the theory of the infallibility of man

[Funka Genocide]

I was at Starbucks today when I had a thought. Children have an inate desire to believe everything told to them by an adult, when they first learn to read, the words themselves seem to have power by the simple fact that they are written. A child hardly ever seems to question the veracity of the written word. However somewhere along the way we all invariably lose our faith in the "infallibility of man" as I called it at the Starbucks. And yet, the opinions formed during childhood are often kept by the adult, with little or no meditation on whether or not they are indeed correct. The comfort they provide us, as well as the basis for our perceived self, seem to preclude them from being disproven in our minds. Despite our capacity to question everything, we find ourselves fencing off areas of our mind so as to protect those things at the beginning. Without the concept of an infallible humanity somewhere along the way, we could never truly define ourselves properly. Without a definite self, we cannot define anything else normally, as our referance would be skewed. To sum it all up, our self images are based on the divinity within man, just a thought.

[Fujikoma]

Very deep...

Yet... It is a given... What is a human to do but flounder about in the waste he/she calls their life? Of course we beleive what we are given, what we are taught... An interesting thing to contemplate is how to do away with such knowledge in the mind of another, thus destroying the origional conditionaing residing about the consciousness of said individuals or groups....

I fall prey to certain concepts, as I like to consider myself "moral" upon occasion... Nevermind that I am nowhere near the concept, but there are certain things one does not do, and in accordance with such I do not do them... Simply an artifact of society, which, in certain cases, serves its purpose, and in others, destroys that purpose all-together... But please go on...

[Funka Genocide]

yes, I believe you may have seen a little close to my true meaning in this than I thought anyone would. You take it a different direction (destruction as apposed to creation) but the principle is the same. I hope to make people question to the point where they destroy the Self snd rebuild it based not on tradition and ritual, but on logical interaction with themselves and physical reality. I think a lot of potential is wasted by the concept of an unsupported societal norm. This passage is just a facet of my evolving world view, one in which I try to represent hope as apposed to hatred. I find that despising something accomplishes nothing.

Sorry for my uncoordinated thoughts here, I just woke up and am in a state of metabolic stasis.

[M1H0]

I believe we beleive what we are told for two reasons.
1) If we were to question EVERYTHING we were told, we would probably end up spending our entire life re-inventing the wheel.
2) We learn from mother saying "Don't touch a the stove, it's hot and you'll get burned" and then we question it and do it anyway, and low-and-behold it was hot and we did get burned.

Most things are learned on a physical scale when we are younger. After a few times we are taught that it is better (and less painful) to listen to superiors than learn for ourselves, we willingly listen and obey them.

It is not until we get to be older and our brains more "developed" (not the word I want to use, but the closest I can muster at the moment) and the "do not do's" become more abstract that we tend to question them. This can be exemplified by teen-smoking and drug use.

Why do kids smoke more often than not? Because their parents said not to, and when they tried it, it felt good instead of bad. The same can be said for homosexuality, but I'm a bit bias on the matter (;D) so I won't go there.

So in summary, we listen and obey our superiors without question because our logic has told us from an early stage that it is best to listen to them to avoid pain, and because it is required in order for society to progress.

[Sithdarth]

To take this in a slightly different direction. Does the questioning nature of adult hood make us lose are ability to truly believe in something. Its easy to convince yourself you belive in something but you can never be sure if you really do subconsciously. Meaning if one where to destroy his deep seated childhood beliefs could he really rebuild them?

[Martyr]

At a certain age, we do question everything.

You're talking about things we fence off and don't question? Like what?The neurological system of a hippopotamus? Is it so wrong to assume that the creatures do exist AND are conscious at the same time?
I don't now what else you could possibly be referring to.

My childhood beliefs only withstood until they could be tested. And they were all tested. Do you have an example of a belief that you haven't questioned?

Anyway... There may be concepts like theft and murder and sex etc... If you want to debate that with your mind, then we degenerate into all the mroal subjects that, quite obviously, are heavily debated.

It is safest to believe in the infallability of man because everybody asks these querstions, and still, after many years, we have come to the same conclusions. So it is pretty safe for chiuldren to take for granted things like: Gold is precious. Pain hurts. Death is something to be avoided. Stealing is wrong because it hurts other people. DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Blah blah blah.

If you leave this sense of thinking and chase some over-educated prick kind of ideal, then you lose your mind. You no longer fear death, you no longer become an active membver for the support of the survival of the human race. If you try so hard to prove that humanity is fallable, than you'll succeed. We are. Humans do not have to survive. It's just been the general cumulative consensus that surviving is a good thing and, kind of, what we want.

So don't go trying to be so non-conformist as all that.

And if this isn't the attitude you're talking about, then you'll have to be more specific. because maybe it's just you who is late in questioning things that need to be questioned.


As for Sithdarths comment:
It probably takes a whole lot of work. Like somebody else said, you gotta rebuild the wheel. You have to re-understand the entire world before you can replace it with something new and effective for mass acceptance.

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

If in childhood, like M1HO said, we find out that a parent is right about something like "the stove is hot" then we are likely to believe the next thing said to us without question. There is also a diffrence betwene facts and oppinions. When we are taught to accept facts, we may also accept some oppinions of our parrents in the same way.
Yes, it is true that some people feel that some ideas and beliefes are "right" like Killing is wrong, but everyone has had their understanding built in a diffrent way.

[Funka Genocide]

as far as being an overeducated prick goes, I got kicked out of high school in the ninth grade, and became a short order cook at sixteen, so maybe you should rephrase that...

anyways, My point in this theory is to prove a basic belief of mine, that human inspiration and achivement are just that, human. I wish to give people a sense of themselves as the pinnacle of creation. I appreciate all the criticism, it helps to see alternate views.

and to reply to sithdarth, you make an interesting point. If a man is forced to remove his foundation, he may be forced to destroy all that was built upon it as well. Perhaps it would make more sense to build a new foundation before abandoning the old one. To take life from a certain point where we achieve a proper awareness, and then transfer all our knowledge before that point into our new system of thought, becoming enlightened. I believe this is the goal of most people who seek their own truths.

To further explain, the concepts I refer to are not the ones which can be proven, as most of those are invariably tested at some point. What I am speaking of are the more ephemeral aspects of life, what is consciousness? Where does it come from? Is there an enduring soul? What is god? What is right? What is the self? these questions are typically either never asked or answered by some dogmatic principal which, conveniently, requires only faith to be true. A faith that is derived not from a true belief, but from a desire for comfort. that's my take on it anyways.

[Martyr]

That's called philosophy.If you want to avoid "dogmatic principles," then it means that you're looking at these questions from a scientific point of view. Also, you're looking at it from the only POV thaqt requires the questions to be asked.

This isn't anything new. You want to know what life is, right? Well, as I said, transcendence over life isn't immortality, it's death. You decide what you want more.

Geez, I can answer all those questions right now.
As far as the soul/God questions, those ideas are mostly originated in religions or are focused on religions. They should not be included in this questioning. So stop about that. Remember though, if there is a God that requires you to answer these other questions about life etc... Then the relevance of that God is absolutely trivial.

You are yourself. Because the ultimate meaning of life is selfishness, then what is right or wrong, from a POV absent from common law and religion, is determined by whatever is healthiest for you in any given circumstance. Mostly, your "self" is determined by your brain and thought process. When you see something happening, you probably feel something in relation which turns out to be your "opinion." How you act on that opinion determines what is right or wrong.All you have on your side is foresight, and, sometimes, an erroneous decision can only be realised as a wrong decision in hindsight.

But, otherwise, there is no universal right or wrong without a God. I mean, why would there be? You're going to die in 75 years. Faster is you work against the flow of humans and their society. So who the hell cares.

And consciousness? Maybe I can't answer that question. I think that falls into the section of currently unsolved, yet solvable, mysteries of neurology.

------------------

Anyway, this stuff is considered, and very frequently. Usually by over-educated pricks (Thus, I didn't call you one. I informed you that this is the topic of discussion for many an over-educated prick. They are a breed for whom I carry a great deal of resentment.). Most people who don't spend their entire lives in a University, absent from the real problems of the world, will debate this stuff. I suggest that you simply start thinking as practically as possible, because none of this information will help you.

