My Treatise on the Nature of Life

[Kurt]

Back in 1984 I wrote a tome entitled, "A Treatise on the Nature of Life." Maybe some of you good people in this forum would like to take a gander at it. I hope to design systems for a cognitive computer mimicking biological life, using my treatise as the template. I'm as serious as cancer when I say this too.

http://homepage.mac.com/k24anson/treatise.pdf

If the treatise seems unscholarly enough for this audience, I invite anyone to my Apple Computer website, where I have woven the treatise into a 154,000+ word manuscript, viewable by anyone as a downloadable pdf file, where the protagonist will use the above mentioned treatise on a life long journey to begin the designs for systems to a cognitive computer mimicking biological life. I hope to rock the foundations of the earth with my treatise, and this future novel entitled, "Dear Mergatroid."

http://homepage.mac.com/k24anson

I await any constructive criticism to this post.

[TheBlackCat]

A bit of advice:

6. Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Do not post advertisements of any kind without securing the express consent of the administrators beforehand. Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website, product, or forum, nor to sell merchandise. These are egregious offenses which will result in the deletion of the offending posts and banning of the user(s) responsible. Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

[Wolverine]

Kurt, as touched on in the above post, please review and abide by our forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845). I removed the duplicate thread from the Life in Space category.

[Swift]

The first link doesn't seem to work (404 error). I'm not sure where to go with the second one.

[Wolverine]

This link (http://homepage.mac.com/k24anson/.Public/treatise.pdf) (.pdf) should work.

I must add that the (unreferenced) essay deals with religious and metaphysical concepts rather than science. To be perfectly honest, it offers little more than argument from incredulity. Beyond that, a discussion of its content largely falls outside the scope of this forum, as per the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845):

12. Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

[Swift]

Thanks for the working link Wolverine.
From page 2 of that link
This Treatise on the Nature of Life reveals the existence of a universal moral Law in which all Life is mediated and governed by, and that such said Law is a reality existing within the human physical nature. The Law described is a spiritual law.
I absolutely agree that this is beyond the scope of this board. I have not read any further than that, but it would also seem to have nothing to with General Science or computer cognition.

[wayneee]

Thanks for the working link Wolverine.
From page 2 of that link

I absolutely agree that this is beyond the scope of this board. I have not read any further than that, but it would also seem to have nothing to with General Science or computer cognition.
Is he trying to develope something more Complex than the Three laws of Robotics , (well four now)
Azimov did it so simply, much less than 154,000 words. Occum would dissapprove:naughty: :naughty:

[Kurt]

The simplicity of the pain - joy parameters governing all forms of life is the incredulous aspect of my treatise. Bio-chemical systems are employed and function as described per treatise whether these said life forms exist on earth ... or anywhere else in the universe.

If someone were to ask me what forms of organic or inorganic life may exist on another planet or satellite, I would refer them to read the paragraphs contained within the first picture of my treatise. Ask a biologist, or some graduate of an institution of higher learning the same question and you will recieve the expected educated anecdotal thoughts found and read in the better science journals of today.

The commentors of my post are not reading my treatise carefully; or rather my treatise is being read carelessly.:naughty::naughty: ..., or something.

So it goes.:whistle::whistle:

[01101001]

If you're trying to persuade us to read what you've written, to invest our precious time in analyzing your ideas, you'll have to do a better sales job. So far, you haven't piqued my interest. What's in it for me?

[Kurt]

This isn't a forum for edification of any kind.

[N C More]

This isn't a forum for edification of any kind.

BAUT is not a forum for promoting one's religious beliefs. BAUT is a scientific site. There are many other forums for discussing religion. I hope you find a nice place for such discussions. Good luck! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/a010.gif

[Kurt]

Like mixing oil and water, I wuldn't want tew insult the sincibilities of 'ye learned princes. Might get me head chooped off! :clap: :shifty: :clap:

[01101001]

Like mixing oil and water, I wuldn't want tew insult the sincibilities of 'ye learned princes. Might get me head chooped off! :clap: :shifty: :clap:

Was your treatise executed with the same creative writing skills you've demonstrated here?

