-
Images
Malaikat Maut
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by Malaikat Maut
-
-
As a followup to my previous post, I just recalled some additional information. Awii had said, "a sun is not necessary for what we might term as "life." Only a source of energy". This is not at all accurate. First, all known life forms are carbon based. Second, if it weren't for stars the universe would be filled with little else but hydrogen.
What I really came back to say, however, is that the existence of carbon itself is an absolute wonder. Which quite possibly means that the existence of any elements heavier than carbon (which has an atomic number of only 6) is also miraculous. From an article on the topic:
[i]Carbon, the "element of life," is produced only by miraculous nuclear reactions taking place in the core of huge stars. If there were no such reactions, there would not be carbon-or any other elements-in the universe and therefore, no life. We say "miraculous" because these transformations cannot take place under normal conditions, but require a combination of the most improbable factors.
Carbon atoms are produced in the core of huge stars by a two-tier process. First, two helium atoms fuse to produce a transitional element with four protons and four neutrons called beryllium. When a third helium atom fuses with beryllium, they produce a carbon atom with six protons and neutrons.
The beryllium atom produced in the first stage of this process is different from the beryllium atoms found on Earth, since the element beryllium listed in our periodic table boasts one additional neutron. The unusual beryllium isotope found in red giants has long puzzled scientists, since it is extremely unstable, so much so that it disintegrates 0.000000000000001 (10-15) seconds after it was formed.[/i]
Source: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/chain/chain2b.php -
Form a philosophical perspective:
I've mentioned the anthropic principle on these boards before, and this is an anthropic question. It's impossible (or illogical I guess) to ask "why the sun" because if it weren't for the sun you wouldn't be here to question why it's here.
From a scientific/cosmological perspective:
In order to get to the bottom of the "why the sun" question, you'd first need to question just about every aspect of physical law. The force of gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, the laws of thermodynamics, etc, etc. I once read an interesting article discussing something similar:
http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers-page-1-1_1230.html -
Like a lily among thorns is my Peace among the young women.
How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from the hills of Golemus. Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn, coming up from the washing. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone. Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate. Your neck is like Wind's Sanctuary, built with courses of stone; on it hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies. Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of incense. You are altogether beautiful, my darling; there is no flaw in you.
You have stolen my heart, my Queen, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. How delightful is your love, my Queen, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume more than any spice! Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like the fragrance of Marble Dale.
How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s Daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle. Your neck is like the Oak Tower. Your eyes are the pools of dark water by the gate of Necrovion. Your nose is like Wind's Sanctuary looking toward the desert. Your head crowns you like Mount Kelle'tha. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held captive by its tresses. How beautiful you are and how pleasing, my love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.
__________________
A plagiarized version of The Song of Solomon. I could have written something original, but the rules don't specify and this is such a wonderful blend of humor and romance.
Every now and again I'll tell my wife that her hair is like a flock of goats...it's in the Bible gentlemen, I suggest you try this and see how it goes. -
Being Valentine's Day proper, I figured I'd weigh in again. I've a question for those of you who readily resign yourselves to being no more than a series of chemical reactions:
To what extent do we control the reactions taking place?
If the answer is, "none at all", then you forfeit all free will and concede to determination. What's more, there can be no meaningfully directed change in personality or opinion, and our behaviors and actions are entirely at the mercy of our every chemically induced emotion.
If the answer is "some", then what limits this control and how is it applied? In other words, why "some" and not "all" or "none"?
If the answer is that we have all or complete control then this allows for free will. Emotions are chemical reactions, but we chose to react or behave a certain way as a result. We can "reprogram" ourselves through this control such that a stimulus that once inspired fear or anxiety could be overcome to instead trigger joy. The reactions taking place are altered by our own choices, our thoughts, opinions, personalities, desires, etc.
So, it is my belief that we aren't subject to the chemical reactions taking place, but rather they are subject to us. Regardless how chemical and "objective" emotional responses are, we ultimately maintain control. There's a level of transcendence there in the mind-body relationship. We are greater than the sum of our parts. -
Being religious, I typically embrace debates like this. Science can't [b]prove[/b] anything, but the hurdle then becomes selecting a method or mechanic that can. Unfortunately, most science advocates will merely refer you to its track record and call it a day. Which is problematic for most debaters because the scientific method simply has a fantastic track record. Exhibited, of course, by the fact that we're no longer riding around on animals and murdering each other with sharp rocks. So, how many technological advances were born of religion or principles?
