State of the Union!

it is supremely easy to lie with stats

And I already conceeded that, but like somebody said, how can you execute somebody who isn't even eligable to vote? In addition, people always go on aobut young people are easily influenced by computer games and TV, so if that is so true, surely if a young person commits a muder, it's the fault of TV and how can you execute the kid for something TV did? The whole situation is laughable. Perhaps if it wasn't the fault of TV / society, it was somehow built into them.. they were born killers and had to be erased! Give me one logical reason for executing them other than "they killed somebody therefore we must kill them", which is a very foolish perspective.

As for your cultural divide argument, does that mean we must accept it as a 'cultural divide' when an eastern nation decides it's appropriate to punish a woman with an out-of-wedlock child by stoning her to death, and simply 'get over it'? Quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have to agree that the possibility of an ultimate purpose in life does not seem very likely unless there is some sort of creator/designer/authority to bestow it. I think it's still logically possible, and moreover that the more modest claim of some significant purpose in life (even if it's not an overiding one) is consistent with just about any ontology.

Back to the topic in hand: I can't help but feel that anyone who condones the execution of children is pretty damn cold-hearted.

I think a single sentiment is responsible for many of the gravest problems in the world. That sentiment is, "Such-and-such group of people deserve to die". It represents the severing of human sympathy. In long-standing civil conflicts, each warring group keeps retaliating against the atrocities committed by the other side; this causes a vicious cycle of retributionary action. But the passion for violence is fuelled by the inability to have any sympathy for the victims of their retribution. Indeed, in this case the victims are usually innocent of any crime, and are chosen purely because they are identified with the community to which they belong. They become dehumanised - demonised even - by hatred that believes murder is justice.

Institutional execution is, at its heart, the same practice as vengeance killing. The difference is that the institution panders to the public desire for blood, where it should uphold the better side of human nature instead.

The reason we have age-related laws is to curb the impulsive nature of immaturity. A 12-year old cannot be trusted to drive a car, because he is presumably far less able to control his impulses than an adult. this is the premise upon which age discrimination is based.

It raises a problem however, when a near-adult (15-17) perpetrates an act which was too involved to be a "crime of passion" as it is termed for adults, and therefore, is diffacult to ascribe to the impulsive behavior of an incompletly devloped mind.

What do you do with a "child" who shoots both of his parents dead, and proceeds to his school where he kills and wounds numerous other people? clearly this is a deranged person who needs to be removed from society. it is not about punishment or hatred (at least from my perspective), it is about protecting innocent people.

The most compassionate option for dealing with this problem would be life in an insane asylum, but honestly, I don't care what is done with them, so long as their removal is perminant.

My cultural devide comment was merely a statement of the pointlessness of the argument. change has to come from within. That hypothetical womman being stoned is not going to be saved by our intervention, only by the slow process of internal social reform. I can see your point though, wee feel the need to speak out against it and do somthing about it, and in the end, that may stimulate the nessecary change... who knows maybe you are right here and now helping to change american culture :smile:

The whole TV/video games is a whole differnt cup of tea. the elements of society which support those views are not the same elements which support the death penalty, hence there is no discontinuity, only debate a between groups. saying that there is a contradiction is treating the whole country as monolithic in opinion, which it clearly is not.

First, I'd like to say that law does not equal justice, no matter how hard you try to make it so. There will always be someone that gets screwed by the law.

But as for my real point...

As a wise man once said, a true warrior fights not to hurt his enemy, he fights to help him - though inflicting physical pain is sometimes necessary. I think that's what honor is all about; even though nowadays, people use morals as a reason to look down on people they consider to be 'weak', honor is about protecting the weak.

Damn, it feels good to be a hardliner - you get that nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside when you condemn a man to death - and almost since the start of civilization, people have always killed their fellow man and defended their actions with things like honor and religion.

If I ever say that nobody should ever have to die, you're full welcome to deliver a swift kick to my balls. I believe there are circumstances under which it is necessary to kill, and circumstances where someone deserves to be killed. However, the fact that someone deserves to die does not mean they should. That a man, for a time, harbors sick ideas, or has a tendancy towards violence and madness that cause him to hurt others, does not mean he should be killed. It means he should be helped, and sometimes that means hurting him, physically and emotionally.

