[ QUOTE ]
It is also observable that all living things are made up of the same parts and additional parts. Simply put we can easily perceive the physical, energy, and mental parts of a being. The energy simply being the transitory state linking mental and physical. It would be easy to assume that they might all be extensions of physical being.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think i understand what you're saying.. here's how i would put it;
It is also observable that all living things are made up of the same part. entanglement is a proven law of quantum physics; all energy in the universe was part of a singularity at the moment of the big bang; thus e pluribus unum. all matter is simply frozen energy [E=m(cc)]. mental energy is the tiny fragment of the universe's energy that is seperatly self aware. Simply put we can easily perceive the physical, energy, and mental parts of a being. The mental simply being the transitory state linking energy and physical.
to which i add;
you are your only authority; question authority.
do you believe in what u believe?
are u aware that the universe is aware of u?
I see philosophy and existentialism here...
But very little experiment.
I don't give much thought to existentialism. Knowing where I came from, where I am and the myriad possibilities of where I'm going is nice, but to excessively complicate it by trying to quantify it, enmesh it with my dreams, and further add to the confusion with an unnecessarily cumbersome vocabulary is only going to further disinterest me.
Worse yet, is the type of reception discussions like this usually tend to receive. Often, individuals who do not take these topics seriously (or simply do not understand them in any fashion) tend toward mockery and other forms of ignorance. While such behavior can be ignored by the key debaters, it clouds the minds of other observers (as the mockery tends to be humorous and eye-catching), and further perverts the overall discussion. Sadly, it may even corrupt the debaters, who may resort to such tactics themselves as the discussion wears on...
The best I can add here is the old addage "I think, therefore, I am." I don't need to worry about my existence, because I already exist. The real hard part, I've found in life, is learning what to do with my limited time.
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
So you are looking for introspection? To answer the Big Questions: What is real? How do you know it is real? And does it matter if it is real? These have been the ultimate questions for all time.. this is why there are five major Philosophies in Western thought, and a plethora of philosophies and mysticisms in the Eastern thought.
It is up to each individual to come to how they see the meaning of life for themselves, then continue to grow in their lives and understanding of what it means to be alive. Just know that you may never find those answers. Socrates never did, Confucius never did, none of the great philosophers found the answers, but they did give us all some great insights that we can draw from to help make sense of it all.
Great topic! I want to hear more....
Interesting thoughts. However, I'm afraid you've made some assumptions, and without said assumptions, this doesn't hold in its entirety.
1. There are no infallible truths.
2. The classification of 'reality' is not based only on the perceived.
3. A personality's way of thought does not necessarily conform with that of a human - as such, neither does its perception of its environment, including stress.
And no offense intended, but...what's this doing in this section of the forums? 
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Well, this section does have a lower propensity toward hooliganism and tomfoolery.
I think the OP was searching for intelligent debate...
Unless this is a prelude to an RP...
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
i think i see a science themed sg in the offing ever stop to consider that the phrase, "i think therefore i am." might be backwards?
down is the direction which leads to the center of the closest and strongest gravity well to the observer - that is an infalible truth.
why is your time limited? every cell in your body is replaced every few months. theoretically there is no reason why your body should degrade because of this process. and if it did, just go pay the emp.
it's not my perception of the environment that intrests me, it's the environments perceptions of me. i saw once that observation by a concious observer collapses the wave/particle duality connundrum in the infamous double slit experiment. i'm willing to assume that the answer to this observation is that the quantum field was aware of the observers, and thus acted according to what they expected to find. in this case, they fired a single stream of photons, so logically you would expect to see photons hit the double slit and target beyond, not waves. removing the closer scrutiny results in the field being thrown back into flux and so the duality problem reappears. concious, self aware observation was the ony difference. all that is a really long winded way of restating, "seek and yee shall find."
Just because something exists doesn't mean it thinks. Our thinking helps us to understand that we exist. Some take it to the next level to learn the why of it.
[ QUOTE ]
it's not my perception of the environment that interests me, it's the environments perceptions of me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like someone who spends his life trying to please others. the problem is, your environment doesn't perceive you. It goes on doing what it does, regardless of you, sometimes even despite your interaction with it. While I can't necessarily fault your out-of-the-box thinking, there's a reason why Occam's Razor is applied to scientific problems and conundrums so often.
