EFFICIENCY=DEATH

[Helm]

That bit got me confused. In what way am I supposed to examine this statement? Deterministically the strive for efficiency is what puts the process of evolution in motion, thusly postponing entropy. But if a totality in terms of efficiency was to be achieved, then a perfect system would be entropic?...

I'd like to know why you put such a statement in your signature and in what spirit was it ment. I'm greek and hairy and not at all that quick on the uptake.

[Emu]

Who are you talking to, exactly?

[Helm]

Not you, obviously.

[Emu]

Obviously.

[Helm]

Fuck you.

[kellychaos]

Back (I think) in the 1980's or so, there was a scientist who, while doing genetic mapping research, found the the very ends of chromosomes, their is a breakdown in the protein which corelates to the amount of times cells can replicate themselves efficiently, and which breaks down further after each subsequent replication. If higher powers were really interested in running an efficient universe, why didn't they set this cap lower and why has no one in the middle management of the universe been fired? If I were the Grand Puba, I would show no quarter to these deadbeats who can't maintain efficiency. There is a death quota to meet! >:

[mesobe]

the strive for efficiency is going to be our deaths. Humans obession with efficiency can snowball into the exact opposite of efficiency and ironically resulting in a backwards stride.

The more efficient we make things for ourselves, the less we have to responsible for and ultimately making us completely useless. I mean... dont you think its fucked how if you take someone out of the city they live in, put them into the bush only 5 miles away and not let them back with only the clothes on their backs, they would most likely die of exposure or something! People rely on how efficient their pills, computers and cars are.

Even in just everyday life people have no pride in what they do. The managers at McDicks for example, dont give a fuck about the working conditions or the workers... they only care about keeping drive-thru waits under 30 seconds so fat greasy humans can get their shitty hamburger.

Effeciency is the symbol of what makes society so horrid. Take a pill to get a boner, take a pill to go to sleep, to wake up, to improve your thinking.... effecient weapons to kill as many people as possible...

efficiently = death.

[Vibecrewangel]

And sadly.....I agree with that.

[FartinMowler]

mesobe makes sence and Helm is still a dick...Only a total arrogant A-hole will start a subject for only certain people to participate in.

[Helm]

I'd like it if Derrida could explain his signature himself. Or is mesobe his new account or something? It's not that I don't appreciate the other people giving it a shot, it's just that I was originally interested in how that particular user ment it. Not so much a conversation thread as a clarification thread. And Fartin sucks my semen out of a dissected goat's womb.

Oh and the quote I think is "all I know is that I know nothing" which, all contradictions aside, means not exactly the same thing as the quote you put in your signature.

[FartinMowler]

Mesobe is way more interesting than Helm :/ Someone that actually spoke in a clear and consise manner than some retarded intellectual mumbo jumbo just to impress there masturbating ego.

[The One and Only...]

Yeah, I'll remember that bit on efficiency when you starve to death because of an inefficient allocation of farming resources.

Efficiency is the tool by which we can maximize our living experience. If you would rather have more time to rest than make more money in the workplace, you are being more efficient by taking the time to rest assuming that your end goal is your own pleasure. Striving for efficiency in one's life is not the same thing as striving for maximum output of services or products.

[camacazio]

:themoreyouknow

[sspadowsky]

Yeah, I'll remember that bit on efficiency when you starve to death because of an inefficient allocation of farming resources.

Efficiency is the tool by which we can maximize our living experience. If you would rather have more time to rest than make more money in the workplace, you are being more efficient by taking the time to rest assuming that your end goal is your own pleasure. Striving for efficiency in one's life is not the same thing as striving for maximum output of services or products.

Hahahaha! Spoken by someone who's clearly maximizing his living experience. By the way, aren't you the one who said that experience means nothing? Ah, but I digress.

Helm and the new guy make much sense in their statements. Ultimately, I think there's a trade-off for everything. When you have a shitload of leisure time, you tend to grow bored, restless, and dissatisfied. Life can often seem pointless when computers and pills do everything for you. We all work jobs we hate because they're a paycheck and they're something to do between weekends. And we can't wait to get off work, so we can go get loaded in a bar, or nuke a Lean Cuisine and sit on our asses, watching washed-up celebrities degrade themselves on The Surreal Life. By becoming more and more efficient, we are, to an extent, rendering ourselves meaningless.

[mesobe]

"maximum output of services or products" is just a way of explaining effeciency, man... Its the *exact* same thing.

and my quote is right. If you want to look it up for yourself, try Aristotles "The Nicomachean Ethics". Youll find it in there.

