Stab yourself in the arm to prove evolution.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

my son will not be born with shaolin iron skin all over jis body,

it will not be genetic throught he gene pool of my future children, they will start off fresh with baby skin and have to perform the iron methods to reach the level i am on,

i have evolved to further levels of strength and toughness all over my entire body, i have dedicated much time and effort years and years into training my body and mind through martial arts, but my children will not get these advantages just from bieng my child, they will have to earn it like i did through training methods day after day,


the only benefit my children would get is maybe bieng healthy children, due to my strong sperm count and high fitness level.



peace.

 

[wesmorris]

Hey water, just for kicks i thought i'd try one:

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

(thus, no expectation and no means of disspointing criteria. this of course raises the question, can an object that hasn't been observed be imperfect?)

Just poking around. Don't think it's a particularly useful notion, but seems to be the logical conclusion.

 

[water]

Wes,


If we haven't observed an object, how then do we know it is there (other than by speculation and deduction)?



And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.
(It's a bit like the Schrödinger's Cat problem.)

 

[wesmorris]

Wes,


If we haven't observed an object, how then do we know it is there (other than by speculation and deduction)?

As always, we can only place such concepts into models with which we can attempt to describe something useful to our personal profit function (seeking and gaining more/less of what we value). It what would seem to me to be a wholistic perspective, we can speak of the compliment of what isn't being observed. It would indeed have to be deduced to be. When I change my location, stuff that was where I was is no longer being observed by me (by observation I mean sensory stimulation I suppose). I'd say though, that it would seem to me that there is strong enough evidence to take it as probable that there are things I have not observed.

And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.

Hehe, wrong by what standard?

I would deduce from the "laws of physics" or even if the "theory of everything" were "known", that intenstines can only function according to first principles and as such, must alway function perfectly. The value you place on it is personal, as in "I need these to continue my life" or "they need these ...". While most humans would agree that a medical diagnosis of malfunctioning instestines isn't good, that's life-specific.

Bah, this is just your observation of perspective in action.

However while there is no observation, there is no problem, literally in the sense of "problem" as in, there's nothing known to be wrong. IMO, it can't be a "problem" until observation renders it so. Until then, it's just pure function, even if it's killing you silently.

(It's a bit like the Schrödinger's Cat problem.)

Yeah I have a tendency of pushing things that direction. Seems perfect to me.

 

[water]

Bah, this is just your observation of perspective in action.

So?
What is the implication to "this is just your observation of perspective in action"?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You do make me laugh, it's not anger if I'm laughing.

Glad to hear it Godless, it's hard to read the feeling behind the text sometimes. Perhaps we should use colured text red=anger blue=sad yellow=scared etc?

Religion are silly superstisions, there's no such thing as a good one. They all have one purpose in mind. To rule.

Unfortunately, many unintelligent, dogmatic, scripture bashing, superstitous religions are around, and they tend to shout the loudest, which gives theism a bad name...

However, if (as I do) you identify "God" as equivalent to the unexplored deepest layers of our unconscious mind (e.g. the "Self" of Jungian psychology), then it is no longer believing in Santa Claus, but seems like a sensible thing to take seriously.

God is not someone else - he/she is the root of ourselves! OK, theology lecture over.

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

I'm not sure it would apply to your guts wesmorris , but do you mean "Platonic forms"? e.g. a perfect triangle?

 

[Sarkus]

And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.

There is the simple matter of observation, though.
If your guts are not working properly you will observe the effects of this elsewhere (stomach pain, vomiting etc).
You can therefore observe by deduction.

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

(thus, no expectation and no means of disspointing criteria. this of course raises the question, can an object that hasn't been observed be imperfect?)

Just poking around. Don't think it's a particularly useful notion, but seems to be the logical conclusion.

Taken to its logical conclusion when taken in the absolute, something that is not observed, or projected to be observed, is logically consistent with something that does not exist.

The question then is: can something that is observed be perfect - and does observation destroy any perfection that it might have had prior to observation?

 

[wesmorris]

Taken to its logical conclusion when taken in the absolute, something that is not observed, or projected to be observed, is logically consistent with something that does not exist.

But it is also consistent with something that does exist but is not being observed. We can think of an entire class of "things that exist but are not being observed" without projecting any details of what might make up that set. We can also separate within the set of "things that are not being observed". We can say "things that don't exist and aren't observed" and "things that do exist and aren't observed". The latter is was the object of my point.

Mind you however, I'm just dicking around trying to meet a half-hearted challenge set by water and have obviously wandered far from the topic.

The question then is: can something that is observed be perfect - and does observation destroy any perfection that it might have had prior to observation?

I think observation necessarily renders an item into the classification water specified, wherein the parameters to meet "perfection" are necessarily subjective.

I was trying for an "objective" definition as she asked, which is as I noted earlier, somewhat useless in a practical sense... but still sort of interesting to me.