Subj : Re: Extent of the Argume To : Chuch Pierson From : John Wilson Date : Thu Oct 26 2000 05:53 am -=> TODD HENSON wrote to CHUCK PIERSON <=- Todd is such a marvel. I'm glad he's here in PHIL. Don't think I'd enjoy this echo nearly as much if he wern't here to supply `logical analysis' to the ignorant, purile posts the rest of us make. > > TH> Oh well. > There's some now! TH> Change your attitude and perhaps I might feel the motivation to TH> offer something better. Yeah Chuck. Make Todd your exemplar and mend your ways! TH> sllly TH> statements like that aren't necessary. Yes. Accurate statements and feelings on your part should be subsumed. > > > > > > TH> If the universe increases the knowledge of itself > > TH> over time, and if it > > TH> has had an INFINITE amount of time to accomplish this task, > > TH> then the conclusion I made is pretty clear. Clear as in weird. Two if's; neither pertains to what *I* posted... > > How is it different? You're projecting the way humans perceive time in you > assumption that the universe has had an INFINITE amount of time to increase > it's self-knowledge. Sorry I miised that. Where did you assume this, Chuck. C'mon 'fess up! > > > > Using the premise we've been going by here, that > > would be analogous to the > > question of where did God come from. > > > TH> Hmmmm....Yes, it WOULD at least be related, wouldn't it? > > What just happened? You actually agree with a comment I've made based on > these theorectical discussions. TH> Try to relax. Yes, Chuck --- relax---enjoy...accept.... > > >... How then > > > are you so ready to make the same comparison > > > between Man and Universe and > > > expect it to be as accepted? > > Don't expect a response to THIS. Todd, I think, believes that INRI stands for "I Never Respond to Inquiries". :-) > > > > It's quite obvious that you don't agree with the premise. Yet as you did > > state your objections using the same anthropomorphic assumptions, I'd at > > least have hoped that you would at least listen to > > another possible proposal > > still using the same assumptions instead of dismissing > > the entire premisse > > out of hand once you thought you had made your point. > > > TH> I'm all ears. > > Then why was my earlier comment summarily dismissed? TH> For reasons that just explained in this very reply. And, they TH> weren't mere "summary" TH> dismissals. That's right, Chuck. `Logical analysis' is what was offered. If you'd just change your attitude (completely) you'd see that. > TH> And as you can see, this line of thought is getting somewhat silly, > TH> fast. I'd say it's related to the original premise. > > And I see your instincts are working well. TH> As are yours, unfortunately. Man, you really can't take criticism TH> of ideas without getting hostile, TH> can you? Chuck, you've just got to learn how to behave! Take lessons from The Serene One, who takes critisism cheerfully, answers all questions and is a paragon of friendly `logical analysis' > > The terms consciousness and intelligence do have a difference in my > > thinking, although trying to define them is a bit complicated for me, at > > least so far as explaining it to someone else. To use another imprecise > > analogy it's like the difference between action and reaction. > > TH> Alrighty. > > > Is that another dismissal or a semi-acceptance of my description? TH> Given your overly-reactive attitude that you've hit me with, I TH> will leave you to interpret it as you TH> wish. Yeah, don't try to pin him down. That would be totally unfair. So watch your `overly reactive attitude' and pay attention! Follow Todd's example! Regards.... )ohn \\/ilson, Pastor The Church of Post-orgasmic Truth This weeks sermon: Proximity isn't everything, but it's close. Music by the Superstrings (Collections will be taken before, during and after the service.) .... Philosophical error: demonstrate the existence of a key to continue. ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715) .