Have fun.

and oh yeah.... me is me. Im a new user.

[Helm]

Must be a similar quote then, because "en eida, o'ti ouden eida" translates exactly from greek into "I know one thing: that I know nothing" and I'm greek and I've studied the classics so I should know :/ I guess he just kinda said a similar thing elsewhere and I don't remember.

Anyway, thanks for explanation.

[mesobe]

well who knows. It could possibly be the same quote, just transulated into a different flavor.

[Helm]

Also there's a typo in Aristotle in your sig I don't know if it's delibarate (you never know with those post-modernist fellows) so umm... right.

[Buggerman]

hmm...

[mesobe]

that is indeed a typo. one of my human inperfections. Thats the problem about operating a computer after the consumption of several fat scoobie snaks.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Helm is hilarious :<

[mesobe]

Helm is the guy at the party who tells you your zipper is undone. Or you have puke in your hair.

[Pub Lover]

Helm is the guy you wake up hugging the morning after a party. :blowme

[The One and Only...]

"maximum output of services or products" is just a way of explaining effeciency, man... Its the *exact* same thing.

No, it isn't.

Triple s, I was referring to espistemology with regards to experience. One cannot know anything from experience alone.

[Zhukov]

Lets be efficient and feed the poor. Lets be efficient in cleaning up polution and lts be efficient in getting rid of nuclear bombs. Look, no more death.

[The One and Only...]

Feed what poor? Our poor are being fed. If you are talking about the poor in foreign countries, well, you better pray that globalization comes that much faster, because foreign aid goes down the drain without liberalization reforms.

We are efficient at getting rid of pollution. But it can't be completely eliminated, especially in developing nations. Trying to enforce a worldwide set of regulations for pollution will force such nations back into poverty. Regulations always come after wealth grows, not before.

Nukes? Good idea.

Death would still be around. It's called crime.

[Zhukov]

It was an example of good eficiency and how efficiency doen't in itself mean death. Only apitalst efficiency

[derrida]

I found myself thinking "I seem to remember reading that somewhere..." My sig is a collection of bumper stickers from the Church of Euthanasia, whom I think express some very endearing sentiments.

Mad props (sloppy blowjobs optional) to mesobe for keeping me from posting even more Marxist theory.

[kellychaos]

Helm and the new guy make much sense in their statements. Ultimately, I think there's a trade-off for everything. When you have a shitload of leisure time, you tend to grow bored, restless, and dissatisfied. Life can often seem pointless when computers and pills do everything for you.

If space travel is eventually perfected, the people on the fringes/outposts will have to work hard to maintain survival while those who stay on planet earth will increase their efficiency and, consequently, their entropy.

All I know is that during the time of small family farms in the U.S. it is doubtful that anyone working them had to have pectoral implants put into their body. They EARNED them (Please avoid my anachrosticity and disregard the fact that medical science hadn't perfected that type of surgery at that time).

With all this saved time and energy I will have time to perfect my skills of ESP and astral travel thereby negating the need to earn money for yearly vacations.

[Anonymous]

Feed what poor? Our poor are being fed.
Yet another example of why experience means nothing, huh?

[Helm]

I WORSHIP THE SUN!

[mesobe]

hmm...I dont know if The One and Only knows what he/she is talking about. what does "experience" have anything to do with having fed our poor (which we havent. go to a major city and walk around downtown. Far from fed!) and what does experience have to do with the issue of the negative and positive effects of making our lives more efficient?

It sounds like your looking for an excuse to use big fancy words.

[Helm]

yes yes you understand exactly what OAO is about. Concratulations. Now please disregard him completely like people around here should do. We're hoping that he'll either go away or shut up.

[The One and Only...]

I understand how people are misusing the term experience. All that I said was that efficiency is the tool by which we maximize our life experience. When we choose to do one thing over another, we are attempting to be more efficient in the production of our personal pleasure. Experience has nothing to do with people starving.

[mesobe]

yup. and maximizing our life experience is going to be the death of us all. Making our lives more worry-free and convenient is like painting ourselves in a courner.

for example, one can say that computers are the number one tool that has made our lives easier. In fact most of us rely on them for our survival everyday. To take it further, computers rely on electricity... which is just a bunch of vibrating electrons. Humans rely on little invisible balls that move around... and without them, we are fucked. Total chaos would ensue.

I think the scales have flipped. the more convenience we create for ourselves, the more we are fucked if all those little balls stop moving around.