In my eyes, almost any premeditated killing is wrong, and that includes the death penalty. However, the stance I described above has to acknowledge one thing: there are some people who simply cannot be helped. It is possible to push yourself past redemption in this world. To try and change somebody who is literally deranged and dangerous is folly and, quite frankly, a waste of time.

The idea of justice is the restoration of balance when it is disturbed, right back to Hammurabi's code. Though we've evolved a bit past the theory that 'hey, if both of them lose an eye, everybody wins!', the idea is still the same. When someone does wrong, justice is there to see to it that he faces the same amount of suffering that he inflicted.

In that sense, there is no justice when you kill a man for his wrongs, because he will not suffer for whatever misery he created. No balance is achieved when a man who could be healed has his timeline cut short (see Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning for a good example).

P.S., my point was only about the death penalty and what is right to do with TB's point about the 'child', and I'm full aware I didn't even touch on the whole subject of the conversation.

[EDIT] Oh wait, s**t, the meaning of life?

We live in a world which few people even claim to understand. I'd say 99% of the human population is living in total confusion, not only about their lives, but life in general.

I'd say this is because of the unification of all society, and some values deep-rooted in Western culture. There is, first, a belief that there is a one mission to all life, or a single explanation for all things that happen to find their way into reality, that everyone can hear and magically be satisfied with their whole lives - in complete contradiction with Eastern ideas of the tao, the way, one that is different for all people. I'd like to point out that polytheistic peoples did not make war on eachother for religion. The Powow tribe does not attack the Whatever tribe because their Raven God is blasphemous and heathen (for all those of you who would attack me for this, I would remind you that I am Christian, and that in ancient times, Hebrew tribes worshipped Yahweh as only one of the gods, only one force of nature).

But recently, an even more sickening idea has surfaced. People turn to their wise men, after thousands of years of ridiculing and even persecuting them, searching for the meaning of life - that is, a sentence or a word which will at once grant them divine satisfaction and complacence.

I think not.

Human beings were not meant to become a global community. A confused wash of ethics of empire and equality have been bound together with duct tape, and bam - we have a global nation. That's where things get f**ked, in my opinion, because ultimately, human beings should not be expected to control the world.

It sounds good, right, the modern idea of Utopia? Well first, equality. Everybody can vote, everybody can run, everybody has their say. Oh, well sure, we'll have a good economy! And sure nobody will have to be poor, and the successful can remain wealthy! And sure nobody will be corrupt - because people are all hard-working and moral, right? Oh wait a second - s**t. There goes Utopia.

Human nature is to deal with themselves and a small group of friends family. Human nature is not about throwing your life away searching for the one truth of existence to apply to everyone. Human nature is not about equality and fairness. Human nature is caring for yourself, those you know and love, and fighting against anything that threatens that community.

To do whatever it takes to defend and improve what you love, I think, is the meaning of life.

/rant

My question in all this is... How do we know death is a bad thing?

Quite a reasonable point!

In the overall picture of the world, death is just part of the cycle. No matter how hard you try to fight it, everything will fold to it's nature in the end - and death is an integral part of that.

But that's abstract thought, and has no relevance to my life or yours. We can believe in anything we want, but not a single one of us can see a moment beyond our own death. Does it matter so much to you that you would spend your days searching for what will happen when they end?

In life, all we have is time. We get so many years on Earth, and then we're gone from this universe. Even inside our own mortal lives, we only get so much time to enjoy the good things that we know before they leave us - and they will - and I, for one, refuse to waste a moment on brooding. What is the use of figuring out the secrets of life and death if it consumes the time you have to live?

Maybe we will never know the divine value of life - and if we ever do find it, I sincerely doubt it will be in a word or a phrase. We will never know the truth behind some things in life, but we must never underestimate their value for that, and certainly not the value of life itself.

cass is a communist

arguing the meaning of life, death, and morality is the meaning of life. the constant struggle for balance... fairness... opinion... that's our meaning. because if we didn't, we'd have no identity. and with no identity.. there is no meaning to life.

boobs, thats kinda brash and uncalled for dont you think?....and even downright intentionaly inflammatory...and imho, totaly detrimental to the topic....hes entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else....personaly, for a man of his "ahem" 'tender years', as i heard it put once, hes one of the most thought provoking and articulate folks on this forum....sure, he can be abrasive, but hey, we ALL can be....grow some thickness to yer skin bud....he is after all......cassius...and for what its worth, he has my respect, whether i'd like to occasionally kick him in the nuts or not.....

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Bewbies said:
cass is a communist

and if he is? bug f**king deal! I'm certain you missread his post if you think that, but why would you care if you were right? I'm sure we have some commies around here somewhere looks around for Gwil but IMO that just makes them more interesting to talk to.

i say ...lets grab ahold of bewbs and squeeze... :biggrin:

Doc Brass.. :dodgy:

What's wrong with communism? It's a great concept for poorer, under-developed countries. Capitalism simply can't thrive in certain nations. That's not to say Communism actually works...

I don't even think that Bush really win the election honestly. HE CHEATED ALL BECOUSE HE HAD HIS BRO IN where was it again....... Florida.

Bewbies said:
cass is a communist

arguing the meaning of life, death, and morality is the meaning of life. the constant struggle for balance... fairness... opinion... that's our meaning. because if we didn't, we'd have no identity. and with no identity.. there is no meaning to life.

Congratulations, you don't understand a word I said, nor do you understand any of the terms you so throw around so wantonly.

My concept of that perfect life is around the polar opposite of communism, and don't you ever call me a commie, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. The soul of my idea is the individual. If I need to explain the implications of the social structure I talked around, then I will.

There's nothing I can say to the rest of that, because at no point do you take any coherent stance other than to insult me. Arguing the meaning of life is the meaning of life? I believe you're arguing that I'm incorrect because arguing is what I'm supposed to be doing? What exactly is your point?

Explain yourself.

P.S. Communism is a classic idea of political theory that's absolutely beautiful in your head but is f**ked in practice. Plus, I don't subscribe to the belief that total equality between the people who can't fend for themselves and those who are hugely successful is something necessary or reasonable.

The woman being stoned wasn't hypothetical.

Yes, I take from Communism, but i'm not an out and out communist :smile: More of a hardline liberal socialist

hahaha this is what im talking about.. =P

i know cass being a communist has absolutely no place in this thread and is definately untrue. but look at the aftermath! i just wanted to backup the lower part of my post... and in case you guys didnt bother to look past the communist comment:

arguing the meaning of life, death, and morality is the meaning of life. the constant struggle for balance... fairness... opinion... that's our meaning. because if we didn't, we'd have no identity. and with no identity.. there is no meaning to life.

boobs, even after much contemplation of your comment, that has to be the most jumbled, circular crock of s**t ive run across in ages....im actually suprised at it....

Doc B... :dodgy:

oye, ok... i'll try to spell it out

brass, if you were exactly the same as cass, would there be any point in your existing? no.

without our identity, we are exactly the same as our neighbors.

when we differ in our opinions of life, death, and morality, we define our identities.

each of you responded differently to my communist comment, defining your identity a little bit.

thus, you create sole identity - and a meaning to your existance.

nice 1 boobs.

i swore i was not gonna get into this deeply, but wth...

i guarantee you that there is more than one person, given the odds, and the chance, that would feel, and prolly express the exact same opinion , in the exact same way, be it wherever in the world, thus creating at least 2 of the same opinion...i also guarantee you that my existance is NOT defined by comments i make on any forum....although, i will concede they are a mitigating factor in OTHERS perception of said person....imho, a humans deeds among his fellow man in relation to events, expressions, and surroundings are what defines a persons integrity, attitude, and viability as a person.....thus his/her identity...

in other words, you know exactly jack s**t about me, especially from a statement on a forum, because one of the baeutiful things of being a human with a brain is the fact that we can CHANGE our outlooks, due to input from events, statements of our peers, and environment....

end rant....no inflammation intended...we are having a good discussion... :wink:

Doc B.... :heee:

hehe dont get the wrong idea brass... i wasnt saying that a single opinion is enough to make 2 people exactly the same. thats like saying everyone with blue eyes is the same. our identities are a massive compilation of these. i was just using the communist comment as a single example. =P

and no, i wasnt sayin that i know anything about you from a forum post... but i know that your opinion is different from mine.

here, i think you said it better than i did...

one of the baeutiful things of being a human with a brain is the fact that we can CHANGE our outlooks, due to input from events, statements of our peers, and environment....

the fact that you disagree with my logic is enough to prove it correct =P

come on ladies, brake it up.

my point was, in a nutshell, is that its the deeds that define us, not the opinions....anyone can say anything, anytime, EXCEPT in a communist country...its a bit simplified i know, but you get the jist yes?.... i guess thats why i took a bit of humbrage with the commie comment....lord knows, cass is anything BUT....i hate to say it, but in theory at least, there are some parts of the communist doctrine that are, mm, interesting....bewbs, ive enjoyed this... :wink:

matt, please contribute, or stay out of it.... :wink:

peace...

Doc B....

word, i love these discussions =P

and yea... communism is like an economic utopia... on paper. (well, socialism is..)

:wink:

The meaning of life is not about identity. Everyone and everything has one, and pointing that out is completely redundant.

Of course, nothing can ever be exactly duplicated because no two things can have exactly the same experience, but things can come close enough to eachother to be the same. But why is that negative? Having identical and replicated events/situations is a key part of history - ie the cyclic theory, and hot Japanese twins.

The basic idea of time/progression, to me, is that on a grand scale, when something is created, it will loop almost infinitely - except with small changes every time it repeats.

This applies to life because of the 'bare bones' theory of human nature: to live, have babies, and then die. The process is fundamentally the same for every animal. However, evolution works because those kids lucky enough to be born with a trait that works out to be positive in their particular environment are the ones that survive.

The grand purpose of the individual - in the sense of their nature, not their duty - is to create something greater than he is. Evolution agrees with this, 99% of religion agrees with this, social structure agrees with this. But hey - that's just me.

The most important part of that is EVERYONE is born with the power to better the world, to progress evolution. Ingrained in everyone is a talent, a skill, no matter what that may be, and everyone must pursue that in their lives.

I would also say that individuality is not some product of debate over what one thinks is the meaning of life. A person has a purpose and a duty in their lives the second that they're born.

The meaning of life is not about identity. Everyone and everything has one, and pointing that out is completely redundant.

redundant? their existance is created through identity. this is cause and effect - not redundancy. this is like saying a tree in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it.

Of course, nothing can ever be exactly duplicated because no two things can have exactly the same experience, but things can come close enough to eachother to be the same.

oye, dont even trivialize this... it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject. this would be like me breaking down your idea that infinity also implies cycle - or even your use of the words "almost infinately".

I would also say that individuality is not some product of debate over what one thinks is the meaning of life. A person has a purpose and a duty in their lives the second that they're born.

it isnt? that's funny.. i thought differing of opinions would make 2 people identical, not individuals! our opinions on the meaning of life differ, cass. this, alone, makes us individuals.

[edit]holy crap! theres actually a /sarcasm bbcode! LOL[/edit]

seems to me this is becoming very contextual in deliveries...a matter of perception all around....good place for a coffee...***breathe folks....in through the nose...out through the mouth.... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Bewbies said:

The meaning of life is not about identity. Everyone and everything has one, and pointing that out is completely redundant.

redundant? their existance is created through identity. this is cause and effect - not redundancy. this is like saying a tree in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it.

Of course, nothing can ever be exactly duplicated because no two things can have exactly the same experience, but things can come close enough to eachother to be the same.

oye, dont even trivialize this... it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject. this would be like me breaking down your idea that infinity also implies cycle - or even your use of the words "almost infinately".