-----------------------

On the next hand... You want to think outside the box. Give me an example of your creative views that may thrust us into a new enlightenment because, frankly, I have no idea how else these questions can be answered. I mean, what can you say? Our consciousness may be granted by some Overmind on Alpha Centauri? That our perception of right and wrong is completely inaccurate? That we should spend our lives lusting for sheep and training our stomachs for the ingestion of plastic? I really have no idea what you're trying to fathom here.

Ah, or is it the "technology question?" IS this about whether or not human technological advancement is the healthiest decision for the species. Are we depleting out resources too fast? Are we destroying ourselves by limiting our abilities to machine dependancy? This probably requires a whole new topic.
Perhaps you need separate topics to debate the actual separate schools of philosophical debate. Because I've never taken a class in philosophy, and I'd like to learn what some of the questions really are. (I've only asked the tech question because I hate obesity, and that was a long time ago.)

[Illuminatus]

Your stance on education irritates me Martyr. Learning is GOOD not BAD, but thats a discussion for another day. And I'm not an "over-educated prick" yet, so don't go there.

The infallibility of man is by no means a neccesity for our continued survival. John Calvin believed very much that humanity is evil, but he was one of the most influential reformers (this touches on religon, sorry).

I believe very much in the opposite of what you say. Humans are inherently evil, (and stupid) and we must fight that every step of our lives. Everything good that is produced by humans is done at great cost and takes much more time and effort than it would if we were infallible.

I'm sorry if I'm missing the point of the discussion, some of the posts here are difficult to decipher.

[Martyr]

I'm also a fan of education.
But I hate philosophers. Most philosophers I meet are Phds. They have doctorates. They've spent more than half their lives (If not their entire lives) studying the world and it's history etc. But they don't have hands on experience. Even those who have done hands on "observation" still have very little idea of how to solve the worlds problems, and they are always either on the side of politics or else they don't understand politics.
There is a group of over-educated, yet inexperienced people, and they can get control very easily, because they are very intelligent. Intelligence and education is a great thing. But it causes a lot of overpromotion.

But that's the only problem. Most people use education to learn about a topic, then they go and become the masters of that work. They produce with the utmost excellence, and then they can teach their knowledge or their profession to others.
Philosophers are worthless because, like I said, the problems are solved. We need practical scientists and creative writers. Not philosophy.

And I never said that people were infallable. I said that our hope and strife for perfection is our only hope for survival. That means that we must believe that infalability is possible, and that we can achieve it as individuals. That's regardless of how stupid we are to begin with.
As another person who believes in education, IHSP, I assume that you don't really believe that human stupidity is inherent. So quit the hopelessness attitude.

[Funka Genocide]

Martyr, your statement in your last thread basically restates my premise. "Striving for perfection is our only hope for survival." In order for this to occur we must believe in the possibility of perfection of man. My original statement is not one of mindless academic (oxymoron?) rambling, but of hope for human enlightenment. I think most people believe as IHSP stated, man is inherently "evil" and that "goodness" comes from... in order to stay away from religion as much as possible I'll say "elsewhere". I hate this view, people use it as both succor and weapon. I want to drop the facade of not being responsible for our own destiny.

And to comment on another point, I don't believe philosophy is all about speaking without action, or a bunch of overeducated smart asses making circles in a pool of logic. I think if everyone philosophised the world would be a better place, as asking why is the only way to learn. Another thing is the disregarding of important questions such as the ones I mentioned earlier. I can say simply that "I am me" but what does that mean? I think that these basic questions of existence can eventually be answered through logic, and perhaps even technology. i won't go into that here, but suffice it to say that philosophy is not a waste of time.

I just want to say that I have experienced life, real life, the kind that isn't always happy and manageable. I have seen what is called evil and what is called good, and above all I have seen the ignorance so loved by most. I am as ignorant as they, but I do not want to be, and that is my distinction.

after rereading your earlier post I have a few things to say, for one the statement that god is not a topic for science, on the contrary! As the predecessor to science I believe it could be the most important aspect of science. What I mean by this is that humanity has always looked for answers, so much so that they are willing to find them anywhere, even in there own imagination. Before there was research and hypothesis, there was faith. Two sides of the same coin really. just a note I wanted to make.

[Illuminatus]

As another person who believes in education, IHSP, I assume that you don't really believe that human stupidity is inherent. So quit the hopelessness attitude.

Oh but I do Martyr, but I do. The only way to battle that inherent stupidity is EDUCATION. I promise. Education solves EVERYTHING.

As for the whole man is good/evil/stupid, thats a matter of opinion. I personally see too many stupid assholes every day to believe there's any sort of inherent goodness in my fellow man. If you see goodness every day, then I imagine you would have that point of view. But I'm just not feeling it.

[Lucas]

uh, i wouldn't call humans inherantly stupid. i would, however, say that we're inherantly ignorant, which sorta looks like stupidity, but really isn't. in that respect, your education theory is correct. if, however, humans are stupid, then there's no amount of education that can help, because the education is coming from stupid people, and is, thus, stupid education.

if by stupid you mean irrational, then fine, that works, but you can't teach a person to be rational if he has no logic.

so what exactly do you define stupid as?

[Jagos]

So in summary, we listen and obey our superiors without question because our logic has told us from an early stage that it is best to listen to them to avoid pain, and because it is required in order for society to progress.
There are things that change this belief. For example, in my experience everyone in my family found out the hard way how to do things. Parental figures (mothers, grandmothers, etc.) basically were there to say "I told you so" or give advice on social interaction ("if you like her, ask her out!") for me.

Oh but I do Martyr, but I do. The only way to battle that inherent stupidity is EDUCATION. I promise. Education solves EVERYTHING.
No it does not. I've seen some overeducated mofos that have decided that they're smarter than me simply because of how I speak. Or from the words that I choose to use (fuck, shit...) I'm supposedly gonna be knocked back a step. Then when I start using words that vex their understanding, or explain something that makes them feel stupid for believing it, that's when they shut up.

A good teacher/leader understands that learning happens always. They also understand that you need time to assimilate knowledge. But learning just for the sake of saying "I'm smarter" does have its downfalls.

[Funka Genocide]

Thats a good point JC123. people are in a constant state of information assimilation. Whether they pay attention or not is a different thing. Also, education is just as dangerous as it is beneficial. there are many things which should never be learned by individuals of certain dispositions. A mad man who can make a nuclear bomb, a bully who knows martial arts, or an egotistical jerk with too many words at his disposal (he he). In the hands of the wrong person, knowledge is deadly.

and using word like fuck and shit is something everybody does, at least anybody who isn't so far removed from reality that they think "bad words" are evil.

I'm really surprised people are still posting here, i figured this topic would have died a while ago. (although the topic has strayed somewhat, its still in the same vein) Thanks for posting here!

[Illuminatus]

My definition of stupidity is very complex. It mostly involves doing stupid things. Being educated helps you see the inherent STUPIDITY in doing stupid things. Why do people inhale carcinogens? Why do they inbibe toxins? Why do they watch shitty television? BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID.

And JC123, there are exception to every rule. But as a matter of principle, someone being educated, I'm not talking PHd here, just HS or college, seriously improves their character. That doesn't mean that there aren't wonderful and smart uneducated people and overeducated idiots. I know many of both.

[cellar_door]

i find this all very reminisint of descartes meditations have you read it? its quite good but he is a very dry writer but anyway basicly he says goes and breaks down everything we think we know except his motivation for this was because if we dont know something for certain then it might be wrong and just the chance that it is wrong means we shouldnt just accept it, its a different motive but you seem to be going to the same ends, you should try and get a hold of the book though, i quite like it. personaly i feel that there are some things we dont question because they are just right there is something intrinicly right about them, we may not be able to understand why, but there is it's quite a sellout of an idea because its not so much of an arguement as a statement its right because it is right but we're not talking about moraly right here were just taking about beliefs arent we? sorry i didnt read through it all i just skimed
Martyr, why you gotta be so combative? i mean it might just be in the way that i'm reading your post but you aint sounding like much of a happy chap now are you, Zoamelgustar was simply putting forward an idea sure you might disagree with it but you can say so with out sounding so (i wanna say condisending but i dont think that quite captures it). you dont need to go on the offencive to show your intelegence. in short: chill man

[Lucas]

My definition of stupidity is very complex. It mostly involves doing stupid things. Being educated helps you see the inherent STUPIDITY in doing stupid things. Why do people inhale carcinogens? Why do they inbibe toxins? Why do they watch shitty television? BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID. its a whole lot stupider if those people are educated. having information and not acting on it is stupid, not knowing any different is ignorance. education doesn't fix stupidity, it increases it, but decreases ignorance. that is if you're using the "it takes a smart person to do something stupid" flavor of stupid.

