Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: wEvil on January 02, 2003, 12:02:00 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=624&e=2&cid=624&u=/ap/20030101/ap_on_sc/global_warming_species
-
:sigh: sadness.....
Oh, and to top it off, Bush is letting snowplows into Yellowstone.
-
Do you know that there's actually a quite large group of scientists that defends the theory that the only thing preventing an ice age right now is the sheer amount of pollution and heat generated by the human race? There's evidence that the sun is going through a low activity period (neutrino emissions are too low), and evidence linking such low activity "seasons" to previous ice ages. These "studies" that show up every day on newspapers about global warming never take into account a true geological perspective - they compare the global temperature with what it was a few years ago, and don't give a damn if a few million years back, with no "artificial" pollution whatsoever, the temperature was way higher than it is now.
Now, I'm not for pollution, nor against caring for the environment, but all these green hippies are yet to provide concrete proof instead of a collection of very loud screams accompanied by localized "evidence".
-
^^^ wot Mr. Sticks said
-
Originally posted by vyper
^^^ wot Mr. Sticks said
Ditto
-
Oh, and remember - there's pollution and there's Pollution. If you ask me about releasing untreated toxic or radioactive waste into the environment, dumping non-biodegradable (sp?) materials, or similar actions, you'll find out that I hate it as much as any other sensible person out there.
:)
-
I never really liked those animals anyways
-
You can't deny dubya his "Right to pollute", now can you?
-
what styxx and blue lion said. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
You can't deny dubya his "Right to pollute", now can you?
Quite the sentimental approach, I'd say. :p
-
Ok, good point.
But letting snowplows into Yellowstone is definately not one of those things that might be helping.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Ok, good point.
But letting snowplows into Yellowstone is definately not one of those things that might be helping.
Ok I'm confused....how's plowing snow in a park going to damage it's Eco-system ? Instead I'd think it would HELP by opening the paths during the winter to allow ppl to enjoy the park year around.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Do you know that there's actually a quite large group of scientists that defends the theory that the only thing preventing an ice age right now is the sheer amount of pollution and heat generated by the human race? There's evidence that the sun is going through a low activity period (neutrino emissions are too low), and evidence linking such low activity "seasons" to previous ice ages. These "studies" that show up every day on newspapers about global warming never take into account a true geological perspective - they compare the global temperature with what it was a few years ago, and don't give a damn if a few million years back, with no "artificial" pollution whatsoever, the temperature was way higher than it is now.
Now, I'm not for pollution, nor against caring for the environment, but all these green hippies are yet to provide concrete proof instead of a collection of very loud screams accompanied by localized "evidence".
yeah, but a few million years ago, there were volcanoes everywhere :rolleyes:, the changes were not done on two decades. Oh, you know, there was dinosaurs, too. To sum up: it was different.
If what you say about the sun is right, I guess we can "thank" it, or else it'd had us all toasted already?
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ok I'm confused....how's plowing snow in a park going to damage it's Eco-system ? Instead I'd think it would HELP by opening the paths during the winter to allow ppl to enjoy the park year around.
People tramping around the place is going to damage it eco-system! Particulalry if they litter everywhere.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
yeah, but a few million years ago, there were volcanoes everywhere :rolleyes:, the changes were not done on two decades. Oh, you know, there was dinosaurs, too. To sum up: it was different.
If what you say about the sun is right, I guess we can "thank" it, or else it'd had us all toasted already?
I'm not talking about periods of high volcanic activity - those happen even nowadays, and a big eruption throws more pollution into the atmosphere than a whole year of factories worldwide doing it. I'm talking about the sun being hotter than it is now than it was when there weren't ice ages happening, and the logic conclusion that we should be experiencing an ice age right now.
You may thank the sun if you want - even though these cycles can last for tens of thousands of years. The point is, there's nothing we can do to change the way the sun works but, if this theory is right, if it wasn't for the ammount of heat and pollution our industrialized society is producing, everyone that's out of the equatorial zone would be freezing by now.
Oh, and the hypocrisy of these green-hippies is just disgusting. I'd disagree with them just for the hell of it.
-
Well you would support industry and all that crap as you are the Evil Capitalist. I however am more of a Tracer tong at heart, not happy with technology but quite happy to use it.:D
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
People tramping around the place is going to damage it eco-system! Particulalry if they litter everywhere.
