Looks like a lot more replies this time around.
Yeah, right. Just as theory proved that a train couldn't move faster than 47 mph back on the 1700s or else everyone inside would suffocate because of the pressure differential. We might just find that the core of the sun is completely different from what we theorize, as you might find that sex is completely different than you imagine. The only sure way of knowing something is through experimentation, and if you think otherwise you're a fool.
Yes, but then the experiential bias kicks in, especially for a subject like this, which will very likely influence a human's thinking in a certain direction (this becomes an issue while forming logic statements). Also, what you are saying about experimentation is completely wrong as well, since experimentation is just a form of theory at its very core (yes, ask any philosopher about this
); in other words, there is no "sure way" of knowing something, and if all the variables are taken into account the two are going to be exactly the same anyway. Theory can live without experiment (mathematics) but experiment is meaningless without theory. Also, I can give you fifty other theories that have worked out almost perfectly in practice.
Hm, what other species that you know of right now have evolved into something else? Specially, what other species that have already reached a level similar to humans have evolved into something else? How can you be sure of that, if there is no known example of any species evolving beyond our own level?
Once again, the theory, which in turn is based on induction. Think holistically and view the universe as one unit rather than a group of discrete units.
You may think they are not, but they are. Your passion for math is just your way of venting your sexual frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it.
Ah! Therefore, your passion for sex is just your way of venting mathematical frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it.
I love the way these assertive statements can be turned around...
(actually, I happen to like arguing, but apparently so do you, so that's good
)
In classical music, 1 is calm, 3 is building and 5 is tense. These are the intervals from the first note played. Almost all Western music is based on this concept....immensely more complex but based on this concept...and even some non-western music uses this concept (and even farther than that, this theory seems to apply to other types of non-western music as well). Basically....at the 5th interval...you have well...sex. And the guy doing the presentation was funny as hell about it too...but it makes sense to me.
Wait, if you are going to be this general then anything could be related to anything else; for example, the general fifth-degree polynomial equation is unsolvable using elementary functions, and it is related to the number five. Therefore, music is intimately related to Abel's impossibility theorem.
So im not talking about lyrics...im talking about the fundamentals of how our brain interprets everything around us. We relate to everything and we relate it to our most basic instinct. Its hardwired into us. Remove that wiring and I don't think there would be much left.
That is not exactly true. As I have said many times here already, this is only the case in the current cultural paradigm; previous ones did not have the same characteristic. Anyway, just "remove the wiring" and instead plug in new wiring.
Hm, point me to the last time when there was a paradigm shift on this subject. Or you assume that, because one said subject may suffer a shift, any other subject might as well?
About 200 years ago. Sex was still a part of human affairs but a side thing; nothing even close to what it has become today. And yes, I do assume exactly that, because there is no evidence to the contrary and other theories are favorable, so this is what the induction procedure suggests.
It is mathematically proven that a non-deterministic approach to the solution of any problem is at least as good as any deterministic solution. It is also noted through statistical and experimental methods that in the vast majority of the problems, a non-deterministic approach provides far better and faster results than any deterministic approach. Diversity means non-determinism and is, therefore, better - even under strict scientifical scrutiny.
That only holds when when very little information about the problem is known or more specifically, that it is a decidedly indeterminate question. I would like to see you prove that performing truly random actions has a higher probability of success than following a theorized algorithm, mathematically speaking.
Secondly, how does diversity imply a probabilistic system? Just because it looks more complicated to us does not make it any less deterministic than a uniform approach.
Eh?
10 sub-argument wins; I consider it a victory when the other guy either comes back but does not respond to that sub-argument refutation or does not come back at all for a while.
(or concedes defeat, but that almost never happens for obvious reasons) Let us find out if I can add any more to that.
you like blue, don't you?
well, I can understand that CP likes maths so much, but I can't stand he uses is own exemple to assume that everyone should be like he is, and he doesn't even realize how... sad the world would be. Oh, forgive me, happiness is a waste of time, probably.
Like I said before, anyone can be quickly tricked into thinking they like math, even with our current knowledge, and they would thus derive pleasure from it anyway, so it works out even if happiness is taken as an objective.
Anyway, I think that you have a definite problem in your world view CP, specifically the distinct lack of an understanding that for all the trappings of society and technology, at the core, human beings are animals, driven on an animal level by genetic survival. Now, you say we clone everyone, and in theory, the body should be happy, yay, perfect genetic survival, you've been copied. But tno matter how many times the rational part of your mind goes over the fact that your genetic survival is assured, and no matter howmany times you go and get yourself recloned there's no way to inform the animal part of your mentality of that. So you will continue to have basic, animalistic sexual urges, and be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Sexual suppression doesn't work, which is why Catholic Priests are always found buggering altar boys. This is the first problem on with your idea.
Exactly, and every animal is a logical construct of the natural universe. This is what I have been saying all along: there is no difference between an animal and a rock as far as their core laws go. How is this "animal part" of human mentality (or of anything else) any more constant than any of the other attributes? This is a simple case of social evolution; people will generally retain these mental attributes as long as they contribute towards the survival of the individual. Over time, if newer systems become more mainstream and the survival is no longer dependant on a particular system, the thoughts of the people will also change to reflect that. Same reason why animals have slightly different instincts than we do. (where do you think morals came from?) Also, who said anything about "sexual suppression?"
The second problem comes from genetics - Cloning, or asexual reproduction doesn't work either - relatively simple diseases wipe out genetically similar populations, and the only reason all single celled organisms haven't been wiped out yet is because they're so small, meaning there can be a damned lot of them, and the chances that an individual or group will survive is a high one. Unfortunately, humans are too big, and require too many resources per individual to exist on this planet in the numbers neccessary to make asexual reproduction safe from a species survival point of view.
You are looking at the short-term effects of the whole issue rather than taking things from a universal perspective. Let us assume a hypothetical situation: suppose that humans have minimal contact with the rest of the Earth's ecosystem, and everything that goes into a human (food, air, etc.) is thoroughly screened by atomic-precision computers before allowing it in. Also, in the event that something fails, a bacterium gets in and a guy gets sick, he is quarantined from the rest of the population. Of course, the chance of everyone dying out still exists, but it is much lower than a completely "natural" situation. Anyway, what I had in mind for this problem was that the cloning system culd periodically change certain parts of its genetic structure (unimportant stuff that is not directly related to cognitive processes) to have the viruses keep following in a perpetual "evolutionary race." (when they adapt to the new system, change it again) Also, if what you are saying about uniform genes is that big of deal, most animal species on this planet would not exist, seeing as the human attributes a far, far greater genetic diversity than any of those, and even the human falls to micro-organisms.
This topic is getting more interesting now...
