HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 10:06:37 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <iordonez.722134309@academ01>, iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
|> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> 
|> >We can say what consciousness is, but first we would like your opinion:
|> >what is it, what happens to it after death, and why?
|> 
|> Once I went under anesthesia for about two hours, because I had an
|> operation. I remember feeling funny when the pre-anesthesia started
|> affecting my senses, and then, I was switched off. I remember nothing,
|> absolutely nothing of those two hours; they disappeared from my sense of
|> time, and I, my consciousness, disappeared from the Universe and appeared
|> again later.
|> 
|> I think that to be dead is like being under anesthesia forever: you
|> become nothing at all. Why? Because your brain stops working.

I certainly don't agree with Kalki, but I don't agree with this, either.

Just because you can't recall anything from the time you were under
anesthesia, you can't conclude that  "I, my consciousness, disappeared
from the Universe and appeared again later".    You didn't disappear
from the Universe at all: you just can't access whatever traces your
consciousness left during that time.    I've also been under anesthesia
and I do have some vague recollection.

What does it all mean about post-death?   Who knows?    Probably nothing 
at all.    Being dead is only "like being under anesthesia forever" if
at the end of forever you can wake up again.   Can you?  We don't know,
do we?

jon.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:47:58 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> > 5) If you are not sure whether the machine will eventually halt, then
> > attempt to dissect the code to determine if it represents a valid
> > algorithm or not.
> 
>   this is known as the halting problem.  If you have found a solution, please
> publish it so you can claim your Nobel prize.

No, the halting problem is unsolvable. Our point was: if you give the
machine a time interval and it is still running at the end of the
interval, then rather than throw it out as non-halting, first spend a
little more time trying to find something in the code that may indicate
that it would have stopped if left alone for a little longer. That's
all.

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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted (an apology)
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:57:19 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <98868@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
}In article <117@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (news) writes:
}>Albert Einstein was a friend of Velikovskys from the old Prussian Scientific
}>Academy, and is known to have spent the last ten years or so of his life
}>working on a unified field theory, a shot at explaining all natural forces
}>in common terms.  He is also known to have died with a copy of Worlds in
}>Collision open on his desk.
}
}Proof that it is a sickening book.

Not necessarily.  He might have died laughing...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Subject: It's the Kalki Dasa Show! (was Re: In case Bales has ...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:48:22 GMT

In article <XF8HuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
>we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.

This is starting to get a bit far afield, but it was too precious to pass up.

First, we scientists are usually less interested in "proof" (in the absolute
sense of a mathematically or logically rigorous proof) than in coherent,
testable explanations of what we observe; second, even if we did have such an
interest, there's a bit of a problem with your approach, which the below two
cases should make clear:

Hypothetical case #1:
I'm an LSD user.  (I SAID this is hypothetical, dimwit  ;-).  I assert that
on a regular basis the room I'm in turns into an amazing array of colors
and shapes which seem to defy the Laws Of Physics (tm), or, in general, the
way scientists believe nature and the world appears to work.  You are 
skeptical.  I offer to you the means to personally experience this.

Hypothetical case #2 (more mundane, but simpler).
About 25% of the times I wake up in the morning, I recall a personal 
observation that within the previous few hours I did/witnessed/otherwise
experienced something that again clashed violently with said LOP. 
To experience something very similar, just take a long nap.
(Note that I give this advice for free, you don't have to call a BBS ;-)

(Please, no flames from the devout, I'm just trying to emphasize the 
idea expressed in the chant.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to chant:
personal observation != proof
proof != personal observation

Followups to /dev/hell.

-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:32:05 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <vbw1lph@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> 
> 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?

   He drew the short straw.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:55:54 GMT


>In article <eDLDuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the car and the driver.
>The car has tinted windows, so no one can see in and know for sure that
>there is a driver inside. But those who understand cars know that the
>car is moving because there is a conscious driver inside who is
>steering, etc.

What kind of a car is it, you(pl) might ask.
Why it's a GTO*.

* Short for Gran _Turing_ Omalagato

--
  Michael James   james@falhrd.msd.anl.gov   
                Joel:  Could you state that in the form of adesperatecry
                       toGodtosaveyoufromanunholydeath,Please?
           Tom Servo:  DUCK and COVERRRR!!!!
                                     - MST3K Rocket Attack USA
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Summary: a bit more an Velikovsky and Einstein
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:33:03 GMT

::: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
::: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
::: Albert Einstein was a friend of Velikovskys from the old Prussian 
::: Scientific Academy, [.. blah blah blah, blabla, bla-blah BLAH ..]

:: From: throopw@sheol.UUCP
:: Message-ID: <722480012@sheol.UUCP>
:: Irrelevant.

: From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
: Message-ID: <schnitzi.722532958@eola.cs.ucf.edu>
: More than just irrelevant -- this seems to be a blatant attempt to lend
: Velikovsky some credibility by associating him with Einstein without any
: mention of Einstein's opinion of his work.  I would be curious to know the
: context in which Ted wrote this paragraph.

The context was such as to imply that Einstein was looking at unified
field theory in order to supply a theoretical basis for Velikovsky's
confusion between gravity and electromagnetic forces, as per
Velikovsky's paper entitled (I think) "Cosmos Without Gravity"
(it's been a while since I read it...).

The general question of what Einstein thought of Velikovsky's work has
been covered.  I believe the quote from Einstein was "Well, it's just
crazy, you know?" or something closely akin.  Ted's spin doctoring of
this quote is that it's just one old Prussian buddy joshing with
another...  what Einstein REALLY meant was something like "it's just
crazy enough to be true!!!".  Yeah, that's the ticket.

Usually Ted acompanys this attempt to associate Velikovsky with
Einstein's work by making cracks about how Sagan couldn't even get in
the PSA as a janitor, har-har-har.  At least we were spared the full
treatment this time.

Regardless, it's still all irrelevant to the point that Ted's stated
scenario simply can't do what he says it will do, unless one invents
some fanciful physical effects for which there are no evidence
whatsoever.  What Einstein was looking for was ways to tie 
*currently* *known* effects together, not to invent new ones.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Keywords: elf
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:35:02 GMT


Kalki Dasa writes:
>According to the Vedas, the soul is placed into a particular sperm
>before the sperm unites with the egg. The placing is done by higher
>authorities (it's their job).

Where does the additional soul come from in twins?  Or do they
share the same soul?

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:42:53 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <VwDFuB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>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.

 Kalki, I've always wondered about that. I consider my 'self' to be made up
of both my consciousness (self-awareness, what have you) *and* the memories
that make up my life and self. If you plugged different memories into my
awareness, I would be a different person.
 In this light, what possible benefit or punishment do I have to look
forward to, if I won't remember this life? It won't be *me* then, it'll
be a person or animal or plant or virus, substantially similar to me in
outlook, perhaps, but not me.

 I.e. in this view, what practical difference does reincarnation make to
me? (Even if there *are* people that remember past lives, the odds are so
low that I'd be one that it doesn't seem worth the bother...)
 Perhaps you could respond via email on this one...

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "It's time to play...What's Your Karma!!" Dasa


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:17:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

It's time for some serious reality checking here:

Reality Check #1:

In article <1992Nov16.141449.16599@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James
 Meritt) writes:

>}> Jim
>}  me

>}>And if we produce the posting, complete with subject, date, and message-id,
>}>in which you HAVE made this claim, will you acknowledge that you lied in
>}>this instance and go away for another 6 months or so (which is how long you
>}>seem to stay away when caught in the web of your own deceipt)?

>}If you can produce a posting which says I have only scientific motives, or
>}says that I do not have religious motives, I will say that I gave an untrue
>}impression.  What else I say depends on the posting.  I do not think there is
>}one.  Let's see it.