Humans have this crazy ability of creating something out of nothing. Either inventing things in our heads (like religion) or the ability of taking a mountain and turning it into metal objects and structures etc.

[theapportioner]

EFFICIENCY = DEATH kinda reminds me of Judge Dredd. Y'know, how Judge Death thought it'd be a better idea to make life a crime...

[Helm]

The city is guilty! The crime is life! The sentence is death! Darkness descends!

[The One and Only...]

How do you know religion was created out of nothing? You don't. In fact, atheism is created out of nothing, since logically a supernatural entity could exist. Agnosticism is the only logical stance.

The thing you have forgotten is that the little electric balls won't stop moving around, and if they did, we would be fucked regardless of our technological advancements.

[Buggerman]

tricky!

[mesobe]

religion is an invention created by humans. It was a tool humans used to help them explain complicated phenomena and help them curb what is known as "the ignorance of causes." ("Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes). The arguement if a god does or does not exsist is one thing, but religion is a whole other matter.

Look at what happened when the power went out along the eastern coastline of Canada and the US last year. It seems like those little balls stopped moving then and it was a complete nightmare over there. People are still talking about it. do you remember how long it was out for? I think 24 hours or so... no more then a few days. Could you imagine if the whole world shut down forever? Its almost too hard to contimplate!

and whats so logical about a supernatural entity? "logic" and "supernatural" are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[AChimp]

OAO, you are a total loser. For someone who questions reality, you sure take things literally.

[mesobe]

hah! some people like having a discussion and others just like to argue.

[Mr. Vagiclean]

:/ Come on guys, isn't it all about "balance"? x]. The damn "argument" made a full circle, just on a higher plane. Mesobe i wish i had the ability to put down the words that come into my mind like you can. You make OAO look like a mere advocate, nothing more :(

[mesobe]

welp, I just want to express my opinion and hear others viewpoints in turn.

I dont really care for these "zen masters of the universe" who think they are so fucking smart, that their comments with the fancy word play can fool us into thinking they know what they are talking about.

OAO, get a life.

[Big Papa Goat]

That stuff about the little balls was pretty fucking stupid. Unless you just meant we should have more reliable power systems, in which case it was off topic. But still pretty fucking stupid.

[mesobe]

how is it so fuking stupid? and how is it off topic? did you even *read* anything I posted? or did you just read every 4th word.

[Vibecrewangel]

OAO - can you please explain what you mean when you speak of experience.

[kellychaos]

That stuff about the little balls was pretty fucking stupid. Unless you just meant we should have more reliable power systems, in which case it was off topic. But still pretty fucking stupid.

BGP, we all know that quantum physics is way more complicated than "little balls". I don't think that he meant it that literally.

[The One and Only...]

religion is an invention created by humans. It was a tool humans used to help them explain complicated phenomena and help them curb what is known as "the ignorance of causes." ("Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes). The arguement if a god does or does not exsist is one thing, but religion is a whole other matter.

That is only one explanation. One cannot discount the possibility that God did, in some shape or form, make himself known, even if such an expression is incomprehensible to our minds. I'm not discussing the improbability of the matter; I'm discussing the possibility of the matter, which is entirely different.

Look at what happened when the power went out along the eastern coastline of Canada and the US last year. It seems like those little balls stopped moving then and it was a complete nightmare over there. People are still talking about it. do you remember how long it was out for? I think 24 hours or so... no more then a few days. Could you imagine if the whole world shut down forever? Its almost too hard to contimplate!

Not only does that have little to do with your point about the elmination of electron movement, but let's face the facts - by a large gap we still live in better conditions than in the past even when such tradgedies occur. Even in the unlikely event that a cluster of problems will happen at once, we would simply have to return to our primitive state to survive - that does not mean that we destroyed ourselves. Quite the contrary - we advanced ourselves, and after time, can advance ourselves again as we possess knowledge of our previous advancements. It is such advancements which allowed us to get so far in dominating the planet, after all, which will ultimately work in our favor.

Recall that the earth will eventually be pulled into the sun. Unless we create technology to leave earth, we will all die.

and whats so logical about a supernatural entity? "logic" and "supernatural" are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

You don't know much about natural theology, do you? Read up on the Cosmological Argument (which I found out about after I posted my one proof for the supernatural. The two are very similar, though not the same). I think it should be sufficient for my purpose.

[The One and Only...]

OAO - can you please explain what you mean when you speak of experience.

Sense experience does not provide any knowledge on it's own. It can provide data, so to speak, but in order for something to be known (as in relation to truth) thought must occur.

