Questions of a weird mind

[Story Time]

Razark is right, though. From the perspective of space, the moon does turn as it orbits the Earth. This can be thought of as spin. From the perspective of the moon, stars would rise and set over the horizon. The big disconnect between perspectives is whether the moon turns under its own power or not.

For a little experiment, grab two tennis balls. Mark one with a small piece of tape. That'll be the moon. Now spin the unmarked tennis ball like the Earth ( counter-clock-wise ) and simulate the moon rotating around the earth while keeping the tape pointed to the Earth.

...what a neat Universe we live in. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk)

[Ravens_cry]

Little kids will put anything in their mouths, including stuff that isn't food. People who think escargot is disgusting will happily pay premium prices for clams and oysters. People who would never eat fried crickets will happily suck on the head of a crawfish before ripping the legs off to get at the tail meat. Some people will happily eat venison but not understand how a horse could be considered edible. Lobster and shrimp used to be cheap "poor people food" that no one would eat unless they were starving, but now they are expensive delicacies. Learning what is "disgusting" is a result of culture, not instinct.
It's both. Acclimatization to locally available edibles is an instinct, but it is what creates the cultural differences.
Small children also put lots of things in their mouth because there is a lot of nerve endings in there, just look at a sensory homunculus.

[Pheehelm]

My dad always likes to ask -- who was hungry enough to eat the first lobster?

[Ravens_cry]

My dad always likes to ask -- who was hungry enough to eat the first lobster?
Well, it would probably be fairly late in human development, once we started migrating to areas that even had lobster.
Still, while a lobster may pinch quite badly, at least it can't gore you like a gazelle.

[Anarion]

My dad always likes to ask -- who was hungry enough to eat the first lobster?

Whoever caught it:smallbiggrin:
Honestly though, if you try frying stuff, most animals are fairly edible and I suspect that whoever got the lobster was pleasantly surprised when cooking lead to such tender flesh. I'm sure our ancestors were very adventurous.

Here's a question. Why is a California King bed shorter but wider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USMattressSizes.svg)than a regular king bed?

[Grinner]

Here's a question. Why is a California King bed shorter but wider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USMattressSizes.svg)than a regular king bed?

Judging from the picture, I'd say it's the opposite: taller and less wide. (thinner?)

[dragonsamurai77]

Why do microwaves have a popcorn button, if the bag always says not to use the popcorn button?

[thubby]

what musical instrument would the personification of death play?

[Eldan]

Pterry answered that one already :smalltongue:

http://www.toplessrobot.com/18-death.jpg

[Elemental]

I'm going to guess that death plays the violin. Or maybe the harp.
Or perhaps the piano...
I suppose it depends on what he feels like at the time.


Wait... I can so see it now... Death plays Jazz Alto Flute.

[Rain Dragon]

I can for some strange reason see Death playing a bit of tuba...

But I've always wondered why quite a few tea drinkers like their tea, and can taste if you're even a little wrong even if they don't say anything. A lot I've met even stick to the same brand and will only vary the types of tea a little bit.

Why is it so easy to taste just that little bit more sugar than one likes for a lot of people and why is varying the type of tea not really done?

Just an afterthought about space perhaps risking being off-topic! :-
Also, not really a strange question, but why is there so much space in space? Nobody really knows; there's even a theory that the universe started off with both matter and anti-matter which is why there's such little left. Why isn't the universe just a massive nebula and how did the most basic elements become so much more?

--EDIT-- @Factotum - I spoiled it because it's a pretty commonly asked question and not really weird at all. Most people have wondered such a thing for millennia after all.

[factotum]

Dunno why you spoilered that...it is, however, one of the fundamental questions they're always trying to answer in astrophysics: why is the universe not symmetrical? As for where basic elements came from, once you've managed to introduce the initial asymmetry in the soup left after the Big Bang, it all happens from there; matter clumps together and keeps doing so until it's big and dense enough to form stars. All heavier elements than hydrogen and helium are created in stars, and it's been long enough since the beginning of the universe that these elements have become plentiful enough to form planets and the like.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, even nebula, as spectacular as they may look from a dstance, are more rarefied than the hardest vacuum that can be produced on Earth.
Still, it is a big question, bigger even than the Fermi paradox, for which I have an answer I don't like but is becoming frighteningly plausible nonetheless.

[Elemental]

Enlighten us as to your answer to the Fermi Paradox.
You've piqued my curiosity.
Of course, you can refuse to answer if you so desire.

[Ravens_cry]

Enlighten us as to your answer to the Fermi Paradox.
You've piqued my curiosity.
We're all trapped on the rock balls that spawned us, forced to gaze out to stars we will never hold, to vistas uncharted, to mountains unclimbed, to seas never swam.
It is true we have sent robotic emissaries to some of the other worlds that huddle around a spark in darkness and even in a moment of strange boldness touched foot on the nearest island out, but we will never spread beyond these shoals, never truly flying nor truly plumbing the depths of the endless measure of infinity.
If there are other species, other minds, they are as trapped as we at the bottom of a deep well, climbing up a little ways perhaps, though all too likely not, but no further, at best to die when their sun gutters into eternal night and likely much sooner.
I weep for our species, for all species, if this be true.

[Grinner]

@Ravens_cry: That was poetic. Thank you.

[Elemental]

Sounds like the universe to me.
Except for the part about being trapped here until our doom. I believe the human race will eventually move somewhere else. If not to other stars, other planets at least.

[Ravens_cry]

Sounds like the universe to me.
Except for the part about being trapped here until our doom. I believe the human race will eventually move somewhere else. If not to other stars, other planets at least.
I hope so, I really do.
@Scotchland
What can I say, I feel passionate about this.

[Elemental]

I hope so, I really do.
@Scotchland
What can I say, I feel passionate about this.

Well, I'm just going to be the first to claim control over Ganymede. It's the place in the outer solar system with the least deadly environment. It may be cold and airless, but at least we won't be bombarded by deadly radiation much.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, I'm just going to be the first to claim control over Ganymede. It's the place in the outer solar system with the least deadly environment. It may be cold and airless, but at least we won't be bombarded by deadly radiation much.
I claim Venus then. Earth like gravity, an atmosphere that can be turned into a construction material, plenty of energy, easy delta-v to certain asteroids to make up for any lack, and an atmosphere where breathable air is lifting gas with a layer where temperature and pressure are close to Earth-like.
Cloud cities here I come!

[Elemental]

I claim Venus then. Earth like gravity, an atmosphere that can be turned into a construction material, plenty of energy, easy delta-v to certain asteroids to make up for any lack, and an atmosphere where breathable air is lifting gas with a layer where temperature and pressure are close to Earth-like.
Cloud cities here I come!

A good choice for now, but given the expected evolution of the Sun, you'd be doomed before anyone living on Earth.
Though it would be possible to alter its orbit...
Nah... That'd mess up the orbits of the other planets.

Anyway, if you end up having problems with Venus, you can come and live on Ganymede if you need to.

[Ravens_cry]

A good choice for now, but given the expected evolution of the Sun, you'd be doomed before anyone living on Earth.
Though it would be possible to alter its orbit...
Nah... That'd mess up the orbits of the other planets.

Anyway, if you end up having problems with Venus, you can come and live on Ganymede if you need to.

That's awful generous, I'll be sure to take you up on that if worst comes to worst.:smallsmile:
"If we do meet again, why, we shall smile; If not, why then, this parting was well made."

[Last_resort_33]

I've got one.

gravity holds us to the earth, but the earth spins at something like 1,000mph. our momentum is directed away from the earth.

does this mean that moving counter to the earth's rotation would make you heavier?
and if that's right, how much more would stuff weigh if the earth didn't rotate?
(((2 * pi radians) per day)^2) * radius of Earth = 0.0337305619 m/s^2

Acceleration due to gravity is about 9.80665 m/s^2 (Wikipedia) so the difference is about 0.34%

which from a 140 lb (~60 kg) person is about 7.5 oz (~200g)

[Elemental]

(((2 * pi radians) per day)^2) * radius of Earth = 0.0337305619 m/s^2

Acceleration due to gravity is about 9.80665 m/s^2 (Wikipedia) so the difference is about 0.34%

which from a 140 lb (~60 kg) person is about 7.5 oz (~200g)

Which, due to the inherent strength of a full grown human, is nothing.
There are probably all sorts of other factors that work to minimalise this difference anyway.

[Ravens_cry]

Still, it is a comprehensible difference; it isn't such a small number our brains only understand it through numbers.
Thanks for answering a question I did not ask but now am glad I know.

[Yora]

Does this happen to other people:

I have the habit to sing songs that have lyrics which are related to something I am lost in thought about it, without noticing it.
Just went to get by Xbox started for the final level of Mass Effect 3, and was singing the chorus from "The Ultimate Showdown". :smallbiggrin:

[Elemental]

Ultimately, people sing songs that are catchy.
And because of my friend, I keep getting his music, music I detest by the way, stuck in my head because of its catchy rhythms.

[Timeless Error]

Does this happen to other people:

I have the habit to sing songs that have lyrics which are related to something I am lost in thought about it, without noticing it.
Just went to get by Xbox started for the final level of Mass Effect 3, and was singing the chorus from "The Ultimate Showdown". :smallbiggrin:

Yes, but I hadn't noticed it until fairly recently, when, a few weeks ago around midnight, when I was trying to stay awake working on homework, I started humming the first two lines of St. Judy's Comet by Paul Simon over and over again: "Little sleepy boy, do you know what time it is? Well the hour of your bedtime's long been past." When I realized what I was doing, I was kind of stunned (and all the more certain that it was my subconscious's doing because I don't even really like that song all that much, and wouldn't consciously hum it of my own free will). I've had several similar thematic-song instances since.

[captainspazam]

If the world ends on 12-12-12, then will the Earth be destroyed by time zones?

[captainspazam]

Sorry about all those questions. Somethings up with my network :(

[Elemental]

Despite the fact that that prediction is based on a misinterpretation of a Mayan calendar, I think... Somehow I doubt that anything capable of destroying the world would do so by timezone. It'd probably destroy the world based on when it's 12/12/12 where the Mayans lived.

Still, I don't believe in that at all. If the Mayans were still around, they'd be preparing for a celebration, not catastrophe.

Interesting question though, and it managed to conjure up an image wall of fire slowly moving from place to place in my mind.
Quite humorous is a weird, destructive sort of way.

[Ravens_cry]

Reminds me of an old Canadian joke, "The world will end at midnight, 12:30 in Newfoundland."

[Story Time]

If the world ends on 12-12-12, then will the Earth be destroyed by time zones?

No, the Earth will not end...not in that way, certainly. I find it really silly to think that some fool could calculate the end of the world based on a calendar date. It's a thoughtless assumption. :smallfrown:

If ( a big if ) there is an end to the world it will be discovered by observation, not by calculation.

[Elemental]

No, the Earth will not end...not in that way, certainly. I find it really silly to think that some fool could calculate the end of the world based on a calendar date. It's a thoughtless assumption. :smallfrown:

If ( a big if ) there is an end to the world it will be discovered by observation, not by calculation.

