Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/4/07 01:07 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Humans can break away from the cycle. a Computer can't.

Not exactly.
All of our actions are based on experience. All of them. We cannot have random actions: we are purely logical creature. A kid will fight back based on several factors: maybe they've gotten sick and tired of being bullied, or their dad is telling them to? There are always reasons behind everything, and I dare anyone to dispute that.
Its a logical extension to say that if there are reasons, then the choice was never really ours to make in the first place. If our actions are based on reasons along the lines of A+B=C (no matter how much more complex A, B and C are) then we have no say in the choice really.

At 12/4/07 12:44 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: We ARE programmed in the sense that we have set things we do in response to stimuli. When faced with a situation where we feel endangered, we have two set actions, fight or flight.

Just to let you know, its now advanced a little bit from that: fight, flight or freeze.
Doesn't really change what you're saying, but just wanted to clarify that.
Anyways. I've always maintained that we can tell whether someone's going to take one of those options before hand. That there is not breaking out of this code that we have. Everything is just the reaction to a previous action/group of actions in some manner (which in turn were reaction(s) to previous actions, etc).
In that manner, aren't we the same as a computer?

Ok, I've just finished a course in Psychology and Philosophy, so I'll throw some things in:

First of- duality of body and mind.
This is the most basic and base part of the problem- is our conscious just a collection of neurones, synapses and electrical impulses, or are we something separate from our bodies? I get the feeling we'll get stuck on a science/religion argument here, so I'll do my best to argue both sides:
If we're only our physical bodies, then can someone show me a physical interpretation of 'thought'. Neuropsychology can't. We still don't understand the human brain well enough to. And its theorised quite heavily we never will. If we base everything on maths/logic, then we obviously come to problematic parts. Psychology cannot have such strict laws- even mathematicians have problems when facing numbers as large/small (depending on your outlook) as 9 millionths of a centimetre: basically everything starts becoming, mathematically, randomised. There becomes, at a point, no real correlation between what your seeing and what should make sense...

Argument for a connection of body and mind being one entity? How does this floating entity I call a conscious connect with my physical body? At some point there must be a connection meaning that there MUST be a connection between the mind and body, and so long as there is a mind/body connection can you say that they are the same thing in essence?

This is the real problem we face. From here, we can go many, many ways: If there is a division between mind and body then how can we say for sure what has a conscious and what doesn't? Can my computer have a simplistic conscious? Can a tree?

Something else I'd like to put out there is something called the game of life. This is a simplistic maths game. # A dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell (birth). A live cell with two or three live neighbours stays alive (survival). In all other cases, a cell dies or remains dead (overcrowding or loneliness). (stolen from http://www.math.com/students/wonders/lif e/life.html if anyone was wondering... sorry, I'm midway through writing 5 essays and I'm just getting into the habits of sourcing every-bloody-thing...) The theory is that this is the most simplistic model of real life. Its just a scientific experiment to some, but if we use it as a model for neuropsychology, or as Koji Suzuki did in the end of the Ring Trilogy (sorry if no-one's read the books here and I've just spoilt it, but meh): Basically, using the game of life a system was created where each of the cells counted as a synapse of neurone; a few more rules were added if memory serves (the books on the other side of the country to me at the moment). But yeh; its theorised that this is the first AI... Just on a singl cell organism level...

At 10/21/07 12:49 AM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Wouldn't that be Satanism?

Kind of.
Satanism (as my experience lends me), believes more in mortal materialism and doing the best we can whilst we're alive rather than trying to live up to the perpetually high standards that God set for us. It allows us to indulge in our more 'human' side.
I think.

Anyways, Evilism. So we're just going basically against anything that Christianity says? Or are we using some other basis of morality for what Evil is. I mean, if we look at, say... The Roman Empire- the birthplace (give or take) of Christianity to the modern world. Are we taking their ethics into consideration?

