[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, you don't have any arguments left. This is the second time now.

I suppose you think you won the other time?
It wouldn't surprise me if you did.

Originally posted by Blue Lion
Because he has no sympathy for people who torture children merely by having them?

Exactly. What should I do instead, hug him for having such opinion? Say that the world would be a much better place if everyone acted like that?

[wEvil]

Unfortunately i must label myself as a traditionalist in the case that I'd like us to remain imperfect bipeds for quite some time.

If you're going to go the MO route you can get onto all kinds of fantastical (and theoretical) life-forms - including ones that aren't matter-based at all or reside outside our entropic, decaying universe.

And I doubt that the growing mega-organism would be able to think as well, at least not to start with.

If it was designed, it would not be more complex than us (most likely due to our imperfect thought processes or more likely our own hubris at being the most intelligent known life form) and if it came from elsewhere it would probably some exotic weapon.

[CP5670]

I suppose you think you won the other time?
It wouldn't surprise me if you did.

Yes, of course I do. When the other guy stops with solid, objective arguments and starts with petty insults, you know you have won.

Exactly. What should I do instead, hug him for having such opinion? Say that the world would be a much better place if everyone acted like that?

It would indeed be a better place if everyone acted like that. What's your point?

Unfortunately i must label myself as a traditionalist in the case that I'd like us to remain imperfect bipeds for quite some time.

Sure you would, as would almost everyone else in the world up to the time that it actually occurs. The rule of resistance to change is a major determinant of the human's likes and dislikes.

If you're going to go the MO route you can get onto all kinds of fantastical (and theoretical) life-forms - including ones that aren't matter-based at all or reside outside our entropic, decaying universe.

Possibly, yes, which would be nice.

And I doubt that the growing mega-organism would be able to think as well, at least not to start with.

It would start at the highest level of human thought, and would progress on from there. It would still always be some steps ahead of the individual human.

If it was designed, it would not be more complex than us (most likely due to our imperfect thought processes or more likely our own hubris at being the most intelligent known life form) and if it came from elsewhere it would probably some exotic weapon.

Well, yes, it would, because we would be its constituent parts. But it does not need to be complex to be effective at its task.

[wEvil]

@ CPS - why am I not surprised you're a Virgo?

[CP5670]

A Virgo? Isn't that a constellation or something? (and a wing name in FS2 that I use frequently )

[wEvil]

I view astrology as a great tool for categorising personality types

[CP5670]

Ah I see, but if I remember correctly, (just to give an example), aldo has the same birthdate that I do but our personalities are rather different.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, of course I do. When the other guy stops with solid, objective arguments and starts with petty insults, you know you have won.

By your own point of view, you win when the other person is so confused that can't argue with you anymore. Someone said that, and you agreed with it. The last time I was left without an answer after expressing several times how your posts didn't make sense. You didn't understand what I was saying, although other people did. Therefore I can just assume that it's not a problem of me expressing my ideas unclearly, but rather that you fail to understand them.

You keep mumbling about how a super freaking organism would be the better option for survival, and still you think you don't need to help other people. Tell me, isn't caring for the species as a whole the first step to unite it in one single being?

[CP5670]

By your own point of view, you win when the other person is so confused that can't argue with you anymore. Someone said that, and you agreed with it. The last time I was left without an answer after expressing several times how your posts didn't make sense. You didn't understand what I was saying, although other people did. Therefore I can just assume that it's not a problem of me expressing my ideas unclearly, but rather that you fail to understand them.

Um, no. You put in a rolleyes, then some very strange comments consisting of a few words that were unrelated to the topic at hand (three points? wtf?), and did not reply when I asked for further explanation.

You keep mumbling about how a super freaking organism would be the better option for survival, and still you think you don't need to help other people. Tell me, isn't caring for the species as a whole the first step to unite it in one single being?

Yes, but you are not going to get people to care just like that by preaching out ethical crap to them. This organism can only form in the same way that our current civilization has formed: a mutual self-interest. And I am talking about the survival of the whole; not the survival of petty individuals, especially those that will not really contribute to the progress of knowledge. If half the population of the world dies out, the whole is still 50% intact, and besides, more people are coming into the world much faster than they are dying out.

