Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: They'll have as much luck finding evidence of microbial life on mars as they have had in finding intelligible radio signals from space. I mean seriously, it's not enough to be looking for intelligible communications right here on earth?

There are many more factors that go into conditions suitable for life than just being in the "goldilocks zone". Or in just finding water within the goldilocks zone.

Of all the people NOT inclined to oversimplify what it takes for life to survive (much less flourish) you would think NASA scientists should be near the top of that list. No one can tell me that belief (aka, faith) isn't a factor in their thinking.

Iamon lyme: I'll bet that since they don't have any control of that Rover that something goes wrong. Maybe crashes even. But not to worry as the little Martians have unique fixit tools (unique to us that is) and they can fix anything (except our economy - I know this because Obama is from Mars).

Other than that, the bunny seems to be ok. The cat loves to play with the yarn ball. Any old one will do.

Iamon lyme: See?! I knew it. Well when traveling, I always look for the closest Starbucks. I just made my Gold!

(V): "...the possibility that this world may once have hosted microbial life."

Mars awaits our arrival...

The Col: ... Hopefully to defrost and analysis the residue!!

(V): Does Halliburton have the contract?

The Col: I bet their sweepers get extra for all the refined metals they find. Maybe we can hire them to sweep Earth's orbit of all the ... ... residue

(V): Our pristine record of respecting our own planet must have all those Martians excited about our latest probe

(V): Crossing your fingers won't help. But precise calculations will. So I'm banking on the math.

In the next few hours Nasa will attempt to land its one-tonne Curiosity rover on the Red Planet to study the possibility that this world may once have hosted microbial life.

The vehicle is packed with scientific instruments, including a laser that can zap rocks to determine their make-up. Curiosity is currently hurtling through space, close to the end of a 570 million km journey from Earth.

Engineers describe its trajectory as near-perfect and they have passed up the last two opportunities to make course corrections. The rover, tucked inside a protective shell, is due to begin its descent to the surface at 05:24 GMT, Monday (06:24 BST; 22:24 PDT, Sun).

A signal confirming it has landed inside a deep depression known as Gale Crater is expected on Earth about seven minutes later, at 05:31 GMT.

But getting this audacious exploration project safely down will be a colossal challenge. Two-thirds of all missions sent to the Red Planet have failed, a good many lost on entry into the thin but unforgiving Martian atmosphere.

>>>>>>>fingers crossed!!

Vikings: ohhhh, big letters too. That must mean you really mean it. ok. I was winning too.

And now Jules, please name a politician that has had an original thought. Take your time but do it before hell freezes.

Subject: Re:Liberals love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas.

Are you being a hypocrite Daniel?

MissDelish: And

I'm funny. And smart. And interesting. And thoughtful. And right.

Jules is just boring.

MissDelish: I beg to differ: My stuff may be a load of rubbish (sometimes there are treasures found in rubbish) but Jules stuff is simply a load of crap (and in a load of crap you'll likely find maggots and a foul smell).

MissDelish: Best sentence all night!!

but they are interesting really even if it is aload of rubbish.

Silvery Moon: they do bicker a lot and reading back - waaaay back others have been told off for doing the same thing. These two must be special.

(V): I should have known. YOu don't like to stay on point because it's easier to pettifog when you ignore the point. Besides, when you don't have a cogent point, rabbit trails are necessary for you.

Artful Dodger: I'm sorry, but we've been through this with your buddy. I don't have to do anything if I choose not to.

The moderators say so

I'd rather spend the time on Diablo 3

(V): You're boring me again. Stay on point.

Subject: Re:Liberals love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas.

ified by (V) (5. August 2012, 18:08:14)
Artful Dodger: You and your buddy do enough of that.. If liberals "love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas" .. then you and your buddy must find it... orgasmic.

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2012-08-05 18:15:40)

[Artful Dodger, United States, Brain Rook (forever), Male] Artful Dodger (hide)
show this user posts | show thread | link
Subject: Note to everyone
Please note how Jules will now try to refute Descartes even though he's quoted him in the past. It never ends.

Pettifog much? Obfuscate?



Next, Jules will try to teach God a lesson too.
Reply (box)

Artful Dodger: And don't say Sticky Notes. I've already demolished that argument.

I challenge any of you liberal (that's you Jules) to name one contemporary original thinker, thought, or idea. Name just ONE.

......waiting...........................

(V): Yep, you certainly are.

Artful Dodger: pettifogging.

(V): NOPE Jule.

(V): Where's the "" I didn't quote him. Do you not know the difference between explaining his position and quoting him? You can't misquote unless you quote. Definition of QUOTE: repeat somebody's exact words: to repeat or copy the exact words spoken or written by somebody


oops

Artful Dodger: No Dan.. you are not. You've taken a philosophical look at ideas and thinking and taken it out of context.

Artful Dodger: Descartes has said that there exists no idea that can be completely original and new. His stated reason is that any "new" idea is simply a recombination of previous ideas. This has been my argument. And you should know that even the Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.

Again Jules, look up the word original. Then argue against Descartes and God.
Reply (box)

(V): You are the one picking. I made a point and you wouldn't accept it even though I am right about it. No one has had an original thought. Especially you.

Artful Dodger: Was I right or what? (I was right).

BTW, did you notice how I didn't quote Descartes and yet jules claims to have spoiled my misquote? (I noticed).

Artful Dodger: Yeah, yeah, yeah.... I said as such earlier about Jesus.