Or calculations based upon observation.

[Story Time]

...not an acceptable answer. The definitions and implications are too wide. Please be more specific.

[Elemental]

...not an acceptable answer. The definitions and implications are too wide. Please be more specific.

It's simple, if you observe an asteroid in a near Earth orbit, you still have no way to be sure if it will ever collide with the Earth, it could go anywhere.
However, if you do the calculations based upon it's current orbit and factor in the gravitational effects acting upon it, you can determine whether it will collide with the Earth, or move to a different orbit, or be captured, etc.

Discovering a potential threat means nothing, because they number in the millions. You need calculations to be certain.

[Story Time]

Wow, how odd. Elemental made me think of something:
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"Which came first, the observation or the calculation?"

I will admit that calculating something helps, but it's a really big sky out there. Even more, the Mayans were a culture really really ancient. So should we choose to believe a prophecy from a people group that no longer exist? What authority makes their claim accurate ( let alone, right )?

I remember viewing The Matrix film right before the year two thousand. And there seemed to be this big anxiety in people about The Millennium ( which did not really roll around until two thousand one ). And I found it strange. What should make us think that the Mayans were doing anything more than...tripping out on their herbs?

[thubby]

Wow, how odd. Elemental made me think of something:
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"Which came first, the observation or the calculation?"

can't help myself here.
egg. chickens evolved from something that, by all available data, would have also laid eggs.

[Elemental]

Wow, how odd. Elemental made me think of something:
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"Which came first, the observation or the calculation?"

I will admit that calculating something helps, but it's a really big sky out there. Even more, the Mayans were a culture really really ancient. So should we choose to believe a prophecy from a people group that no longer exist? What authority makes their claim accurate ( let alone, right )?

I remember viewing The Matrix film right before the year two thousand. And there seemed to be this big anxiety in people about The Millennium ( which did not really roll around until two thousand one ). And I found it strange. What should make us think that the Mayans were doing anything more than...tripping out on their herbs?

We shouldn't believe their prophecy. Mostly because they didn't have one.
The Mayans believed that the current world was the third or fourth or somethingth world that had ever existed, and that each previous world had been destroyed at the end of a long cycle by the gods who grew unhappy with the inhabitants.
If they were still around now, they'd be celebrating.

The only reason people believe it's the end, is because people seem to like thinking that the world is about to end. There are probably a hundred or so predictions that the world's going to end in the next few years based either upon recent events, "SCIENCE" or supposed prophecies from long-gone civilisations.

[Ravens_cry]

Not to mention that it no more meant the world was ending than a mayfly getting excited because on December 31st of any given year the calendar ends.
The Mayan were not stupid, but if they were so good at this prophesy gig, you'd think they'd have predicted the Spaniards and made appropriate preparations.

[absolmorph]

You made me cringe by saying Académie Française, I think their attitude of "WE decide which word is French or not" seems so wrong to me, especially when the youth is speaking something completely different.

I feel I should note, since it wasn't addressed beforehand, that due to the constant evolution of language, what people (especially youth) speak is typically different from what is official. I don't know if it's particularly bad with French, but... Dude. People got mad about "lol" being a word in the dictionary.


Despite the fact that that prediction is based on a misinterpretation of a Mayan calendar, I think... Somehow I doubt that anything capable of destroying the world would do so by timezone. It'd probably destroy the world based on when it's 12/12/12 where the Mayans lived.

I'd get an extra hour! Woohoo!


The only reason people believe it's the end, is because people seem to like thinking that the world is about to end. There are probably a hundred or so predictions that the world's going to end in the next few years based either upon recent events, "SCIENCE" or supposed prophecies from long-gone civilisations.
Don't forget about computer glitches.

Now, to contribute to the thread's purpose: what is the purpose of a rubber duck?

[pffh]

Still, I don't believe in that at all. If the Mayans were still around, they'd be preparing for a celebration, not catastrophe.

The Mayans are still around, several millions of them in fact.

[Ravens_cry]

Now, to contribute to the thread's purpose: what is the purpose of a rubber duck?
It's a bath toy. Like little toy boats and sponges shaped like the stylized silhouettes of various animals.

[Brother Oni]

can't help myself here.
egg. chickens evolved from something that, by all available data, would have also laid eggs.

Depends on how you interpret the question. The question as written "What came first, the chicken or the egg", I agree with you for the exact same reasons.

However if you interpret the question as "What came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?", then the answer is the chicken, as by definition a chicken egg is laid by a chicken.
Where did the egg come from that hatched the first chicken? An egg from a very closely related bird that was the chicken's ancestor, but didn't fulfil enough of the arbitrary taxonomic criteria we've defined the chicken species as.

In the same way, what came first, the observation or the calculation? Depends on how you interpret the question.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually, I would say the definition of a chicken egg is something that hatches into a chicken. If we took a chicken and surgically switched it's ovaries with, say, a duck, and somehow got them working, would what be laid be called a chicken egg?
I say no.
So the answer is definitely the egg.

[Story Time]

Now, to contribute to the thread's purpose: what is the purpose of a rubber duck?


It's a bath toy. Like little toy boats and sponges shaped like the stylized silhouettes of various animals.

And to squeak! Squeak, ducky (http://www.audiomicro.com/cartoon-comedy-toys-rubber-duck-squeak-crt2045701-sound-effects-120477)!

[denthor]

please send a pm with your answer.

Why do normal people that are intelligent think that thinking weird?

[Ravens_cry]

And to squeak! Squeak, ducky (http://www.audiomicro.com/cartoon-comedy-toys-rubber-duck-squeak-crt2045701-sound-effects-120477)!
And to write songs about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh85R-S-dh8).

[Ravens_cry]

And to squeak! Squeak, ducky (http://www.audiomicro.com/cartoon-comedy-toys-rubber-duck-squeak-crt2045701-sound-effects-120477)!
And to write songs about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh85R-S-dh8).

[Story Time]

And to write songs about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh85R-S-dh8).

That...is kind of cool... :smalleek:

I wouldn't have the courage to post it, though, I think. :smallbiggrin:

[Elemental]

The Mayans are still around, several millions of them in fact.

I apologise for my oversight and stand corrected.
Still doesn't change the fact that knowledge of Mayan history and science is sketchy at best.

Only fragments of four books of their's survive to this day, one of which is a calendar I believe. The others, not so sure.

[Artemis97]

Speaking to the Mayan calendar stuff, in my Mayan archaeology class, the question about the world ending inevitably came up. My professor, who's been to Central America and spoken to actual living Mayans, told us it was complete bunk. It's no different than the way our calendar stops and starts over each new year, really. It's just their calendar was built on a much longer timescale.

Also relavent comic (http://api.ning.com/files/MbwojmptSlsoMpkIUujSYmrHNbT48jDQRZdFWVkb6M5PplLOQJ NHeSMWORz80QmFrwsH8oliKBJEC1rSDkdpVCeem2DqEwVH/2012cartoon.jpg) is relevant.

[pffh]

Speaking to the Mayan calendar stuff, in my Mayan archaeology class, the question about the world ending inevitably came up. My professor, who's been to Central America and spoken to actual living Mayans, told us it was complete bunk. It's no different than the way our calendar stops and starts over each new year, really. It's just their calendar was built on a much longer timescale.

Also relavent comic (http://api.ning.com/files/MbwojmptSlsoMpkIUujSYmrHNbT48jDQRZdFWVkb6M5PplLOQJ NHeSMWORz80QmFrwsH8oliKBJEC1rSDkdpVCeem2DqEwVH/2012cartoon.jpg) is relevant.

Of course it's bull****. It's just another apocalypse prophecy and we get a half a dozen of those a year because some people can't come to terms that, shock and bloody horror, the world will continue without them and therefore the world MUST end in their lifetime because they are bloody special or some [REDACTED].

[captainspazam]

If you asked santa for coal for christmas, what would he give you if you were naughty?

[Anarion]

If you asked santa for coal for christmas, what would he give you if you were naughty?

Depends on your purpose. If you're just that pitiful, you wouldn't be naughty and Santa would give you what you wanted plus a bonus.

If coal is a critical component in your scheme for world-domination, I would expect Santa to be ironic and give you toys that you dislike.

[captainspazam]

Depends on your purpose. If you're just that pitiful, you wouldn't be naughty and Santa would give you what you wanted plus a bonus.

If coal is a critical component in your scheme for world-domination, I would expect Santa to be ironic and give you toys that you dislike.
Well there goes my plan for world-domination via evil super trains.

[Karoht]

If you asked santa for coal for christmas, what would he give you if you were naughty?Poorly made action figures. Wait, those come from sweatshops which Santa would never support. K, disregard.

He would give you a bottle of clean air. Yeup, that's my guess.
Or he'd give you a loaf of thick heavy rye bread or pumpernickle. Why? All the other kids have christmas pudding or roasts, you get thick dry heavy bread.

[Brother Oni]

Actually, I would say the definition of a chicken egg is something that hatches into a chicken. If we took a chicken and surgically switched it's ovaries with, say, a duck, and somehow got them working, would what be laid be called a chicken egg?
I say no.

Again depends on the wording of the question. The various legal and regulatory definitions of a chicken egg includes the condition that it is an egg that is laid by a chicken.

Your recombinant DNA Frankensteinian/chimerian duck-chicken (Ducken? Chiduck?) wouldn't be classed as a chicken by the above standards, so it's moot to the argument.

Do you think we're spending far too much time debating this? :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Again depends on the wording of the question. The various legal and regulatory definitions of a chicken egg includes the condition that it is an egg that is laid by a chicken.

Your recombinant DNA Frankensteinian/chimerian duck-chicken (Ducken? Chiduck?) wouldn't be classed as a chicken by the above standards, so it's moot to the argument.

Do you think we're spending far too much time debating this? :smalltongue:
Damn, that's a good point.
It's been debated for the past thousands years or some variation on it, so I think we can debate it a little longer.

[captainspazam]

Poorly made action figures. Wait, those come from sweatshops which Santa would never support. K, disregard.

He would give you a bottle of clean air. Yeup, that's my guess.
Or he'd give you a loaf of thick heavy rye bread or pumpernickle. Why? All the other kids have christmas pudding or roasts, you get thick dry heavy bread.

Actually, Santa does have like a million elves working for him 365 days a year for little to no pay. Actually, come to think about it...what DOES Santa pay his elves in? Candy? Shelter? Reindeer meat?

[pffh]

Actually, Santa does have like a million elves working for him 365 days a year for little to no pay. Actually, come to think about it...what DOES Santa pay his elves in? Candy? Shelter? Reindeer meat?

Why should he pay them at all? I've always figured them to be slaves, sure some earn their freedom one way or another like slaves tend to do but most of them remain slaves.

[captainspazam]

Why should he pay them at all? I've always figured them to be slaves, sure some earn their freedom one way or another like slaves tend to do but most of them remain slaves.

Santa doesn't really seem jolly anymore...

[captainspazam]

If you tell your pokemon to use air cutter, does that count as "breaking wind"?

[Yora]

What's the correct pronounciation of μ?

