PDA

View Full Version : After life?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Clyde
04-16-2002, 12:39 PM
"Emotions are based and invoked according to the beliefs of the individual. With beliefs I mean the neuron layout inside the brain, the memory"

Emotions are a RESPONCE to input, they are not beliefs.

"you believe in emotions"

I believe people experience emotions, yes..... and?

"Emotions, just as religons, are obvious lies."

Emotions do not attempt to describe the universe therefore they cannot be lies.

"Fact: There is no "connection" between two individuals that could cause a feeling of love, if both of them understood their internal workings"

So? Who claims there is? Claiming that love works via a magical "connection" is a lie, but love as an emotion does not describe in any way how it works mechanistically. Hence is not a lie.

"Your brain believe that religon is a lie because of your brain's memory layout"

What?

"Your brain don't believe that love is a lie because of your brain's memory layout"

My brain doesn't believe that love is a lie, because saying love "is a lie" is a meaningless statement since something can only be a "lie" if it is a description of the universe, emotions do not describe the universe, they are merely drives.

"It's clear that you're just choosing a comfortable place to draw the line, because you're an emotion-controlled life-form."

Right, I draw a line because they are completely different, unrelated topics. Since emotion does not describe the world it cannot be a lie.

"Concepts such as yours cannot be applied without judging the world in a false way."

Pardon me? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what i see, that is false. Do i think love is caused by a magic "connection"? No. Do i still "feel" love? Yes. Does it "lie" to me? No. Because it doesn't describe the world therefore it cannot lie.

"Which means, again, that you're just drawing a line somewhere because you're "programmed" to preserve your beliefs"

I change my beliefs the second that a more rational belief comes along. The idea that emotions are lies however, is nonsense, since emotions do not describe the universe.

"All opinions and beliefs are lies, or no opinions and beliefs are lies"

Woot another obscenely stupid statement, so, since I believe the world in round, and i know thats true, therefore the beliefs og anyone who believes anything must also be true!! YEA! Or...... not.

"People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations."

Morality has changed because social environment has changed. Old ways? Emotional limitaitons? Are you just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

"There is no reason why not dying would be intelligent, as the want to live is just a simple unintelligent drive"

Riight, so without emotion, we would all not care if we died, hence we would all die because we would do all manner of rediculously dangerous stuff, hence humanity would cease to exist, ergo emotion = good.

"Instead of living to satisfy simple emotions, one could change the goal to live to explore the world instead - as Einstein did more than the average person"

Einstein had as strong emotions as any other person, he had several passionate affairs; his love letters have been publishish.

People do not "live" to satisfy simple emotions, they "live" to reproduce. The rest is just a means to an end.

"Nonsense. You could hold a gun to my head, and I would not react irrational, I would not feel anything at all"

You might well not react irrationally, but you're heart would start pounding andrenalin would surge through your veins your muscles would contract, you would sweat more... you would immediately start searching for a way out of the situation....... fear, your responce can be controlled but you still feel fear, even hardened soldiers who've been in battle dozen's of times feel fear. Anyway i recall a post by you a couple of days ago where you said you felt reasonably happy, i hate to tell you but happyness is an emotion.

"Emotions are not hard-coded, they're part of your neuron-layout and can be removed in a few years as your brain gets a different neuron layout"

Your tempature regulation and heart regulation is also part of your "neuron-layout" i suppose they can be removed two right?? HAH Psychologists and neurologists have other ideas.

"Intelligence can observe emotions, understand them, and finally remove them"

Phsychologists and neurologists don't seem to think so, but what the hell do they know right?

"Why? If humans would ignore their emotions, they're no longer emotion-based"

And then humanity would die out, because people wouldn't care if they died, they wouldn't have any kids, even if they did they would leave them to die.

"This does not prevent an intelligent non-emotion based life to exist. It would just need some other drive than to satisfy emotions to reproduce."

