Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:16:22 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

[...]

I wasn't asking for a best selling series; I asked for and indication
of an area of "enlightenment"! ;o)

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/

There is no single "why" as
to our existence. Nor does there need to be, certainly not in the
sense of there being a Creator. We are for a time and then we are
not. Deal.

But that in reality (whatever that is) is a big "deal"!

Is it?

[...]

That which we know is tangible, which is a relatively simple
concept. It is the intangible that is the mystery that besets us
all.

We're getting there too.

Perhaps you may be kind enough to indicate in which areas.

For example, we've made considerable progress in understanding how brain
gives rise to mind. We know there's a lot we don't understand but nobody in
the game takes Descartes' mind/body duality seriously anymore and haven't
for a long time.

[...]

The "micro-world" is the epitome of tangibility, for we ourselves are
but a larger version of that which we describe as "micro", and a
minimal part of the huge infinity!

No, it isn't. The micro-world is not just a smaller version of the macro
world we live in. It's very different. That's one reason why Niels Bohr
said, "If you are not shocked by quantum theory, you don't understand it."

[...]

BTW, do you lift weights at all?

Why do you ask?

Because I've yet to see you post something on the topic. This is, after
all, MFW. I don't want to get into interminable debates in this newsgroup
about these matters. If I did there are plenty of more relevant groups.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message

DRS wrote:
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message


[...]

See:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

I have. It's a load of ****.

You're welcome to try to refute it. Many try... none successfully.

LOL! You're a riot! Biblical scholars don't believe your kind of
simple-minded loony understanding of the Bible, why should anyone else with
a brain? Your rubbish has been refuted so often it's a joke.

How did anyone as stupid as you get to be a
doctor?

I had help from God :-)

God's humble servant,

God: "It's *so* hard getting good help these days."

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message

Seth Breidbart wrote:

[...]

Or does a "cardiologist" have a really strange meaning for "lives"?

You are welcome to visit me for a confirmation on whether or not you
are alive or dead.

Anyone who thinks Christ is alive is clearly unqualified to make that
determination.

What about those who *know*?

You are not in a position to know. And you really, really need to learn the
difference between knowledge and belief.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:48:55 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:16:22 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

[...]


[...]


The "micro-world" is the epitome of tangibility, for we ourselves are
but a larger version of that which we describe as "micro", and a
minimal part of the huge infinity!

No, it isn't. The micro-world is not just a smaller version of the macro
world we live in. It's very different. That's one reason why Niels Bohr
said, "If you are not shocked by quantum theory, you don't understand it."

I am neither shocked by it or have the slightest inclination to
understand it.


[...]

BTW, do you lift weights at all?

Why do you ask?

Because I've yet to see you post something on the topic. This is, after
all, MFW. I don't want to get into interminable debates in this newsgroup
about these matters. If I did there are plenty of more relevant groups.

I am somewhat limited by exclusion, and motivated principally by
determination. I travel largely in the "misc" areas of
misc.fitness.weights, but if you do a "Google" over the past three
years you will see that I have my 'moments on topic', but always at a
level at which I am comfortable and competent.

There are enough 'blow-hards' here without me swelling their numbers!
s

I really respond to what is of interest in a NG that allows enormous
flexibility. I find your input stimulating and courteous, and in a
language I understand. There is no compulsion to respond to me if I am
boring you, and I shall not be in the least bit offended if you don't!
;o)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:31:24 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote:

snipOur thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!


What about someone who says He is the Truth.


Okay, I am the Truth.

So booyah.


"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

Read:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

John HUDSON wrote:
What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

Our brains are most well designed for hiding from lions and fooling
other monkeys into thinking they're not simply giving up their
food. As byproduct of adaptation to life in the woods we developed
limited ability to think abstractly and speculate about the laws of
physics. Why would there be anything more profound than that?

DZ

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward. That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

--
Wheel discovery department

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:58:26 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to
the big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy
it at Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter.
There are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that was
self-regulating.

I don't know what you're getting at there. My beef is with the idea that
if
you don't have an explanation for something it's OK to make up a deity
out
of thin air and carry on as if it were real.

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward.
That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:42:46 GMT, DZ wrote:

John HUDSON wrote:
What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

Our brains are most well designed for hiding from lions and fooling
other monkeys into thinking they're not simply giving up their
food. As byproduct of adaptation to life in the woods we developed
limited ability to think abstractly and speculate about the laws of
physics. Why would there be anything more profound than that?

Because it is in human nature to impress and to make ourselves appear
more clever than we really are. The denizens of MFW do it all the
time! ;o)


DZ

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward. That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

Wheel discovery department

Wheely?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:01:44 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:58:26 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to
the big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy
it at Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter.
There are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that was
self-regulating.

I don't know what you're getting at there. My beef is with the idea that
if
you don't have an explanation for something it's OK to make up a deity
out
of thin air and carry on as if it were real.

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward.
That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

H G Wells and others like him had us thrilled of all manner of things
that excited the imagination. They were futuristic ideas but not
beyond the bounds of possibility or expectation.

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:01:44 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:58:26 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"

wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their
lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to
the big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy
it at Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat
smarter.
There are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live
with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were
acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that
was
self-regulating.

I don't know what you're getting at there. My beef is with the idea
that
if
you don't have an explanation for something it's OK to make up a deity
out
of thin air and carry on as if it were real.

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward.
That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is
doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

H G Wells and others like him had us thrilled of all manner of things
that excited the imagination. They were futuristic ideas but not
beyond the bounds of possibility or expectation.


yes we need the visionarys - then the scientists work at making it happen