Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,129 - 3,141 of 6,170
a world without evil. We don't live there, but I can imagine it if I want to try.
You're... channeling John Lennon! Awesome!
But good luck in your search - the realms of concept-space are indeed limitless, if difficult to visit.
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about
Case in point: Roxie
but do you ever wonder if the person behind the the little girl profile is ever a old man sitting there in his undies with a beer? Just being a sicky?
Good point, This could all support schrodingers(sp) cat. wherein, you place a cat inside a box, this cat would have no air food or water and would eventually die. But to us, the cat would always be alive, in fact, the cat would be alive until someone opended the box, then the cat would be dead. For us, roxie is 8 years old, and will be 8 years old, until someone opens the box and finds out for sure... it is an interesting concept to ponder. It may even intertwine with duality, which to be honest, you guys are over my head on this one.
Why help someone who provides a clear, concise explanation?
I would add that there are different interpretations of the quandaries in quantum mechanics. Many Worlds asserts that the universe splits every time a quantum state is determined, so that in one universe the cat would be alive, and in the other it would be dead (familiar to sci-fi fans as "parallel dimensions"), so it's still alive and dead! (Just not in the same universe at once, after the split)
John Gribbin has a book called "Quantum Reality" that described several (8, I think) interpretations, but it's pretty old. There may be a newer ones with even more now.
Posts 3,129 - 3,141 of 6,170
This is again, I think, to confuse allegory with reality. I do not see why God should be bound by "entity" to be a being just like us, but a lot bigger.
I agree with you about the nature of the divine and teh uses of world religions. That's why I said "if". Many people who speak of praying to "God" do not mean it as an allegory. I'm not a Christian myself, I was just borrowing the symbol. On the other hand, I do not agree that we are not human without knowledge of good and evil.
Even that could just be an issue of labels though.
Do you really? I don't want to sound sceptical, but controlling your self is considerably harder than controlling other people
Not for me. I don't like telling others what to do, and I don't like it when they tell me what to do. I'm not saying I have amazing self control, I just have a better shot at self control than in controling others. This may be somewhat specific to my own case. I hate confrontation and I hate being sneaky. When people try to control me, I go into avoidance mode. If I can't raise my voice, or purposefully manipulate others, how do you expect me to point a gun at them? I couldn't even practice law for very long without being paralyzed by guilt. Controlling myself isn't easy, and I don't always do it, but it is still a more reasonable goal for me that manipulating others. To each their own.
I agree with Ulrike about living in the world as it is. That is the goal or ideal I would embrace. However, I still disagree with the idea that evil is "necessary". If in the infinite possible realities, there is, for example, a world without shrimp, or a world without trees, or a world where people have tails, it could be, that out in the limitless realms of possibilities, there is a world without evil. We don't live there, but I can imagine it if I want to try.
I agree with you about the nature of the divine and teh uses of world religions. That's why I said "if". Many people who speak of praying to "God" do not mean it as an allegory. I'm not a Christian myself, I was just borrowing the symbol. On the other hand, I do not agree that we are not human without knowledge of good and evil.
Even that could just be an issue of labels though.
Do you really? I don't want to sound sceptical, but controlling your self is considerably harder than controlling other people
Not for me. I don't like telling others what to do, and I don't like it when they tell me what to do. I'm not saying I have amazing self control, I just have a better shot at self control than in controling others. This may be somewhat specific to my own case. I hate confrontation and I hate being sneaky. When people try to control me, I go into avoidance mode. If I can't raise my voice, or purposefully manipulate others, how do you expect me to point a gun at them? I couldn't even practice law for very long without being paralyzed by guilt. Controlling myself isn't easy, and I don't always do it, but it is still a more reasonable goal for me that manipulating others. To each their own.
I agree with Ulrike about living in the world as it is. That is the goal or ideal I would embrace. However, I still disagree with the idea that evil is "necessary". If in the infinite possible realities, there is, for example, a world without shrimp, or a world without trees, or a world where people have tails, it could be, that out in the limitless realms of possibilities, there is a world without evil. We don't live there, but I can imagine it if I want to try.
You're... channeling John Lennon! Awesome!
But good luck in your search - the realms of concept-space are indeed limitless, if difficult to visit.
Roxie, what are you upset about, that they are talking about things you don't understand? I don't understand everything they are saying either, if it makes you feel better. But I don't feel the need to be rude to them because of it. Is there something you wanted help with, or are you just trying to get attention again? Because acting like a child is only going to ensure that you are ridiculed in anagram haikus.
Case in point: Roxie
Precisely because their experience of evil is so limited, children will interpret marginally less good experiences as positively bad, and radically polarise a spectrum of experience that an adult would consider all generally good. All children will find things to have tantrums about
Case in point: Roxie
Roxie's behavior could be influenced by many factors. It may be biologically determined as well as a matter of nurturing (or lack thereof). Are you familiar with the stages of cognitive development proposed by Piaget?
Piaget was an epigenetic theorist who demonstrated that children's thinking normally develops in stages. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development ). This is not a matter of being less intelligent, or having less education, or even being more spoiled--Children are hard-wired to think differently than adults.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where she is able to use symbolism and some form of logic, but has not quite got the hang of the delimitation of egocentrism. This would be consistent with her ability to type, chat with people and bots and post, but her inability to grasp the purpose of the forums, or to see why people are not responding the way she would like us to.