LOL, right another drive........ which would be....... an emotion.

"Why? I could find it useful with an elaboration of especially A."

Because without drives complex life will end up dying because it doesn't care if it dies or not, and it will leave it's kids to die.

"Emotions describes you - which is a part of the world as well, this description is wrong"

...... The WORDS "I feel afraid", is a description of me, and if i was afraid it would be a truthfull one. The actual FEELING of fear is not a description it is merely a drive.

"It describes you. An emotion is a belief of a condition that you are in"

No it does not describe me, a description of me would be: I have brown shoes, or i have 5 fingers. The feeling of fear does not describe anything , it is merely a drive.

"Intelligence (or something non-emotional) can evaluate things. Your heart is beating without an emotion controlling the process. Non-emotion laws could control other things as well, and thus create intelligent life."

Your intelligence is not making your heart beat either, your sino-atrial node is. We have drives, we need them to survive we experience them as emotions. They are not lies they do not describe anything, they are just drives. The only alternative to emotions, is not actually an alternative at all it's what you are suggesting: Having emotions but not being aware of them = not being aware. But being aware has advantages that's why we are aware. Plus who the hell really wants to become un-aware!?

Clyde
04-16-2002, 12:42 PM
"Ok I have no idea where you are coming from there. A modular system doesn't normally consider the effects of a module being removed or destroyed. That creates an error, they are either fatal or can be ignored to some extent. "

Well, in the brain they are almost entirely ignored.

"There is a seperation between brain and mind.
The mind is dependent on the brain however brain != mind. "

You have provided no basis for that statement. For it to be true, all neurology and physics have to be wrong.

So its you with no reasoning nor evidence to back your claim vs. all of neurology and physics, with huge amounts of evidence and explanations to back up theirs hmm.......

You have provided no flaw in my reasoning because you cannot substantiate your claim.

Brian
04-16-2002, 01:18 PM
I believe when you die, eventually you will be concious as another being. It may take countless years, but as long as the universe exists, there is a chance of you existing again, maybe as a microbe, maybe a fish, i don't know...

...it's very weird, being alive...soo hard to explain...


you wont have any memory or experience or anything you learned in your past life, since that was all stored in your brain which is now wormfood.

Series X4 1.0
04-16-2002, 01:23 PM
My brain doesn't believe that love is a lie, because saying love "is a lie" is a meaningless statement since something can only be a "lie" if it is a description of the universe, emotions do not describe the universe, they are merely drives.

A feeling of love is when two humans believe in each others lies. Take one more step backwards, and look from the perspective of the universe, then love is a lie that exists among mankind.

Of course, this is when defining the universe as the abolute truth, and when separating beliefs from the universe to get something to compare with. Otherwise: Beliefs are not lies, nor truths, as they all exist in a logical universe. And there is always a reason behind each belief and emotion. It depends on from where you're getting your "truth".

Everything is relative. And you , like "everyone" else, seem to share your opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind. While I'm closer "following the truth of the universe".


Are you just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

Yes, I'm trying to be as dynamic as possible. To just use other people's beliefs and quotes without thinking them out by myself just causes irrational beliefs such as religons with time. I seriously don't believe in anything, and that includes myself.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 02:03 PM
"A feeling of love is when two humans believe in each others lies."

What lies?

"Take one more step backwards, and look from the perspective of the universe, then love is a lie that exists among mankind."

The perspective of the universe? What the hell does that mean, the universe is not alive, that's like saying "look from the perspective of a chair".

"Of course, this is when defining the universe as the abolute truth, and when separating beliefs from the universe to get something to compare with"

What?

"Everything is relative. And you , like "everyone" else, seem to share your opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind. While I'm closer "following the truth of the universe"."

Share my opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind? What does that mean?

Following the truth of the universe....... what the hell does that mean too? Having emotions does not mean you can't find out about the universe, the leading scientists from the past 4000 years prove that much.