The simple answer is most often the right one, regardless of the complexity of the problem.
Now, you want complexity, I can offer up some complexity. Somewhere along my path of Life, I came across a theory that insinuated that everything, the very atoms that make up everything, is actually a little universe. That within these myriad of the building blocks of material, could be galaxies, stars, planets, and even people and other animals.
Now, take our world... To use a simple application, we perceive God is out there, watching us. However, the things we do cannot change the revolution of the Earth for his approval, amusement, or any other opinion He may have.
Now take these micro-universes in fact, take them from the quantum field. Suppose we are gods unto the inhabitants of these tiny worlds. You posit that the field acts the way it does because it's expected to. If we cannot change our world's axis, how are they supposed to bend their universe a proper way, simply to appease us during an experiment?
I can expect something to happen all I want. I could expect to win the lottery. I could expect to be able to blow fire from my lungs. I could expect to find a bikini model in my bed with me when I wake up.
That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it's going to happen.
The things that happen in experiments happen the way they do because of the chemical, physical, and energetic reactions between the materials used. My wallet is no more aware than my lightbulb. My spike bracelet has as much personality as my work boots.
Instead of trying to find ways to confound our current understandings, perhaps it's time to look for something more worthwhile.
NOTE: Please spell check. You've got some interesting ideas, but it's torture trying to get past the grammatical errors while digesting these notions.
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
He was referring to the law of observation. ^_^
I put this here because there is an rp character that uses this as a general premise for his being, I also have a rather long book series I'm working on with one of the characters experiencing this along the way. :P Kinda wanna get any kinks ironed out in an intelligent environment. >.>
---
Devious ^_^
1) And as I stated, the "infallible truths" are things of intellectual absolutes that no matter who or what you are they will remain true.
For example, you can go 2+2=4, there is no way to have 2+2=5. No one would agree that it's a possibility as you are magically pulling something out of nowhere.
2) I was classifying reality by a perceived perspective since we cannot really trust anything that existence is in the first place. The only things we really have to work with is what we perceive, so it is the basis to which I appeal.
3) I know there are many personalities, but in all technicality they all stem from the same basic concept and structures, just on different levels of technicality. This along with their environment does lead them to think differently, but remove all things which makes us specific to what we are and we're not that different from a rat.
---
I'm not quite sure by what I defined above if the environment would really care what we do...it's not like it gets happy or sad or angry or anything...
[ QUOTE ]
1) And as I stated, the "infallible truths" are things of intellectual absolutes that no matter who or what you are they will remain true.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. By definition, there is no such thing. An infallible truth is nonsense.
[ QUOTE ]
For example, you can go 2+2=4, there is no way to have 2+2=5. No one would agree that it's a possibility as you are magically pulling something out of nowhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then I am glad to have met no one, as no one agrees with me. You might also be interested to know that no one goes by many names, one of which is quantum physics.
[ QUOTE ]
2) I was classifying reality by a perceived perspective since we cannot really trust anything that existence is in the first place. The only things we really have to work with is what we perceive, so it is the basis to which I appeal.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine, but it's still an erroneous basis. You can't just stop there. I mean, what would have happened if your ancestors had stopped at the '4 elements'? Now as then, there are things not perceived, and while they can be overlooked in certain contexts, this is not one of them. You can formulate a theory based on these perceptions - and if that's what this is, then do excuse me, I've missed something somewhere 
- but they are not enough to draw conclusions upon.
[ QUOTE ]
3) I know there are many personalities, but in all technicality they all stem from the same basic concept and structures, just on different levels of technicality. This along with their environment does lead them to think differently, but remove all things which makes us specific to what we are and we're not that different from a rat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Apples and oranges. A rat is not sentient. A human is...most of them, anyway. 
And no, different ways of thought are not mere technicalities.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Ooooh philosophy. *cracks knuckles* How do you play this game again? I mean I've heard of it, but
how much are we betting? Oh my. Well, luckily I carry my kids college fund around in cash. Now you guys don't try and cheat me, alright?
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. By definition, there is no such thing. An infallible truth is nonsense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's the opposite. If we define 4 as 2 + 2, then it becomes infallible. If we define 2 in the real world as 2.14253 meters because we cannot make a machine cut a slab of steel to exactly what we have calibrated at 2 meters, then we're going to add up enough 2s to get an odd number. Same with voltage. But the concept in theory is infallible.
Infallible truths exist everywhere that sentience interacts with the universe. Heat sources speed up subatomic movement, cold slows it down. The introduction of quantum physics is an exercise in human hubris more than actual science. We're children in the quantum world, and while we can mathematically prove where we think things are going to be a certain percentage of the time, we still lack the ability to see where they go when we're wrong. We simply don't have the technology to expand our knowledge of quantum physics at this point in our development. It's a baby science, and we're the babies.
Further, we approach our knowledge of quantum physics as if it were something we've already mastered.
Let me give an example. We've proven that electrons don't follow any pattern. Proven it, mind you, as in it's a fact now. How? We fire particles at where we figure electrons are going to be, and 70% of the time we make contact. Whoo hoo! That's proof. So, what, the other 30% the electrons are sugar gum fairy land? They're going somewhere. Particles don't teleport, we lose track of them. Electrons don't suddenly appear and disappear out of nothingness, they have smaller components of which we're not aware and they break down and get built up.
It would be like having you throw 100 shotputs into a field that's pitch black, then driving through the field at 30mph with a clipboard mapping all the shot puts we found and claiming that some of them just disappeared, but there's a 35% chance that when you throw a shotput at night it will hit the ground.
He's decidedly precise in his suggestion that we can only work with the things that we perceive. How, exactly, are you going to work with things outside of your perception? You can allot for things you haven't perceived YET, but that's about it.
And sentience is simply a factor of brain power. Monody is right. All the elements are there in a rat, he's just not very smart. He has perceptions, instincts and memory, just like us. Just because he can't think of himself in the third person doesn't mean it's apples and oranges. It's like saying that there's no similarities between a TRS-80 and a P4 dual core 2.8 gig computer. Yes, one's way more complicated and way more powerful, but they're both made out of the same building blocks.
Oh, then I had the wrong definition of infallible. My bad. Yes, I suppose if you define something as true from your point of view, then from that point of view, it will be true. Makes enough sense.
With sentience though, I still think the comparison is wrong. While I can certainly build one engine, and a second engine that is larger and more complex, if I apply power to said second engine, it becomes an entirely different concept from the first, unpowered one. To the extent of my knowledge, what exactly drives sentience has not been discovered (i.e. perceived, though there are of course many opinions of the unperceived), and therefore one cannot conclude that simply because two things are composed of like parts that said things are truly alike enough to compare.
Can you compare a rat and a human biologically on the same level? Sure. Can you compare the thoughts of the two on the same level? Sorry, no. Just doesn't work.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, one's way more complicated and way more powerful, but they're both made out of the same building blocks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but not all building blocks are put together the same way, which gives vastly different results.
Heck, if you go back far enough (and I mean FAR), from a scientific view, humans are made out of the same basic substance that stars are.
And last time I checked, there are no people on Earth that are self-sustaining nuclear reactors.
Well, besides Peter from Heroes 
Global - @El D
Servers - Protector
Erm....why is it that you think rats aren't sentient? They display all the same things we do, even at least basic feelings. And the exact same things happen if you stick nodes into their brains and our brains and zap them to make them twitch, turn, move a limb.
That I do believe was pointed out to be one reason there's such a thing as lab rats, they are close enough in a design principle that much of what happens and can be done there is scalable and tweak able to be done with us. The only reason we also use monkeys is because they have a wider ability to display emotions and communicate, which makes it easier for us to find out exactly how we might react.
I'm a little curious how 2+2=4 can't be an absolute though, even from a quantum physics standpoint...Please note I do not say 2.984 or some such, just 2. Also there are no variables to play with,it's just 2 repeated...
Also to note, the whole machine thing and differing levels of thoughts, wouldn't it be because the higher level of complexities that results in those differences as you actually said?
