Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - optimisticcynic

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51
61
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Rape by deception
« on: November 28, 2010, 09:23:46 PM »
Quote
In 2010, a case of rape by deception drew international outrage when first reported that a man deceived a woman into consensual sex when he lied about being Jewish.

Sounds retarded, and kinda sketchy.
um wasn't that a plea bargain? in this case it did not seem sketchy.

62
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Half Life 2: Episode 3
« on: November 20, 2010, 10:07:35 AM »
as for scariest game this is at the top of my list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsakovia

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Communism....
« on: November 20, 2010, 10:03:47 AM »
bill gates would be no more wealthy than you or i in a communist country.  which is why communism is not good.  why would someone spend 10 years becoming a doctor when they could just get a job at walmart stocking shelves and make the same money?  money is a great motivator, if you take that away then people aren't going to try as hard. 
Although I will agree that money is a great motivator I must disagree that people would not still work to be doctors and such. I think you are underestimating both the motivation due to pride and the fact believe it or not many people like the idea of being a doctor and helping people. I know in my case I doubt that I would change anything. I would still go to school to be a physicist.
One last thing, would you believe in a government that gave every child the same amount of money so that they all started out in the same spot? So Bill gates children would have the same chance of being a doctor as say a homeless persons child?

64
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Half Life 2: Episode 3
« on: November 19, 2010, 05:29:04 PM »
I don't think it is ever going to come out. I think it is all some long drawn out joke. seeing how long they can keep people waiting.

65
I am still waiting for him to address the lie that evolutionists believe squid evolved from trees.

You do, or you believe we sprung from fish which is just as much fairytale. Or are you going to now deny evolutionists claim we sprung from fish? If so, you might want to tell the evolutionists to stop printing books like the following:



um no, just  no, so much is wrong with that statement. we have shown time and time again that the quote was out of context. quit doing that. it is like arguing with a little kid going lalala with his fingers in his ears.

66
The Lounge / Re: Post your Autism Spectrum Quotient
« on: November 02, 2010, 01:35:02 PM »
I got a score of 40.
I got exactly the same score...

67
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rope jumping
« on: November 02, 2010, 01:16:37 PM »
So my friend is a rock climber and is thinking of going rope jumping. this involves tying a rope to to one side of a bridge, having it hang under the bridge and jumping off the other side. he asked me to come up with an equation that describes the max force experienced by the climber. the rope has a linear stretch force. so it has a nice K value. it has a max stretch of 30%. I was wondering what equations you guys could come up with? I came up with two but I made a lot of assumptions to make a nice solvable system.
Reference: http://www.bungee.com/bzapp/press/pt.html.
slightly more complicated then that since with bungee jumping  you jump relatively close to the point the bungee is attached to with rope jumping you are fairly far away from that point which adds up to a lot of swing and a lot more complicated system.
thanks though for the response but I do not believe that the to systems would be interchangeable.
Sorry, but I can't recommend using a regular rope. The chaos of the system could easily cause the equipment to fail at point far above non-chaotic solution. (A twist here and a kink there would mean that link there will snap open.) Bungee resolves the problem with its higher K-values. I'd definitely use dead-weight tests several times, inspecting the equipment between each test, with a raw egg as a stand-in for your brain.
we use a rock climbing rope, not a regular rope.
@saddam sort of but we use A. do it one at a time and B. there tends to be a bit more fall before the swing but right idea.

68
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rope jumping
« on: November 02, 2010, 11:48:55 AM »
So my friend is a rock climber and is thinking of going rope jumping. this involves tying a rope to to one side of a bridge, having it hang under the bridge and jumping off the other side. he asked me to come up with an equation that describes the max force experienced by the climber. the rope has a linear stretch force. so it has a nice K value. it has a max stretch of 30%. I was wondering what equations you guys could come up with? I came up with two but I made a lot of assumptions to make a nice solvable system.
Reference: http://www.bungee.com/bzapp/press/pt.html.
slightly more complicated then that since with bungee jumping  you jump relatively close to the point the bungee is attached to with rope jumping you are fairly far away from that point which adds up to a lot of swing and a lot more complicated system.
thanks though for the response but I do not believe that the to systems would be interchangeable.

