African shaman performing levitation

Yeah but what "caused" your "motor cortex" to will your arm up? No body even thinks something caused every thing you decide to do. That is why people have "free will."

Or, don't you believe people have "free will?" Are they just robots as far as you think. (You know that "robot" was coined by a famous science fiction writer, it is not like a latin or old english word, but it has become used in ordinary english because, hey, language is what language does!)

My point is: don't try to climb the tree with all the grease on it. You get my point (wink wink).
 
If this isn't actually Sylviarox, it's another mischievous little monkey of that ilk. They're practically spelling it out for us.
 
insidespace said:
Does this help?
Click to expand...

It helps prove you're a troll, yes. You started off quite well and some people, myself included, just assumed you were naive and ignorant. However, everyone now understands your trollish nature so you're just wasting your time.
 
insidespace said:
Yeah but what "caused" your "motor cortex" to will your arm up? No body even thinks something caused every thing you decide to do. That is why people have "free will."

Or, don't you believe people have "free will?" Are they just robots as far as you think. (You know that "robot" was coined by a famous science fiction writer, it is not like a latin or old english word, but it has become used in ordinary english because, hey, language is what language does!)

My point is: don't try to climb the tree with all the grease on it. You get my point (wink wink).
Click to expand...

Yes we get it. Don't climb greasy trees. Thanks for that, your mission is complete. Good Bye.
 
insidespace said:
So if you can change your center of gravity by tensing your muscles, then maybe a Shaman who has studied this all his life, and has sacred plants at his disposal, plus has a clear and unobstructed mind, unobstructed by Wal*Mart signs and muffler shops, why can't he move *his* center of gravity "up" a little? I'm not sayin he can fly in formation with canada geese, only that he can slide a little "upward" away from the dirt.

Since time immemorial, mankind has looked to the heavens and wished he (or she!) could fly. It is the oldest dream of mankind. Icarus and Daedalus wanted to fly, and they lived a long time ago. So, why were the ancients so convinced they could "fly?" And by "fly" did they mean flap their wings? No, that is for the birds (no pun intended). The Shaman flies by repelling the dirt with his feet (a possible explanation, static electricity). Not by flapping. In all the dreams of mankind, except Daedalus, have you ever seen flapping? No, and my dreams of flight are not flapping flight.

So, why should we, with our limited understanding and our primitive machines, which look to superior intelligiences like childs' toys, think that *WE* have the final word or the inside track on non-flapping flight? Conceit.
Click to expand...
Are you perchance mentally deficient or are you purposefully disregarding what I said? To make it short, I said "preventing a change in his center of gravity - and any change in cog will still be internal - not "up".

I CALL TROLL with absolute certainty and suggest quarantine.
 
insidespace said:
(snip)
Or, don't you believe people have "free will?" Are they just robots as far as you think. (You know that "robot" was coined by a famous science fiction writer, it is not like a latin or old english word, but it has become used in (snip)
Click to expand...

"Robot" was coined by the artist Josef Capek, brother of the writer Karel Capek, who was not simply a science fiction writer but an important mainstream Czech writer as well. The word first appeared in the play R.U.R. (the initials stood for "Rossum's Universal Robots"). For what it's worth, the creations called "robots" in the play are not the mechanical things that we currently call robots, but rather were artificial flesh-and-blood men and women. They are even capable of sexual reproduction.

And so what?
 
Spektator said:
"Robot" was coined by the artist Josef Capek, brother of the writer Karel Capek, who was not simply a science fiction writer but an important mainstream Czech writer as well. The word first appeared in the play R.U.R. (the initials stood for "Rossum's Universal Robots"). For what it's worth, the creations called "robots" in the play are not the mechanical things that we currently call robots, but rather were artificial flesh-and-blood men and women. They are even capable of sexual reproduction.

And so what?
Click to expand...
i.e. he invented androids but called them robots.:)
 
fuelair said:
i.e. he invented androids but called them robots.:)
Click to expand...

I thought a robot was a machine built to do the work of man (no particular shape), an android was a robot built to look like man, and a Cyborg was a robot that had living flesh as part of it's make up (or part man, part machine).
 
Starthinker said:
I thought a robot was a machine built to do the work of man (no particular shape), an android was a robot built to look like man, and a Cyborg was a robot that had living flesh as part of it's make up (or part man, part machine).
Click to expand...
at the time of RUR through the 50's/ very early 60's cyborg did not exist as a term - robots were machine (and almost always were human shaped) and androids were essentially what would now be taken over as clones (chemically grown humans - androids would have no belly buttons and neither would clones unless the bb was added later.)[short version]
 
TjW said:
Why wouldn't clones have navels?
Click to expand...
Because the navel comes from removal of the umbilical cord. No need for a specific umbilical cord for clones as they are not attached to a uterus.- just like if you have an appendectomy and then have cells taken and cloned - the clones will have appendixes but you don't (the reverse, of course, but same in principle).
 
Then what provides nutrition during fetal development?

As I understand it, clones are implanted into host mothers, and develop in the usual way. Indeed, the whole point of clones is that they have identical genetic material. For the fetus to develop in such a way that it did not require a placenta or umbilical cord would require different genetic material.
 
TjW said:
Then what provides nutrition during fetal development?

As I understand it, clones are implanted into host mothers, and develop in the usual way. Indeed, the whole point of clones is that they have identical genetic material. For the fetus to develop in such a way that it did not require a placenta or umbilical cord would require different genetic material.
Click to expand...
For clones to be grown efficiently and in quantity the method will/can not involve individual growth in a female person (or modified male). The clone would remain in a nutrient bath for initial cell divisions and, at a later stage ,by the simplest procedure, have food in and waste out through iv lines though I suspect technology will have come up with a less invasive procedure in a very few years. And, nothing about non-implantation clones would modify the initiating DNA (i.e. currently the implantation of a fertilized egg into a female requires none of that females DNA nor does it take any in in any genetics sense.

Further, it is unlikely that clone creators would want - if not needed - clones to be indistinguishable from non-clones.
 
insidespace said:
If the "will" can make your arm go up, for no apparent reason, then why can't it make your whole body go up?? There is *nothing* that "causes" your arm to go up. It is *not* hit on by a meteor or something. It goes up *on its own.*
Click to expand...

Funny, my arm has a system of nerves, muscles, joints, tendons and ligaments that enable it to move. It is hardly "nothing".
 
Starthinker said:
Is the word god auto edited? Why can't this guy type the word God? At first I thought he was trying to say gonads, as in "The shaman was communicating with his gonads" but realized that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

Hey, isn't this against the new rule 8?
 
fuelair said:
For clones to be grown efficiently and in quantity the method will/can not involve individual growth in a female person (or modified male). The clone would remain in a nutrient bath for initial cell divisions and, at a later stage ,by the simplest procedure, have food in and waste out through iv lines though I suspect technology will have come up with a less invasive procedure in a very few years. And, nothing about non-implantation clones would modify the initiating DNA (i.e. currently the implantation of a fertilized egg into a female requires none of that females DNA nor does it take any in in any genetics sense.

Further, it is unlikely that clone creators would want - if not needed - clones to be indistinguishable from non-clones.
Click to expand...

Since the OP poster doesn't seem to be worth my time, I think it's quite likely that even mass-produced clones made outside their appropriate wombs would have navels. It would be much more efficient to simply grow a placenta with the clone and supply it with artificial blood than it would be to stick all manner of tubes into the clone itself to supply it with nutrients and whatnot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom