383 comments on ! "God Wants You Dead" -- A truly unusual book by Sean Hastings and Paul Rosenberg

1.Posted by Check123 on Apr 02 2008 at 01:37

What! Someone erased all the comments... Isn't this supposed to be a free speech place or something? Sharing is a form of freedom and moderators shouldn't be censors here. If not, this is just like corporations and governments trying so hard for people to not learn and exchange ideas. My opinion.

3.Posted by esthruth on Apr 02 2008 at 02:15

I would recomend that you do read it. I just read it cover to cover, and it is both funny and insightful. I am surprised I had not heard of it before. It is a book worthy of greater attention.

6.Posted by Check123 on Apr 02 2008 at 03:30

Hey, tansydog!

I was following the conversation and there were already 17 comments or so... So someone deleted them, or the entire torrent and this one is new. As a matter of fact, I bookmarked the torrent and suddenly it said "no such torrent, or torrent does not exist" or something like that. Maybe this one is a new upload, but that means the original torrent WAS deleted since I can no longer find it.

Thank you, and I really like Mininova, I found many good books here.
Check123

9.Posted by Check123 on Apr 02 2008 at 04:13

...

My mama told me Santa Claus is good too. He brings me presents every year.

11.Posted by bozie on Apr 02 2008 at 09:46

to the mod is there any chance letting people know there is chat rooms for idle talk thanks.

13.Posted by Swivelshanks on Apr 02 2008 at 13:05

Posted by nzsmostwanted on Apr 02 2008 at 12:20
"Read the Bible properly.God gave life to Adam & Eve,satan bought them death through sin,trangrssions.Diobeying God's commands.Because God gave Man(& woman dominion,or rule over the earth and all upon it.So satan was peeved,as he wanted it all.And wanted man to worship him as a God above God.Hence his booting out of Heaven...Bit like a moderator,huh? chuckle chuckle... "

He bought them death? How much did he pay? Who did he buy it from? Wal-Mart?

15.Posted by merwin80 on Apr 02 2008 at 15:25

The torrent is valid the book is real no password and is a legal book to download.

I did read it and then talked to god.

Do take ownership of your mind like the book says it is the first step in being able to speek to god. I guess the last step is to die.

One god, it does not write books or tell people to write books or read them but the more you know the less you know. The answer is simple and it can not be downloaded you must upload share the love not the words.
In the interm I would say keep the internt free do not worry

17.Posted by WebMacho on Apr 02 2008 at 18:14

Why are comments erased. Thats crazy

19.Posted by Kanharn on Apr 02 2008 at 19:21

People pray to god to keep them safe, Then they get hurt or Ill and prey to the same GOD to make them better. If they die its GODS grand plan, If they live they prey to GOD to say thanks lol,
Religion is rubbish that contradicts it self over and over.

GOD made the world in 7 days but science and real evidence shows that Dinosaurs where on earth before man, where's that in the Bible, Explane that
The only proof you ever get from bible fools is Mary's face in a crisp or a bishop on stage healing people by touch and a 50k Rolex watch.
In 2000yrs time they will probley prey to Gandalf the Grey lol

21.Posted by mad-john on Apr 02 2008 at 20:40

23.Posted by mad-john on Apr 02 2008 at 20:42

I mean you wouldn't be trusting a bunch of politically aggressive bishop's versions of the truth compiled 300 years after the supposed death of christ would you.
But as we are talking about one of the two different versions of the creation story that start off the bible I assume of course you studied ancient hebrew with its fundamentally different syntax and emphasis of verbs over the noun based languages of greek and latin to really understand the complex poetic underpinning of the stories?
I mean you wouldn't be making such important decisions as the the nature of God's and Satan's intent based on second third rate hearsay would you?
Leaving aside the whole story of Babel which undermines the possibility of men ever understanding each other instead being doomed to misunderstanding and confusion, another of God's little peeved punishments, you have at least put forth some effort to verify your sources,

25.Posted by abcxyz_12 on Apr 02 2008 at 21:16

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3808795780438908632&q=born+dead
comments on the book

Im eager to learn about christianity. Something i dont understand about the religion is, why would the son of god be put to death for our sins. suppose i kill some1, and in the end believe christ to be my saviour, wud i be saved? if i do believe in him, and he doesnt save me, then the prophecy isnt true. if he does save me, then that isnt justice.
help me out pls.