At 10/20/07 11:43 PM, jfella91 wrote: IT'S A PLANT THAT GROWS DRUGS FOR US TO SMOKE. LIKE WTF. The common street drugs are chemicals and made mostly or entirely synthetically, but weed just grows like it was a tomato plant or something, only it grows drugs that you pick instead of tomatoes.

And because its natural- its ok..?
And because other drugs are chemically made- they're not ok..?

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time finding a valid point of argument here...

Anyways, as a long standing smoker I'm in two minds about whether it should be legalised.
Legalisation and taxation would be a good plan- but (and as much as I hate to bring this in- but someone will) there's the slippery slope argument. If we legalise weed, then people will start coming up with arguments for why Heroine should be legalised: if its industrialised then the government can look after the users and make sure that no-ones selling dirty stuff.
But a government has to draw the line somewhere. In a state of government where the state was just there to look after its populace and nothing else, then maybe heroine and weed would be legalised or at least could under the guise of keeping it clean, or so the government can highlight heavy users easily/easier and help them if needs be.

Unfortunately as we all know, none of us liv in such a state.

At 2/23/07 08:03 PM, Alphabit wrote: semaGdniM; The average male ejaculates 300 million sperm in one go... Think how many times the individual had done that and multiply it by 300million; out of that number, you had 1 chance of existing... And there are plenty more factors to take into account.
Now are you going to come to the conclusion that it is impossible for you to exist?

You're forgetting that the male sperm only holds half the information neccesary for a human to be created.
Ok, quick scince for everyone. A human being is made up of about 300,000 genes, each is made up of anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand bases, three bases make up an amino acid which is how scientists map DNA. Now you would have to have the exact same structure of all these bases for the same human being to be created.
A child is made up half of the dominant genes of the mother, and half of the father (its a little more complicated than that, but I'm not going tinto it fully right now).
Anyways, it is entierly possible for the same physicallity to be born, though unlikely, but this isn't to say that they are the same person. Twins share DNA, but aren't the same person, etc.

Again, I'd like to point to the fact it may well help peadophiles. Sadomasochistic tendencies can be outlived through role-play, and if this helps a person who would otherwise be abusing children, even if it helps in one more case than it may cause, then I'm all for it, personally.

At 2/2/07 12:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Because religous agencies and institutions (as well as other private institutions) are not subject to these governmental policies.

That's just how it works. In the US anyway.

I'm not sure it workd the same way in the uk, Just been searching round on Google and its come up with loads of ways the UK government has taken action against religious organisations (this is a link from wikipedia, if you trust it). All Faith organisations in the UK seem to be subject to governmental concern, much like all other organisations...
Might bebecause we're a more socialist country than the US, dunno. But yeh.

I'm sorry, but I'm failling to see forcing Christian adoption agencies to allow Gay couples to adopt is actually infringing on ANYONES right to practise religion?
I mean... Ok, I understand that Christian organisations want as little to do with Gay rights issues as much as possible, but... well, I fail to see how this is infringing on the Christian Adoption Agencies rights? Isn't it just allowing a fairer system?
(I'm actually asking these questions, not being rhetorical...)

At 1/31/07 12:48 PM, qygibo wrote: Racism is rooted in ignorance, so that first statement is basically wrong. It's not just ignorance, as you so put it, it is also racism, and her form of bullying was particularly ironic given that Jade was a spokesperson for an anti-bullying group (which she was removed from soon after this whole incident).

The British government seemed to have gotten involved because the Indian government ragged on them about what happened on this show. Was India a bit overzealous? Perhaps, because there was already enough righteous indignation and anger from the regular people. But the British government was trying to cover their own asses, and that's why they stepped in.

