Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 How'd people feel if I did this for most/all of the battles in my LP? (by "all" I don't mean every battle in the map, just the ones I happen to include in the LP) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Interesting. However, this internal nature, is it not caused by our parents? We acquire traits from our parents, and as such have defined preferences even before birth. What if we are speaking about an uncreated being? A common question about god is whether he is an atemporal entity or a temporal entity. Logic would lead us to temporal, as everything must have been created at one point, but what about before that? A temporal deity/world leads to the problem that there always must have been something before that. A beginning ofthe world seems near impossible like that. What if we assume god to be atemporal, i.e. unborn, unaffected by time and immortal. Can there still be innate desires? I'd respond to the desire problem with god with the multiversum theory. Every possibility might be manifested in an entirely different world, meaning a god wouldn't have desired/preferred a world over another, and created each world without any sense of desire behind it. Now I might say that even that can be considered a desire, a desire to create something , but must one desire to create something. Considering god is a notion abstract to us, it might not be wrong to say that he created because but he just did. Every potentiality was actualized by god's hands insofar that actuality automatically follows after potentiality. That is also quantum randomness, what may happen will somehow happen. That is the biggest problem with conversing about god. If speaking about a deity, we assume that we can apply our concepts and notions to it, whereas he might be completely different. It may be caused by them, but we merely assumed that the reality we perceive is real. There is a 50/50 chance that we have no physical existence at all and that everything is in our minds (to be distinguished from 'heads'). I asked you earlier if you thought of free will in the physical sense, or the metaphysical. This is the significance. I don't think it matters if causality exists or not. Free will cannot exist in vacuum even if your mind happened into existence randomly. You can forgo physical determinism completely because you don't need it to explain your point. Atemporal existences are definitively impossible—or impossible to observe. The moment anything interacts with anything else, three temporal states are created: before, during, and after the interaction. Without the interaction, there is no change. Without the change, there is no existence. Therefore it is impossible for interaction to come about due to a lack of interaction. Consider the physical parallel. The minute we interact with something, via light particles or otherwise, it enters the temporal flow relative to us. We cannot observe anything at absolute zero because any attempt to measure it will increase its temperature from absolute zero. Here's the real kicker—we can't say for sure that it existed before we interacted with it. The short of it: Atemporal describes something that 'has absolutely no interaction with anything else' which is another way of saying it functionally does not exist. The discovery that time is relative puts the idea of an atemporal being to rest. Anything that created us would have to interact with us, creating a 'before', 'during' and 'after' the act of creation relative to itself. Multiversum is an interesting take, but consider Hattusili I's point: Even a being with equal magnitude of desires is restricted in the sense that they will create all possible worlds and still have no choice in the matter that they want to create all possible worlds. They have no more autonomy than any other force of nature. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 How'd people feel if I did this for most/all of the battles in my LP? (by "all" I don't mean every battle in the map, just the ones I happen to include in the LP) this would be nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Devil Trigger Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 How'd people feel if I did this for most/all of the battles in my LP? (by "all" I don't mean every battle in the map, just the ones I happen to include in the LP) idk, too many gifs could take ~some time~ to load Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I have only the following to say on the concept of god: I cannot say anything about it. We cannot knowingly know objective truth; we have only a perception of truth and have no way of determining whether there is anything of objective truth in that perception or even if objective truth exists (after all, we cannot use anything other than our perception of truth to determine that). Everything we know we know only from our own perceptions. I believe we cannot restrict the concept of a god or the divine by what we know: after all, what we know is perception rather than objective truth, whereas the divine is the most abstract: the divine represents that which is above all, including perception, which means it must exist within an objective reality. In theorizing on what the divine might be we err already by this very theorizing, because our theorizing is restricted by our own perceptions of truth. The human mind I believe to be too restricted by these perceptions to understand the most omnipotent that is the divine. This is also why I'd argue that desire is not necessarily something that applies to god. Desire would entail that he is not perfect (if god can be considered perfect) as he would be restricted to a human flaw. However, in a formal debate we have to assume that god is logically explainable/follows logical rules, meaning that aside from Multiversum theory and quantum randomness, there is no other way to counter Makaze's argument, as the abstractness of god only serves to tell us that what we deduced might not be the truth. I mentioned it for the heck of it, but I doubt it is a truly solid point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DodgeDusk Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 How'd people feel if I did this for most/all of the battles in my LP? (by "all" I don't mean every battle in the map, just the ones I happen to include in the LP) If it's not too time-consuming, sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 It may be caused by them, but we merely assumed that the reality we perceive is real. There is a 50/50 chance that we have no physical existence at all and that everything is in our minds (to be distinguished from 'heads'). I asked you earlier if you thought of free will in the physical sense, or the metaphysical. This is the significance. I don't think it matters if causality exists or not. Free will cannot exist in vacuum even if your mind happened into existence randomly. You can forgo physical determinism completely because you don't need it to explain your point. Atemporal existences are definitively impossible-or impossible to observe. The moment anything interacts with anything else, three temporal states are created: before, during, and after the interaction. Without the interaction, there is no change. Without the change, there is no existence. Therefore it is impossible for interaction to come about due to a lack of interaction. Consider the physical parallel. The minute we interact with something, via light particles or otherwise, it enters the temporal flow relative to us. We cannot observe anything at absolute zero because any attempt to measure it will increase its temperature from absolute zero. Here's the real kicker--we can't say for sure that it existed before we interacted with it. Atemporal describes something that 'has absolutely no interaction with anything else' which