Jump to content

HOMER-16

Senior Members
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HOMER-16

  1. I consider myself atheist in terms of God being an omniscient, conscious, sentient entity.

     

    The Bible and many other religious texts state God as being perfect. Yet God though of Lucifer as his favorite. In my mind, if one was perfect, one wouldn't have preferences and that affects ones actions.

     

    Also, I really don't like the concept of 'just believe' as I see that as merely bowing down to someone and not thinking for yourself. It makes you a lamb and the one in charge (whether Pope, priest, or Rabbi) the Shepard.

     

    On top of that, every major religion states that if you don't believe in their deity, you are eternally punished.

     

    I don't care what you've done, nothing equals eternity. To me these are not the acts of our 'lord and savior' but the acts of a tyrant.

  2. Interesting thoughts.

     

    But Bee makes a good point.

     

    Though instead of having the student choose those classes most interesting to them, why not just make every class interesting?

     

    There are some schools that are considering video games to enhance learning by making the classes actually fun for most students. And generally, when one is interested, one is more likely to learn.

  3. Why not give, Syndicalism a try, or Anarchism?

     

    Anarchy, ANARCHY!!! Wow... Sorry that just doesn't work. Look at (what was it called?) Rowanda I believe... No governmental system what so ever and every one suffers there. No one has anything!

     

    Now I do not know what Syndicalism is though...

     

    Oh btw, we are talking of only these two as they are the most common and most popular really...

  4. Studies have been done to see what differences there are between conscious and unconscious brain activity. The results suggest that there really isn't any significant difference.

    So that says that the assumption of reality is the normal state (waking or dreaming). The interesting case then becomes imagination ('daydreaming'), in which we are able to play out a scenario and still retain at least some level of alertness to external stimuli.

     

    Or when you lucid dream. By far better than day dreaming. Imo.

  5. Halo Reach might be a good game.

     

    Fallout 3 is awesome with its diversity especially with the broken steel expantion pack.

     

    Drawn to life do not get. Incredibly stupid story line but still interesting with its concept.

     

    I was hoping for the next tiberium game. And for Fangus Klott. :(

     

    And this one isn't really recent but I think it's good enough and not well known enough to get away with but Chrono Cross. (You won't believe how many people who are looking for the next Chrono Trigger don't know of this game!)

     

    Oh and Red Faction Guerilla. Awesome destruction engine!

  6. Alot of the times more costly stuff is less damaging. Take shade-grown coffee for instance. Better for the environment, less slashing and burning, doesn't wear out soil as fast (if at all) and has its own unique taste. If people would buy more of this, demand would increase and supply would also. Thus lowering the cost.

  7. As I said before, there are times when I think free market capitalism keeps us spinning our wheels making the same old cars and toasters because they're profitable but not necessarily better or as good as they could be.

     

    We need to put more emphasis and better rewards on innovation rather than a way to make a quick buck. Let greed work for us in effect.

  8. :doh::doh::doh::doh:

    First off I knew that would catch some flak so :doh: for that. The rest are for losing the reply I would've posted if internet hadn't conviniently crashed. :P

     

    OK.

     

    How would you define think?

     

    Do microbes "think"? Yesterday 5:14 PM

     

    Short sweet simple. I consider it to be the ability to make decisions based on its surroundings. Voluntary or not.

     

    That said, I withdraw my previous statements about embryos and existance on its own as any think I come up with condradicts itself via parasites.

  9. My kind of society would be where no one tries to force their opinions on everyone else. And where there was no set definition of right and wrong.

     

    Btw, in life, something always 'dies' so another may 'live'.

     

    So a wolf should not kill a moose and eat its share with the pack, or should it just take a leg or two and let the moose go?

     

    The first is capitalism. The weaker let the stronger continue. But the other is socialism. Both 'live' but now the pack is hungery and the moose can't move any more. And eventually, the pack will die of starvation and the moose will bleed out.

     

    In capitalism, most do profit. And those who don't. At least they can have hopes and dreams of a better future.

     

    In socialism, yes no one's exactly 'dead'. But no everyone suffers and there is no hope for a better future. You can't gain anything.

  10. I consider any thing that's able to think for itself at any level and able to continue it existance on its own, would be considered alive. (In that definition, embryos are not 'alive' to me. And I would consider more advanced computer programs to be 'alive' at a low level.)

  11. Yeah, perhaps I should not have brought this up. I should've gone with my gut feeling but... oh well.

     

    You all've prooved your point, no point continuing on an impossible argument then.

     

    I withdraw my case... until I come up with another stupid idea to get debunked. :D

  12. I also do not agree with that quote. Like foodchain said, we adapted to make use of our surroundings. Also, the things we are protected from, we didn't adapt to those so they are harmful.

     

    Why is this in the speculations section anyway?

  13. I know what probability is.

     

    My point was, there were two possibilities. Either it comes up a 1. Or it doesn't. One of two possibilities.

     

    Now I'll explain in an easier way than my last attempt.

     

    We describe alternate realities as different possibilities right? Well, think of a realtiy where we roll a dice.

     

    There are two possibilities. We hit a 1, or we don't. If we don't, we hit a two, or we don't.... on and on... Till we get it correct.

     

    I hope that's not as confusing. ;)

     

    You see, we keep going till it's true.

  14. thats exactly what you are asking us to do though

     

    I'm proposing we look at this with more logic that evidence. I mean, really now, are you telling me we can possibly put half the things on this section to the test as of right now?

     

    misapplication of universe. there can only be one universe by definition. also, evidence?

     

    Alternate realities work better? And also, I don't know how there could be evidence. There could but not right now. Just with logic I guess we could prove it but...

     

    you have completely misunderstood 50:50. 50:50 means there is an equal probability of one thing happening over the other. a yes or no question could have a yes:no probability of 100:1 or 25:32.

     

    Break it down to it's simpliced parts. Like with Skeptics situation, lets look at this with descrete mathematics will we?

     

    If: a 6-sided die were rolled => x

     

    Then: a 1 comes up.=> Y

     

    If x, then Y

     

    11: 1 true

    10: 0 false

    01: 1 (We ignore

    00: 1 these two)

     

    Either, yes it will, or no it won't.

     

    infinity:infinity is not 50:50

     

    Infinity on one side, and infinity on the other. Either one or the other.

     

    yet you put the others into the probability and then mess it up.

     

    Where?

  15. actually, pseudoscience and speculations has even more rigorous rules than the rest of the forum seeing as it so easily attracts loonies. just because its in P&S doesn't mean you can just drop every standard science sets.

     

    I know you can't drop everything. But we're in an area where there is little evidence or testing.

     

    Well do you intend to speculate or spout pseudoscience?

     

    I truely rather speculate. I should be trying to say, if this is true, could this be the reason or could this be true.

     

    No, I think you mean to say that everything that you are completely ignorant about is 50:50.

     

    Do you truley have to go into insults? What I meant by that was that everything, everything is half and half. A yes or no answer. Whether this is correct or not. Yes or no. 50:50. Does this work. Yes or no.

     

    The reason I came to this conclusion was that, if somehow you were to look at all alternate universes. Infinite # of universes btw. If you were to look and see if some event or concept with only two possibilities. For this example, is my monitor on or off. You would see that there are infinite with the monitor on, and infinite with the monitor off. infinity:infinity-50:50. Btw, this model only applies to those alternate universes which the monitor can only be on or off. Not some stage inbetween that we cannot understand due to different physics. :D

  16. Yes I'm beginning to see the chem. side of this as I'm currently taking the class.

     

    As for what else are we to do... Idk, we could look for environments where chemical bonds could potentially grow into complex molecules.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.