69
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Rope jumping
« on: November 02, 2010, 10:24:31 AM »
So my friend is a rock climber and is thinking of going rope jumping. this involves tying a rope to to one side of a bridge, having it hang under the bridge and jumping off the other side. he asked me to come up with an equation that describes the max force experienced by the climber. the rope has a linear stretch force. so it has a nice K value. it has a max stretch of 30%. I was wondering what equations you guys could come up with? I came up with two but I made a lot of assumptions to make a nice solvable system.

70
I believe you to be trolling, sir!

You're an immoral atheist, not to mention an ignorant evolutionist, so your belief carries no weight.

just going along with the joke...

What joke?
I didn't think you were being sarcastic, I thought you were in character. I was going along with that character.

71
Hitler owned dogs, therefore people that own dogs are evil people whose opinion are evil.
And meanwhile Kent Hovind went to Patriot Bible University. Your attacks do nothing to help your claims.

Oh sure, because there's no way a Christian college could ever be as good as an atheist college.  Bigot.
um that is the point...

Still having trouble recognizing sarcasm, are you?


just going along with the joke...

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Lies from the News Media
« on: November 01, 2010, 02:52:38 PM »
because it is not practical. with so much news shows it would be difficult to be able to control all off it. it would almost as bad as trying to control a easily grow able plants.

73
I guess Cass just cannot face evidence anymore, and in order to preserve his delusion, he now turns to ad hominens, in addition to the strawman arguments he has been offering since he has been here.  Saying that a web page is wrong because the owner, writer, etc. is gay is bigoted and cowardly.

There are two types of creationists, there are liars and deceivers, who deliberately spread mis information about evolution and use arguments they know to be false.  Then there are the ignorant sheeple who although are honest, simply do not know any better and fall into the social political movement against science and progress.   I typically assume that any new creationist I meet is the latter, but it has been quite obvious for some time that Cass is the former.  The fact of the matter is, if these sheeple actually decided to learned about evolution, they would eventually come to a very important decision in their lives, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist.

TalkOrigins i said was biased, going to the long list of alleged ''debunked creationists claims'' reveals that the author (Mark Isaak) has no scientific credentials, education or qualifications whatsoever. In fact according to an Amazon review, Mark is a bedroom author (in other words a college drop out who self-publishes).

I am curious how the hell you found out about him. I have been trying to find stuff about him and have failed.

74
Furthermore, the raist on that site has only one post, the one you linked to. Yes, that is certainly a plethora of Nazi posts.

His facebook, myspace etc were put up by another user which showed him doing a Nazi salute. All of this was put on the forum about a year ago, as were all the forum links where he poses as a nazi (and other things, as well as his anti-Jewish jokes). He then resorted to banning the user or users (if it was more than one) who revealed this info.
um the mods are supposed to ban people that reveal personal info of other users.  I would get really irritated with a user that gave my personal info out and would want them banned and I have no skeletons in my closet.

75
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Rally to Restore Sanity.
« on: October 30, 2010, 11:14:22 PM »
Watch it here:
http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/10/30/HP/A/40153/StewartColbert+Rally+to+Restore+Sanity+andor+Fear.aspx
From the bit I was able to watch on my phone I thought it was decent. Everone at the rally appeared to be sane

76
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evil
« on: October 29, 2010, 01:44:49 AM »
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.
there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.
No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

If God can only create possible things, then to create something that is impossible is a contradiction. It is that simple. I really don't see how you do not get this. Possible worlds by definition cannot have contradictions, so saying that something impossible can be created is a contradiction since by its definition, impossible means something that is not capable of occurring or something that cannot be done.

Besides, there is an answer to what is the last digit of pie. It could say, "There is none." so your analogy fails.
something that would be impossible to move does not mean that it is impossible to make. it is not a case of if P then Q. like I said If I just put a limit that he can only move things that are possible to move, I have not made any condition would make is so there was nothing that was impossible to move.
 impossible to move != impossible to make

77
Am I the only person that finds it depressing that the only science we argue about anymore in Science & Alternative Science is star wars vrs star trek or young earth? could we have an argument again when both sides are using actual science please?

