|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 13, 2007 5:25:51 GMT -5
I don't believe in the death penalty mainly because I guess I believe that life and the pursuit of happiness should be unconditional rights for every human being. Do you believe that we have some kind of inherent 'right' to life and to pursue happiness? Where does this 'right' come from? I could also be argued that abolishing the punishment of an enemy of society deprives one of one's right for revenge, however I don't really think revenge is constructive in for anybody in the long run. The legal system isn't setup to affect revenge - nor even an-eye-for-an-eye. It's ideally setup to protect society. Ideally a society provides a person with certain benefits if they agree-to and follow it's rules. If a person don't follow the rules, then it has to deal with that person. Jail and death-penalty are ways of dealing with a person who is causing problems in the society. As well, the legal system does not implement the eye-for-an-eye idea. It doesn't stab a person who stabbed someone else. It doesn't tortue-to-death a person who tortured someone else to death. (In fact it's unconstitutional to apply "cruel and unusual punishment").
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 15, 2006 9:09:34 GMT -5
:PWHOLLY CRAP! I am away for a bit due to moving and work busy-ness and I miss all the fun - Dang!Is atheism not an intellectual position? It can also be a choice... What reasons do you have for holding that position? I was raised a Mormon and was a very religious believer. I comprehended the world according to it's design as a place to prove ourselves. I struggled through the two-year proselyting mission, crying myself to sleep many nights due to the constant trauma it caused via my social anxiety (and ineptness) - but I (by my own choice) went on that mission and stayed in that mission because I believed (knew?) that, given eternity, it was reality. After I came home, I continued college where I did fabulous in all my classes without hardly trying (since I had suffered the code as a child). However, anxiety started to abound and reality started to grow weak. I was crashing hard. I started tossing away things that I couldn't grip tangibly. I was seeking reality (ability to think and comprehend answers without fuzziness). Without it I could believe anything and the world was out to get me. (Religion wasn't helping as I was (due to anxiety) failing to meet expectations in that domain - Mormonism requires alot of social interaction). I dropped out of religion, I dropped out of college (where I was getting A's easily) ... I focused in a domain that allowed me to work in virtual domains of relative logic. I was able to stabilize somewhat and eek out an existance (where I'm very successful - though not socially). I am the anti-case ( not the anti-Christ). My situation is very similar, but opposite to ones who find religion and it saves him. I found the ability to reason by reducing noise caused by beliefs and other things we don't know. Thus - as one answer, Oreination: [glow=red,2,300]stability[/glow] 'course, I'm not suggesting that everyone needs this. But, I am suggesting that I do. My mind easily accepts strange ideas (which makes movies more effective on me) and, thus, I have to be more careful about what I allow myself to believe. Atheism claims to be based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend? Note: I'd suggest alot of atheists just say stop bothering me. It's the noisy ones that tend to represent the whole domain. By the way, the magical poo men did create the universe. I'm one of them. We had a huge pizza last night and I've been poo'ing out a universe of ... uh... stuff... ever since! {Edits for spelling}
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 2, 2006 7:36:09 GMT -5
Right. Then I wonder where the universe came out from. And what is actually nowhere? Does nowhere exist? What's lacking in an environment defined as "nowhere"? Can't "nowhereness" be a substance? Then it wouldn't be called "nowhere." These are always fun things to think (deeply) about when one wants to get a perspective on how limited our thinking domains actually are. (Or, if you just want to feel insignificant or crazy ). What is logic? If you give a definition of logic and say it's logical, what if I say it isn't? Who can prove who's wrong? Who can prove that his proof is logical? $%^&... I'd suggest that there is either a little more order (via inter-cognition) or we're all fragments of each others imagination. Since throwing out reason would just stop the universe right out, I'll assume that we all have a vague comprehension that logic is basically reasoning - used to derive relational understanding. I will also suggest that there is a level of inter-cognition that occurs (via communications) allowing us to distribute thought. You are touch on a key issue... we often miss this stage: defining the common platform upon which reasoning is built. Instead, we usually present reasonings, and then debate about the meanings of things. ('course, we also believe in our own innate correctness a little too much - but that's a human trait that helps us exist/operate). <TANGENT> I've always wonder if the fundamental issue with philosphy is basically having different definitions of the same