"Yes, I'm trying to be as dynamic as possible"

You mean your just typing in the first thing that comes into your head.......... which is to be fair......BS.

"To just use other people's beliefs and quotes without thinking them out by myself just causes irrational beliefs such as religons with time"

Well done, your first good point, it's shame it doesnt support any of your conclusions.

Bottom line is your conclusions are irrational, since they have no basis, you dislike emotion, because...... well damned if I know, atleast it seems to have gotten through that emotions aren't lies they're drives I figured if i said it about 1000 times it might sink in.

" I seriously don't believe in anything, and that includes myself"

You don't believe in yourself.......... now it's possible that when you say that, you mean something intelligent, but chances are you mean you don't think anything exists, in which case you are a fool, because there is only ONE thing we can ever be 100% certain of: ever heard of "cogito ergo sum"?

Aran
04-16-2002, 02:19 PM
Series, you are missing one big thing here: truth is relative.

what you see is what you see and that's the truth. It may be affected by what is happening within you emotionally and it may change every second, but the way you see it is still the way it is. Truth is completely relative; what i see as true, you may see as ridiculous and stupid. There is no "absolute truth" or "absolute universe" because everything is subject to the emotions and senses of the viewer. We have no medorating force which can show us how things really are, and until then we might as well just trust what our senses tell us. There's no way to prove senses wrong justifiably because the senses percieving a deception are the same senses that are fooled by it.

I hope i'm not completely off-base here.

Clyde
04-16-2002, 03:00 PM
"Series, you are missing one big thing here: truth is relative"

He is missing many things, but that i'm afraid is not one of them.

"There is no "absolute truth" or "absolute universe" because everything is subject to the emotions and senses of the viewer"

I'm afraid there is an absolute truth, the universe does have fixed properties. Masses accelerate toward the Earth at 9.81 metres per second squared (when they are close to the surface). That's fact.

If absolute truth did not exist neither would reality.

Our sense's certainly do not sense the universe the way the universe actually "is". That is why we have such trouble in getting our heads round quantum mechanics and relativity, because we cannot picture them: They are completely contrary to our "picture" of how reality is. But we can get past the inaccuracy of our sense's, using maths, we can model physical processes that we cannot concieve of.

But like i said there is an absolute truth, there are fixed properties of the universe.

Think about what relative truth would actually mean, someone get's stabbed, but truth's relative so from his perspective he get's stabbed but from someone else's perspective who knows..... he might be alive and well on a beach somewhere, clearly that is nonsense, he is either stabbed on an ally-way somewhere OR lieing on the Beach in Hawai, he cannot be both, because truth is absolute, not relative.

stevey
04-16-2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by jinx
This is my personal opinion, but I think that "Clyde" is a close-minded arrogant SOB who believes he knows everything and his reasoning is unquestionable. BTW, Clyde,
"Igonorance is bliss." - Joe Pantoliano.

you must be blissfully happy then !!

Clyde's certainly got an opinion on him, but at least hes expressing it (look at the sheer LENGTH of these posts!!) instead of just dissing someone, thats easy.

he actually will debate something sensibly and then go off to find out more if youve given a reasonable argument, and then say "yes, you were right " if you were, or **** you if you were wrong.

and i don't even like the guy............:)

taylorguitarman
04-16-2002, 07:27 PM
There is absolute truth, but we are not capable of knowing it. We are limited in our abilities. Truth is not relative, perception of it is.
However, we can know our own experiences. Unfortunately, that is the extent of what we can "know" for sure, and even those can be wrong sometimes. Math and science can provide a reasonable explanation of how the world works and be incredibly useful, but will never provide absolute truth. It still comes down to faith (belief in something that can't be proved).

DrakkenKorin
04-16-2002, 07:31 PM
"All truth is parallel, All truth is untrue"

Clyde
04-17-2002, 03:13 AM
"Math and science can provide a reasonable explanation of how the world works and be incredibly useful, but will never provide absolute truth. It still comes down to faith "

Science can never find the "absolute truth" simply because we can't get an infinite number of significant figures on measurements. But we can can get 99.99999% of the absolute truth. So it certainly does not come down to faith, it comes down to probability.

Clyde
04-17-2002, 03:14 AM
"and i don't even like the guy............"

*goes and sulks*

btw - the last figure i've seen on the witch burnings put them at 50,000........ heh, so much for 9 million eh.

taylorguitarman
04-17-2002, 06:52 AM
When you're dealing with eternity, 0.0000000001% is a large amount to be off by. ;)

Clyde
04-17-2002, 06:55 AM
"When you're dealing with eternity, 0.0000000001% is a large amount to be off by"

Eternity? Science has the power to tell us the properties of the universe, we can measure those properties to rediculous accuracy, but inevitably we cannot measure them infitite accuracy. But that does not prevent us from understanding how and why things work the way they do.

What it does do, is prevent us predicting systems that are "sensitive to initial conditions" that is the founding principle of chaos theory, and is the reason why we will never be able to predict the weather long term with decent accuracy. We can still understand exactly how those systems work, we just cannot predict them well.

Sentaku senshi
04-17-2002, 03:26 PM
>Shame only one of them really exists (mind = body). Strrrrrrrriiike ONE!<

Body- your body

Mind/heart - Just as the Processor and memory are the most important part of a computer so is the mind/heart. In charge of everything, as all other parts are used for importing/exporting data or pathways between the deferent parts. The same thing applies for the human mind/heart as it controls the body and all other parts simply act as import/export or paths.

Soul- a soul just is.

>For the "soul" to exist neurology must be wrong, not only that even the most basic principles of physics must be wrong, hence all the evidence for physics and neurology is evidence against the soul: Strike TWO!<
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.

>Rationality decrees that we build up a picture of reality based upon positive evidence that stuff exists NOT on lack of evidence that stuff does not exist. If as you seem to be saying the latter is actually valid, then we would all go around believeing in fairies, giant invisable hovering bulls, that we were in the Matrix, etc. etc. because none of them have evidence against them. Anyway like i said there is evidence against a soul.<
Your are confusing common believe and prove of real or non-existence of something.

stevey
04-17-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"and i don't even like the guy............"

*goes and sulks*

>>>>:)


btw - the last figure i've seen on the witch burnings put them at 50,000........ heh, so much for 9 million eh.

>>>>did seem a lot. wished you worked my wages out :)

Dual-Catfish
04-17-2002, 06:57 PM
Nothing just nothing you just are nothing, no thinking, well you know.

Why? I've found stronger evidence to support this than anything else. Could god create a boulder so large, even he could not lift it?

Aran
04-17-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"There is no "absolute truth" or "absolute universe" because everything is subject to the emotions and senses of the viewer"

I'm afraid there is an absolute truth, the universe does have fixed properties. Masses accelerate toward the Earth at 9.81 metres per second squared (when they are close to the surface). That's fact.


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. 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. How do you know that things don't rearrange themselves and completely change their properties once you turn your back to them? you don't. You just simply have faith that things will stay as they were the last time you saw them.

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.




If absolute truth did not exist neither would reality.


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.



Our sense's certainly do not sense the universe the way the universe actually "is". That is why we have such trouble in getting our heads round quantum mechanics and relativity, because we cannot picture them: They are completely contrary to our "picture" of how reality is. But we can get past the inaccuracy of our sense's, using maths, we can model physical processes that we cannot concieve of.


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.



But like i said there is an absolute truth, there are fixed properties of the universe.


prove it.



Think about what relative truth would actually mean, someone get's stabbed, but truth's relative so from his perspective he get's stabbed but from someone else's perspective who knows..... he might be alive and well on a beach somewhere, clearly that is nonsense, he is either stabbed on an ally-way somewhere OR lieing on the Beach in Hawai, he cannot be both, because truth is absolute, not relative.

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).

fyodor
04-17-2002, 09:57 PM
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.


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.

Dissata
04-17-2002, 10:26 PM
I would like to bring one aurgument into this board. Logic. By having logic, and using logic, we are doing something that is in essence, supernatural (not as in religious, but as apposed to natural). 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. 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 are the only species found that has these properties. If these were the functions of a mere brain then animals would to extent have these abilities. I will expand upon this therom

can we debate that there is nothing supernatural by proving that there is something natural? that is like saying tour going to prove we have no hands by saying we have feet. Our logic comes from a supernatul force cause, whatever. a force that coexists and at the same ime defies nature. emotions are a friction of these existances. ideas that you just come up with, spontanious thoughts are caused not by spontanious movements of protons, but by the force of something supernatural causeing those protons to be spontanieous.

something to think about on why the protons cannot just be spontaneous is: what in this universe, that we can completely prove is spontanious? what theory in any scientific theory includes somthing spontanious? there is nothing spontaineous in science! nothing that is not perfectly in order. what we see as spontaneous is either in a much more complex pattern than we are guessing or that they affected by something else which would be supernatural.

I am not good at explaining things and I'm not sure I got the correct theory across that i was trying, but if you want to read more on this subject here are some links supporting, and contradicting the book, I encourage you to think for yourself, use you logic and find the what can only be logical truth. (I'm not saying I'm right, far from it, I want you to study the subject for a year and tell me the answer;))

I found something that tries and disproove the book.
read the book. read the article

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/miracles.html

fyodor
04-17-2002, 10:52 PM
I did, and then I read the reply, with which I was far more impressed.

compjinx
04-18-2002, 02:17 AM
>...animals do not have emotion...
sense when?

Aran
04-18-2002, 01:36 PM
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.

frenchfry164
04-18-2002, 04:34 PM
so why do some people's brains make bad decisions ALL the time, like the terrorists?

Unregistered
04-18-2002, 04:37 PM
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

Unregistered
04-18-2002, 05:50 PM
"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?

Unregistered
04-18-2002, 05:59 PM
"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.

Dual-Catfish
04-18-2002, 06:13 PM
Physics also says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Damn... really? Someone had better tell Einstein that E = MC**2 is all wrong.

Unregistered
04-18-2002, 06:18 PM
"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.

Unregistered
04-18-2002, 06:22 PM
"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.

fyodor
04-19-2002, 12:28 AM
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?

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 02:56 PM
>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.

fyodor
04-19-2002, 05:03 PM
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?

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 06:49 PM
>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.

fyodor
04-19-2002, 08:53 PM
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?

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 09:48 PM
>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.<

Your head would be 60 feet biger, so no.

>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?<

Ever watch Men in Black? sure you did, right. Rember the universe, ball thing. Wow amzing, a universe the size of a golf ball, but yet if you lived in it you would think it is enomise. Now if was streached in all directions at once, and equily would you notice? No, but someone outside the ball universe would as they did not become larger.

fyodor
04-19-2002, 10:09 PM
I am going to explain it to you if it kills me. I am going to kick around that pathetic ball of wasted neurons that is your brain until I manage to impart some information. Here goes.
Assuming you mean that your head's radius grows by 60 ft and that it is already 6 inches:
Your head will now have an approximate volume of 4/3*(3.141549)*(60.5)^3=930,000 cubic feet. A neutron will have the approximate volume of 4/3*3.14159*(60)^3=905,000 cubic feet. This means that one neutron will fit in your brain. A neuron is at least a couple hundred million neutrons if not more,so your brain will not have the capacity for any neurons whatsoever. For you, of course, that won't be too much of a change. Tell me if I need to clarify something, and be specific.

