Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Turd]
    #3212906 -

From a mind-expanded point of view i believe our body's have stopped evolving and now our minds are evolving. Animals, reptiles, insects etc all evolve physically, but they're stuck with basic animal instincts - they can't learn anymore than they're parents. We on the other hand are learning. In the past 2000 years we've gone from living in houses made from mud to interplanetary travel. Yet our bodies are relativly the same. Just my opinion.


--------------------
"[More than] half the people in federal prison are there for drug offences. We're arresting half a million people a year for possessing marijuana. We're locking up kids sometimes for life for their first drug offence. We have no room in our prisons for rapists and child molesters and murderers cause we're filling them up with these non violent drug offenders." - Steven Duke, Yale Law School on 'Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way'
-

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Turd]
    #3212922 -

Sigh. This thread is depressing. Don't they teach you the theory of evolution is US schools? Oh, right.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Turd]
    #3212960 -

in Aust they taught us natural selection. that is normal animals over time don't adapt to their surroundings but rather the animals or mutant) born to suit their surroundings better survived over the weaker ones.


--------------------
"[More than] half the people in federal prison are there for drug offences. We're arresting half a million people a year for possessing marijuana. We're locking up kids sometimes for life for their first drug offence. We have no room in our prisons for rapists and child molesters and murderers cause we're filling them up with these non violent drug offenders." - Steven Duke, Yale Law School on 'Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way'
-

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Turd]
    #3213765 -

"Sigh. This thread is depressing. Don't they teach you the theory of evolution is US schools? Oh, right. "

AHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

well, actually they tried in my one bio class, very rudimentarily..
but one kid felt it his job to counter everything the teacher stated with some bullshit out of the bible, so we never got anywhere.


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3214013 -

ok, evolution is random and only the strong or useful mutations survive. My point remains the same.

They dont really teach you much of anything in US schools. Except that drugs are bad. And sex is evil.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3214189 -

I appreciate the fact that you have chosen to back up what you say with evidence. Being a computer nerd as you noted (I program in Java, Mono, and Python) I will concede much of my point about weather prediction in the face of your example (a very fine example). I must note that I was able to get the code to compile with gcc with a little effort.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3215108 -

This is analogous to saying that given the starting position of a molecule of water in a turbulent river, you can predict its position indefinitely into the future.

If I was a bettin man I'd wager all the money I make in the next 20 years of my life that we'll be able track that fuckin molecule all the way across the universe within two decades. Exponential problems require exponential power of solution. That kind of processing power is on its way; computers are evolving at an insane rate and there seems to be no end in sight.

There's always something incredible waiting to be unlocked by the human mind, and I have faith that we'll tackle and solve just about any problem we can come up with, given enough time and technological augmentation.

To my mind, technology is where the real human "evolution" is happening. Ever since we discovered the first technologies, symbol making with drawings and sounds, we've been on a rampage of invention and expansion of our technological boundaries. Now we're using our symbols to wrangle the forces of nature into letting us escape from the grip of the planet and other feats of mastery over the underlying principles of the dimension we reside in. Genetic engineering possesses such incredible potential that its almost impossible to comprehend what the implications of it will be.

I guess the point of this stoned ramble is, don't doubt that humanity is tenaciously on the way to possessing even more incredible computing and problem solving powers.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: chunder]
    #3215162 -

Within two decades? ... Yeah I could see that happening. We are making leaps and bounds these days in the realm of non-linear systems.

Just because we don't have the mathematics to describe a single water molecule's journey down the river now certainly doesn't mean we will NEVER have such a math :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: trendal]
    #3216184 -

Just because we don't have the mathematics to describe a single water molecule's journey down the river now certainly doesn't mean we will NEVER have such a math

Maybe... who's to say for sure.  But the technology required would, by today's standards, be utter magic. The very concepts required to tackle the problem aren't even on the horizon and may not be (probably are not) possible due to limitations inherent in the math. If by some totally unfathomable new mathematics we're some day able to make these predictions, which I think very unlikely, it certainly will not be in the next 20 years.

Listen, don't take my word for it.  I'm just some guy; what do I know.  Use what I wrote as a guide and follow up for yourself; once you understand the principles involved, I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Read Edward Lorenz's groundbreaking 1963 paper about the topic.  Yes, that's the same guy who developed the Lorenz Equations of Chaos Theory.  He's an MIT research meteorologist; he knows mathematics, computing, and meteorology better than all of us combined; and he says the same thing I'm saying.