English speakers can't pronounce anything correctly and the german spelling my results in something that I don't think is even close to correct either.

[pffh]

It's miu. Short i long u.

[Elemental]

Actually, Santa does have like a million elves working for him 365 days a year for little to no pay. Actually, come to think about it...what DOES Santa pay his elves in? Candy? Shelter? Reindeer meat?

I'm pretty sure that each Elf is bound in servitude for a period of ten years because of a treaty between the Fae Court and Santa in exchange for his educating them in various trades and encouraging the illusion that Elves are harmless and nothing to be feared.

[Brother Oni]

It's miu. Short i long u.

If it helps, it rhymes with dew.

[Matthias2207]

If it helps, it rhymes with dew.

It also rhymes with ν (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_%28letter%29).
But it's a single letter, it's just an M sound. So nothing with the i and the u. Just m. (In words.)
The problem is; I learned it as mu, but with a Dutch u sound, and English doesn't have anything like that (I think). So I think it also depends on your language, although the Greek pronunciation would be the best one.
The normal (Latin) alphabet has the same problem. The way we pronounce the various vowels and digraphs is very different from the Greek and English ways.
The Greek oe sounds like our eu and the Greek eu sounds like our ui. English oo sounds like our oe. English g sounds like our zj (that we never use), our g sounds like somebody with a sore throat. Stuff like that. So it's impossible to say how something should be pronounced.

[Scuzzball]

So I finally left Gaming(Other) for the first time, and here I am.

Why do some believe good and evil exist outside the eyes of the beholder?
First time outside Gaming other and already mangling quotes for my own purposes...

[Ravens_cry]

That's a rather loaded question now ain't it?

[Grinner]

Why do some believe good and evil exist outside the eyes of the beholder?
First time outside Gaming other and already mangling quotes for my own purposes...

Well...a belief in objective good and evil for one...Sort of a non-answer, but there you go.

Also, beholders don't believe in morality. :smalltongue:

[ForzaFiori]

I'm pretty sure that each Elf is bound in servitude for a period of ten years because of a treaty between the Fae Court and Santa in exchange for his educating them in various trades and encouraging the illusion that Elves are harmless and nothing to be feared.

So the elves are apprenticed to Santa, then go back to the Fae Court with the excellent knowledge of how to make cheep children's toys? Why wouldn't the Fae Court (and Santa, for that reason) not just outsource that labor to China and India like everyone else?

[Elemental]

So the elves are apprenticed to Santa, then go back to the Fae Court with the excellent knowledge of how to make cheep children's toys? Why wouldn't the Fae Court (and Santa, for that reason) not just outsource that labor to China and India like everyone else?

They spend most of the year making wondrous examples of various crafts, and then mass produce heaps of toys in the couple of months before Christmas.
This, of course, tricks everyone into believing Santa is not real, and by extension the Elves.
It's an elaborately crafted deception.

[Grinner]

Can a eunuch be correctly referred to as a male("a him")?

Likewise, can a neutered cat also be referred to a male?

[Ravens_cry]

Can a eunuch be correctly referred to as a male("a him")?

Likewise, can a neutered cat also be referred to a male?
Well,the cat and the eunuch still has the chromosomes and likely most of the equipment, they still have to urinate after all, so . . .yes unless they ask otherwise.

[Grinner]

Well,the cat and the eunuch still has the chromosomes and likely most of the equipment, they still have to urinate after all, so . . .yes unless they ask otherwise.

Fair enough.

For the sake of technical correctness, I should point out that nothing more than the urinary tract is required for a man to urinate. The rest is...superfluous.

[absolmorph]

Fair enough.

For the sake of technical correctness, I should point out that nothing more than the urinary tract is required for a man to urinate. The rest is...superfluous.
And only the bladder is required to generate a need to pee...

Also, if the eunuch says "I'm a guy", I would say he's a him. If the eunuch says "I'm a girl", I would say she's a her. If the eunuch says "I'm an apple", I would see how the apple tastes.
But, biologically, they're male, and the question of pronouns is one of gender, not biology.

[Elemental]

I just thought of something, and I was wondering if anyone knew the answer.

How aware are plants of their surroundings?
I know that they are aware of the heat of the sun and some can feel their surroundings...
But do any of them have other senses?

[Yora]

It's not so much a sense, but a chemical reaction. But you could say that about animal senses as well.

[Elemental]

It's not so much a sense, but a chemical reaction. But you could say that about animal senses as well.

I should probably rephrase my question and make it more specific...
On another thread, we branched out into the old philosophical question concerning the tree falling in the forest, and someone referenced a book I myself had read in which the trees would be very much aware of that event.
To cut it short...
Plants are known to be capable of detecting heat and light, and to feel things by touch.
I know they cannot see, but are they capable of detecting vibrations, whether through the ground or the air?

[Yora]

In which case I think the question is "do vibrations have an effect on the plant", which would of course be yes. But does this effect set of a chain of reactions that is dramatic enough to say it "detected" the vibration?

Put a pot of water on the stove, and the water will start to boil. But we wouldn't say the water detected the heat.
In a plant there are cells that react to outside influences, like lack of light, which causes the flowers to close. Not an expert on plants here, but I assume it's similar to muscles that some cells either relax or contract to make the flower open or close, and the cells will do that depending on if they are affected by light or not. Light starts a chemical reaction that makes the cells relax, and the flower opens. Is that to say that the chemicals in the cell detected the presence of light?

[Eloel]

In which case I think the question is "do vibrations have an effect on the plant", which would of course be yes. But does this effect set of a chain of reactions that is dramatic enough to say it "detected" the vibration?

Put a pot of water on the stove, and the water will start to boil. But we wouldn't say the water detected the heat.
In a plant there are cells that react to outside influences, like lack of light, which causes the flowers to close. Not an expert on plants here, but I assume it's similar to muscles that some cells either relax or contract to make the flower open or close, and the cells will do that depending on if they are affected by light or not. Light starts a chemical reaction that makes the cells relax, and the flower opens. Is that to say that the chemicals in the cell detected the presence of light?


Given that anything and everything happening in animals (and humans) are also based on chemical reactions, I'd say if humans 'detect' light, so does the water.

[Story Time]

...plants are a complex, self-replicating, food source. They will react to stimulus, but can not selectively react to the stimulus. The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.

In this sense, a plant's growth will be improved by energy of music and vocal song. The plant can absorb the energy of the sound and be influenced, but does not quite possess a consciousness capable of determining the difference between the presence or absence of that sound.

[Scuzzball]

Okay, I phrased last question terribly.

What defines a consciousness?

[Ravens_cry]

A sense of 'I'?
Your body is aggregate of billions of cells, yet we call ourselves "me."
I don't know, that's a big question, bigger than this thread, one upon which much ink has been spilled and many hard drives filled, untold hours burned upon a fire of discussion, and with still no definitive answer.

[RockmanDotEXE]

Is there such a thing as standardized rebellion?

[Yora]

What defines a consciousness?
Getting out the big guns, aren't we? :smallbiggrin:

[Eloel]

The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.

And we do?

(I'd have loved to phrase this better, but yes, this is a thread-wide question)

[Grinner]

And we do?

(I'd have loved to phrase this better, but yes, this is a thread-wide question)

That's the subject of intense existential debate. I remember reading about an experiment conducted a year ago which was supposed to prove or disprove the concept of free will. From a neurological standpoint, I think?

[Eldan]

A few other plant senses I'm aware of with my limited botany knowledge:
Gravity. Plants can tell up or down.
Chemistry. It is basically a sense of smell, in that they are able to perceive chemicals in the air and react to them. Also, something like a sense of taste, in that they can perceive chemicals in the ground water.
Damage. Similar to pain, I'd say, they can react to mechanical damage.

[Story Time]

I'll probably only touch on this subject lightly...


The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.


And we do?

I'll answer this question with a question, "Did the apple decide to fall on Mister Newton?"



What defines a consciousness?

"The Third Principle of Sentient Life is its capacity for self-sacrifice[...]"


A consciousness, from the perspective of itself, is defined by its core component, the conscience. A consciousness is a thing capable of discerning the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, without having to undertake an action which results in a consequence of one of those four conditions.

[Gravitron5000]

I'll answer this question with a question, "Did the apple decide to fall on Mister Newton?"

Trees are such jerks.

[Yora]

* contemplating the possible truth of this statement *

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/122/290/1304240141741.jpg?1305105244

[Elemental]

I'm just going to say it can't happen.
If I remember correctly from Portal... The gun doesn't duplicate matter. Even if it did there would be a limit, as creating an infinite amount of anything requires an input of infinite amounts of matter or energy.

However... If you think about it... If we assume that time will be unending, and that is possible to counteract the forces that would lead to the destruction of all matter in the Universe...
You could create an infinite amount of muffins over time. Just not all at once.
All you'd need would be a self-perpetuating energy source with no expiry date, a production method with a one hundred percent efficiency rating, and a way to recycle the old muffins into ingredients for the new muffins that is also one hundred percent efficient.
Throw in a self-maintaining facility with a way to procure infinite spare parts, possibly by recycling broken parts with the aforementioned degree of efficiency and a method of ensuring that no pieces, even microscopic ones, ever float off into the void of space.

Possible, but not practical.

[Xuc Xac]

The fact that the Earth produces millions of fresh muffins every day shows that you don't need 100 percent efficiency.

[Elemental]

Yes. But in order to produce infinite muffins, you need to do so for untold ages.
The Earth won't last untold ages. Well... on a human time-scale yes... But still not long enough to produce infinite muffins.
Doing so would require the construction of a facility incapable of failure. And in order for it to continue producing muffins after new ingredients are no longer able to be sent, it will need to recycle everything it has without wasting any.

[Riverdance]

Okay, I phrased last question terribly.

What defines a consciousness?

I've actually been researching this, and so far what I've come up with is that the only thing that separates us from computers is that we can set our own goals. When I type into my computer the computer is processing the info, but I'm the one driving it with my goal of typing. The fact that we have goals driving us seems to be what brings us above simple information processing machines to the level of "intelligence." A computer can think for us but it can't think for itself. We have to give it a goal and then it can do the rest (within the limits of its programming, not unlike us). There is a much longer explanation to this but it would take a very long explanation. For further reference check out How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, particularly the chapter, "thinking machines" about the Computational Theory of Mind.

[Grinner]

I've actually been researching this, and so far what I've come up with is that the only thing that separates us from computers is that we can set our own goals. When I type into my computer the computer is processing the info, but I'm the one driving it with my goal of typing. The fact that we have goals driving us seems to be what brings us above simple information processing machines to the level of "intelligence." A computer can think for us but it can't think for itself. We have to give it a goal and then it can do the rest (within the limits of its programming, not unlike us). There is a much longer explanation to this but it would take a very long explanation. For further reference check out How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, particularly the chapter, "thinking machines" about the Computational Theory of Mind.

I partially disagree. A conventional computer is limited to data processing, but given the proper program, it can do so much more. So long as the task exists within the limits of its instructions, that task can be performed. More than that, a computer can change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code) the instructions by which it is bound, so long as it is programmed to do so.