Xterria
04-19-2002, 10:17 PM
In english

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 10:43 PM
>I am going to explain it to you if it kills me. I am going to kick around that pathetic ball of wasted neurons that is your brain until I manage to impart some information. Here goes.
Assuming you mean that your head's radius grows by 60 ft and that it is already 6 inches:
Your head will now have an approximate volume of 4/3*(3.141549)*(60.5)^3=930,000 cubic feet. A neutron will have the approximate volume of 4/ 3*3.14159*(60)^3=905,000 cubic feet. This means that one neutron will fit in your brain. A neuron is at least a couple hundred million neutrons if not more,so your brain will not have the capacity for any neurons whatsoever. For you, of course, that won't be too much of a change. Tell me if I need to clarify something, and be specific.<

OK, I see the problem now, (I think)

I thought of a much better way to explain what I think aran ment?

Pretend that you have 3 ballons that are filled with air
1 ballon is the size of a basketball
1 ballon is the size of a tenisball
1 ballon is the size of a pinpong ball

Now add air to all the ballons keeping the amound of air added to the ballons equll. Now assuming that the ballons expend at the same rate, and maintan there shape the proportions of the ballons will remain the same.

fyodor
04-20-2002, 12:55 AM
That's not quite true either, actually. Say you have a balloon with a radius of 3 inches, and one with a radius of 4 inches. The volume of the first will be 36*pi cubic inches, and the second 256/3*pi cubic inches. Say you inflate each balloon with 14*pi more cubic inches of air. Then the first will be 50*pi, and the second will be around 100*pi. This corresponds to about a radius of 3.3 inches for the first and 4.2 inches for the second. The difference in delta radius is small because they were initially similar, but it would be noticeable for larger balloons. The problem is, you cannot change one attribute and have the others stay the same. Adding the same volume will change the proportionality of the radii and surface areas and vice versa.

Clyde
04-20-2002, 04:50 AM
"A soul is a force thus what is fouce made up of? "

A force is an attraction or a repulsion, between two particles. It is equal is the rate of change of momentum, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a soul.

"The truth of the mater is you can't work out what is real and what is fake"

You might not be able to, but the rest of us can.

"Invisable sheep would leave marks in the grass were they walked"

Not if they were invisible and untouchable.


"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?"

Well, people have believed in spirits, witches, etc. The reason why religious ideas persist is because of the way they are taught, they taught to children when they are very young by authority figures and they are taught that questioning is BAD. Religion started because man didn't know squat about the world, he couldn't explain, the weather, or anything else around him, so he imagined that there wer Gods, controlling his environment, the first Gods were Gods of the weather.

Anyway your entire line of reasoning is totally invalid, your basically saying that because lots of people believe it it must be true! LOL yea right, because when the population of Europe believed the world were flat they were obviously right.

Fyodor seems to have done a pretty good job at pointing out your lunacy: You cannot increase all measurements by a fixed amount because the ratio's will change.

Incidently you cannot multiply all measurements by a fixed amount either because in doing so you will alter ratios like: volume:surface area. Thats what you do with your basketball example.

If you were doubled in size and all your proportions were kept exactly the same, your legs would break, because your weight is proportional to your volume which would have been multiplied by 8, whereas how much weight they can hold is based upon the cross sectional area of your legs which would have been multiplied by 4. Hence breakage occurs.

Aran
04-20-2002, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Unregistered
[B]"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.


well, i kinda made the assumption that everything would grow proportionately with their weights/masses/other physical properties fully proportionate to their height.

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.


it would be noticeable if the other physical properties remained constant, but if everything changed proportionately at once, it would be impossible to notice.



"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.


but you don't know how things work when you turn your back to them, do you?



"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.


you are missing one thing: all realities are conformed together by the ideas of language and the arbitrary labelling of objects. Is the sky blue if you don't know what blue is?

The reason why people can replicate experiment's results is because they are trained to see things a certain way, so they look for the one thing in one of two states (or multifarious measurements) and just check that when they see it.