[Brandon]

You don't know much about natural theology, do you? Read up on the Cosmological Argument (which I found out about after I posted my one proof for the supernatural. The two are very similar, though not the same). I think it should be sufficient for my purpose.
The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.

[mesobe]

You don't know much about natural theology, do you? Read up on the Cosmological Argument (which I found out about after I posted my one proof for the supernatural. The two are very similar, though not the same). I think it should be sufficient for my purpose.
The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.


a-fucking-men!

[Vibecrewangel]

Sense experience does not provide any knowledge on it's own

I don't think anyone here "misused" the word experience. I believe you were using a narrow (though valid) interpretation of the word. You can not expect other people to use a term that has a broader meaning in a such a narrow context. Unless of course you make it clear that you are using the word in a particular way.

[Dole]

'experience' is not a word the lad can use authoritatively.

[theapportioner]

Yeah the cosmological argument is mad weak.

[The One and Only...]

The reason that it's absurd to mix logic and the supernatural is the following problem: if you say that everything logically must have a cause, then what caused God? Obviously, a theologian escapes from this by saying "God is not bound by the rules of logic," but then what the hell is the point of bringing logic into the issue in the first place? If you say that God conforms with logic, then you've removed any ability for him to be an uncaused cause, because you've violated one of the axioms the argument employs.

Flawed argument. The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause. As logic is the process of correct reasoning, this is a logical argument.

You can't "prove" or "disprove" a concept like God, since we've removed it from the scientific and rational rules that apply to us. Either you believe or you don't.

Scientific? Yes. Rational? No. Examination whether the natural world could follow its own laws without the supernatural can point to whether the supernatural is or is not real.

Besides, I am not arguing for religion. My point is merely that 1) we cannot be certain that religion is based on nothing and 2) that the supernatural must be real if we accept certain premises that have been hardwired into our minds.

[theapportioner]

The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause.

You've only offered a definition of the supernatural - you have not at all advanced the idea of the possibility of the supernatural's existence.

And, I don't really understand why you are pursuing the cosmological argument so strongly, given your disgust towards a posteriori arguments.

[The One and Only...]

I don't have a complete disgust of a posteriori arguments; I just feel that they are inappriopriate within economics and cannot provide absolute knowledge - but then, very little if anything can provide absolute knowledge to begin with.

You remember my proof of the supernatural that I posted, right? Well, a few days ago I saw the cosmological argument, and I realized that the two are so similar that I might as well just accept the latter one.

Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.

Also remember that I only use the argument for the supernatural, rather than for God.

[mburbank]

whatever

[mesobe]

yes, OAO... and last week I read all about the Voodoo Spell Theorum.

It implies every human is a god and that "god" is just a human. It also proves without a doubt that donuts are the key to cold fusion.

This is a philosophy/religion/politics/news thread... not a retard/psychobabble/bullshit thread.

[Brandon]

Flawed argument. The assumption that everything must have a cause only applies to the natural world - as the supernatural is not bound to the laws of the natural, it does not require a cause. As logic is the process of correct reasoning, this is a logical argument.
Well, answer one question for me then, poopy. Causing something or deciding to cause something imply the existence of temporality. If "the supernatural" is immune to rules of temporality (since it supposedly caused time itself), then how can it make a move to cause anything?

[The One and Only...]

The better question would be why couldn't it? The concept of all "moves" occuring in time only applies to the natural world - there is no inherent law which states that things must happen within time in the supernatural realm. Is something occuring outside of time beyond human comprehension? Yes. But that does not mean that it is logically impossible.

[Command Prompt]

1. This forum is like flypaper, but for idiots and not flies. :(

2. The one and only is referred to as the "OAO" now. Rap stars are referred to by acronyms. Rapstars are usually black. Therefore in the philisophical a+b+c=d sense, I conclude that OAO is a ****** and I don't like him :lol

[mesobe]

OAO, you should try to answer Artificials question instead of expressing more of your rerted physcho babble and avoiding the question.

your jumping from one view point to the next calling the supernatural "logical" then saying that it is not bound to any laws at all, which is quite the opposite of "logically, a god could exisit"

make up your goddamn mind

[kellychaos]

Personally, I prefer the version that relies on time - if the natural world has always existed, then a logical contradiction takes place; the point in which we exist would never be reached.



You agree that time/tempoirality is a human construct, right? It, more or less, fixes our place based on what became before and after ... i.e. cause and effect. No one can say with any certaintly that the natural world has always existed. What we can say; however, is that from the point that we have recognized ourselves as beings (i.e. self-consciousness), we have needed a way to fix ourselves in the general scheme of "cause and effect". It's more or less a grounding point. Who's to say whether our brains were advanced enough prior to the discovery of self-consciousness to even recognize temporality. Chances are that nature existed before this and has always seemed like it was here because at the point at which we gained this awareness, it was. From this point, we had to assign, due to logic, a starting point ... only the starting point was, and always will be theoretical. You are aware that a corollary to the "Big Bang" theory is "The Big Smash" in which many scientiests still theorize that the expansion of the universe will, at some time in the future, reach a critical state and begin to contract upon itself until it reaches maximum density and again foster another "Big Bang" in an endless cycle ... ad infitum ... so where does that put your starting point and the idea of any real temporality?

[kellychaos]

[. Even in the unlikely event that a cluster of problems will happen at once, we would simply have to return to our primitive state to survive - that does not mean that we destroyed ourselves. Quite the contrary - we advanced ourselves, and after time, can advance ourselves again as we possess knowledge of our previous advancements. .

And how many people that you know will survive well in this primitive state? My guess is that those surviving well won't come from the advanced societies but, more likely, from the third world countries since they are those that are closest to minimal survival.

[The One and Only...]

Something does not have to be bound by rules to be logical. I don't see your point.

Kelly, time exists outside of the mind. It is merely named time. If the mind ceased operating, time would still exist. Also, the number of humans who would survive would probably still be greater than the number who would be alive had we never advanced as a species. Not only that, but it has little to do with the concept of efficiency, as efficiency would tell you that we would only create what would allow us to survive better in the long run.

[Vibecrewangel]

time is a human construct

[Perndog]

human is a time construct

[theapportioner]

I suppose we must construct space, too.

[camacazio]

I know I did.

[Anonymous]

We also trade it. They made a television show about such.

[Brandon]

The better question would be why couldn't it? The concept of all "moves" occuring in time only applies to the natural world - there is no inherent law which states that things must happen within time in the supernatural realm. Is something occuring outside of time beyond human comprehension? Yes. But that does not mean that it is logically impossible.
You should really hear yourself. :lol

Temporality and causality are inseparable. Temporality and action of any kind are inseparable. If any event occurs, time has passed. If you're claiming that these "supernatural" beings are making decisions and starting things, then there is no possible way in which time could not have passed, even in their realm. If you claim that these beings can act, then they must be temporal.

Either come up with a complete explanation for how a being can act without time passing or shut the fuck up, because the burden of proof is on you. I'm not just going to accept the rationalization that "oh gee, well, they're above temporality and logic."

[ArrowX]

Back to the point Humans Stive for efficiency i.e. Chernobyl. that is why the only thing that makes us part of the ecosystem is Breathing and Feces

in a dictionary its either organism or animal that is described as any living creature that can adapt to it's specific environment humans are quite the opposite we Change the Environment to suit us and in the process manage to kill almost everything we touch as a species, then blame it on something else that we caused, did you know that the human race erradicates over 70 species per day?


WOW i don't know where i'm going with this....HUMANS ARE FUCKED AND STUIPD and THE SCEURGE OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Helm]

we had this duscussion a while ago and it ended with a locked thread and kellychaos getting the last word...

[kellychaos]

Something does not have to be bound by rules to be logical. I don't see your point.


The rules of logic are bound by the way we think. The way we think is bound, more or less, by the laws (or rules ... give it a name) of Nature. Thus, yes, logic is bound by rules. I don't see any corollation between logic and the metaphysical. It's a contradiction in terms, really.


Kelly, time exists outside of the mind. It is merely named time. If the mind ceased operating, time would still exist.


It is a construct of the mind based on the phenomena of cause and effect and, if you understood a word of what Hume was trying to convey, even the laws of cause and effect are theorectical because they're limited by what we can perceive with a limited amount of senses. We will always be limited to any true knowledge of a "black and white" cause ... i.e. it will always be out of our reach. At the same time, it's more or less the best we can do with what we have along with an innate sense of probability based on what has come before. Also, throw in the Einstein's laws of relativity and you'd see that even the definition of time is subjective and dynamic. How can you positively define such an entity when it is so subjective to change?


Also, the number of humans who would survive would probably still be greater than the number who would be alive had we never advanced as a species.

Note that there are different types of intelligence and/or sensory knowledge. Who's to say that humans may not evolved along different lines (say, an instinct outside of speech and/or tool making) that would have allow us to become just as sucessful without the aid of technology?

