HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:54:04 GMT

In article JV58TB11w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
>johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>> I think what we would all like to know is why you (apparently there
>> is only one Kalki Dasa) are refering to yourself in the plural.
>> 
>> Makes us feel outnumbered. :)
>> 
>
>Well, perhaps you are.

Uh oh...

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa (and the devotees all over the universe)

Ah-hah! you call yourself We because you represent the
other devotees as well (of your religion, I guess)

How'd you wind up in such a position, anyway?

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted (an apology)
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <117@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

And he does:  Scatology count: 0
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 14 Nov 92 20:15:05 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:

> In article <uVF4TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >Yes, we agree that if matter is somehow manipulated under the control of
> >a sufficiently advanced computer program . . . then the body of a living
> >organism can be formed out of simple materials.
> >But the best computer in the universe will do nothing without being
> >programmed, . . .
> 
> Then, do you believe that the conditions within the Tierra simulation
> were more complex (i.e., had a higher information content) than the
> conditions on a primordial Earth?  You seem to have a great deal more
> respect for a single programmer's ability than I do!

Perhaps you have not met the programmer who designed your brain.

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: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 03:54:24 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:

> .>>   I hereby reach out to God with the desire to know him.  God, if you exi
> .>> please cure all cases of AIDS by 12:00 noon tomorrow (11-12-92).  Since y
> .>> are perfectly-loving, you will want to do so, since you are all-powerful,
> .>> you are capable of doing so, since you are all-knowing, you will know (a)
> .>> how to do so, and (b) that you are being offered this public opprtunity t
> .>> prove your existence to all the unbelievers you so dearly want to convinc
> .>> of your existence.  Failure to abide by the specified condition will be
> .>> taken as justification for disbelieving the proposition <God exists>.
> .>
> .>A list of demands and a threat. Yep, that's really "reaching out to God
> .>with a desire to know Him" all right.

> Not demands, but a set of conditions by which God could provide rather good
> evidence for his existence.

Nope. Demands.

> Not a threat, but a statement of what seems to be a perfectly legitimate
> interpretation of a null result.

Nope. A threat.

> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
> up empty.

It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.

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: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: It's the Kalki Dasa Show! (was Re: In case Bales has ...)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:43:30 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: 
: The existence of God is testable, and any experiment which purports to
: reveal Him is falsifiable. I will give you an experimental process by
: which you can personally observe God, and you can perform the
: experiment. If you follow the experimental procedure precisely in every
: detail, and you do not observe God, then you have falsified the
: hypothesis (the hypothesis being that the experiment produces
: observational evidence of God). However, since many others have already
: performed the experiment, and their findings were unanimous, you must be
: very careful to keep detailed notes of your procedures so that you will
: be absolutely sure that you did not omit even the smallest step. After
: all, this is science.
: 
: Sincerely,
: Kalki Dasa
: 
By all means, Kalki, tell us about this experiment.  You keep
making truly strange claims about having snapshots of god and
experiments to make god appear and so on, but it's always "I will
tell you."  SO tell us.

Bill       
so on; could we perhaps have some substance: 
:        -------------------------------------------------------
:       |  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: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:25:55 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

In article <721626990@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Is there any strong evidence that nucleotides, by chemistry
>alone, tend to produce good replicators?

None that I've come across.  That's why some people are proposing
acyclic bases, which have a much simpler chemistry, and presumably
could evolve to the existing cyclic bases.

>( But speaking of models of abiogenisis, does anybody know any
>  details about the one that supposes replicators may have arisen
>  from the chemistry of the ATP power cycle, instead of RNA,
>  proteins in general, or even clay... ?  Just wondered if anybody'd
>  heard of that one, and had some details. )

You're speaking of Waechtershaeuser.  His model (PNAS 87 p200) sounds
fine to me, but as a non-chemist, I'm kind of gullible on this topic.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Post-Goedel confidences
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:39:20 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)

In article <1992Nov15.223651.9419@athena.mit.edu>, lking@athena (Loren King) writes:
>|> >After Godel, nobody is willing to say even this.

>|> That's simply not true.  Platonism and logic are a powerful force in
>|> assertions regarding open problems.  Just sometimes folks are wrong.