Why do you think we exist in reality?

-KEN-
04-20-2002, 11:07 AM
You're all blowing around a very painful amount of hot air.

Now where to start first?...I haven't been able to read this entire thread so forgive me if I comment on a refuted point or two...

>>but you don't know how things work when you turn your back to them, do you?<<

If a tree falls in the woods, and no-one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well first define sound for us. In my understanding it's the vibrations in the substance around us (be it air, water, or otherwise). Now I've never taken any for of science that's discussed sound at length, so I guess that could be taken as conjecture on my half, but oh well. So anyhow, the tree still causes the air to vibrate around it, creating "sound", there's just no mind around to interpret into sound as you know it.


On aran's idea of everything increasing by 60ft, think of everything growing (mass, weight, volume, height, width, radius, whatever) proportionately. So there we've proved that it's all relative, but even so it doesn't prove your initial point, Aran. Just because it's based on things that are relative doesn't mean a thing, everything still works out whether the universe and everything in it has enlarged by 60 or 60,000 feet. I can only seem to approach teaching you guys this, but no matter how I word what I want to say, I don't think it'd help you understand enough...


nvoigt made a good point awhile back on blind faith, which I don't think seeped into your head, Clyde. Your scientific beliefs, at their roots, are all blind faith as well. We have faith that energy can never be created or destroyed, but how was it created in the first place? Where did the universe come from? What makes up the particles that make up the particles that make up the particles that make up..[...]..the atom? Ok so maybe that's not so much blind faith as it is just being unknown, but these are fairly basic principles of science (atoms and energy) and they're unkowns.

::sigh:: I'd really like to type up more but I don't feel like sitting in front of the computer all day.

stevey
04-20-2002, 11:16 AM
The Flat Earth Society still believe the world is flat !!! apparently those satellite pics of the globe are fake !!

Some people still believe that there was no landing on the moon, it was faked !!

Some people believe we live in a Matrix, all reality is a fake somehow !!

Some people believe in a God.

Theres no real point in arguing with any of these people......

ctimm46
04-20-2002, 01:45 PM
While I believe that most people believe what they are taught at a young age and so on, I also believe that sometimes people change their ways. I was taught to believe in heaven and hell but now I don't believe it. It isn't that I have been wronged by the world, it is just that logic (or the way I see it) deems it virtually impossible. I fear the "afterlife" like nothing else. In fact, it is really my only fear. Which isn't too bad when facing the boss looking for a raise or something like that. But a discussion while interesting, will never provide an answer, just more questions.

DavidP
04-20-2002, 02:47 PM
oh my gosh...a thread about the after life and there is no religious discussion....just discussion about neural networks...

thats amazing.....utterly amazing.....

Sorensen
04-20-2002, 03:49 PM
nvoigt made a good point awhile back on blind faith, which I don't think seeped into your head, Clyde. Your scientific beliefs, at their roots, are all blind faith as well.

I don't wish to repeat what's already been stated but Clyde is arguing about what is known (and basing his opinion on things proved). If you don't agree with him then you're making unqualified asumptions about the unkowns that you mention.


oh my gosh...a thread about the after life and there is no religious discussion....just discussion about neural networks...

thats amazing.....utterly amazing.....

That's progress.

Unregistered
04-20-2002, 10:45 PM
Here's a great site:

http://www.mysticweb.org

It really is great. I'm on the free course there and I'm learning. Have a look, it's well worth it!

tim545666
04-21-2002, 12:56 AM
We have faith that energy can never be created or destroyed, but how was it created in the first place? Where did the universe come from? I have a theory: The universe was never created, matter was never created, energy was never created. It has always been here. There was no begining. It makes sense if you think about it.



"Religion is the opiate of the masses" -Karl Marx

fyodor
04-21-2002, 02:49 AM
Actually it makes no sense, whether you think about it or not. And I'm even stoned, when theories ranging from buddhism to fish gods make sense!