[The One and Only...]

The rules of logic are bound by the way we think. The way we think is bound, more or less, by the laws (or rules ... give it a name) of Nature. Thus, yes, logic is bound by rules. I don't see any corollation between logic and the metaphysical. It's a contradiction in terms, really.

Logic is bound by no such thing.

It is a construct of the mind based on the phenomena of cause and effect and, if you understood a word of what Hume was trying to convey, even the laws of cause and effect are theorectical because they're limited by what we can perceive with a limited amount of senses. We will always be limited to any true knowledge of a "black and white" cause ... i.e. it will always be out of our reach. At the same time, it's more or less the best we can do with what we have along with an innate sense of probability based on what has come before. Also, throw in the Einstein's laws of relativity and you'd see that even the definition of time is subjective and dynamic. How can you positively define such an entity when it is so subjective to change?

Time is what all natural events occur in. It has nothing to do with principles of causuality.

Note that there are different types of intelligence and/or sensory knowledge. Who's to say that humans may not evolved along different lines (say, an instinct outside of speech and/or tool making) that would have allow us to become just as sucessful without the aid of technology?

Probability theory has a lot to say about it.

[The One and Only...]

Temporality and causality are inseparable. Temporality and action of any kind are inseparable. If any event occurs, time has passed. If you're claiming that these "supernatural" beings are making decisions and starting things, then there is no possible way in which time could not have passed, even in their realm. If you claim that these beings can act, then they must be temporal.

Either come up with a complete explanation for how a being can act without time passing or shut the fuck up, because the burden of proof is on you. I'm not just going to accept the rationalization that "oh gee, well, they're above temporality and logic."

Why won't you? It makes perfect sense. The fact that all events occur within time is an inductive argument. It has been observed that all events occur within time. But this argument only applies to the natural world, because as far as we know, we have not made contact with the supernatural to know its laws. The supernatural is by definition not bound by time and space as it is transcedant. Once you understand that your puny argument does not even apply by the very definition of the word, you may comprehend the gravity of what is coming out your mouth.

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must be real, not how it could be real.

[Brandon]

Why won't you? It makes perfect sense. The fact that all events occur within time is an inductive argument. It has been observed that all events occur within time. But this argument only applies to the natural world, because as far as we know, we have not made contact with the supernatural to know its laws. The supernatural is by definition not bound by time and space as it is transcedant. Once you understand that your puny argument does not even apply by the very definition of the word, you may comprehend the gravity of what is coming out your mouth.

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must exist, not how it could exist.
Well, little boy, there's a problem here. :lol

Temporality is a construct based on action and its speed. Even if a supernatural being were acting beyond our time, we could still call it temporal because it is indeed acting. So if there's such an insistence among weiners like yourself that the supernatural is non-temporal, then supernatural beings could not act or even think, since these are temporal concepts to begin with. We could not say, then, that "God created the universe," because God creating something would be a temporal action, and if we're claiming that he's non-temporal, He couldn't create at all, since it would take time.

And your precious argument isn't as sound as it seems.

All existing things are caused
Reality is an existing thing
Therefore, reality was caused

Can you see the problem?

All existing things are caused. Gee, if the supernatural was an existing thing, wouldn't the SUPERNATURAL BE CAUSED? You fucking douchebag.

[The One and Only...]

The supernatural doesn't exist, you fuckwit. It is merely real. Existence implies being within space and time, which the supernatural is not.

You are arguing from nothing.

Time (n) - "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future."

There is no indication that events must occur within time, and if there were, it would simply be false by virtue of what the supernatural entails. When will you understand that the supernatural is not bound by any natural considerations? Time is a natural consideration - nothing more. It would be illogical to assume that actions in the supernatural must occur within time.

For that matter, it would be irrational to assume that anything in the supernatural must act in order to create something. You see? It is not bound by any axioms which we have derived from the natural world. Open your eyes.

[Vibecrewangel]

Wait wait wait......
Are you saying that only things within the natural world exist?

[The One and Only...]

Now, to further prove my point, let's assume that time does exist within the supernatural. Consider this for a moment. Notice anything? Because the supernatural is not bound by natural rules, time would not have to have a beginning in the same manner that the time of the natural world does.

Thus, your point is still invalid. It is only natural time that requires a beginning point, not supernatural time.

[The One and Only...]

Wait wait wait......
Are you saying that only things within the natural world exist?

Precisely. The supernatural is beyond existance. It is real, but not existing, because the concept of being is purely natural.

[Vibecrewangel]

Again, you are attemting to use words in one way when they have other more accepted meanings. And you are then expecting people to use the same narrow meaning that you are. On top of that you stated at least once that the supernatural DOES exist, now you say it doesn't. I think you "over-technicalized" your argument and thus caught yourself up in.

I've done it too......just ask Ziggy......he catches mine like every time.


I think a better argument is that the supernatural exists, but since we can only perceive things in the natural world only things in the natural world are real to us.

[Vibecrewangel]

Of course you could switch the terms real and exist in my argument and still have basically the same statement.

[The_Rorschach]

I have an unhealthy dislike for TOAO :(

[Vibecrewangel]

Hi Ror!

How's the surfing?

[The_Rorschach]

I hit Long Beach the weekend before last, but I was on a borrowed board and the waves were shitty. . .And a girl I was talking to at the Queens Surf threw a margarrita (sp?) at me so I left dejected. But the weather was great for Febuary

I think I am just going to bury myself in work until St Patricks day before trying again ;)

[Vibecrewangel]

Why did she throw a drink at you?

[The_Rorschach]

Eh, she was sitting at a table by herself drawing shitty little porno-type pictures, and I let her know that if she was really interested in a train me and my boy Jon would happily oblige.

I guess she was offended or something. Moral turpitude is a bust you know.

[Brandon]

The supernatural doesn't exist, you fuckwit. It is merely real. Existence implies being within space and time, which the supernatural is not.
You're changing your argument now, asshole:

Remember, the focus of the argument is that the supernatural must exist, not how it could exist.
Oh, but now you're going to act like you never claimed it existed at all, only that it was "real." You're a master bullshitter, nothing more, and until you can stick with your original terms, this discussion is finished. Go fuck yourself. Or better yet, go cram another twinkie in your gaping pie-hole, you fat, useless, chronically alienated, psuedo-intellectual pile of shit.

[The One and Only...]

You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.

[Brandon]

You know what definition I meant, Artificial, and taking things out of context to compare definitions is just plain inappropriate for a message board discussion. You think this proves your point? Fine. But I know it doesn't.
Exist (v.) "To have actual being; be real."
That was the defintion we were all using. You suddenly narrowed it down with "to have being in a naturalistic context" to save face when your lousy syllogism proved unsound.

And no, I don't think this "proves" my point, but I'm not willing to discuss anything more with you until you grow up and cut this sleight-of-hand bullshit.

So, like I said, go to town on that twinkie, fatty.

[The One and Only...]

Update: Posts changed so that the meaning of exists is consistent.

In responce to the criticism of my theory (which, as I said before, is more or less obselete since I discovered the cosmological argument), I was operating under different meanings for reality.

Change the argument so that it reads...

All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused

Note that this is different from the argument I've been making in this thread, which is based on time. Rather than showing the inconsistency of infinite time, the argument makes its basis on the principle of universal causuality.

As far as for what you just posted, that would change a lot of the terminology which I have used. Because I don't feel like editing my posts again - realise that the principle of universal causation only applies to things which exist within the natural world, rather than in reality. Time is similar - it only applies to things which exist inside the natural world.

You may note that because time cannot be natural, the principle of universal causation cannot be applied to time itself. But this is not the basis of the argument - rather, an infinite time would be inconsistent with the natural world's processes.

[The One and Only...]

And just to point something out - I post all this crap on the board because I want you guys to point out inconsistencies in my arguments, such as the one regarding terminology which was just pointed out. Did it ruin the argument? No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.

[Helm]

All existing things are caused
The natural world is an existing thing
Therefore, the natural world was caused

Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?

[Helm]

In fact, read Beyond Good and Evil for the book club thing and pay special attention to the mentionings of reductio ad absurdum... you're doing a pretty good job at that.

[Vibecrewangel]

No. Just needed a little tune-up. But had I not posted it, I probably never would have been enlightened and continued to argue from my narrow definition of exist.

My work here is done. :)

[The One and Only...]

Did you understand nothing the last time I explained axiomatic mutial exclusivity (context cosality etc) to you? Why do you torment us so with your highschool primer philosophy dribble when you should be alone in your room reading your Plato or something?

Yes, I understood. But you should have read my rebuttal.

Also, the principle of universal causation is not so much an axiom as it is an inductive argument.

[theapportioner]

Okay. How do you argue it, then?

[Protoclown]

Thanks OAOAOA for ruining another perfectly good thread.

Say the word, folks, and I'll lock it.

[kellychaos]

Logic is bound by no such thing.