Then it would still be logical to say on the basic level we do both in fact think the same, we just have numerous added variables that augment our decisions and decision making processes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) I was classifying reality by a perceived perspective since we cannot really trust anything that existence is in the first place. The only things we really have to work with is what we perceive, so it is the basis to which I appeal.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine, but it's still an erroneous basis. You can't just stop there. I mean, what would have happened if your ancestors had stopped at the '4 elements'? Now as then, there are things not perceived, and while they can be overlooked in certain contexts, this is not one of them. You can formulate a theory based on these perceptions - and if that's what this is, then do excuse me, I've missed something somewhere - but they are not enough to draw conclusions upon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Missed this post...
Yeah...>.> this whole thing was supposed to be a theory if you missed reading the part classifying it as such...or the title of it being an experiment...which it would then have to be an experiment of something...which would be a theory...
hukd on fonix werkd 4 me. other than proper capitalization, i try to get the grammer right. but it seems that your minds are powerful enough to get the point.
i seek not complexity, but the opposite. there is mounting evidence that says your mind is able to see a short distance into the furture at a subconcious lvl. the trouble is bringing that up to the concious lvl. you probably cannot affect the numbers that come up in the lottery, but theoretically you should be able to pick the numbers that are going to come up. if you want to wake up next to a bikini model, go to bed with one. with a simple ignition source you can blow fire from your [censored]. thus your body is capable of blowing fire from your lungs, it's just not built for it.
we've all heard the stories of 100 pound women picking up cars to free loved ones. when asked afterwards they always say the same thing... they didn't think about it, they just knew it had to be done so they did it. had they stopped to think they would have limited themselves. in the moment their minds were so focused that their conciousness overcame the colective conciousness and thus they were no longer bound by our beliefs. in a slightly less extreme example, studys have shown that at times race car drivers forget to breathe when there are on the limit. literally... for some reason the brain stem's processes are rated by priority. when needed, some autonomic systems are overidden by the rest of the mind when that (for lack of a better term) processing power is needed for other things. in other recent studys, they have discovered a neural network intertwined with the intestines. when u have a gut feeling, that is that network ramping up to speed and working together with the brain on some problem. when i asked, 'do you believe in what u believe,' i was not proposing circular logic. we all believe in gravity, none of us think about it unless we are studying it. what if we all believed just as deply that we can simply ignore gravity at will? to understand that we first need to understand belief.
personality is an artifact of emotion. the universe does not get happy or sad, ect. it is sentience void of emotion. a thing either is or isn't and all is possible. imagine you are floating in a pool. you can apply your sentience to the confederation of single celled organisms that make up your body and propell yourself in any direction. to the quantum field this is no different than applying your sentience to the water and propelling it around u. at the lvl of the quantum field you and the water are not different things.
electrons are made up of quarks and gluons, which in turn appear to be made of strings.
seintience is not simply a matter of brain power. who is more sentient, you or rain man? who's brain is more powerfull and on what scale? is it relivant?
in the ancient times there were 4 elements. now there is only 1. all matter is just frozen energy. thus energy is the only element in the univers frozen into infinate crystalin shapes
Hmmm, a rock and a human brain are both made of electrons, protons and neutrons. That does not mean they are made of the same components. Rat brains and human brains are made of chemicals that induce specific reactions to certain perceptions. The only, and I mean only, difference is the raw processing power of the human mind which allows us to be aware of one more sense than rats. We can detect our own thoughts as something other than an impulse to be immediately obeyed. That's it folks. It's not "all new wiring" it's just a bigger engine. The difference between a 150 and a 350 let's say. Or rather, the difference between a subsonic jet and a supersonic jet.
You can say "apples and oranges" but the only difference is that one is powerful enough to get across a physics barrier, and the other isn't. If you don't believe me, ask a biologist.
{ there is mounting evidence that says your mind is able to see a short distance into the furture at a subconcious lvl }
That reminds me of a slightly different theory. It should be noted that as we present what we know as current time, it's in all technicality actually what has happened fractions of a second just prior, and as such all we do is process and react as quick as possible.
That statement for me really points more towards our natural ability to perceive(different meaning to perceive than I have thus far used) and predict what is about to happen....Just kinda curious. ^_^
Erm..I would be one that goes so far as to say that the nonentity I refer to truly and completely lacks personality. The underlying basis to which all existence is in this case would not have any of the aspects that makes up tangible being, mentally or physically. To have thought in any way shape or form would be kinda odd...