27.Posted by moka23 on Apr 02 2008 at 21:32

guys, if you are one of the people who think evolution is where we come from then check out the comments section of this torrent http://www.mininova.org/com/1285828

To me the subject of where we come from is very interesting, and this is why I would love to listen to points of views and theories that are different from my own. And if you think what I'm saying is far from the truth, then please show me how, through reason, but if all you have to disagree with is a statement that insults me, then you show any intelligent readers that you don't have a leg to stand on, and that you are brainwashed into believing what you believe, and intend on never changing your biased mind, no matter how hard the truth hits you in the face.

29.Posted by igougo on Apr 02 2008 at 21:50

lol jehad me plz

31.Posted by moka23 on Apr 02 2008 at 23:29

Posted by theif on Apr 02 2008 at 21:48
"All you guys who believe and have faith in creationism flatter yourselves"

evolution does not and can not be the answer to the "where do we come from" question, it is by definition the process by which something changes,so how could you say that it is the source of creation ?

evolution does not negate creationism, and people who compare the two concepts are comparing apples and oranges.

33.Posted by moka23 on Apr 02 2008 at 23:43

Some scientist believe that the big bang is responsible for the first elements to come into existence, if so then the real question would be how did the big bang occur was it random and meaningless, was it just some explosion at random that luckily created a universe which sustains life then created men and women with minds and hearts filled with morals and conflict, was it for no reason or was there some hidden will controling it.

SO INSTEAD OF REPEATING THIS MINDLESS EVOLUTIONISM VS CREATIONISM DEBATE, YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT RANDOM VS PLANNED.

35.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 00:54

neostar, thank you, that is what I've been trying to say, that there is an unseen or unknown force that came before evolution, and that force had the key to break the law of matter creation.

So to stop at Darwin's theory and feel that you have satisfied the innate questions about our origins, means there is something wrong cuz that makes no sense.

37.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 05:24

"It is an undeniable fact, that for matter to exist, there had to be a force that broke the golden law that we live by and that actually governs all our science, ..blah blah blah.... So how are those parts there to begin with?, those parts that evolve had to come from somewhere."

wow yir understanding of scientific theory is very astute .. if it still was the 1940s and you were brain damaged... ever hear of Hawking radiation?.. quantum field theory? loop gravity? Your explanation of the principal of conservation of energy is depressingly garbled .. making new elements has been a regular past time of physicists at particle excellerators for the last 50 years.
If we're going to talk prime movers a middle school education is a good start, .. maybe you should enroll in one.
.. and the golden rule is silence ... a good thing for the willingly ignorant to practice.

39.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 05:58

",..evolution does not and can not be the answer to the "where do we come from" question"
Well actually it does.
As in; How did we as the human species get here? we evolved,
why? cause out ancestors didn't die before they had kids,
What's the purpose of life? to preserve/pass on as much genetic data as possible,
It doesn't answer those questions the way we might want, .. so?
We can at least use the principals derived from it to make real and useful predictions about the world so we can fight infections, breed crops, scan for birth defects. make our pets small hairless and pretty.
What your looking for is a purpose a meaning you can sympathize with, ... why should you get it?

41.Posted by bloodeye on Apr 03 2008 at 09:09

mad-john

agree 100%

43.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 11:50

You say new elements are being made, LOL I donlt think you can even find one who has made that claim, all we have is interaction between existing elements.

I'm trying to use reason to share my view, you are using insults and trying to mix people up with a few simple scientific terms that you thought were too complex to be understood, so you used them to back up your argument, you should look at your approach carefully and see that this weakness will ultimately make you a loser even if you feel you got a win.

45.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 12:05

mad-john: I'll show you how you had no point and made no sense, you tried to say that my point was invalid by scientifically discrediting a universal law that is applied to all sciences and all life as we know it without showing any scientific thought or any logic, then you made a point that complimented my point, when you kept trying to go back to the source before the big bang, that there is what I've been tryin to say, that evolution accounts for nothing but a process, it can't be the origin.

47.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 12:17

mad-john: you said "Belief based on ignorance (lets call it faith) is dangerous reckless and morally irresponsible. If you don't know don't just make it up,.. thats called lying .. and I think its a sin."

it is so ironic you are saying this when perhaps the greates tool for science is hypothesis: hy•poth•e•sis (hð poth‚ƒ sis, hi-) n., pl. -ses (-sŽz) 1. a provisional theory set forth to explain some class of phenomena, either accepted as a guide to future investigation (working hypothesis)or assumed for the sake of argument and testing.

assumed for the sake of argument and testing, now it is also a fact that this skill of being able to hypothesis is perhaps the greates tool humans have, to use the known and try to reach for the unknown, so for you to say we shouldn't try to do that is against all science and forward thinking, the only difference is that some use their faith to attack others or influence them in a way that is selfish, and this is of course immoral