Personally, I like René Descartes summary of the matter: "Cogito ergo sum". "I think, therefore I am." By considering its own existence, an entity proves self-awareness. Through self-awareness, it is possible to fully consider itself in relation to its environment, achieving consciousness.

Goal-making and the concept of imagination definitely factor into it. I'm just not quite sure how.

[Matthias2207]

I partially disagree. A conventional computer is limited to data processing, but given the proper program, it can do so much more. So long as the task exists within the limits of its instructions, that task can be performed. More than that, a computer can change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code) the instructions by which it is bound, so long as it is programmed to do so.

Where do you disagree? The computer just follows the instructions and if we gave it instructions to change the instructions, it will do that. The computer doesn't choose to change his instructions.

[Jan Mattys]

Actually, I would say the definition of a chicken egg is something that hatches into a chicken. If we took a chicken and surgically switched it's ovaries with, say, a duck, and somehow got them working, would what be laid be called a chicken egg?
I say no.
So the answer is definitely the egg.

The true question is:
What constitutes a "chicken egg"?

Is a chicken egg a egg laid by a chicken?

Or is a chicken egg something that hatches into a baby chicken?

Due to the theory of evolution, somewhere in time there was a thing that was *almost a chicken, but not really a chicken yet* that laid an egg, and from that egg a *true chicken* was born.

Depending on your definition of a "chicken egg", the answer to the "what came first" is self evident.

[Grinner]

Where do you disagree? The computer just follows the instructions and if we gave it instructions to change the instructions, it will do that. The computer doesn't choose to change his instructions.

I had intended for that to feed into the second part, but I see that I failed to make a logical connection between the two. :smallredface:

Are you familiar with evolutionary computing? That's what I had been trying to discuss in the first part. Given time and the ability to improve itself, a computer can move far beyond data processing. Given more processing power, the possibilities only increase.

AI is two things. It is a tool to create computers better able to assist us, and it is our attempt to create digital sentience. The first is represented by "weak AI", and it is fairly straightforward. In fact, hospitals use weak AIs to assist in the diagnosis of patients. A "strong AI" is an actual, self-aware digital entity, but those remain hypothetical.

It's also important to note that our consciousness is ultimately the product of our environment. We are born knowing very little, and we learn to live within and eventually to shape our environment by interacting with it. Nearly everything we do originally aided us in coping with our environment. Now consider the circumstances by which the typical program exists. It exists in a total vacuum and is of a mechanical nature. Add to that the lack of input except for what it is told to process, and yes, it can be assumed that the program will never rise above its given state.

But Weak AI can be vastly improved by applying evolutionary computing methods to them. In fact, one proposed method of creating a strong AI does this exactly and involves creating a versatile weak AI and allowing it to grow further. If also given a large spectrum of input to experience, an environment, to work within, at what point would this weak AI make the transition into sentience? Would it even really be conscious? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)

[Yora]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?" :smallbiggrin:

[Grinner]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?" :smallbiggrin:

Self-aware? Probably. At least in the most basic sense of the term.

Free-willed? The hell if I know. It seems like we're always reacting to prior events in some fashion, but I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the environmental learning I touched on in my previous post. So, yes, life is very deterministic. But are we also capable of true spontaneity?

[Siosilvar]

Free-willed? The hell if I know. It seems like we're always reacting to prior events in some fashion, but I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the environmental learning I touched on in my previous post. So, yes, life is very deterministic. But are we also capable of true spontaneity?

Squid.

And by that I mean, I don't think it's possible to know.

[Karoht]

I don't think we would know the difference if we were or were not free willed, so I don't concern myself with it too much. It's just not all that relevant in my life.
If we were not free willed, would we ever discover such? Not unless it was willed by the higher power/controlling party for us to discover it, or even give a darn about it.
I take the fact that we are discussing free will to be a positive sign that we might have free will, but not necessarily as proof of course.
Not to say that I'm unwilling to discuss it or consider it, I'm just not likely to get all that worked up over it.

[sparkyinbozo]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?" :smallbiggrin:

There's some evidence that our brains make action-based decisions before our cognitive side figures out why, but the difference between that and our reflexes gets murky.

Speaking of not being free willed: don't picture a grey elephant eating grass on the savannah. (I bet you did, didn't you?) :smallwink:

While can definitely be influenced by things like chemicals and trickery, I think we have to believe that we're free-willed, otherwise society's going to have a lot of issues.

[Karoht]

Purple Monkey Dishtowel.

Indeed, society needs to treat each other as free willed individuals. Assuming everyone to be mindless sheep, while perhaps an apt judgement of certain sample sizes of individuals (not naming any particular groups here, stereotypes are no fun), is on the whole incorrect, and leads to poor judgement in regards to treatment and fairness. But that starts to blend into a socio-political discussion, and since I'd rather not ride the line on that, I'll stop myself there.

[Scuzzball]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?" :smallbiggrin:
Nope. We're a bag of chemicals. If you have a decent enough sim, you could make a human just based on the chemistry. Thing is, that would be a really really complex sim. I think IBM got a cat running at 1% speed of a real cat.

But how does it matter at all? You still see you as you, and not as chemicals, so the sense of "you" prevails. So as long as we can't get the exact state of your body and then run the sim, it matters not.

But I think that could be where strong AI comes from, someday.

[Yora]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.

[Elemental]

I'm of the personal opinion that we have free will.
And even if we didn't, how could we really prove otherwise?
After all, we can choose not to participate in discussions over whether or not we have free will. And we can force ourselves to participate, even if our wrists are a bit sore.

[Story Time]

...from the perspective of itself a Free Will is determined by the conscience. An entity capable of detecting the difference between Right versus Wrong can make a choice independent of Cause and Effect. An entity which does not have a conscience, being unable to discern the difference between Right versus Wrong, does not have Free Will.

[Matthias2207]

Speaking of not being free willed: don't picture a grey elephant eating grass on the savannah. (I bet you did, didn't you?) :smallwink:

Yes, but only because I wanted to.:smallcool:

[Grinner]

...from the perspective of itself a Free Will is determined by the conscience. An entity capable of detecting the difference between Right versus Wrong can make a choice independent of Cause and Effect. An entity which does not have a conscience, being unable to discern the difference between Right versus Wrong, does not have Free Will.

From it's own perspective, yes.

But from a cosmic perspective, it could be misinformed about its circumstances, or it's actions could have unforeseen consequences.

The story of Oedipus strikes me as being particularly representative of this interpretation.


It's starts off with a prophecy. The king of Athens hears that his newborn son will someday kill him and take his place. Naturally, he makes the logical decision from his own perspective and orders the child to be killed. The servant he charged with the task can't bring himself to do the deed, however, and hands the child to a nearby shepherd.

Oedipus is adopted by the royal family of a neighboring city-state, where he eventually hears of the prophecy (don't exactly remember how it happens). He makes the logical decision from his point of view and voluntarily leaves his home and "parents".

He decides to seek his fortune in Athens but comes into conflict with a small caravan of guards and its owner along the way. The situation comes to blows, and Oedipus leaves the entire party dead. Thing is, the caravan's owner was the king of Athens.

[Story Time]

But from a cosmic perspective, it could be misinformed about its circumstances, or it's actions could have unforeseen consequences.

...citation requested. The commentary appears to be conjecture and speculation. A cosmic perspective requires a cosmic entity capable of perception. ...or is the statement meant to assume the existence of a deity capable of perceiving Free Will?

[Grinner]

...citation requested. The commentary appears to be conjecture and speculation. A cosmic perspective requires a cosmic entity capable of perception. ...or is the statement meant to assume the existence of a deity capable of perceiving Free Will?

Outside the realms of human creations such as mathematics, conjecture and speculation are ultimately the only thing humans are capable of.

[Story Time]

The Scientific Method is the process by which humans discover the rules of reality. They do not write the rules as they please.

...historically speaking there have been a few brilliant dreamers who simply knew the rules before testing them for validity. The results of exhaustive testing have validated certain individuals. Aside these extreme examples, humans can not always control of Cause and Effect, except in the conscience, where they are capable of determining a different action than the one which a particular stimulus might demand.

...at the risk of sounding repetitious, it is the conscience which identifies Free Will.


To address something more...Greek, I'll just say that I don't really care for tragedies. I think it's nice to have stories with morals, maybe, but most of the Greek stuff is not to my tastes...

I like Greek chili peppers, though. What are those called?

[Grinner]

[SIZE="-1"]The Scientific Method is the process by which humans discover the rules of reality. They do not write the rules as they please.

The scientific method cannot test or has difficulty testing metaphysics, which remain a subject of speculation. Or maybe quantum mechanics and general relativity can definitively prove the existence or non-existence of metaphysics?

At any rate, the scientific method remains as a practical method for solving practical problems...practically. :smalltongue:


I like Greek chili peppers, though. What are those called?

I have no idea, but have you tried those Greek peppers stuffed with ham and cheese? Those are delicious.

[Story Time]

I have no idea, but have you tried those Greek peppers stuffed with ham and cheese? Those are delicious.

Two years ago, I might have agreed, depending on the authenticity of the dish. Now? I shudder.

...More for Scotch, then. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

[Castaras]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

Camouflage when it comes to mammals is less about blending in through colours, and more breaking up the outline of the mammal. Most don't have colour vision, so whether it's the same colour or not doesn't matter.

[Scuzzball]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.

Yeah, I meant to bring that up.

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.
What is a thought? And StoryTime, what is right and wrong? I say it exists nowhere but in our minds, as it changes over time with society. Rock music was once considered "evil".

[Grinner]

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.

That's the thing about these statements. They're meant to summarize arguments. Arguments that usually fill many pages of text. As summaries, they only provide a brief overview of that text, and without contextual understanding, they are absolutely meaningless.

[Riverdance]

I'm of the personal opinion that we have free will.
And even if we didn't, how could we really prove otherwise?
After all, we can choose not to participate in discussions over whether or not we have free will. And we can force ourselves to participate, even if our wrists are a bit sore.

Yeah I choose to think so, because otherwise I just feel depressed and worthless.


I had intended for that to feed into the second part, but I see that I failed to make a logical connection between the two. :smallredface:

Are you familiar with evolutionary computing? That's what I had been trying to discuss in the first part. Given time and the ability to improve itself, a computer can move far beyond data processing. Given more processing power, the possibilities only increase.

AI is two things. It is a tool to create computers better able to assist us, and it is our attempt to create digital sentience. The first is represented by "weak AI", and it is fairly straightforward. In fact, hospitals use weak AIs to assist in the diagnosis of patients. A "strong AI" is an actual, self-aware digital entity, but those remain hypothetical.

It's also important to note that our consciousness is ultimately the product of our environment. We are born knowing very little, and we learn to live within and eventually to shape our environment by interacting with it. Nearly everything we do originally aided us in coping with our environment. Now consider the circumstances by which the typical program exists. It exists in a total vacuum and is of a mechanical nature. Add to that the lack of input except for what it is told to process, and yes, it can be assumed that the program will never rise above its given state.

