Malaikat Maut

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='16 October 2009 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1255713076' post='44867'] It is a general thing and was meant as a support for using classical physics, which also knows the problem that observation implies influence. Why make it more difficult for people to understand? [/quote] I had never heard of or considered instances of classical mechanics which provide that kind of evidence. It's intriguing that it does though...

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='15 October 2009 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1255646314' post='44784'] Years of watching Scifi shows have left me extremely skeptical when people mention quantum. 'We have no idea how it works, it is full of inconsistencies... it must be quantum mechanics! Have you heard about the particle wave duality? It is complicated and nobody understands it, and here we have something else no one understands so obviously that too is quantum.'[/quote] I don't know if you're addressing me or making a general observation. I hope I don't sound like that big a fallacious ass... [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='16 October 2009 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1255693950' post='44822'] Last comment I'm going to make on this point. Im not making claims or anything else like that, Im explaining that your reality isnt as firm as you think it is even if you accept a given system. There may well be a force we feel called gravity but that doesn't mean your explaination of it is correct if it can be explained in another way that is just as valid despite your mass of quantity arguments. [/quote] Agreed. However, the logical validity of such a claim hangs on a handful of arguments you don't seem willing to engage or invoke. [quote]Thats a more interesting argument. Firstly, a Jit containing consciousness doesn't make it necessarily conscious.[/quote] Could you explain this please? [quote]Secondly, a system is often composed of smaller parts containing cogs that when linked together create a final working model. But....the theory of Jits doesn't actually require me to state what consciousness is or how it got there, it only needs me to be able to know it is in humans and therefore that it must be in all other things in some way. If you don't accept that there is a fundamental building block of life, then the theory of Jits will do nothing for you, but if you do accept that, then it is undeniable unless it appears from nowhere. [/quote] I'd like to know your definition of consciousness and where you believe it originated. Surely any sound theory should be willing or able to evaluate such questions. Also, you're definition of the term "nowhere" is a loose one. I don't believe it necessarily originates within this physical universe.

Heh, I just realized that you link to the participant's profile page, but my papers aren't available there...

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='15 October 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1255629852' post='44756'] So...a mass of physical evidence, not just once piece, is more persuasive ...yes? I thought you refuted that earlier. and er...that's not a problem for me - sense perception isn't objective, it's in the term sense *perception*, and it's pretty easy to deny the existence of objects - as Im sure you know, you might not agree with it, but it's entirely possible and arguable.[/quote] I suppose [quote]Im not quite sure what you are trying to say to me with this to be honest?[/quote] Just some food for thought. I though it was interesting and relevant to the point you were making about smaller particles (read everything) containing consciousness but suppressing it. [quote]There's that thing I won't discuss at the dinner table again, sorry.[/quote] Christianity or objectivism? And don't apologize to me, I've already got a migraine keeping up with what the current discussion. [quote]There is no asumption in that. Did you read what I defined as air? That emptyness around us. Space still has that, and space would still work under my theory. Your version of Gravity can be explained in another way and still be exactly the same, thats what Im saying, but I guess I can't explain it in a way that you will hear me and not just say im making assumptions. Your version of Gravity is just as assumptive as mine.[/quote] Except that it aligns with the observable universe. It seems like you're skirting an argument for skepticism but rather than object to reality entirely, you'd rather make claims about it that rely on it being entirely subjective. I've already conceded that nothing can logically be shown to exist, and therefore nothing can logically be assumed to exist the way we believe it does. However, if you're going to insist that objects exist and they are conscious within this closed system that is out universe, you should be willing to approach the problem within the boundaries of that system...being logic and physical law. If not, than why not just discuss objectivism vs, subjectivism or skepticism directly? [quote]I've answered that in every single post I've given you already...everything contains consciousness. Everything. [/quote] You've never answered (that I recall) where it comes from and what your definition of that term is. If the smallest particle con contain consciousness, a Jit, than what makes the Jit conscious? Again, it seems your making another argument but through an error in semantics attributing it to something else. You'd need to argue in favor of some spiritual or metaphysical origin.

Sorry for the double post...I know most message board frown on them. [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='15 October 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1255624317' post='44745'] There are different kinds of logic. For example, you have suggested that it is logical that aliens use tools, you also suggested it is logical to say the earth is round. Your logic of the first comes from your personal experiece of what you consider to be conscious self-thinking beings. Your second comes from sheer quantity, not because you have even seen the earth from space yourself. It is a certain kind of logic, that works within a certains sphere but which is very restricted.[/quote] You're talking about empiricism. However, to deny that the Earth is round you would have to deny an entire host of other logical presuppositions. Regardless of whether or not I've ever physically seen the Earth from space, I can deduce that it is round through other observations. The horizon is 16 miles from any given point. I can select a landmark on the horizon, walk the 16 miles, and verify that I have not yet fallen off the flat edge of the Earth but rather found another horizon which keeps a constant 16 mile distance. Then of course you have relative motion of stars and planets... In order to logically conclude that the Earth is not round, you'd need to deny the objectivity of sense perception, at which point you would could simply deny the existence of objects in the first place. [quote]For me it is entirely possible that objects hold consciousness if humans do, in fact I refute that it isnt possible or even likely! If all things come from one fundamental and then from that smallest of things all things become what they are, then all things must contain consciousness for anything to contain consciousness[/quote] [quote]unless such a consciousness lays dormant without a required chemical stimulous which pings it out of thin air(which is what you would be saying if you go down your neuroscience route)and even then they would have at least the capacity for it.[/quote] Have you ever heard of PAX6? It's the gene necessary for eye development in each of the 5 phyla of life possessing eyes for sight. It appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, during the time when life jumped from single-celled organisms to every phyla in existence today. None of these single-celled ancestors had eyes. So, the 5 phyla that do each seemingly evolved PAX6 during the same time period, but entirely independantly of one another. PAX6 is a protein chain containing 130 sites...there are 20 amino acids...meaning that you're looking at (20^130)*5 or 6.8x10^169 that nature happened to select the same combination for all 5 phyla. Unless of course the DNA had already existed repressed in single-celled organisms. [quote]What makes you so sure there is a fixed reality? You could see green when i see red and we would both call it red (im sure you know that one, dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs). Now would that mean my perception was false or reality shifts?[/quote] There are far more compelling arguments, all based on quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with the Feynman Double Slit Experiment and particle duality? It's considered that many quantum properties change as a function of human perception. I believe in objective reality because Christianity necessitates it. [quote]So your choices are pre-determined too it seems, just like the atoms then. It isn't mutually exclusive to say you sat on the chair AND that you had to. In fact, if you want logic, then logically under your assertions all of our actions are pre-determined by forces.[/quote] Again, I believe we are granted free will by a higher power. I don't posit that the soul or human consciousness are material and bound within the confines of physical law. [quote]We try to give explainations for things we don;t really understand. We give a name to gravity, the force that holds us down, but wouldn't it also be (lets say logically for your sake) possible that something in what we call air (but by air i only mean that emptiness around us) is so dense it keeps us all held down instead?[/quote] No. You're doing that assumption thing again. There is no "air" in space, but objects there still obey the laws of gravity. Also, some particles move freely through any medium, but near a supermassive blackhole they will not escape its gravitational force. [quote]This is kind of not the point though...the point is, if we humans have consciousness, and there is a fundamental building block for all things, then all things must contain consciousness or the capacity for it unless it pops up out of thin air. I assume you only attribute any sort of consciousness to organic matter, but how low are you willing to go down the chain before you cut off and say something isn't conscious now?[/quote] From a neurological perspective, I'd assume the system has to be of a certain complexity before it's considered conscious. Really, this question is a good one for you to answer as well. For instance, in a single hydrogen atom, there are only so many parts that could contain consciousness...so where do you believe it begins and where do you believe it comes from?

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='15 October 2009 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1255623233' post='44744'] Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.[/quote] It's just so tempting though. [quote]Consciousness is a dangerous subject. Most people consider adult humans to have a high level of consciousness, other mammals to have consciousness albeit a bit less. We know we are aware of ourselves. Some animals are self aware and capable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. Other animals clearly are capable of some thought or rely on instinct. We can easily imagine an animal that is capable of only three kinds of thoughts: food, danger and procreation. Are those consciousness or reflexes? What about plants? All plants grow towards the light (food), some have sophisticated defense systems which activate when being gnawed upon (danger). They don't have a central nerve system, but neither do insects, which are capable of more complex feats. And then the fun part: what about babies? At which point from -9 months to 21+ years does a human develop consciousness?[/quote] I don't know that you can consider a plant's response to light as conscious. Ever seen a plant make the decision to grow away from light? It's simply a programmed response. You could argue that humans make only programmed responses, but then we'll be getting away from the topic at hand again... As far as the development of human consciousness, I've stated that I believe in a spiritual or divine origin. It's not something that we "gain" per se, it's an inherent portion of us. [quote]Imagine all the aliens are Zleiphneir clones and have similar thought patterns. They are capable of building tools and use them, but they do wonder if the tools aren't secretly using the Z aliens to replicate. You now have an alien race that is surprisingly similar to humans, whilst meeting the necessary criteria.[/quote] Again, perhaps I don't fully understand what's trying to be discussed, but couldn't we as humans test this theory by exercising our consciousness by refusing to build anything? It just seems like Z is trying to conjure a magic system within a process that is already thoroughly explained and understood. Being a Christian, I'm no fan of Occam's Razor, but I feel that in this debate it can be flawlessly invoked. There is no root cause to hide behind here. [quote] To further the analogy with commercials? Why do you buy product X and not product Y? Because some commercials are better than others, or because some products aren't appealing by nature. [/quote] Because X has a lower cost per unit... I'm not a good target for advertisement analogies. Marketing companies wouldn't want me taking their surveys.

Have I won this contest yet? [quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='14 October 2009 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1255537557' post='44666'] I said it proved that quantity is a good enough argument for humans on a scientific basis. It certainly doesnt quantify nearly any desired outcome by any means, nor have I ever suggested so.[/quote] I must have misunderstood. I believe you're wrong about this as well though. Have you ever heard of Kurt Godel and his [url="http://math.mind-crafts.com/godels_incompleteness_theorems.php"]Incompleteness Theorems[/url]? They basically show that math isn't robust enough to validate itself in any given set of axioms. [quote]Why would we? We already assume only organic matter has consciousness and only a tiny fraction of the populous are open minded enough to look at it another way. Its already been scientifically proved that plants have consciousness, but even on that note people won't accept it because it isnt an animal, and thats with the science to back it up, let alone with objects. Why? because they are aliens, you assume they know things you know or think how you think or live how you live.[/quote] I've not heard anything of plant consciousness. I thought it was a logical assumption that an intelligent species of alien life would be familiar with the use and production of tools. Unless you'd like to add to your (already ridiculous) hypothetical that the aliens can teleport themselves at will and move objects telekinetically, they would have already been in need of some type of craft to be viewing Earth and a digging tool to be unearthing objects in the first place. [quote]Im not talking logic, logic only takes you so far, i'm talking the realm of viable possibility. Sure you can say well anything is possible then so lets just give up shall we, but its not quite so, im not discussing a cable turning into a snake even though thats a possibility.[/quote] I appreciate what you're trying to consider here. It's very interesting and I think of myself as an open-minded individual, but by removing logic you've removed the language necessary to hold a debate, so it's not that there isn't anything left to discuss...there literally is no way for us to discuss it. As you point out, without some kind of logical framework literally anything falls within the realm of possibility. Perhaps nothing is conscious. Perhaps my consciousness is all that exists and everything I experience takes place within my mind. I could be looking out a barred window and typing into a pillow while my mind facilitates my false perception of reality. [quote]Why would that need humans not to have consciousness? The advertising industry does that to us everyday.[/quote] I feel that the assertion you're making necessitates that we be entirely stripped of our conscious will. You're trying to say that we build roads out of rebar, concrete, and tar because those items desire for us to do so and not because it's practical for human usage. Why don't we construct roadways out of sticks of wood, nougat, and tree sap? What if those objects or elements desired to become a road? There's just too many assumptions or "logical leaps" being made to justify that objects have any capacity to influence human consciousness. [quote]If atoms obey physical law then humans do too no?[/quote] Well, I've not tried to fly yet today, but the last time I recall gravity stopping me. [quote]So you are telling me that being admired and looked at with awe and wonder on a daily basis isn't appealing enough?[/quote] I don't desire for termites to admire me...nor rocks. [quote]You assume by objects I mean knives forks kettles etc, possibly my fault for obsessing with examples using tea cups and kettles...I don't...I mean objects...a rock for example.[/quote] No, I understand that you're discussing more fundamental objects. [quote] Chemistry doesn't show how it comes out of nowhere either, it could support a robotic causation theory of the human mind but even then the elements it was composed of would have to contain bits of stuff that would react in a consciousness emitting type of way when given the correct stimulous [/quote] Are you talking about the origin or cause of physical law? According to neurologists, the chemical reactions taking place in the brain are governed by the same (objective) forces that dictate all others.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='14 October 2009 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1255531808' post='44659'] There is no denying objects evolve, in your case you would say they evolve as a direct result of human hands, but they still evolve.[/quote] Although we're getting off course a little, I could deny the existence of objects entirely and the scientific method would be useless to prove the contrary. I maintain that it is broken. As you had said, it can be used to prove or quantify nearly any desired outcome. It's been used to do so many times in the past. Consider study into biological determinants which had proven varying human intelligence by race until the Civil Rights movement changed our social prerogative and the data was viewed from another perspective. [quote]The aliens attribute that evolution as a conscious one, you do not, that is the only difference.[/quote] I feel you're making a handful of assumptions here. We unearth locations that show no evidence of human life, but we never attribute the items found there to object consciousness. Certainly these hypothetical aliens would possess similar tools and objects to the ones crafted and used by humans. Why is it logical to assume they would attribute their development to the objects themselves and not to a form of sentient life that is not evidenced? [quote]However the differnce is not one that you can prove either way without defining what precisely consciousness is. The aliens have a scientific proof for the consciousness of objects, a proof that comes from an evolutionary theory. For them, that is proof enough. For you, it isn't, but you still haven't shown me why, because you still haven't defined consciousness. The method isnt used to prove any truth as you say, its used to demonstrate specific ideologies.[/quote] Consciousness is self awareness. It's cognition and higher order thinking which includes the ability to store and recall memories, make decisions, and perform critical thinking and problem solving based on the current or previous environment. [quote]I wouldnt have to disprove human consciousness to support this in the slightest. In fact its an explaination of human consciousness, im just not spelling it out that way because it would take too long.[/quote] I suppose I don't understand. I had considered that you were suggesting items would impose their will on us in order to be crafted in particular ways. Wouldn't that necessitate that humans possess no consciousness? [quote]Fundamentally humans being conscious in our minds would dictate that all things are in some way - on a materialsit base of course, and that materialist base is what I am calling a Jit, a physical piece of consciousness-ness that is part of the piece that is all things that no one has yet found but which we keep coming closer to, originally (I think it was Plato) it was water, now its atoms etc etc etc.[/quote] We already know how all of those systems work, and every moment neuroscience comes closer to explaining how human consciousness works. Atoms obey physical law. Unless you are inferring that physical law is conscious...I don't know what you're trying to get at. [quote]I never said it was random, I said the opposite. All things being acted on by forces is one thing, knowing your place and sitting in it is another. Humans are acted upon by gravity but that doesn't mean Gravity dictates we sit at our own desk in school.[/quote] Again molecular bonds are all dictated by physical law and the forces at work in the universe. An electron sits in a particular place in the shell because it literally has no choice in the matter. It doesn't act according to a will of its own. Elements don't turn into other materials or form bonds according to the will of the units that compose them. Consider how elements are formed in the first place. At one point, this universe contained nothing but hydrogen and trace amounts of helium. Hydrogen didn't become helium for the hell of it...it had no choice as it burned in the fusion process of early stars. In the same manner, helium didn't have a choice when it underwent the triple-alpha fusion process and became carbon...you're trying to attribute consciousness to phenomenon that can be repeated and studied in a science lab and I don't believe it's logically viable. [quote]Are you telling me your are a dualist playing devils advocat? If so - love it.[/quote] I've never really thought of myself as a dualist, but I suppose so. I believe in a soul. Again, we humans are not necessarily equal the sum of our parts. [quote]Why would stone want to be made into a statue and admired by all in sundry? I think I just answered that there.[/quote] I don't believe so. Why would these objects desire for human admiration? Wouldn't they have their own cultural icons? This becomes increasingly problematic depending on how you answer my previous question about human consciousness. If human's aren't aware...it really makes no sense that objects would create themselves in our likeness. [quote]Economics do come into it, but then we could also say economics are dictated often by nature (natural disasters being an example) where different items get made, different things happen etc etc.[/quote] More often than not, economics are not dictated by natural disaster. Here's another question. Why don't objects exist on planets that are rich in elements but contain no conscious life? [quote]How can you account for a materialsit human consciousness without something like Jits?[/quote] It sounds as though you've studied more neuroscience than I have...they seem to have done a handy job using chemistry. [quote]If I answer that I will start a discussion that shouldn't be had at the dinner table - so I won't lol. Maybe we talk about this fellow in game somewhere quiet instead if we want to. [/quote] Either way. I'd actually rather here because it's easier to get thoughts out, and I'm not certain how many of these arguments Mala would make as a character in game. I think Randian objectivism is laughable, but I'm an objectivist by virtue of my Christian faith.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='14 October 2009 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1255516934' post='44643'] It has a number of layers really. For eample it either (as you said) can be used to demonstrate a false finding. Or, and this is what I like about it, it can be used to demonstrate that actually if you want to, you can accurately support any argument you like with quantity whether its valid or not - and for humans, quantity arguments appear to be very persuasive. [/quote] The fact that the scientific method can neither falsify one claim nor validate another makes it false. It's broken. The only difference is that I've abandoned it and seek truth elsewhere while you exploit its flaws. If a method can be used to prove any truth...then the method itself is broken and useless. Again, I'm speaking solely within the context of absolute truths. Obviously science has very practical uses, but in this realm pure logic is far more robust. You can't use science to prove sense perception is objective, pretty much rendering it entirely useless for discussing anything abstract or that isn't empirical. [quote]The point is, you assume it is a false finding because you already believe objects have no consciousness, but if I am to claim objects in effect do, and if I fancied also claiming that in some sense they use us for their evolution, I can also use this quantity argument as support. The scientific findings for the evolution of man and the evolution of the cup are just as good as one another in terms of evidence to show things evolving- whether it be a consciousness we understand, or not.[/quote] I assume it is false because you can't logically support that it isn't. You would have to disprove human consciousness in order to support this object consciousness, and it's not something that you're capable of doing. You would have a difficult enough time proving to me that YOUR consciousness exists...let alone that mine does not. [quote]Take for example when atoms form molecules, they swap electrons and somehow the electon knows exactly where it is supposed to go without any outside influence.[/quote] A few courses in chemistry, physics, and/or quantum mechanics would show that this isn't so random an event. All things are certainly acted on by outside forces, namely the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Gravitational force is in there too, but the others are more relevant to chemical bonds. [quote]Or take for example how sometimes you meet someone and you have an instant dislike for them or you go to a location and you feel at home even though you have never been there. Or what about that tennis racket that always won your games ever since you picked it up, it just seems to meld with you for some reason. Those sorts of energy fields could be considered a raw form of consciousness.[/quote] More likely they are a psychosomatic response taking place in human consciousness. Wouldn't everyone share your feelings about the location or tennis racket if they didn't originate within your consciousness? [quote]The example of Jits and every original building block having a piece of consciousness-ness could be another way to look at it. How do you look at consciousness?[/quote] My definition of consciousness is purely spiritual. [quote]You ask why iron would want to be made into a sword when it could be made into a cannon which is far superior...well...i'm not saying all Jits are smart ones, just that they are conscious. Why do some humans work as shop clerks when they could be pop stars or astronaughts which theoretically is a far superior job. Maybe some just like being shop clerks, there are lots of reasons for that one. I've already given you evidence for object evolution, it isn't biological, but that's the point. [/quote] There are other factors at work that would need to be explained and logically supported. Economic forces dictate how many of what objects are created. Also, they are discarded and left to sit in a garage or an attic unused until my conscious will decides to once again employ them...or throw them away. At which point the objects will be melted down and created into others or come to rest in a landfill. In addition, culture and historical circumstances are manifested in the arts. Why would stone or any other object desire to be created in the likeness of Aphrodite or George Washington? The list continues until every facet of human civilization has been discussed. I've argued against logical devices similar to what we're discussing here in theological contexts. Russel's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all suffer from a similar flaw. Semantics. The trouble with those devices is that they only become or remain logically viable as they are attributed more and more traits of the Abrahamic God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). In the same manner, your Jits can only become viable as they acquire traits and circumstances of human consciousness. Eventually you will come to the point that we are discussing the same thing and merely calling it a different name, and your argument becomes one of semantics and lacking any real substance. [quote]All the elements have already existed on earth and have constantly shifted, evolved and changed forms. For the most part, human hands just add to it. [/quote] Human hands necessitate it and facilitate it. Nothing changed forms before human arrival, and the elements were finished "evolving" long before they settled on the Earth. [quote]Not to get too off topic...but I will...that's a very dangerous statement isn't it? Claiming an objective reality and fact. How do you know the earth is round? [/quote] I don't see why objectivism is necessarily dangerous. I consider skepticism to be far more concerning than the thought that what is is. However, skepticism is far more logically viable although entirely impractical.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='13 October 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1255463165' post='44589'] I am not a materialst. However...as you obviously adhere to it, I will use it.[/quote] I'm not either, but enjoy playing devil's advocate at times. I consider myself to be a Christian, so I believe that we are more than the sum of our parts. [quote]The false history you speak of is just that in the example, it is used to demonstrate our own theoretically false historical findings - does that make sense? It is designed to show the problem with making assumptions from findings.[/quote] Absolutely. I know the limitations of science very well. I typically employ the exact thing you're discussing in apologetic arguments, but I still don't understand how it really applies to your assertion about objects. [quote]We believe we are the clever ones, that we went from a mug to a kettle, that it was our choice based on our need and our want. We take ockams razor and our arrogance and say, the kettle thrives because it is useful for us and we created it for us to use. What I'm saying is, there are lots of other ways to look at it, ways that make us the tricked fools of the picture and not the clever tool makers, or at the very least its a symbiotic relationship. If we consider the more complex someting is (and by that i mean the difference between a rock and a mug) the more things it gets to do, if Jits are in all things then would it not be feasible for the rock to want to be a mug? or something else.[/quote] It's certainly interesting to consider, but you'd have a hard time actually arguing this, let alone proving it, logically. Consider this: life has existed on this planet for millions of years previous to human existence. Why have their been no "objects" constructed until our arrival? You'd also run into a host of logical problems in giving objects consciousness, as objects don't really "evolve". Iron is iron no matter what you fashion it into, so why would some iron desire to be made into a sword and others made into a cannon which is far superior? Basically all of the elements have always existed on Earth, and they do so unchanged expect by human hands...for the most part. [quote]When does a table become a chair?[/quote] You're mixing semantics with identity. A table becomes a chair when you break it apart and fashion into a device for sitting. Even if you're employing it as a chair in the immediate, anyone else will view it as a table. However, it's still human perception that defines the objects and their uses. [quote name='Kafuuka' date='13 October 2009 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1255464198' post='44591'] Which is the point. The difference between a gene (an object) and a human is made fuzzy. Personally I like the related topic of vagueness and the example: a small number + 1 is still a small number 1 is a small number -> 1 + 1 is a small number induction -> every positive integer is a small number[/quote] You're trying to quantify something using a relative term. You can't use "small" to define something because "small" has no definite. You could use smaller or larger. 1+1 is greater than 1 is an objective statement even if you reject the definition of 1. [quote]Somewhere along the way induction failed. We can't say where, but 1 billion is usually not considered a small number. Also in biology the term emergence is often used: phenomena that occur when looking at the large picture but cannot be explained while looking only at the parts. All of these concepts contribute to doubting the difference between humans and objects.[/quote] 1 billion certainly is a small number on an infinite scale. Again, the term small is subjective. If you limit yourself to such a small data set, anything can be perceived out of it, but that will do nothing to change the objective reality. If you stand still and look toward the horizon, you may believe that the Earth is flat...that doesn't change the fact that the Earth is indeed round. If you begin walking, or otherwise expand your data set by making other observations, the truth will be known to you. [quote]Intelligence has many guises. eg Look at parasites. They have a very complex way of life, doing amazing things, like changing the color of an ant from black to bright red, so that birds will be more prone to spot and eat them. Thus ingesting the parasite and spreading it's offspring. That is a very intelligent scheme. However, it is not the parasite that thinks 'hej, what if I make my ant host change color so birds can see her better?'. So is it necessary for an object to think? Furthermore, at some point in evolution consciousness and thought must have started. It might be extremely unlikely such an event happens again, but it is possible. [/quote] I'm not an expert (in anything really) in evolution, but I don't believe you can isolate a single event and attribute consciousness to it like that. The argument you're making is anthropic in a way.

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='13 October 2009 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1255461355' post='44587'] As for objects using us literally, it is difficult to imagine. Something that startled me when I first heard it was the idea that genes are not the way we create offspring, but humans are an interesting way for genes to multiply themselves.[/quote] If you break humans down, we are nothing but cells/genes/atoms/quarks anyway, so the concept of identity becomes muddied if you really want to be literal. Your analogy may be correct that genes merely use us to multiply themselves, but in a way both entities are synonymous. It reminds me of a common philosophical quandary called the Ship of Theseus [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus"]linky[/url]. [quote]In a similar fashion, we use cars to drive around, yet you could think cars use us to get build. We all know humans were there before cars were invented and thus reject the idea. But then again, where do humans come from? And what about drugs and memes?[/quote] The problem is that you're attributing intelligence or even instinctual behavior to items that possess none. Also, social evolution such as memes ties back in to my original post about ideological paradigms. Their progressions are brought about by our thoughts and actions within culture or through discoveries and innovations. They are all necessitated by human consciousness. [quote]@Malaikat Maut: I do not consider it unfortunate that neuroscience hasn't been able to declare consciousness is nothing but electrochemical. [/quote] I was lamenting that it has, or will sometime in the near future.

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='13 October 2009 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1255456164' post='44579'] To say that is to assume a materialist basis for consciousness, however if you are willing to consider other viable possibilities I would argue we are perhaps just slaves to the objects of the world - not the other way around. I have been meaning to stick this file here for ages, see attached the debate/discussion I had with Kafuuka regarding the questions if you fancy it. Z [/quote] I've got to admit that I didn't read that entire document, but there are a handful of things in it that I would object to. However, let's just stick with your post for now. As unfortunate as it may be, advances in neuroscience have all but proven consciousness to be entirely chemical/electrical, but you have me interested so I'd like to hear your thoughts on other origins of cognition and how exactly they allow for inanimate objects enslaving sentient beings. It sounds to me, in the first few lines of that document, that you begin talking about aliens forming a false history based on empirical observations. However, their subjective view of our past events does nothing to dictate how those events actually transpired in reality...or how they are currently evolving from our perspective.

[quote name='Yoshi' date='13 October 2009 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1255452543' post='44576'] What about the... TEETER TOTTER? Yeah that's right, I said it. The teeter totter uses us. They get inside our heads and say, come on, sit on me, bring a friend. Just for it's sick pleasure. [/quote] You had a bad experience on a playground as a child, didn't you?

We use objects. We give them meaning and uses within the framework of current or past social paradigms, and without our actions or intentions they would be useless. However, objects also influence social ideology either directly by making certain actions available (eg. the hammer or cotton gin) or indirectly by allowing us to make observations or reach abstract conclusions about reality (eg. the telescope). It's quite impossible for objects to use us literally.

[quote name='Chewett' date='04 October 2009 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1254649584' post='43660'] At the moment the current idea is to remove the accounts but keep them inactive i believe But we can also merge the accounts so all posts on both accounts are attributed to one and then the other would be removed, Would perhaps anyone prefer that? [/quote] I believe that I would. Wynken was my first character here and has a great deal of posts, but I consider Malaikat to be my main and would like to retain this account.

I think that the voting system was fair. There are likely ways that it can be improved, but that's not my purpose for posting today. The real "problem" that I see with using the democratic process to end quarrels or deliver justice (in a game world) is that it does nothing to change the minds of those who feel victimized. Especially in a vote this close, nearly 50% of the participants will walk away still feeling the situation unresolved, but they must now cope with those emotions as their transgressor has just received a public pardon. Basically, I don't believe that the vote can resolve issues that are not black and white or that don't have a clear and definite end. In this particular situation, the vote only restored Yrth's kingship. It didn't and could not mend the damage that some of his people feel was caused, so for them the problem not only lingers, but may be intensified.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on a private website. He maintains the freedom to speak however he likes...granted that he exercises that freedom elsewhere.

At first I had thought to organize a Samhain festival in order to give players the opportunity to ward off the evil spirits to be loosed during the Festival of Pain. However, I realized that this in itself is not necessarily a contest, so my thought is also to include MD's first ever Pumpkin Carving contest. Contestants will be required to submit a picture of their jack-o-lantern by placing it in one of their documents (papers). A panel of judges will deliberate to decide the winner(s). Prizes can either be categorized for Most Original, Most Frightening, and Most Comedic or simply, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. depending on the number of prizes to be given and the number of participants. For anyone interested, or unaccustomed to such cultural traditions: [quote] *Information on Samhain and Pumpkin Carving from wiki* The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year". Traditionally, the festival was a time used by the ancient Celtic pagans to take stock of supplies and slaughter livestock for winter stores. The ancient Celts believed that on October 31st, now known as Halloween, the boundary between the living and the deceased dissolved, and the dead become dangerous for the living by causing problems such as sickness or damaged crops. The festivals would frequently involve bonfires, into which the bones of slaughtered livestock were thrown. Costumes and masks being worn at Halloween goes back to the Celtic traditions of attempting to copy the evil spirits or placate them, in Scotland for instance where the dead were impersonated by young men with masked, veiled or blackened faces, dressed in white. On All Hallows’ eve, the ancient Celts would place a skeleton on their window sill to represent the departed. Originating in Europe, these lanterns were first carved from a turnip or rutabaga. Believing that the head was the most powerful part of the body, containing the spirit and the knowledge, the Celts used the "head" of the vegetable to frighten off the embodiment of superstitions. Welsh, Irish and British myth are full of legends of the Brazen Head, which may be a folk memory of the widespread ancient Celtic practice of headhunting - the results of which were often nailed to a door lintel or brought to the fireside to speak their wisdom. The name jack-o'-lantern can be traced back to the Irish legend of Stingy Jack, a greedy, gambling, hard-drinking old farmer. He tricked the devil into climbing a tree and trapped him by carving a cross into the tree trunk. In revenge, the devil placed a curse on Jack, condemning him to forever wander the earth at night with the only light he had: a candle inside of a hollowed turnip. The carving of pumpkins is associated with Halloween in North America where pumpkins are both readily available and much larger- making them easier to carve than turnips. Many families that celebrate Halloween carve a pumpkin into a frightening or comical face and place it on their doorstep after dark.[/quote]