Deep thoughts, by element®

[Zenmervolt]

Really? Exactly? Perhaps you could quantify these odds since they are so exact.

What I meant was that the odds of any single possible pattern are no greater than the odds for any other possible pattern. For example, when flipping a coin, the pattern of H-T-T-H-H-H-H-T-T-H-T-T-T-H-T-H-T is no more likely than the pattern H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H. Likewise, the hourglass pattern on the spider is no less likely than any other pattern which may have been possible given the genetic constraints.

ZV

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: element®
Now now Marty, no need to bring your lifestyle into this. Besides, those molecules look trippy. Far out man. Peace. Make molecules, not war, or something like that.

😀 Sounds good to me!

If there's a God capable of creating the black widow spider after the advent of humanity, who then places that species on the planet before humanity arrives (evolves), why would it (the God) bother?

By the way, nice thread; sounds like something Moonbeam would think about, but you make a bit more sense.

 

[Keego]

I doubt the hourglass signifies our "time until death" by spiders.

It's just the time until YOU die 😉

 

[Moonbeam]

If the ideas you deal with are not riddled with paradox (hehe), Astaroth33, you aren't dealing with anything of much value, relevance, or power to transform.

Your theory, element®, is totally blown. Spiders aren't insects, they're arachnids.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If the ideas you deal with are not riddled with paradox (hehe), Astaroth33, you aren't dealing with anything of much value, relevance, or power to transform.

Your theory, element®, is totally blown. Spiders aren't insects, they're arachnids.

Actually Moonbeam, you are incorrect on a number of counts. The first of which is that you aren't talking about my theory, but rather symantics. The second of which is that according to dictionary.com, Spiders fall into the category of insects as well. More specifically, they are arachnids. Dictionary.com's definition of insect.

I also disagree with your statement that if your ideas are not riddled with paradox, that they have little value, relevance, power to transform.

In my opinion any statement which causes one to think can be regarded as valuable, and can trnasform someone from one opinion to another or give them an opinion to begin with, if they haven't thought of it before. But that's just my opinion.

I'll admit paradox's can make for quite entertaining conversation at times, and I often enjoy your posts Moonbeam. But I really expected better from you regarding this topic. Perhaps an off day? Everyone is entitled to those once in a while. Hopefully you'll be back to your insightful self soon.

Astaroth, thank you for your agreeable statement.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Really? Exactly? Perhaps you could quantify these odds since they are so exact.

What I meant was that the odds of any single possible pattern are no greater than the odds for any other possible pattern. For example, when flipping a coin, the pattern of H-T-T-H-H-H-H-T-T-H-T-T-T-H-T-H-T is no more likely than the pattern H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H. Likewise, the hourglass pattern on the spider is no less likely than any other pattern which may have been possible given the genetic constraints.

ZV

I'll have to disagree here Zemmervolt. Do you seriously believe that any pattern is as likely as any other? Come on now. So the Mona Lisa is as likely to appear as a circle when molecules randomly move about?

Also you seriously think it is just as likely to get 100 heads in a row as it is to get 50 heads and 50 tails when flipping a coin?

You must know that this simply isn't true.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, elemental, You got me on the insect thingi. I had no idea that ignorance was so massive on the difference between an eight legged dual segmented arachnid and a tri segmented six legged insect that the dictionary had to encompass that ignorance by broadening the definition. I used to think that irregardless wasn't a word either but mass ignorance changed that too. There is, however, a difference between how a word is used casually and how it is used by people who seek precision. Since everybody had already educated you on the general irrelevance to the hourglass on a black widow and any meaning some cosmic phantom might have intended to mystically encode therein, I simply wanted to fill you in on the taxonomically correct meaning of insect. Though, thinking back on the toxicological threat posed by the red winged blackbird, perhaps I should reconsider. The notion that a loose definition implies a blown notion was just for fun. I did however attempt to tell you something important with the paradox thing. Paradoxically, resistance to the paradoxical nature of truth is what protects it. It appears still, to be safe.

 

[element]

So now I'm left wondering just how long until thingi becomes an official word in the English language. 😀

 

[Evadman]

¥Ó¥Õ¥Ö¥Ø¥×¥è¥ä¥â¥õ§Ù¡Î¡Ï

 

[Moonbeam]

Not long, there are 1642 references to it on Alta Vista and over 1500 on Google. But thingi is a vital concept for which no alternative will do, just like 'OK'.

 

[element]

So what is the difference between thingi and thing? Aside from the fact that one is an english word and the other isn't. Is it thing+ mass ignorami (plural of ignoramus) = thingi?

 

[Moonbeam]

A thing is an entity of some kind. A thing is, well it's just a thing. A thingi, on the other hand, or in the other hand can gring great joy. A thingi is much more than a thing, it can represent a whole broad ranging concept. Thing narrows, thingi expands.

 

[flavio]

Wjere's the hourglass?

Pics?

 

[Moonbeam]

Pic

 

[flavio]

Looks like a old dude with a hat to me..

What does that mean?

 

[flavio]

well...

 

[Moonbeam]

It means you have a good sense of humor. 😀