Libb Thims (quotes by)

From Hmolpedia
Revision as of 20:16, 7 August 2021 by Sadi-Carnot (talk | contribs) (→‎Quotes | By)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In quotes, Libb Thims (quotes by) refers to statements made by Libb Thims that have been repeated or influential to others via the use of quotation marks.

Overview

The following are quotes by Thims, cited by others, or sent via communication:

“The elaborate superficial phenomenon of two humans bonding in an intimate relationship is simply put: ‘a chemical reaction’. Here, two molecules bond, energy is given off; some energy goes to waste, some to purpose. If anyone finds this to be pseudoscience than perhaps ignorance is bliss.”
— Libb Thims (2005), “Wikipedia ‘human thermodynamics’ AFD discussion” (Ѻ), Jun 20; cited [post #5] by Mahesh Deva (2012) amid dialogue (Ѻ) on HT principles (Ѻ), Nov 3.
“Human thermodynamics is the chemical thermodynamic study of human molecular reaction life [existence].”
— Libb Thims (2007), Human Chemistry, Volume Two (pg. 653) (Ѻ)(Ѻ); cited by Spyros Tzafestas (2018) in Energy, Information, Feedback, Adaptation, and Self-organization (pg. 145)
“You agree with me that the single atom is not alive. What about two atoms? What about three? Does a bound state of atoms have to have a certain movement to be considered alive? What if we heat a system of four atoms, do they suddenly become alive? What if we subject a system of atoms to both gravitational and electromagnetic forces, does that suddenly make them alive? What if the two forces act to move smaller atoms through the cavities of larger atomic [structures] [molecules] on a cyclical basis, thus activating reactions [metabolism] in the process, does that make them alive? What if the two forces begin to arrange the atoms into hierarchies, and that smaller atoms and bundles of atoms begin to move between the hierarchies, does that make them alive? What if a structure of atoms, begin to turnover their internal atoms, with those of the surrounding space, on a cyclical basis, does that make it alive? It should be very obvious that no matter how many atoms one adds to the argument that an atom or a structure made of two or more atoms cannot be alive. It is my view that one cannot define an atom or two or more atoms structured as a bound state to be alive. The word itself and baggage of theory surrounding the word is meaningless. It is akin to the words: vitalism, élan vital, hylozoism, panpsychism, etc. From the point of view of the molecular evolution table, according to current views, rows 1-10 are considered to be not alive, rows 11-28 are considered to be alive, and rows 30 and above are not alive. Because of our anthropocentric biases, we continue to believe that we are unique among molecular structures, in that those much smaller or much bigger than us are not alive, whereas we are. It is a grave mistake to believe in this fallacy. I am not quite sure what the alternative theory is; but from the point of view of atoms, molecules, and the logic of the chemistry textbook, the theory of the conception an atom, or two or more attached atoms, being alive is absurd. This is my view.”
— Libb Thims (2009), “Letter to Georgi Gladyshev”, Jan 2; cited by: DMR Sekhar (Ѻ), 7, 20 Aug 2010 and 2014 (Ѻ); Vangelis Stamatopoulos (Ѻ), 15 Nov 2010; David Bossens (Ѻ), 19 Jun 2012 and 3 Jan 2013; David Busse (Ѻ), 10 Dec 2013; YouTube forums (Ѻ), 2014; Georgi Gladyshev (Ѻ), 2014; among others (Ѻ) [1]
“People use to respect intelligence.”
— Libb Thims (2010), "On IQ faker empty genius charlatans" (e.g. Marilyn Savant, Chris Langan, Rick Rosner, Paul Cooijmans, etc.), made in “IQ:200+ | Smartest Person Ever” (Ѻ); a 2016 John Gaetano (Ѻ) six-year favorite resonating quote
“A belief in god or gods, particularly for those born [synthesized] after 1895, is an automatic disqualification from the 200+ IQ range. This question, in fact, should be the first question asked on any standard high IQ test, whereby an answer of 'yes' would result in an unequivocal 15% reduction in the final IQ score.”
— Libb Thims (2010), “IQ: 200+” (Ѻ), Hmolpedia; Reddit (2019) cited (Ѻ) in r/MagicSkyFairy; discussed (Ѻ) further
“Just as there is no god involved when oxygen reacts with hydrogen, so to is there no god involved when man reacts with woman.”
— Libb Thims (2014), mental synopsis personal note of the Goethe 1809 point on the atheism timeline; an atheism explicit variant of the c.1855 Ludwig Buchner quote: "Just as man and woman attract one another, so oxygen attracts hydrogen", Sep 10; cited (Ѻ) by Inderjit Singh (2015) as favorite philosophical quote
“We came to be, because of entropy.”
— Libb Thims (2018), paraphrase of Rex Stout (1960) quote [2]
“I desire to get past the ‘line in the sand’ that Nietzsche (via his 1,067 WP fragments Ѻ) has made for us.”
— Libb Thims (2020), “Email to Ram Poudel and Burin Gumjudpai”, Sep 17

End matter

See also

References

  1. (a) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter to Georgi Gladyshev”, Jan 2.
    (b) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 5, pgs. 20-21.
    (c) Sekhar, DMR. (2010). “Thread: An-att: On Self and Non-self (defunct life theory discussions), Aug 7, Ssubbanna.Sulekha.com.
    (d) Sekhar, DMR. (2010). “The Paradox of Life: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory?”, Knol. Aug, 20; in: WordPress.com, 13 Feb 2011; in Sulekha.com (c.2010).
    (e) Stamatopoulos, Vangelis. (2010). “It’s Life Jim, but not as we Know it!”, AtheistNexus.org, Nov. 15.
    (f) Bossens, David. (2012). “Life, a defunct concept?”, Squidoo.com, Jun 19.
    (g) Bossens, David. (2013). Debates of the Hmolpedians (strong atheist, pg. 4; debates, pgs. 3-96). Lulu.
    (h) Busse, David. (2013). “Viruses: Living or Not?”, Dec 10, WordPress.com.
    (g) DNews. (2014) Are Viruses Alive? (Feb thread discussion), YouTube.
  2. Thims, Libb. (2018). “Answer: What is the Purpose of Hmolpedia”, Quora, May 11.
Theta Delta ics T2.jpg