It would appear that there are few, if any, practical applications that require 100% proof and absolute certainty.
That said, you're left with answering life's ultimate questions - abstract quandaries relating to origin or purpose. Here's where debating with most science advocates becomes utterly impossible, because science by its very definition and nature simply can not approach an answer to any of these. Though most will fight you tooth and nail to the contrary. The origin of the universe is entirely beyond the scope of the scientific method, which relies solely on the existence and predictability of the laws of this universe. Anything that existed before, or currently exists outside, of our universe is supernatural by definition. -
Valentines Day is coming up, so this seems seasonally appropriate.
I've always believed that love is an action. This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the popular Western philosophy of subjectivism and modern culture on the whole.
My belief is that "Love isn't in the falling, it's in the staying." Anyone can fall in love and then out of love. That's not what I'm talking about here. It seems to me that true love - unconditional and committed love - takes action and conscious decision.
So, what do you believe?
Is love an action? Do you choose to love and to remain committed, to work on and invest in the relationship lest it die?
OR
Is love a whimsical and almost random emotion, susceptible to wanton and dramatic changes independent of our conscious or even subconscious input?
From personal experience, I choose to love my wife each day. It takes a great deal of effort to maintain a loving relationship, and we both can feel it when one of us isn't holding up their end of the bargain. Many people disagree, however...- Watcher and Kyphis the Bard
-
1
-
1
-
Light is composed of physical particles known as photons. Photons exhibit a property known as duality, meaning that they behave both as a wave and as a particle under certain circumstances. Regardless though, light is a "physical" entity. "Dark" is more of an abstract...it's the opposite of light and electromagnetic radiation. It's the absence of photons. Plain and simple.
Look into a theoretical concept known as a black body. Perhaps it may give you some more to ponder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body -
I've seen this before and there's a handful of things it could be - most of them virus or rootkit related. Could be a:
- DNS issue, solved by entering new DNS servers manually in the NIC's tcp/ip settings.
- Winsock issue. I've seen some registry hacks that are supposed to clean this up if the winsock related netsh commands don't work. Winsockfix is a program that is also supposed to fix winsock issues.
- Proxy issue. This one's tricky to find/fix, but somehow the proxy settings could have been changed or hijacked.
- Modem/Router/Firewall issue. Could be related to the proxy thing as well, but some of the settings on the gateway could have been changed maliciously or lost due to power outage or device failure.
I've been in IT for about a decade, and I just formatted my PC when this happened. It was easier for me than trying to track down what actually happened. Especially if it's a rootkit - which I suspected mine was - you'll likely never fix the problem without a reinstall. -
What is good?
Without any context, I'll assume you mean morally good - to which I would say that any action is good if it does not interfere with or deny another's rights to life, liberty, and property. Unlike others in Western culture, I maintain that good is objective.
What is your best physical attribute?
My mind and therefore personality.
What is your best non-physical attribute?
Does such a thing exist?
What do you value most?
Logic
What is 2 + 2?
Five, though it really depends on which axiom(s) you accept.
What do you know?
My own limitations. -
Paganini is a fantastic composer and violinist. I've long been a fan of his works and particularly his 24 Caprices, which heavily influenced virtuoso guitarists such as Yngwie Malmsteen and his contemporaries.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_3ir8nSvv4&feature=related"]Yngwie's Vivace[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfKD8c-WBMA"]Jason Becker plays Paganini's 5th Caprice[/url]
Something else that you may want to look into, Mur, is echolocation. Not exactly what you're talking about here with synesthesia, but also not so different. I've read that the skill can be trained and it has a great deal to do with turning sounds into spacial and geometric entities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation -
Thanks to everyone for all of their well wishes. I look forward to the time when I can make myself more available and to once again enjoy the company of old friends in the fantastic world of MagicDuel.