So? We pick and nit pick everything... and end up nowhere!! 3*

(V): No, you're just not willing to accept the fact that no ideas are completely original if they copy or use even ONE idea from something else. The inter-relationship between ideas makes that virtually impossible. The word "original" pertains to the origins or beginnings of something. For an idea to truly be "original" it MUST precede all others. You might invent something that appears to be completely original but on closer inspection it's clear that elements of the idea preceded it's inception. Sticky Notes is a good example of a BAD example of an original idea. There is nothing about a sticky note that is new with the exception of the glue strip on the back. That's the ONLY part of that idea that is "new." And yet the concept of sticking notes here and there as reminders preceded the invention of sticky notes.

But we were talking about thought and ideas and specifically ideas of a politician (any will do). And so going back to The Col's whine about Mitt: No one, not even Obama has had an original thought. Obama's actually continuing some of the very same Bush policies that got us in the financial mess. Name even ONE original thought from Obama and we can trace that idea back into history.

Once again, yer schooled.

Artful Dodger: Sorry I spoiled your misquote YET AGAIN

(V): my response to this post is: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You're still wrong. And now you're boring too!

(V): You apparently don't fully comprehend the concept of "original thought." You need to give it up. You are wrong no matter how much google you cut and paste.

Silvery Moon: Awwwww, are you angry with me now?

in his earlier works Descartes was inclined also to refer to various images in the brain as ideas.[13] And though he abandons this use in his later work, that's not so much a change of view as a clarification. Continuing definition (3) above, he writes:

… [I]t is not only the images depicted in the imagination which I call ‘ideas.’ Indeed, in so far as these images are in the corporeal imagination, that is, are depicted in some part of the brain, I do not call them ‘ideas’ at all; I call them ‘ideas’ only in so far as they give form to [informant] the mind itself, when it is directed towards that part of the brain. (2nd Replies, II.113, AT VII.160-1)

[I]n no case are the ideas of things presented to us by the senses just as we form them in our thinking. So much so that there is nothing in our ideas which is not innate to the mind or the faculty of thinking …. Nothing reaches our mind from external objects through the sense organs except certain corporeal motions … But neither the motions themselves nor the figures arising from them are conceived by us exactly as they occur in the sense organs … Hence it follows that the very ideas of the motions themselves and of the figures are innate in us. The ideas of pain, colours, sounds, and the like must be all the more innate … for there is no similarity between these ideas and the corporeal motions [which cause their production]. (Comments, I.304, AT VIIIB.358-9)

Consequently these ideas, along with that faculty [of thinking], are innate in us, i.e. they always exist within us potentially, for to exist in some faculty is not to exist actually, but merely potentially … (Comments I.305, AT VIIIA.360)

In so far as the ideas are <considered> simply <as> modes of thought, there is no recognizable inequality among them … But in so far as different ideas <are considered as images which> represent different things, it is clear that they differ widely. (3rd Med., II.27-28, AT VII.40; cf. Principles I.17, I.198-9, AT VIIIA.11)

When M. Arnauld says ‘if cold is merely an absence, there cannot be an idea of cold which represents it as a positive thing,’ it is clear that he is dealing solely with an idea taken in the formal sense. Since ideas are forms of a kind, and are not composed of any matter, when we think of them as representing something we are taking them not materially but formally. If, however, we were considering them not as representing this or that, but simply as operations of the intellect, then it could be said that we were taking them materially, but in that case they would have no reference to the truth or falsity of their objects. (4th Replies, II.162-3, AT VII.232)

[T]here is an ambiguity here in the word ‘idea.’ ‘Idea’ can be taken materially, as an operation of the intellect, in which case it cannot be said to be more perfect than me. Alternatively, it can be taken objectively, as the thing represented by that operation; and this thing, even if it is not regarded as existing outside the intellect, can still, in virtue of its essence, be more perfect than myself. (Preface to Med., II.7, AT VII.8)

....... I think therefore I am... or I am therefore I think??

I mean... statements like "you liberals" isn't an original thought.

Artful Dodger: I understand original.... I understand Descartes.. so?

By this thought then.. even Jesus was nothing new.... I think it's said he went over to India and studied there for twelve years anyway.

So?

And you know I wasn't saying I'm Jesus. I wouldn't want to be now even if I was... with some of the idiots out there 'working' in my name.... I'd be embarrassed!!

Artful Dodger: You seem to be a very angry man. I see no one comparing themselves to Jesus on here.

What's your point to " Note to everyone"? What is your intention of that?

it's not politics is it?

You two bicker a lot I see, but I don't think anyone wants to know.

Please note how Jules will now try to refute Descartes even though he's quoted him in the past. It never ends.

Pettifog much? Obfuscate?



Next, Jules will try to teach God a lesson too.

Class dismissed.

Descartes has said that there exists no idea that can be completely original and new. His stated reason is that any "new" idea is simply a recombination of previous ideas. This has been my argument. And you should know that even the Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.

Again Jules, look up the word original. Then argue against Descartes and God.

(V): Nah. You've got the pettifogging trophy. You're number one there.

Give it up Jules. You are pettifogging again. Please go read the dictionary so you can fully understand what "original" means. You clearly don't know.

And now you are comparing yourself to Jesus?

Artful Dodger: You and your buddy do enough of that.. If liberals "love to attack the person rather than focus on their ideas" .. then you and your buddy must find it... orgasmic.

I'd say the A-bomb is an old invention, the universe has been using such for billions of years.. at least this one has, rules as such might be different in another universe, so such laws are not (as theory goes now) multiversal.

The post it, might have been around in terms of a piece of paper and tape, yet no-one thought of putting the two together and using a glue that is very low tack.

"NOTHING in your post supports your assertion that the post it or the rubic represents an original thought."

I expect if Jesus himself said it was you'd still disagree.