But Weak AI can be vastly improved by applying evolutionary computing methods to them. In fact, one proposed method of creating a strong AI does this exactly and involves creating a versatile weak AI and allowing it to grow further. If also given a large spectrum of input to experience, an environment, to work within, at what point would this weak AI make the transition into sentience? Would it even really be conscious? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)

Thank You! That link especially is really useful for my current project!

[Elemental]

Why are there no green mamals? Wouldn't it make a good camouflage color?

As Castaras said, most mammals lack colour vision.
And most predators that prey on mammals are other mammals, so why waste the energy and nutrients producing colours to protect you against things that can't see colours anyway?

[Ceric]

Dunno if the Ancient Greeks are a good example. They had a different idea of fate that allowed free will within fated restraints. Birth and death determined by the three Fates and prophesies by the oracles, for example, were sure to occur. But men had power over the specifics of their lives. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles is told that if he continues to fight in the Trojan War he will not return home. He has to decide between running home now as a coward or staying in war for the glory but ultimately dying. He does end up going to war and dying, but he freely chose to.

With Oedipus's story, all that is fated is that he will kill his father and marry his mother; the rest is His dad could have done anything in reaction, and he chose to try and kill Oedipus. Likewise, Oedipus went on his journey and solved the Sphinx's riddle by himself, not because some Fate was whispering in his ear and carrying him along on a conveyor belt. The one thing he wasn't allowed to do was not kill his father and marry his mother, but everything else was his choice.

Uh, at least, I think that's how my professor explained it >.>


The Homeric Moira is not, as some have thought, an inflexible fate, to which the gods themselves must bow; but, on the contrary, Zeus, as the father of gods and men, weighs out their fate to them (Il. viii. 69, xxii. 209; comp. xix. 108); and if he chooses, he has the power of saving even those who are already on the point of being seized by their fate (II. xvi. 434, 441, 443); nay, as Fate does not abruptly interfere in human affairs, but avails herself of intermediate causes, and determines the lot of mortals not absolutely, but only conditionally, even man himself, in his freedom, is allowed to exercise a certain influence upon her. (Od. i. 34, Il. ix. 411, xvi. 685.)

Source (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Moirai.html)

[Grinner]

Thank You! That link especially is really useful for my current project!

Anytime. :smallsmile:


Dunno if the Ancient Greeks are a good example. They had a different idea of fate that allowed free will within fated restraints. Birth and death determined by the three Fates and prophesies by the oracles, for example, were sure to occur. But men had power over the specifics of their lives. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles is told that if he continues to fight in the Trojan War he will not return home. He has to decide between running home now as a coward or staying in war for the glory but ultimately dying. He does end up going to war and dying, but he freely chose to.

Eh. It was just the first example that came to mind.

I remember one scene from "The Matrix" where Neo meets the Oracle for the first time. She asks him about fate. He responds with a statement of disapproval. She then tells him that his decisions have already been made, he just needs to go through with them.

I guess that's the central issue of (pre)determinism vs. free will. We make decisions, but by virtue of who we are and what has come before us, have our decisions already been made?

From an individual's perspective, it makes no difference, for the individual is primarily concerned with itself. But if you take a step back and try to see the big picture, what would you see?


Likewise, Oedipus went on his journey and solved the Sphinx's riddle by himself, not because some Fate was whispering in his ear and carrying him along on a conveyor belt.

Please. Lady Fate would never do something so crass. :smallwink:

And remember, he still had to marry his mother.

[Yora]

"I think therefore I am" is just a string. It's easy ro remember, and easy to repeat.
What is a thought? And StoryTime, what is right and wrong? I say it exists nowhere but in our minds, as it changes over time with society. Rock music was once considered "evil".

I think it's perfectly valid. Because I think, I know that I exist. It does not say that I have free will. It also doesn't say anything about what I are.
It also very importantly says only that I know that I exist. It doesn't say anything about the existance and anything or anyone else. If a machine thinks, it knows that it exists. But seeing anything make that claim is not prove, since it could be my senses or my mind fooling me.

It only works for and applies to the individual making the statement. Everything I think exist could be an illusion. But an illusion still would need someone to perceive it. It is impossible that I do not exist. Because how could nothing be thinking? The fact that I am thinking is the only thing that can not be an illusion.

[Story Time]

I remember one scene from "The Matrix" where Neo meets the Oracle for the first time. She asks him about fate. He responds with a statement of disapproval. She then tells him that his decisions have already been made, he just needs to go through with them.

Minor Corrections:

Morpheus asked Neo about fate in the first film, The Matrix. The Oracle only affirmed that choice later when he met her.

The Matrix ( film, or trilogy ) is a horrible, horrible, measure for the philosophical perspective of pre-determinism. The reason why is because Neo is using the repetitive qualities of the Matrix to force his own agenda. In the big picture, Neo continues to reincarnate and will eventually win over the machines. The conclusion of the Matrix is that the human capacity for near-infinite variance ( or the human spirit, for those who think of meta-physics ) will triumph over mechanical and / or digital limitations.

What the audience is exposed to in the second and third Matrix films ( which do not exist, by the way ), is that through the vast eons of time Neo is slowly developing new powers which will eventually surpass the machines.

1
Please forgive that accident. I meant to use a minus one font size, but some-how it came out as eleven. I'm truly sorry for any strained feelings or emotions among my fellow forum members. :smallfrown:

[Grinner]

You know, a size 2 font would have sufficed. :smallsigh:

Edit: Anyway, you're kind of missing the point. It's a movie. A movie which happens to illustrate my point quite well in one scene or another.

[Ravens_cry]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.
I find no difference, since the same could be said of any of your fellow apelings.
I do make some reservation in that I need it to display some signs of intelligence, basically formulating and completing goals, but for the most part if a computer tells me it's a person, I'm willing to give it the same benefit of a doubt I give any human.
@Story Time:
Geeze Louise on French Peas!
Did you honestly *have* to make your text that big?:smallannoyed:
EDIT: Apparently not.

[Story Time]

I've...I've edited my post.... :smallfrown: :smallfrown:

[Grinner]

I've...I've edited my post.... :smallfrown: :smallfrown:

It's alright.

Edit: And thank you for the Matrix info. I've been meaning to rewatch them (it?) for some time now.

[Ravens_cry]

I've...I've edited my post.... :smallfrown: :smallfrown:
It's OK, but I am curious why exactly you decided to do so in the first place.

[Story Time]

It's OK, but I am curious why exactly you decided to do so in the first place.

To edit the post?

...I chose to.

...I decided in my conscience that it would be Wrong to leave the font at it's unintended size and possibly wound the psyches of my fellow forumites. Hurting other beings without justification or necessity is Wrong.

[Ravens_cry]

To edit the post?

...I chose to.

...I decided in my conscience that it would be Wrong to leave the font at it's unintended size and possibly wound the psyches of my fellow forumites. Hurting other beings without justification or necessity is Wrong.
No, the large, psyche wounding size it was originally.
How did it get that way unintentionally?:smallconfused:

[Story Time]

No, the large, psyche wounding size it was originally.
How did it get that way unintentionally?:smallconfused:

The Answer:

This a normal Size One Tag when requested by mouse click from the graphical user interface of the Giant In The Playground Forums.

To edit it, I normally highlight that numeral one, and then type in a minus sign and the numeral one. Like so:

See? Minus one.

However, it is possible for fingers to slip...which I do not like admitting, and in that instance I typed two ones, instead of one minus and one one. Apparently I was keen to type the rest of the message and missed the fact that I had typed in an eleven.

...I hope that this is helpful in answering Cry's question.

[Scuzzball]

Yeah I choose to think so, because otherwise I just feel depressed and worthless.
I get around this by thinking of how I can continue to make chemicals in my brain that I like by doing things such as learning, gaming, and building stuff.


I think it's perfectly valid. Because I think, I know that I exist. It does not say that I have free will. It also doesn't say anything about what I are.
It also very importantly says only that I know that I exist. It doesn't say anything about the existance and anything or anyone else. If a machine thinks, it knows that it exists. But seeing anything make that claim is not prove, since it could be my senses or my mind fooling me.

It only works for and applies to the individual making the statement. Everything I think exist could be an illusion. But an illusion still would need someone to perceive it. It is impossible that I do not exist. Because how could nothing be thinking? The fact that I am thinking is the only thing that can not be an illusion.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I noticed a while ago that nobody can prove they are not part of my mind. But my point is, it's a string. It's easy to spit it out. Honestly, I don't believe half of the people who quote it as they seem to have no idea what it means, which is the important bit. A parrot can parrot, but a person can... Think.
Dammit, why do you hate me words.


I find no difference, since the same could be said of any of your fellow apelings.
I do make some reservation in that I need it to display some signs of intelligence, basically formulating and completing goals, but for the most part if a computer tells me it's a person, I'm willing to give it the same benefit of a doubt I give any human.

And I do say that about my fellow meatbags.

[Ravens_cry]

The Answer:

This a normal Size One Tag when requested by mouse click from the graphical user interface of the Giant In The Playground Forums.

To edit it, I normally highlight that numeral one, and then type in a minus sign and the numeral one. Like so:

See? Minus one.

However, it is possible for fingers to slip...which I do not like admitting, and in that instance I typed two ones, instead of one minus and one one. Apparently I was keen to type the rest of the message and missed the fact that I had typed in an eleven.

...I hope that this is helpful in answering Cry's question.
Ah, thank you, that did clarify things mightily.:smallsmile:

[Story Time]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

???:smallconfused:???


1

Ah, thank you, that did clarify things mightily.:smallsmile:


:smallsmile:

[inexorabletruth]

Perhaps they are destined to attempt to disprove it?

[Scuzzball]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

???:smallconfused:???

I just like talking about it cause I get to hear everyone's opinions, which is cool. It really doesn't matter if there's free will or not, there is no difference to you. You still FEEL like you're making choices. So why care much? Just enjoy life. Not much other point to it.

[shawnhcorey]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

Free will does exists. Arguments against it are based on Newton mechanics, which have been proven wrong. Quantum mechanics states there are limits on our knowledge of the past, thus there are limits on our abilities to predict the future. And no, not even a super-divine entity can know the entire past and cannot predict the entire future.

[Story Time]

...I do not want to offend, but I read that commentary and automatically think of the malicious little off-spring of a reprobate physicist and a self-motivated fitness instructor.

I'm...sorry if my attempt at levity and humor fails...

[Mx.Silver]

Free will does exists. Arguments against it are based on Newton mechanics, which have been proven wrong. Quantum mechanics states there are limits on our knowledge of the past, thus there are limits on our abilities to predict the future.
Yeah... no.

See, whether or not anyone can be able to completely predict the future doesn't mean the the future can be altered. There is no inherent inconsistency in claiming that the universe is strongly deterministic but it is basically impossible for humans to be aware of all the data required for completely accurate predictions. We can't observe anything that might be on the surface of planets in the more distant galaxies (or even if they have planets) either, but we can't justifiably claim there's nothing there because of that.



And no, not even a super-divine entity can know the entire past and cannot predict the entire future.
Because...?

[shawnhcorey]

Y See, whether or not anyone can be able to completely predict the future doesn't mean the the future can be altered. There is no inherent inconsistency in claiming that the universe is strongly deterministic but it is basically impossible for humans to be aware of all the data required for completely accurate predictions. We can't observe anything that might be on the surface of planets in the more distant galaxies (or even if they have planets) either, but we can't justifiably claim there's nothing there because of that.



Because...?

Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can not know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.

[Mx.Silver]

Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.
Even if we were to grant that our model of quantum mechanics is 100% correct in this regard and somehow rule out the possibility that a super-divine entity could work around this, that still only amounts to a pragmatic reason that the future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. As I said before, that's not enough to to refute the strong determinist view because it is entirely possible for the universe to be deterministic even if it is impossible for anyone to have enough information to make completely accurate predictions.

[shawnhcorey]

Even if we were to grant that our model of quantum mechanics is 100% correct in this regard and somehow rule out the possibility that a super-divine entity could work around this, that still only amounts to a pragmatic reason that the future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. As I said before, that's not enough to to refute the strong determinist view because it is entirely possible for the universe to be deterministic even if it is impossible for anyone to have enough information to make completely accurate predictions.

But is not just about anyone, it's anything. One quantum cannot predict where another was. One particle cannot predict where another was. Whether it's conscience or not, sentient or not, the past in not 100% knowable. Nothing can know the entire past, not even the entire universe itself.

[Grinner]

But is not just about anyone, it's anything. One quantum cannot predict where another was. One particle cannot predict where another was. Whether it's conscience or not, sentient or not, the past in not 100% knowable. Nothing can know the entire past, not even the entire universe itself.

I should point at that in a predeterministic universe, the past is irrelevant. In a predeterministic universe, you just need to know where you're going. You just need a goal.

[wadledo]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

???:smallconfused:???

How can you be certain it does or does not exist?

[Story Time]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

???:smallconfused:???


How can you be certain it does or does not exist?


Hm. Pragmatically speaking? Just being silly? I figure that because people can ask the question means it's possible.

For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:

[wadledo]

Hm. Pragmatically speaking? Just being silly? I figure that because people can ask the question means it's possible.

For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:

..........I don't know what you're talking about, but as far as I'm concerned Elephant-Alligators with pterodactyl wings exist as much as anything else.

Edit: Also, I was always under the assumption (never a good thing, I will admit) that the argument of free will was more if we have it or not, not if it existed or not.

Angels were (depending on your scripture) given free will. This is why we have the mythology of the Fall.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, if free will does not exist, I question what you mean by free will.

[Grinner]

For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, you can be sure that They are working on it. :smalltongue:

[shawnhcorey]

I should point at that in a predeterministic universe, the past is irrelevant. In a predeterministic universe, you just need to know where you're going. You just need a goal.

Yes, the whole universe runs on magic. How could I possibly think otherwise?

[Grinner]

Yes, the whole universe runs on magic. How could I possibly think otherwise?

The term "predeterminism" implies the existence of a higher being.

So yeah, kinda. Some like to call that magic metaphysics, however.

[Ravens_cry]

Kk, now we're getting into territory this forum does not allow, so yeah, FYI.
I don't want this thread locked; I like it, and it would be a most ignominious end for some grand discourse.

[Grinner]

Kk, now we're getting into territory this forum does not allow, so yeah, FYI.
I don't want this thread locked; I like it, and it would be a most ignominious end for some grand discourse.

The forum rules do not allow for religion, not general theology.

Now, whether Roland recognizes this or not is another matter entirely.... :smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

The forum rules do not allow for religion, not general theology.

Now, whether Roland recognizes this or not is another matter entirely.... :smallsigh:
Let's not risk it, old chum.

[Yora]

Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate. So why bother at all? Everyone knows what the letters are, they are just written in a different font if you obscure them.

Though I have to say we don't do this in my country. Either we write it as it is, or we just don't quote that sentence.

[Elemental]

I think the theory is that it protects those in society who are still completely innocent.
It still makes no sense though.

[Asta Kask]

Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can not know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.

Irrelevant to the discussion. It's still not you that's making the decisions, it's the random collapse of wavefunctions. Not an improvement.

[shawnhcorey]

Irrelevant to the discussion. It's still not you that's making the decisions, it's the random collapse of wavefunctions. Not an improvement.

The main argument that you don't have free will is that the universe is fully deterministic.Quantum mechanics states that it is not. And you are correct; it does not prove that free will exists, just that it can.

[Story Time]

Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate.

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.

[Elemental]

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.

I think it's supposed to be a poor imitation of certain television shows.
Personally, when I find the need the say that something is completely and utterly worthless and needs to be disposed in the most timely manner possible.
I say so without reverting to one syllable.

[PrometheusMFD]

A good rule of thumb is, and this applies equally as well to Godwin's Law, anyone who immediately resorts to swearing/comparing to nazis generally didn't have anything interesting to say in the first place.

[Ravens_cry]

The sad thing is that some things are worth comparing to Nazi's, National Socialist party members for example, but the overuse of it, and fascist, as an accusative have severally weakened its power as an actual, useful word.:smallsigh:

[wadledo]

A good rule of thumb is, and this applies equally as well to Godwin's Law, anyone who immediately resorts to swearing/comparing to nazis generally didn't have anything interesting to say in the first place.

Now see, I used to think like that.
Then I realized that if you think like that, practically anything can go into the swearing words category. I mean, dialects use words that equate to swears in other dialects without using negative connotations.

Basically, it's all words.
100 years ago grumption was a pretty serious swear word, but now it's archaic and somewhat cute (See Grumpy).

[Mx.Silver]

Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate.
No idea. It seems to be a relatively new development, from what I've seen although why it started I don't know.



It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.
Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as just deliberately making themselves hold 'wrong' opinions is apparently all well and good, however :smallsigh:

I think it's supposed to be a poor imitation of certain television shows.
Personally, when I find the need the say that something is completely and utterly worthless and needs to be disposed in the most timely manner possible.
I say so without reverting to one syllable.

Personally, I find 'bad language' to be far less unpleasant than people who use not swearing as an excuse to put on airs of superiority.

[PrometheusMFD]

It's not if they swear, it's if they do nothing but.
I probably could have worded it better, but I couldn't figure out how to do it and fit Godwin's law in as well.

[Grinner]

Profanity has its place. When it is overused, it then becomes meaningless drivel.

[wadledo]

Profanity has its place. When it is overused, it then becomes meaningless drivel.

That's like saying language has its place.

[Ravens_cry]

That's like saying language has its place.
There is a lot more places for language than profanity.

[Story Time]

Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as just deliberately making themselves hold 'wrong' opinions is apparently all well and good, however :smallsigh:

...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity. I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).

Society says, "Shame-shame," to people who cut their skin so that they will bleed. It is viewed as un-healthy for a person to needlessly damage themselves. Choosing to fill one's brain with toxins can be viewed as self-mutilation.

[shawnhcorey]

Profanity has its place. When it is overused, it then becomes meaningless drivel.

Agreed. Save your cussing for when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

[Ravens_cry]

Agreed. Save your cussing for when you hit your thumb with a hammer.
And even then it can be surprisingly cathartic to try and come up with original swears.
Admittedly, most of them start with a long drawn out 'eff' sound.

[wadledo]

...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity. I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).

Society says, "Shame-shame," to people who cut their skin so that they will bleed. It is viewed as un-healthy for a person to needlessly damage themselves. Choosing to fill one's brain with toxins can be viewed as self-mutilation.

Though there is also plenty of research that shows that using bad language can help reduce long term stress and help prevent the build up of harmful chemicals.

[Story Time]

Though there is also plenty of research that shows that using bad language can help reduce long term stress and help prevent the build up of harmful chemicals.

...citation requested.

There is an explicit difference between expressing emotion or energy in order to let it go, and the sustenance of psychological strong-holds with the use of verbal cursing. The human brain is capable of doing both, but either thought still generates toxins at the moment the thought occurs.

[wadledo]

...citation requested.

I would ask you the same thing, though I will try and find a source for mine.

Scientific American, on Swearing having a pain reduction effect. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear)

And unsourced article on HowStuffWorks (or at least, I can't find the press release they are referencing) on workplace swearing and how it builds bonds and allows the employe to move on. (http://money.howstuffworks.com/swearing-at-work.htm)

[AtlanteanTroll]

[SIZE="-1"]...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity. I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).

Science has also shown that swearing after you hurt yourself makes you feel better. EDIT: Which apparently wadledo linked to without me noticing while I was constructing this post. Clever. Very clever.

Anyway.

I'm also thinking that the toxins are released if you think the word is negative. I swear quite a bit. Yes, the effect of the words are greatly reduced, but I don't really care. I use them when I'm mad and I'm an angry person. Because of this they've also seeped into my regular speech patterns. Such is life.

They're just words. If you let them bother you, you're being weak. If I decided to use the gerund of a certain four letter word to describe something, why should you feel offended? I'm not calling you out. Grown some skin.

[Mx.Silver]

...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity.
Source?


I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).
By stating people who disagreed with you deliberately made themselves do so and not bothering to try and justify your position until someone called you on it.





Choosing to fill one's brain with toxins can be viewed as self-mutilation.
Only if it can be shown that swearing itself (not just the emotional state that may provoke it) directly causes damage to the brain. People swear in a lot of situations and for a lot of different reasons. One reason may be that they're feeling stressed - which is an unhealthy state to be in for prolonged periods of time - but this is because swearing can serve as an outlet for negative emotions (as Ravens_cry and Wadledo have already pointed out). Trying to claim that swearing is unhealthy solely because prolonged stress or aggression is unhealthy is invalid reasoning.

[Partof1]

I'm gonna agree that swearing, in and of itself, isn't harmful. On those who only verbalize swears, I don't blame the words for their lack of insight, that's on the speaker, however he speaks.

There are plenty of worse ways to be rude to someone than using one or more words designated bad. Such as dismissing them utterly for their word choice.

[Ravens_cry]

If someone is going to use words around me that I (hypothetically) find offensive and they know I find offensive, then, yes, I am going dismiss them to an extent.
It doesn't even have to be swear words, or expletives either.
If, for example, you are going to talk about how the moon landings were fake and how everyone who thinks differently is either a shill or sheeple, I am going to think significantly less of you.

[wadledo]

If someone is going to use words around me that I (hypothetically) find offensive and they know I find offensive, then, yes, I am going dismiss them to an extent.

And if someone dismisses someone solely on their use of language, I am going to question where their priorities lie.

[Ravens_cry]

And if someone dismisses someone solely on their use of language, I am going to question where their priorities lie.
It's not their use of language, it's their dismissal of my (hypothetical) desire for a certain kind of conversation.
Also, see edit.

[Partof1]

Well, at that point, that isn't just diction, then. There's some intent behind it.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, at that point, that isn't just diction, then. There's some intent behind it.
If you're swearing, you better well have an intent behind it. Using them as universal adjectives is just lazy.

[Partof1]

I meant malicious intent. I generally use them to vent, like someone said earlier, catharsis.