Also to note psychology has been able to tell you what's going on with both the nascar thing and the lifting the car. With the drivers that's actually just your body's natural reaction to stressful conditions as well as when one is just physically exerting themselves greatly. Martial arts instructors know this as well, that is why you are taught and told to breathe during the exercises, because you are pushing yourself in unfamiliar ways and your body and brain loses focus on it's natural rhythm. This leads you to not breathing, losing your ability to think straight, and a few other "fun" things.
The lifting the car thing is a bid odder, but mostly has do do with adrenaline, willingness or ignorance enough to stress your body, and...don't remember much else on this, have to check my books...also to note, 500 pound women are more likely to lift a car than normal people any ways due to their required muscle mass to move their body being higher. They actually are stronger than most normal weight people by a decent amount...
And you actually have nerve bundles and things resembling a neural network in more than just your gut, that's been known about for a while, they really aren't that much and don't change how our brain operates and controls things, more just aids in subconscious reactions and natural processes.
Not really arguing against your opinion or belief, I just am finding that some of the points made are a little incomplete...
Please forgive me. This is the first post ever that I have made to any city of... website (heros, villians, or unofficial sight) I know it's odd that I am not starting with a complaint, or in response to something offensive. It's just that this particular scenario grabbed me. The other problem is that I am having server problems. so I am quoting and cutting and pasting in stages. I am doing my best to get them to make sense, but if they fail in that regard, please assume the failure is in my gathering stuff rather than in my response. Thank you for your patience.
[ QUOTE ]
Worse yet, is the type of reception discussions like this usually tend to receive. Often, individuals who do not take these topics seriously (or simply do not understand them in any fashion) tend toward mockery and other forms of ignorance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I fall into this catagory. It's not so much that I don't take the topic seriously. (I am very interested, but to be honest cannot take many topics from an internet game site as actually serious.) The point is, I fall under the "do not understand" catagory. So please remember I am asking out of ignorance. Not necessarily mocking.
Please excuse/ignore any jingoism implied from the next comment. It is merely for dramatic purposes.
[ QUOTE ]
First there must be the basis to which we must appeal to give any ground to the ideas. In hopes of making a clear point, the main thing I will appeal to is the "infallible truths".
Infallible truths is not any form of worldly knowledge, but understanding of the unbending laws that construct what we know. Examples of such would be understanding the form of a cube, 1+1=2, etc.
The other two things we will appeal to is the perceivable truths and extensions of those truths based on reason.
So, starting in, the first thing to do is set aside the infallible truths for now and look at perceivable truths. There is the ever present issue that we can not prove that what we are experiencing it "real" and not just a fabricated reality caused by an external or internal force.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what we are saying here is "we hold these truths to be self evident, but we choose to ignore them anyway"? I'm sorry, but that is honestly what I am perceiving from the begining of this whole debate. We state flat out that there are self evidente presiding truths. Then the very next thing we do is to say that we are going to skip the whole presiding truth thing and base our entire philosophical reality on what we think is right rather than what is undeniably true. (I do realize that there can easily be a side argument stating that we cannot know what is undeniably true. unfortunatly this particular topic has an example of an undeniable truth. Therefor we cannot take comfort in the uncertanty of infallible truth.)
[ QUOTE ]
And as I stated, the "infallible truths" are things of intellectual absolutes that no matter who or what you are they will remain true.
For example, you can go 2+2=4, there is no way to have 2+2=5. No one would agree that it's a possibility as you are magically pulling something out of nowhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
See here is where science gets into the way of the absolute truth argument. (or perhaps I am going to be supporting it, Again please rememer I am posting out of ignorance, and seekign understanding.) I have a problem with the whole "2+2=4" thing. If you believe that logic, may I assume that you also believe that "1+1=2" also holds true? ( I believe that there is a "proof" of that theory accessible to most community college students (judgeing from my community college time) Anyway, It was in high school that a math teacher first presented me with the concept of 1+1=3. Admitedly the math teacher was teaching drivers education at the time. Nonetheless he was the first person to present the concept of synergy to me. Having fallen into a carreer as a pharmacy technician, I have seen up front the dependancy of synergy.