Heh ok I'll give ya that one ;)
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Well you would support industry and all that crap as you are the Evil Capitalist. I however am more of a Tracer tong at heart, not happy with technology but quite happy to use it.:D
So get back to your games and quit the whining. :p :D
-
I'll complain if I want to, I find it comforting, in this world of exploitation, commercialism, poverty, disease, and worst of all... POP MUSIC!
-
Hit it on a nail Styxx.
Plenty of times during Earth's history has the overal temperature been higher than it is today. Remnants of palm tree's have been found frozen in the arctic circle and there have been all kinds of species shifts for as long as this planet has been around.
The fear is that humans could disrupt the natural cycle of the planet. Creating a runaway greenhouse effect would not be a good thing at all. The greenhouse effect itself is not necessarily harmful because if you melt the icecaps, its not too long after that that the planet actually starts to cool.
The middle ages actually experienced a mini-iceage. We're now only a few centuries out of that. Warming is to be expected.
Now...even despite all of these natural cycles. Dumping toxic waste, overpopulating the planet and polluting the ozone layer is not good...not good at all. It needs to be seriously curtailed..
-
hey i wouldnt mide another ice age rly
humanity sucks ass anyway :D
-
Originally posted by Fetty
hey i wouldnt mide another ice age rly
humanity sucks ass anyway :D
Just think of all the places to snowboard :D LOL
-
.
-
the only problem with that theory is humans are not a natural function of this planets biosphere - we dont give a **** because we know we'll just build a nice big arcology or something.
And the problem is not just a global one - its also highly localised. You might be quite happy living in a distopian, post-industrial twilight zone, because you have other ways of relaxing. I, however, find a walk in the woods to be a great way to unwind.
Except...oh yeah....because its too much trouble to find alternative energy sources instead of kicking up loads of sulphur and ozones into the atmosphere there won't BE any woods left.
Then there's the small problem of the carbon sink....yeah, we're avoiding an ice age at the moment - so lets cut a few more trees down......100 years down the line? we'll wind up having to GM algae or something to stop roasting ourselves in our own world like a joint of beef in kitchen foil.
Oh..but then again, you still don't care, because we'll just piss off to another world and wreck that too.
Sometimes i wonder if Agent Smith out of the matrix was right - you have just displayed a great virus mentality.
-
There are environmental issues today that definitely need to be addressed, but this article is pointing to all the wrong things. Alright, some species get thinned out, big deal; it is hardly going to affect the global economy (the plants can still be grown in artificial conditions), and saying that it is somehow "wrong" to just stand by and let this happen (when no practical benefits exist for doing so) is like saying that it is "wrong" for us to allow supernovas to explode in the universe. :D
I however am more of a Tracer tong at heart, not happy with technology but quite happy to use it.
bah! Helios is the master. ;7
humanity sucks ass anyway
exactly! :D :yes:
the only problem with that theory is humans are not a natural function of this planets biosphere - we dont give a **** because we know we'll just build a nice big arcology or something.
This is what I mean when I say practical issues; if it is indeed realistic to do such a thing, then screw the environment, there is no reason for us to bother with it seeing as there are no benefits there. Also, what do you mean by "natural function?" Of course humans are a natural function of the planet's biosphere (as is anything else in it), and if you look at things that way, it is apparent that whatever actions humans take are simply a part of the workings of the universe, and by extension the biosphere.
Oh..but then again, you still don't care, because we'll just piss off to another world and wreck that too.
Exactly, and that's simply the way the universe works; nothing good or bad with it.
-
call me soft-hearted but dont you find it just a little repellant that you'd wreck another species' chance of a rise to sentience by wrecking this world?
Its OK to have feelings you know...
-
Well, that's not our problem. If the species gets wrecked, once again, it's a part of the workings of the universe, and there is nothing repellant (or likeable) about it; it is simply the way things are. On this particular point, there are no benefits in our practical world today either from a social standpoint, so that is the end of it.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
yeah, but a few million years ago, there were volcanoes everywhere :rolleyes:, the changes were not done on two decades. Oh, you know, there was dinosaurs, too. To sum up: it was different.
If what you say about the sun is right, I guess we can "thank" it, or else it'd had us all toasted already?
There are volcanoes everywhere now.
In fact, volcanoes often decrease global temperatures due to the massive amounts of particulates they can inject into the atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, that's not our problem. If the species gets wrecked, once again, it's a part of the workings of the universe, and there is nothing repellant ...
yes there is: I don't wanna live in a boring world, is there a pb with that?
-
Go into math and the world will never be boring again. Problem solved. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Go into math and the world will never be boring again. Problem solved. :D
Learn to be *human* and your problems will be solved! ^^;
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Learn to be *human* and your problems will be solved! ^^;
ZING!
-
Originally posted by 01010
ZING!
I'll take that as an agreement and/or compliment of my statement?
-
What is this "human" you people speak of? We are all humans anyway. :D If you mean something else, express it as an equation or something at least. Besides, I have no problems, because I have math. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Go into math and the world will never be boring again. Problem solved. :D
yeah right, i almost died of boredom because of math, there would be only me, I'd ban math from school :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What is this "human" you people speak of? We are all humans anyway. :D If you mean something else, express it as an equation or something at least. Besides, I have no problems, because I have math. ;7
CP...sometimes you scare me buddy lol
-
mathematics has its limits, CP - you know this. All it can ever be is a model of the world, not the world in its entirety.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What is this "human" you people speak of? We are all humans anyway. :D If you mean something else, express it as an equation or something at least. Besides, I have no problems, because I have math. ;7
An equation? Hrm...I'm usually not one for these, but I suppose I can entertain you just this once..
Human + Another Human (hopefully of the opposite sex, not that I'm prejudiced against homosexuals, but it's what *I'd* prefer) = Happy Ordinary Life
Human + Mathematics = Highly unusual and strange little man who is missing more to life than he lets himself believe.
Though you'll never seem to discover it CP, love, the love between two human beings is one of the most incredible thing this world has to offer. Denying yourself that is simply...foolish...
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Though you'll never seem to discover it CP, love, the love between two human beings is one of the most incredible thing this world has to offer.
:yes:
Even better when the second human being wants to enter a third into that equation. :lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This is what I mean when I say practical issues; if it is indeed realistic to do such a thing, then screw the environment, there is no reason for us to bother with it seeing as there are no benefits there. Also, what do you mean by "natural function?" Of course humans are a natural function of the planet's biosphere (as is anything else in it), and if you look at things that way, it is apparent that whatever actions humans take are simply a part of the workings of the universe, and by extension the biosphere.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that the changes to a biosphere made by intelligent beings are "natural". They are made with clear intentions in mind,thus they are "artificial". Natural would be something that occurs due to the laws of well, nature, since humans try to bend those laws, therefore they are not natural.
Originally posted by CP5670
There are environmental issues today that definitely need to be addressed, but this article is pointing to all the wrong things. Alright, some species get thinned out, big deal; it is hardly going to affect the global economy (the plants can still be grown in artificial conditions), and saying that it is somehow "wrong" to just stand by and let this happen (when no practical benefits exist for doing so) is like saying that it is "wrong" for us to allow supernovas to explode in the universe
ok, let's take this from a purely financial point of view: Growing plants artificially on a polluted planet would require artificial weather, artificial food, artificial sunlight, a biodome, all of which would cost several fortunes. Instead on spending thousands and thousands of resources, manhours and money on such things, would it not be easier to just stop the plants from extinction.
Originally posted by Delta_7890
Though you'll never seem to discover it CP, love, the love between two human beings is one of the most incredible thing this world has to offer. Denying yourself that is simply...foolish...
not only that, but human emotions such as love, cannot be brought down to a mathematical level. And no matter how hard you try to deny these emotions, they still function as strongly and make the same difference.
C'mon, would you say no to... uh... discussing maths with Natalie Portman?
Even better when the second human being wants to enter a third into that equation.
OK, we all understand you almost had a threesome on new years eve, but would it be time to drop the subject?
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
OK, we all understand you almost had a threesome on new years eve, but would it be time to drop the subject?
Never :)
-
Been there, done that....besides man..."ALMOST" only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades :D
-
OK... I spent the last four years studying the Earth in various subjects, and if there's one thing that has been drilled int ot me it's that the planet's climate goes up and down like a yo-yo. People that obsess over the recent climate changes are idiots.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Been there, done that....besides man..."ALMOST" only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades :D
Hey, it was only an almost because I value my friends over well, y'know :)
Plus in a bedroom where people were running in and out like every five minutes it's not the wisest of moves. Especially considering the point above. Damn, the only reason i'm saying it here is because I'd be in so much **** if anyone I know ever found out and it's the kind of thing where you just have to tell "someone" :D
-
Originally posted by 01010
Hey, it was only an almost because I value my friends over well, y'know :)
Plus in a bedroom where people were running in and out like every five minutes it's not the wisest of moves. Especially considering the point above. Damn, the only reason i'm saying it here is because I'd be in so much **** if anyone I know ever found out and it's the kind of thing where you just have to tell "someone" :D
Heh :D Next time change rooms, lock door etc. :)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
There are volcanoes everywhere now.
In fact, volcanoes often decrease global temperatures due to the massive amounts of particulates they can inject into the atmosphere.
Absolutely. Geography trivia for you all: when Krakatoa went off, the average global tempertaure dropped by a degree for several years, due to the ammount of dust in the atmosphere. While this might sound fairly insignicant, it is estimated that a drop in global temperature of four degrees would send the planet in to another ice age... *pulls on gloves and wooly hat*
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Learn to be *human* and your problems will be solved! ^^;
Ah, but to deny our mathematical process (which is closely related to logic) is to defy our specialty as humans in the first place!
-
yeah right, i almost died of boredom because of math, there would be only me, I'd ban math from school
That is because you have not done any of the really interesting math; the stuff they teach early on is indeed pretty boring. :p Try special functions or just about any sub-branch of number theory instead. :D
mathematics has its limits, CP - you know this. All it can ever be is a model of the world, not the world in its entirety.
You have not seen my way of looking at these things yet. :D See if you can give me one thing that can be somehow proven to be undescribable by mathematics but is still absolutely existant; math certainly has limits, but it is like a god compared to anything else out there. :D
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that the changes to a biosphere made by intelligent beings are "natural". They are made with clear intentions in mind,thus they are "artificial". Natural would be something that occurs due to the laws of well, nature, since humans try to bend those laws, therefore they are not natural.
But they cannot bend those laws because they work by those laws. These so-called "clear intentions" are also the product of the laws; it is all equally "natural." (absolute things cannot be unnatural by definition) This topic was discussed before around here in great length and it should be obvious by now; humans are not some kind of outsider aliens to the rest of the universe, but are just as much parts of it as any rock, dust particle or whatever else, and so whatever they do is natural because of the fact that they are doing it.
ok, let's take this from a purely financial point of view: Growing plants artificially on a polluted planet would require artificial weather, artificial food, artificial sunlight, a biodome, all of which would cost several fortunes. Instead on spending thousands and thousands of resources, manhours and money on such things, would it not be easier to just stop the plants from extinction.
Which is why I am supporting some of the environmentalist ideas at the moment, but for different reasons. Notice that I said "practical" in there. Also, stopping the plants from extinction is also going to cost several fortunes, but I think with the conditions today it will require less fortunes than the alternative. Of course, that will likely change in the future, but we can worry about it again then. :D
not only that, but human emotions such as love, cannot be brought down to a mathematical level. And no matter how hard you try to deny these emotions, they still function as strongly and make the same difference.
In other words, you are saying that science is wrong. fair enough. :D (emotions are in the universe and are thus a part of it, and so by the science axioms there exist laws that describe them exactly, or in other words, sets of logical statements and math equations) I never said I am trying to deny anything; of course love, or certain combinations of particle interactions within the brain, exists in human affairs.
C'mon, would you say no to... uh... discussing maths with Natalie Portman?
Depends on what exactly is being talked about. I will get into a technical discussion on special functions with really anyone if I can learn something from it. :nod: (although then the other one needs to know some stuff about the subject)
Though you'll never seem to discover it CP, love, the love between two human beings is one of the most incredible thing this world has to offer. Denying yourself that is simply...foolish...
Incredibly stupid, you mean; I find love (and these emotions in general) very strange and incongruous with everything else in human affairs, really the odd one out. It is effectively just a relic from an older era when civilizations were just starting up. Ah well, I'm not going to try and change it; I am well satisfied with my math. :D
-
Actually, the story I heard is that we're still heating up from the previous Ice Age, and that a good amount of the global warming people attribute to pollution really has nothing to do with people at all...