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evil
« on: October 29, 2010, 12:51:39 AM »
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.
there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

Of course there is, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting there is no contradiction in saying, "He can move anything and he can create something that is impossible to move." By saying that he can create something that is impossible to move, that is in direct contradiction to saying that he can move anything. He can surely think of stuff that is impossible for him to move, but can he create it? No. He can entertain the idea of creating a world that is in contradiction to his omniscience, but can he actually do it? No.
No I said he could move anything that was possible to move. that does not mean that something can not be impossible to move. if there was a computer that could answer any answerable question it would not be able to answer what is the last digit of pie.

79
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evil
« on: October 29, 2010, 12:28:51 AM »
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

I define it as knowing all the possible truths of a possible world, but if we dismiss my definition and accept yours, it doesn't even make sense.

He knows everything and yet creates a world he knows nothing about? That is a contradiction, something that omnipotence doesn't cover. You might as say that he should make round squares, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a burrito so hot he can't eat it.
there is no contradiction. it says he can know everything that is possible to know. If I say that he can move anything that is possible to move there is no rule saying that there is nothing that is impossible to move nor any rule stating he can not make something that is impossible to move. therefore there is no contradiction.

80
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evil
« on: October 29, 2010, 12:16:02 AM »
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
just thought I would throw this out there. it could be possible that god created a universe where he didn't know what would happen. after all what would be the point other wise. so god could be omniscient without knowing the future.

81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Rally to Restore Sanity.
« on: October 29, 2010, 12:01:01 AM »
I was just wondering peoples opinions on this, what do you think it means for the U.S. I don't think it will do anything major but I am hoping it shows that the country is moving away from the extremes of politics it is at now.

82
@marcus. I have stayed out of this thread because of my lack of knowledge in the field. One of Cassiterides problem appears to be with the way biologist definitions
 such as if birds evolved from reptiles why are they not still considered reptiles. based on my interpretation of what you have said it sounds like birds should still be considered reptiles. again not my expertise that was my interpretation of what you have been saying.

83
Lrn2 guerilla warfare.
hard to do with capital ships which appears to be all the federation has.

84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Soul?
« on: October 24, 2010, 12:15:23 PM »
No I am not arguing that the human mind has absolute purpose. I am saying that since there is no purpose(at least none from an atheistic view of the universe) there would be no reason to expect any system to actually be conscious.
Atheism is only applicable to eliminating god's imposed purposes. Purpose can exist from an atheist point of view. It's only divine/absolute purpose that can't exist.

If this is the same argument about why mechanisms of development make consciousnesses necessary, why invoke atheism? Using atheism as a condition to declare purposelessness only implies that there would be purpose from a theistic perspective. I don't see how any of that is relevant.

...Anyways, if we are both indeed alleging the scenario that god is nonexistent and absolute purpose doesn't exist, then with one minor assumption * I can reduce your question to "what evolutionary* purpose does consciousness serve?"

Unless we start redefining consciousness to include intangible/undefinable/immeasurable/unknowable factors, and we leave the definition as broad as "awareness", wouldn't this mean you don't see a reason why beings would need to be aware of themselves and/or their environments in order to better their rates of survival?  ???

Quote
there would be no inherent differences between that system and say a bath of chemicals. at least nothing that should give it a new property of consciousness. then we get to the question of how many pieces does you system need before it is consious? if i took one cell away from you brain you would still be conscious. how about two? three? either there is an arbitrary point where consciousness begins or [every component contributes a microscopic amount. it just needs to be put in the correct pattern.]
Bingo. Consciousness is a continuum. Ever wake up slowly?  :)
sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this. I have not had access to a PC for a while :P. I think that your view that something needs to be conscious in order to react in a way that would better its chance of survival. we have computer systems that learn as they go on. hell I have computer games that develop new tactics as the fight me. that doesn't mean I have any reason to expect my computer to be conscious. second if we go with the thought that atoms have a microscopic amount of consciousness(obviously just the term we have agreed to use to describe what we are arguing about) part if us would actually be around after our death. it actually reminds me of Buddhist beliefs... sorry little tangent.

there would be no reason to expect any system to actually [become] conscious. there would be no inherent differences between that system and say a bath of chemicals.