[Illuminatus]

Look, I know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance I can excuse to an extent, but stupidity is inexcusable. It seems to me that the people who emerge from the educational system, while downtrodden and cynical, are less stupid than those who skip the process altogether.

BTW, it doesn't take a smart person to do something stupid. Stupid is stupid.

[Jagos]

wait a sec...

there are seriously some things that I can say look stupid. But our definitions might be different. Ex. I drink incohol socially. I usually don't drink by myself but it does happen. And even though my kidneys protest I still do it.

But in terms of skipping the educational system, I don't agree. I felt that public education seriously wasn't for me. Had I have not had a choice in a DoDDS school I may have just quit a long time ago. I was learning at an extremely slower pace than I should have. It was really a shock when I came to a DoDDs school and wasn't pampered and really TAUGHT something.

In those regards, I can understand why some people can feel that public education is seriously lacking. If they seriously want to learn, let them. However, I can't help the people that just say "fuck school" just because their friends do it. But it is a fact that in your older age, you begin to focus harder on school. My dad is an example of that.

[Lucas]

Look, I know the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance I can excuse to an extent, but stupidity is inexcusable. i think its stupid not to define stupidity, which is what i asked for a few posts ago. if you'd care to indulge me before we start argueing over the semantics of concepts that aren't the same in our respective minds, then please do before we waste more space.

[Martyr]

IHSP, I think that you're misinterpreting the actual definition of "inherent," which was the basis of my argument and, I think, Lucas's.
Inherent would be unteachable. Or, as Lucas said, only stupid teachings could occur.

We cannot be inherently stupid unless education is not the answer. Thus, people are only ignorant in the beginning. For example, you did not even know that the word "inherent" existed for the longest time before you started using it improperly.


That settled... One of my mottos is that we must never expect humans to do anything. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Now... I forgot what we should actually be discussing.

*Pending Edit*

Edit:
Right. Human fallability and the stupidity speedbump.

Look. Stupidity has nothing to do with good or evil. I see a lot more stupidity and a lot more bad things every day, and it's for a good reason.

EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT!

We think things are stupid that other people don't. We have different political affiliations, religions, education, finances, histories, cultures, lifestyles, environments.....
Stupidity cannot be justified by any one person. Not by any 1 million people.

We ought to make a thread about some things we each think are stupid. I bet anything we'll get into a fight sooner or later.

For example, I think that liquor is positively asinine. No exceptions. Also, I hate swear words. I use them as little as possible. I think that they detract from any argument, they show a lack of creativity and a loss for words, and I find them to be meaningless. Anybody who uses swearwords in art or music is stupid, in my opinion. Anybody who uses it in common speech has developed a stupid habit that should not be indulged in any way.
Maybe that won't offend many people. So I'll come out with it. Abortion is stupid.
BAM!
Argument. The conflict of logic, religion, culture, our individual sense of right and wrong or good and evil... It all comes out in one big, mindless argument! Because our opinions on all these things are different.

So.... Let me try to tie all this in with the fallability of mankind...

Um...

My argument stands. We strive for perfection. All we have is hope, and we can give thanks that the box was closed sooner than later.

Can we be perfect? I don't know. Ul;timately, we all fail to observe and cut somebody off. Ultimately, we are the bogus moron who is the fecal toxin of the human waste to that person, momentarily. With millions of people on the planet, everybody is making mistakes. It isn't stupidity, it's fallability. We cannot be perfect all the time. We cannot get 10 hours of sleep every night. We cannot be perfectly alert, perfectly fit, perfectly charismatic...

But we can try to be as good as possible.
"Good" is the wrong word. The word is "effective." We must try to be as effective as possible.

-------------------------------

Plus humans dominate earth. If a fox has a problem with that, let him come at me. I'll blow his pasty brains out. Whose the boss then!
You ask yourself that.

When aliens come to take earth, they'll have to kill every human first. It'll be our fault that we're dead, and not a single crime will the aliens have committed.

[Funka Genocide]

Well Martyr, if you'd like to know what we should be discussing, take it from me, the one who started this thing, its not inherent stupidity. I've seen the term pop up so many times in these posts that its getting to be repetitive, and stupid! I didn't put forth this idea to bring human stupidity and ignorance to the foreground. I stated this theory in the hope someone might have a little faith in humanities' potential. You, Martyr, seem the closest to having it, but you take it from a "well, what else was I gonna do" perspective. Its the right idea for the wrong reason. We are all people, and as such can be considered exemplars of our race for this discussion. What do you feel is right, are we simple, dumb animals that depend on chance and circumstance to achieve great things, or are we intelectual beings that hold our own destinies in our grasp? I put forth these sentences to see if anyone else would recognize the divine spirit of man, the driving force behind our ascension to the throne of creation. I see now that many believe mankind is not in control, that we are stupid and ignorant, and even those of us that remove some ignorance are gifted with more, in an endless cycle of knowledge without purpose. What sense does that make?

[Sithdarth]

I guess its time to explain the first qoute on my sig, which means I'm going to add in some of the words I left out for a reason. Basically it is this their are two types of people in this world. Those that believe they must act and those that can't help but act. The only difference between the two is the people that believe they must act have convinced themselves can't is no different than must. I guess what I'm saying is that humans are creatures of desire. Those that believe they have risen above that are simply fooling themselves. As long as humans have physical needs some part of their actions are always going to be driven by desire. The desire to eat, sleep, not get bored, interact with other people, and above all else the desire to live. More simply as long as man has physical needs he will never be infallable. We can strive all we want but nothing short of death, depending on your views, or ascendance to a non physical form of exsitence will ever change that. Not that all this is a bad thing; its simply the natural state of physical exsitence. Without a major shift like the ones mentioned above, or perhasp a breaking of the most basic laws of reality, humans and indeed all physical beings will suffer the same fallibility. So yeah infallibility isn't obtainable but the search for it certainly doesn't hurt. Stupidity, as perhasp it has been atempted to be defined here, is simply people that fall completely into the can't category; and for some strange reason have little or no concept of the must category. I'll leave off here as I am getting tired and to explain further would probably cease to make sense.

[Funka Genocide]

heh heh, I think I wrote something like Sithdarth just did in another post, the difference between men and women. Very insightful stuff (because I agree with it =) And yet, what is the point in striving for an unnatainable perfection? I wrote once to someone that "...its kind of like striving for an unnatainable perfection, we are made better for it even though its premise is one of futility..." I don't agree with that statement in this case, I know that man, the individual, is capable of forgoing his animal desires for a goal. he can give up his life for a stranger, he can save the life of a man who tried to kill him. He can forget his instinct and act as a purely intelectual being. I have seen things like this personally, as I'm sure everyone has, and it leads me to believe that these moments of perfection are just a hint of something greater. All of history man the species has acted in line with instinct, as a group we are, to put it bluntly, the best animal. I see the potential to transcend instinct in man, to remove the trapsings of the animal and become what we truly want to be. There is no need to remove all desire though, just find a way to make desire work in line with perfection, something that most will laugh at and dismiss off hand. I won't though, I know that somewhere in the collective human soul there is the seed of perfect harmony, it just needs the right environment to grow.

hey Sithdarth, don't be all snooty with it, go on and tell us everything you have to say, I promise I won't be left behind, lol, I'm pretty smart ya know!

[Sithdarth]

I stopped explaining because I stopped making sense to myself. That is very dangerous territory to wander into. Hence why I stopped there.

The people that attain so called acts of perfection simply fall into the highest category of must. They may be able to overpower their desires and instincts but no matter how much they deny them they are still there. Which was the crux of that entire statment. No matter how far surpressed they still have an impact. Now its hard to define these things because we are trapped in the same physical reference frame. We can't say for sure what a true act of perfection is we can only define a seemingly perfect act. This act would been influcened so little by physical desires that their influence is undetectable to those of us caught in a much stonger field of influence created by the same factors. Its much easier to detect gravity between two bodies in space than on Earth because the Earths gravitational pull has less effect. It would be even easier to determine the gravity from a frame of reference complete absent of gravity. The same rule applies here and like the above situation, were a reference frame of no gravity is not obtainable, a reference frame free of physical influence isn't possible while on still physically exsits.