I don't know about this whole "we're killing the planet!!!" line, anyway. The Earth's pretty damn hard to kill, as is a good amount of the life on it.
In case you weren't aware, species die all the time, and somehow life has pulled its way through a history that is really nothing more than one massive planetary crisis after another. WE are the current equivalents of a meteor or an ice age. Don't feel bad; "civilization" will deal with itself before the planet goes critical, and life will go on without us.
Unless we blow the ****er up.
-
Scientists are split 50/50 on whether global warming actually exists. The amount of CO2 we put in through industry is like 0.2% of the total. I cant find the exact number, because google is being stupid and keeps comming up with totally unrelated stuff.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You have not seen my way of looking at these things yet.
Right back at ya mate. You haven't seen my way of looking at things either. Call it a left-hemisphere dominance but mathematics hasnt been able to predict human behaviours on either a personal or crowd level, barring the physical effects of pushing people about - and even then its only as accurate as how recursive your calculations are.
-
I know that car exhaust actually DOES do a large amount...
But honestly, even in the realm of human-related evils, global warming hardly registers. Termite farts supposedly contribute about as much as we do, and burning down rainforests, bulldozing any usable land, dumping toxic waste practically everywhere (including where we live- I'm out near a largish road, you wouldn't imagine the chemical stink when I walk down parts of it), etc... and you're complaining about some tenth of a degree that might have something to do with anything?
Sorry, but no. More things get killed via roadkill than global warming.
-
Right back at ya mate. You haven't seen my way of looking at things either. Call it a left-hemisphere dominance but mathematics hasnt been able to predict human behaviours on either a personal or crowd level, barring the physical effects of pushing people about - and even then its only as accurate as how recursive your calculations are.
The crowd level thing has definitely been done, even without any math; sufficiently large crowds (mobs) are indeed pretty predictable. But that is not important; can you actually show that it is impossible to do so? Since throughout human history math has been able to do more than any other system of thought out there, I am going to assume for the moment that it is capable of doing these other trivial things as well (given enough time) instead of just giving up without trying. After all it is just a matter of analyzing the particle positions within a brain more precisely.
-
however to argue your point the uncertainty principle states measuring the particles in the brain with that accuracy is an entirely impossible task?
Indeed, in order to correctly simulate a brain one would have to first simulate the entire universe down to the smallest (in)comphrehensible detail - a feat impossible even for you, i daresay.
Instead of attempting to apply mathematics to such a condition, does it not make more sense to apply intiution? Granted, its not a quantifiable commodity however hollistically speaking it may wind up to be a similar situation as what has happened with the competing string theories - IE, they simply turn out to be two different ends of the same "equation" called life.
-
Define "intuition".
-
however to argue your point the uncertainty principle states measuring the particles in the brain with that accuracy is an entirely impossible task?
You are right that it might be impossible, but it is still better than any other method we have. Although this is all irrelevant; we are getting into the details of whether the laws can be discovered by humans, but all that really matters for our purposes here is whether or not the laws have an absolute existence. The science axioms at least say that they do and that a true unified theory can exist.
Indeed, in order to correctly simulate a brain one would have to first simulate the entire universe down to the smallest (in)comphrehensible detail - a feat impossible even for you, i daresay.
That is true, but the same goes for anything else actually. Even to simulate a ball dropping absolutely precisely you would need everything else in the universe since these things are all dependent on each other. For practical purposes a reasonably accurate simulation is not entirely unrealistic.
Instead of attempting to apply mathematics to such a condition, does it not make more sense to apply intiution? Granted, its not a quantifiable commodity however hollistically speaking it may wind up to be a similar situation as what has happened with the competing string theories - IE, they simply turn out to be two different ends of the same "equation" called life.
But intuition is not objective at all, because everyone gets different results with it, and there is no way to determine which intuitive answer is the right one.
-
why dont you define it first?
But very well, i'll humour you.
Intuition, as far as my understanding goes, is the extrapolation through no logical means of a timeline, IE, being able to accurately predict the future from whats going on around you.
