It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Originally posted by Amaterasu
First, virtually all creatures can inbreed for generations before abnormalities spring up. All except humans. Why would it be that evolution awkwardly constructed one species to have the highest awareness (by far!) than any other and yet have such restrictions in inbreeding, with good probability of issues in the first generation, and high odds in the second?
I am going to have to spend some time digesting the entire post, and I hate to pluck a single paragraph from it for a comment, but I need to do it here. If all life were equal in measures of finite details, then what you are saying here would have merit. However, this isn't the case in any way. A dog, for example, can potentially be the canine equivalent of retarded and yet few people would notice it. The dog would be considered stubborn, hard headed, or just plain goofy... but then again, how many of us haven't seen a dog that fits these descriptions?
Humanity is very different. Developmental milestones have been set by so-called "experts" and if a child doesn't hit them, they are quickly considered as having some form of defect. Humans are essentially the only creatures on Earth who can have this applied to them. While animals can inbreed and appear to produce "normal" offspring, with humans even a tiny glitch in the system is quickly observable... be it a retardation, minor physical defect, or other developmental issue. I think Hollywood has largely contributed to this falacy that one generation of inbreeding humans will magically produce The Hills Have Eyes mutants with humpbacks, stubb arms, and 5 lb tongues. It is only because of how fine our motor skills and appearance is on average that the minor defects seen within that single generation of shared genetics are so noticable.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Amaterasu
hours and hours, sounds good!
then i can pick your brain some more about terra papers.
Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by Amaterasu
My comment was more towards stoping greedy people from being in a position
of power .
They don't do that because it's evil, they do it because they don't know any better. Believe it or not, but many people are so stubborn and hard-headed that they will believe that poison is medicine until the day they die. It's needless to explain something as driven by evil when sheer stupidity and stubbornness is a far simpler reason for it. I know it's hard to believe, but it's the truth.
The Evil F#’s are likely extraterrestrial, given that no human heart I know of would make choices as I see made in the experience around me. Who would rush a huge amount of toxic “dispersant” into the waters of a large body on this planet, when the far better choice would be to do all one could to stop the flow, showing everything and hearing any suggestions, and allowing nature to run its course?
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Amaterasu
Hmm. The OPs post are too long for me to cover everything. I'll cover money and hardship.
If money lost its value then this game wouldn't be fun anymore for those who play it. You don't understand very well. The people who play this game don't do it because they HAVE TO. They do it because of the rewarding feeling they receive from playing. The sense of accomplishment. When they achieve something, the money reward they get acknowledges their contribution. Then and only then does their contribution have meaning. If you removed money from it and just allowed everyone to have what they wanted then nobody would want to do anything!
Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by Amaterasu
I'm about a year late on this thread so I won't try to be long winded. But what I see from going through the original post in this: The intention is good, but there comes a time when action is required. So you add up your probabilities and take the top one - or whatever you decision process might consist of, and you act.
If we start with that viewpoint about how to best handle the various situations we've gotten ourselves into, then I think we have a chance of finding some workable answers and pulling through somehow. The challenge to anyone advocating a certain point of view is: Has this been tested and found to be workable?
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
Appologies for not reading past your first post, which was certainly well written and entertaining to read. But I found a few of your first principals to be slightly confusing and was wondering if you could clarify.
Basically what I wondering is if you reject a pure true/false epistemology and instead insist that reality is essentially unknowable, (if reality is knowable then its 100%) is this assertion itself subject to this rule? It may seem like Im knitpicking, but since this is your first principal of reasoning, it bears exploring.
What I mean by the above question is this - if you come to me and say 'you cannot know anything for certain' you are making a statement of certainty. If your rule of uncertainty only applies to concepts outside of your rule, it ceases to be a universal rule and simply becomes a contradictary opinion. If Your rule of uncertainty applies to your certain claim, how can we be certain that your claim of uncertainty is true? Certainly, everything is uncertain? To me, its a little like coming to me and saying 'your ears do not work' or 'language is meaningless'. Both are self denotating, inherently contratictary claims that need no further investigation, as they fail on their face due to their inherent paradoxical nature.
So I'm wondering, what probability of true/flase would you assign to my statement that '2 + 2 = 4'? Is it conceivable, in any way, that this is false? If there is a sliver of a chance that this is false, on what information do you base this on? If it is certain that 2 + 2 does indeed = 4, always and without exception, you might have to adjust your basic philisophical premise.
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
There is a massive and fundamental difference between 99.99999 and 100. One includes the possibility of an alternative and one does not. If youre in the 99.99999 camp, then nothing can be true, as truth means certainty. If this is the case, you can state absolutely nothing with certainty, including the statement that nothing is certain. (or that your certain you potentially could be certain)
You say that your estimation on the unknowable truth is based on potential alternate possibilities, but you logically admit that 2+2 basically always = 4.
On what basis, or on what information do you conclude that 2+2 could indeed = 5? (however small the possibility?) If you have no information, and instead just a hunch or opinion, on what potentially flawed thinking (99.9999)is this based?
If a million mathmaticians calculated 2+2 = ? for eternity, would there be even the slightest chance that one of them (0.000000000001) would eventually come up with 2+2 = 5, and be correct?
What are the odds that I'm sitting here typing this?
Originally posted by Amaterasu
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
First of all, sorry for derailing your political thread into the 'what is truth' thread, but since all political ideas are conclusions based on prior truths/falsehoods, its worth discussion.
I am Human. I err. I could be totally off in fantasy land and TOTALLY have no grasp of the matrix I am in... Ergo, nothing is 100%. (And yes, there is a vast difference between 99.9....)
