HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:28:02 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

[Lot of stuff]

> I also experience "blue".  That does *not* make "blue" a thing which
> either "exists" or does not "exist".  Quite frankly I think that you
> are *very* confused about what I am trying to say.  You should dig up
> your copy of _The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
> Bicameral Mind_ and reread the only section of the book worth reading
> once--the part where Jaynes introduces the concepts of metaphor and
> metaphier with the mind as metaphor.  That might help you a little
> bit.

Would you say that there is no such thing as blue? No, you would
probably say "blue is a color" or "blue is a property of light which is
observed at certain wavelengths" or something like that, wouldn't you?
Similarly, we say that consciousness is a property of the soul by which
it is able to make contact with the objects of existence, including
the soul itself, other souls, and the Supersoul.

[more stuff]

> You're right in that it's not just difficulty in understanding your
> question that makes consciousness "not a definite thing".  It is our
> understanding of the physical basis of what we are and the
> observations of the behavior of others which makes it appear that
> consciousness is not a thing.

What we are has no physical basis at all, for we are the soul, which is
not a physical thing and which is not dependent in any way on any
physical phenomena. This is why science has difficulty understanding the
question of consciousness, what to speak of consciousness itself.
Science will not admit that there is anything in the world except
matter and material energy! The scientific paradigm is inadequate, since
it does not acknowledge a class of actually existing phenomena.

> >Yes, I would be very interested to see those books.
> 
> Start with Patricia Churchland's _Neurophilosophy_, and Paul
> Churchland's _Matter and Consciousness_.  I'd recommend Patricia's
> recent book coauthored with Terry Sejnowski, but I haven't read it
> yet.  The Churchlands are not scientists themselves, but they do a
> fairly decent job of summarizing the thoughts of contemporary
> scientists on the issues at hand.

If I can find them in our university library system, I will look them
over. Perhaps you could give a brief summary.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 14:47:06 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
> 
> >> >Read the book.
> 
> >Read the book.
> 
> Is this your new chant?

We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!

Sincerely,
Kalki "maggots from meat, maggots from meat" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: german@vxcrna.cern.ch (German Fernandez Sanchez)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:39:00 GMT

In article <118@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes...
> 
>Why not just shoot myself through the head.  Why be stupid and refuse to
>deal with reality when God or something or other has taken the trouble
>to make you bright enough TO deal with reality.  That's kind of like
>abdicating responsibility.  That many of the posters to t.o have no
>such responsibility is not my problem.
> 
I doubt very much of your brightness to deal with reality, Ted. You can't
even deal with question marks.
    ,      ,      ,
German Fernandez Sanchez
GERMAN@CERNVM.CERN.CH
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: AAT@UCSVAX (Gus Trautweiler)
Subject: Re: It's the Kalki Dasa experiment 
Organization: University of Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:44:08 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

:Q By all means, Kalki, tell us about this experiment.  You keep
:Q making truly strange claims about having snapshots of god and
:Q experiments to make god appear and so on, but it's always "I will
:Q tell you."  SO tell us.
:Q 
:Q Bill       
:Q so on; could we perhaps have some substance: 

Bill! 
	You mean you haven't seen it?  Its posted in all KalKi's posts.
	It's the chant!   Go for it!

:Q :        -------------------------------------------------------
:Q :       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
:Q :       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
:Q :       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
:Q :       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
:Q :       |                                                       |
:Q :       |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
:Q :       |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
:Q :        -------------------------------------------------------


Gus Trautweiler (The Reporter Gene!) *%%*     *%%*       *%%*     *%%*       *%%
Plant & Soil Science: Biotechnology  |  | % % |  | %   % |  | % % |  | %   % | 
University of Massachusetts  |   %   |  |  %  |  |   %   |  |  %  |  |   %   |
AAT@UCC.UMASS.EDU   |     |  | %   % |  | % % |  | %   % |  | % % |  | %   % |
%*     *%%*      *%%*     *%%*       *%%*     *%%*       *%%*     *%%*       *%%
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:52:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.123429.6757@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <102252@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>
>>Yep, but be glad you are a male and only have to deal with these
>>rather paltry problems in the uro-genital system. If you were a 
>>female you'd have to squeeze your offspring through the only
>>bone surrounded structure anywhere near the uterus. If I had designed
>>females, I'd have cut them a little slack and not force them to
>>send kids through (as Robin Williams put it) "the Play-Dough Fun
>>Factory of Life". 
>
>This is a sad consequence of mankind's rebellion against God,
>aka the Fall.
>Genesis 3:16
>16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
>    conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
>    desire hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
>
>Your description of difficult childbirth is correct, and is just one
>example of many things in creation which were originally perfectly
>designed, but have been corrupted because of the Fall.