Wether that occurs simply through your obervation of body language and voice inflexion, or whether it occurs through auras, or whether its a totally new sixth/seventh/eighth sense doesnt really matter.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
Unless we blow the ****er up.
I second that motion.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You are right that it might be impossible, but it is still better than any other method we have. Although this is all irrelevant; we are getting into the details of whether the laws can be discovered by humans, but all that really matters for our purposes here is whether or not the laws have an absolute existence. The science axioms at least say that they do and that a true unified theory can exist.
I dont beleive its better - in which case since you have as much trouble understanding my tenets as I have understanding your mathetmatics we wind up with a stalemate. I wont accept your view and you wont accept mine - what good can possibly come of this situation?
That is true, but the same goes for anything else actually. Even to simulate a ball dropping absolutely precisely you would need everything else in the universe since these things are all dependent on each other. For practical purposes a reasonably accurate simulation is not entirely unrealistic.
However as the complexity of the simulated object increases so do the problems of the interdependancy factor - i know all about this, I render/simulate real life every day!
But intuition is not objective at all, because everyone gets different results with it, and there is no way to determine which intuitive answer is the right one. /quote]
Neither is maths as far as im concerned since it fails totally to take into account one half of our existance, and most intuitive answers do actually agree on many points. Its a simple matter of the semantics the individual uses to describe them and their own view of reality -which is what it boils down to.
Can you sit there and tell me you feel nothing when you read this reply? Everything someone does carries a residual energy with other people can pick up on.
-
wEvil: Hmm... you mean good guesswork.
You might not notice it, but everything you do has a logical foundation, by the way. The brain is ultimately a computer, at least as far as modern biochemistry can tell. A fiendishly complex one, with one neuron not always knowing what the one next to it is doing (figuratively), and a bit inefficient, so that the result can be utterly illogical at times. But the way it goes about recieving its illogical result always is quite logical, and can often be traced back.
It'd take a long time to give an example on this, and I'm kinda tired, but I'll bet CP has a good idea what I'm talking about, or that someone here does, and they can take it from here if they wish to.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is because you have not done any of the really interesting math; the stuff they teach early on is indeed pretty boring. :p Try special functions or just about any sub-branch of number theory instead. :D
I already hate doing divisions and stuff like that, you really think I want to do more complicated stuff? :wtf:
You've lost the sense of realities I think.
-
[color=66ff00]Y'know a lot of potentially great threads on HLP always end up with some parties arguing the same point no matter how often it's shown that the two parties will never and can never agree due to fantastically limited viewpoints.
Everything is not black an white especially when it comes to human affairs, we lack the ability to fully describe the universe around us, even the simplest events are mistifying and defy logic.
CP you can argue your maths standpoint until you are blue in the face and it won't make you any more right or wrong, most people will disagree with you in any case.
There is some possibilty that at some point in our future (provided Stryke9 is wrong and we don't 'blow the ****er up') someone will figure out the entire workings of this world, universe and everything in it using mathematics. Unfortunately it's also highly likely that the current denizens of HLP will be dust clogging up our precious atmosphere and it won't really matter how effective the maths is because they'll either be laughing at us in our profound ignorance or they'll be screaming in terror at the fact that since they have perfectly figured out the universe in its entireity there will never ever be another surprising event in the future of our race. That's a pretty horrible thought.
I really dislike venting via a keyboard...[/color]
-
Wow... that really WAS green!
:p
People argue pointlessly because they like to. I don't think anyone here seriously entertains thoughts of changing the world via posting rebuttals in some art forum.
And I think the second option would be more likely. Once everything is settled, life would become deathly dull. We live essentially to overcome obstacles, which is why people aren't ever really happy for long stretches of time. Call it the trouble with evolution.
-
I dont beleive its better - in which case since you have as much trouble understanding my tenets as I have understanding your mathetmatics we wind up with a stalemate. I wont accept your view and you wont accept mine - what good can possibly come of this situation?
Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.
However as the complexity of the simulated object increases so do the problems of the interdependancy factor - i know all about this, I render/simulate real life every day!
Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)
Neither is maths as far as im concerned since it fails totally to take into account one half of our existance, and most intuitive answers do actually agree on many points. Its a simple matter of the semantics the individual uses to describe them and their own view of reality -which is what it boils down to.
What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.
