and offered more examples of pure numerical complexity. Your ego does not you or others here to acknowledge my given defintions in those regards.

You want more yet your not willing to give more. Ive given much more by way of definitions and examples than others. What a sad lack of moral and intelletual integrity. Like immature 3 year olds.

Evidence suggests you do not.

You ignore the evidence and truths of my given comments to date, as do the others.

Ignorance is bliss and the case of most Ive encountered in this thread a sad lack of moral and intellectual integrity. imho.

Hate only goes one way, and that is evident in the many posts directed at me.

Love goes two ways. You want love as specific definition, then you have to give love acknowlegement of what has been given to you.

This is basic moral integrity principle. Here is more sincerity of heart ergo love and intellectual sincerity, given, tho I believe it is wasted on most around here. Sad :--(

com·plex·i·ty
kəmˈpleksədē/
noun
noun: complexity

• the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.
  "an issue of great complexity"
  

  synonyms:

  complication, problem, difficulty; Moretwist, turn, intricacy "an issue of great complexity"

  • a factor involved in a complicated process or situation.
    plural noun: complexities
    "the complexities of family life"