it doesn't mean that, because what you wrote doesn't really mean anything, again because none of the words you are using are reasonably well-defined.

After ~75 posts, I have absolutely no idea what the OP is talking about.

Are we talking about The Force here? Like, the midi-chlorians that fill us all, and which Obi Wan can feel disturbances in?

There we have it! The politics connection!

Ok, well you can read it and explain it for us then. I think I clearly defined the original words. And as far as quantum theory, I'm using commonly used words as they're used in science. If you have something else to add, or think that the current research explains something else, then I'm all ears, or in this case eyes.

This reminds me of that nonsense move "What the Bleep Do We Know?" where they try to basically apply science that happens at the subatomic level to everyday life/ Ssaying humans could theoretically walk through walls and stuff, which might be true, strictly speaking, but to the layperson it just totally misrepresents what quantum physics is all about.

Anyway I'm not sure how the behavior of subatomic particles has anything to do with whether or not humans are connected in any meaningful way that we can actually perceive.

That movie was filmed in Portland, at some of my favorite spots. Also, it had that awesome deaf chick from West Wing in it.

lol, no.
Emergence
it's from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

Do elaborate. I will have to read the entire link sometime (got tons of stuff to read at moment). It seems interesting, I cant get distracted right now yet I read this forum! Im guessing u mean like things in nature help reveal God to humanity. Philosophy I find so very theoretical but it can be appreciated. Belief in God shouldnt mean a lack of a logistical capacity or a disregard for science and the universe.

I am astounded that 51 people found this intelligible enough to vote on.

The point is that you don't need an intelligent designer for really complex structures to form based on simple instructions or inputs. Computer graphics cards even take advantage of this principle using vertex shaders and stuff like that to reduce the number of instructions needed to create complex scenery. For example, instead of a coder programming each blade of grass into a scene, he uses an algorithm that creates that same blade of grass a bunch of times over a given area. The result is very complex looking, but the instructions required to create it are quite simple.

Anyway, lots of stuff in life works this way. Hopefully that is a decent example, but if you don't play computer games you might not know what I'm talking about anyway, lol.

Edit: Meh, I'm not really happy with that analogy. Think fractals.

I prefer to be backseat driver for gaming...Your analogy does not sound simple but for me simple things can appear complex so I cant be so sure. If you want to give me a more detail understanding of the process in like a month that would be cool. Subject matter is in line with my interests so I wont mind. I skim the forums but if its too interesting Id be thinking about it too much!

ElliotR exactly why I didnt vote. The question and answers were so strange. OP just evades questions about clarity because maybe he too is unsure of what he means and in the developmental stages of his idea.

Well, the wiki says it the best-"emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions". Put another way, it's when anything combines to become more than the sum of all it's parts. Think of the human body. Cells combine to make tissue, which work together to make organs, which work together to form organ systems, which all work to form the organism. These cells are also constantly dying and being replaced, but we still refer to it as the same organism.

And you can keep going. Humans form many emergent structures; households, extended families, social groups, markets, communities, cities, cultures, etc. And I didn't have to start with cells. Cells are made of molecules which are made up of atoms, and so on.

The point is this process is self-organized, spontaneous, and decentralized. Meaning some director (or God) is not needed.

From Wiki:
"The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking."

You are providing 2 alternatives, when in fact, there are many other options that do not fit on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Not only is it false to put libertarianism on the conservative side of the fallacal spectrum (especially since it is formally known as "classical liberalism"), but the spectrum is not defined for individuals who find the idea of government inherently evil and would prefer a system of voluntarism (also known as free-market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism).

So yes, liberal or conservative is a false dichotomy.

/end nit

I have better direction with my affairs so here I am. Anyway, we still have a unique DNA. If you think the 1st human was Lucy,who was the One to give her the start? We cannot make something from nothing. Plus, I'll go ahead and mention the free will element in relation to humans.

"A termite "cathedral" mound produced by a termite colony: a classic example of emergence in nature." I will submit that humans do have a habit of assigning meaning to everything. Im one to say "everything happens for a reason". These emergent designs could just be signs from God.

Please do some research on how evolution works. Long story short -- there was no "first human".

That is about the most illogical conclusion you could possibly draw. Congrats?

Well if you will play that card. I see you the gaping holes in that "big bang".

Most likely for now yes.

What the hell are you talking about? I played no card - do some research on evolution. You'll understand why your "but who were the 1st human's parents lolz" question is pointless. I'm not going to explain it because I'm lazy.

The "big bang" is the name given to an event that occurred billions of years ago, the aftereffects of which can still be seen.

We do not understand what happened, but there are lots of decent hypotheses. If that's what you call "holes", you obviously don't understand how science is supposed to work. Also, wtf does that have to do with anything?

I feel bad hijacking this thread so I created another. Follow the argument here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13.../#post11942206

I think by interconnected OP wants to know if you believe we are all just one giant ocean of consciousness that happens to be experencing itself subjectively like billions of raindrops (life) before falling back into the ocean (death).

liberal=socialist or liberal=anarchist?