In Lorenz's meteorological computer modeling, he discovered the underlying mechanism of deterministic chaos: simply-formulated systems with only a few variables that display highly complicated behavior that is unpredictable. Unpredictable!

You guys are using intuition about the rate of computing power increases to judge something totally unrelated and which you know little about, specifically meteorology and fluid dynamics, and you're coming to the wrong conclusion.

Read Edward Lorenz.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (10/05/04 03:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: trendal]
    #3216374 -

Alright, I just can't seem to let this go.

Let me present the problem of weather forecasting another way that may finally convince you that accurate long-term prediction is almost certainly impossible.

Computer models of the weather start by taking a 'snapshot' of the Earth, a data set comprised of weather observations from weather stations distributed around the planet.  This data includes such things as sea surface temperature, air temperature, humidity, pressure, all that stuff.

The data is parsed into a data structure in the program, then the program logic goes to town on the data, so to speak. As the crunching proceeds, the system makes predictions of what the weather will do based on what the number crunching does to the data.

The problem with this is that the starting data can *** NEVER *** be 100% accurate or 100% complete because that would require the model to know the position and momentum of every molecule of air and water on the planet.  The more weather stations you use to feed the model, the further into the future it will be accurate before it begins to diverge, but we can't cover the Earth in weather stations so there will always be gaps and estimates in the data.

Arguments about the availability of magically enormous amounts of computing power aside, do you see that since the starting data set of the model can never be a perfect representation of the atmosphere, the prediction can never be perfect either; it ends up quickly diverging from reality. Lorenz found that even a super-tiny change in a single starting parameter causes a mega-gross difference in the eventual prediction.

Now, here's the beef of my argument. If a super-tiny error in a single input parameter to a weather modeling algorithm causes such a mega-gross difference in the output, then how much more gross a change in the output would the inherent errors in weather station measurements cause?  How about the huge gaps in the starting data caused by fact that the Earth isn't carpeted by weather stations?

These mega-gross changes do not show up in short-term predictions because the system hasn't had a chance to diverge in the short-term. That's why the models are so good at predicting three or four days ahead, and why they start to get flaky about a week ahead, and are totally useless a month ahead.

Make sense?

I've pretty much said all I can on the topic. I encourage you to not take my word for any of this and follow up for yourself.  Read Lorenz's work and check out the Butterfly Effect.

Edit: took out the bit about dropping out since I can't seem to stay away from this thread.  :grin:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (10/05/04 10:34 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3216801 -

Quote:
Maybe... who's to say for sure. But the technology required would, by today's standards, be utter magic.



I think the quote is something along the lines of..

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic..
forget who at the moment though.


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3217180 -

Well known quote by one of my favorite sci-fi authors, Arthur C. Clarke. He wrote 2001, A Space Odyssey and the subsequent editions.  :thumbup:

I chose the word 'magic' above in deference to this very quote.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (10/05/04 10:00 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3217323 -

Diploid I first learned about chaos theory and related ideas quite some time ago, more reading only seems to confirm my suspicions :wink:

But the technology required would, by today's standards, be utter magic.

Don't fall into the trap of saying "well if it's this hard now...it will be this hard forever"! Human knowledge does not increase in a linear fashion, it increases in a logarithmic scale. Approximately every 10 years our knowledge as a species doubles. In 2014 we will know twice what we know now! This is possible because we do not just "find" our knowledge randomly...we build on what we already know. The more we know, the more we CAN know...so our knowledge as a species advances faster and faster as time goes on. Let me say it again, a different way: nearly half of all the knowledge we have as a species was discovered in the last 10 years or so. This will still be true 10 years from now...we will know twice as much as we do now, so half of all our knowledge 10 years from now will be discovered over the next 10 years. That's a lot of information :wink:

That being said: I think trying to predict what WON'T happen in the future is futile...because many of the inventions and advancements to come are beyond our current level of comprehension. This can be true even for discoveries that are only a few years away! Bill Gates once said no one would EVER need more than 640 kB of RAM in a computer. His own company surpassed that limit only a few years later. When computers were in their infancy, most people could not conceive of a computer small enough to fit in a single room...let alone the palm of your hand. At that point it was not simply a technological problem (ie: miniaturization) because there was no way to make the damned things much smaller (they used vacuume tubes). Then came along the transistor: overnight the possibilities changed drastically. No one not actively working on the transistor development team could have known that we were only weeks away from a major development. The same can be said for the integrated circuit...which again completely changed the playing field for "what is possible".