Racism, to be, is when you purposefully egativly comment about someone based on their ethnicity- I really don't think Jade meant to at any point be purposely discriminatory. Its hard in these situations because I grew up in an area where racism is the norm in many ways- and I'm not trying to defend that, its just easy to get sucked in by the ignorance without thinking about what your saying because you may not have experienced how those words affect others.
Racism may be based in ignorance, but thats not to say that all ignorance is racism...
To me at least :/

Anyone mind if I play devils advocate?
An example of a statement- "I feel really bad, I feel disgusted with myself the way I've treated you and the way I've acted, because I'm not like that, Shilpa, really," ... "And you can even cook me curry and you can pick the onions out with your fingers." (from wikipedia, so take it how you want)
To me, this doesn't show that she's racist- just significantly under-educated. Anyone whose watche dBig Brother with Jade Goody knows that she's not exactly the sharpest knife in the draw, but to me that doesn't mean that she's outwardly racist, just... an ignorant twat, basicaly...
And I don't think the government should have had much input into this- they have no control over what people say (though debatable in the UK considering we have the secrecy act and other such things... but I am talking idealistically here). So if the media reports it, its up to the individual, surely?
If the governement gets involved then its setting itself in an argument it didn't start and can't finish...

So wait...
We're judging the entier religion based on a news report which is so brazenly one sided its not even nearly funny, and uses quotes which may or may not be connected and doctored to give a desired effect?
Meh, beats any other source of information we're gonna get though...

Our freedom to sit around and have a happy meal maybe? Or that we can buy a nice pair of shoes and forget about the lives that people in other countries have to endure? Our freedom to religion is a good point though, but thats only assuming that the paricular terrorist is religious...

By the by, which type of terrorist are we talking about here?

At 7/26/06 05:51 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: I mean, the upside down 5 pointed star with that circle thing is kinda the symbol of Satan or something like that.

... I'm sorry, but I just had to interject here.
The pentagram (either way up) is a symbol as imprtant to the pagan community as the cross to the christian community. Its meanings vary across culture to culture, from the five elements, to makinds dominance over all other life, invocotation and banishing symbols...
And only since judao-christianity has been plcing asymbol upside down been a way of making the meaning negative. An upturned pentagram worn round the neck is a sign of a second degree pagan. Or it could be a representation of a goat (the horns at the top, ear next and chin), an extremely sacred animal to many pagan religions...

If you want me to carry on about actually how stupid you've made yourself look just there, I'm willing to go into the other views of things like satan not existing in any for in pagan society, how the judaochristian faith has taken images of the green man, pan, the horned one (in some ideologies the same, but in others different) and used them as an image of the devil, whilst some churches stil have images of any of the three glorified in positions of full view. And theres also the whole thing of paganism being victimised by every stance of culture, both popular and religious for a couple of thousands of years which has twisted the views of witchcraft into something which it both is and isn't (every lie is based on a degree of truth...).

And I cannot IMAGINE what person would WANT to be a Wiccan. I mean, I think religion are ridiculous but Wicca is on like its whole new level of ridiculousness. At least the ones you hear about are. I mean, cmon, you believe in magic and witches and whatever? Cmon.

And christians believe in a guy who was imaculetly(sp?) concieved and can perform miracles which defy the laws of nature... But of course thats all fine to believe and not nearly as stupid as thinking that its possible to change something using the energies present within us and everything around us given the right studies... (in many ways, a lot of scientific thought and practise could easily be seen as magick...)

Anyways, back onto subject...
Well, all I can say on that really is that this counts as religious discrimination. If a person believes in a way of life, and want to be commemorated with that belief, then it should be respected.

It never will though, but it should be...

An advert for plans to (basically) privatise many parts of the british NHS was leaked out to the press a couple of days ago (source). The basic plan seems to be that companies who offer financial support would be allowed to control which drugs and treatments are available on the NHS and which will be made private and for sale only.
Now, I'm asking on here because I know the majority of the people on here to be American, and therefore subject to a private healthcare system and I was wondering if, based on your model of healthcare if this is something to be actually worried about?

At 2/11/06 09:33 AM, TheBlueBullet wrote:

Implication: Liberals are [all] indoctrinated and can't think independently.