Also, it seems as if you are approaching this from a reversed position by saying something we already know, isn't predictable from a point of view that excludes knowledge of it. We already know humans are conscious, but you are arguing that 'from a point of view of not knowing about consciousness, you wouldn't expect consciousness to exist.' Right?

However, I don't see how that affects or attempts to understand any mechanisms that form consciousness nor its nature. It's kinda like saying, if we only understood atoms, how could we predict molecules, or molecule chains that form simple biological machines? Cell organelles inevitably function in a certain and specific way due to their atomic and molecular assembly. ...We already know organic molecules form and we discovered that they use the same natural forces and rules inherent to atoms, but most emergent properties aren't intuitive when you exclusively look at the simpler levels of operation.

Same could be said in emergent mathematics.
The same logic that makes basic addition work, also will create emergent properties of multiplication. (and multiplication to exponentiation). It may not occur to someone who learns only of addition to even think of exponentiation, but it doesn't make the extensions less valid or less likely because there is no intuitive connection from that forced perspective.

Just something to consider.  :)
And I apologize for the wall of text. I shortened it as much as I could without losing content.
you got it pretty much right on the nose. and I see your point. however lets go with your example of atoms. if we understood atoms completely we would at least know that they would like to have filled orbitals. we might not have an intuitive understanding of how it would do that but we would know that it would try. we probably wouldn't think of it forming complex systems like organelles and such. however I think in all those cases there is a fairly straight line of logic that would allow us to see where those properties come from that I do not think exist in the case of consciousness.
I will put more time into this after midterms are over :P sorry if this wasn't that coherent.

85
Star Wars seems to break less laws of physics on average because they tend not to explain how anything works(you can't say something is impossible if it never explains how it works). I actually prefer it that way though since I would rather have them explain nothing rather then try to explain something and getting it wrong.

86
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free will vs. Determinism
« on: October 22, 2010, 08:07:59 PM »
To my understanding, determinism does not clash with the Heisenberg Principle because it only declares what can and can't be known in the course of investigation. Simply put, people cannot calculate both the position of a particle and its momentum at the same time. Since human knowledge doesn't define reality, it's irrelevant what we can or can't know. What matters is the actual nature of the particle's placement(s) and movement(s), and if those are truly random or not.

...On a personal note, I'm inclined to think that randomness doesn't exist, because in the past, it has always been an intuitive placeholder for not knowing all the variables and how they interact. Essentially, things have only ever seemed random (rolling dice for instance) because they aren't fully understood, but never were they actually random. Assuming real randomness exists also preemptively assumes that something's nature is inherently unexplainable and without cause, which I find scientifically unjustifiable.
I would like to make this clear Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not the same as the quantum uncertainty principle. one says that you can not know a particles position and velocity at the same time. one says that a particle does not have a concrete position and velocity. right now the the equations that we have that best describe the universe use randomness. we may never be able to prove that the universe is truly random, but the fact the equations have been yet to be dis proven lends credence to the idea of randomness. it would be like trying to prove axioms of a branch of math from within that branch. not sure how clear that was.

87
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free will vs. Determinism
« on: October 21, 2010, 09:25:18 PM »
@ wilmore
I am posting on something without spell check so this could be bad. In short though because of the quantum uncertainty priciple there are truely random events according to the equations that we have even if we knew everything about the system we still could not say for sure what would happen.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-quantum-uncertainty.htm
Posted from my phone since my pc broke
Yes some scientist are trying to prove some determinism. Right now the formulas do not back up that belief

88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Soul?
« on: October 20, 2010, 10:57:40 PM »
And so it begins lol.
I don't mind giving this discussion another go.

what is inherently different between the brain and any other complex system? why is does our brain have consciousness compared to any other system.

Just because many systems are complex, doesn't mean they don't have different functions. Consciousness/awareness is a function that the brain is built for, and other systems aren't.

But if I recall, you proposed that consciousness was more than awareness, perception, and feelings? Is that accurate?
A. close it was more that the system that we call a brain could still do exactly what it does now without those things. now I was not saying that it could not react to outside stimuli. if I push a domino it sets of a system of reactions. the brain is just a system that is part of another system that is good at replicating itself. the brain was not built for consciousness again if you are living in a completely atheistic universe. in a true atheistic universe nothing has purpose nothing has function. some things are just better at replicating so there are more of them. and the ones that aren't good at it disappear. no good designs no bad designs just a complex system. you can't define anything with a purpose since everything is purposeless. therefore there is no difference between a random system and a brain besides the brain is just more likely to create replicas of itself. ( I use replica loosely.)
But this bolded section seems to indicate that you believe humans have a consciousness beyond awareness.  ???
Perhaps your end point is your action/reaction argument, and this is a necessary implication? (As to say that consciousness is not action/reaction)?

While I agree that objective meaning and absolute purpose would not exist, it doesn't mean all purpose doesn't exist. I doubt you will find too many atheists or nihilists that don't believe that human laws, language, and even kitchen appliances don't have purposes. But, I'm not sure where you were going with that ...unless you are proposing that human consciousness has absolute purpose.
No I am not arguing that the human mind has absolute purpose. I am saying that since there is no purpose(at least none from an atheistic view of the universe) there would be no reason to expect any system to actually be conscious. there would be no inherent differences between that system and say a bath of chemicals. at least nothing that should give it a new property of consciousness. then we get to the question of how many pieces does you system need before it is consious? if i took one cell away from you brain you would still be conscious. how about two? three? either there is an arbitrary point where consciousness begins or every piece of matter has a microscopic amount. it just needs to be put in the correct pattern.

89
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Soul?
« on: October 20, 2010, 10:26:44 PM »
And so it begins lol.
I don't mind giving this discussion another go.

what is inherently different between the brain and any other complex system? why is does our brain have consciousness compared to any other system.

Just because many systems are complex, doesn't mean they don't have different functions. Consciousness/awareness is a function that the brain is built for, and other systems aren't.

But if I recall, you proposed that consciousness was more than awareness, perception, and feelings? Is that accurate?
A. close it was more that the system that we call a brain could still do exactly what it does now without those things. now I was not saying that it could not react to outside stimuli. if I push a domino it sets of a system of reactions. the brain is just a system that is part of another system that is good at replicating itself. the brain was not built for consciousness again if you are living in a completely atheistic universe. in a true atheistic universe nothing has purpose nothing has function. some things are just better at replicating so there are more of them. and the ones that aren't good at it disappear. no good designs no bad designs just a complex system. you can't define anything with a purpose since everything is purposeless. therefore there is no difference between a random system and a brain besides the brain is just more likely to create replicas of itself. ( I use replica loosely.)

90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Soul?
« on: October 20, 2010, 09:56:46 PM »
Berny, this is not a debate about troll's or ClockTower's M-M-M-Monster failings. It is a serious debate about the nature of the soul and/or ClockTower's lack of one.

First we need to prove that their is a soul.

Berny
Likes sole, with butter and almonds.

Agreed, given what we know today about how the brain functions, I questions the need for a soul.  We have been able to tie bodily functions, thoughts, memories and even personality traits to specific portions of the physical brain.  Given all that, what exactly does the soul do?
because without it we would just have a system. We would be just a system. and true systems have no need of consciousness. consciousness feelings work well at explaining why things happen. things don't like being at high energy levels therefor they roll down hill and such. a ball doesn't really want to roll down the hill it just does. neither consciousness or feeling is required or expected.

Our brain gives us consciousness, not our soul.

I'm not sure what GPE has to do with this, either.
what is inherently different between the brain and any other complex system? why is does our brain have consciousness compared to any other system. as seen from a purely atheistic view of the universe there is no purpose. systems that procreate are more common. nothing has a purpose. eyes have no purpose unless i set a goal to be able to survive. without those goals there is no purpose, without purpose there is no difference between different systems. there would be no reason one would be conscious and one would not be.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51