Ah, doncha just love these lovely little myths about the christian god
of sadism?  Boggles the mind, though--if Eve's birth canal didn't 
originally, pass through her pelvic girdle, where was it located?
(The left armpit, perhaps?)  Were the birth canals of all other mammals
moved at the same time?  

Trygve
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:21:09 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech)

In article <1ebaj2INNoui@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bz754@cleveland (Derek J. Wojciech) writes:
>>This is false: broken symmetry.  Consider snowflakes.

>But do snowflakes have a higher information content than the atmospheric
>water that existed before the freezing process?  You need less information to 
>describe the snowflakes because when water freezes it creates countless     
>millions of ice crystals that have sixfold symmetry.

Oops.  Did I not say I am considering a broken symmetry model of snowflake
formation?  Atmospheric water vapor is treated as a structureless fluid and
freezes out at random, producing highly ordered structures.

The point is, there are numerous well-known physical counterexamples to
Kalki's broad claims.  Considering the great difficulty he has admitting
whether or not supernovae occur, it's a bit overkill to point this out.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: dwolff@cozy.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: Computervision
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:32:25 GMT

In article <XF8HuB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
> 
> > The first on the list is the contention that creation is scientific.  This
> > is what Jim recently made his "one case" about.  I responded to this with
> > two articles, the second of which contained answers to the questions from
> > previous postings.  I know that Jim saw them because he responded to them.
> > 
> > For instance, the first question is:
> > 
> >                What observations support creationism?
> 
> The observation that there is a Supreme Godhead, plus the personal
> statement of this Supreme Godhead that He created the bodily forms of
> the living organisms.

Do you and Bales agree on who the Supreme Godhead is?

> Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
> we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.

How about just sending us a photograph?  If he's been observed, or really
exists, you should be able to present some simple, unmistakable proof.

>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hairy Chicken Hairy Chicken |
>      |                           Chicken Chicken Hairy Hairy |
>      |                           Awww Bwak Awww Bwak         |
>      |                           Bwak Bwak Awww Bwak         |
>      |                                                       |
>      |   Kooki's Infoless BBS Aiken, South Chickolina, USA   |
>      |        (kooki33!kooki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
Kibofodder:  mls Kibo vrp
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:57:17 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
: Considering the stylistic variations in "his" posts, it appears that
: Kalki is at least three different people.
: 
: Can anyone provide an English translation of the words "Kalki Dasa"?

I noted the same thing- there's the faux-erudite Kalki, the
exuberant, simple-minded Kalki, and the Kalki who's just sorta 
there.  There may be more than that, which accounts for the 
volume of posts... I think either a buncha HK's have suckered some
lonely undergrad into letting them use his account, or Kalki's 
tapeworm is a schizophrenic speed-fiend.                   
"Kalki" is one of the avatars of Vishnu; I believe the one who's
supposed to come chastise the vicious at the end of the world.
"Dasa" may mean "barbarian" or "slave", but I'm not real sure- been
a long time since I studied the Vedas.
Bill    
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:28:51 GMT

	Bruce Korb claimed that flood legends are found in many parts
of the world. However, there are numerous differences between the
various stories, and similarities can often be explained by diffusion;
one people can learn a flood story from another people. Furthermore,
there are big rivers that make floods in several parts of the world,
which can easily inspire stories of Great Floods.

	Is there any _geological_ evidence for a worldwide flood ~4000
years ago? Absolutely none whatsoever. There is abundant evidence from
old trees and logs in bogs that there has been no planetwide
catastrophe over at least the last 8000 years (I wonder what's the
upper limit now, probably 10,000 years or so). Lake sediments tell
essentially the same story.

	Flood Geology? Forget it. It's been amply refuted, as Jim
Meritt can attest to in his FAQ's.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Keywords: elf
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 03:30:50 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>   I would also be impressed if Kalki could point out where in the Vedas they
> talk about individual sperm.  Since it requires a microscope to see sperm I
> think most Hindus would be citing this as evidence for Veda accuracy.
> 
>   Come to think of it, I would be suprised if the Vedas mentioned humans comi
> from eggs.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, 3.31, the process of conception, development
and birth are described in vivid detail, with specific references to
sperm, egg and embryonic development. Other details are given in
Vedanta-sutra, 3.1. Still more detail is given in the various Upanisads.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Lionel, Kalki, and Bales . . . take note
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:49:09 GMT

In article <gc7HuB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> There still remains the undeniable fact that these simulations could not
> have existed without your actions and the actions of those who
> contributed, in whatever way, to the project's design and construction.