Then it is equally possible that I'm agreeing with everything youre saying, and if that is the case, well done~
No.... I say I logically admit that IN ALL CONCEIVABLE cases, 2+2=4. This is not the same as basically always. I could be totally off in fantasy land and TOTALLY have no grasp of the matrix I am in...and only THINK that 2+2=4 in all conceivable cases...
Either your senses are valid, or they arent. I just fail to see what value or insight it is that you gain in conceding that you may, indeed, be a brain in a tank.
Under the 99.9999 thinking, I could be a single atom in the pinky toe of Zombie Jesus' right foot. Allowing for this possibilty, however, offers me no insights, and indeed is a net loss in time investment, as I could be thinking about more productive, 100% real things, instead of possible, insane and impossible realities.
I have no basis to conclude 2+2=5 per se. Just that in some inconceivable case it may NOT =4.
And, similarly, im some 'inconceivable way', pink and green unicorns could exist on the dark side of the moon, who both are pink and green at the same time, and live in space and under the moons green cheese surface simultaniously, inside a cavern that is both a square and a circle. But it is totally invisible, undetectable and cannot be observed by us in any way.
If the above seems absurd to you, this is exactly how i feel when you claim that self contradictary properties can exist. And frankly it puts all your others words under a bit of deserved scrutiny.
If you were to read some tombe of mathmatical wisdom that went on in tangents and formulas for thousands of pages, but on the first page is stated '2 + 2 = 4...but once in a while, it = 5' would you seriously bother wasting your time reading further, if not for the sheer amusement of observing the thoughts of a madman?
No. But all those cases are conceivable. Every one of them.
Something that is unknowable, undectectable, and does not effect us in any conceivable way is exactly the same as non existence. If you dont believe this, ask yourself: how could we know that something does not exist? Answer: It would be unknowable, undetectable, and would not effect us in any conceivable way.
What are the odds that I'm sitting here typing this?
At the moment I type THIS? Extremely slim - 99.9... against.
lol well I knew my rants were boring, but I didnt expect them to dip into non detectability...touche...maybe I dont exist...edit on 19-3-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
First of all, sorry for derailing your political thread into the 'what is truth' thread, but since all political ideas are conclusions based on prior truths/falsehoods, its worth discussion.
I am Human. I err. I could be totally off in fantasy land and TOTALLY have no grasp of the matrix I am in... Ergo, nothing is 100%. (And yes, there is a vast difference between 99.9....)
Then it is equally possible that I'm agreeing with everything youre saying, and if that is the case, well done~
No.... I say I logically admit that IN ALL CONCEIVABLE cases, 2+2=4. This is not the same as basically always. I could be totally off in fantasy land and TOTALLY have no grasp of the matrix I am in...and only THINK that 2+2=4 in all conceivable cases...
Either your senses are valid, or they arent. I just fail to see what value or insight it is that you gain in conceding that you may, indeed, be a brain in a tank.
Under the 99.9999 thinking, I could be a single atom in the pinky toe of Zombie Jesus' right foot. Allowing for this possibilty, however, offers me no insights, and indeed is a net loss in time investment, as I could be thinking about more productive, 100% real things, instead of possible, insane and impossible realities.
I have no basis to conclude 2+2=5 per se. Just that in some inconceivable case it may NOT =4.
And, similarly, im some 'inconceivable way', pink and green unicorns could exist on the dark side of the moon, who both are pink and green at the same time, and live in space and under the moons green cheese surface simultaniously, inside a cavern that is both a square and a circle. But it is totally invisible, undetectable and cannot be observed by us in any way.
If the above seems absurd to you, this is exactly how i feel when you claim that self contradictary properties can exist. And frankly it puts all your others words under a bit of deserved scrutiny.
If you were to read some tombe of mathmatical wisdom that went on in tangents and formulas for thousands of pages, but on the first page is stated '2 + 2 = 4...but once in a while, it = 5' would you seriously bother wasting your time reading further, if not for the sheer amusement of observing the thoughts of a madman?
No. But all those cases are conceivable. Every one of them.
Something that is unknowable, undectectable, and does not effect us in any conceivable way is exactly the same as non existence. If you dont believe this, ask yourself: how could we know that something does not exist? Answer: It would be unknowable, undetectable, and would not effect us in any conceivable way.
What are the odds that I'm sitting here typing this?
At the moment I type THIS? Extremely slim - 99.9... against.
lol well I knew my rants were boring, but I didnt expect them to dip into non detectability...touche...maybe I dont exist...
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
The metaphysics (what is true and what is false) that you refer to as esoterics (arcane and unknowable) are foundational to any practical applications you wish to draw from them, and thus cannot be discarded as of secondary importance. Since practicality is just applied metaphysics, to dismiss foundational principals in favour of utility is to build a house on a foundation of quicksand. Practical applications of contradicary systems are necessarily incorrect, just as any mathmatical system based on 2+2=5 must be incorrect, if words are to have any meaning, or any correlation to actual reality.
If 2+2 can indeed = 5, or even the potential of such is considered valid in any way, the symbols themselves lose all meaning, as their truthful function is to represent non contradictary reality, in which 2 atoms grouped with 2 other atoms must always equal 4 atoms. If this basic premise can in any way be considered questionable, or open for debate, the words and symbols themselves lose all meaning, as does any extrapolation based them.
This does not disallow the limitations of human perception, which is of course a vast grey area. But it does, and *must*, validate our senses in at least this most basic and important way.