Part of the is true. Alot of the college kids are being indoctrinated as Liberals and most of them really can't think independently. Im not saying that they cannot think independently, Its just that they haven't been taught to think independently. They always went by "believe what we say" doctrine and the thought of "mabye I should check into this" doesn't even cross their mind. Not only is this with Liberals but with Conservatives too. (correct me if I am wrong)

to be honest, thats the education system though- people aren't taught to be independant thinkers, they are taught to think one certain way. And sometimes into this politics, both conservative and liberal, are thrown into the mix.
However, students have the stereotype of being more liberal anyways- however I have met more conservatists whilst uni (I believe it works out to be the same level as college in the US...) than anywhere else.

At 1/28/03 11:53 AM, Wormulus wrote: How is that supposed to encourage people to go to university?

Its not.
But why should someone else pay for your education and future? Some areas of study should be discluded (teaching, doctors and the such), but university education is expensive (£1100 a year for me), and that money can't just come out of the taxes when they could be going into much more needed areas.

How is this going to eliminate elitism?

When is it the governments job to do this? Capitalist society breeds on elitism and needs it to survive.

Then again since when did the opinions of the students this stuff concerns ever count?

Back when intelligence counted for something I suppose. If there was a time...

If I remeber correctly about 300 years ago the idea of a beautiful woman was a rather curvatious, almost motherly (if you'll pardon the expression) figure, and now its almost the opposite: if I remember correctly we now take our ideas of beauty from our children- the innocence and identicality which is not alway present in the paintings and ideals of beauty long ago.
There isn't a definite idea of beauty, and I wouldn't say its exactly a socially controlled idea either... Its a mixture of your own personal development- the things you encounter as you grow up. Sure if your told enough times that somethings beautiful then you'll start believing it, but theres a lot more to it- the things your exposed to, hw you interprete them, and so on- a white supremecist isn't likely to find a black woman beautiful...

At 12/31/05 02:02 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: capitalism= millions of people will the freedom to work and millions of employeers willing to participate in free enterprise

communism= everybody working by force, no free enterprise, no freedom

Try again:

capitalism= every job dependant on someone elses' choice- no stability of any form.

I'm not going to try to advocate communism though, its just as dumb as capitalism...

I dunno, this is the same with the Matrix- a lot of people saw it and then they were introduced to an idea that we've all had before, but here was someone making an idea of how it could work. Its een something thats been going on for millenia- the Greeks used to warn people of their philosophies and religious theologies through the pop culture of the time- plays. Now south parks doing it and people are waking up to different ideas that they may not have had before hand- whats so bad about that?

At 12/30/05 04:36 PM, T-H wrote: We had some (Leicester) a few days ago. They promised us more for last night and today, BUT I SEE NONE ) ;

Yes, but when it was here, oh it was glorious. And then it rained and it all went away. It made me sad...

We had snow on boxing day in the middlands :/

If I may intervene...

At 12/30/05 01:19 PM, Draconias wrote: "I think, therefore I am" I have individual thoughts and no others, therefore my only possible conclusion is that I am an individual who thinks. That means that my brain is not directly under the control of another and I am open to change. The lack of Free Will is Determinism; there is no inbetween.

No. Satre was wholy mislead in his claim. All we can truely acknowledge is that thoughts exist. they may call themselves I but that is just a random concept. There is no discernable I. Thoughts exist. These thoughts are the product of experience. Now this is where I should imagine you will protest (if you haven't already...) I know everything I know because my experience tells me as such. I know the colour blue because I have seen it. I know pain because I have experienced it. Everything these thoughts comprehend is because of what they have experienced under the unity of I, the being. They come to the conclusion of I, the being as the thought access the same sensations and feelings through the same body, and as such come to the conclusion that they are I. This has profound effect on how we se our free will. If the thoughts are only created and expanded through experience, then they are wholy dependant on our environment and what has previously happened. This means we don't have free will in any sense- we are tied to what we have experienced and how, according to what we have experienced prior to that how we interpret this action.

Saddam will get life imprisonment, then break free somehow, then dissappear and the US will quietly 'forget' that they can't find him again and start a war with someone else so no-one gets a chance to question what the government is actually doing about it...

Best: I'm not sure to be honest... Conservative party not getting in powers up there...
Worst: Because all of the worst have been said (7/7 and Katrina), I'm going to have to add the Death of Rosa Parks in here before people forget it...

Yeh, the same things happening all over. Pak* (not sure if I'll get banned for that without the asterix, can someone tell me about that anyways?) is now becoming more a perfectly acceptable term in the uk.
But there are some words which will never be reclaimed- spaz for example- even the spastics society changed its name to scope to avoid the bad press, and there was the wheelchair for people with spasticus autisticus called the spaz which got such bad press its unbelievable...

At 12/29/05 02:02 PM, jackofdiamonds1 wrote: I know a few religions and i have the same problem with most of them. Except for the ones that believe in a god. Christianity is pivotal in this account, and every one seems to get the base idea that if you have a problem with religion chrianity is included.
But christianity is the religion most people are in-contact with each and every day.

Oh and honestly as far as im concerned every religion has their whacos but, you must admit christians are some of the most annoying.

No, its just your in a predominantly christian-society country, so you're more likely to crop up against the christian wackos. But I've met plenty of pagan wackos, more than few muslim wackos and an nutjob of a Hari Krishna or two (I can never spell that right).
In my experience aethiest wackos are the worst because of the pure hypocrisy that I've heard. Most of the time people telling me my gods are dead, and to stop forcing my ideas on them (which I don't htink I do, and I despise people who do...) and then proceed to force their ideas on me...
You have a problem with the religions, except those that believe in a God... I think you need to revise that statement

You know what really irks me a lot of the time- people believing Christianity is the only religion. So when they have a problem with Christianity they say they have a problem with religion, and use Christianity as a base sample and the end all and be all of religion.
I'd like sto say- if yo have a problem with religions- ask yourself- how many do you know of? And how many do you disagree with? How many have you gone out of the way to find out about and how many are being fed to you- whether its your distaste or reverance- by your peers and people standing on the street corners shouting...
Chrisitanity is not archetypal of religions. And Christians are not archetypal for all who follow religions.

I apologise this has little to do with the subject but I tought its best to just type this now instead of creating a whole new thread which will ultimatly get locked quickly...

At 12/27/05 10:50 PM, crazybabygurl2006 wrote: Agreed.... But by reffering to light and Dark I am not meaning 'good' and 'bad' ... light in my eyes does not mean good and dark doesn't mean bad or evil.... I have chosen as they say a 'dark' lifestyle, and in my way of living I use the more so called darker aspects. If anything there is a book called 'Out Of The Shadows' It talks about the definition of light and dark, exploration of the different aspects and the exploration of the Shadow ( a.k.a : The unconscious mind) And it also explains all the darker paths if you will.... this includes alot of gothic lifstyles and vampirsim and so on..... it's rather interesting, and I really enjoyed the book, I would indeed recommend it if you are interested in learing more about it :)

The power of the unknown and what's held within us... I understand now. I apologise; thats something I've forgotten for a while now, thank you for reminding me...
I personally tend to steer clear of vampyric texts- especially modern ones- a lot of ideas have been twisted by the sensationalisation of pop culture and its hard to find anything reliable or realistic... But I'll have a look into this book, might have something of relevance in it if it manages to teach the power of the dark...
Though I will say this- never forget powers of others as well- a true witch seeks the harness all that they can.

At 12/27/05 12:16 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote: An amoeba.... any other single celled prokaryote.

It moves does it not? It divides. And what about endo/exocytosis? It must have some form of free will to do all this...