User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 74 of 74

  1. #71
    Member COLORATURA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Whoa!! I am impressed by Avik & Little_Sticks! They, I feel, are both correct in what they are saying.

    Honestly, yes, things are always going to move & change from the way we know them now. EVERYTHING. So, what is a human anyway? What we define them as? Sure, they will change. Will they go extinct? Maybe. Depends on what happens to the "earth." However, we are all part of everything. We are all made of the same, and interconnected. It is the only logical conclusion. Space is infinite, and our galaxy has other objects/particles/whatever you wanna call it pushing against it in space making it what it is. Waves in space form what we see & call our universe. We don't technically even "see" what happens when someone "dies." We no longer can communicate with people whom die in the way we always have, and so in our little brains we assume they are no longer there. However, they only changed form. The only thing that "kills" matter is anti-matter, right?

    So, maybe I am in over my head saying all of this...

    I can't always describe what I am trying to say...BUT! I found these people who can! Sorry, but this website is orgasmic to anyone interested in the truth of things. It is WWW.SPACEANDMOTION.COM.

    Here's a little tidbit:

    "In fact it is possible for a finite spherical Universe to form within an infinite Space. Unfortunately for Einstein, he incorrectly imagined a 'curved space' such that if you traveled far enough you would return to your starting point (a very abstract and confusing concept).

    The solution is far more simple, and is found instead from Huygens' Principle. Three hundred years ago Christiaan Huygens, a Dutch mathematician, found that if a surface containing many separate wave sources was examined at a distance, the combined separate waves of the sources appeared as a single wave front with the shape of the surface. This wave front is termed a 'Huygens Combination' of the separate waves.

    Thus the out waves of all the other matter around us within our Hubble sphere must necessarily form our spherical in waves. This unites finite matter with infinite space due to this sharing of waves."
    INTP
    5w4
    Phlegmatic

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Coloratura, I understood what you were implying completely though the Huygens Principle section may require longer for me to grasp! Thanks for giving me something new to mull over.

    I did reply previously that a human is not defined: neither biologically, philosophically or spiritually but an error occurred when posting. Is a person with one brain cell less fitting to identify as a "human" than someone who has one more? What if a person is missing a limb? What would be the standard for the human to be measure against? Asking if humans are an evolutionary dead end depends on a subjective interpretation of what humans are. If any future entities with a common ancestry in the current "human" genepool can be fairly classified as human (no matter the extent of deviation from the "norm") then humanity is a dead end as no amount of genetic variance would justify a change in classification. To attempt to be realistic however I would say that a line will be drawn at some point (would probably compare genetic strands of a future generation against a stock sample of 50,000 "normal" "humans" of our present day. When variation exceeds a point the classification is withdrawn.) On this basis I shall support my initial response that humanity is not an evolutionary dead end. The alternative would probably involve a radical liquidation of the concept of a "species" altogether (as all life is inherently interconnected with its environment, forever extracting energy from external resources with continuous flux in a lifeform's composition creating a situation where life is little more than a dynamic convergence of the laws of the universe. With no satisfactory objective standard of life achieved, classification is more or less abolished.)

    I went off on a tangent at the end, hopefully what I wrote made sense!

  3. #73
    Member COLORATURA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    Coloratura, I understood what you were implying completely though the Huygens Principle section may require longer for me to grasp! Thanks for giving me something new to mull over.

    I did reply previously that a human is not defined: neither biologically, philosophically or spiritually but an error occurred when posting. Is a person with one brain cell less fitting to identify as a "human" than someone who has one more? What if a person is missing a limb? What would be the standard for the human to be measure against? Asking if humans are an evolutionary dead end depends on a subjective interpretation of what humans are. If any future entities with a common ancestry in the current "human" genepool can be fairly classified as human (no matter the extent of deviation from the "norm") then humanity is a dead end as no amount of genetic variance would justify a change in classification. To attempt to be realistic however I would say that a line will be drawn at some point (would probably compare genetic strands of a future generation against a stock sample of 50,000 "normal" "humans" of our present day. When variation exceeds a point the classification is withdrawn.) On this basis I shall support my initial response that humanity is not an evolutionary dead end. The alternative would probably involve a radical liquidation of the concept of a "species" altogether (as all life is inherently interconnected with its environment, forever extracting energy from external resources with continuous flux in a lifeform's composition creating a situation where life is little more than a dynamic convergence of the laws of the universe. With no satisfactory objective standard of life achieved, classification is more or less abolished.)

    I went off on a tangent at the end, hopefully what I wrote made sense!
    Yes, I believe you made perfect sense! I like the way you stated all of this, and I agree completely.
    INTP
    5w4
    Phlegmatic

    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

  4. #74
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    We know that large multi-celled animals have a short evolutionary life. In other words large multi-celled animals become extinct rather quickly in evolutionary time.

    Homo sapiens is a large multi-celled animal and there is no reason to think we won't become extinct in short evolutionary order.

    On the other hand, single celled animals live for millennia after millennia. So homo sapiens will be outlived by bacteria.

Similar Threads

  1. The process of becoming an artist
    By Tamske in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 10:35 AM
  2. [ENTJ] I am becoming an ENTJ?
    By cless986 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 01:42 PM
  3. Troopergate: Will it be an October Surprise?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 11:15 PM
  4. [INTJ] Why did I become an INTJ?
    By Cindy in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 11:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO