Haha. So if you say something I don't agree with, can I twist it until it coincides with my opinion, and then tell you that I was merely "elaborating" and "clarifying" what you said?
Haha I wouldn't have it any other way! Or would I? You decide. PS. I only live about three hours away from you. x)
You wouldn't have it any other way. This is the way you want it. You're also a bit thirsty right now. A coke should do you well. No. Diet coke. You don't want to get fat. P.S. Where do you live? I mean that in the least creepy way, of course.
And all this time I thought I didn't gain wait. DAMN YOU SUGAR FILLED SODA DRINKS. Damn you all to hell. e_e PS. AGAIN. I live in Moses Lake, WA. And it isn't any more creepy than me saying I live three hours away from you haha.
I used to have baseball tournaments in Moses Lake. Got a deep fried twinkie at this little store on a corner there. Changed my life.
Wow you've actually been here before? I'm sorry lol. As far as the twinkie situation goes. I can't say I've experienced that... in all of the nineteen years I've lived here. Or well, eighteen. Not counting that one year that I didn't. xD I saw a Steven Tyler look-alike in Seattle once. Changed my life also.
It’s just a pet theory of mine. Something I was looking to use in a story I am writing. One of my characters has a special kind of clairvoyance. He can see the direct future for himself and those immediately around him. He can see the different paths that different choices will take him on and make choices in accordance with how he wants the future to unfold around him. His concept of autonomous reality consists of those things which do not change regardless of his choices. They are fixed items and events in his timeline. He refers to them as autonomously real things. Two Bullets Left I found a good partner for academic arguement in Lord of Hats so I thought I would bounce the idea around.
Here's the thing about Introspective thinking processes SA. They are great methods to use when pondering a question in a non-linear or out of the box manner, but realistically, exist outside reality. Its a great bit of insight and good brain food for pondering the human mind but when applied to a realistic situation fails miserably. If the question is do human rights extend to a fetus (for example), then your not going to solve the problem by saying human rights are a figment of our imagination. Introspection is great brain food (As is your arguement. One could ponder it for days and never get bored!), but it gives no realistically appliable answers to a question. Its like asking if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. Through the concept of introspection it makes no sound. Great for discussing human conciousness but realistically is false. The tree does make a sound even if no one is around to hear it. To discuss one of your examples: Color is not the figment of our imagination, just the name given to these electro magnetic waves as we see them. Color exists even if we don't exist, it just lacks a meaning without something to precieve it. Also consider my Java example. Human precpetion cannot extend out of our own existence. What we precieve only applies to our existence but can't be applied to the rest of the universe. It is entirely possible for some things to be constructs of the mind (social things like human rights and right and wrong/good and evil) while other things are more absolute. The universe can't be summed up into a single generalization. Its to big. Everything has an autonomous reality in the universe whether we exist or not. our preceptions only apply meaning to these realities as they relate to us. its all just sitting and waiting to be acknowledged. The world is not a human construct, it existed before us, and most likely will exist long after us... unless we destroy it! *Begins planning destruction of universe *
It should be noted that many things carry the name Anthropic Principle, not all of them the same thing. Anthropic principle (The universe related one which I assume is what your using) in my opinion is a flawed reasoning system which negates its own purpose. Its a system of reasoning the Universe but, the Principle itself decides to constrain itself to the concept that the universe was made for human life. Wikipedia has a great description of this flaw by calling it the Deus Ex Machina of creation theories. I find its a lot like Intelligent Design but without God or any creator. The Principle dictates that the universe is restricted and in fact naturally moves only in a direction that can allow human life and what humans can see and think of. Its frankly a theory that defeats itself. It tries to explain the universe but restricts the universe to only what is human related. Frankly that doesn't stand up to logic. There are many things that exist that are not human related and that cannot fit into the theory. Besides, the Principle is already disproven. It states the the only life that can exist in the universe is carbon and water based but we have silicon based life form (very simple ones) here on earth. Anthropic Principle was originally based on explaining the the multiverse using a weak bond concept but has become so restricted it is redundant. It tries to say the universe is restricted to what is observable by biological factors but the universe had at a time existed for eons without anything biological to observe it. Honestly is such a discombobulated concept it really makes no logical sense.
Yeah I have to say I don't agree that the universe revolves around, or moves in the 'flow' of human life. I think it has to do more with a conscious awareness... but in everything, not just human beings. To think an entire 'universe' full of who knows what kind of intelligent life is simply based on us I find a bit... closed-minded?
I should clarify. The Theory doesn't restrict itself to "Human Life" but rather to sentient life that is capable of observing the universe and then claims that the universe can only support a single base of life (In our case carbon and water based which as I said is already disproven). That was a mistake on my part (XD). There is a difference between AS's arguement and Anthropic theory. Anthropic theory states that the universe moved to create intelligent carbon based life that can observe it and only exists of what can be observed which is the inherent flaw. We can't see a black hole (nor have we ever observed a white hole), but we know they can exist in the fundementals of our universe. If we follow Anthropic theory, because they can't be seen or observed they don't exist, but we know that they can. Anthropic theory sets a fixed series of principles and says this is it and it only exists because its all we as sentient observes can precieve, but we know there is more in the universe than can be precieved (Of course that itself is arguable as it depends on how far you take the term preception). AS was arguing Introspection, the basis that the universe is based on human preceptions and ideas. The Ancient Greeks at one time thought the only thing that really existed was the mind and everything else was a figment of the imagination. its not a flawed logic process just one that will not produce any appliable answers for problem solving or understanding what is around us. AS's arguement stands up to its logical reasoning system where as Anthropic Principle stands up to no logic or reasoning system and appears to say the universe was simply pulled out of a hat (Hence the term Deus Ex Machina).
Oh well don't I feel silly. In that case, I still don't agree with it. I also believe to a certain extent (I can't say for sure) that the universe is constructed - if you will - of perception and thought. I'm not so confident as to defend this theory with my life though. I'm pretty open-minded and tend to consider all theories that seem sound to me.
I didn't read all 7 pages of this... But I believe if you are given the power to change something (I'm not talking supernatural power here) and this something will change the world then you should do so.
That's a bit vague...Do you mean just change the world or change the world for the better? Both are valid .
Define "better." Some would consider the complete eradication of drug use through stringent government measures to be a step towards a perfect, free society; some would consider it to be a direct incursion upon civil liberties.
The way to world peace: Trade No even if you have the power to change the world doesn't mean you should. You should gather the opinions of the others before making your decision. This isn't just their world, its everyone's world.
That's what I meant. It seemed as he had forgotten a word so I wanted to know if that was the word. Obviously better is subjective to the person. There are easier ways to kill humanity that don't involve killing all other life @Leaka: What do you mean by trade? Like, replacing currency with a trade-based system?
I came into this thread prepared to answer, but then I was caught off guard by the Death Note mention. I've been meaning to watch some Death Note for weeks now, but I've managed to forget. Even if I'm not usually into anime, I stumbled across Death Note on google some weeks back and read info about it, and it sounded completely interesting. I am going to search for some episodes right now before I forget again. /googles Anyway, I agree that sometimes it can be justified to "change the world" if you have the ability to, though it really just depends. It's very subjective. You may believe you're doing greater good, but that's you and you only. What gives you the right to intervene by using your ability to change the world? Having the ability to do something doesn't automatically give you the justification to go on and do so. I'm going with sometimes. btw, to be blunt, haven't bothered to read beyond the first page. I'm tired and on to looking for Death Note episodes!
There are no "solutions" to "problems," only manipulations of the current state. But I do recognize that such introspection can render none such manipulations. Color exists extrinsically of ourselves, but "color" does not. Color, as we know it, is nothing more than assigned property and an interpretation. Electromagnetic energy exists. I was saying that color does not not have exoteric existence in the sense of our perception of it. "Red" does not exist. Frequencies and amplitudes of defracted, reflected, or absorbed electromagnetic pulses that we perceive as "red" exist. If a tree falls in a forest with no one around, it does not make "sound;" it creates vibrations that would be perceived as sound if received. Our consensual reality exists only as a product of our conscious awareness, perception, etc. While a universe may exist, it does not exist in the state that we perceive it. Our world is the spawn of the perceptions and distortions of this static reality (assuming that one exists) that our mind produces. I understand that such introspection cripples "solutions" (or any course of action) and has no practical application. After all, anything can be said to merely not exist, and theoretically, everything can be reduced to nothing more than a mere phantasm. I don't necessarily believe that a static (the universe is by nature dynamic, so by static i mean that it is not affected by our conscious awareness or existence) does not exist (or that nothing exists independently or exoterically of ourselves). I was merely arguing that if we are to discount rights as an irrelevant human construct with no autonomous existence, we must must consider the (irrefutable and unprovable) possibility that nothing exists extrinsically to our conscious awareness and perception. If human rights are to be assumed impertinent for the fact that they are phantasms, we must consider what evidence we have for existence autonomous of ourselves. I firmly believe in science, empirical evidence, and the deductive reasoning that lies at the foundation of scientific disciplines. I understand that introspection has no practical application. But I love to offer a new perspective on a situation. In dissonance with the Anthropic Principle, I do not believe that something does not exist merely because it cannot be observed. Observation merely provides validation of such existence (or at least a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that it does exist in accordance with the assumption of the autonomous existence of the universe).
