View Poll Results: What after life do you believe in?

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Heaven/Hell

    15 31.25%
  • Come back as an animal

    1 2.08%
  • Come back as a human

    2 4.17%
  • Nothing just nothing you just are nothing, no thinking, well you know

    28 58.33%
  • You live in a blank void

    2 4.17%

After life?

This is a discussion on After life? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I did, and then I read the reply, with which I was far more impressed....

  1. #121
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    200
    I did, and then I read the reply, with which I was far more impressed.
    I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.

    Windows XP consists of 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

  2. #122
    Registered User compjinx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    214
    >...animals do not have emotion...
    sense when?
    "The most overlooked advantage of owning a computer is that if they foul up there's no law against whacking them around a bit."
    Eric Porterfield.

  3. #123
    Aran
    Guest
    Originally posted by fyodor


    Patently false and ridiculous. Trust me, if an electron suddenly became "60 ft" larger(actually meaningless since no dimension is specified. Perhaps you mean doubled, but it still wouldnt work) I think you could notice some differences, considering the 4 inch pen would only be 1.005 times larger than the electron. Rather drastic effects would follow, possibly.

    As to the rest of this thread, the absurd "scientific/philosophy" statements and the "nihilism/existentialism" opinions (quite popular nowadays among the types who listen to Linkin Park et al) are too ridiculous and self contradictory to deign to reply to. I'll stick to refuting wrong science.
    what you are saying is patently false and ridiculous. if EVERYTHING grew 60 feet, then there wouldn't be anything that was remaining to compare the new objects with. Everything would just be sixty feet bigger. when i say EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING, not just 99% of things.

    Perception changes meaning, and meaning changes truth. Live with it, it's the problem with being human.

  4. #124
    Banned frenchfry164's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,552
    so why do some people's brains make bad decisions ALL the time, like the terrorists?

  5. #125
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Originally posted by frenchfry164
    so why do some people's brains make bad decisions ALL the time, like the terrorists?
    From there side of the fence it might not be a bad decision. Unless you walked in there shoes you can't really say what makes sense to them

  6. #126
    Unregistered
    Guest
    "How do you know that is a "fact"? it was viewed by a human and measured. It's measurement is completely relative. If everything in the universe grew 60 feet, would you know? no! everything would still appear to be the same because our system of measurements is relative."

    ... Would we know? Why can't giants exist? - because their legs could never hold their weight. You cannot keep the volume/suface area ratio constant if you increase all the dimensions by a fixed amount.

    So that deals with the first rediculous point.

    "We just have faith in nature that all the parts of our universe don't simultaneously expand and contract by billions of miles every second."

    Uh, why are you talking about topics you clearly have no idea about? If the universe did expand or contract by large amounts it would be easily noticeable, because we would see funky effects in the stars.

    "Sciences are based on observation, and observation is based on senses, and senses are based on humans, and humans are error-prone, generalizing, foolish beings. There is no reason to believe anything that you learn, we just choose to because there is no where else to turn. "

    Sciences are based on observations... yes, observations are limited by human perception...yes. Does that invalidate everything we know about the universe? BBBZZZZZZT, you see we can TEST our theories, bottom line is, IF our sense's were REALLY misleading us, and all of our theory was in fact completely wrong then STUFF WE BUILD based on that theory WOULD NOT WORK! Planes wouldn't fly, computers would not compute, but they do, so you have no case.

    "reality doesn't exist, and has never existed. There isn't one reality in the universe, there is one for every living being, and every reality is different. There isn't a single static reality"

    Drivel, pure unadultered grade A garbage.

    1) If reality didn't exist, we wouldn't exist either.

    2) If everyone had their "own" reality, A: We would not be able to communicate with each other, and B: Given that we can communicate (Which we shouldn't be able to do) we should all see the world in a COMPLETELY different way, we patently don't, we all see the sky as blue, we all experience wet-ness with liquids, we all experience a force pulling us towards the ground.

    3) Different people would not be able to reproduce the exact same data by replicating an experiment.

    4) All the principles and understanding we have of the world would be false, as a result nothing based on them would work, planes, cars, computers, would do nothing.

    "i find it stupid that we use things based on probably error-prone observations to determine things that we can neither ever see nor understand. The original givens have the same chance as being flawed as what we are trying to figure out."

    Observations are error prone which is why we repeat the ecperiment a gazillion times. If there were a fundamental problem with the way we observe the universe, science wouldn't work: It does. If the "original givens" are flawed then the theory fails, so we rexamine the givens, when Watson and Crick first tried to resolve the structure of DNA they failed because one of the "givens" was false, so they went back and checked their assumtions.

    "everyone is a trillion places doing a trillion things at once. Just because you know something isn't false is a good enough reason to prove its truth (at least to you). "

    What?

  7. #127
    Unregistered
    Guest
    "Why? acording to physics mater that is less then the size of the earth falls at a rate of 9.81 meaters a second. How does having a soul effect this. also you have given no proof on a soul not exsiting, you'v only said what it dosn't do"

    Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that causality is absolute (atleast within the universe), and in short that magic doesnt exist.

    How exactly do you think a soul that is made of magic non-matter, communicate with the CELLS in your brain? I'll tell you how, it doesn't, for it to do so, physics would have to collapse. Further more what exactly is your soul made of? Atoms? magic again.

    "Your are confusing common believe and prove of real or non-existence of something"

    I am confusing nothing, how do we work out what is real and what is not? Why do you believe that the computer infront of oyu exists? (which baring the mentally disturbed or, the intellectual wannabe's. everyone does) And why don't you believe that an unsenseable dragon is hovering over your left shoulder and in 5 minutes it will materialise and eat you?

    We build up a picture of reaity based upon positive basis NOT lack of negative basis. We believe the lamp on the table exists because we have evidence for it, we do not believe in a heard of invisable sheep just because we do not have any evidence against them.

    You have no more basis for the soul than for my invisable sheep, so belief it is as rediculous.

  8. #128
    Registered User Dual-Catfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    802
    Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
    Damn... really? Someone had better tell Einstein that E = MC**2 is all wrong.

  9. #129
    Unregistered
    Guest
    "By having logic, and using logic, we are doing something that is in essence, supernatural "

    ... no we are not.

    "our logic, and use of logic is direct proof of items coexisting outside of nature, and her laws. the laws of nature state that things have instinct, and that under the exact same conditions, everything WILL behave in the exact same way"

    Lord, why do you people talk such nonsense??

    First off what exactly do you mean by the "laws of nature"? Physics? Biology?

    Not everything will behave the same way in the same conditions, you fire a photon through, a series of three slits it will arrive in 1 of 4 different positions, firing a photon with the exact same energy, direction etc. does not nessesarily reult in it arriving at the same position/

    2nd of all this point is foolish:

    "Humans don't. emotion is unpredictable, and uncontrolable (though we can control our emotions to some extent) animals do not have emotion, they have instinct, they have drive, they live in a naural world in which they do no percieve as anything but natural, they don't think, they do no dabate, they have not logic, and they have no form of advanced communication. "

    Humans do, if i place you in a given scenario, then "reset" your brain and put you back in the exact same scenario you would behave in the exact same way.

    Animals do have emotion, emotion IS drive, and don't know if you noticed but humans have "instinct" to. Animals do think, they don't "debate" as such, but they have *****ing arguments over food/mates/territory that they usually resolve by fighting. Animals certainly communicate, not as much as us, but apes are advanced compared to mice, and we are advanced compared to apes, there is nothing special about is in that respect. Animals do not talk about logic, but they too build up a picture of the world based on positive evidence, not lack of evidence against something, logic is built into the problem solving part of their brains.

    "If these were the functions of a mere brain then animals would to extent have these abilities"

    EVEN IF animals didn't have any of those properties (which they do) your conclusion is still invalid, because our brain/mass ratio is a hell of alot bigger than any other animals, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that man's additional intellect arises from anything but the structures of the human brain.

    The rest of your post is merely random madness.

    Humans are just bright apes, thats it. Thing is man has a huge ego, and feels the need to be particularly important, so we like to pretend that we are a lot more specical than we actually are.

  10. #130
    Unregistered
    Guest
    "Damn... really? Someone had better tell Einstein that E = MC**2 is all wrong."

    Einstein proved that mass and energy were equivalent, basically that mass was another form of energy. Funnily enough the 1st law of thermodynamics still works.

    Man the ignorance some of you people posses, is just stupifying.

  11. #131
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    200

    what you are saying is patently false and ridiculous. if EVERYTHING grew 60 feet, then there wouldn't be anything that was remaining to compare the new objects with. Everything would just be sixty feet bigger. when i say EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING, not just 99% of things.
    Wrong again, predictably. A ruler would grow so that the intervals between the inch marks was 60 feet and 1 inch. The reason the change would be noticeable is that physics depends more upon the proportion of objects/distances/charges than upon the objects/distances/charges themselves. How well do you think your toaster would work if the power cable was only a tiny amount larger than the electrons inside it? And anyways, what the hell does "grow 60 ft larger mean", anyways? Would every particle grow by 60 ft? Would empty space "grow: by 60 ft? Does that mean that the distance between everything would increase by 60 ft? If you had any idea what you were talking about, then you would have said something that actually had meaning, like "all physical objects tripled in size" then I would not take you for such an idiot Anyways...back to the argument...If so, does that refer to diameter? Radius? 60 ft in all three dimension? So a neutron would be nearly as large as your head? Are you sure you wouldnt notice that?

    My God, do you know any physics whatsoever? Do you know anything at all?

  12. #132
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that causality is absolute (atleast within the universe), and in short that magic doesnt exist.

    How exactly do you think a soul that is made of magic non-matter, communicate with the CELLS in your brain? I'll tell you how, it doesn't, for it to do so, physics would have to collapse. Further more what exactly is your soul made of? Atoms? magic again.<

    A soul is a force thus what is fouce made up of? Your ideas are based on your own belives on what a soul is.

    >I am confusing nothing, how do we work out what is real and what is not? Why do you believe that the computer infront of oyu exists? (which baring the mentally disturbed or, the intellectual wannabe's. everyone does) And why don't you believe that an unsenseable dragon is hovering over your left shoulder and in 5 minutes it will materialise and eat you?<
    The truth of the mater is you can't work out what is real and what is fake. For all I know I can be dreaming my entire life. I can be a dream. I can be a dream of a someone in a dream.

    >We build up a picture of reaity based upon positive basis NOT lack of negative basis. We believe the lamp on the table exists because we have evidence for it, we do not believe in a heard of invisable sheep just because we do not have any evidence against them.<
    Invisable sheep would leave marks in the grass were they walked.

    >You have no more basis for the soul than for my invisable sheep, so belief it is as rediculous.<
    I've just thought of something, most men have belived in having a soul since ancient times, but most men have not belived in Faires, invicible sheep, talking cows, ect. Why?

    >quote:



    what you are saying is patently false and ridiculous. if EVERYTHING grew 60 feet, then there wouldn't be anything that was remaining to compare the new objects with. Everything would just be sixty feet bigger. when i say EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING, not just 99% of things.



    Wrong again, predictably. A ruler would grow so that the intervals between the inch marks was 60 feet and 1 inch. The reason the change would be noticeable is that physics depends more upon the proportion of objects/distances/charges than upon the objects/ distances/charges themselves. How well do you think your toaster would work if the power cable was only a tiny amount larger than the electrons inside it? And anyways, what the hell does "grow 60 ft larger mean", anyways? Would every particle grow by 60 ft? Would empty space "grow: by 60 ft? Does that mean that the distance between everything would increase by 60 ft? If you had any idea what you were talking about, then you would have said something that actually had meaning, like "all physical objects tripled in size" then I would not take you for such an idiot Anyways...back to the argument...If so, does that refer to diameter? Radius? 60 ft in all three dimension? So a neutron would be nearly as large as your head? Are you sure you wouldnt notice that? <

    OK do this:
    1. Open paint
    2. Make the picture 20 by 20
    3. Fill it in with blue
    4. Use the pencil to draw a black face.
    5. Use select all and copy the picture
    6. Resize the canvis to 120 x 120
    7 Paste the picture
    8. Reszie it so that it is the size of the canvis

    Would you look at that your picture is 6x times as big. Now imagine your were part of the picture, you would be 6x as big. You only see the resize because you stayed the same.
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  13. #133
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    200
    Well, Sentaku, thank you for an isolated example that demonstrates only one instance of someone not being able to notice if everything gre by 60 ft...Are you so ignorant that you believe that one example demonstrates rigorous proof? Where do all these idiots come from? And anyways, do you think that what happens on your computer screen mirrors reality?

  14. #134
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >Well, Sentaku, thank you for an isolated example that demonstrates only one instance of someone not being able to notice if everything gre by 60 ft...Are you so ignorant that you believe that one example demonstrates rigorous proof? Where do all these idiots come from? And anyways, do you think that what happens on your computer screen mirrors reality?<
    You can choose any valubles and I used paint since it's pretty common. Ok another example (this one conintrates on length do to stuff used)

    Put a mark on a ruber band.
    PUll the ruberband

    Notice how the mark, and ruberband both strech. Imagine your the mark, you would not notice the distince of your sourondings changing as you have also changed and have nothing to compar them to.
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  15. #135
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    200
    my god this is painful...
    let me spell it out for you. If everything grows by 60 feet, then a neutron will be approximately the size of your head. Right? Will you notice this? Answer the question, and don't give more weak and inclusive examples.

    An explanation of what is wrong with your previous example, and undefined aboutentire scenario:
    When you stretch the rubber band, the individual particles do not grow larger. The only thing that "grows" is the distance between the particles. But of course, what really changes? The distance between the nuclei and their electrons? No. What really changes when you stretch the rubber band? Can you answer? Are you beginning to see the problem?
    I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.

    Windows XP consists of 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Game Of Life 3D
    By blackslither in forum C Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-02-2008, 02:30 PM
  2. Artificial Life: Where to Start?
    By Mr.Sellars in forum General AI Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 02:03 AM
  3. Game of life
    By JoshR in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 02:17 PM
  4. The Meaning of Life: A Trick Question?
    By chix/w/guns in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-12-2004, 07:53 PM
  5. Life, The Universe, and everything else
    By ZooTrigger1191 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-29-2003, 04:33 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21