Does that explain a little better?

[Funka Genocide]

its always physics with you Sithdarth. lol, I understand what you're saying though, basically the age old question, "what is perfection?" I don't think its an easy question to answer, in fact the answering of that question would probably be a revelation on par with armageddon, or Elvis coming back to life. To be honest, I have to agree with you, that we only know perfection from an imperfect vantage point, however, what perfection is applicable to humanity but human perfection? That which is most perfect about us is the goal. We need not even consider anything beyond that, because it would be irrelevent. To put it another way, if I drop a tennis ball from an airplane thousands of feet in the air, what is the maximum velocity it will achieve. We need only consider the gravitational acceleration and the air friction acting upon the tennis ball, all of which are defined. We do not need to consider what velocity it could attain without friction, or if it were continually acted upon by an external force, we could theorize it would reach the speed of light given the correct, hypothetical, circumstances. Those circumstances are not now, or will they ever be present, so there is no merit in considering them.

Sorry, I tried with the whole physics analogy, but I don't know jack about no physics yo!

and about the not making sense to yourself, I find I do some of my most interesting writing when I reach that point, although I must say that I'm not comfortable with being internally unintelligible. :b

[Illuminatus]

Very late apology:

Sorry about getting us off topic. If you really care, ask me about stupidity in a PM.

[Sithdarth]

Of course its always physics with me. I'm a physics major planning on getting a PhD and going into research. Heck I knew I was going to major in physics since the 4th grade and never once did that change. I know physics. I'm comfortable with it and its truths can often be quite universal. Physics is the new philosophy and mathmatics is its language, for the most part. If things continue has they are math and some great physicist are going to lead us to the utlimate truth of the universe. What ever that may be.

The little influence is completely negligable which is something we agree on. I'm not saying the little bit of selfish desire inherent in even completely selfless acts detracts in any way from the meaning. I just realised and pointed out the fact that true perfection is not really obtainable. Its like in calculas when you intergrate a complex cruve you get a very close estimate. This doesn't debunk the process or the answer. However, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that the perfect answer exsits and you have not yet found it. It was this very concept that gave us intergrals in the first place. Otherwise we would be doing huge summation and the like. (Hey I just used a math analogy.) If we settle for what we percieve as perfection we miss the opportunity for the possible discovery of a higher form of perfection. The first quote in my sig is to remind me and everyone that you only fail in obtaining perfection when you think you get there and stop striving forward, because no physical being, no matter its intelligence, can achieve absolute perfection.

[Illuminatus]

Of course its always physics with me. I'm a physics major planning on getting a PhD and going into research. Heck I knew I was going to major in physics since the 4th grade and never once did that change. I know physics. I'm comfortable with it and its truths can often be quite universal. Physics is the new philosophy and mathmatics is its language, for the most part. If things continue has they are math and some great physicist are going to lead us to the utlimate truth of the universe. What ever that may be.

The little influence is completely negligable which is something we agree on. I'm not saying the little bit of selfish desire inherent in even completely selfless acts detracts in any way from the meaning. I just realised and pointed out the fact that true perfection is not really obtainable. Its like in calculas when you intergrate a complex cruve you get a very close estimate. This doesn't debunk the process or the answer. However, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that the perfect answer exsits and you have not yet found it. It was this very concept that gave us intergrals in the first place. Otherwise we would be doing huge summation and the like. (Hey I just used a math analogy.) If we settle for what we percieve as perfection we miss the opportunity for the possible discovery of a higher form of perfection. The first quote in my sig is to remind me and everyone that you only fail in obtaining perfection when you think you get there and stop striving forward, because no physical being, no matter its intelligence, can achieve absolute perfection.

That was really brilliant Sid. Most of it. You're my hero for the day.

[Sithdarth]

The theory itself is simple and convincing. Actually putting this theory into practice is much harder. Heck I came up with it and I still have trouble following it. Of course the theory itself says thats perfectly ok as long as you don't stop striving for higher levels of perfection. At the very least it has given me a very accurate moral compass.

[Funka Genocide]

Excellent way of putting that Sithdarth, I think you are right about the eventuality of physics and math leading us to a greater understanding of truth, I myself would have probably become a mathematician were it not for my self imposed complications. So for now I just say off the wall contoversial stuff in the hopes that others will see where I'm going and keep heading that direction. I'll come up with some more weird things to talk about soon, you guys are the coolest! (even you Martyr, everybody loves a cynic, wait a second...)

[darkt0aster]

(CRAP i have to retype this)
I should have gotten in on this conversation earlier...

I don't see humans as inherently good or evil. Good and evil only exist because there exists more than one human. One can only see his/herself as one of these classifications because they are imposed by others. A truly independent individual only knows what actions should bring about a positive or negative experience.

Think back to the first humans.
They started out a solitary beings, doing whatever they had to in order to satisfy what they considered favorible. Then they started to group. With interaction came inevitible conflicts and discoveries. With each conflict and discovery came a resolution (made by the one/group that came out on top if it was a conflict). Groups paid attention to each conflict/discovery for fear of suffering a negative outcome that can come from going against each resolution and formed what we know as culture and morals. If one was expelled from a group for going against said culture or morals, they would either go back to their solitary life, or find a group that accepted the individual's general behavior. Or one might simply die, taking their concept of favorible actions to the grave.
From this history of groups and morals being formed, religion is born. People form a collective hope for their future endeavors to end in a positive fashion. People see that others share their views, and they together try to find ways to insure a good future.

Now we quickly move forward in time.
Nothing has changed, save for everything being on a larger scale and there have been a countless amount of conflicts and resolutions. Nations(not physically speaking per se) and their beliefs/religions/cultures have changed, spread, and even disappeared as a result of interaction with other nations. Ideas of good and bad have changed with each resolution and we're now living in a world of thouroughly mixed ideals created from the beforementioned history.

In each situation, there are 2 general choices
1) do what is considered good and recieve approval, and possibly reward with very minor (if any) negative consequence
2) do what is considered evil and anything can happen under the right circumstances
2a-the conception of good and evil can be changed
2b-you can be punished by society, receiving a very negative consequence
2c-you can obtain a better outcome than if you were to do what was considered good with little or no unfavorible elements.

I think it is entirely possible for humans to be fallible at some point. As our world mixes and merges, eventually a large enough portion of it's inhabitants will be the majority in decisions of what is good and evil. But what happens when the ideas of good and evil are wrong in the sense that humanity will be destroyed? By destroyed I mean no longer what it was; divided, more conflicts on previously decided upon ideals, etc.

Education comes into play in trying to prevent the destruction I mentioned even though most education helps us obtain a favorible outcome in our lives. ie, physics: you jump off a 100 ft cliff, it will hurt and you won't like it. It can be good, it can be bad. It all depends on application. Not all overeducated people are "pricks" in the eyes of some, but I'm not saying it's uncommon.

Perfection isn't that different. You can strive for it, but what is it? It's like good and evil. Merely a sense that is created by those in any given group. Perfection in the US is very different from perfection in a third-world country. One can hope to see themselves as better for working towards a perfection that is commonly wished for in their culture, but this is just people working towards what is considered good. If one were truly to work towards his/her individual idea of perfection (which still may be diluted from early childhood teachings as mentioned earlier) they'd only get as far as society would allow. You never hear about people being perfect, because there's always some disagreeable part about them to those around them. We'd all be "perfect" if there was noone else but us.

I apologize for making this so long, but i'm making the "evil" decision to type this at work while i'm bored. But why should I apologize and contribute to the conception of good and evil forum posting? I don't feel like I should apologize... besides, this took a lot of work and makes me feel much better now that a good portion of my thoughts are public. Speaking of which. It feels good for one to influence others. I could go off for another paragraph on this, but I feel I've gotten a sufficient amount of info across...

...for now.