I would also say that individuality is not some product of debate over what one thinks is the meaning of life. A person has a purpose and a duty in their lives the second that they're born.

it isnt? that's funny.. i thought differing of opinions would make 2 people identical, not individuals! our opinions on the meaning of life differ, cass. this, alone, makes us individuals.

[edit]holy crap! theres actually a /sarcasm bbcode! LOL[/edit]

First off, I would say that the modern movement of putting all-importance on personal perception means absolutely nothing to me. Calling off an argument by saying 'thats just my opinion' is to fly in the face of half of what an opinion is about: defense of the viewpoint you hold. Even in one's most dearly held beliefs, there is correct and there is incorrect. The fact that perhaps I could be the sole person in the universe to believe that also means nothing to me.

Second, no. Do not bother to waste my time and tell me I have a lack of understanding for the subject, I believe I could very well understand your notions of individuality if you told them to me.

"redundant? their existance is created through identity. this is cause and effect - not redundancy. this is like saying a tree in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it."

Redundant it is indeed, but you barely grazed with what I was saying - and as with most of my other points, you've flown straight off the mark. I said that to stack so much importance on proving that there is individual identity is redundant, because identity is inherent.

You tripped up on your notions of perception. First you say that existence is the product of identity - well, things can and do exist which you don't know of, and thus, you can't identify. If you mean that everything that is created automatically has a self and purpose, then that would mean that nobody has to perceive something for it to be true - and by that theory, the tree does make it's sound.

Which it does.

straight off the mark? a tree falls in the forest, nobody can hear it. it has no identity. without anybody to hear and identify it, its existance cannot be acknowledged. what you are saying is that the tree can fall, make a sound, and still be acknowledged with existance without anybody hearing it. can it? a matter of opinion, maybe...

You tripped up on your notions of perception. First you say that existence is the product of identity - well, things can and do exist which you don't know of, and thus, you can't identify.

to say something only exists after I identify it would be a bit arrogant of me.. dont ya think? =P as long as one human can identify something, it has existance. because existance, after all, is just a human idea...

while there is definately correct and incorrect, there is also real belief. in my book, there are 2 kinds of opinions.. the "who is the better candidate" opinion, and the "there is a god" opinion. concepts of perception, identity, and even existance is something dreamt up in the human mind. these fall under the "there is a god" category. which means, as much as i hammer the idea that existance is created through idenity, you simply wont accept it. so, in any argument with these kinds of topics, the "loser" is the one who calls off the argument with the "its just your opinion" card. so, i guess i lose.. because it simply is just your opinion =P

tigers and dragons.. hehe

"existance is created through idenity"

Quantum mechanics anyone? this calls for "possible beer"



Seriously though, noise is created by the vibrations produced in the tree trunk, and the rapid displacement and reconvergance of the (primarily nitrogen) molecules in the air. Of course the tree makes a noise. Human perception is irrelevent.

Tracer is exactly right.

Since every force has a counterforce, perception is the balance of truth, I believe.

"as long as one human can identify something, it has existance. because existance, after all, is just a human idea..."

So nothing would exist without humans? And everything a human believes to exist is more true than what is actually there? You place far too much power on the mind. Or, if instead, everything that a human contrives of has an identity in a sense deeper than a name, well, that goes full circle. It exists because it exists. That's why it's redundant.

The world was here before I was born, and it will remain after I die. The fact that I only perceive a short window of that timeline is completely beside the mark.

If you believe what is real is only what we perceive, fine. That's beautiful. Go write the script for The Matrix 4. But I won't believe it. There is a great deal more at work in our lives than we may ever understand, and we can never in the end know what is real - but you have to take a leap of faith.

" these fall under the "there is a god" category. which means, as much as i hammer the idea that existance is created through idenity, you simply wont accept it. so, in any argument with these kinds of topics, the "loser" is the one who calls off the argument with the "its just your opinion" card. so, i guess i lose.. because it simply is just your opinion =P"

Correction: you once again misread me. That is precisely what I believe in, except my original theory was one of a rule of concrete reality, and your opposition was about the nature of abstract thought, so our ideas do not naturally contrast.