[wEvil]

the general idea is each sign/planet carries certain attributes.

While you exhibit some distinctly Virgo traits (a certain attention to detail for one and an analytical mind for another), such major (or sun-sign traits) can be significantly "diluted" by things such as moon signs and rising/ascendant signs.

And finally after you get into houses and nodes it adds a great deal of information.  I've found it fairly useful at any rate.

[CP5670]

I see. How does one establish a direct logical connection between human affairs and the planet/constellation locations? (since it could be like that stork theory posted in the very first religion thread, that the number of storks in a nation is proportional to birth rate from two observations)

nodes

jump nodes?

[wEvil]

This is the reason why astrology isn't viewed as a science - it offers no evidence that is categorically works.

It works for me in the vast majority of cases I apply it to (more than..say..phsychology)

As for a direct logical connection for large-scale crowd and sociological trends - those trends are hard enough to establish, usually being a purely subjective interpretation of non-representative statistics produced by research companies for commercial purposes.

You'll have to do your own research into this at any rate.  I'd like to explain more but doubtless someone will be having a good laugh about it - never mind the fact i'm no authority on astrology anyway.

*edit*
i'm not even sure what nodes are - but they're a "recent" addition to astrology (i think) that add some extremely new-age concepts into the whole mix....which is why I didn't pay a huge amount of attention.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Um, no. You put in a rolleyes, then some very strange comments consisting of a few words (three points? wtf?), and did not reply when I asked for further explanation.

You got confused by your own principle. That certainly shows us something.

Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but you are not going to get people to care just like that by preaching out ethical crap to them. This organism can only form in the same way that our current civilization has formed: a mutual self-interest. And I am talking about the survival of the whole; not the survival of petty individuals, especially those that will not really contribute to the progress of knowledge. If half the population of the world dies out, the whole is still 50% intact.

Not caring for those petty individuals makes certain your own individuality. Someone like that would never be as interested in forming a single being along with everybody else as in keeping its own individual will. If the whole is just 50% intact, it isn't the whole anymore.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by CP5670
Ah I see, but if I remember correctly, (just to give an example), aldo has the same birthdate that I do but our personalities are rather different.

No ****, sherlock

I think the whole thing about astrology is that how effective it is at predicting stuff depends entirely on how much you believe.  Personally, I think it's a load of hippy crap, so I tend to look at horoscopes and feel smug when nothing there applies to me... someone who believes it, though, would probably say 'ooh... i had something like that happen to me!".  So you can;t really measure it objectively.

Of course, horoscopes are always - in the papers, et al - incredibly vague et al.  And normally give some pretty obvious advice rather than predictions.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by aldo_14


No ****, sherlock

I think the whole thing about astrology is that how effective it is at predicting stuff depends entirely on how much you believe.  Personally, I think it's a load of hippy crap, so I tend to look at horoscopes and feel smug when nothing there applies to me... someone who believes it, though, would probably say 'ooh... i had something like that happen to me!".  So you can;t really measure it objectively.

Of course, horoscopes are always - in the papers, et al - incredibly vague et al.  And normally give some pretty obvious advice rather than predictions.

If you generalised anything it would have to be that vague - at any rate its only the astrologers' interpretation of the measurements they make.

The way I view it is that its' been around for roughly 5,000 years and still going strong - it must be doing something right!

If you were both born exactly the same second at the same place you may well turn out to be similar (although that means you'd be twins and therefore could argue its genetic and social rather than astrological)

As with most faith-based things, if it works for you - do it.

I'm working on a more logic-oriented theory for it, though

[CP5670]

You got confused by your own principle. That certainly shows us something.

Three points, eh? Followed by a couple of "oh boy"s? Since when was that my principle? (heck, since when was it a principle in the first place?)

Not caring for those petty individuals makes certain your own individuality. Someone like that would never be as interested in forming a single being along with everybody else as in keeping its own individual will. If the whole is just 50% intact, it isn't the whole anymore.

First of all, everyone alone is a petty individual, including me, so I don't see what you are trying to make of it. Secondly, the sum of the parts is not alone the whole; this is what you do not seem to understand. You are no merely uniting with everyone else, but forming a part of a greater unit, and yes, there is a difference. Also, if 50% die out, it does not matter if they can all be replaced quickly (if that is even necessary to continue working towards the objective).

If you were both born exactly the same second at the same place you may well turn out to be similar (although that means you'd be twins and therefore could argue its genetic and social rather than astrological)

That happens all the time in the world, though.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Three points, eh? Followed by a couple of "oh boy"s? Since when was that my principle? (heck, since when was it a principle in the first place?)

If you really don't understand, try harder.

Originally posted by CP5670
First of all, everyone alone is a petty individual, including me, so I don't see what you are trying to make of it.

You seem to have trouble at that.

Originally posted by CP5670
Secondly, the sum of the parts is not alone the whole; this is what you do not seem to understand. You are no merely uniting with everyone else, but forming a part of a greater unit, and yes, there is a difference. Also, if 50% die out, it does not matter if they can all be replaced quickly (if that is even necessary to continue working towards the objective).

You distracted from the core of my argument. How do you expect people to unite, or form a part of a greater unit, whatever, if while they are still individuals no one cares for the others? The first thing you should do to work towards the objective is to work to the well being of the species. There's no other way.

[CP5670]

If you really don't understand, try harder.

Okay, I tried. Now can you explain it?

You seem to have trouble at that.

Yes, but you don't seem to be able to explain further either.

You distracted from the core of my argument. How do you expect people to unite, or form a part of a greater unit, whatever, if while they are still individuals no one cares for the others? The first thing you should do to work towards the objective is to work to the well being of the species. There's no other way.

Because they see a gain for themselves in there. I said this already: that is how the current civilization was formed. You think that man started off all good and ethical? For more details, see my posts in this thread. And notice that you said the well being of the species (whatever defines that anyway), not the well being of the individuals; today's morals are all about the well-being of the individuals.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I tried. Now can you explain it?

No.

Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but you don't seem to be able to explain further either.

Oh, I am able to explain. I just don't want to. What fun would it be?

Originally posted by CP5670
Because they see a gain for themselves in there.

Would they see a gain for themselves or just the loss of their individuality? Keep in mind that they're almost drowning in arrogance, as this thread showed so well. They wouldn't want to form anything with people they don't even care about.

Originally posted by CP5670
I said this already: that is how the current civilization was formed. You think that man started off all good and ethical? For more details, see my posts in this thread. And notice that you said the well being of the species (whatever defines that anyway), not the well being of the individuals; today's morals are all about the well-being of the individuals.

You are forgetting that our current species (as it is now, not as it might someday become) is formed by induviduals alone, and nothing more. By working for the well being of the individuals, you would be directly working for the well being of the species, thus being closer to the supposed super organism.

[CP5670]

Oh, I am able to explain. I just don't want to. What fun would it be?

In other words, there exists no explanation.

Would they see a gain for themselves or just the loss of their individuality? Keep in mind that they're almost drowning in arrogance, as this thread showed so well. They wouldn't want to form anything with people they don't even care about.

Why not? As long as they benefit personally, they would go ahead with it. Besides, they already have done this once.

You are forgetting that our current species (as it is now, not as it might someday become) is formed by induviduals alone, and nothing more. By working for the well being of the individuals, you would be directly working for the well being of the species, thus being closer to the supposed super organism.

Not necessarily. It is sometimes true, but recall that I said that the whole is not simply the sum of its parts and if considered merely as such, important properties will remain unseen. Take this analogy: would helping a human's cells automatically help the human? Maybe, but not always. (e.g. you would not want to make a defective cancer cell or something healthy) Similarly, helping individuals may or may not do anything good for the society. (e.g. helping criminals get out of jail will allow them to commit further crimes) If it is just a matter of having at least x number of people in the society, that is no problem, since the humans reproduce quite fast.