[Funka Genocide]

Your view. Mr. Darktoaster, is one I am very familiar with, as it used to be mine. To take life from a perspective that good and evil are relative, is correct. To state that the concepts of good and evil, and examples of both could and will change, is also true. I wrote a poem about it a while ago actually. There is something deeper than the surface here though. To say simply that morality evolved along with humanity as a string of chance occurences is, from my view point, looking at things from the wrong angle. Consider this, survival of the fittest, dominance by the superior organism, is supposed to be the basis of evolution. Mutations occur in animals and these are at times helpful and other times a hindrance. Through the millenia these random aspects form the ecosystem of today. Does anyone else see something wrong with that? If that were true, then why would we not have one singular organism, one thing which represents life. Why do the ancestors of man coexist with him today? It seems that fate left some loose ends, almost like it was trying to hurry a process. What process? That is the question, where are we headed? The zenith of animal ability, so much so that we can hardly be considered animals anymore. We still are, but our capabilities set us so far apart that its like comparing an abucus to an Imac. Life has a goal, something It is striving towards, we are the latest to reach for that goal. I seek what could be called fate, God, truth. They are all the same thing, and if any of these things truly do exist, that means there is a right way, that good and evil are not just imagined concepts, but a part of our physical reality.

[Mattias]

I would have to agree that right and wrong is all relative to who is making the choice. Also i would like to know if Sith believes that mathematics is the worlds new religion. Meaning that with enough variables known one could know why we came to be and where we are going. I know I have thought of this well laying my head on a text book, wondering how I ever liked math at some point in my life.

That aside I would like some clarification on Zo's survival of the fittest statement.

Consider this, survival of the fittest, dominance by the superior organism, is supposed to be the basis of evolution. Mutations occur in animals and these are at times helpful and other times a hindrance. Through the millenia these random aspects form the ecosystem of today. Does anyone else see something wrong with that? If that were true, then why would we not have one singular organism, one thing which represents life. Why do the ancestors of man coexist with him today? It seems that fate left some loose ends, almost like it was trying to hurry a process.

Do you mean to say that why hasn's nature produced an organism that dominates all others and becomes the sole inhabitant of the planet. Or do you mean why hasn't nature produced an organism that is the fundamental example of what life is. Also when you say ancestors of man do you mean species like cro-magnun and homo-erectus, or do you mean apes such as chimpanzees. I'm sorry if this is alot to ask for the next reply. However I do think I can safely answer the end of your quiery.

Life has a goal, something It is striving towards, we are the latest to reach for that goal. I seek what could be called fate, God, truth. They are all the same thing, and if any of these things truly do exist, that means there is a right way, that good and evil are not just imagined concepts, but a part of our physical reality.

Truth, fate, good, evil, right, and wrong are all relative. (Family and friends would kill me if they heard me say that) Life is the pursuit of whatever you, the individual, would like to pursue. Hebrew Bible, Christian Bible, Koran, Torah, Buddhist and Confucist teachings (sorry dont know the offical name) have all been passed down to us by someone who wasn't actually there when it was created. All we can do is choose what we feel is right and follow it to the best of our ability, or not follow it, however the individual chooses. The end point is that we find something to keep ourselves going in a world where being overwhelmed is all to easy. Maybe I'm wrong and it's all a big terrible tragedy as tyler would say ( wonders if anyone got that).

p.s. sorry about my horrible spelling

[Funka Genocide]

to clarify: the predecessors to man I refer to are all life on this planet. every organism prior to man has been an attempt to achieve a higher level of existence. I believe we are the closest to achieving that level.

As a reply to your statement of evil and good being relative, that is true in practical application, all things written by man which claim to quote the devine are, in fact, written by man. (what a shock!) however, I believe that they do strike close to what god is. As we are the newest iteration of life, we are the closest to perfection, so it is possible to perceive that underlying will that drives the universe. Our insights approach the devine, so to speak.

does this help?

[Sithdarth]

Time to warp you primative minds. It is fairly certain that life started in the tidal pools where waves caused chemicals to come together into simple protiens and the like. Eventually this reached a point when the individual chemical processes had to compete for resources. The reactions that did this better forced out the ones that didn't and some even combined to form new ones. Now all this led eventually to single cells that were a mass of chemical reactions working together. Than further on cells bonded together. The end process was well us. So at a basic level all life is just chemical reactions competing for dominace and resouces. Kinda puts a few things in perspective. However, even if life didn't begin this way all life, on its most basic level, is a collection of chemical reactions. In fact we owe are entire existance to the properties of a single element. (Extra points if you can name it.) In this context god and evil, right and wrong, they have no meaning. So it is easier just to forget this and assume some higher purpose for our awareness. I'd like to think there is some higher reason but of yet I have not found one better than striving for perfection. Orignally perfection meant the perfect reaction but with our greater grasp our minds have sought new forms of perfection. Our bodies, however, may still be striving for that first notation of perfection. That is of course, if our minds don't get in the way.

Those ancestors of man you mention weren't so much ancestors. They are more like branches on the family tree. There was a common ancestor but we have yet to pin it down. Also, we did not evolve from chimps or other apes we evolved with them from a species that should no longer exsit.

Math can't really take the place or religion. It can help in the basic understanding of the universe that could lead to a new religion like theory. Math in of itself cannot provide the answers that religion can.

[Funka Genocide]

as in depth and erudite as that summation is, don't you find it a bit simplistic? whats the purpose in chemical reactions with feelings? lets see if I can write this down in a somewhat cohesive passage...

Life, protein strands which seek to multiply themselves and adapt to an ever changing environment, stands as an anomaly to the rest of the physical universe. What other construct has self interest? None that I can name. And yet, it is not permanence which life seeks. All matter in the universe remains, in a different state perhaps than when it was formed, but it exists none the less. An organism is something greater than a substance, or even a collection of substances. I'm sure its escaped no one that we are not composed of our original matter. We are in a constant state of physical flux. So it seems logical to state that we are not simply the most selfish molecules, we are not chemicals which want to remain stagnant. So we are simply processes? Fair enough, we are a system. There are innumerable systems at work in our reality, planetary rotation, galactic drift, wind patterns, crystal formation. All of these things are repetitive sytems, self organising by the laws of physical reality. yet, if you were to interrupt any of them, would they be able to evolve? They would change, but would there be any way to stop entropy from destroying the system? I believe not, and I believe that living things are the only systems able to forgo entropy. As we possess self interest, we can change on demand, in order to continue to exist. So life is to me the only system capable of overcoming the inevitability of decay. We, as humans, are the penultimate expression of self preservational ability. We possess the ability to overcome any random introduction into our system. From a cold day to the explosion of our sun. It may seem that this statement is enough of an answer to the question "what is life?" but there is no point to simple existence, so there must be more to it. Why does a system need the ability to exist forever? There is a goal to life beyond living, and thats what I'm talking about here.

hope that made sense! :B

and its Carbon! do I get bonus points?

[Lucas]

What other construct has self interest? pretty much everything that has varied states of energy. why would an electron shoot off photons unless it really didn't want to rest in a low orbital? you can say that the unstable new orbital pairing gives a drop in electron screening and increases the nuclear force on the remaining electrons and that forces an overall drop in orbital volume, which leads to a greater density of negative charge, which forces the stratification of the cloud, which forces the photon to leave. you could say that, but you could also say that in the same way life isn't self interested at all, it just does what it does not because of itself, but because of the laws that exist in the universe governing the pieces that constitute a living being.

I believe that living things are the only systems able to forgo entropy. So life is to me the only system capable of overcoming the inevitability of decay. We, as humans, are the penultimate expression of self preservational ability. We possess the ability to overcome any random introduction into our system. From a cold day to the explosion of our sun. we burn out after 100 years, protons take like 10^50 times longer. advantage proton. even if we decide to last until all the stars are gone, the constituents of our bodies will decay on an atomic level, barring that, they will decay on a subatomic level. regardless: life won't exist forever, nor will it survive something as inconsequential as our planet being towed into the sun tomorrow. humanity, as well as the rest of life isn't some hardy and powerful force: its weak and fragile.

NB: not all life needs carbon, and i'd vote for hydrogen before carbon on the "important for us having gotten made" list

[Sithdarth]

Lucas gets the points. Carbon is a very high on the needed for life scale but hydrogen does two things that set it far apart. One in fuses easly under the correct conditions and releases quite a bit of energy. (It forms stars quickly and much better than anything else.) With out Hydrogen bonding DNA could not exsit. Its Hydrogen bonds that keep the two sides of the double helix together. Hydrogen bonds also allow the formation of proteins from RNA. So with out those two properties life has basicly no chance.