[Wolverine]

If someone were to ask me what forms of organic or inorganic life may exist on another planet or satellite, I would refer them to read the paragraphs contained within the first picture of my treatise. Ask a biologist, or some graduate of an institution of higher learning the same question and you will recieve the expected educated anecdotal thoughts found and read in the better science journals of today.

The "Joy" and "Pain" parameters you've outlined are at best philosophical -- they cannot be logically applied to organisms lacking the biological faculties to perceive either. More importantly, the paragraphs you mention (and similarly, those in the remainder of your paper) vastly oversimplify well-understood biological mechanisms and behavior of species. You've begun from a religiously-motivated premise, attempted to redefine aspects of biology and evolution to follow, and reached a conclusion that's again religious in nature.

The scientific method does not include the religious, supernatural, or metaphysical. The claims posited in your essay are neither testable nor falsifiable. Simply put - and I mean no offense - what you've offered is not scientific. As such, there is very little that can be discussed here.

[Kurt]

... and the lack of imagination inherent with the Senior Members of this thread is sort of scary. These minds at bautforum.com are the product of our educational system, the best and the brightest? This should be a piece of cake then to convince them of my theory ...

No stimulus could be imagined, such as a pin prick to the cellular wall of a paramecium could be construed as the reason for the observed ambulatory response of the paramecium as it quickly slithers away from and in the opposite direction from said stimulus i.e., the pin prick?:wall: Good God use your common sense here! The response of slithering away wasn't in response to what is commonly referred to as "pain?" And to top it off it wasn't in response to something at least similar to a sensation of pain because we in the scientific community do not see and acknowledge even a rudimentary nervous system in the paramecium which could react to environmental stimulus.

Again I say the lack of imagination, of innovative thought is astounding.

Imagine it’s the early 1900’s and the Senior Members at bautforum.com have collected together for an evening of drinks at the local pub. After an hour of hoisting the celebratory rounds of two or three drinks, reminicsing and recollecting they are upon the forum discussions of past, in through the door walks this disheveled, clown haired old man.

“Swift, wayneee, Wolverine look who just walked in,“ says 01101001, “that dufus from the patent office.”

“He’s probably going to try and convince us light can bend around large massive objects again,” continues 01101001 with a mocking chuckle.

“I’m really not in the mood for his supernatural hocus-pocus talk,” says Wolverine as he gulps down the last of his double shot of Vermouth Manhattan drink.

“The guys probably got bugs in that hair of his,” opines 01101001. “Does he even comb it? Look at that mop on his head!”

“Hey, how you guys doing?” says Albert Einstein as he walks up to a stool and sits between Swift, wayneee, Wolverine and, last but not least, to the left of 01101001.

“Hey listen fella,” chimes the now belligerent 01101001, “none of us want to hear any more of your unscientific views. Go talk about rolling God’s dice somewhere else.”

“We told you before,” reminds Wolverine, “we’re scientific. Understand?”

“Wait,” interrupts Al as he pulls a paper napkin in front of himself. Al takes out a pencil and scribbles E=mc2 onto it, then hands it to 01101001.

Turning to look directly in front of Al’s face, “Are you trying to impress me with some of your creative writing skills?” the now boorish 01101001 remarks. A loud, wet burp punctuates the end of the sentence.

Albert Einstein takes the napkin and wipes the bits of 01101001’s spittle off his face, then gets up and sits at another stool at the end of the bar.

“I guess we took care of him,” chuckles the incorrigible pedants one to the other.

Turning back to his fellow commrades and, with a triumphantly wide, smiley like type of grin on his face, “Hey, did you hear what I read the other day,” says 01101001.

“No, tell me,” says wayneee.

...,

“The best way to get rid of your enemies is to make him your friend.” - Abraham Lincoln

“Some men are born great, some men achieve greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them.” - William Shakespeare

Things may change but as per the date of this post let it be known that the Senior Members of bautforum.com have nothing in common with, and possess no personal characteristics to the above quote of William Shakespeare.

Let everyone who reads this hope, and yes pray for the change in the Senior Members at bautforum.com which may have them someday change their personal demeanors in a way that could lead them to become innovators, to actually do something with their brain power, like generate millions of dollars to themselves. But then ..., there’s nothing scientific about striving for or even wanting to possess millions of dollars.

Even the inspiration to bring one to want and possess millions of dollars doesn’t derive its source from scientific origins, so why bother, right? It’s just fun to sit and collect and then discuss what everyone else is also collecting and talking about.