is another way of saying it functionally does not exist. The discovery that time is relative puts the idea of an atemporal being to rest. Anything that created us would have to interact with us, creating a 'before', 'during' and 'after' the act of creation relative to itself. Multiversum is an interesting take, but consider Hattusili I's point: Even a being with equal magnitude of desires is restricted in the sense that they will create all possible worlds and still have no choice in the matter that they want to create all possible worlds. They have no more autonomy than any other force of nature. Regarding your first paragraph, I can't quite agree with that. We might also get into a discussion of the nature of consciousness and how real/unreal it is, but I fear I'll soon have to head to bed so there's little time for that. Anyway, those innate desires have to be created at one point, as without any influence, without absolutely abything impacting us we are practically nothing. If an innate desire exists, then only because of x, if we were to randomly pop into existence there would be nothing defining us as there is no reason for us to be defined by something. As such, I do believe that causality is ultimately necessary. True, and that is the reason why temporal beings are far more logical to us. However, even so also temporality has its limits insofar no absolute zero can possibly exist. "has absolutely no interaction with anything else' which is another way of saying it functionally does not exist" Perhaps I wasn't clear on that, but this is what I intended to say about god. God being in a seperate space would cause him to fulfill this requirement, but ultimately make him pointless, which is actually the reason why I don't believe in a god. I did mention that both god and the world itself acould be considered atemporal, insofar the world knows no creation. God would be no necessity so that leaves him out of the picture. And I'd argue that such is no contradiction, considering the fact that the world didn't create us, but much rather were we formed by matter in the world itself. Our very particles, or rather, the energy stored in us cannot be lost, due to the law of conservation of energy. In that regard, what is inside this world cannot disappear, and the world does not interact with anything else. What does change is what is within the world itself, but the world as a whole doesn't truly change, considering the particles are still the same, the energy contained is still the same. Ok, if god is atemporal he only exists in an isolated world, meaning he might not exist at all. If we consider him a force of nature though, I'd once again mention that there needs not be a desire to create, as a force is not really a being. God cannot be a being and have created the world, as that would, by interaction, put him on the same level as humans, thus stripping him off his title as god. If again we consider him a driving force, then said force would not have any desire, as any force lacks consciousness. Meaning in that case god would be merely a law creating the multiversum. I'll expand on all of this sometime tomorrow, as I really need to go to sleep already, so forgive any eventual leaps in logic. Particularly the atemporal issue needs more discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargirl Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 :D Mei, are you tall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 And with that amount of random ramblings I bid you guys a good night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargirl Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 nite nite mayoooo Mei, are you tall? oui monsieur <: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I like how only I, Makaze and Hattusili took part in that discussion, lol. Anyway, as of now thank you Makaze, it's been nice conversing with such a level-headed person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadFighter Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I just beat a LVL 9 CPU without taking damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Nooooooo Mei showed up and I'm at woooork Hibye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 oui monsieur <: what you say me no understand commie talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Regarding your first paragraph, I can't quite agree with that. We might also get into a discussion of the nature of consciousness and how real/unreal it is, but I fear I'll soon have to head to bed so there's little time for that. Anyway, those innate desires have to be created at one point, as without any influence, without absolutely abything impacting us we are practically nothing. If an innate desire exists, then only because of x, if we were to randomly pop into existence there would be nothing defining us as there is no reason for us to be defined by something. As such, I do believe that causality is ultimately necessary. I'll say this flat out then: A consciousness has no form without desire. Suppose I have an innate preference for any color but green. When you describe Makaze, you will describe me as someone who, if born into a world full of monotonous green, will become miserable, spiteful and pessimistic, and if born into a world of any other color, will exhibit other traits. The environment can change, but the desire is specific to my individual existence. It's the if that tells you something. Makaze is not inherently miserable, but Makaze does inherently dislike green. On a deeper level, desire is the basest influence. The environment itself is neither positive nor negative without desires to make you prefer one to the other. Without desires we will not make choices relative to our environment and our environment will not give rise to personality. There will be no reactions, no change. Therefore the absence of desire cannot cause desire. Consider the possibility that those desires are the first cause (i.e. came into existence randomly). That they are the influence that starts the chain no matter what brings them about. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) I like how only I, Makaze and Hattusili took part in that discussion, lol. Anyway, as of now thank you Makaze, it's been nice conversing with such a level-headed person You are quite welcome. You did me a favor. I would have been significantly more bored today without it. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargirl Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Heheh Have fun at work Sock ^.^ what you say me no understand commie talk u woooot tu as apprendre la français c'est un langue très bien! :DDD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DodgeDusk Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Mei, I think your sig is too wide. You may want to chop it in half or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Super Paper Mario's "Pit of 100 Trials" has an utterly "mystical" feel to it. Kept me goin' when going through that thing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF8VEwzm1cs-------------------Anything new, btw? Edited November 2, 2014 by Koishi Komeji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadFighter Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Hey Mei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DodgeDusk Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Not gonna lie, I thought the dog swallowed it at first. Was, like, "wtf?" when I saw it reappear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Nepos Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) u woooot tu as apprendre la français c'est un langue très bien! :DDD Mei, you're not Frenching right. Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right. Edited November 2, 2014 by Hattusili I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.