Yes our minds and feelings were a side effect of the overall process. As the need to find reactants increased the reactions had to become more aware of there surrondings. Thus sensory organs developed. As these organs became started collecting more and more data was to process it had to be made. Eventually this led to brains. Now emotions are a link between then decision making part of your brain and the stimulas processing center. If you had to process all the data you would never be able to make a decision. So the brain does it then sends emotions that the decision making part knows mean certain things. So the purpose of feelings is to help keep us from overloading on imput. This may be one of the biggest hurdles in selfguiding robots. They get all sorts of info the just can't use it usefully like we can.

[Mattias]

(Too much Chemistry, horrible flashbacks or Dr. Wirz's class, Brain will explode in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Oh wait I can have a little input now)

Interesting where sith decided to take the thread for a little bit. Not that I dont agree with it, it does happen that that all works into my own working theory of the universe, but I would like to take this a little more to where I was heading with my last entry if you guys dont mind. After all the fallibility of man is quite certain if you talk about it on a purely biological level. Or does it... Oh well ill leave that for your responses whatever they may be.

every organism prior to man has been an attempt to achieve a higher level of existence. I believe we are the closest to achieving that level.

I can see where you are going with this but alas I cannot see my cats walking around me as looking for divine intervention. Merely a want for food and attention from time to time. For myself I believe we as humans are the only organism who strives for perfection, all of creation was meant to focus on us and our goal to reach heaven, nirvana, or whatever you wish to call it. I do agree that on some level that every individual human strives for perfection in what they believe, christianity, islam, buddhist, cherokee, or athiest (have religiously athiest friends if that makes any sense).

I hope that there is an actual strive for perfection like I just stated. I really hope that the all my beliefs and emotions arent just a fallout of the decision making part of your brain and the stimulas processing center as Sith has stated. I guess It can be called an obsticle towards perfection, the battle against earth bound postulates. Whatever I'm hungry and I will stop here for now.

P.S. sorry about my horrible spelling

[Funka Genocide]

I was going to say hydrogen, but I just went with the simple answer, the stereotypical chemical basis for life, I should have known you'd get all complicated with it :)

and as a rebuttal to Lucas: To state that an atom chooses to lose energy, to say that it has a conscious say in its state, is a fallacy. Consciousness is derived from a summation of systems. To use a mechanical analogy, I have several levers, springs, and wheels, I also have potential chemical energy in the form of gasoline, and an electric potential derived from a DC battery. If I place all of these components beside eachother, without any cohesive construction or interaction, they will be able to perform there individual tasks, but nothing greater than that. If I toss this whole bundle of mechanical paraphernalia into a sack and toss it down a hill, the entire collection will possess kinetic energy, but this will not be a product of its mechanical properties, it will simply be coincidental motion due to the bundles position. Now if I take all of these disparate parts and combine them in a logical order, I will form a combustion engine which uses its produced torque in order to spin wheels which will move this construct under its own motive force. the human mind is the same, its relatively simple components are combined in such an extraordinary fashion that they can produce effects far greater than the sum of their parts. To say simply that we are chemical processes which seek to continue processing, is also a fallacy.

and as a comment on your "advantage proton" statement, I have already mentioned that the purpose of individual life is not permanence, life is the most fleeting of things in existence. It is the sytem which will endure, because it seeks perfection, and will inevitably reach it. The man is weak, mankind is the strongest force in existence.

[Lucas]

To state that an atom chooses to lose energy, to say that it has a conscious say in its state, is a fallacy. then prove to me that your choices are logically a conscious choice, and not the predestined flow of natural forces set in motion from whatever start you want to imagine without defining it as such.

Consciousness is derived from a summation of systems then the earth is conscious, and so are stars.

It is the sytem which will endure, because it seeks perfection, and will inevitably reach it. The man is weak, mankind is the strongest force in existence.
no it won't & no it isn't. i'm not supporting that since you didn't support your statement, and since you can't support your statement, my six word rebuttal will stand.

If I toss this whole bundle of mechanical paraphernalia into a sack and toss it down a hill, the entire collection will possess kinetic energy, but this will not be a product of its mechanical properties, it will simply be coincidental motion due to the bundles position. Now if I take all of these disparate parts and combine them in a logical order, I will form a combustion engine which uses its produced torque in order to spin wheels which will move this construct under its own motive force. so an engine doesn't work without actually being assembled? gasp! you assume too much when you say that the kinetic energy of the falling bag is a simple coincidental motion. first off, you fail to define a crux of utility. without that, a falling bag is just as good as an engine. second, your analogy fails to provide a reason for the utility behind the actions of man as opposed to the energy is he made of. again, you can't really argue that a person is better than a hunk of energy, since there's no standard that you'll have to impose which is incontravertible.

To say simply that we are chemical processes which seek to continue processing, is also a fallacy. chemicals don't seek anything. they just act and react in accordance with natural law, as do we. i've never seen gravity take a break and let me float into space, so i'm guessing these forces might still be running the show, just as they did for the entirety of the universe before life.

PS. advantage proton

[Funka Genocide]

hey Lucas, stop me if I'm wrong, but I think you just contradicted yourself.

pretty much everything that has varied states of energy. why would an electron shoot off photons unless it really didn't want to rest in a low orbital?

then prove to me that your choices are logically a conscious choice, and not the predestined flow of natural forces set in motion from whatever start you want to imagine without defining it as such.

chemicals don't seek anything. they just act and react in accordance with natural law, as do we. i've never seen gravity take a break and let me float into space, so i'm guessing these forces might still be running the show, just as they did for the entirety of the universe before life.

So an electron wants to rest in a low energy orbit, and yet it does not seek to? interesting premise you have there...

and as for a crux of utility, I supposed that was obvious, to the point of not being mentioned, but if you want to pick my words apart go right on ahead.

And if everything I do is in accordance with some cosmic design, wouldn't that prove the existence of fate? Is that not what I'm searching for? However, since we can only observe the now, as it is all that exists, we can never determine what will happen, as this is true, the consideration of knowing fate before understanding the system of fate, is pointless. We cannot see the end before we see the beginning, so if I were able to define the start, I would have the answer I'm looking for. Your statement is like saying to a thirsty man "you should drink some water" and then offering him none.

And you take my statement incorrectly, you say:

then the earth is conscious, and so are stars.

to which I reply that consciousness is a system composed of other integrated sytems, not all integrated sytems are consciousness, its a rather simple idea actually.

and if you would like support for my statement:

It is the sytem which will endure, because it seeks perfection, and will inevitably reach it. The man is weak, mankind is the strongest force in existence.

then refer to the rest of this thread, its what I've been talking about all along. I will make this note, you are moving around in circles, trying to disprove other peoples ideas at the cost of reason, you quite easily contradict yourself with total conviction. this leads me to believe that you are not truly thinking about waht you are posting, just being argumentative. I would appreciate if you would put a little more thought into your platform before presenting it, instead of only thinking about destroying mine. thank you.

[Lucas]

i'd like for you to put the quotes one, because reading that is hella confusing.

So an electron wants to rest in a low energy orbit, and yet it does not seek to? interesting premise you have there... take a chem class, then tell me what the common usage for the term "want" in regards to electron orbitals, and lowest energy states is. if you'd rather that i say "is in essence bounded by the most probable future" instead of "want" then sure, i'll do it. it'll take up huge tracts of space, and it'll bring more semantics in, but hey... that's not a problem, is it?

However, since we can only observe the now, as it is all that exists, we can never determine what will happen, as this is true, the consideration of knowing fate before understanding the system of fate, is pointless isn't that what i've been getting at? you can't prove or disprove fate, as you stated, which makes it a prime target for exposing the same unprovable reasoning you used in your arguments. saying that humanity is the strongest force in the universe can't be proven in a similar fashion. basically i'm stating that you're assuming far too much, and that you give no regards to the uncertainty behind your argumentation.

to which I reply that consciousness is a system composed of other integrated sytems, not all integrated sytems are consciousness, its a rather simple idea actually. i know its a simple idea, which is why i'm wondering why you didn't actually argue it properly the first time. your statement was arbitrary and disputable, so you got called on it. period.

then refer to the rest of this thread, its what I've been talking about all along. i did, and you proved squat all. you banter about things, but never actually get logical links developed due to your habit of assuming way too much. please, don't tell me to read the thread when i already have.

I will make this note, you are moving around in circles, trying to disprove other peoples ideas at the cost of reason, you quite easily contradict yourself with total conviction. this leads me to believe that you are not truly thinking about waht you are posting, just being argumentative. I would appreciate if you would put a little more thought into your platform before presenting it, instead of only thinking about destroying mine. thank you. is it moving in circles to note that your argumentation isn't logically sound? no, its not. instead of glossing over the points i made, i'd like you to actually try to refute them. saying that i'm destroying your arguements and not thinking in the same breath is sorta stupid as a debate tactic, because its clearly a case of you evading my arguements.

besides, my platform is crystal clear: "just say NO to assumption"

[Funka Genocide]

so is it just that you don't agree with me, or are you simply looking for an indisputable truth? What is your indisputable truth?

[Sithdarth]

First off you might want to drop the atomic level example. When you get down that low there are no steady rules. We can make generalizations that appear to be right when observed from our macroscopic world, but thats it. There really is no such thing as an orbital. The electrons postion is totaly random and differnt energy levels are represented more by shape than by distance. There is actually quite a lot of overlap, which doesn't matter because electron charge keeps them from hitting each other. Anyway on the atomic level an electron follows only the laws of electromagnitism, as far as we can tell, and does somethings that can't really be explained. For example, as an electron goes into a lower energy state it speeds up by enough to cancel out the increased electromagnetic force. Nowhere else in nature is behavior like this observed and we are not quite sure way it happens. Just that it has to or else atoms would collasp.

Sure you can prove fate. The furture and the past both exsit. For example, say you start a wave moving in one direction in a pool of water. Now lets take this a step further and say someone is sitting in the water, but not moving, the wave is going up and down under him. Then he is lifted by helicopter back to the origin of that wave. Where he creates a new one. Then was air lifted back to where he was. Lets also assume that the helicopter moves at the speed of the waves. So when he arrives he finds the wave he created and not the one he left. Basically, for one to travel in time whould require that one was in someway detached from the normal time flow. Now anyother people that were around him whould also get hit by this wave. Meaning the conditions that exsited to make him leave still exsit but much farther ahead, and he finds a much different world when he arrives back. I'm assuming the helicopter can't move faster than the wave front, or slower for that matter, because the only way to manipulate time enough for time travel is through moving at the speed of light. This can be acomplished by traveling fast or slowing light down but the effect is the same. So you can go back and change things but it creates a new temporal reality for you to exsit in. Now traveling to the future isn't hard just travel near or at the speed of light. You kind of catch the front of the wave and travel with it. Stopping time for you, or the up and down motion relative to your position. Simply moving backward is not possible because that requires you move faster than the wave. Right now we are moving, relatively speaking, at the same speed as the wave but in the other direction. Hope that makes a little sense and explains how the future and past exsit even though we can't really see them.

As for assumption without it there is no logic. The entire foundation of logic. Logic is the formation of statments based on the analysis of data. In other words an assumption. You can put as much factual evidence behind it as you want but it is still an assumption. The only way to prove it is to test it in the real world. But thats not using logic that is using expirementation. So to tell someone not to argue with logic and not make assupmtions is contridictory. The only thing you get then is statistics that can be used to prove anything. To enter into a logical debate and ask that no one make assumptions is like saying you want someone to walk without moving. Now one can assume to much and not support it, and you can disagree with an assumption. However, an outright ban on assumption completely stops this debate cold. I fear now that in attempting to refute some points I am running short on room so I'll stop for now.

[Lucas]

Logic is the formation of statments based on the analysis of data. logic is also a nice branch of mathematics that doesn't rely on assumption. again, this is semantics. i'll throw the primary assumptions out, since i didn't bring those up(primary being the validity of our primary senses and the potential for rational functions). granted, logic isn't easy to work about if you're manipulating at primary, but to say that humanity is the strongest force in the universe isn't even close to logical. it's got no real basis other than we feel like tooting our own horn.

To enter into a logical debate and ask that no one make assumptions is like saying you want someone to walk without moving no, it really isn't. if you say something like "assuming humanity is the only entity in which each member has consciousness, then humanity must be distinct from the rest of existance" isn't the same thing as going "we are the strongest omfgs pwned!". first off, it highlight the schism, and allows for real discussion to happen. second, it clarifies the context and boundaries underwhich the assumptions are being used, and how they are being used. didn't you notice i said there was a lot of missing argumentation? that's what i'm talking about.

The furture and the past both exsit assumption that time is linear. that was the first step of your "proof" and already you let a hole in. apart from that, you don't actually tackle the main irrefutable/provable point that fate is hinged on: the preordination of all existance in accordance with a pre-set path, in which each action, reaction and event was to be from the start. basically you're saying that time keeps chuggin' along, which is great and all, but you can't prove that time MUST continue moving, and that everything happening HAD to have happened. if your example showed that the guy on the water had no choice but to visit the origin of the wave, then maybe, but i'm thinking he could have just as easily taken a swim at the present, thus giving him more than one potential future.

Nowhere else in nature is behavior like this observed and we are not quite sure way it happens. happens quite often in orbiting bodies affected by more than one non-trivial sources of gravity.

And about the shapes of orbitals, they aren't even shapes that correspond to the totallity of the area the electrons can be in, they're normally the area of 90% probability in which an electron would be found. again, if you want to go and make me write a 23 line paragraph on how the electron is obeying a natural law, and in such is bound by said law, then please ask me to. i can bring up plenty of cute little technical flaws in your analogies too, only that i'd rather attack the points they're trying to make, than waste time on semantics.

so is it just that you don't agree with me, or are you simply looking for an indisputable truth? What is your indisputable truth? i don't agree with you, and your logical conclusion isn't a real logical conclusion.

because, if we haven't forgotten, my original point was that

you could also say that in the same way life isn't self interested at all, it just does what it does not because of itself, but because of the laws that exist in the universe governing the pieces that constitute a living being.

ie. life isn't something special, but rather just the result of natural laws on the universe.

[Sithdarth]

Crap, I didn't mean you could prove fate but rather answer the question as it to if it exsited. I was trying to illustrate the point that time could changed if one were to able to generate the right circumstances. Know what it just hit me there is no way to answer the fate question. Any answer you could give is subject to the what if he was fated to do that question. Personaly I detest that argument because it is a cop out.

I was refering to the 90% probability orbitals but was trying not to have to explain differential equations and partial derivitives.

The planet example isn't the same thing. For one planets don't shift there orbits very easy and when they do it usually pretty disastrous. Also, planetary system only have to deal with on force, gravity, even if there is more than one source. In an atom every electron and the nucleus generates two forces. Gravity pulling in and electromagnetism pulling in. (We must remember that gravity is much much weaker than electromagentism. On planetary scale gravity seems strong until you realise we can use small magnets to lift things away from earths pull.) Taking this into account the electromagnetic force in an atom is stronger than the gravity. Meaning any acceleration due to gravity from being closer shouldn't be enough to keep the electron from falling into the atom. In fact on that scale gravity is almost no exsitant. So comparing it to a planetary system doesn't really work.

Mathmatical logic still relies on assumption. The logical operators like and or or are assumptions by there very nature. (If this is true and that is true then the result is true, a pretty big assumption if you ask me.) They can be proven expirmentaly but its still an assumption in the begining. I admited some of the assumptions made in this thread were pretty big. Now working in what you call primary could be possible in math logic, thats how it was developed after all. However, we are not using math logic here. In the real world logic requires much higher assumptions than math logic. Now you can disagree with an assumption and ask for support, but lack of support doesn't make an arugment illogical.

There is plenty of evidence in our experience that would lead most people to belive that humanity is the stronest force in the universe so far. We have taken our frails bodies to extremes that we shouldn't have ever been to. Now there could be other life out there even greater than us. But there is not yet any support for that claim. So by your own rules there it isn't logical to assume man isn't the strongest force in the universe. So then we are left at an impass unable to define anything. Where did anyone ever say anything so flaming as pwned. It might not have been pharsed exactly how you wanted it but that doesn't make it wrong.

Your main point is kind of what I was getting at in one of my earlier posts. Except that life can be both self interested and a result of natural law. For example, life was created as a result of natural processes but the will to live is very self interested. If life wasn't self interested in this manner it would have vanished long ago.

[Funka Genocide]

heh, as a point of (trivial) interest, I never meant for this to be a debate. I was just thinking in writing. I, however, can not help but argue, it is one of my favorite things to do. This thread is a breeding ground for disagreement with me, as such I enjoy it greatly. When others disagree with me, it does one of two things, it either changes my mind or strengthens my conviction. This statement goes without saying, but I said it anyways! This thread reads as a conversation with me would typically go, at points insightful, yet wholly disintegrated, there is very little cohesion in these statements. To take the content of this post and view it as a scientific debate, accordant to any rules which apply to such a thing, would be incorrect. The views stated here were not meant to stand up to meticulous, systematic perusal. They are a statement more of feeling than logical hypothesis. This being said, I could coolate my theories into a much more scientific construct. Perhaps I will at a later time, but for now I am simply goofing around with them in a free form environment. One in which I have imposed no set rules as to how to present yourself. These words are not meant as admission to defeat, they are meant as a statement of fact. The fact that trying to disprove something which was never proved is kind of silly.

here's another question Lucas, what is special? if not life then what, nothing? You think in such a narrow fashion. ?You can't disprove everything, you'll only be left with nothing.

[Lucas]

The fact that trying to disprove something which was never proved is kind of silly. i didn't disprove anything, i just stated that you assumed too much. i think i actually spent 3 posts forcing the fact that the things that you're stating aren't statements that can be defended, but instead have to rely on pure opinion. sith got my point on fate, but it took quite a while to hammer it in.

here's another question Lucas, what is special? if not life then what, nothing? You think in such a narrow fashion. ?You can't disprove everything, you'll only be left with nothing. define special, and avoid trying to comment on my style of thinking after you make a pseudo admission that your argumentation was indeed deserving of the critique i gave it. makes you look petty.

So comparing it to a planetary system doesn't really work. uh, yes it does. basically switch gravity for electromagnetic, and electromagnetic for gravity.

but lack of support doesn't make an arugment illogical. it, however, renders an argument into a truistic base. i can say the sky is evil, but without proof, you can't really attack that statement's validity, since you'll have to make up my reasons, then break them down.

Mathmatical logic still relies on assumption. no.. it relies of definition. big difference

If life wasn't self interested in this manner it would have vanished long ago. uh, wrong.

[Sithdarth]

You can't switch gravity and electromagnitism. They are two completely different things. Gravity is inherent in all things and the attraction is always mutual. Electromagnitism varies in how it is expressed depending on the substance. Sometimes the force repels and sometimes it attracts. Also, it effects different materials in differing intensity. You can't just switch one out for the other. Read a good physics text book and you will see what I mean. In fact my chem text book says enquote The kinetic energy of an electron is inversely related to the volume of the region to which it is confined. This phenomenon has no analog in classical mechanics, but it helps to explain the stability of the hydrogen atom. The electrostatic energy decreases; that is, it becomes more negative. If this were the only factor, the electron should radiate energy and "fall" into the nucleus. However, the kinetic energy is increasing at the same time, because the electron is moving within a smaller volume. The two effects oppose each other; at some point a balance is reached and the atom is stable.

Ok so if life wasn't interested in self preservation then how would we have survived. If living things didn't care about death than prey wouldn't run from predators or make sure they didn't drown after falling into water or avoid a fatal fall. So your trying to tell me that the laws of nature would keep an animal going even if the members of the species were totaly devoid of self preservation.

[Lucas]

You can't switch gravity and electromagnitism. in this example, yes you can. you displayed a system in which equilibrium is reached via unknown methods involving proximity and a dominant attractive force being negated by tangential velocity. i noted one that works in just that way, yet in which we've noted and observed the phenomenon of speed/orbit equilibruim. i'm not saying gravity and electromagnetism are the same, duh. i'm saying that what you mentioned isn't something that we haven't met elsewhere in nature. context is important when trying to reply. EDIT: oh, and draw your FBDs!

Ok so if life wasn't interested in self preservation then how would we have survived. If living things didn't care about death than prey wouldn't run from predators or make sure they didn't drown after falling into water or avoid a fatal fall. So your trying to tell me that the laws of nature would keep an animal going even if the members of the species were totaly devoid of self preservation. worked pretty well for bacteria, which have no central nervous system, so i don't see why it'd be so hard to apply on more complex forms of life, especially seeing as bacteria is still the most successful organism to ever exist in terms of adaptability, biomass, efficiency, and sheer quantaty.

[Sithdarth]

Looks like I have to clarify what the text book said. It said there is no classical analog to explain the kinetic energy increase. Planetary motion is described by classical mechanics. Also, the kinetic energy of the electron increases, not the velocity. (Ok so the velocity increases a little but not enough to account for the increased energy seeing as electrons orbit at basically the speed of light.) In a planetary system kinetic energy and velocity increase as one moves closer to the gravitational center. Furthermore, we must not forget electrons don't really orbit. They randomly appear in certain probabable locations around the atom, a very big difference.

One of the conditions of life states that to be alive the originism must be aware of stimuli, both good and bad, and react accordingly. (Before you start plants do this by growing toward light, for one.) Now if that isn't some basic form of a will to live I don't know what is. Without this bacteria would blissfully head into toxic waste or away from food and die off.

Um. What exactly is the FBD reference as it escapes me at the moment.

Edit: You know what? I think I'm the person mainly responsible for this thread heading off course. I kinda of started this tangent a page or so back, and replies to that post by other people (and replies to those replies by other people) have lead us here. Interestingly enough this is exactly what happens in my brain when I start thinking, which is probably why it happened. Zoamelgustar I apologize if this tangent has in anyway caused hard feelings. That one post was like a ripple in the ocean that turned into a 40ft wave.

[Lucas]

One of the conditions of life states that to be alive the originism must be aware of stimuli, both good and bad, and react accordingly. (Before you start plants do this by growing toward light, for one.) Now if that isn't some basic form of a will to live I don't know what is. Without this bacteria would blissfully head into toxic waste or away from food and die off. aware? i'd rephrase that. if you're advocating that bacteria know what's going on around them in a cognitive sense, then you're probably wrong, since bacteria don't have close to the complexity needed to be aware of things in that way. when i can describe upwards of 90% of the chemical reactions that take place in a bacterium by leafing through an elementary human biology workbook, i'd venture to say that bacteria are very explainable in terms of chemical processes. looking at them in that way also makes the lighting to soup theory of creation seem mildly plausible, but that's a tangent. if, on the otherhand you mean that as a result of the chemical processes and the effects their surroundings have on them, a living organism would act a different way, then you're saying that which i've been saying all along.

Furthermore, we must not forget electrons don't really orbit. They randomly appear in certain probabable locations around the atom, a very big difference. to be precise, we've got no clue what they do: they might travel in defined paths, but we can't detect it. on the otherhand, they may simply be waves (in addition to the ease of description in the electron waveform model), in which position and relative energy aren't as important, and the concept of distance from the nucleus becomes average distance, and the wave itself is constantly pivoting around equilibrium. but this really isn't important at all, unless you want to tie it into the discussion, which i don't really care to do, since my original point about assumption was made.

[Funka Genocide]

hard feelings? hell no! this thread has been one of the funnest things I've done in a while. It goes all over the place, I hardly have to think to post, I just sort of start typing and stuff shows up. Its very natural in its progression, at least in my view. It really does help to have people so adamant on tearing what I say apart, it helps me see the weaknesses in my statements, if I ever want to do more than just talk I'll have to be able to explain all angles of what I'm saying and support everything.

Lucas, you're a really smart person, just a bit of a stickler for protocol, protocol which I have no knowledge of. I don't know how to phrase a bullet proof statement, or what the rules of engagement are in a scientific or philosophical debate. I just wing it using my personal experience as my guide, I don't have any sort of higher education under my belt, in fact I dropped out of high school in 10th grade, so I am most definitely at a loss to combat your refutations of what I say, its good to be the loser sometimes. I have learned a lot from this prolonged conversation, so thank you for educating me to some degree in "the rules of the road" I truly appreciate it. No hard feelings right?

So, in closing, this was fun everybody, and keep striving for your own personal perfection, whatever that may be.


P.S. why in the world is everybody arguing about the structure if atoms, its actually quite funny when I go back and read this thing, like a bunch of little kids received superhuman brain power and starting having a conversation, lots of luminous statements, yet ni direction whatsoever. LOL, I see its not just me that forgets what I'm arguing about, its good to find people of a similar disposition. :D