"May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits." - As I read the threads of this forum I'm reminded of Johnny Carson, as Karnak, in response to the boo's from the audience, as he finished commenting about some particular thing.

[SirBlack]

... and the lack of imagination inherent with the Senior Members of this thread is sort of scary. These minds at bautforum.com are the product of our educational system, the best and the brightest? This should be a piece of cake then to convince them of my theory ...

Because obviously you are always right and anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you is obviously not very intelligent. (warning: sarcasm)

No stimulus could be imagined, such as a pin prick to the cellular wall of a paramecium could be construed as the reason for the observed ambulatory response of the paramecium as it quickly slithers away from and in the opposite direction from said stimulus i.e., the pin prick?:wall: Good God use your common sense here! The response of slithering away wasn't in response to what is commonly referred to as "pain?" And to top it off it wasn't in response to something at least similar to a sensation of pain because we in the scientific community do not see and acknowledge even a rudimentary nervous system in the paramecium which could react to environmental stimulus.

This could be interesting to actually discuss. I would have commented on it. But seeing how you've taken the time to state that no one around here beyond yourself is using their brain... Well, I guess there's no real reason to bother. (I'll just note this idea reminds me of the Bacteria... aware? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35500) thread.)

On the next forum or whatever you visit, you might consider not insulting your audience.

[N C More]

On the next forum or whatever you visit, you might consider not insulting your audience.

Some excellent advice, SirBlack.

Observation/question: Why do they always compare themselves to either Einstein, Columbus, or Galileo? The scientific method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html) makes it quite clear where the burden of proof lies.


If you have such an idea, remember that the burden of proof is on you. The new theory should explain the existing data, provide new predictions and should be testable; remember that all scientific theories are falsifiable. Read the articles and improve your theory in the light of your new knowledge. Starting a scientific revolution is a long, hard slog. Don't expect it to be easy. If it was, we would have them every week. People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo as an example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for heretic theories. They claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth. This is a classic conspiracy theory. The Conspirators are all those scientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put forward by the researchers. The usual rejoinder to someone who says ``They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo'' is to say ``But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown''.

[Ken G]

What's more, most great scientific innovators did not get laughed at. Galileo inspired everything from awe-struck admiration to furious anger, but rarely was laughter the result. Einstein was working on a huge problem that lots of people were worrying about, and were desperate to have a solution for. He had a formal education, talked with many physicists at Princeton on a regular basis, and was taken quite seriously. Where did this myth that Einstein got laughed at even come from? I'm afraid the real scenario in that bar would be more like "Uh oh, here's that guy with the vague philosophies about pain and spiritual laws, that's going to be a one-way conversation... oh thank goodness, here comes that guy from the patent office, perhaps now we'll have some ideas that will help us to understand actual observations that need explaining..."

[wayneee]

Swift, wayneee, Wolverine look who just walked in,“ says 01101001, “that dufus from the patent office.”

Realy I dont think we would call anyone a dufus,especialy from the patent office. We would be very interested in learning what came accross his desk over beers. I would be drinking a Dark Hienieken, or whatever Amber beer was on draft, prehaps Guiness. If Albert Einstien showed up writing things on naptkins, Im sure we would be fairly stupified and sceptical, as he is dead now. Wolverine would most likely buy the imposter a drink and we would have a good laugh.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Don't bother. We have rules on this board, including this one:


2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.


Kurt has managed to shatter several rules in here in just seven posts. He doesn't get another chance.

[peter eldergill]

Wow, that didn't take long

Pete

[Wolverine]

For the record, I do not drink Vermouth Manhattans. That's so 1963.

[peter eldergill]

....straight gin then? Ha!

L8R

Pete

[Celestial Mechanic]

I'm a little disappointed that Kurt wasn't around long enough to caricature me (and maybe my friends from grad student days!) in that bar scene of his! Back at that time (the mid '80s) Planter's Punch was my favorite drink!

:dance:

[wayneee]

Whats in Planters punch? Im familiar with Prohibition Punch.

[Wolverine]

....straight gin then? Ha!

L8R

Pete

Eew, no. :sick:

Hey, come to think of it, this thread probably should have been closed earlier.