As I said in my last post, we are making some progress in the area of non-linear mathematics (chaotic systems, like the weather). It is slow progress right now, and the pace reminds me of the pace leading up to most major discoveries. I think within the next 50 years we will have some fairly powerful non-linear mathematics which will revolutionize more than any of us can imagine right now.

The problem right now is that we can only view non-linear systems peice by peice. We do not possess the math required to look at the "big picture" with any real clarity. We look at indvidual storm systems and such, because we possess neither the math nor computing power to look at the entire Earth's weather system. Ten years from now we could have quantum computers capable of non-linear calculations that our fastest computers now struggle with. In ten years we could also have at least the beginnings of a true system of non-linear mathematics. Unfortunately for most of us, we will not know about these advancements until they have already been made...and I think that SEVERELY limits our ability to say "this will not happen for quite some time". You never know...it may happen tomorrow :wink:

If you are interested in chaos theory and related ideas, I'd recommend a book I just read called "Sync", by Steven Strogatz. It is not really about chaos thoery in specific, though the topic comes up often. It is more about spontaneous order in our Universe and how it arises out of disorder (which, in essense, is chaos theory). Excellent read!

(ps: have you ever read the Rama series (4 books) by A.C. Clark? it's one of my favorite sci-fi series of all time!)


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: trendal]
    #3217742 -

As I said in my last post, we are making some progress in the area of non-linear mathematics (chaotic systems, like the weather).

But unless we literally carpet the surface of the Earth with weather stations, even a perfect mathematical model will be starting with interpolations of the weather at all points where there is no weather station. Even a perfect model can't be psychic; if it has only an estimate to start with, it's forecasting weather for a non-existent planet, a hypothetical planet that exists only in the data and only approximates Earth. If a butterfly flaps its wings in the space between weather stations and goes undetected (divergence) the model will diverge from reality after a few days' forecast as well. That's close enough for jazz in the near term, but will rapidly diverge as the deviations and monitions from reality in the estimates assert themselves in the calculations.

Technology cannot fix this; technology cannot carpet the Earth with weather stations; technology cannot measure barometric pressure with absolute zero-error precision. Faster computers cannot compensate for missing data any more than faster computers can make post-process a blurry photograph and render the original without error. It cannot be done on any computer no matter how fast.

Don't fall into the trap of saying "well if it's this hard now...it will be this hard forever"! Human knowledge does not increase in a linear fashion, it increases in a logarithmic scale.

It's not me saying this, it's a really smart guy from MIT. I just have the benefit of his research and commentary to draw on for my posts above.

You're not arguing with me on this, you're arguing with Lorenz, and forgive me for saying this, he's probably smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject at hand than the two of us combined; and he's an expert on meteorology and computer modeling on top of that.

That doesn't make him infallible by any means; but when an accomplished scientist specializing in a certain field, meteorology in this case, says something, I take a very hard look at my argument before presuming to contradict him/her.

I'd like to try something. I'd like to take this discussion out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of logic and see where we end up.

I'd like to pose a few true/false questions to you. I'm going to word them very, very carefully so that the meaning of each is as clear as I can make it. If you find one of my questions unclear or you can't answer with a true/false, allow me to clarify it before you answer. I'm trying to write precisely so that there is no room for interpretation. I'll follow up when I have your answers.

True or False:

1. There infinitely many primes.

2. The primes are randomly distributed.

3. The distribution of primes is such that they become scarcer as they get larger.

4. The rate at which the primes rarify (get scarcer) as they get larger itself increases (accelerates) as the primes get larger?

5. There is no known polynomial-time algorithm for computing prime numbers.

6. There is no known algorithm that will calculate primes faster and faster with each successive prime the algorithm finds, rather than slower and slower with each successive prime the algorithm finds.

7. There is nothing known anywhere in the net sum of all mathematics that suggests such an algorithm (question 6) exists.