  So?  No matter how you look at it, once that program started out, it was on
its own.  No "divine intervention" on my part.

  Likewise, once the universe is started, the structure can appear by the same
methods.  Information ex-nihilo, no problem.

> Now you have introduced an additional term into the discussion,
> "intelligence". We should deal with this too. If by "intelligence" we
> mean the ability to run an algorithm, then yes, structure does not
> require intelligence, since a cube of solid hydrogen at absolute zero
> has structure but is not running any algorithms.

  The point was that this was an information _increase_ over time.  No
information was being put into the system.  It just appeared there.

> But if you are using
> intelligence in the place of, say, consciousness, then this is
> inadequate, since consciousness is the cause of algorithms, and is not
> equivalent to them.

  How could I use intelligence in the place of consciousness when you haven't
even given your definition of consciousness yet?

>       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |

  Don't forget to chant: I cannot giver rigerous definitions.
                         Rigerous definitions I cannot give.
                         Consciousness is a property of life.
                         Life is what has consciousness.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Tedster and lessons in understanding
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:29:48 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <110@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}The word "liar" appears frequently in James Meritt's postings.  Unfortunately,
}there are still folks out there, most notably Mr. Bales, who don't quite
}know how to deal with this.  Hopefully, the following will help.

And ANYONE is suppose to take lessons on logic, manners, or anything
else from TED?!?!?!?!?!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


}About half the time, Meritt's anti-Velikovsky FAQ includs a section on the
}so-called Babylonian Venus Tablets of King Ammizaduga:

Ted, I know that you'll find this confusing, but ask someone to help you.
You have never "debunked" anything (to the best of my knowledge) on any
grounds based upon chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or any of the
so-called hard sciences.  Which is what I asked.  I have not asked about
your interpretation, or for any other's interpretation, of mythology or
history - because you can't be shown wrong.  Your view is no more valid
than mine.  A ballistics problem, however, to act the same way regardless
of your personal wishes and desires.  Understand?
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:10:10 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

> >Sincerely,
> >Kalki "maggots from meat, maggots from meat" Dasa
> 
> I think its cute that you stick comments in your name, but
> I dont see how this one is relevent, to, well, anything.

In the old days people saw maggots in meat and they thought that the
meat was the source of the maggots, or that the maggots were
spontaneously generating from the meat. Finally some far-seeing person
noticed that flies were visiting the meat before the maggots appeared,
so after some experiments, it was finally realized that the meat was
incapable of producing maggots. The maggot-eggs were deposited in the
meat by flies.

Nowadays, there are certain persons (symbol=abiogeneticists) who still
believe that the meat (symbol=primordial soup) is producing the maggots
(symbol=living organisms). But there are also, as in the past, some
far-seeing persons (symbol=creationists) who notice that maggots never
appear without a prior visitation by flies (symbol=soul/other life).

Life comes from life! Get it?

Sincerely,
Kalki "Uh th th, uh th th, uh th th, uhhhh, that's all, folks!" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:10:37 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.195833.12085@athena.mit.edu> Loren King writes:
>Kalki's point seems to be that we should suspend belief in the proposition
>that life arose from non-life by purely naturalistic processes until a
>plausible scenario is constructed.  I don't think he is claiming that we
>should suspend belief even if we construct a plausible process that works
>today, on the grounds that it "might not have happened that way in the
>past."  The analogy with Goldbach's conjecture that you bring up later is
>a good one.  In the past, mathematicians would have been confident in
>saying, "Well, we don't have a proof either way yet, but we know that
>there *is* a proof one way or the other.  The problem is a mathematical
>one and can be solved by mathematical means."  After Godel, nobody is
>willing to say even this.  The analogous statement, "Well, nobody has a
>plausible mechanism for naturalistic abiogenesis yet, but nevertheless
>I believe that there *is* a naturalistic explanation, because this is a
>scientific problem and must have a scientific solution," is what I think
>Kalki is challenging.

I would argue that it is Kalki and other creationists who should be
challenged.  It's a question of burden of proof.  One important aspect on
burden of proof is that you should base a controversial proposition on
something that is controversial as well.  They say that life can only have a
supernatural explaination.  This is based on the controversial assumption 
that the supernatural (ie., God) actually exists.  Thus, the burden of proof
falls more heavily upon the C'ists than the scientists.  (And, if God does
exist, there's still nothing to say it must be a supernatural explaination.
God could just hang back and let life come about by itself, a Deist's
viewpoint)

>One response might be that scientists treat the existence of a naturalistic
>mechanism for abiogenesis as a "working assumption" but don't necessarily
>believe it in their hearts.

>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |