thats fair.

why wrong? I didn't say anything offensive pertaining to DNA. We can argue about naive.

Do you agree to disagree or do you not to agree to disagree? At the begininng and end you explicitly stated to opposite things.

What about my understanding of DNA is Naive. I stated earlier that DNA isn't the only factor in decision making. I don't even actually like the notion of DNA effecting our choices nor do i like the concept of predestination or fate. These are simply conclusions i came to partly based on my understanding of scientific determinism ("a brief history of time" by stephen hawkings)

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above.

what? Look up a few posts. I posted 8 effing articles. This is a very common concept in scientific journals and pop science magazines. you are a silly goose

thats fair. Since were on a forum where we all pretend to try to educate each other: do you have an article or am i going to have search for it my self. My current take on predestination is that its valid, so self organizing systems isn't a stretch.

nice.

*"is every human decision based on dna?"

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make? — Brett

i find it strange the way you phrased that. You could have phrased that "does every human decision based on DNA". The answer is no. The funny thing is that you could argue a stars gravitiational pull from 2 billion miles away effects our decisions. I'm not a big fan of predestination but it is hard to entirely dismiss and at this point in time i believe in it and i think that will be the case for the foreseable future.

Heres the articles for your enjoyment:

https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(10)00075-9

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-dna-determine-the-diet-for-you

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/19/do-your-genes-determine-your-entire-life

http://genesinlife.org/genes-your-health/how-do-genes-impact-health-and-disease

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/02/twins-identical-genes-different-health-study

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/archives/ourgenes/could_we.html

https://www.qualityhealth.com/depression-articles/how-genetics-affects-your-decision-making

https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07/23/genetics-influence-drinking-decisions/15945.html

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make? — Brett

no. life is extremely complex but to say dna doesn't effect our decisions is unscientific and probably irrational

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

I assume you mean women doing dishes? In my house the men do the dishes. Assumptions are fun and funny. On a different note dna is responsible for many of the world's good and bad decisions (atleast partly)

i disagree. Unless you want to elaborate on that, i don't believe you thought this through.

Once again you are being vague. Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA?

well if you choose not to elaborate, i'll also refrain from elaborating my position too much. DNA is a real thing you know and in fact it does influence the decisions people make. You want to have a chat?

I've had a similar experience. You don't have to commit suicide to get killed. Find a country that you disagree with their view points and go there an make the wrong people angry. If this seems too negative then volunteer your time to this or that or some cause. Your right, your mother would be very upset if you commited suicide. i wouldn't wish suicide on hitler, and i certainly wouldn't wish it on someone like you. The only reason i don't smoke cigarretes is because i can't afford them right now. There are plenty of people out there worse than you. I struggle with guilt and so do alot of people with depression. I take comfort that people get killed everyday and i could be next. Try to enjoy life buddy and don't upset your Mother.

"unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness." — Matt D

i think rejection of long term consequences to sincere motivations and undetected negative conduct (bad decisions) can lead to only looking for facts that help the individual rather than society in general. I think apophenia is a problem with both the scientist, the preacher and the food service worker (me). When my bad thought or misdeed is not detected, i'm less likely to take corrective action. I do however believe forgiveness of any and all bad decision is a great thing.

Richard Dawkins recently defended pedophilia even though it is scientifically proven to be "bad" for people. How do we define "bad"? On some level bad is relative but as people collectively communicate "bad", they eventually start coming to a common consensus. Community is scientifically proven to promote general emotional health. Death of the individual is not the worse thing that can happen to an individual.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

In 2017, men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women.

and i would recommend you go a little further through that website. Women more concerned with their mortality then men and evolutionary logical thought would dictate this is due to their dna. Are you sure about your prior position?

In the OP you said the gods or God does not have good moral fiber. Why do you say that? Which religion are you talking about?

I agree with her thought process to a great measure but i don't agree with her conclusions entirely because she doesn't have all the detail. Globalism is a huge problem and so is people not caring about those who work for them.

Zoning laws, People not getting one day off every week, 2 weeks or a month, (a consistent day off is practical), land distribution (no shortage of land in canada) are all things that are keeping the poor miserable. You don't have to raise taxes to help the "poor".

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position. — christian2017


“But,” some might say, “that’s just being pedantic. If the box is inside a larger box, the real question being asked here is clearly about the location of the larger box! Indeed, what we are really asking is where is the location the largest box of all. Whatever it may be.” — Theologian

The assumption of the previous post i was responding to assumed the universe was all there was. I have no problem with you response. My response was based on someone elses response. I think we are in agreement on this.

Is it possible that every contributor missed the point in this debate?

I think it is.

Poverty is not an objectively established value of assets and income for a person. It is subjective. Someone or some government body or think-tank says "poverty line in the United States is X dollars income per annum per person and Y dollars assets per person." This is how it's done.

How do you eliminate poverty? By decreasing X and Y to sufficiently low amounts so no person qualifies.

Poverty declarations, theories, etc. are one of the biggest economic / mathematical poofs of our age. — god must be atheist

I agree with this for the most part. On a different note, there is no shortage of land in this world. The queen of england is the largest land owner in the world and if you investigate how much that is you'll see what i'm getting at. A lot of the world's problems can be solved by reducing globalism, changing zoning laws, making practical laws to help with people getting a day off (some people work months at a time with out a day off)(see maryland legislature), and most of all having general concern for those who work for us would greatly improve the lives of the "poor".

...information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

something can be true and just not be known. You are correct, only time will tell the truth to certain aspects of life.

Statistics show women commit suicide less often. Gun laws don't prohibit women from owning hand guns nor assault rifles. Do you want to retract that statement?

Be worthy. — Banno

I didn't say this earlier because you were nice at the time. Your OP was extremely short and extremely lacking. This is an online forum, don't assume anyone is worthy based on what they write on it. This is a place for ideas not judging someones value. It would help if you studied math as the years progress. I was mediocre at math when i was young but i've gotten pretty good at it as i've gotten older. IQ can improve greatly with age until you get really old in which case thats the case for just about everybody.

If you want to say my posts are short perhaps you should make your posts longer.

your exact quote was "Why". I think both of us have the same problem.

Your right, if men matter as much as women then yes, guns are very dangerous to their owners. I was following with the OP topic. I don't own any real guns due to depression (common problem among many people). There are weapons and ranged weapons that are safe to the owner such as a compound bow. (don't buy special release mechanisms). I do however like when my neighbors own an assault rifle because there is nothing they can do to harm me with that assault rifle. lol

Why study that stuff mentioned in the previous post? Because when information is important to an individual (some religions say information is not in every case beneficial) that more information or the pursuit of more information shows dedication to the pursuit of truth. Those topics are very pertinent to your OP.

The best articulated definition comes from information theory. And in a way this thread is about how such information becomes meaningful. — Banno

I think you might be interested in studying signal processing, and also do a google or bing search on the differences between different sound files (mp3 and wave or cd files) as well as analog record players.

But I would object to the idea of an actual completed infinite set existing in the real world. So a collection of objects whose number is not finite I would object to. — Devans99

i understand. Alot of the stuff you write has to be copied into a text file like note pad and analyzed line by line. That last statement i agree with.

When we're talking about meaning, that's a property of brains that can't be transferred to soundwaves, gestures, marks on paper, etc. Of course, in a very ontologically loose manner of speaking we say things like "I get your meaning, man," but what's really going on there is not a literal transfer of properties or processes. — Terrapin Station

Thats actually not entirely true. When radar scientists or certain types of communication engineers study "noise" and signal they can differentiate the two by whether they have patterns. Typically the more of a pattern something has then the more likely that it is not "noise" and that it is signal. I think i kind of know what you are getting at though. Life sucks so bad, why tell people that claim to be ethical that they have valid points (signal versus noise).

Women are less likely to commit suicide because their dna makes them want to live a longer life. I'm not saying men are less ethical than women, just that women are more focused on living into old age than men. A depressed man is more likely to shoot himself than a depressed woman. I think the solution for depressed men is to own a compound bow without one of those easy release gadgets. I personally pray to be shot at long range by a man in a tower every day of my life. I'm not unique.

People and animals like to be happy. If beings that make decisions (as opposed to those chained in someones basement) can discover what makes decision makers the most happy we can probably come almost to an optimal solution to any problem. The problem is like the Aztecs discovered, sometimes you can't account for all the decision makers that might be involved in the future.

The problem is certain concepts such as infinite have not been systematically defined for different contexts. In software development you will use the same function or method in different ways simply by changing the arguments that go into that function or method. (the method can be defined with in the program completely differently by the programmer and the compiler for example will know which one to use simply by the arguments or context changing). Infinite and other concepts are not always systematically defined. Me and you might use the word infinite and expect a common understanding but because (subtlety) we are talking about two different contexts we will be in violent disagreement. If God hits me over the head with a rock and i get mad but never look at the rock, and never stop to look at the rock, i might have different results then if i immediately look at the rock and discover it looks alot like gold. People misunderstand your comments on infinite because they don't realize its a very important subject to investigate, and classification in some text might make coming to a common conclusion more likely.

I read an article a number of years ago that when we transmit a signal, to some degree the two things have to be touching at some point (even in a vacuum the light has move across space and collide with the antenna or antenna like object), as sound travels through matter. (light as you know travels best through a vacuum). Language is defiinitely alot of things but it certainly very often involves moving information from one person to another person. If there is no gods or God then yes, perhaps we should just smoke crack all day and keep our mouths shut. lol.

I feel that axiomising something that is clearly false in the real world (IMO) is the basis of my beef with set theory. — Devans99

I feel this is putting what you said slightly better. When we expand on mathematical concept with new information we can produce new axioms. The problem with infinite is that it is polymorphic word or concept. When you use infinite in one statement it might have slightly different meaning then if used in a different context. To expect the same axioms to apply to each different (polymorphism) situation is not mathematically or logically sound. I don't know if you stated what i just said previously. Sorry if i duplicated information.

some pythons actually have stubs where their ancestors actually once had legs.

yeah, i agree with that. Certain aspects of humans and some other animals seem to be aspects that are devolution not evolution. Snakes are better off with legs and have been shown to actually have evolved into not having legs after lizards came about. Humans are worse as giving birth than Apes. The vagina is not condusive to giving birth and women have it built into their dna to have all sorts of problems after giving birth (post partum depression)

at the end of the day, if an individual isn't productive, then their intelligence or lack of intelligence doesn't matter either way. There is also such a thing as counter productive. Einstein is said to be not so much of a good family man. Life is extremely complex.

if this universe is all that there is then i would agree with you that it has no position. If there are higher and lower dimensions then it does have some sort of position.