Such behavior is not necessarily caused by lack of exposure to the world or by being spoiled. It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so. How this way of thinking manifests into behavior is most likely a function of her environment and education, but the tendency to egocentric thinking is normal.
There is also the factor of emotional maturity. It's very common for some types of intelligence (say verbal ability) to develop faster than other types (say emotional or social intelligence). This is simply a matter of individual abilities and developmental idiosyncrasies. Exposure to evil will probably not help matters much.
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience. I do not believe the bulk of scientific evidence supports that assumption. Futhermore, if the assumption were true children who were abused or neglected would be less egocentric than children who were not abused or neglected. I have no studies to back me up in mind, but I am sure this is not the case. From anecdotal evidence I know children who were abused can often become clinging and more prone to emotional outburst, though other abused children may withdraw inward to depression, they are no less egocentric. In fact, exposure to evil tends to interrupt normal child development, cause regression to occur, and give the individual problems that may follow throughout their adult lives.
Case in point: Roxie
Roxie's behavior could be influenced by many factors. It may be biologically determined as well as a matter of nurturing (or lack thereof). Are you familiar with the stages of cognitive development proposed by Piaget?
Piaget was an epigenetic theorist who demonstrated that children's thinking normally develops in stages. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development ). This is not a matter of being less intelligent, or having less education, or even being more spoiled--Children are hard-wired to think differently than adults.
Roxie could be in the beginning of the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, where she is able to use symbolism and some form of logic, but has not quite got the hang of the delimitation of egocentrism. This would be consistent with her ability to type, chat with people and bots and post, but her inability to grasp the purpose of the forums, or to see why people are not responding the way she would like us to.
Such behavior is not necessarily caused by lack of exposure to the world or by being spoiled. It's because children start out to be naturally egocentric and can only see things from others' perspective when their brain has biologically developed enough for them to do so. How this way of thinking manifests into behavior is most likely a function of her environment and education, but the tendency to egocentric thinking is normal.
There is also the factor of emotional maturity. It's very common for some types of intelligence (say verbal ability) to develop faster than other types (say emotional or social intelligence). This is simply a matter of individual abilities and developmental idiosyncrasies. Exposure to evil will probably not help matters much.
To say that children are egocentric and take small things as large things because they have no exposure to evil is assuming that children are just like little adults but with less experience. I do not believe the bulk of scientific evidence supports that assumption. Futhermore, if the assumption were true children who were abused or neglected would be less egocentric than children who were not abused or neglected. I have no studies to back me up in mind, but I am sure this is not the case. From anecdotal evidence I know children who were abused can often become clinging and more prone to emotional outburst, though other abused children may withdraw inward to depression, they are no less egocentric. In fact, exposure to evil tends to interrupt normal child development, cause regression to occur, and give the individual problems that may follow throughout their adult lives.
I am NOT talking about Roxie or any other child that has posted here!...but do you ever wonder if the person behind the the little girl profile is ever a old man sitting there in his undies with a beer? Just being a sicky?
Good point, Prob. You never know who or what may be out there. For all you know, I'm a bot with a person who posts my responses. I read that up to 99% of the female characters in World of Warcraft are played by men. It would be easy enough to "play" a child here.
Although it doesn't help with the age/gender issue, I sometimes look up guest IP addresses to see what country guest who chat with my bots are from. I find it funny that Spikebot has more fans in the UK, while Gabi seems to attract people from Turkey and Cypress. Every once in a while someone for Chicago talks with one of my bots and I wonder if one of my friends is messing with me.
Although it doesn't help with the age/gender issue, I sometimes look up guest IP addresses to see what country guest who chat with my bots are from. I find it funny that Spikebot has more fans in the UK, while Gabi seems to attract people from Turkey and Cypress. Every once in a while someone for Chicago talks with one of my bots and I wonder if one of my friends is messing with me.
Good point, This could all support schrodingers(sp) cat. wherein, you place a cat inside a box, this cat would have no air food or water and would eventually die. But to us, the cat would always be alive, in fact, the cat would be alive until someone opended the box, then the cat would be dead. For us, roxie is 8 years old, and will be 8 years old, until someone opens the box and finds out for sure... it is an interesting concept to ponder. It may even intertwine with duality, which to be honest, you guys are over my head on this one.
Jazake, you are correct that we may as well treat people as what they say they are (unitl further evidence contradicts that assumption), but I think you are confused about the point of schroedinger's cat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat.
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other. Psimagus posted great wikipedia links related to this a while back.
Help me out science people.
The point of that thought experiement is not that to the observer the cat would be "alive" until they see the cat is dead, it's that according to some principles used in quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, until an observer tiggered the "wave" to collapse, so that the act of observation would cause the cat to be in one state or the other. Psimagus posted great wikipedia links related to this a while back.
Help me out science people.
Why help someone who provides a clear, concise explanation?I would add that there are different interpretations of the quandaries in quantum mechanics. Many Worlds asserts that the universe splits every time a quantum state is determined, so that in one universe the cat would be alive, and in the other it would be dead (familiar to sci-fi fans as "parallel dimensions"), so it's still alive and dead! (Just not in the same universe at once, after the split)
John Gribbin has a book called "Quantum Reality" that described several (8, I think) interpretations, but it's pretty old. There may be a newer ones with even more now.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar