waysider

"You all are so hateful I see no need you banned me to many days because of my belief you are like the Way ministry that wanted worship with obey them give your money to them otherwise you cannot control my beliefs" I don't think I've been hateful, Roy. You asked if an apple can have an IQ. I tried to answer you in a logical way. My conclusion, after giving it some thought, is that an apple can not have an IQ. You insisted I must be wrong but offered no solid proof to refute what I had presented. I have no desire to ban you. I don't want you to worship or obey me or give me your money. Most of all, I would not want to control your beliefs. If you want to believe an apple can have an IQ, so be it. I'll continue to believe it can not. Life will go on.

GSC in agreement???? Now, THAT'S funny!!!

Maybe move it to the produce section.

FLASH IN THE PAN TWI was a flash in the pan. The pan's still there but the flash is long gone. Second verse (Same as the first)

"To communicate with Wayfers, at times, you have to find that tiny, narrow bandwidth and stay on it. Once in that rut . . " Trying to have a discussion with a Wayfer can be like listening to a crystal radio in the digital era. HERE

Like my mother used to say, "Fight nice".

It's when you do a Hank Williams tune to a polka beat.

I'm not sure what that even means. We're not talking about a philosophical approach to life, we're talking about a situation that has finite explanations. We may not know what all those explanations are but they do, indeed, exist. With that in mind, what is your take on why the whole thing crashed and burned? (Yeah, I know, the ashes are still smoldering.)

It's somewhat circular in nature. Q: How do you know that's true? A: It says so in the Bible. Q: How do you know the Bible is true? A: It's spiritual. You wouldn't understand. Q: Well, how do you know that's true? A: It says so in the Bible. It reminds me of the II Timothy argument. Q: How do you know the Bible is God Breathed? A: It says so in the Bible. Q: How do you know the Bible is true? A: It has to be, it's God Breathed..

TWI fizzled out for the same reason some of those "As Seen On TV" products disappear from the market place. It looked like it had great promise to offer results but in the end turned out to be a cheaply constructed, ineffectual dud. There's nothing spiritual about that. VPW gave birth to a scam, a con, a flim-flam operation or whatever term you prefer to use.. It eventually got old, started falling apart and is currently it's in its terminal stages..

At times, it seemed like everything was "spiritual" in the wacky world of Wayferville. Anger was spiritual, love was spiritual, criticism was spiritual, and, of course, knowledge was spiritual. I think, in a way, it was really a type of rationalization..... "Sure, I'm angry, but it's a spiritual anger." "I'm only pointing out your flaws so you can experience spiritual growth." And, of course, some types of knowledge were spiritual, as well. Especially those which weren't fully understood in the first place from a "senses" perspective. "You don't understand it? Well, that's because it's spiritual." "I wish you could see it in the original. It was really.....so-so" ------VPW------

Q. "What is the IQ of an apple?" A. Zero. (Please don't make me show my calculations. Math was never my strong point.)

Administrations/dispensations, to whom it's written, segregated rules and regulations.......all man made. Designed to make sense of portions of scripture that otherwise don't make sense...... "Well, that doesn't apply to us today because we're in another administration. It's not addressed to us."..... There, see how easy that is? Couple that with the chronology of when the Gospels were written in relation to when the Epistles were written (Guess which were written first.) and it becomes clearer that there aren't lines of demarcation propelling modern man into the so-called Age of Grace. Now consider that the authenticity and authorship of II Timothy have come under heavy scrutiny and you have a whole 'nother can of worms.

What years are you talking about there? I'm pretty sure that's not how it worked in the earlier years. I could be wrong. "Perhaps it was a little less mysterious or glamorous route than some may have imagined." For sure. The same could be said for the way W.O.W.'s were assigned to areas. Assignments were based on mundane things like who had a car, not on "revelation".

Trees can't become bored but they can become board.

Or you could write : The Teacher P.O. Box 328 New Knoxville, Ohio 45871

While it's an interesting subject to discuss, the only part I see that might be related to doctrine is this: "What about Jesus Christ talking to that tree and causing the tree to die from its roots up when made that statement overnight" Or, was the discussion leading up to this?

Plants responded to sound. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that this is somehow proof that plants have intelligence and that apples have an IQ.

Maybe it will get moved to the joke forum because you referred to VPW as a great man. (For future reference, the punchline is usually reserved for the end of the story.)

"Many of us have heard stories about plants flourishing in rooms with classical music. Typically, though, much of the research on music and plants was, to put it mildly, not carried out by investigators grounded in the scientific method. Not surprisingly, in most of these studies, the plants thrived in music that the experimenter also preferred." ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- "All that being said, I have to cover myself here by pointing out that some very recent research hints that plants may respond to sounds. Not to music mind you, which is irrelevant for a plant, but to certain vibrations." SOURCE On the other hand, Darwin proposed a hypothesis that plants may have a "root brain" that controls various aspects of the plants behavior. HERE is a source for that information. All in all, while this offers some fascinating insight on the wonders and complexities of how DNA works, none of it proves that plants have what we refer to as intelligence. (in my opinion)

Roy I hate to say this, but you're relying on flawed logic. There is a specific type of flawed logic that describes such a scenario. You can find more information about it HERE. Frankly, this seems a bit out of character for you. We have had many conversations in the past and I've never seen this side of you. Failure to prove something is false does not make it true. Likewise, failure to prove something is true does not make it false. In this case, there is an abundance of information that clearly proves that plants do not have anything resembling what we call consciousness. We have no proof, whatsoever, to suggest that plants do have consciousness. The logical conclusion is that plants have no consciousness. As I stated before, you can believe otherwise if you wish. It really won't affect me at all. The burden of proof, however, shifts to you to show some logical basis for your belief that will prove your assertion.

I think everything that is alive has its own form of consciousness. You're free to think whatever you wish. There is nothing in our vast reserve of knowledge to substantiate the existence of plant consciousness.

if they had no intelligence where they the knowledge to grow, and reproduction of themselves programmed intelligente is store where? It's encrypted in their DNA (Their genetic material). The internet is littered with information on genetics. Take your pick of references.

Trees don't have brains. In fact, they don't have nervous systems, central or otherwise. They don't need them. What they have is genetic material that has been programmed over time to respond in a particular way to certain situations, conditions and stimulation. Apple trees don't grow pears because their genetic material contains the components to grow apples, not the components to grow pears. They don't think. They don't need to. When you direct your computer to open the Google page, it doesn't think. It assembles the information that's already stored in it in such a manner as to lead you to Google. Likewise, the apple tree doesn't think. When the correct conditions are present, the preexisting information works together to produce apples. Why? Because the information which is already there is configured to produce apples, not pears or lemons or coconuts. A tree has no intelligence quotient (IQ) because it has no intelligence. You can't measure something that isn't there.

Roy IQ is a measure of how someone's mental age compares to their chronological (calendar) age. It's not really straightforward, but the basic idea is that you divide the person's mental age by their calendar age and multiply by 100. Say, for example, you give a 10 year old a series of questions a 10 year old should be able to answer. If they answer them correctly, they have a score of 10/10=1x100=100. Their IQ is said to be 100. If you give them a series of questions you would expect a 12 year old to be able answer, their score would look like this: 12/10=1.2x100=120 Their IQ is said to be 120. There is really more to it than this, but that should give you a general idea of how it works. Now, in considering an oak tree or an apple tree, you can certainly know and understand their chronological age. However, because they don't have minds, they have no mental age. Part of the equation is missing. So, there is no way to assign an IQ to an oak tree or apple tree. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Let me know if I'm on the right track. edit:punctuation