Jim implies he has a posting.  I respond by challaging him to suppy it.  We
can, in good talk.origins fashion, form two theories:

     Jim has the article.  This theory predicts he will post it.
     Jim does not have the article.  This theory predicts he will not post
        it.

Now, let's check the evidence. Jim responds, but doesn't post.  So far, the
"he doesn't have it" theory looks correct!

>I'm glad that you are admitting once again that you are acting out of religious
>motives, in spite of your frequent claim to the converse.

*What* frequent claim? I haven't made such a claim.  Now if Jim can produce
one, I deserve to have it posted and to be shown a liar.  But if he can't, I
deserve an apology for the statement that I have made a claim that I haven't.


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: The 2nd law of Kalkidynamics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:31:17 GMT

In <By049D.uK@well.sf.ca.us> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:


>BTW, it looks to me like the Kalki's (or actually, their hero
>Dr. Thomson's) arguments from information theory are simply new
>flavors of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics creationist arguments.
>Information (anti-entropy) cannot increase, therefore evolution
>cannot occur.  (and OBTW, *growth* as well has to be included
>here, as it too is an increase in information content/decrease
>in entropy)

	Furthermore, you can never design an experiment to show him
wrong.  Why?  Simple -- go on, design an experiment, g'wan, I dare
you :).  Kalki will simply reply 'ah, but there was a source of in-
telligence that DESIGNED the experiment, so any consequences are only
a reflection of the designer'.

>Do I get any points for recognizing mutated worn out old
>creationist bogosities?

	I'd say a point just for pointing it out directly and concisely.

>Aww, I guess not, with all the recent talk about snowflakes,
>someone else must have noticed the similarity by now.

	It's Chris's game, let him decide :)

>Keith

Ben

"Don't you get me wrong, I only want to know" -- J.I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:13:18 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
>  
> I can't speak for Eric, but my own search was both sincere and
> unsuccessful.  I am offended by your facile remark above.  

Our reply to you is the same. We respectfully suggest that you reexamine
your entire searching method, or that you reevaluate your apparent lack
of success, or both.

Those who are sincere never give up under any circumstances until they
have found what they are looking for.

Most 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: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Organization: <none>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:23:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.133247.8546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
>Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
>mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
>a chess program which plays very well, say at master
>level?

Why not? If I were to make a chess player, I would probably do it just that
way.

>Lets say you have a small calculator program,
>like the toy ones which pop up in some windowing front
>ends. Would it be possible to apply random mutations to
>Calculator until it evolves into Spreadsheet?

Yes it is. Still it is highly improbable.
There!, you say. But you do not take into account that any goal is highly
improbable. But the evolution has no goals. A procaryote does not think: "gee
it's gonna be cool to be a human". The key word is opporTUNISM. So probably the
calculator does not evolve into Spreadsheet but something quite different. That
is just what evo says. After all, we have different species at different
continents.

Teemu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:29:37 GMT

In article <N43HuB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:


>Life comes from life! Get it?

Oh get off it Kalki.  I have seen two theories for the origin of life.
One is abiogenesis, the other creationism.

So lets compare these theories.  What evidence do we have for
abiogenesis?

Well scientists have placed gases in a container, zapped it with
electricity and created the building blocks of life.  Not life, but
getting close.  There might even be more evidence, you'd have to ask
others more knowledgeable on talk.origins.

What evidence do we have for creationism?

There is no physical evidence for a creator.

So which one do we support?  Take a guess Kalki.

Instead of blasting abiogenesis present the evidence for your pet
theory.  Post your theory and list the evidence for it.  Then we'll
compare it side by side with abiogenesis and see how the two stack up.

-Bill

P.S.  Remember Kalki, abiogenesis is NOT evolution.  There are
creationists who accept evolution, but not abiogenesis.  Abiogenesis
is a theory about the origin of life.  Evolution is the fact that
there is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:53:39 GMT


   In article <1992Nov13.213539.9998@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
writes...

> In article <1992Nov13.094728.10798@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard
> Harter) writes:

>> [Creationism] also claims that any discrepancy between that account
>> and scientific theory is the caused by The Great Satanic Conspiracy.

> Now I'm confused.  Weren't the Templars involved somehow?

   The interplay of the Templars with the GSC known as EVILution, is extremely
interesting.  In fact this is one of the most fascinating topics that one
can explore.  Of course, if I told you all I knew, I would have to kill you.

> And where do I go if I want to join the Conspiracy?  Or do They come to me?

   First you have to take the qualifying exam (yes, the GSC known as
EVILution resembles nothing so much as Mensa).  Here is a copy of "The
GSC Known as EVILution Entrance Exam: Version 7138956477.01--1992" (tm)...

1) Explain the importance of the character Rosencrantz in the Shakespearian
   play _Hamlet_.  (HINT: The Templars.)

2) All of the fossil evidence collected to date supports the "theory of
   evolution".  Explain the role of the Illuminati <gasp> is the creation of
   the so-called "fossil record".  Focus on the formation of the alleged
  "Cambrian explosion".  (HINT: The Templars.)

3) Who is Ybloc Sirhc, and what role does he/she/it play in the GSC known
   as EVILution?  Provide at least three independent lines of evidence
   supporting your conclusions.  (HINT: The Templars.)

4) Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates--What's the difference?  (HINT: The
   Templars.)

5) Explain the relationship between Bird's Eye frozen broccoli and
   mammoths.  (HINT: The Templars.)

>Mark Isaak
>Prospective agent of Satan

   Take the test, and they'll "contact" you.  Bwaaaaahaahahaha.

--
Matt "Illuminatus <gasp>" Brinkman
brinkman@templar.rosacrucian.I.have.seen.the.fnords.con
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:20:35 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <5X58TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>That there is no "designer" need not be the only possible explanation
>for the various apparent idiosyncrasies in the design of organisms. For
>instance, many people who do not accept the "design" concept suppose
>that God, or "the designer" would have done things differently. But this
>is only a personal opinion. Some persons might say "God would have made
>things more perfect." But this presumes that God's purpose would have
>been to make a "perfect" world. This too is only an opinion. What if
>God's purpose was not to make a perfect world, but a rough-and-ready
>world where certain kinds of rough-and-ready activities are supposed to
>be performed?

 Then why make obvious kludges like the ones listed below, and mentioned on
other posts? some of them aren't time- or effort-savers, they're doing things
the *hard* way!

>An intelligent engineer, when faced with the extraordinary task of
>constructing the body plans for millions of different types of
>creatures, would probably use a basic plan that could be modified by
>some simple adjustments. This would be more efficient than trying to
>design each type of organism from scratch. In this way we can view the
>genetic code as the work of a very clever engineer.

 But the "basic plan" is *not* copied and modified. The classic example is
to compare the octupus and human eye. In the human eye, the nerves are on the
inner surface of the eye, between the light and the light-receptors. Not
only does this limit the light-gathering ability, it makes it necessary for
the nerves to go out through the retina at some point... giving blind spots.
Octopus eyes are built sensibly, with the nerves on the outside.
 Did you read the post (Chris Colby posted it, I think) just a few days ago
that mentioned insects where the nerves that control the wings go down past
the wings and then loop back? That's doing things the hard way. No
'intellgent' designer would consider it (well, not and keep their job).
 Go read Gould's "The Panda's Thumb." (Note: *This* does not require you
to shell out any money, as the book can be found in any well-stocked
public library.)
 I'm told that cheetahs are more closely related to dogs than cats,
genetically speaking. Did the Creators have some extra canine DNA laying
around when it came time to make the cheetahs?
 Why make bats if you'd already made birds, or vice-versa? Wouldn't one
plan be enough? (And then there's the flying insects... how many different
plans can *you* count? Flies, dragonflies, mosquitos, ants, beetles,
bumblebees...)

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 Don't forget to chant: "Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..."
Newsgroups: talk.origins