>Amusing (well, maybe ... a bit) aside: apparently -- well, according to 
>Bertrand Russell's notes and Autobiography -- Goedel himself was an 
>unabashed Platonist.

According to Goedel's own writings also.  Of course, Goedel did not
state any of the philosophical gibberish invoked in his name.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:56:13 GMT


kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>The methods used by Dr. Thompson are based on standard
>information-theoretic models for determining the information content of
>physical systems. The information content of a typical cell is specified
>(within bounds) as is the information content of the physical laws which
>supposedly govern all possible material interactions. Since the
>information content of the known laws of physics, and of simple organic
>molecules, is relatively small, whereas the information content of
>living cells is quite large, there is the question of how a system of
>low information content can "evolve" into one of high information
>content without there being a pre-existing source of high information
>content to draw from.  The balance of the chapter is an investigation
>of the reasons given by the discipline of molecular evolution that
>purport to account for this strange trend.

Well here we have at least one new source of fallacy, that a "living cell"
is postulated to "evolve" in a single step.  No one is claiming (except
Dr. Thompson it seems) that this is how the process occurred, that out
of the primordial "soup" a complete "living cell" assembled all at once.
I would agree here, the odds *are* probably some infinitesimally small
value such as Kalki cites.  However, since that is not how anyone in the
scientific community suggests it has occurred, this evidence indicates
Dr. Thomson is using a straw man argument.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is conciousness?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:46:29 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> > Ok. Then what is the (talk.)origin of consciousness? Of course, first we
> > will need to decide what consciousness is.
> 
>    Sorry, this is still a metaphysical question.  This is a forum for
> the discussion of the origins of life, not of consciousness, and as
> you stated, life is not consciousness.

Ok. What is the (talk.)origin of life? Of course, first we will need to
decide what life is. So, tell us your definition of life and then
explain how this definition accounts for consciousness. Any definition
of life must account for all the properties of life, and one of those
properties is consciousness, is it not?

> >>  [example of replacing boards in a ship deleted]
> > 
> > The name of the ship is whatever its proprietor names it. Since you call
> > it Theseus' ship, then Theseus can give you an authoritative answer.
> 
>    The question he was asking was "is it still the same ship," not
> "is the name of the ship the same."

By his own perfectly candid admission it was a "trick" question.
Therefore we gave a "trick" answer. Do you like our answer?

Sincerely,
Kalki "Abba, Dabba, Dooooooo!" 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: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:53:05 CST

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
: 
: >   ... you keep repeating "read the book" about a book that is only
: > available from your institute?  I see asbestos in your future.
: 
: Yeah, gee it's strange that these so-called "scientists" won't go out of
: their way to acquire something that disputes their cherished dream of
: being right.

Does it?  Does it indeed do that?  Dispute my cherished dream?

One wag once said... nay, many times said, "it can be shown" and that
it was a "straightforward proof".  The miscreant then went on to start
through the seven stages of descent of Wackos (up to about stage five
now).  But as for the "straightforward proof" that "can be shown", we
heard never another word.

I am not at all afraid that it will dispute my cherished dream.  I don't
have a cherished dream in this area of philosophical logistics, and would
truly be delighted to see the foundations shake.

It is not fear of the content of this book that keeps me from sending
for it.

It is the fear that it is a piece of shit, and that I will have thrown
away good money based on the recommendation of the Kalki Dosa, and let
me say, pooboo, you have not even once shown that your opinion is 
something worthwhile, to be trusted and respected.

Let me put it this way.

If Chris Colby recommended it, I would consider it, if it were in a area
of my interests.  But there are many books he has recommended that I did
not run out and buy.  And I respect him!

Same goes for at least a half dozen more denizens of T.O.s dark recesses.

But, based on the miniscule exposition that you have given this book,
it sounds like it is just another jejune attempt to slip the 2nd law
of thermo past us as a proof that it just couldn't have happened.

Look, many years ago, on the recommendation of a friend (and you are
no friend of mine, pooboo), I bought the Charles Berlitz book about
the Bermuda Triangle.  A waste of good money.  Then later, another
friend, and I throw another wad down the toilet for Jane Robert's
Seth Speaks.

Yes, indeed, once I was a fool, like yourself.  Now I am a moron,
and proud of it.  Read your book?  Sure, mail me a copy.  Buy it?