49.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 14:02

If any reader wants to see an example of how some people are biased and want to believe that evolution is where they come from no matter how many reasonable opinions and facts you throw at them, then check out the previous posts, especially the ones where mad-john mentioned " "Hawking radiation,quantum field theory, loop gravity" , look up these terms yourself and you will see how they have absolutely and positively nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Now this is a perfect example of someone who is stuck on a certain notion because it makes them feel better, it fills the void of insecurity and questions in their minds, and when they find out that this filler they are using is inaccurate or irrelevant, instead of looking further for more answers they get stuck in a loop of bashing opinions that are different form theirs, and presenting false or irrelevant data in hopes of staying in the right.

51.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 19:11

"Wow mad-john you have said absolutely nothing, except some insults and some points that complement what I had to say, forget me, talk about the subject at hand.

YOu call me ignorant, when you have cited things like "Hawking radiation,quantum field theory, loop gravity) all these have no bearing what so ever on the point I made, you think scientific terms like those are hard to look up and see that they are absolutely irrelevant?"

err.. well they're all scientific theories that result in something, namely matter, being created out of nothing,... which was what you were trying to say " broke the golden law that we live by and that actually governs all our science" ... Apparently they were too hard for you to be able to look them up.

53.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 19:29

You might be getting elements mixed assumed up with particles and while we know particles change from one type to another and we can cause this to happen we haven't yet made what you could call a new one... Now if you want to talk about what particles are made of, i.e. quarks ... well we'll leave that one alone for now.

55.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 19:34

"I totally agree, I never said I had any evidence or called that unkonwn god, but it seem you just wanna lash out.

I only said the real question would be will vs no will, or plan vs random,
even someone like you who wants to blindly believe evolution (which is a process)is his maker can not disagree there. (by disagree, I mean with logic not the weak approach you used)"

by assuming a plan you imply intent and the existence of a planner,.. this is a perfectly logical assumption when your hit in the back of your head by a snow ball, .. it is extremely shaky to extend that assumption out to the existence of the universe.

57.Posted by mad-john on Apr 03 2008 at 19:36

"I'll show you how you had no point and made no sense, you tried to say that my point was invalid by scientifically discrediting a universal law that is applied to all sciences and all life as we know it without showing any scientific thought or any logic, then you made a point that complimented my point, when you kept trying to go back to the source before the big bang, that there is what I've been tryin to say, that evolution accounts for nothing but a process, it can't be the origin."

Your beginning to drool,..

59.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 19:43

not drool, actually if you could see my face, you would see I'm smiling because your trying to make sense and exchange thoughts instead of lashing out

now let me counter..

61.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 19:45

oops, when I said it was gettinng interesting, I didn't read post 65 where you reverted back to your defense mechanism

63.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 19:50

in post 67 I meant 64 ofcourse, hehe

65.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 19:58

btw its soooo easy for me to lash out at you, or even eloquently make fun of you and call you stuuf, but it's actually quite hard for me to resist, so understand that this is aboutsharing ideas, maybe I''l change my opinons if you convince me, but if you lose the tone, it will help the discussion and it will mean that you might be more confident and more mature.

Now plz tell me when you're done posting so I can tell you what i think.

67.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 20:08

I'm gonna take it one post at a time.

post 57, you said "Apparently they were too hard for you to be able to look them up" so here are some links: about hawkin radiation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

I'm pretty sure that now matter where you look it'll pretty much say stuff along those lines, and no where will you find that something was created from nothing, just like the simple hydrogen and oxygen equals water example i gave you before.

69.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 20:26

about post 58
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_table

"An extended periodic table was suggested by Glenn T. Seaborg in 1969. It is a logical extension of the principles behind the standard periodic table to include possible undiscovered chemical elements. All of the discovered elements are named by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) systematic element name standard of creating a generic name until it has been discovered, confirmed, and an official name approved."

The key word here is discoverd, it is always a reaction (kinda like 1+1=2) or a discovery (something that was hidden,then discovered)

71.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 20:37

in post 59

you said we can't yet make new ones, and this is what I've been sayin (kinda)

just like some say humans won't succeed in cloning, it is ab abomination, only god creates.

But I see that it is a fact that cloning uses existing dna so to call it creation instead of manipulation and production would be wrong.

oh, and no one mentioned quarks, dunno why you brought it up

73.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 20:53

post 63 and 64 no argument or reason jus a defense mechanism

post 66, again very interesting and relevant, you said
"Yes your absolutely right hypothesis is identical to faith why didn't I see it before,.. the only difference is that an hypothesis is based on observable evidence and aims towards putting forward a disprovable prediction that can be then tested.
verification,... its such a lovely word."