Much of logic was develop by Aristotle and is based on truth tables, diagrams, ect. Much of the rigorous thereoms of mathematics are proven in the "if then" structure of logical inductive proofs because it's the way Nature has conditioned our minds to think. I'd even add that our minds, being a part of nature, have evolved to think most naturally, in this (mostly) "black and white" world of logic. I have to hear any convincing ... nay, valid ... logical arguments about the metaphysical in which some concept of "faith" wasn't involved.


Time is what all natural events occur in. It has nothing to do with principles of causuality.


Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?



Probability theory has a lot to say about it.

The basic ingredients of the planet at it's original state ... throw in some physical laws ... and, yes, throw in a little probability ... and you have both the way our planet and ourselves evolved. I'd say that the planet has more to do with the way we evolved than any dent we could make the other way around ... and when we're gone, the planet will hardly remember our existence at all. The way in which we evolved wasn't predistined ... such is the flavor I'm getting from your writing. The path we, or the world, took could have been changed completely by just the change of a few insignificant variables.


"All existing things are caused"


Wha? :eek Prove it! For want of a nail, another OAO kingdom has fallen.

[theapportioner]

Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?


Well, these are just varying units for measuring time. How is this any different from the diversity of scales for measuring space, temperature, etc.?

[kellychaos]

I was going to say that something like temperature was a more objective phenomena but I guess it isn't, is it? :(

[theapportioner]

Yeah, OAO's argument isn't a very strong one. Who is to say that the natural world (presumably, the universe) necessarily had to be caused? One could imagine the Big Bang being an uncaused event; to my layman's knowledge, this idea hasn't been rejected. Of course, if the universe is uncaused, then the first premise is also untrue.

[Brandon]

I think we need to let this thread die lest it turn into a lumbering beast. :(

[The One and Only...]

Much of logic was develop by Aristotle and is based on truth tables, diagrams, ect. Much of the rigorous thereoms of mathematics are proven in the "if then" structure of logical inductive proofs because it's the way Nature has conditioned our minds to think. I'd even add that our minds, being a part of nature, have evolved to think most naturally, in this (mostly) "black and white" world of logic. I have to hear any convincing ... nay, valid ... logical arguments about the metaphysical in which some concept of "faith" wasn't involved.

Your confusing the concept of logic with the process of logic. Logic, as it is defined, does not necessarily have to be bound by natural laws.

Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?

I'm not following this. Time is merely what events pass through in the natural world. That does not mean that events must be caused.


The basic ingredients of the planet at it's original state ... throw in some physical laws ... and, yes, throw in a little probability ... and you have both the way our planet and ourselves evolved. I'd say that the planet has more to do with the way we evolved than any dent we could make the other way around ... and when we're gone, the planet will hardly remember our existence at all. The way in which we evolved wasn't predistined ... such is the flavor I'm getting from your writing. The path we, or the world, took could have been changed completely by just the change of a few insignificant variables.

True, but what I am saying is that it is unprobable that we would have naturally evolved to a superior state that matched the capabilities we have gained with technology had we never made technological advancements.

Wha? :eek Prove it! For want of a nail, another OAO kingdom has fallen.

I already pointed out that the argument only works if you accept the first premise. You don't have to do so - but, so far as we can tell, it would seem that all things are caused by virtue of an extremely large induction.

There are very few things which can be proven beyond a doubt.

[Drew Katsikas]

Thanks OAOAOA for ruining another perfectly good thread.

Say the word, folks, and I'll lock it.

THE WORD

[Helm]

For the record, I didn't expect my thread to end up anything like this. I just wanted a simple clarification. And OAO raped my thread until it was all loose and saggy and oily. Artificial (may I call you Artifical, Brandon?) and the others didn't help with encouraging our resident 15 year old mandark-wannabe >:

[Brandon]

For the record, I didn't expect my thread to end up anything like this. I just wanted a simple clarification. And OAO raped my thread until it was all loose and saggy and oily. Artificial (may I call you Artifical, Brandon?) and the others didn't help with encouraging our resident 15 year old mandark-wannabe >:
Mea culpa. :(

[kellychaos]

A sociology instructor I had once pointed out that, in the successful and efficient societies, people tended to have more time to reflect and turn more toward the humanities after the power struggle is over. Things like military might and a technological edge have been theirs for long that the effort to continue furthering them isn't put forth after a while. These socities eventually become less concerned with retaining their power and efficiency become apathetic.

[mesobe]

the reason why I gave up on this thread a week ago. I think the only thing that needs to be locked up is OAO's keyboard.