Get a life, pooboo!

--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Kalki Suggestions
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:27:36 GMT

In article <721986242.6735@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
|> Another suggestion.
|> 
|> Perhaps Lionel Tun or Bob Bales would be willing to comment on Kalki?
|> 
|> I am presuming Lionel and Bob would like to see the theory of creationism
|> made available to students for their consideration. Would Kalki be an
|> acceptable teacher of the theory of creationism?

    In my understanding, at least some of the ICR-types consider all
religions other than Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and then, only
certain varieties of them) to be evolutionist.  Perhaps we could get 
an explanation from a Christian anti-evolutionist how Kalki is/are 
evolutionist.

    Another thought:
    Perhaps Ted would be willing to comment on Kalki.

|> 
|> Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Right, Bales...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:21:41 GMT

In article <7602@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}
}Reality check II:
}
}In article <1992Nov16.142216.16902@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James 
}Meritt) writes:
}
}The issue is whether I lie and whether I have answered specific questions.  I
}wrote an article giving quotes from previous postings. Jim responded:
}
}>}>False.  Since we disagree, how about SOMEONE ELSE'S evaluation of the
}>}>contention.  BALES says that he has answered himself, MERITT says that
}>}>he has not.
}
}To begin with, the issue is not whether anyone likes or agrees with my answers.

Correct.  "like" and "agrees with" is not relevant for an answer.  Its existence is.

}For instance, to the question of what was positive for creation, I gave what
}I consider to be positive evidence for creation.  In objective terms, when
}somone asks "What is. . . ?", the statement "This is:. . . ." is, by
}definition, an answer to the question.`

Wrong.  As you pointed out, if you include yourself, "like" or "agree with" is
not relevant.  Hence, your "I consider" is equally irrelevant.

}But Jim wants to go on others opinions, he says.  Someone else wrote:

Right.  Other than mine, other than yours.

}>}My own evalutaion is that he has not answered the questions in any manner
}>}close to satisfactory.
}
}>}IMHO, his assertion that he has answered the questions has not been
}>}validated.  
}
}I must disagree.  If I have not answered them satisfactorily, I have answered
}them unsatisfactorily, which means I have answered them!

No you have not, in both my opinion and in that of a third party.
Your word that you answered it is as worthless as your word on the response.


Please learn to differentiate between "your assertion that you have answered"
and "the answer itself".  The first was evaluated, the second was nonexistent.


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:53:39 GMT

	You have no evidence that it could work better otherwise in long-
	run. 

        Also, we must separate two things: Bad design and forms that have 
	evolved into worse. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 05:28:31 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>   Kalki,
> 
>   Right now I am running a computer program at home.  It generated 100
> creatures.  Each has two wheels and two sensors for detecting "food".  Using 
> tiny nural net as a brain, the information from the sensors is sent to the
> wheels.

[lot of stuff describing the "creatures"]

>   Now here is the question:  Obviously the creatures have become more
> sophisticated at locating food.  They have generated rules, information if yo
> will, on how to locate it.  Now, where did that information come from?
> 
>   Remember, my initial state was completely random, so it didn't come from
> there.  I have no idea what the proper neural inputs are for locating food, s
> didn't put them there.  The program alters the creatures in a completely rand
> manner, so it didn't add any information to the system.  Where did it come
> from?

You must have the first computer in history to generate "completely"
random numbers! And the first program in history that wasn't created by
a programmer! And the first computer to ever assemble itself! And the
first source of electric power to just hook itself up to your house and
start generating 60hz, 117 VAC!

Sincerely,
Kalki "Your brain is not the boss" 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: Wed, 18 Nov 92 03:10:54 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> In article <8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >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!
> 
> I think it is time for you to leave, Kalki, or you might end up on a
> funny farm.

Oh, yes, your brilliant psychological insight has finally uncovered the
long awaited truth: those who are "sane" avoid anything that calls their
world-view into question. Better to believe a lie than have self-doubts!

Prabhu, it's time for you to surrender to God, or you might end up in
the body of an animal in your next life. That makes the funny farm seem
like Club Med.

Sincerely,
Kalki "It's time to play...What's Your Karma!!" 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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------