People who have faith (at least the ones I mean) believe there will be verification, they believe that the whole point is the test, and the fact that they can't verify automatically fills them with doubts, so then their faith (not tangible knowledge) is tested, they have that faith because when they follow reason and look around and contemplate they feel there can be no other way, that it somehow fits, our existence, the limited time we have, the existence of morality and conflict within our hearts and minds,

75.Posted by moka23 on Apr 03 2008 at 21:01

mad-john: if you're still reading I would love to hear what you think, about all of my post and all the points raised by me and you.

77.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 04:18

OK he goes on to to talk about the computational justification for this ( or perhaps lack there of ) and tries to explain it in mathematics he understands, clearly stating he is unsure as this is not his area of expertise, his explanation boils down to basically that under certain conditions the lowest energy state of space time can be seen to fluctuate .. oh .. with pair of particles and antiparticle being formed out of vacuum.
That would be stuff .. matter .. out of ... empty space .. i.e. nothing ... you got it now?

79.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 04:30

I'm not going to get in it with you with loop gravity of quantum field theory as that seems obvisiously pointless. enough to say both express conditions where by matter( and energy) is created out of nothingness. .. which was my point.

You were saying that elements could not be created or changed which is wrong,.. I even tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that you were confusing particles with elements.
even though thats still wrong.
So lets go slow.
nuclear fission is the splitting of an atom( i.e. element) into smaller atom i.e. different element ) and spare particles and energy, hence.. boom
Nuclear fusion is the merging of two atoms (elements) into a larger one(different element) with various spare particles and energy left over. hence bigger boom.
E=mc2 in other words matter can become energy /energy can become matter.

81.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 05:01

Your understanding of basic physic is very poor yet it was you who so c+ckily brought it up to justify your point of view claiming "undeniable facts," "golden rules" and "the law of matter creation" that you didn't understand and apparently haven't even spent the effort to investigate, but as long as you could claim them in your camp that was fine you could use your incomplete understanding to try to insult the education of other people "... anyone with more than a middle school education" and LOL but then when actual theories a brought out you can quickly "see that they are absolutely irrelevant" even though it plainly obvious you have no idea what they are

83.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 05:08

I like the lazy God computer nerd theory why do we all assume God is competent .. look out your window does this look like the guy knew what he was up to?
Still I think its a overuse of a metaphors like the old saw to a man with a hammer every problem is a nail is the to a man using Java(c++, basic whatever) every problem is made of code?

85.Posted by telsarox on Apr 04 2008 at 17:27

Even the "no creator" option can be divided up into many possibilities.

There certainly exists a perceivable "fine tuning" of the mathematical constants that fall out of the physical laws that we are able to perceive. Very small changes in their values would not allow for our existence. Since there is no special reason to believe that those constants should not be different, it may seem improbable to find physical laws so well suited for the existence of life, but this still need not be the result of deliberate engineering. There are a few other ideas that can explain this:

87.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 18:57

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Mad-john: I can't believe your sticking to this stubborn argument that has no leg to stand on whatsoever. When I post an article that is also in the link it is for the obvious reason that I can't highlight a certain part on a website before posting the link, and I believe you are not dumb enough not to notice something like that, but you are as always grabbing the first chance for a low blow, just a lil piece of advice: people can see through that, so ur only fooling yourself.

I can't believe you went back and argued some more, I thought for sure you would read up and wise up, but it is clear to me now that your beliefs are for reasons in your heart not in your mind, so you would keep twisting any reasonable facts thrown your way to see what you want the end result to be instead of what it clearly and obviously is.

89.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 18:58

Now for the sake of any other readers, I will once again explain how Mad-john has been wrong.

guys don't take my word for it, please read up, you will see that what this guy (mad-john) has been doing and what many people with his mentality are doing, is confusing the word create with the word produce, of course there are many meanings and many different situations where a word can be used, but here what I mean by create is to create something out of nothing, no force applied, no materials or elements or whatever you wanna call it, nothing to react or interact, so like unlike in the cloning example where dna or existing matter is put under certain conditions to "produce" a new form, which is like an assembly no matter how much more complex and fascinating it is. Think about it for yourself.

91.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 18:58

obviously mad-john will keep on circling back and saying that this has been done, I see now that because of what is in his heart he has set his mind to manipulate any information given to him so as to believe that this is nothing new, but I do not believe any unbiased rational person would even try to argue with that, it doesn't take any effort to realize this, unless your decided and dedicated to believing things like what mad-john believes, from this painful dialogue I had with him, it is very clear, with no assumptions made on my part, that it almost pains him to believe that there is an unknown that is responsible for all existence.

93.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 18:59

This planet, a burning hot core, surrounded by earth, and oceans of water, kept intact by gravity and atmosphere, continuously spinning, all so precise and so balanced so that we can have the chance to sit here typing words and exchanging thoughts, he wants to believe that this is all random, that it is luck or chance, the only way i see for any human to believe that is if his ego is bent on feeling superior, if he does not want to yield to greater forces than himself, the only thing to him that could be greater than himself is mindless space and chance factors that are only greater than him in size and not intellect, because after all that is just not a being or entity, it can't be, because man is supreme to him.

95.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 19:00

ask any doctor how much they know about the human body or better yet the brain, they will tell you that we are making more and more advances but we barely scratched the surface, and the actual power they have over it is much much less, because the human physiology is so intricate that even the things that we do learn to understand, we can in no way absolutely control, go ask an E.R doctor about all this nine out of ten times they will say that it is a losing battle, we do what we can but we are only tools, effective tools at best, we can't really change much in the grand scheme of things, in my experience the only people who believe science is absolute and that it holds all the answers are shallow, uneducated people who do not know any better, or materialists whose egos won't admit that there is a spiritual or hidden side to life a side that physics and biology can't touch.

97.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 19:00

Even if the world wasn't so complex and grand, even if billions of people didn't daily witness thousands of reasons to be thankful they exist, and even if existence was not wondrous, If the world outside a materialist's (like mad-john) window was more than flawed, even if it was terrible, there would be no reason for that to be a testament to the creator's extent of power or wisdom, if a man built an object and made it to low standards, does this automatically mean he lacks the ability to build a better one? So I don't understand why some one would not see this simple logic, that maybe the world was created flawed to see how we will deal with it, to see if we will take the easy way out and cynically curse or make fun of our existence, or will we try to follow reason and try to deal with all the good and bad things around us in the best way we can.

99.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 19:01

Of course there are some people who would never admit to all this because they are stubborn, or for many other selfish or egotistical reasons, but if they gave thing some rational thought, they would see that this ego although seems to make them bigger in their eyes, in actuality it makes them weaker and smaller and more importantly it ultimately makes them lose out because of their cynical heart, so if you are too stubborn to admit it to others than don't but at least think, to yourself, and stop this stubborn mentality it only hurts you.

101.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 20:02

You then quoted a random article to say you had disproved my examples .. one its seemed likely you hadn't read cause right there in the article it stated the idea of virtual particle pairs being constantly created and destroy out of void, vacuum, nothingness.
You then continued to argue but conveniently skipping over any of the facts,... just telling people to believe you cause is sooo obvious that you possess some I guess divinely inspired knowledge you don't need to justify it.
Matter can be created, out of energy in general relativity and out of random chance in quantum physics. Elements can be changed and can be made. You do not know of what you speak.

103.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 20:26

telsarox thanks for sticking your head in here I was going to bring up the Anthropic Principle (weak version not strong) but then you did.
Just to point out the multiple black hole evolved universe theory That is most commonly used doesn't suggest that universes would evolve towards being optimally tuned for the quickest rise of intelligent life capable of creating technology that creates more black holes. There seems to be lots on black wholes in our universe and even if we eventually made billions, or every sun in out galaxy, it would barely make a statistical dent in the observed universe. .. well maybe a little dent, but with the way things are going its looking extremely unlikely we'll get the chance.

105.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 20:42

whysean I understood the provoking nature of the idea, and I applaud it. I am worried as lately some have taken the universe as computer program matrix theme all too seriously some stating that indeed this is a fact. I just wonder what this buys us, if useable unique predictions come out it it then ok I stand corrected but as we have no access to the code does this change anything? If the assumption that the existence of this program implies a programer or an intent then it falls into the same whole of a lot of religions. By supposing the answer to the why/how the universe exist question to an outside the universe answer be it God or programing you beg the question of why/how God/programing exists. You merely extend the chain, or refer it back on itself, why the universe cause its programed why the program cause it makes the universe.
Remember back in the 1800 we lived in a clockwork universe, now we live in a digital one, is it the universe or us that have changed.