"while there is definately correct and incorrect, there is also real belief. in my book, there are 2 kinds of opinions.. the "who is the better candidate" opinion, and the "there is a god" opinion. concepts of perception, identity, and even existance is something dreamt up in the human mind. these fall under the "there is a god" category."

So basically, what you're saying is that because of the fact that these issues have to do with the core of spiritual life, and are very dear to my soul, that you are powerless to change them because of my stubbornness? I would be full ready to believe in this 'existence through identity' idea, had you actually proved it to me. If you mean that I am to simply go along with what you theorize because I'm so stubborn, I won't believe it.

no, i didnt misread you... i was partially agreeing with you. =P there is such a thing in a discussion, after all

Or, if instead, everything that a human contrives of has an identity in a sense deeper than a name, well, that goes full circle. It exists because it exists. That's why it's redundant.

it exists because it exists! now you got it. :wink: circular logic is your friend... but isn't redundant. the perception of existance is skewed in the human mind, ya see... thats what gives us opinions. :wink: a hallucinating man can actually be killed by something he dreams up in his mind. ive read stories of a particular illness that makes people think bugs are crawling all over them and down their throat. their lungs stop, because his body even believes that it is filling with bugs. all this.. because of human perception. anything can "exist" all it wants... but it can never exist in our minds until we identify it. hell, something can exist only for one person... if yer messed up enough in the head

and yes, this is a "there is a god" topic for you. it all boils down to whether or not existance is created through identity - BOTH being IDEAS in the human mind... which is why i say existance isnt what is actually there; it's what humans can identify. existance is a human concept, thus only humans can identify. whether it be through fossils from the creation of earth, or a tree falling in the forest. and since our minds are so cool, we can choose to BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE. you choose to not. im not saying yer too stubborn to accept this, or any of these instigating ideas going through your head. it's just for the same reason that one person believes in a god, and one doesnt.

oye, im goin to sleeep.... :redface:

Methinks true existence is independent of observers, and that perception of existence is simply interpretation.

yes.

How insightful matt, but I'd like to hear more of your opinion. :razz:

ok well, the exsistance of the one (nothing to do with the matrix) is self evident. But then How do we know everyone except us excists? Well, if we are to be flipant about it, then there is absolutely no proof. None. Whatsoever. This can be explained better with the internet. Right now, I am typing a reply to a post on a internet site. But then, how do I know that all you rest of the people replying are not just some all powerfull external intelligance. (no, i'm talking about lep!) Like the case the exsistance of other human intelligiance, there is none. Is is a paradox. We can only be aware of ourselfs and no one else. Funnily enough, the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one. (Ie, we are not part of some elaborate computer progam. And when I say computer progam, I don't mean the tirany of Microsoft. I mean a system that can make everthing inside the progam feel, hurt love, die. )

Just think about all the advances of technology in the last 50 years. A man on the moon, (and don't get me started about that) babage, neumon, up to modern super computers and fifth generation artificial intelligiance. If all these things the meager human race can produce in between killing itself over stupid things like money, greed and who lives where, it is very plausable to say that a race could of come long before us, with much more intelliange than us. It created the simulation we are in, maybe for a crude form of entertainment, or as an experiment. Hope that is a good insight into my mind.

matt said:
Funnily enough, the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one.

That sounds like some Daily-Mail-moron-statistics to me- you need to think about what that means exactly and to take it in context...

Leperous said:

matt said:
Funnily enough, the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one.

That sounds like some Daily-Mail-moron-statistics to me- you need to think about what that means exactly and to take it in context...

Uhum no, I got that bit of info from a progam about relativity. Thank you, Daily mail inded.

Me got lost a few pages ago and too much to read now.

This thread went from Bush bashing to executions of minors to reasons for living to morales and who knows where its at now...

Wow.

We are currently dealing with relativity and the nature of excistance.

The nature of existance you say? That answer is easy.

/gets on the lecturn and takes out the Bible (even though I dont believe)

"The nature of our existance comes straight from Adam and Eve way back when."

This was forwarded to me by a friend a few months ago:

In the Garden of Eden,
As everyone knows,
Lives Adam and Eve,
Without any clothes.

In this garden,
Were two little leaves,
One covered Adam's,
One covered Eve's.

As the story goes on,
Nevertheless to say,
The wind came along,
And blew the leaves away.

At the sight,
Adam did stare,
there was Eve's treasure
All covered with hair.

And wonder came,
Under Eve's eyes,
As Adam's thing,
Started to rise.

They found a spot,
That suited them best,
A nice big tree,
Where they began to rest.

Her legs spread wider,
And wider apart,
While thrill after thrill,
Came into her heart.

The head of Adam's thing,
Peeked into the hole,
And filled her with passion,
Beyond her control.

His thing did slide,
And Eve's treasure,
Was all wet inside
The joy was good,
She wouldn't let loose,
Until Adam's thing,
Was all out of juice.



And thus, our reason for existance comes from millions of years of horny people :biggrin:

Very funny. So the reason we excist is to produce young. Well, what are we waiting for?!

*does best to ignore WC's post

• 

Matt, I can think of few things less coherent than that post. relativity has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a mathamatical theory which very successfully describes the observeable universe. not a product of a stoned-conversation, and not given to silly ill defined statistics such as you quote. Maybe you are refering to the discontinuity between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? I don't know, but keep in mind the television programs hare hardly the most reliable source for information.

Never seem to get anything right do I?

Well maybe I misread something but I though the thread was going in the Science/Maths direction anyway.

Matt, you are a salutary reminder of the depressing fact that people will accept the most outrageous and foundless bulls**t providing it comes with a confident statistic.

Gollum said:
Matt, you are a salutary reminder of the depressing fact that people will accept the most outrageous and foundless bulls**t providing it comes with a confident statistic.

You think I'm gullble. Hardly. Everything that I hear and see I have always tended to take with a pince of salt. I'm not say tht 39 billion to one is some exact statistical figure, but in my opinion it is a perfectly reasonable figure.

Yes, I think you are gullible. Or possibly just simple.

Funnily enough, the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one.

What do you mean by, "the probability that what we perceive is real"? And how, even if your counterfactual is comprehensible, could anyone possibly arrive at a probability estimate for its instantiation?

You're handling fathomless infinities with all the gleeful fecklessness of a quack. The TV program wasn't on channel 5, perchance? Regardless,whoever scripted it pulled that statistic out of his arse.

Think for yourself. Don't rely on your TV - your brain is better.

Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?

I really don't see the point in arguing about whether or not THIS is the true reality, or debating on whether life is controlle by some outside force (ala "Fate") or whether we kinda make it up as we go.

But when it actually comes down to it- this has absolutely no bearing on our lives. I'm going to try and explain this the best I can...

We all make choices, and it has often been debated that these choices, through one means or another, determine what will happen to us next (whether it be predetermined or not). I.E. I get in a car, and later that afternoon, I get into an accident. It can be said that the choice of me getting into the car caused me to have the accident.

Now, here's what I believe. I don't care if I was destined to get into that car at that time- I don't care if it was simply a random chance of me getting into that car at that time- the fact is, when it comes down to it, I (as in, the conscious person that I am) got into the car. And, since (at least, not to my knowledge) I only have one consciousness, THIS was the way it happened TO ME. Regardless of whether there are alternate "Me's" out there, this act happened to the ME me.

Saying that there is a destiny is rather pointless, then, since any one person, at any given time, will only choose one "path" at that instance. Then, their consciousness will follow that path to the next choice, and so on and so forth. Thereby each person only has one way to live their life- but that doesn't mean that it's predetermined.

And yes, this also covers that whole theory that states that every choice causes the universe to split, and follows both choices to their end, since we are only aware of one universe at a time.

Does any of that make sense to anyone else? I know it's not quite on topic, but it always annoys me people get into debates on predeterminate or indeterminate destinies. Mleh. Sorry.