Can you sit there and tell me you feel nothing when you read this reply? Everything someone does carries a residual energy with other people can pick up on.
:wtf: Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.
I already hate doing divisions and stuff like that, you really think I want to do more complicated stuff?
You've lost the sense of realities I think.
nah, it's not more complicated, just more interesting. ;7 (e.g. they teach you about mixed fractions in kindergarten, but I cannot recall ever using those after that; everything is written as improper fractions :p)
Everything is not black an white especially when it comes to human affairs, we lack the ability to fully describe the universe around us, even the simplest events are mistifying and defy logic.
such as?
CP you can argue your maths standpoint until you are blue in the face and it won't make you any more right or wrong, most people will disagree with you in any case.
Actually it will for the purposes of the argument, because that is what the point of this is in the first place. If you are assuming an absolute reality, you cannot simply say that you "agree" or "disagree" and be consistent without showing precisely why.
That's a pretty horrible thought.
Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. :D If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.
Thats a rather unfair point to make and you know it considering the disparity in research time that has been given over to the field.
Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)
It matters because it effectively means we'll never have the processing power to compute such a vast sequence of events
What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.
Usually the kind of things people rely on intuition are a good deal more ambiguous than your example, which again in my opinion represents a null argument.
:wtf: Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.
Im not talking about that kind of energy, come on, open your mind up a bit! consider some different possibilities!
Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. :D If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.
Which is why it will never happen - a kind of self-censoring sentient lifeform - interesting possibility?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Alright, let's start over then. You have not quite explained what your alternative to math and logic is that still gives objective "results;" please do so now.
Yes, but what does that matter here? (bear in mind that the concept of complexity as we are talking about it here is itself somewhat vague; a complex system may be very simple if looked at another way)
What is this other half and why is it to be considered seperate from the first half? If a guy publishes a valid mathematical proof, people cannot deny it or say that they do not agree without being contradictory, since the logical steps cannot be argued. On the other hand, suppose I say here that my intuition tells me that the intuitive answers of others usually do not agree, regardless of what the real facts may be, as well as that ice is hot, the moon is made of cheese, 1+1=3 and whatever else you can think of. By your method, I am equally right as anyone who says differently, and we are stuck at a dead end without eliminating any options.
:wtf: Are you talking about energy transfers resulting from the brain particle interactions? The energy conversion processes are everywhere and not just in a brain.
nah, it's not more complicated, just more interesting. ;7 (e.g. they teach you about mixed fractions in kindergarten, but I cannot recall ever using those after that; everything is written as improper fractions :p)
such as?
Actually it will for the purposes of the argument, because that is what the point of this is in the first place. If you are assuming an absolute reality, you cannot simply say that you "agree" or "disagree" and be consistent without showing precisely why.
Thing is though, there are many people who find the alternative a pretty horrible thought. :D If somehow humans ever discover all absolute things that there are to know, they will eseentially no longer retain any further illusion of free will and will know themselves to be kind of like robots.
[color=66ff00]Conclusion:
Never argue with a person who knows they're right.
[/color]
-
Thats a rather unfair point to make and you know it considering the disparity in research time that has been given over to the field.
:wtf: I just asked what your alternative method is (which I'm still not quite sure of); what is the "unfair point?"
It matters because it effectively means we'll never have the processing power to compute such a vast sequence of events
That becomes a matter of quantity then, of exactly how interdependent/complex/etc. the system becomes. But I am not sure why you say "never;" sure it may take a really long time (although even that is debatable), but that is quite a bit different than never. It depends on whether the universe is infinitely complicated or just really complicated.
Usually the kind of things people rely on intuition are a good deal more ambiguous than your example, which again in my opinion represents a null argument.
not sure what you are saying here; just tell me why my statements there are right or wrong. My point is that with this intuition thing, we have no basis for eliminating any of the possible statements and our problem becomes infinitely more complicated.
Im not talking about that kind of energy, come on, open your mind up a bit! consider some different possibilities!
eh? :wtf: energy/mass is just the fundamental "stuff" that makes up the universe; what is this "other" energy?
Which is why it will never happen - a kind of self-censoring sentient lifeform - interesting possibility?
An interesting possibility, sure. However, I don't think there are any grounds at the moment for assuming this over the alternative.