107.Posted by telsarox on Apr 04 2008 at 21:18

A universe in which there were many many black holes independent of intelligent life and could also give rise to intelligent life capable of creating more is exactly what we would expect from a system that evolutionarily tuned the laws of physics towards multiple black hole production. Even if the rise of intelligent life only provided "A little statistical dent" that is all that is ever needed for an evolutionary advantage. Other things that would be optimized for would be maximum amount of matter (to create more black holes with) and length of existence of the universe before it ripped or crunched (providing more time for more black hole creation).

Of course all of this is idle speculation, but it is fun idle speculation.

109.Posted by moka23 on Apr 04 2008 at 21:41

just a small note to people who are just now joining this discussion, read up from the beginning and check out the many many contradictions made by poster mad-john, he think this is an easy out for him, that he can just quote people out of context and readers would think that he is right, I wish everyone would read all of the posts and offer opinion on our debate (me and mad-john), I'm not looking to be validated show me that I was wrong and I will admit it (all this doesn't even have to do with ego for me) but what I'm lookin for is for readers not to be mislead by this guy's pattern of lying and manipulating information.

for example his post 107 and my post 95, any of you guys that have read through all the posts from top to bottom, isn't post 95 what I've been saying all along? yet some people just don't know when to give up.

111.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 22:12

An evolutionary advantage only serves if something is then preying on those universes or there is a competition between other universes over resource, neither seems likely. If Intelligently created black holes pass on the same characteristics as naturally occurring black hole then life may evolve there as well , ... or it may not. I don't think your suggesting that only blackholes created by black hole creating intelligence make universes that necessarily tend to evolve intelligence. As long as the physical constants it inherits allow more blackholes to form there is nothing to say life or intelligence will. Anyway as there are many more naturally occurring blackholes than intelligent created ones and if there are limited resources then naturally occurring ones will win out.

113.Posted by mad-john on Apr 04 2008 at 22:17

oh .. and Moka .. yir nuts.

115.Posted by mad-john on Apr 05 2008 at 04:38

But there are billions of Galaxies. no wait, thats way to small.
Hubbell space telescope estimates 100 billion, while computer simulations estimates 500 billion Galaxies in the observable universe, and then there are all the dwarf galaxies, global clusters, an other intergalactic objects that are thought to be associated with black-hole not to mention rogue black holes not tied to visible stellar masses and those that might be existing in the vast majority of space that exist between those galaxies.

117.Posted by mad-john on Apr 05 2008 at 04:39

Then there is the fact that all the stars/galaxies the matter we can see (baryons the stuff that interacts with light) is only half of what we think should be there by most simulations. Some think the rest is in black holes. All that is only 4% of the total stuff on the universe. 4% baryon, visible matter (1/2 of which is missing) 22% dark matter, not visible but gravitational and likely making up the majority of black holes in the universe, 73 % dark energy, why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, maybe antigravity and perhaps not involved with black holes but who knows.

119.Posted by mad-john on Apr 05 2008 at 04:49

Then there's the the possibility that the type of black holes that any such intelligence might make are likely of much smaller mass than the multi stellar masses of naturally accruing black holes of the type were talking and may not be capable of producing new universes, if indeed any do, and if such small black holes are capable of reproducing well then Hawkings himself talks of trillions and trillion micro and subatomic black holes created immediately after the big bang and popping out of existence so in another nod to start trek like tribles universes are born pregnant and the universe we see now is its post menopausal senile dotering retirement.

121.Posted by adamk99 on Apr 05 2008 at 06:10

yeah right lmfao mad john you are cutting and pasting. youre obviously a poser.

123.Posted by telsarox on Apr 05 2008 at 15:48

The number of galaxies in the universe has no bearing on my estimate of "each galaxy only produces one intelligent species", and I think the likelihood of a lot of black holes between galaxies is small (at least not by any orders of magnitude that would really effect the argument). Also, there may be reason to believe that a 2nd or even 3rd generation star in a quiet neighborhood (few supernovas or GRBs) is a requirement to produce our type of life, so intelligent life may become more common as the universe continues to age.

But I agree with everything else you said, and certainly agree that there is certainly no particularly strong reason to think that our sort of life is important to the process. (Assuming the process we are discussing even happens at all :-)

125.Posted by mad-john on Apr 05 2008 at 19:14

Lately more and more I've become convinced that evolved life let alone intelligence may be much more of a fluke than me have been inclined to believe. While life it self seems likely common with the abundance of organic molecules in space and the recent supposition that the vast majority of earths bio-mass may not be on land or sea but rather bacteria inside rock of our sparsely populated but very deep mantel. Add this to evidence that life may indeed be able to survive inside asteroids if indeed it didn't first arrive here in them and I think its very likely for life to exist fairly regularly elsewhere .

127.Posted by mad-john on Apr 05 2008 at 19:41

Then there's the nature of our solar system itself with the large, yet relatively small, Jupiter mass planets located outward outside of the habitat zone and at the same time sheltering the inner smaller planets from a large degree of matter falling inward from the outer system and the Kuiper belt and Ort cloud. Even the location of out Earth pretty much dead in the middle of the habital zone with an exceptionally large moon in a stable orbit and an unexplained very large magnetic field. Even the destruction of a possible fifth planet pass mars has been suggested as a benefit. I admit that our sampling of other solar systems has been very small and slanted to those with significantly large member but it doesn't seem that this is a common arrangement.

129.Posted by telsarox on Apr 05 2008 at 19:59

Our intelligence is almost certainly a rare event, even given all the other coincidences you mention.

Consider that the eukaryotic cells that allow multicellular life to work apparently represent a rare enough evolutionary leap to require a couple billion years to evolve after the first simple one-cell creatures.

Then our sort of intelligence must also be another rare evolutionary leap given that it required another several hundred million years after the first animals with very similar central nervous systems.

But all of these coincidences and rare evolutionary are really good news for us. It makes it all the more likely that the reason SETI hasn't found anyone else yet is because we are very rare, and not because species like us don't last very long.

131.Posted by mad-john on Apr 06 2008 at 02:45

I think it has more to do with the lack of a fifth planet in the area the asteroid belt now is. I can't seem to find the reference,( I think it was new scientist sometime this last year maybe another mag.) but the way I remember this, and I likely have it wrong, is that in recent computer simulations the lack of a fifth planet past Mars acts as a buffer from the gravity of Jupiter. and if the fifth planet is included, which most simulations of solar system formation think it should, Jupiter starts to pull at the inner planets, in kind of a gravity chain I guess, making their orbits unstable.

133.Posted by mad-john on Apr 06 2008 at 03:00

Now I don't know how that relates to the whole rogue planet idea which I understand to be that mercury and venus both show signs of rather recent major collisions, as well as earth itself,.. something mayor enough happened to split the moon off. Some feel that whatever destroyed the 5th planet, if wasn't just tidal forces from Jupiter, is also bounced off - or at least came close enough to pull off a moon sized chunk of earth., maybe was itself a chunk left of the fifth planet. Venus looks like its been recently been resurfaced from a major collision and mercury resembles the left over core of a larger planet also have signs of mayor clash,.. its orbit is also quite unusual compared to the other near sun planets and maybe what's left of a rogue planet itself, maybe the one that hit venus.

135.Posted by mad-john on Apr 06 2008 at 03:26

About the rare evolutionary leap thing. I can't remember if the eukaryotic jump was preceded by a mass extinction or caused one, indeed if we can even tell. I know the others major extinction events, KT Cambrian ecetra, were logically followed by a major evolutionary jump as the reduced number of left over phylums tried to fill the empty spaces. It also seems certain that our own mass extinction is likely the only caused by a single species. I just can't get my head arround us being that big of a jump.

137.Posted by mad-john on Apr 06 2008 at 03:46

I mean, yes we bring them all together in one package but none of the individual traits seem that unlikely. I also can't see mammals themselves as a requirement, crow and octopi are both pretty damn clever. It more seems to me that perhaps intelligence has not been generally a trait evolution has found successful to selected for. There as old saying in that if a bee was any smarter than a bee is it would be a less effective bee. For most things being able to ruminate about what your doing just slows you down.

139.Posted by mad-john on Apr 06 2008 at 04:09

I know that wasn't your point ... and the idea of similar nervous systems taking time evolving is a good one. Dinosaurs generally had small brains, even if they did have an extra in their butts. - I don't know if that holds true for the smaller tree climbing and raptor types- not a big dino guy. I do wonder about octopi and crow both very different lineage than us and both very good problem solving tool users. I remember a story about and octopi that would wait till night pick the lock on its tank crawl out of it across the floor to the other side of the room climb up a table open another tank eat a lobster from that tank and then slither back home before any one showed up. They only caught it on closed circuit that was installed when they thought the cleaning staff was stealing lobsters. Also cuttlefish, fastest visual processing units in the world, and likely possessing and incredibly complicate semaphore base language.

141.Posted by telsarox on Apr 06 2008 at 04:43

Our major evolutionary leap is almost certainly the evolution of structured language. I don't think any other terrestrial animal has, or ever has had, the kind of built in linguistic capabilities that we have. (Read Steve Pinker's "The Language Instinct" for a good argument that grammar is genetically encoded even though vocabulary clearly is not.)

