|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:42 pm
Shikalee Kanon Vilente sweatdrop I personally dont mind but im not sure about Ressurection lol his rules his guild. Lmao personally id be like " In this area flaming will not be reported but... it will be graded" jk jk I don't know why anyone thinks discussing an idea is flaming. Sure, I talk a lot. That doesn't mean I'm trying to be a jerk. I just try to prevent loopholes in what I say. Hehe reread what Kulshedra had posted. Possibilty it could have gone to flaming thats why i made a joke out it. rofl Those Silly little misunderstands rofl Don't worry im a confusing person or you can say confused if you want lol doesnt really matter to me Lol although you cant deny that I am rather interesting
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Shikalee I moved the post so it was easier to read. 3nodding @ Kanon Vilente: Though this is true; not everything can be explained by logic and science, it is also true that nothing can be explained by non-logic and logical fallacies. He presented ideas that conflicted with themselves. I saw these mistakes and pointed them out. Somehow, he digressed, putting words in my mouth, and decided to ignore the content of the post, but look at what was offending him. If I let myself get offended by people with conflicting ideas, I would never learn anything. As for wikipedia, I do not like it much. I always refer to it, however, because most people I am talking to do. This to me means that I can look at the very information they are using to base their arguments off of. The Theory of Everything (physics wise), is exactly as stated. A theory. It also has not ever been fully established, and is actually the current goal of physicists today. Starting with Einstein, physicists wanted to find a theory that could explain all physical phenomenon in the universe. This would be given the name TOE. The purpose of the TOE is to unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, which are commonly broken into four categories: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This, in essence, would also explain the mechanics of elementary particles. However, to create a theory of everything, one would have to combine the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics, and have these coexist with quantum gravity. This is yet to be done, since the theories have conflicting ideas... Now that I'm done practicing that... The Theory of Everything (philosophy wise) is the non-scientific explanation of reality. It has the same exact goal as the physicists' TOE, and yet the two sides separated, commonly create the illusion of two conflicting sides. Though philosophers find things through logical reasoning and learn things through discussion, this does not devalidate what physicists have discovered, nor have the discoveries of physicists devalidated the discussions of philosophers. The two do not effect each other in that respect, therefore, one is not necessarily to be preferred over the other. It is good to have a healthy medium, and I admit that I do rely on science a lot of the time, but that does not make me unaware of philosophy. I love the class, and just like my physics class, I have an A+ in philosophy as well. My love for the subjects are quite equal, however, physics is far more complicated in some respects, which is why it consumes more of my time. I don't have to go to wikipedia to find out what all these things are; I read books, and I already knew what they were. However, I will use the site in reference to your point. The Philosophical TOE does not claim that science cannot explain everything. Now, this claim is made in this quote from the Wiki: Quote: In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. He does have a point, but this does not mean that scientists are not pursuing the idea. Philosophers are not any closer than physicists are. Science might not explain consciousness yet, but it could one day. Just as philosophy doesn't, and could. Lol i'm glad that you did look up both which saves me posts. And since i'm dealing with you. I will assume that you understand the etomolgy of philosophy, defition, and main branches of western philosophy. See now I will state that I have a personal ideal to understand philosophy from many different aspects and which Im wondering if you are looking at the same idea since you are currently studying philosopy and physics. Now what I wish to do is come to an understand if how you think in terms of philosophy when i asked if you can explain your existence from another angle other than personal perception. Unfortunately there are things within philosophy and physics that can create a paradox within certain ideals and theories if you take both factors into consideration. Although it is a pretty good theme to look from a scientific aspect. You have to also keep in mind that you are within this guild forum and we do not fully express or think through what we wish to say, but merely state what comes to our minds I can't exactly speak for everyone . I personally like the fact the people wish to put out such ideas. Ideas are probably one of the greatest things about humans. And the most dangerous. Well ill wait for a response for now cause im like sustaining a mellow mood listening to music and all that good stuff rofl Might as well enjoy life with everything else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:16 pm