I believe synergy is very important in such philospophical equations, because 1) It disproves in an "unalienable" proof that 2 equal things do not necessarily add up to twice one thing. The other thing it prooves is that we don't necessarily know how math or any of the "infallible truths" work. I mean honestly if we can't ever work out "1+1" Then our whole purpose is pointless and not as sentient as we thought.
Wow if it fits. The whole point I am questioning is what exactly we are saying, and why. Please remember this is my first post, and I am posting out of my ignorance of these things. The point is I read the whole thread. I vaguely get that it is a discussion on existance. BUT...and here is where I get seriously thrown. First off we are told it is a discussion of existance that completely disregards immutable laws. Then we are told that the laws we thought were immutable, were merely rules from physics, which pretty much governe nature, except when they don't quite fit, but we ignore because as a rule they apply. Anyway...wow. okay I did the disclaimer, and the esponding to the reacions. (okay I didn't do that....it doesn't matter, how many more than 5 non CoX people will actually read these words?
The point is....Well as I said earlier I am posing out of ignorance. But rather than seeking meanign without truth. Would it not be better to seek out what the truths are, and work from there?
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that logic, may I assume that you also believe that "1+1=2" also holds true? ( I believe that there is a "proof" of that theory accessible to most community college students (judgeing from my community college time) Anyway, It was in high school that a math teacher first presented me with the concept of 1+1=3. Admitedly the math teacher was teaching drivers education at the time. Nonetheless he was the first person to present the concept of synergy to me. Having fallen into a carreer as a pharmacy technician, I have seen up front the dependancy of synergy.
I believe synergy is very important in such philospophical equations, because 1) It disproves in an "unalienable" proof that 2 equal things do not necessarily add up to twice one thing. The other thing it prooves is that we don't necessarily know how math or any of the "infallible truths" work. I mean honestly if we can't ever work out "1+1" Then our whole purpose is pointless and not as sentient as we thought.
[/ QUOTE ]
hmm, I think I understand where you are coming from but am confused. Yes, math is the universal language because of how we define "numbers". if we call this number of sticks [I I] three, and this number of sticks [I I I I] five, then three plus three equals five. Note that these numbers assume no decimal point and no integers.
As for 1+1=3, I'd love to see the math teacher's proof or even theory on this. Seriously, I am curious. I am more than willing to accept or at least in all honesty peruse the information he has. Until then I will unfortunitly have a hard time accepting it just based on your say so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are not correct, I'm saying I don't have the information needed to make an informed decision on the matter.
I do understand synergy, especially where medicine is concerned. I am paramedic and have had (though admitedly not as much as you have as a pharm tech have probably had) some training in what to watch for in how medicine's react to each other. But that is, I believe, chemistry compared to mathmatics. Yes, math is used in all things, even chemistry. The difference between say, how morphine sulfate and phenergan react together in the human body, and 1+1=? though are greatly differant.
Finally, please good fellow player, don't assume that just because this is a roleplaying computer game that the players are not up to the task of debating such a subject as this. Does the possible fact that not many if any of the so called "renowned" in the feild will read this detract from the ideas presented? I do not think it does. Thank you for listening.
yes a 500 pound woman would possibly have the strength to lift a car on a surge of adrenalin. what about a 100 pound woman? i've heard the notions that adrenalin would be enough in that case too, but they just don't make sense. to put it another way, a floor jack rated for 2 tons can probably lift 5, but it's not lifting a semi no matter how good the seals are.
as for philosofical undeniable truths, i am not a doctor of philosophy. i'm not even a college graduate. i stuck to what i know. i do believe that it is undeniable that humans are just becoming aware of their true potential and it is medicine and physics that are revealing this more than philosophy and theology. in the long run, all four of those things will have to come together into one for us to continue growing. this thread has been an intresting informal attempt at such (it's true frim my point of view, thus that is true; yes?)
i have heard about some areas of math and physics where 1+1=3 and the like, but it was in passing a long time ago and know no more, so i left it to others to bring up. i hope someone who does understand that and can explain it will post. though now that our minds are focused on this we will all probably see the explaintion somewhere in our seperate near futures.