terms. (If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around tends to depend on how you define all the inherent notions ). </TANGENT> The more I think about it, the more I feel that there's nothing definitive in the world (define world). You just gotta go with your guts (I think I know what my guts ARE). Here's an interesting thought: Say you are crazy and that this whole world you are sensing doesn't exist. Does it even matter? As long as you can interact with this world (whether real or imaginary) and it responds in a conceivable manner, then there's no reason not to interact with it. Thus, we move forwards by testing the responses to interactions in order to gain a perception of how we might operate within the world. <TANGENT> The neat thing about programming is that, often, you can create your own domains of interaction / reaction. </TANGENT>
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 1, 2006 7:59:33 GMT -5
Logically I always wonder, if God created everything, then who created God? Could he have created himself? Or he just came out of nowhere? Why does anything exist at all? Did the universe come out of nowhere at all? I can't say there isn't a God as a matter of fact. I just am not convinced of his presence, and the logic seems flawed. Well any logic could be flawed in some way. As always, logic is specific to the subworld in which it is design to fit. (ie. Logic doesn't exist without a limited domain). Out of interest, what is the logic that you disagree with? Maybe there is a god and it is not present.
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 31, 2006 10:14:37 GMT -5
A little quote from that link: This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. A minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. Sorry, I can never resist using the source someone else provides as proof as a source of contradiction. (Most other sources I skimmed talked of it as if it was real - though, generally, related it to-a theory domain (ex: quantum theory; ex: classical electron theory)). So, is Zero-Point energy real or a theory? You could also try "The Universe In A Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. How strong is it? I found Hawking's A Brief History of Time interesting, but almost too weak (not quite deep enough). (Interestingly, had I a clue in late high-school that there was a field of astrophysics, there's a good chance I'd have chased after it ... These days I'm relegated to reading reporters versions of scientific findings where you can tell they (the reporters) don't have much clue ).
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 30, 2006 8:47:45 GMT -5
Even a vacuum has energy. Therefore, space is filled. Nothingness would be a lack of energy and a lack of any spatial or time dimensions. I found this proof a bit lacking. (Ex: even this relatively empty living-room contains my computer... but it's not filled). Does the energy actually fill every discreate physical location (if not filled by matter - or if we consider both the same)? There is but one God, and He is Raptor Jesus. He went extinct for our sins. That might explain the Horse-Monkey-Hampster-Fish... You pray to Raptor Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 27, 2006 6:18:28 GMT -5
I’d suspect nothing. Nonexistence. What is non-existance? (Ok, I couldn't resist...) Not the same 'nothing' people say outer space is. Even in a vacuum the laws of the universe are in play, there may not be matter but there is 'up', 'down', there are subatomic forces which bind particles, time, etc. If these things weren’t there, that area wouldn't just have 'nothing' in it, it literally wouldn’t exist. Hmmm... interesting. Are you sure that current science says every area of space is filled (here locally - ignoring outside the universe)? Unfortunately my particle physics is extremely week (almost non-existant ) but, I believe that current science suggests that there is alot more space than matter, etc (thus, why those pesky alpha particle fly right through you without hitting a thing). However, I suppose I could be thinking three physical dimensions and that may be an assumptive mistake. By the way, which way is up? I have no idea ;D. If our universe is infinite, how can it be expanding, how do you expand on infinity? Assuming empty space then that's easy to answer - just more distance. Alternately, if the physical dimensions are more of an illusion, then there may be all sort've of crazy answers... At the end of the day all of these questions lead to “We don’t know”. We don’t know means exactly that, it doesn’t mean “god did it”. God of the gaps arguments are never based on knowledge, but the lack of knowledge, which by itself is entirely neutral. Only when we see the total failure of those arguments throughout our history does it start becoming absurd to continue using them. Right... and it also doesn't mean that some strange god-like force did not do it either. Why believe is an infinite question - but how have you stopped belief by stating that you don't know? Interestingly, there are various ways to answer the why believe (from a physical / science point of view)... Why believe in a god? Why be delusional? Why be socially phobic? Why believe in society (since it's is actaully virtual / in our heads)? Why fear authority (if it doesn't exist)? Sometimes I enjoy a good delusional trip...
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 25, 2006 12:18:49 GMT -5
Why assume there is anything outside of our system? How can there not be anything outside our system? How can space end (what's on the other side)? How can space go on forever? These may be questions that are as hard for us to conceive of as is the answer to 'what is consciousness?'... I'd also suggest that we have a hard time conceiving of what it would be like if we didn't exist. Which might lead to people believing in not being able to not exist. It's actually pretty funny how we tend to forget that we can't conceive of alot of stuff. Our ability to abstract allows us to deal with quite a bit (as well as make many mistakes).
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 23, 2006 17:12:53 GMT -5
By the way, a fun tangential discussion (yeah, I just can't stop) would be: What is consciousness? This is actually a fun one to hear from the non-believers since their answer tends to be "magic". (Note: I program software systems and none of my software systems have attained consciousness yet!). ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 23, 2006 5:48:27 GMT -5
Interestingly, it is possible to create completely contained systems where it's not possible to see outside the systems. There is really no way to prove that there is not a god (or, more specifically, not such a contained system). I've seen a programmer or two in my life start to wonder if we all live within some simulation of sorts. (It's rather funny too, because one such person did not believe in a god). I once believed deeply in God (as a "Mormon") in the same way that many people believe their is no God... At a certain point in my life I had to eject all unknowns and start focusing on concrete things in order not to fall completely out of order. Since then, I try to believe only what I can find evidence for. (If I do not do this, I will start believing in all sorts of weird things). <TANGENT> Interestingly, in an given virtual domain (such as software development) you'll see various morals and religions develop... all of which are completely virtual. In such a domain, a religion cam be dangerous - people start believing that their morals "are" - that is, that they are concrete rules of fact that transcent the virtual domain (and, more over, their own mind). </TANGENT> <TANGENT> Even more fun is the fact that rules built on logic do not exist outside the domain (subworld) that they are defined within. Often people push false arguments based on them being logic oriented ("logical"), when, in fact, they're applying a subdomain to a super-domain... </TANGENT> <TANGENT> You know what's really "fun" (besides posting several tangents in a row...)? Being so focused on virtual work that you lose touch with the outside world... and you are failing to architect a solution to the (currently) sole focus of your existance. You find your world falling apart (with sanity not far behind). ... even though, just outside the birds are chirping happily. It's a fun experience. </TANGENT>
|
|
|
hi
Aug 15, 2007 19:24:06 GMT -5
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 15, 2007 19:24:06 GMT -5
Always good to have more people to share with.
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Jun 21, 2007 12:05:35 GMT -5
From across the ocean- welcome aboard.
|
|
|
hi
Sept 15, 2006 10:43:19 GMT -5
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 15, 2006 10:43:19 GMT -5
Ah, cool.
Why area of computers are you focusing on?
|
|
|
hi
Sept 15, 2006 7:15:44 GMT -5
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 15, 2006 7:15:44 GMT -5
Hello!
What's ICT and "A level"? (I'm from the US)
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Sept 15, 2006 7:27:58 GMT -5
I like to think that I have achieved success in most facets of my life...the big exceptions being in the social sphere. In structured environments, where I am acting in a predefined role, I don't think I have any particular difficulty in interacting with people. However, in less formal settings, where there are no hard and fast rules, I am rather more clueless. It is very strange how our group has issue in dealing in the social domain. In my own research in trying to understand why I couldn't interact with people, I've built a pretty usable model of cognition- yet this helps little in playing the social character.
|
|