Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nepos twiddletonis

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 1191
1
First day of class, she asked us all to say what our favorite anything was.

At the time, the only non-biology uniform that I had that would be readily recognizable to anyone else was Trekkie.

So she was like, Kirk or Picard, and I almost said, what about the other three? and then settled for "all of it"

2
I will say this though. Aside from Microbiology, Cell was my favorite, and I really, really liked my professor. I had a bit of a grade dip that corresponded with my friend's untimely death, but it was a really interesting course, and the professor was probably the most approachable one I've ever had, to the point where she said my coat was awesome, brought up Doctor Who because of my tee shirt, and mentioned the Necronomicon in passing during lecture while saying "looking over in that part of the room" to which I later responded, "Awesome HP Lovecraft reference" and she said, "Oh, you had to get all classy, I was talking about Evil Dead"

She sounds awesome, and Cell sounds awesome! What book did you use? I wish I'd taken lower-division Cell & Micro to help prep me for upper-division work, but I was out of electives. I think it would have REALLY helped though.

Essential Cell Biology, Third Edition, Alberts, Bray, Hopkin, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, Walter

Not a bad book actually. Even came with a CD ROM. Which I never used because my CD drive crapped out permanently.

3
I will say this though. Aside from Microbiology, Cell was my favorite, and I really, really liked my professor. I had a bit of a grade dip that corresponded with my friend's untimely death, but it was a really interesting course, and the professor was probably the most approachable one I've ever had, to the point where she said my coat was awesome, brought up Doctor Who because of my tee shirt, and mentioned the Necronomicon in passing during lecture while saying "looking over in that part of the room" to which I later responded, "Awesome HP Lovecraft reference" and she said, "Oh, you had to get all classy, I was talking about Evil Dead"

4
I hate public speaking, and the smaller the audience, the more I hate it.

And that's a bizarre thing. The smaller the audience, the worse it really is. Mathematically it doesn't work out.

5
It's definitely a confidence thing. It's the same sort of stage fright I used to get back in 2006.

6
Took my Cell Bio final today. Felt pretty confident about that. There were a couple of enzymatic pathways that I was shaky on in the sense of what the enzymes and proteins were actually named, but I was able to describe what was happening.

Still no word on the physics grade. Which has me bummedcited, for lack of a better word. It's like the anticipation you feel with Christmas when you're a very young child and have no concept of time and December is very long, but with a sense of impending doom.

I hope it all ends up being good news!

I'm definitely going to pass Cell Bio, even if it's a C (I'm expecting B-ish). Physics is the question mark, since he confirmed around midterms that failing didn't mean that you were failing. He said if you get an A on the final, you get an A, otherwise he has to calculate the grade.

I know I didn't get an A on the final.

But, getting back to Cell Bio, my Geminivirus presentation got a 95% and the deductions were due solely to my nervousness. Funny how that works. If there's 200 of you and I'm with 4 other people and playing a guitar, I don't care. I'm a badass. If it's 15 of you and it's just me, you're going to hear "um" more than "the"

7
Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.

He abhors smartasses.  We're all fucked.

 :lulz:

8
Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.

9
But that is an important point. If you want to make a point about God, you have to describe what the strengths and limitations of this God is. There's a big difference between Yahweh and Aten and Ahura Mazda and Brahma and Spinoza's God and....

Even if you're not pinning it to Yahweh, you're still calling it a monotheistic God that created the Universe. That seems specific, but actually isn't. It's just a couple of fingers of parameters.

10
and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,

You guys should stop being wrong.  All I'm sayin'.

That just gave me the biggest grin.

I hope you're right.

11
Took my Cell Bio final today. Felt pretty confident about that. There were a couple of enzymatic pathways that I was shaky on in the sense of what the enzymes and proteins were actually named, but I was able to describe what was happening.

Still no word on the physics grade. Which has me bummedcited, for lack of a better word. It's like the anticipation you feel with Christmas when you're a very young child and have no concept of time and December is very long, but with a sense of impending doom.

12
I likewise congratulate you, Nigel.

Sorry I didn't do so before. There's a bit of nail biting going on here.

13
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.

It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.

Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.

Ok, hang on a minute here. It seems like you're lumping your premises in as necessarily entwined. Which is probably why I thought you were conflating monotheism with Judeochrislam. I think I've already touched on how a mind can exist without a social context. A mind only exists to make sure that a particular pattern of nucleic acids replicates to a certain degree. I myself am not an atheist, but one of my favorite quotes is actually a Dawkins quote and has nothing to do with atheism, but with the chicken and the egg. He basically said the chicken is merely a means for the egg to make more eggs. And if you ever studied even an overview of plant evolution, you would know that that's a pretty apt comparison (mosses, which are more "primitive" spend most of their life cycle in the haploid stage, whereas flowering plants which are more recent spend most of their time in the diploid stage. If you don't know what that means, humans are haploid when they are sperm and egg, and diploid when they are embryo to corpse)

Quote
Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.
A god needs nothing. A theology does. And a human language to express the concept. I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by God, even within a monotheistic model. Is it omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Benevolent? Eternal? Has personhood? Has complicated system of ethics? Intervenes in the affairs of a quirk species on a random planet? Promises immorality after biological death? I used to worship the Irish gods. Mythologically speaking, I was at any point in my life perfectly able to kill one of them if I had a whim to do so and they were physically present before me.

Quote
Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?

We can't know what preceded the universe as we understand it. The question, objectively, is meaningless. If you want to conceive of mind preceding matter, you have to be able to demonstrate a model where a mind can exist without matter. We don't know if there is an outside of this Universe. If there is, that opens up a lot of questions. Questions we might not be able to answer because our universe is a closed system. As far as we can tell.

And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
[/quote]

I don't recognize your avatar. Maybe you're putting too much importance on its significance and recognizability.

14
Social context is not needed for thought. I'm saying this from a biological perspective.

There are plenty of species of animal with otherwise complex nervous systems that do not socialize. They're still capable of thought because they still have to interact with their environments. This even works with humans. Picture yourself as the absolute last human in existence. You would probably talk to yourself a lot at first, and then maybe gradually get silent. Other animals you come across are food. No socializing. Let's just say dogs are totally gone too. There's no particular reason to think anything about anything outside of your immediate needs, but when the sun goes down and your food is consumed, are you going to still wonder, or are you just a meat automaton because there's no other automatons to communicate with?

15
Principia Discussion / Re: What degree are you?
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:40:11 am »
23 Kevin

Pfft. I'm a 33 Kevin.

No, seriously, I'm 33 and my real name is Kevin.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 1191