(1) Make people think.

(2) Get opinions on ideas he’s been thinking about.

(3) Stir up a little trouble. (He knows that people will misunderstand what he’s saying and I think he loves it when people type furious replies.)

Anyway, I don’t always agree with what he says, but it’s nearly always fun to read (and some days is beyond funny).

(1) Make people think.

(2) Get opinions on ideas he’s been thinking about.

(3) Stir up a little trouble. (He knows that people will misunderstand what he’s saying and I think he loves it when people type furious replies.)

Anyway, I don’t always agree with what he says, but it’s nearly always fun to read (and some days is beyond funny).

caused = resulted in. There is no real distinction. The rock that fell onto the road in the landslide caused many people to be late for work. Substitute “resulted in” if you wish (substituting also “being” for “to be”), but the meaning doesn’t change.

Agreed. That was dumb. I was thinking of a synonym for “create”, or something. Who knows…

caused = resulted in. There is no real distinction. The rock that fell onto the road in the landslide caused many people to be late for work. Substitute “resulted in” if you wish (substituting also “being” for “to be”), but the meaning doesn’t change.

Agreed. That was dumb. I was thinking of a synonym for “create”, or something. Who knows…

There is no real distinction. The rock that fell onto the road in the landslide caused many people to be late for work. Substitute “resulted in” if you wish (substituting also “being” for “to be”), but the meaning doesn’t change.

The whole point of that post (as he explained today) was that one can’t argue about intelligence unless we DEFINE what we mean by intelligence.

“They weren’t “caused”. They aren’t linked to the big bang in any way other than to say that the big bang must have happened for them to take place. “

That’s what CAUSED means. They couldn’t have happened without the big bang happening first.

As for the universe lacking sensory and storage organs .. that’s just silly. YOUR eyes are part of the universe every bit as much as they are part of YOU. YOUR brain is a part of the universe every bit as much as it is part of you. So, the universe CERTAINLY has sensory organs.

The universe is CERTAINLY much more than a collection of randomness (though I would agree that this is how it started). I’ll use you as an example again. YOU are part of the universe and YOU are not randomness.

To argue with him on any of this misses his point!

There is no real distinction. The rock that fell onto the road in the landslide caused many people to be late for work. Substitute “resulted in” if you wish (substituting also “being” for “to be”), but the meaning doesn’t change.

The whole point of that post (as he explained today) was that one can’t argue about intelligence unless we DEFINE what we mean by intelligence.

“They weren’t “caused”. They aren’t linked to the big bang in any way other than to say that the big bang must have happened for them to take place. “

That’s what CAUSED means. They couldn’t have happened without the big bang happening first.

As for the universe lacking sensory and storage organs .. that’s just silly. YOUR eyes are part of the universe every bit as much as they are part of YOU. YOUR brain is a part of the universe every bit as much as it is part of you. So, the universe CERTAINLY has sensory organs.

The universe is CERTAINLY much more than a collection of randomness (though I would agree that this is how it started). I’ll use you as an example again. YOU are part of the universe and YOU are not randomness.

To argue with him on any of this misses his point!