Conclusion:
Never argue with a person who knows they're right.
Exactly, and I know I am right (comparatively speaking that is, not absolutely right) because nobody is putting any good arguments against it. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
:wtf: I just asked what your alternative method is (which I'm still not quite sure of); what is the "unfair point?"
the answer will come, and no, trust me, this isnt some spiritualist superiority. I truly beleive the "answer" isnt a purely logical one.
That becomes a matter of quantity then, of exactly how interdependent/complex/etc. the system becomes. But I am not sure why you say "never;" sure it may take a really long time (although even that is debatable), but that is quite a bit different than never. It depends on whether the universe is infinitely complicated or just really complicated.
(although that is debatable) - you just poked a hole in your own argument there, although i wouldnt be so undiplomatic as to say it.
not sure what you are saying here; just tell me why my statements there are right or wrong. My point is that with this intuition thing, we have no basis for eliminating any of the possible statements and our problem becomes infinitely more complicated.
Nor has mathethematics/logic any basis for "intruding" into the world of spirituality - however "we" accept it as a facet of our existance, what stops you accepting a facet of spirituality as a facet of yours?
eh? :wtf: energy/mass is just the fundamental "stuff" that makes up the universe; what is this "other" energy?
I think you might well find the human body generates more energy than can be accounted for by chemical reactions
An interesting possibility, sure. However, I don't think there are any grounds at the moment for assuming this over the alternative.
Knowledge increases by considering alternatives - please tell me you have not become so dogmatic.
Exactly, and I know I am right (comparatively speaking that is, not absolutely right) because nobody is putting any good arguments against it. :p
i just did.
-
the answer will come, and no, trust me, this isnt some spiritualist superiority. I truly beleive the "answer" isnt a purely logical one.
That's fair enough - we're just using different assumptions - but why don't you just tell me what method you are using to get to this answer?
(although that is debatable) - you just poked a hole in your own argument there, although i wouldnt be so undiplomatic as to say it.
:wtf: I was pointing out that many scientists today say that this "long time" might be during this century. Of course, we don't care about how much actual time is required, but only that it is finite.
Nor has mathethematics/logic any basis for "intruding" into the world of spirituality - however "we" accept it as a facet of our existance, what stops you accepting a facet of spirituality as a facet of yours?
Because they are the same thing. Everything has a basis for intruding into any other "world," because all these things are interconnected and are ultimate a single whole, so you cannot have this sort of dual existence. One or the other is correct, but not both. You might as well ask what stops the western world from accepting the jihad ideology as just an equally true part of life as anything else. :D
I think you might well find the human body generates more energy than can be accounted for by chemical reactions
once again, give an example, and tell me what scientific processes account for it; are you thinking about quantum mechanical reactions? And why must the human alone be so special? If a human can "generate energy" (never mind that this completely violates core physics laws), a rock should be able to do the same.
Knowledge increases by considering alternatives - please tell me you have not become so dogmatic.
Of course I have considered some alternatives, but have decided that they all have an equal probability at being right from what we know, and there is no real reason to choose any one alternative over another; the only reason I am trying math/logic/science/etc. first is that it is the easiest to work with and at its core, has an equal chance of being correct as anything else.
-
Alright, that's it. Screw you guys, i'm goin' home.
-
CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.
So the only people who are worth listening to or are sensible are the ones who don't think they are right but perhaps there's a posibility of it? :lol:
-
Firstly
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :rolleyes:
There is a difference between thinking your right and knowing your right. People they "know" they are right, will continue to believe it nomatter what evidence you present against them, or however much you try to convince them otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
"Never agree with a person who knows there right"
Its "they're", not "there". Gah. :rolleyes:
...;)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Firstly
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :rolleyes:
There is a difference between thinking your right and knowing your right. People they "know" they are right, will continue to believe it nomatter what evidence you present against them, or however much you try to convince them otherwise.
So you want to talk to someone who isn't sure of what the hell they're talking about eh?
-
:wtf:
What part of Zeronet's post can't you understand?
-
CP, by saying "Never agree with a person who knows there right" is not agreeing with you. Its just saying your so deadset in your ways, your beyond being convinced otherwise.
eh? :wtf: Who exactly are you addressing here? I wasn't the one who said that, and it was "argue" rather than "agree."