Wow, it took me a while to chew through that. But back to the matter at hand. And good to know its a theory then. Now to answer questions:
[ QUOTE ]
Erm....why is it that you think rats aren't sentient? They display all the same things we do, even at least basic feelings.
[/ QUOTE ]
If rats display intelligent thought as well as a culture, I will concede they are sentient. Since they show neither, however, I conclude that they are not.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little curious how 2+2=4 can't be an absolute though, even from a quantum physics standpoint...Please note I do not say 2.984 or some such, just 2. Also there are no variables to play with, it's just 2 repeated...
[/ QUOTE ]
2+2=4 is not absolute because it is not valid from all points of view. In order to make 2+2=4 a true statement, you need:
1) A properly calibrated numeric system of base 4 or higher.
2) A reference frame to which 2 is 2 from 0 and 4 is 4 from 0.
3) A continuum in which addition can be carried out as proposed.
4) Perfect numeric integers within aforementioned conditions.
I can probably think of more, but since failing any one of these will blow 2+2=4 out of the lava, there you have it. That is why this statement is not an absolute. It requires too many conditions to hold true. An absolute is true (or false) no matter what the conditions.
[ QUOTE ]
Also to note, the whole machine thing and differing levels of thoughts, wouldn't it be because the higher level of complexities that results in those differences as you actually said?
Then it would still be logical to say on the basic level we do both in fact think the same, we just have numerous added variables that augment our decisions and decision making processes.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. One machine has fuel; the other does not. Unless fuel is added to the equation, both machines are dead chunks of parts, and therefore essentially equal. Once one contains fuel, however, they are two completely different concepts, distanced from any relation dependent upon size or power.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
*reads some of the thread*
*blinks*
*wipes eyes, looks closer*
*blinks*
*mutters something about blocks of text*
[ QUOTE ]
Humanity will never be an advanced civilization so long as rain showers can delay a rocket launch.
[/ QUOTE ]
This made me lol.
*finishes writing the post, hits Continue*
Statesman said let there be heroes, and there were heroes.
Lord Recluse said let there be villains, and there were villains.
NCsoft said let there be nothing, and there was nothing.
I hope there are those readers reading this thread and realizing that YES INDEED you CAN have deep, intellectual and even esoteric discussions on a board.
As I have said before. Is it any wonder why there are 5 major philosophies in the Western culture and a multitude of philosophic/mystical ideas in the Eastern culture just dedicated to trying to answer those Great Questions about Life, Living, and what it all means? I wish we could have more discussions like this in our everyday discourse rather than what hollywood star had sex with what other somebody, etc.
Don't worry Khell...
We have one positing a theory about being and inner-being...
We have another positing a similar theory, but with more focus on the capabilities of the environment...
And then we have Acid, who's being far too specific for any of this to work.
Me, I'm trying my damnedest to understand any of it, or why we would need to. Life can be complicated enough without trying to figure out the nitty-gritty details.
Still, I'm in agreement with Templar. Perhaps if I came across discussions like this more often, I wouldn't be having such trouble following this.
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
Oki, so one of the characters I have made up currently uses roughly the same concept I've got here. Just want to see others opinions and possible corrections.
First there must be the basis to which we must appeal to give any ground to the ideas. In hopes of making a clear point, the main thing I will appeal to is the "infallible truths".
Infallible truths is not any form of worldly knowledge, but understanding of the unbending laws that construct what we know. Examples of such would be understanding the form of a cube, 1+1=2, etc.
The other two things we will appeal to is the perceivable truths and extensions of those truths based on reason.
So, starting in, the first thing to do is set aside the infallible truths for now and look at perceivable truths. There is the ever present issue that we can not prove that what we are experiencing it "real" and not just a fabricated reality caused by an external or internal force.
As such, we can only assume that which we perceive to stay consistent. Though the perceived truths may change, we shall not be as aware of such, reason stating that any change bound to occur and alter rules of existence shall extend likely beyond what we know as "now", meaning the change that took place never actually took place in a way we could perceive.