I finished "God Wants You Dead," and it was a fun read even where I disagreed with it (in quite a few places) but I think it is correct with this quote:

143.Posted by telsarox on Apr 06 2008 at 04:45

Oh, and you don't have to be emo to listen to Skinny Puppy - Those Annoying Post Brothers liked them, and they were about as far from emo as you can get. :-)

145.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 02:27

Now I'm not saying the the advent of formal language isn't a major developmental evolutionary step just that Pinker's and Chonsky's assertion that the rules for language are somehow biologically hardwired into our brains hasn't stood up very well to recent research. They're arguments haven't been helped by the tendency of each to dramatically overstate their case, Chomsky having recently to admit many of his early assertion where simply wrong, and Pinker latest claim that innate primal concepts like animate, animal, safe, edible are hardwired. In-fact almost all the actual studies lately have been pointing to wards language and grammar being an entirely learned process. (if you want I can give some examples)

147.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 02:54

While perhaps emotive emphatic intonations and grunts can biologically derived considering these are the same grunts I use to communicate my intentions to a dog or indeed other wild animals I don't think will can claim ownership. As far as other animals I'm not Dr dolittleling that dogs have long talks with other dogs about their days but it does become a bit vague where you draw the line. Leaving aside the special cases of gorillas who sign, or poetically verbose whales and dolphins- the drunken Irish of the animal kingdom, we now know that monkeys in the wild possess a wide range of vocabulary and perhaps simple syntax. The call of "danger, tiger" producing profoundly different response in a troop than one of "danger,snake" or "danger, eagle". Also the more extreme cases of the elaborate semaphore of cuttlefish and dancing bees.

149.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 03:02

Thanks for once again letting avoid actual productivity.

151.Posted by telsarox on Apr 07 2008 at 04:43

As for needing a group to create a fully realized language, that would not remove the idea that the parts of speech are genetically encoded, any more than a lack of certain coordinated physical movements until one has the need to learn them would indicate that the ability to perform those movements was not genetically encoded. For example, if you transplanted a race of dessert nomads to a tropical forest, they and especially their children would have no problem learning to climb trees with great agility, in large part because their bodies still posses old evolutionary knowledge of climbing trees. They would not have learned those things in the dessert, but their bodies had a genetic capability.

A group of dogs will never learn structured language, no matter how large a group it is - and dogs are actually a very special case in terms of understanding fairly complex communication, having been selected by us for the ability.

153.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 05:18

My understanding is that Pinker's is based largely on Bickerson study of Hawaii Creole which lately has come under a lot of criticism. Basically critics say Bickerson got it wrong and that the grammar of creole derives from the parent languages tho its not Identical to them. That's one of the reason sign languages have gotten so much attention as in theory the user have no or very little contact with any prior languages.

155.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 05:34

Most of the arguments I have heard for innate seem to be base of the rapid learning of language in infancy despite what Chomsky I think referred to as improvised environments. Now I understand how it is to see it as unusual something that can't always remember to remove the pants before it pees can learn a language so fast when fully grown adults struggle but I think that servilely underestimates the power of a new born brain. Lately theories of neronets potentials in computing and studies of 7 month year old babies have seemed to suggest that the learning capacity, in this case detecting unique sounds in a tape or nonsense noise referred to as statistical reduction, of small babies are incredibly high.

157.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 05:50

Note I'm not saying that there arn't people who lose their ability to speak from brain damage.

159.Posted by mad-john on Apr 07 2008 at 06:15

I think you have to separate what we are capable of by result of our genetics and what our genetics actually code for. Genetics have given us the ability to make weapons but do they contain the code for the design of a spear?
As far as Dogs wolves and crows have been similarly trained as have seals otters and whales, in some cases more successfully, and lots of other animals not the result of generations of selective breeding. An never say never, give them a good enough reason and they may. I much more inclined to believe that language such as fire, the wheel, mathematics, music, and religion are things that arose or set roots in the fertile ground of our already evolved intelligence rather than things that resulted directly from a random genetic mutation itself. .. Until some one actually shows me the language gene itself.

161.Posted by telsarox on Apr 07 2008 at 16:26

Tree climbing still has to be learned within the proper environment, but their is genetic knowledge (instinct) already present.

The design for a spear is a separate issue - it can be learned from another human being (memetic inheritance) or rediscovered (memetic evolution) but it is probably not encoded in our genes. Certainly more complex devices are not.

Language is almost certainly partly encoded in our genes and partly learned.

A collection of human babies who each had their larynx removed and were never spoken too by any adult would almost certainly deve