I keep fairly current on the forums, so, if I am needed, you know how to contact me. -
[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1293007615' post='75867']
Technique for getting to sleep - do not go to bed with the intention of sleeping. Go to bed with the intention of inactively thinking.[/quote]
I do this. I find though, that if I'm thinking about something that excites or interests me I'll have a hard time sleeping. I can't force myself to consider philosophical or theological concepts inactively. So instead, I "daydream" about less important things: fictional characters for a book idea, my character or role on MD, anything like that. I look forward to the time to unwind in silence.
[quote]Causing yourself not to sleep on the other hand -refusing to go to bed until you actually feel exhausted and the physical need to go to bed, can be another issue.
[/quote]
For me it's more a state of mind than anything physical. If I don't "allow" or will myself to sleep, I think I could stay awake forever. My wife isn't like that. In the weeks after the baby was born, she would physically crash every few days and couldn't operate without a nap.
I've always found the mind-body connection to be interesting, and mastering that, or more fully understanding it, unlocks immense power. -
Feel free to ignore, critique, or enjoy these as you wish. Publicly or silently - I wouldn't be posting them if I were afraid of criticism. Some of these were written for (or by) my character in MD, others were written for or about my wife, and still more are fictional works that don't apply to either. I'm always looking to grow as a writer, and one of the finest ways is to seek the opinions of readers. So, any and all comments will be considered as beneficial.
[quote]I’ll never forget how we found this place;
tall ships, soft kiss,
and we sailed away
in a state of grace.
Now when the stars reflect,
in your emerald eyes,
I know it’s ours to protect
from a world full of lies.
And as we stand at the precipice
of our new existance
the Earth sets
behind
the horizon of innocence,
and we're alone,
apart from resistance,
to hold in our hearts the wonder
that this is home.[/quote]
[quote]“Pick up the pace”, I hear you say the ten-thousandth time,
so I sprint a minute until we’re side-by-side.
You check our time and speak of here and now,
and, though your voice is like a dream to me,
I’m intent on watching as these
yellow lines blur with white clouds;
turning tight rounds as they spiral out
from where the sky meets the ground.
And, as you tell me everything you need,
I wonder what we'll see when we reach the end.
Will the earth bend and continue on again
or abruptly stop?
“Don’t look back”, I think as I catch my breath,
and up ahead I can’t help but watch
as your hair sways at its shoulder length
in unison with the golden rays
of the sun as it rises on the horizon.
I run till I’ve caught up again
and maintain my thoughts:
perhaps, if we move fast enough,
impetus will stay with us
and we’ll keep a straight line.
And we’ll blur with white clouds
as we go hurtling out
and leave this place behind.
Then I hear, “pick up the pace have you heard me talking”,
and I reply, “I’m hurt and tired but don't stop walking”.[/quote]
[quote]in the silence of night
it was early June
as we said goodbye
i touched your face
so pristine
in the pale moonlight
and your grace
made me feel
that you’re too perfect to be mine
i’m sorry
i don’t remember what we said
just your silhouette
against a bed of stars
and life will never be as pretty
as it was just then
just before the world turned red
in the taillight of your car
but even if
the emerald in your eyes
no longer shines
i’ll see you as you were
not as you are
you’ll always be that moonlit girl to me
as if the clock had stopped at four[/quote]
[quote]
I once was lost in lonesome woods with scarcely any care,
and without any awareness of my true state of affairs,
though now I wonder how it was that fate had found me there in the first place.
With fetid trees and frozen lakes reflecting boughs so barren,
in retrospect it seems such a dreadful location
that I can’t imagine why I tarried.
As if I were waiting, not really in anticipation,
more like for the turn of a millennium,
which is something that comes upon us though it’s nothing that we race toward.
Then, as I remember, it was mid December
when I first paid attention to what I imagine had always been there.
A chime, the simple ring of bells,
had wafted round my barren dell on a breeze.
So pleasing was its melody, and also so sublime,
that I fell into dreams about its meaning.
It became my goal, my sole aspiration,
to find its source of origin and make it mine.
However, as I walked and witnessed
that those woods had underwent a subtle change,
I too was touched and altered
by the timbre which those ringing chimes maintained, and so I dallied.
Oh, for sunny Saturdays in June,
those bells fell round like fife and lute,
and on the fifth, once placid pools became like falling waters.
No longer holding images of barren woods but keeping them at bay,
harboring my hopes and rushing all I find appalling far away.
How such a nuance made so much difference I may never know,
but I’m grateful it was made. [/quote]
[quote]
Angel, let me touch your hair,
and brush it from your eyes.
Angel, let me linger there
in moon and starlit skies.
Angel, let me see your face
such beauty does beguile.
Angel, let me free the grace
held captive in your smile.
Angel, let me know your fear,
and I will whisper mine.
Angel, let us never care
for moments left behind.
Angel, let me take your hand,
and never shall we part.
Angel, let us never stand
but journey with our hearts.
Angel, let me comfort you,
and you may do the same.
Angel, let us never rue
the course that we maintain.
[/quote]
[quote]The way you linger,
like a vapor, on my skin
it makes me sick.
And, as I breath you in,
the sin of it abhors me
and leaves my
moral sensibilities
undone.
Am I the only one
of us
still feeling all alone
because
I don’t think I can take more solitude.
I can’t fake this squalid love for you -
who’d let your veins
for moments in the sun.
And even as it set
once and for all,
while playwrights screamed
for curtain call,
I’m certain
that you’d fail to glean
the meaning from it all.
Still I need to feel
that burning in my lungs -
it keeps me young.
I know I'll miss this
once it's gone.
I've learned to suffer
from
your culture of
pretentiousness.
Though trite,
the lesson always was that
ignorance is bliss.[/quote]
[quote]
it's a good thing we Americans
have singsongy voices
'cause you talk a lot
and if not for inflection
it'd be more of an annoyance
than it is
don't get me wrong see
my hope was
we could enjoy the same music
but since we don't
could you perhaps
please
let me dance for a moment?[/quote]
[quote]
I recall when first we met
eyes wept in silent sadness
wrapped so delicate in tears
like sheer blankets flowing over mirrors
showing me only my own soul
and yet
they hold a fire no tear can hope to smother
as embers of the purest coal
caressed in flame's ethereal glow
they rest until the blowing wind
of memory are roused within
and then
they're left not discarded but restrained
in consciousness contained in wisdom
known to those of greater age.
Some believe I've seen the secrets of the heart
but in yours I read a tale I've never known
my own.[/quote]
[quote]
There is beauty in mortality.
A casual urgency
in the knowledge that all of this will one day pass away,
and that we exist in brevity.
It's such a simple irony.
Our only certainty
is an unknown end, which grants us both a reckless need
and peace in our fragility.
Our course is through obscurity.
Such grand facility
of the illusion of purpose that all of those among us
seek to leave a legacy.
However...
There is nothing in eternity.
A final vanity
in the foresight that nothing fades, that all is free of change,
and remains in grand stability.
It's such a dreadful tragedy.
To see with clarity
that our every action, and that each decision, merely delivers us
closer to inevitablity.
The cursed move through infinity.
Such flawed divinity
removes all purpose, and shatters all illusion,
leaving only true calamity.[/quote]- Prince Marvolo, Asterdai and Watcher
-
2
-
1
-
[quote name='Mya Celestia' timestamp='1292438155' post='75510']
[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]Maybe bob will look like the tree in Charlie Brown after the kids are done decorating.
[/font][/color]
[/quote]
Ahem...[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/6017-bob-the-christmas-tree/page__view__findpost__p__50835"]link.[/url] -
This could be too limiting, Jester. Some players, Seb for instance, have two very distinct characters and do well to keep their roles seperate. I could easily see a case where a player legitimately desires for one character to rebel while the other(s) could remain neutral or even actively involved in the land.
I do, however, agree that some manner of controls should be in place to limit personal bias and abuse. -
^ Welcome to the thread and to the forums. Great first post.
[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1292274985' post='75387']
A purely physical definition of red is not as simple as you think. The emission spectrum of an object is among others dependent on the temperature of the object. A photon might experience a redness shift while traveling etc. Of course, you could make that 'colour x under conditions y and at timespace xyzt'.[/quote]
But those physics would only really come into play when discussing certain objects. It would have no discernible relevancy in everyday conversation. For instance, the color of my shirt is in no observable way impacted by the weather conditions of how fast I can run/drive/fly. Any topics being discussed that would require such accuracy would certainly be done so under the assumption that both parties know enough about them to, at least partially, understand radiation emissions.
[quote]Time and again you are forgetting the word 'recently' and using self-fulling prophecies. "How about you go and explain me something you don't know?" That is the basically what you are asking us to do. It is not because we do not know it, that something does not exist. As a realist I think you agree to that. However, now that we have given a clear example of something that used to be unknown, you say 'aha but it is known now', whereas my point was that something which was once not known, exists, and certainly that leaves room for things not being known now.
[/quote]
I don't disagree. However, the context of the language portion of the discussion (as we're also debating objective reality/philosophical realism) is that a conversation can be had wherein some or all interpretation would be removed. I don't deny that there are entities and concepts that are unknown to us, but only that we would not be discussing them in any meaningful way. Though even the unknown can be communicated, especially within a single conversation. My entire argument was that terms can be defined and presuppositions established in a way that allows two (or more) individuals to discuss things with no need for interpretation. I could define an entire hypothesis or contingency as simply, "X". Any time I typed "X" in the conversation, you would know precisely what it is that I was talking about.
There will always be colloquialisms and language will always be changing as a function of culture and society, but words can be given absolute (or close enough to it) meaning in order to exchange information. That's all I'm saying.- Watcher and Sephirah Caelum
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps we should carry this on in another thread?
[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1292101268' post='75167']
I think, Church takes god as an almighty, allknowing figure... is that term mentioned in the bible or is it a product of the Church?
Cause if the both pictures are mentioned then it is a contradiction.
[/quote]
I thought you've read the Bible?
[u]Omnipotence (All powerful):[/u]
Revelation 19:6 (KJV) And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
I Chronicles 29:11 Yours, LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all. 12 Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all.
Job 11:7 “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? 8 They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know?
Isaiah 44:24 “This is what the LORD says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself...
Isaiah 51:15 For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar — the LORD Almighty is his name. 16 I...who set the heavens in place, who laid the foundations of the earth.
Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
[u]Perfection and Perfect Judgment:[/u]
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Job 8:10 “So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong. 11 He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 11 He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. 13 Who appointed him over the earth? Who put him in charge of the whole world? 14 If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit[a] and breath, 15 all humanity would perish together and mankind would return to the dust.
Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
[u]Omniscience (All Seeing/All Knowing):[/u]
Psalm 147:4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the LORD says — Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come — yes, let them foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’
Acts 15:18
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
[u]Omnipresent and Infinite:[/u]
Psalm 139:8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
Jeremiah 23:23 “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away? 24 Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the LORD.
II Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow...as some understand slowness.
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
If you'd like to debate that any of these are contradictions, or stand in contradiction to any other, than create another thread on the topic and I'd be glad to discuss it with you. -
[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1292102569' post='75170']
It is what it is, but it would mean something different, if we are talking about language, interpretation and such, then surely that is the point? the colour would mean something different to you and a colour-blind person, because you would interpret the colour differently to each other?
[/quote]
Not if it were expressed purely mathematically. The numbers would always mean the same thing although their visual interpretation may be skewed. Again, not very practical all/most of the time - but really this entire debate was little more than pedantry.
Even if I concede to this single case, you're still talking about a rare mechanical/biological defect - something that, again, can be tested for and diagnosed. The fact that someone can look at your eye and tell you, "what you see as red is really green", screams objectivity. -
[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1292056533' post='75126']
Malaikat Maut said how God DOES have feelings, but on much more complex level than us... And where did you got that, Malaikat?[/quote]
There are many many examples. The book of Jeremiah is perhaps my favorite. Throughout much of the book God speaks through the prophet with intense emotion, and compares Himself to Israel's husband.
Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. 15 Then I will give you shepherds [b]after my own heart[/b], who will lead you with knowledge and understanding....19 “‘How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me. 20 But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me,” declares the LORD.
Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a [b]jealous God[/b].
John 11:33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, [b]he was deeply moved[/b] in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. 35 [b]Jesus wept[/b]. -
[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1292005365' post='75069']
If a single word cannot be used to communicate a universal meaning then a conglomerate of single words can't either, it just makes the situation worse instead of better. The fact that despite the amount of words I used to explain the words I was using still ended with two people commenting on verbs should at least [u]partially[/u] demonstrate that.[/quote]
I still disagree. I concede that single words can't be used but still maintain that definitions and presuppositions can be established for a conversation in order to remove confusion. I can't believe that there is no defeating your proposed infinite regress. Selecting the language as English is a big first step. You could go further and specify a particular dictionary of terms, which can be used as an absolute reference for that particular conversation. Based on the rules of the English language, context and sentence structure alone should be more than enough to discuss things with certainty...the fact that people have been using language to communicate even highly abstract topics for milenia should at least partially demonstrate that
[quote]Things can indeed be defined by language but not to an extent which is totally devoid of interpretation. Language itself is an experience for one thing.[/quote]
How not? I'll again ask for an example. Go ahead and give me a sentence that you think I'll be likely to misinterpret. Even if my initial interpretation is wrong, do you believe that you can not at all further explain it in order to allow me to understand?
[quote]How can you say the earth is and has always been spherical when we know this from scientific methods which are based on experience which we have agreed (as far as I can tell, I could be wrong?) is a flawed method? Years ago you would have ended that sentance with the word flat. The scientific method being fallible cannot necessarily be counted as evidence against objective reality, but in the same vein it also cannot be counted as evidence for it.[/quote]
What of simple observation? Posts prior I had stipulated that objectivism has one strong axiom - that sense perception is a valid means of determining truth within the world around us.
At this point, we've observed the world from every conceivable angle with telescopes and satellites. You yourself can see that every 16 miles or so the world dips beyond a horizon and that the Earth's water doesn't merely run off its surface. Explain those phenomena upon a flat Earth. I don't believe you can without creating further complexity...without making gross assumptions that further defy pure logic and empirical observation.
It's helpful also to consider some of the larger concepts at work here. We're discussing social subjectivism, but at certain periods there were societies who considered the Earth to be flat and others who did not. Was the Earth simultaneously flat and round? In the Western world we understand that the Earth is held aloft by the force of gravity. Some Hindu people believe that it rests on the back of a giant turtle. Can it possibly be both?
Perhaps we each experience our own reality, independent from that of everyone else? That too is unjustifiable. Infants and young toddlers can not conceive object permanence. This is the reason that peek-a-boo is such a hilarious game - they literally believe that you have vanished from the universe. So, when I cover my son's eyes...do I cease to exist? I don't perceive that I have, so can that contradiction possibly be justified? Even if I've truly vanished from my son's reality, who then is covering his eyes?
[quote]You can see it as Red, I can see it as Green, but it is as it is regardless - I take this as your argument. Agree or disagree with that point, it is a different debate though, not one about language. [/quote]
Right, a simple definition of objectivity is that, "what is is".
[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1292045276' post='75116']
"Red" may be a light band, but that doesn't mean the red I picture if I was colour-blind would be the same red you see if you are not, that red would always be the same red for me, but it would be a different one to you.[/quote]
But the frequency doesn't change. No matter how I perceive it, it is what it is. -
[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291848985' post='74892']
Science changes all the time, assuming it is correct just ignores where it comes from. Scientific measurements come from our physical experiences, we make machines that measure in a certain way, built in a certain way to achieve a certain result. Science, along with your argument, depends on the majority rules dictum - which is hardly evidence of objectivity.[/quote]
Being an apologist, I often find myself debating or assuming the limitations of the scientific method. I'm well aware of its social boundaries, Hume's problem of induction, Godel's incompleteness theorems, etc. However, these all deal with the inability of science to ever >absolutely< prove what our objective reality is or where it came from. By definition, our perception of reality, or even our inability to fully perceive it, has no bearing on its objectivity. For thousands of years, humans considered the Earth to be flat. That common perception, nor the inability to measure it accurately, had any bearing on the fact that the Earth is - and always has been - spherical.
So, yes the scientific method is fallible. No, that in no way can be counted as evidence against objective reality.
[quote]I don't really know what you are talking about when you say 'pure abstracts' - something that has absolutely no link or pointer to or in the physical world in any way what-so-ever? I never mentionned anything like that.[/quote]
Oh, I must have misunderstood then.
[quote]If you are talking about the flaw in the tautological statement, that all language is based on experience anyway, then this falls into the Green or Red area again and I refer you to the above.[/quote]
And I would also, as I disagree that color is open for interpretation. Red will never be anything other than a light wave that falls within a narrow frequency band. The universe cares not what you see...it simply is what it is.