8. If an algorithm if found to solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time, then that algorithm also solves all NP problems in polynomial time (or faster) as well.

9. If such an algorithm (question 8) is found today, it will cause the complete collapse of all asymmetric-key cryptographic systems in use today regardless of key size.

10. It is likely that such an algorithm (question 9) will be found in your lifetime.

11. Given sufficiently fast computers and sufficiently advanced mathematics, an algorithm exists that can render an out of focus image sharp and exactly true to the original.

12. There are no intractable problems.

Rama series
I read Rendezvous when I was a little haploid and have been hooked on Clarke ever since.  :thumbup:

"Sync", by Steven Strogatz.
Yes. His treatise is on the rise of order in natural systems. It's wonderful reading, but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand which is the *fall* of order in diverging systems. That's Lorenz's area. You're reading the wrong book. :grin:

Edit: added a question, typo...

Edited by Diploid (10/06/04 03:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3217786 -

Well I'll do my best to answer true or false, but some of the questions may not be so easy :wink:

1. There infinitely many primes. True

2. The primes are randomly distributed. True

3. The distribution of primes is such that they become scarcer as they get larger. True

4. The rate at which the primes rarify (get scarcer) as they get larger itself increases (accelerates) as the primes get larger? True

5. There is no known polynomial-time algorithm for computing prime numbers. True

6. There is no known algorithm that will calculate primes faster and faster with each successive prime the algorithm finds, rather than slower and slower with each successive prime the algorithm finds. True, though that may change with the advent of quantum computing.

7. There is nothing known anywhere in the net sum of all mathematics that suggests such an algorithm (question 6) exists. False. There have been some quantum-algorithms proposed that, if run on a quantum-computer, significantly reduce the complexity of the process and the time required to run.

8. If an algorithm if sound to solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time, then that algorithm also solves all NP problems in polynomial time (or faster) as well. True

9. If such an algorithm (question 8) is found today, it will cause the complete collapse of all asymmetric-key cryptographic systems in use today regardless of key size. True. See response to question 7.

10. It is likely that such an algorithm (question 9) will be found in your lifetime. Unknown. Any answer I could give would only be speculation, as I pointed out that human advancement (both technoligal and pure theory) does no follow a linear sequence. My personal speculation is that such an algoithm will be found in my lifetime...we may already be in the first stages of producing such an algorithm and I suspect this progress will quicken when quantum computing becomes practical.

11. There are no intractable problems. False.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3217804 -

But unless we literally carpet the surface of the Earth with weather stations, even a perfect mathematical model will be starting with interpolations of the weather at all points where there is no weather station. Even a perfect model can't be psychic; if it has only an estimate to start with, it's forecasting weather for a non-existent planet, a hypothetical planet that exists only in the data and only approximates Earth. That's close enough for jazz in the near term, but will rapidly diverge as the deviations from reality in the estimates assert themselves in the calculations.

Technology cannot fix this; technology cannot carpet the Earth with weather stations; technology cannot measure barometric pressure with absolute zero-error precision. Faster computers cannot compensate for missing data any more than faster computers can make post-process a blurry photograph and render the original without error. It cannot be done on any computer no matter how fast.

I think you are still looking at this problem from a linear approach, which is obviously not the way to look at a non-linear system.

My main point in all this is that you should not fall into the trap of deciding that something is not possible when all you have to go on is our current level of understanding and technological development. I think that human advancement is itself a chaotic system (think of all the connections which must come together for a major discovery) and thus can not be predicted at present time. To say that something will never be possible is a great fallacy in science today, and I doubt that Lorenz is saying just that. He is probably talking about what is or is not possible right now :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: trendal]
    #3221667 -

trendal, thanks for indulging my questions...  :thumbup:

Quote:
6. There is no known algorithm that will calculate primes faster and faster with each successive prime the algorithm finds, rather than slower and slower with each successive prime the algorithm finds.

True, though that may change with the advent of quantum computing.


The superposition of entangled quantum states is not currently very useful in real world computing. It holds tremendous theoretical promise, but even after ~30 years of work since the ideas of QC were first proposed, the most advanced QC built to date is IBM's seven qubit machine. An amazing device, to be sure, but it's a very long way from IBM's machine to a practical QC.

There are significant engineering and theoretical obstacles on the path to a practical QC. I don't think such a device is anywhere in the near future, if it ever comes at all, and I think this is the main point of contention between us on this topic.

Quote:
9. If such an algorithm (question 8) is found today, it will cause the complete collapse of all asymmetric-key cryptographic systems in use today regardless of key size.

True. See response to question 7.


Most cryptanalysts think QC is not a credible threat to existing cryptosystems for the foreseeable future. I agree with them. Eventually, maybe, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime if ever.

Quote:
technology cannot carpet the Earth with weather stations;

I think you are still looking at this problem from a linear approach,


Even conceding that a practical QC to forecast weather will soon be constructed, you're still left with the problem of feeding the model an accurate representation of the starting state of the atmosphere. If you omit the effect of a single butterfly, then according to the Butterfly Effect, your model will diverge from reality no matter how powerful a QC you use to run the model because the errors (noise) amplify as the calculations proceed.

To extend this further, since divergent systems such as the weather and models to predict it are hyper-sensitive to changes in the starting data set, and since Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle guarantees at least some error will always occur in the starting data set, we're back where we started. No computer, not even mega-powerful QC's can predict the weather far into the future because they can never have a complete and accurate snapshot of the atmosphere from which to begin forecasting. Any tiny error in the input results in a gross error in the output whenever a sufficiently long-term forecast is attempted.

I don't think a QC can solve this fundamental data-entry problem no matter how non-linearly powerful it is.  :confused:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Turd]
    #3221725 -

Most cryptanalysts think QC is not a credible threat to existing cryptosystems for the foreseeable future. I agree with them. Eventually, maybe, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime if ever.

You know that they've got Shor's algorithm up and running on a proof of concept quantum computer already? I think they factored 14 into 2 and 7.

So make sure your keys are longer than four bits.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: Diploid]
    #3221815 -

No, the data-entry problem will remain even with highly advanced QC...but that was not what I intended to say (though I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way...I should have been much more explicit).

I doubt if we will ever be able to accurately predict long-term weather...however that isn't truely needed. All I'd like is an accurate 5-day forcast :smirk:

Here's what I'm getting at with the non-linearity: if we can really begin to understand weather systems and how they work, we should be able to VERY accurately predict short-term weather even without an entire data-set. Right now weather forcasting is almost a joke, they are dead wrong more often than right...kind of looks like luck most of the time! However if we understood how localized weather systems work, we could surely use the data-gathing tools we CURRENTLY have to make an accurate short-term prediction (which we lack now, whatever your weatherman tells you).


Oh, and you are 100% correct, the topic of QC and how long it will be until we have one is the main difference in our viewpoints here :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: are we going to stop evolving? [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3223765 -

You know that they've got Shor's algorithm up and running on a proof of concept quantum computer already? I think they factored 14 into 2 and 7

The number of qubits required to factor integers using Shor on a Quantum Computer is ~n^5 where n = the number of bits in the candidate integer. That's about one quadrillion qubits for a 1000 bit integer. The most advanced Quantum Computer yet built is IBM's seven qubit machine. Seven.

This is not a trivial problem. Just because something is possible does not necessarily mean it is feasible.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (10/06/04 07:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Stop the madness! LOBO 1,365 11 05/03/02 04:19 PM
by InDiCaToRgReEn
* Are we evolving to nature's "Insect 2.0?" Strumpling 1,708 10 01/28/03 07:38 AM
by Strumpling
* evolving into God??
( 1 2 all )		 JCoke 1,779 23 04/24/05 10:26 PM
by Swami
* Can I stop thinking of death as a negative thing? Help me?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 MOTH 6,025 72 06/02/04 12:16 PM
by Swami
* Humans evolved with mushrooms
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 4,666 56 12/08/03 12:53 AM
by pattern
* Religon haters: evolving or devolving?
( 1 2 all )		 whiterastahippie 4,271 29 07/23/02 05:02 PM
by whiterastahippie
* Gonna be travelling in the NE U.S.... can i stop by? Adamist 397 5 12/09/03 12:24 AM
by Shroomism
* Humanity Evolving, need help? johnnyfive 1,227 9 01/09/03 02:39 AM
by johnnyfive

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,583 topic views. 1 members, 223 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.