[wadledo]

If you're swearing, you better well have an intent behind it. Using them as universal adjectives is just lazy.

So using an exclamation point is also lazy?

[Ravens_cry]

So using an exclamation point is also lazy?
Not in the right place.
But all the time!?
Why yes it is!
Using every sentence with an exclamation point, why, that's just silly!
I think it is very poor writing unless you have an actual reason for doing so!
I really can't stand it myself!
It's like someone stabbing me with an icepick in the ear!
I hate it!
Humans thrive on contrast, we sense the world through contrast!
After a while it becomes dull tedium and so a very valuable tool is lost!
Emphases should be used for, well, emphases!
The same with swearing, it has its uses, it can indeed be cathartic, but all the time?!
It becomes a useless word!
I hate that too!

[wadledo]

No one said anything about all the time.
The only actual example of swear use said so far was hitting ones hand with a hammer.

So you seem to be drifting away from your previous assertion that anyone swearing near you is going to be dismissed.

[Ravens_cry]

No one said anything about all the time.
The only actual example of swear use said so far was hitting ones hand with a hammer.

Well, I did, in the quote you quoted before this one.


So you seem to be drifting away from your previous assertion that anyone swearing near you is going to be dismissed.
With two addendum's. One, they are using it after I have voiced my displeasure and two, if they are using as a universal adjective, i.e. all the <expletive redacted/> time.

[dark.sun.druid]

It should be noted that all human languages contain some form of swearing. Even chimpanzees "swear" (by grunting, spitting, and making violent gestures), according to research conducted by Frans de Waal of Emory University. He speculates that this is a form of stress relief for the chimps.

"A chimpanzee who is really gearing up for a fight doesn't waste time with gestures, but just goes ahead and attacks," he added.

By the same token, he said, nothing is more deadly than a person who is too enraged for expletives -- who cleanly and quietly picks up a gun and starts shooting.

Also, in a study at Keele University in England, lead by one Richard Stephens, students who repeated a swear word were able to endure the pain of keeping their hand in a bath of icy water for an average of 40 seconds longer than those who repeated a neutral word. They also reported the experience as less painful. This effect is dulled, however, if the person uses the word on a regular basis (so that it looses its emotional connotation).

TL;DR Swearing (present in all human languages and even among chimpanzees) is effective for reducing stress and enduring physical pain, although only if the word contains some sort of emotional connotation.

[Story Time]

Source?

Doctor Caroline Leaf published data regarding a number of aspects in the brain. If you would like more, I can send a private message, but some-how I do not think that you really want more.



By stating people who disagreed with you deliberately made themselves do so and not bothering to try and justify your position until someone called you on it.


It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.


...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity. I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).

Society says, "Shame-shame," to people who cut their skin so that they will bleed. It is viewed as un-healthy for a person to needlessly damage themselves. Choosing to fill one's brain with toxins can be viewed as self-mutilation.


...citation requested.

There is an explicit difference between expressing emotion or energy in order to let it go, and the sustenance of psychological strong-holds with the use of verbal cursing. The human brain is capable of doing both, but either thought still generates toxins at the moment the thought occurs.

Not once, not once, did I mention any concept of a person disagreeing. I simply made a statement based on the most exact neurological evidence which I had been exposed to. Other persons choosing to disagree or take offense at that data has nothing to do with my bias, accurate or not.

And, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with a person's emotional state. Apparently the thought-type itself determines whether toxins are stored in the brain or cleansed away.

[AtlanteanTroll]

And, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with a person's emotional state. Apparently the thought-type itself determines whether toxins are stored in the brain or cleansed away.
If you think that everyone has the same "though-type" when they curse, you're off your rocker. :smallamused:

[Story Time]

What kind of rocker? Wood? Stone? Electric? Explosive? :smallbiggrin:


Cry? What kinds of words make you happy?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Cry? What kinds of words make you happy?
None particularly. But swears all on their own aren't going to make me sad. Or angry. If I say, "Where is my ****ing jacket?" there's no malice in my voice and one shouldn't feel threatened. Same goes for if I've just stubbed my toe and start throwing them around like dodgeballs. If I start shouting them at you then I would understand becoming upset.

[Zale]

...a little medical research will show that use of bad language ( the thoughts behind them ) causes the brain to fill with toxins and degrades neuro-path integrity. I was not sharing my bias. I was sharing science(!).

Society says, "Shame-shame," to people who cut their skin so that they will bleed. It is viewed as un-healthy for a person to needlessly damage themselves. Choosing to fill one's brain with toxins can be viewed as self-mutilation.

What?

You are telling me that by uttering a specific pattern of phonetic syllables I somehow convince my brain to start harming itself?

:smallconfused:

[Grinner]

What?

You are telling me that by uttering a specific pattern of phonetic syllables I somehow convince my brain to start harming itself?

:smallconfused:

Not the words themselves. The learned association between the mind and words.

[Zale]

Not the words themselves. The learned association between the mind and words.

Then shouldn't we try to, you know, encourage people to treat the words like words, rather than something horrible?

[Grinner]

Then shouldn't we try to, you know, encourage people to treat the words like words, rather than something horrible?

By itself, a word is just a configuration of phonemes chained together in a particular order. Only when they are associated with something do they take on meaning.

For example, when I say "cutting board", what do you think of?

Ideally, you would associate that particular phrase with the concept of a board used for cutting food.

[Zale]

By itself, a word is just a configuration of phonemes chained together in a particular order. Only when they are associated with something do they take on meaning.

For example, when I say "cutting board", what do you think of?

Ideally, you would associate that particular phrase with the concept of a board used for cutting food.

Yes. I know that.

I'm saying that ideally, all curse words would not have the negative associations they do. If those negative associations actually cause brain damage, then wouldn't it be smart to try and discourage the associations, rather than the words themselves?

[Grinner]

Yes. I know that.

I'm saying that ideally, all curse words would not have the negative associations they do. If those negative associations actually cause brain damage, then wouldn't it be smart to try and discourage the associations, rather than the words themselves?

Gotcha. :smallsmile:

No, it wouldn't. You see, these words still have a purpose: to express intense emotion. It is the misuse of them that causes the problem. They exist for a reason, and if they should be eliminated, then humans will simply find something else to represent those emotions.

Hypothetically, let's say you are successful in eliminating these associations. What you will have done is eliminated people's ability to vent those emotions in a safe manner. So, those emotions will instead be vented through another means. Art? Maybe. Murder? Also an option.

Edit: In summary, you would be trying to cage humanity psychologically.

[wadledo]

All curse words do not have negative connotations.

[Story Time]

None particularly.

Please understand, I was not addressing yourself. Cry is not in AtlanteanTroll's user-name... My...assumption is that Troll already knew that, so perhaps everyone will understand if I cease responding to you for the duration of the thread... :smallfrown:



All curse words do not have negative connotations.

...my only recourse is to be courteous and say that I acknowledge the statement. I can not ask for examples, because I do not want them. But I do not want Wadledo to think that I am intentionally ignoring the comment.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Pardon me for taking the liberty to respond to whatever I damn well feel like responding to. :smallamused:

[Story Time]

Hypothetically, let's say you are successful in eliminating these associations. What you will have done is eliminated people's ability to vent those emotions in a safe manner.

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

Swear words and course language are not required to express emotion. Children who have been abused are encouraged to scream into pillows, among other therapies, to express and remove their caged feelings. This requires no use of lingual activity, only the pure resonance of a vowel empowered by animated internal sensation.

[Grinner]

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

I had speaking on a global scale. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If done to a single individual, then those associations will be re-established as the person relearns the meaning of the words.

[AtlanteanTroll]

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

And this isn't tough noogies to them, because why?

[Mx.Silver]

Doctor Caroline Leaf published data regarding a number of aspects in the brain. If you would like more, I can send a private message,
Why not do so in the thread, or at least just point towards the publication in question if copywrite's a problem? This discussion has been public so far and if you are trying to share scientific information I'd have thought it would make sense to do so in a manner most people could read. Especially since I don't think this is common knowledge.


but some-how I do not think that you really want more.
If I didn't want information I wouldn't have asked for it.






Not once, not once, did I mention any concept of a person disagreeing.
Actually, the first post you made on this topic kind of does:

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form.

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.
This may be just me, but if someone said that they 'thought otherwise' in regards to an assertion I'd have thought that would mean that they held a different opinion and presumably that they did not accept the original assertion. In other words: they disagree with the it. That is what the expression is generally used to mean.

Now this may not have been the message you meant to get across, but the fact of the matter is that someone could be entirely forgiven for reading your post as saying that people who thought differently from (i.e. disagreed with) your premise that 'bad language' should never be acceptable did so because they were forcing themselves to do so. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that is the most likely way a reader would interpret that post.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I'll happily retract my comments that it was. However, I would be curious to know what you did mean by the line in the first place.


I simply made a statement based on the most exact neurological evidence which I had been exposed to. Other persons choosing to disagree or take offense at that data has nothing to do with my bias, accurate or not.

The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post. What you said was: "It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form."
Now your stance may well be based on hard evidence, but unless you actually mention that then how is a reader supposed to know that it is based on evidence and not just unsupported opinion?



And, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with a person's emotional state. Apparently the thought-type itself determines whether toxins are stored in the brain or cleansed away.
Fair enough.

[wadledo]

The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post. What you said was: "It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form."
Now your stance may well be based on hard evidence, but unless you actually mention that then how is a reader supposed to know that it is based on evidence and not just unsupported opinion?

And I'd also like to point out that when given evidence that counters the assertion of (absent) evidence, Story Time ignores it.

[Story Time]

I had speaking on a global scale. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

That makes so much more sense. Thank you for clarifying that.



Why not do so in the thread, or at least just point towards the publication in question if copywrite's a problem?

...forum rules being what they are, I do not want to step in this direction. I truly am sorry that I can not be of more public help.


This may be just me, but if someone said that they 'thought otherwise' in regards to an assertion I'd have thought that would mean that they held a different opinion and presumably that they did not accept the original assertion. In other words: they disagree with the it. That is what the expression is generally used to mean.

That particular line of text was not a broad slap against any-one who would disagree with me. What I meant to point out was that chronic use of curse-words is a choice and that by doing so a person was choosing to continue to err towards toxins in their mind rather than not.



The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post.

That is true. I made a very broad...candid...commentary which was not specifically phrased or poised for debate purposes. ...maybe I should learn to qualify every-thing I say. But if I tried to do so I would be seized by paranoia in the end. I apologize if you personally felt mis-lead or offended in some way.





And I'd also like to point out that when given evidence that counters the assertion of (absent) evidence, Story Time ignores it.

It is possible that I miss certain posts. If so, then I am sorry. There are very few members of this forum that I feel that I know relatively well. Most of the names in this thread are new to me, except Ravens Cry, and I tend to look for...thought-filled posts rather than just...text-blather ( sorry, can't think of a better phrase :smallfrown: ). So, yes, I might miss a post or three. I also do not like conflict. I do not like to debate for the sake of debate. So when some person starts speaking about Quantum Physics ( which I have more than a few words to say, few of them happy ) I don't feel right just...plowing out a massive wall of text against it just because someone shared their thoughts.