Putting reliance in the perceivable truths that we know currently to exist, things are made up of ever smaller materials. On the most basic levels these pieces seem to break down and become more random and unpredictable save for that their erratic nature extends into all levels of things that exist, pushing towards entropy through internal and natural chaos.
It is also perceivable that the entirety of what we know is not simply made up of these parts, but there is also null space thaa gives room and flow to the physical material. It can be observed that this null space interacts with physical space in ways that cannot be defined by intelligence, but a natural order and undeniable movement towards eventual entropy through erratic swings and flows of material/immaterial.
It is also observable that all living things are made up of the same parts and additional parts. Simply put we can easily perceive the physical, energy, and mental parts of a being. The energy simply being the transitory state linking mental and physical. It would be easy to assume that they might all be extensions of physical being.
Living entities also utilize the null space within and through out their forms as well in order to create a well tuned network upon which we operate.
Since we have no perceivable reason to believe much beyond what is said above we will move on to the next step. The parts to which we are constructed are all individual pieces or perceivable separable one way or another, or at least the major parts. Since we have no reason to assume beyond what we can perceive (though the presence of something like a soul or skhandas wouldn't make much of a difference), we may make the claim that we are the sum of our parts. Observed in that if a part becomes missing (such as Phineas Gage) our being will change accordingly. Depending on the part it is also safe to say that the effect and scale of the effect will differ (a spear through the arm doesn't change personality quite as much as a pipe through the brain). There is no reason though behind a claim that when these parts are separate that they still define us (transplant surgery does not transmit personality, though the brain might be an exception as long as it stays active and suffers no alterations, though it is unknown what effects a new body may have on a brain)
What this means is that we are finite beings defined by external forces that shall move on and likely divide as the physical form decays. These parts will be free to move on and contribute to making new unique beings and other things.
----
Now onto the more theoretical. On all levels there is the null aspect that works counter to physical being and knowable being, that only seems to play by the rules defined as "infallible truths". The concept of this null entities existence is counter to perceivable truths, and in fact the lack of any knowable proof of a entity as such is reenforcement. The logic being that the null entity is just the natural aspect of existence which pushes towards entropy.
This null entity would in all logical purposes be eternal as it will d and has done what it always will, and no temporal events can alter it in any way. Rather, it seems to be the force that creates, defines, and alters life and existence. It is not like any god in that it lacks any semblance of humanity or existence, rather, gods would still fall under the null entities control as their personality is a trait to existence. No spirit or being of any kind, alive, dead, or otherwise can conceivably get anywhere near the total dominion such a force would have.
the
This is not a controllable force in though. It is a reason for the being that lords over existence could come to be however. As a entity dies and the pieces that made up it's being fragment off to make new things, if the null entity that made up that being never rejoins any being to continue the chaos of creation, then those pieces have been offset and now must wait to cycle back into true being.
In this time such material would enter a immortal state, being that the personality that once was might linger on, slowly fading as it awaits to be born anew. Though the nature of the null entity is that it is all encompassing and infinite in dominion, the reason the beings parts may be offset is that existence is still finite and the infallible truth requires a balance that would only be further offset by nonbeing's manifestation of a new being out of incomplete parts. It wouldn't be logical to follow creation trying to manifest excess out of that which it doesn't have.
Anyways, if those pars never rejoin with the other necessary parts to become a new being, they may enter a state of eternality instead as they have become an unchanging aspect within existence that is unbound by the standard rules of perceivable existence. As long as this being is a personality it may be able to manifest an artificial though incomplete physical form within time and existence using the other parts, though that would be further offsetting the natural flow, the situation is not a natural one to begin with. Many forces would be at play against such a being, though by their own will and by the fact that they are an offset oddity to existence, they have a somewhat secured location as the most powerful plausible entities that doesn't simply operate off of infallible truths, but instead has almost the same reach and dominion as the null entity while having a will of it's own. It does suffer drawbacks though logically as no being can fully fathom what eternality or null entity is, we can only simply come close to what it could be. The eternal being itself would still experience temporal existence as long as it maintains a physical form, and eternality would be extremely stressful on the beings will and personality, eating away at it until it is no more. There is no heaven or hell or anything awaiting such a being, when it finally withers away it is gone forever.
...little sloppy and needs some revisions...but I'm tired...