Kanon Vilente Shikalee Kanon Vilente sweatdrop I personally dont mind but im not sure about Ressurection lol his rules his guild. Lmao personally id be like " In this area flaming will not be reported but... it will be graded" jk jk I don't know why anyone thinks discussing an idea is flaming. Sure, I talk a lot. That doesn't mean I'm trying to be a jerk. I just try to prevent loopholes in what I say. Hehe reread what Kulshedra had posted. Possibilty it could have gone to flaming thats why i made a joke out it. rofl Those Silly little misunderstands rofl Don't worry im a confusing person or you can say confused if you want lol doesnt really matter to me Lol although you cant deny that I am rather interesting I had read it. Several times. There was no confusion. It would not likely go to flaming, since it is quite hard to upset me. =/ You haven't confused me, you're just illiterate. You don't make sense because you draw hasty conclusions. That is clear. You are interesting. I never said you weren't. :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Kanon Vilente Shikalee I moved the post so it was easier to read. 3nodding @ Kanon Vilente: Though this is true; not everything can be explained by logic and science, it is also true that nothing can be explained by non-logic and logical fallacies. He presented ideas that conflicted with themselves. I saw these mistakes and pointed them out. Somehow, he digressed, putting words in my mouth, and decided to ignore the content of the post, but look at what was offending him. If I let myself get offended by people with conflicting ideas, I would never learn anything. As for wikipedia, I do not like it much. I always refer to it, however, because most people I am talking to do. This to me means that I can look at the very information they are using to base their arguments off of. The Theory of Everything (physics wise), is exactly as stated. A theory. It also has not ever been fully established, and is actually the current goal of physicists today. Starting with Einstein, physicists wanted to find a theory that could explain all physical phenomenon in the universe. This would be given the name TOE. The purpose of the TOE is to unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, which are commonly broken into four categories: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This, in essence, would also explain the mechanics of elementary particles. However, to create a theory of everything, one would have to combine the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics, and have these coexist with quantum gravity. This is yet to be done, since the theories have conflicting ideas... Now that I'm done practicing that... The Theory of Everything (philosophy wise) is the non-scientific explanation of reality. It has the same exact goal as the physicists' TOE, and yet the two sides separated, commonly create the illusion of two conflicting sides. Though philosophers find things through logical reasoning and learn things through discussion, this does not devalidate what physicists have discovered, nor have the discoveries of physicists devalidated the discussions of philosophers. The two do not effect each other in that respect, therefore, one is not necessarily to be preferred over the other. It is good to have a healthy medium, and I admit that I do rely on science a lot of the time, but that does not make me unaware of philosophy. I love the class, and just like my physics class, I have an A+ in philosophy as well. My love for the subjects are quite equal, however, physics is far more complicated in some respects, which is why it consumes more of my time. I don't have to go to wikipedia to find out what all these things are; I read books, and I already knew what they were. However, I will use the site in reference to your point. The Philosophical TOE does not claim that science cannot explain everything. Now, this claim is made in this quote from the Wiki: Quote: In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. He does have a point, but this does not mean that scientists are not pursuing the idea. Philosophers are not any closer than physicists are. Science might not explain consciousness yet, but it could one day. Just as philosophy doesn't, and could. Lol i'm glad that you did look up both which saves me posts. And since i'm dealing with you. I will assume that you understand the etomolgy of philosophy, defition, and main branches of western philosophy. Sorry, you've spelled two words incorrectly, and I'm not sure what you mean. >_>; Kanon Vilente See now I will state that I have a personal ideal to understand philosophy from many different aspects and which Im wondering if you are looking at the same idea since you are currently studying philosopy and physics. I do not know. Kanon Vilente Now what I wish to do is come to an understand if how you think in terms of philosophy when i asked if you can explain your existence from another angle other than personal perception. Philosophy, like science, has no definite answers... Kanon Vilente Unfortunately there are things within philosophy and physics that can create a paradox within certain ideals and theories if you take both factors into consideration. Less a paradox and more a dead end... sad Kanon Vilente Although it is a pretty good theme to look from a scientific aspect. You have to also keep in mind that you are within this guild forum and we do not fully express or think through what we wish to say, but merely state what comes to our minds I can't exactly speak for everyone . I personally like the fact the people wish to put out such ideas. Ideas are probably one of the greatest things about humans. And the most dangerous. Why wouldn't you express yourselves? Why would you only half express yourselves? Keeping the peace is less important than progress. For centuries philosophers argued to make progress. Kanon Vilente Well ill wait for a response for now cause im like sustaining a mellow mood listening to music and all that good stuff rofl Might as well enjoy life with everything else Sorry, I had to do a few things and eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:19 pm
Shikalee Kanon Vilente Shikalee Kanon Vilente sweatdrop I personally dont mind but im not sure about Ressurection lol his rules his guild. Lmao personally id be like " In this area flaming will not be reported but... it will be graded" jk jk I don't know why anyone thinks discussing an idea is flaming. Sure, I talk a lot. That doesn't mean I'm trying to be a jerk. I just try to prevent loopholes in what I say. Hehe reread what Kulshedra had posted. Possibilty it could have gone to flaming thats why i made a joke out it. rofl Those Silly little misunderstands rofl Don't worry im a confusing person or you can say confused if you want lol doesnt really matter to me Lol although you cant deny that I am rather interesting I had read it. Several times. There was no confusion. It would not likely go to flaming, since it is quite hard to upset me. =/ You haven't confused me, you're just illiterate. You don't make sense because you draw hasty conclusions. That is clear. You are interesting. I never said you weren't. :] Lol trust me I am not illiterate. I haven't even read through the entire conversation that you two were having I merely skimmed (this still does not mean I am illiterate only that I was being lazy). The notion if I'm able to read is not the subject neither is this post ( Talk about being a hypocrite rofl sweatdrop ). And what you say as hasty conclusions is partially correct. By skimming and taking into considersation of each individuals attitudes during the situation I merely saw that If Kulshedra was provoked or rather irritated ( whatever phrase you wish to use ) He might possibly say something that was offensive etc etc. He has already stated this which is the primary example " Sorry, I just can't stand it when people argue like that. It seems like their arguing for no reason other than arguing. I suppose that would be my pet peeve." This statement in itself with his previous statements have indicated that he was either irritated frustrated or angry with the situation So from looking at the current situation it isnt that difficult to tell how things would have escalated thats why I said something just to simply stop it. Shikalee I somewhat commend you on your powers of observation. Since you have not noticed this even if you have read the statement through "several times" does not mean you fully comprehended nor understood what was going on. And this I can clearly state with confidence ( and I do not wish to elaborate on this further ) you have failed to understand basic human behavior. I do not mean this as an insult or anything of the sort however it may come off that way. And I apologize for once again producing another confusing statement or for anything else I might mention. I am not here to argue nor am I interested in doing so. I now only wish to drop this matter and move on with the topic at hand. But if you feel you must continue then feel free to do so unless The cap or vice cap says otherwise. And for future reference because I know some people will be confused unless you have known me for a long time I am an individuality engulfed in a philosophical enigma. So understanding me or what I say isn't exactly the easiest thing to do and I do not help with it since I do not form my thoughts into written or typed words correctly. rofl Thats why im thinking about taking a class for writers rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:29 pm
Shikalee Kanon Vilente Shikalee I moved the post so it was easier to read. 3nodding @ Kanon Vilente: Though this is true; not everything can be explained by logic and science, it is also true that nothing can be explained by non-logic and logical fallacies. He presented ideas that conflicted with themselves. I saw these mistakes and pointed them out. Somehow, he digressed, putting words in my mouth, and decided to ignore the content of the post, but look at what was offending him. If I let myself get offended by people with conflicting ideas, I would never learn anything. As for wikipedia, I do not like it much. I always refer to it, however, because most people I am talking to do. This to me means that I can look at the very information they are using to base their arguments off of. The Theory of Everything (physics wise), is exactly as stated. A theory. It also has not ever been fully established, and is actually the current goal of physicists today. Starting with Einstein, physicists wanted to find a theory that could explain all physical phenomenon in the universe. This would be given the name TOE. The purpose of the TOE is to unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, which are commonly broken into four categories: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This, in essence, would also explain the mechanics of elementary particles. However, to create a theory of everything, one would have to combine the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics, and have these coexist with quantum gravity. This is yet to be done, since the theories have conflicting ideas... Now that I'm done practicing that... The Theory of Everything (philosophy wise) is the non-scientific explanation of reality. It has the same exact goal as the physicists' TOE, and yet the two sides separated, commonly create the illusion of two conflicting sides. Though philosophers find things through logical reasoning and learn things through discussion, this does not devalidate what physicists have discovered, nor have the discoveries of physicists devalidated the discussions of philosophers. The two do not effect each other in that respect, therefore, one is not necessarily to be preferred over the other. It is good to have a healthy medium, and I admit that I do rely on science a lot of the time, but that does not make me unaware of philosophy. I love the class, and just like my physics class, I have an A+ in philosophy as well. My love for the subjects are quite equal, however, physics is far more complicated in some respects, which is why it consumes more of my time. I don't have to go to wikipedia to find out what all these things are; I read books, and I already knew what they were. However, I will use the site in reference to your point. The Philosophical TOE does not claim that science cannot explain everything. Now, this claim is made in this quote from the Wiki: Quote: In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. He does have a point, but this does not mean that scientists are not pursuing the idea. Philosophers are not any closer than physicists are. Science might not explain consciousness yet, but it could one day. Just as philosophy doesn't, and could. Lol i'm glad that you did look up both which saves me posts. And since i'm dealing with you. I will assume that you understand the etomolgy of philosophy, defition, and main branches of western philosophy. Sorry, you've spelled two words incorrectly, and I'm not sure what you mean. >_>; Kanon Vilente See now I will state that I have a personal ideal to understand philosophy from many different aspects and which Im wondering if you are looking at the same idea since you are currently studying philosopy and physics. I do not know. Kanon Vilente Now what I wish to do is come to an understand if how you think in terms of philosophy when i asked if you can explain your existence from another angle other than personal perception. Philosophy, like science, has no definite answers... Kanon Vilente Unfortunately there are things within philosophy and physics that can create a paradox within certain ideals and theories if you take both factors into consideration. Less a paradox and more a dead end... sad Kanon Vilente Although it is a pretty good theme to look from a scientific aspect. You have to also keep in mind that you are within this guild forum and we do not fully express or think through what we wish to say, but merely state what comes to our minds I can't exactly speak for everyone . I personally like the fact the people wish to put out such ideas. Ideas are probably one of the greatest things about humans. And the most dangerous. Why wouldn't you express yourselves? Why would you only half express yourselves? Keeping the peace is less important than progress. For centuries philosophers argued to make progress. Kanon Vilente Well ill wait for a response for now cause im like sustaining a mellow mood listening to music and all that good stuff rofl Might as well enjoy life with everything else Sorry, I had to do a few things and eat. Lol I need to learn to seperate the qoutes like that rofl Oh oh where to begin. Uh lets see i mispelled Etomology, and Definition good thing you caught that. Lol oh some of us are to lazy to push out all of our thoughts (Yeah thats me the best example sweatdrop ) Or we spit out something we wish to discuss. Like I was telling Kulshedra about building a theory or idea. Uh something like that Oh well that wasnt the answer I was looking for when you said Philosophy has do definete answers. Unfortunately I didn't say what I needed to say properly. Uh yeah Dead end is probably a good way to say it I just like to think of it as a paradox also Like when you said that neither science or philosophy could uh define conciousness or something like that. Lmao I just woke up from a nap so yeah rofl rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am
Kanon Vilente Lol I need to learn to seperate the qoutes like that rofl Oh, that's easy! Put the "quote equals name" part with the brackets around it before what the person said, than "slash quote" at the end. Just look at the code and see how I did it. Then type after the "slash quote." ^.^ IN BED. >: O Kanon Vilente Uh lets see i mispelled Etomology, and Definition good thing you caught that. Lol oh some of us are to lazy to push out all of our thoughts (Yeah thats me the best example sweatdrop ) Or we spit out something we wish to discuss. Like I was telling Kulshedra about building a theory or idea. Uh something like that Etomology... what the heck is that?! gonk Entomology? Etymology? >.<;;; A lot of people blame their spelling mistakes for laziness. I just don't get that. I'm lazy as hell. I'm underweight because I'm too lazy to get up in the morning and have breakfast, and then I'm too lazy to get off my computer to have lunch. gonk I'm too lazy to eat! The only things I will eat are ridiculously easy to make like microwaved meals or dry toast! xp Well, unless I'm unusually enthusiastic, I'll put butter on it. D:< Kanon Vilente Oh well that wasnt the answer I was looking for when you said Philosophy has do definete answers. Unfortunately I didn't say what I needed to say properly. Philosophy lacks definite answers. Whereas science... only displays what we observe. Kanon Vilente Uh yeah Dead end is probably a good way to say it I just like to think of it as a paradox also Like when you said that neither science or philosophy could uh define conciousness or something like that. It's hard to define consciousness. We sense ourselves as an "observer" but other than that we don't know much... sad It's creepy! Kanon Vilente Lmao I just woke up from a nap so yeah rofl rofl Same here, actually. u.u;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:07 pm
Hehe I can't get it without showing the ( Shikalee ) well without it showing that part on the top and bottom Lol. I'm not the greatest with html coding rofl Thanks for helping me out with that xd sweatdrop I'll figure it out sooner or later. Lmao trust me its not that wise for me to be making any arguments when i'm waking up lol rofl I'm like a zombie when I wake up confused Oh sweatdrop maybe I should pay attention to grammar when I type stuff that was supposed to be Etymology rofl Lol. Let me read through this thread so I can see how we got to talking about this stuff. rofl I've been off for a bit so i'm kinda lost sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:31 am
My thoughts?
Uhm... You're right. I wasn't aware there was confusion though, thanks anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 1:07 pm
Sand From The Future(GTD) My thoughts? Uhm... You're right. I wasn't aware there was confusion though, thanks anyway. Ok ive been gone for a bit and now im just lost. Now what are you talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