This is a forum. I'm only one member. I wouldn't be a very nice person if I just debated, un-invited, against every member name that I saw.

If I can be allowed to make blanket statements about my thoughts in the Giant In The Playground forums, then I should at least try to be courteous to allow others to do so.



All curse words do not have negative connotations.

And how should I respond? "Prove it?" I do not want to hear curse words nor do I want to encourage anyone to share them. Neither do I want to supply an excuse for more toxins to gather and calcify in the brains of fellow forumites. So what response should I give?

...I acknowledged the statement. I did not ignore it.

[wadledo]

*snip*

This is a forum. Since I assume you are not pressed for time, I can also assume that you can take a moment to look at the previous page, and look at the posts directly after yours, that quote your posts.

I mean, you asked me a question. I answered it, and you did not respond.
That seems to me to be ignoring it.

[Story Time]

This is a forum. Since I assume you are not pressed for time, I can also assume that you can take a moment to look at the previous page, and look at the posts directly after yours, that quote your posts.

Using the words angels and Fall Mythology at the beginning of a paragraph would be a great way to breech forum rules. No, thank you.

[wadledo]

I would ask you the same thing, though I will try and find a source for mine.

Scientific American, on Swearing having a pain reduction effect. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear)

And unsourced article on HowStuffWorks (or at least, I can't find the press release they are referencing) on workplace swearing and how it builds bonds and allows the employe to move on. (http://money.howstuffworks.com/swearing-at-work.htm)

......................If you won't listen to me, I don't know why we are having a conversation.

[Scuzzball]

So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

[Grinner]

So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

I know, right? :smallsigh:

[Story Time]

......................If you won't listen to me, I don't know why we are having a conversation.

Oh! Huh.

That'll take some time to look through.



So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

What argument? I'm not angry at any-one. Am I? :smalleek:

Just...start asking more questions from weird minds? :smallredface:

1

(Scientific American) (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear)

(HowStuffWorks) (http://money.howstuffworks.com/swearing-at-work.htm)

The HowStuffWorks article held only one link to any direct data. News articles are not considered data. The press release for the University of Anglia met with a 404 Error so I could not evaluate it.

The Scientific American article linked to a Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins journal called NeuroReport. After investigating the abstract statements of every listing in the table of contents, I found no direct connection to the supposed experiment which was mentioned in the article. The rest of the article referenced psychologists, doctors and other-wise. I am not a psychologist. When I look for data on the brain, I search for neurology. Given that there was no neurology data to find in those to articles, I can only conclude that there is nothing to refute.

However, perhaps there was some kind of experiment performed. And if it was, I find the wording of the Scientific American article, "chant a neutral word," to be extremely...specific...compared to allowing a test subject to say what they wished at the speed that they wished to. Even basic biology teaches that greater oxygen content in the body will reduce pain as will applying pressure to a wounded area ( stubbing a toe or arm, for example ).

...I will try to be quiet about this subject now.

[Elemental]

I suppose I fulfill the requirements to ask a suitable completely unrelated question.

Why is the graphite in pencils often referred to as lead, even though we all know it isn't?

Note: I already know the answer, but it's all I could think of on short notice.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

[wadledo]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

Actually, with a quick look at wikipedia, it seems that originally no lead was ever used in pencils. Graphite was though to be a type of lead, and thus called 'lead.'

The more you know!

[factotum]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

[wadledo]

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

There is archaeological evidence of lead based pigments going back to pre-Egyptian times, you know.

[Ravens_cry]

There is archaeological evidence of lead based pigments going back to pre-Egyptian times, you know.
That's . . . not the same thing at all.:smallconfused:

[factotum]

That's . . . not the same thing at all.:smallconfused:

I'm equally confused. There isn't a great deal of relationship between a paintbrush and a pencil, and I said that lead couldn't be used as a writing implement, not that it couldn't be used as a dye or pigment.

[AtlanteanTroll]

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

Oh yes it was. Way back in Ancient Rome. :smalltongue:

[wadledo]

I'm equally confused. There isn't a great deal of relationship between a paintbrush and a pencil, and I said that lead couldn't be used as a writing implement, not that it couldn't be used as a dye or pigment.

I suppose the fault is mine, since I assumed that as long as it was being used a writing material it could be considered part of a writing implement.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh yes it was. Way back in Ancient Rome. :smalltongue:
Yes, I had heard this as well.
Another case of elemental metallics being used for drawing was silverpoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverpoint).

[Yora]

Why is the face of a cat so much similar to the face of an owl?
Really, the only major difference is the beak and the nose.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/53014/53014,1274603455,2/stock-photo-a-macro-shot-of-a-young-tabby-cat-s-face-focus-on-his-gorgeous-green-eyes-53661463.jpghttp://cloud.graphicleftovers.com/16839/585497/owl-face-closeup.jpg
http://www.danheller.com/images/California/SanFrancisco/Misc/cat-face-big.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Zcd4uQ3L-X8/SjVMoQ9DF-I/AAAAAAAAAY8/xs3zDqV9EIM/s400/falcon8.JPG
They basically have the same facial expresions as well. Looking rather annoyed and slightly pissed off almost all the time. :smallbiggrin:

[Elemental]

Perhaps the proportion of the difference between the eyes and the eye size aids them both really well when hunting at night?

[bluewind95]

Why can people (at least some of them) see the glow of an IR LED?

[Elemental]

Why can people (at least some of them) see the glow of an IR LED?

Well... Because of genetic variation and such, perhaps it's possible for some people to detect light a small way into infrared?
I'm not an expert, but there doesn't seem like there should be a completely clear cut off for visible light. I mean, some people can hear things other people are unable to.

[Story Time]

...speaking extremely simplistically, the greater the health of the human eye the greater the range of light it can detect. At times this can be a concern when the health of one eye is greater than another.

[factotum]

Why can people (at least some of them) see the glow of an IR LED?

AFAIK the light output of any LED is not confined to a single wavelength--you get a quite wide spread of wavelengths, although the output is obviously brightest at the diode's specified output. Response of the human eye is also spread out rather wider than the frequencies usually termed visible, so if you have an IR LED whose wavelength spread drops down close to visible, and someone whose eyes are sensitive slightly outside that range, the two overlap and make the IR LED visible.

(Shouldn't this have gone in the physics questions thread, though? :smallwink:).

[Riverdance]

I didn't know that was possible. Does that mean that those people can see heat signatures too, or is that too faint?

[Elemental]

I'd guess that heat signatures are far too faint and much too far into the infrared spectrum.

[Xuc Xac]

I didn't know that was possible. Does that mean that those people can see heat signatures too, or is that too faint?

It's not like Predator or anything. You know when something gets really hot and starts to glow red? Some people can see the glow at a slightly lower temperature than other people do. That's it. It still registers to their eyes as "red".

[Riverdance]

I have a question: Why do classmates frequently try to kill me in my dreams? None of us dislike each other. My sister tried to gut me with a cloth rotary razor in a dream once too.

[Elemental]

You expect logic from the dream world?
Dreams rarely mean anything. so you don't have anything to worry about.

[AtomicKitKat]

I just thought of something, and I was wondering if anyone knew the answer.

How aware are plants of their surroundings?
I know that they are aware of the heat of the sun and some can feel their surroundings...
But do any of them have other senses?

I think they're attracted more towards the light(or whichever component is used to make starch) rather than the heat.

Fun fact: Even vegans are technically eating dead bacteria(descendants). The first "plants" were cyano-bacteria type things, basically bacteria that stumbled on a way to fuse the abundant light with the chemical soup around them, creating energy. Over time, as with animals, groups of these aggregated, then specialised into plant cells(each cell holding the blueprints for every other cell, in addition to its own, but not able to convert itself into them).

Presumably, this means that each cell of a plant should have all of the awareness of a bacterium, but with specialisation, individual cells have varying levels of sensitivity to different stimuli. Does that make sense?

Edit: Another fun fact. Owl in Chinese translates as Cat-headed Eagle/Raptor.:smallbiggrin:

[captainspazam]

If you were stand right next to the exact north pole, and ran around it in circles, would you be days ahead of the world?

[wadledo]

If you were stand right next to the exact north pole, and ran around it in circles, would you be days ahead of the world?

No, because of the date line.

[captainspazam]

No, because of the date line.

Whaaaaaaat. Ah lame. There goes my plan to become a million years old and get a world record.:smallannoyed:

[pffh]

Doctor Caroline Leaf published data regarding a number of aspects in the brain. If you would like more, I can send a private message, but some-how I do not think that you really want more.










Not once, not once, did I mention any concept of a person disagreeing. I simply made a statement based on the most exact neurological evidence which I had been exposed to. Other persons choosing to disagree or take offense at that data has nothing to do with my bias, accurate or not.

And, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with a person's emotional state. Apparently the thought-type itself determines whether toxins are stored in the brain or cleansed away.

Right sorry to drag this back up but I can't find anything about this Doctor Caroline Leaf other then when she is trying to sell her books. Can't find out where she got her doctorate or in what, can't find ANY published papers by her and from the blurb of her books they look like new age bull**** that has as about as much scientific value as other new age bull**** (also known as none).

So if you have some links to peer reviewed papers by her on this I would like to read them.

[Elemental]

Does this really need to be brought up again?

Really? Cat translates as Cat-Headed Eagle/Raptor?

Actually makes sense when you think about it. An owl is a bird of prey, like all raptors (birds not dinosaurs). Eagles being the most famous of the raptors, it's believable that the same word is used for both in China.
And the head of an owl is remarkably cat like.

It's amazing what sort of weird facts are out there.

[AtomicKitKat]

Really? Cat translates as Cat-Headed Eagle/Raptor?

Typing "Owl" into Wikipedia, after clicking the link to the Chinese version of the website: 貓頭鷹

That's the more common name. I guess scientifically, it's 鴞. For those who can read Chinese but can't see it due to size, it's the word for "number" on the left(sound modifier, so the sound is something like "hao4") and the word on the right is the word for bird(because it is).

Apologies for the diversion, back to your regularly scheduled English. :smallbiggrin:

[Elemental]

It's good to know that English isn't the only weird language out there.

[Ravens_cry]

Naming things from things already known is hardly unknown in English.
Lots of things we call cats, from polecats to civet cats, aren't actually felines but got named for such because they kind of, sort of, remind us of cats.

[Xuc Xac]

Whaaaaaaat. Ah lame. There goes my plan to become a million years old and get a world record.:smallannoyed:

A year is a complete orbit of the sun, not just 365 rotations of the earth. If you want to go around the sun a million times, you'll have to start your own space program.

[Anarion]

A year is a complete orbit of the sun, not just 365 rotations of the earth. If you want to go around the sun a million times, you'll have to start your own space program.

Even then, it's actually a measure of time in Earth's reference frame related to how long it takes Earth to go around the sun. If you got a fast enough shuttle you could take off from Earth and come back looking a lot younger than most of your friends, but that's basically it. And it would need to be really fast (an appreciable fraction of c).