[quote]I never said you couldn't define things using language, I said you can't do it in a way that is totally devoid of interpretation.[/quote]
Using language or using single words? Give me an example of something that can not be defined by language.
[quote]I am talking about one single word - Chair, not a sentance.[/quote]
In this case, it sounds as though we are holding two seperate debates. Of course few (any?) single words are devoid of interpretation. My argument is that people can communicate using language - series of words - in order to remove interpretation.
[quote]Chair isn't the verb to sit nor does this word hold a verb in it.[/quote]
I can chair a board.
[quote]Maybe it is better I pick a word for you that has no obvious attached function instead. A stone. If I say stone, and I do not point you to any particular stone, then to what do I refer?
Is it some conglomerate of stone experiences? What is stoneness?[/quote]
As Fyrd pointed out, stone is a verb also. As in, "I will stone you to death". However, I concede that a single word may not be used to communicate a universal meaning. That was never my point.
[quote name='Fyrd Argentus' timestamp='1291851969' post='74896']
I just wanted to point out that red has different physics depending on whether you are talking light or objects. The color wheel for mixing is very different if you use pigments or if you are mixing pure light.[/quote]
Perhaps you'd be willing to give a short explanation of how they are different? Not that I disagree - it's just something I'm unfamiliar with and would be interested to know. I have a feeling that your use of the words, "different physics" may be misleading in the context of the current debate.
[quote name='phantasm' timestamp='1291983811' post='75038']
What is stoneness?
I have an answer for that
[/quote]
That's stonedness, and is something entirely different. -
Many people will view this thread and apply the concepts to their physical bodies, or even their spirituality/soul. I like to consider this as it applies to the psyche. Humans build identities and classifications for things based on previous experience. It's unavoidable that we each have been "constructed" by various inputs. Social and cultural factors play a role, parenting, friends, education and so on. The point is that everyone, regardless of how free and open-minded you think you are, adopts opinions and thoughts and beliefs from someplace external to them.
My point though, is that in order to form new opinions, thoughts, and beliefs the old ones have to be broken down. Depending on the level of belief or how fundamental it is to your existence, your being, your personality; the process can be extremely painful. -
[quote name='Kafuuka' timestamp='1291834923' post='74877']
While you say everybody on this forum is incapable of getting quantum, you also propose that everybody understands the physics of wavelengths.
[/quote]
Not at all. Keep in mind my original premise was that, "two intelligent individuals can exchange information using language and avoid some manner or even all manner of interpretation". I never suggested that all parties would understand, but rather that objective terms could be used in order to remove any space for opinion. If someone needed to, they could research and verify the scientific definition of red, and they would then know in no uncertain terms what precisely I was talking about.
[quote]It is not difficult to imagine that other concepts exist which we are unaware of and currently unable to express. Similar to Gödel's incompleteness work and the halting problem, it seems provable even that there will always be things that cannot be expressed.[/quote]
Well, it makes sense that we shouldn't be able to express the unknown. However, you also wouldn't be able to acknowledge your inability to express it...because it's unknown -
I'm going to reorder your post to group similar thoughts.
[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1291759335' post='74792']
You seem to think a physical entity is objective for some reason. I'd like to ask how?[/quote]
My thoughts on objective reality are tied directly to my Christian faith. The two are inseparable, as the infallibility of scripture is a fundamental tenet. God exists objectively as does the matter and energy of his creation as well as the physical laws He's established to govern them.
Apart from that, I feel that the only logical positions are that everything exists or nothing. The subjective middle-ground is a philosophical cop-out which invariably leads one to circular reasoning, contradiction, and other logical instabilities. First and foremost, it laughs in the face of physics...which is kinda a big no no for most rational individuals. I've heard people try to argue that quantum mechanics allows or even necessitates subjective reality. Particle duality and wave-form collapse and all that. The issue then becomes that you're trying to leverage a branch of science that's famed for making unfathomably precise and repeatable predictions about the tiniest pieces of our observable world. Also, no one on this board even comes close to understanding quantum mechanics.
In any case, if reality is subject to interpretation then you must accept that anything can be anything, which everyone knows is certainly not the case. If you and I were to take a Rorschach test, it would inspire us to imagine two entirely seperate things. However, we'd still be looking at black ink on white paper. I would never argue against the uniqueness of our thoughts, emotions, and experiences. It's just plain and simple that those things have no bearing on reality.
Skepticism is far and away the most easily defensible in terms of pure logic. It requires no assumptions. Most people realize that the only thing they can ever prove or verify to be absolutely true is their own existence. I can never prove to myself that anything beyond myself truly exists, and you can never prove it to me either because you exist beyond myself. Again, nothing ground breaking here, but the mind can fabricate everything that I perceive as reality, including sensory perception.
However, here I sit, typing on a keyboard and reading words on a screen that (hopefully) communicate meaning to another sentient entity. So, while skepticism is logically sound, it's highly impractical. Objectivism, on the other hand, requires few presuppositions. Mostly that sense perception is objective, and that the collective can be regarded as evidence or proof.
[quote]Kafuuka has already mentionned some of the issues inherent here. The old you see red I see green argument for one.[/quote]
Color can certainly be objectified. Red is light radiation with a wavelength between 480–405 THz while green exists between the frequencies ~575–525 THz. Objects that adsorb light radiation below and above 480 THz will appear red. There's no magic or mysticism to it, and, just like the Rorschach test, our individual perceptions of it don't at all change the reality. However, unlike the Rorschach test, color blindness has nothing to do with individuality or the subjectivity of our thoughts. It's a mechanical defect - one that Kafuuka admits can be tested for, which should immediately make the point that color is objective.
[quote]So a question - what is the difference between the sound of words and the sound of music? Or the picture of a man and the word man?[/quote]
Nothing. Sign language is a language, as is braille. Any symbol that holds a universally accepted meaning can be loosely defined as a "word" - accept that words, I would think, imply alphabetical symbols. I'm not a linguist...so I'm just guessing here.
[quote]You also just refuted your own argument by using the word 'imagined', of course you can imagine infinity - but you can't ever experience it, because it has no start nor end, how then to know you are experiencing infinity? Are you suggesting imagination is a physical entity?[/quote]
Well, my original premise was that people can communicate free of interpretation. I never claimed i could objectify abstracts, but rather communicate an abstract concept in an objective and understandable manner.
[quote]Incidentally, how would you expect me to express a purely abstract conceptual matter when my claim is that this is impossible through language? This should be my challenge to you, not the other way around.[/quote]
My proposal was that a pure abstract does not exist. I can't think of anything that I could not define using language, so why should I look for something I'm convinced doesn't exist when your argument depends on them?
"- Conceptual meanings are subject to a lack of physical tie
- A lack of physical tie means they can only be described, drawn, played etc
- A lack of physical tie therefore makes language a tautology in a human system when it comes to conceptual matters"
Of course, I can't truly articulate a concept, but that was never really my goal. I'm interested in communicating free of interpretation.
[quote]If I take a noun like 'Chair' you might instantly assume you know what a chair is and that when you say the word chair everyone knows what you are talking about - yet you yourself with your pretzels without holes showed how easy it is for a mismatch. Chair could mean just anything you sit on, it could mean something with a back and four legs, it could mean many things. I could talk about my chair and you would think it was the 'average' chair you have come to associate with the word, but my 'average' chair is different.[/quote]
We're back to my two previous two points. In the English language, the word chair has a fundamental definition. Some have two or more perhaps, but only one that is contextually appropriate. If the style of chair is pertinent to the discussion (or if the definition is in question), it can be discussed in no uncertain terms using language. It may be an oaken chair with the dimensions of "X" and a high back with further dimensions of "Y", four legs and a cushion upholstered in RED silk. If the style of chair isn't important, then who cares what people interpret it as? Perhaps the point was simply that you sat on something.
[/font][/color]
silk. If the style of chair isn't important, then who cares what people interpret it as? Perhaps the point was simply that you sat on something.
Why the sun?
in Soldiers Of The Inner Sun
Posted · Edited by Malaikat Maut
I have seen the moon in MagicDuel.
[ooc]I must apologize for not reading the thread location before posting before. I assumed this was in offtopic and therefore about our Earthen Sun rather than that of the game world.[/ooc]
Edit: And we don't have ooc tags here...