Guest posts by BadWolfskin

13

Humor / Re: YOU LAUGH...... YOU LOSE - Engrish Second Edition

« on: January 11, 2010, 07:22:42 pm »

6 points. Damn it, that was funny. At least 8 or 10 would have cracked me up, anyways.

14

Humor / Re: YOU LAUGH...... YOU LOSE - Engrish Edition

« on: January 11, 2010, 07:20:56 pm »

10 points - these don't really get me. Sad, I suppose. Though number 6 nearly cracked me a smile.

15

Rainbow Decks / Re: Scaredgirl's (almost) NON-UPGRADED False God Rainbow

« on: January 07, 2010, 10:24:19 pm »

It is only visible the moment you register and log on then.

16

Religion / Re: A Philosophical Perspective on the Supernatural

« on: January 06, 2010, 11:49:30 am »

I didn't read up on solipsism, but I was going to say just that in my answer. I decided not to since I didn't think it was necessary.


I'm not sure if you are being specific enough. Does this happen all the time? Or does it happen only when reflexes are involved? If it's the former I think we'd also have to consider conditioning. Those who practice martial arts do the same movements hundreds of times a day so that they will be able to react without thinking. Isn't it possible that the people that were studied in the thing you are talking about had some type of conditioning already programmed in?



I'm in the same boat as you in your first paragraph.

As for your second, I am Christian, although I never go to church. And I don't really subscribe to the whole idea of going out and spreading the word in order to save others. If someone were to come to me and ask, I'd try to explain it to them, but I'd also recommend they talk to someone who really knows what they are talking about. I also believe in the power of belief; I'd say it's the most influential part of life.

So you would agree that we would have to say: "We exist."?

About these 250 ms. It happens all the time. Unfortunately I can't give you any English sources that are easy to access, but you may find something about this, if you look up work from Benjamin Libet and others. If you have access to one of those, I would recommend to have a look:
ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-46C0C8W-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1156095486&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e54ab2a22474ae80eb0dc0393e5e4f2)
NEUROSCIENCE (https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1144)
Conditioning is an important part when it gets to the conclusion, but this phenomena is not really dependent on it. You could argue that everything is conditioned, but I doubt this to be a good explanation. This happens, if you are surprised by a whole new situation, too. But you could argue that your part of "free will" is actually about conditioning your mind so it reacts the way you like the next time.
They very next question would have to be - am I responsible for my actions, if my brain initiates them before I am even aware? This is where the going gets rough. Morale and ethics are at stake.

I am with you in the conclusion that belief is the most influential thing in life. That's why I am not willing to even abstractly discuss "gods/creators/entities". But I won't go so far as to tell someone that he is misbelieving and should immediately refrain from it. This is something everybody has to decide for himself. Sadly, the people who are most willing to coerce you into a belief are religious people.
A year ago a guy on the bus talked to me and tried to force the love of god upon me. He wouldn't understand that I have no fear of hell or loss of soul, because I don't believe in god. When I started to ask him why he was so willing to follow a religion that was used to enslave his people, (He was black. And I am aware that not all Christians think lowly of non-white people. Of course, not all Christians were taking part in slavery either. And for damn sure: African cultures [and numerous others all around the world] know a lot about slavery and perform it up to date.) he just ignored my question - needless to say I was surprised. This way it was futile to discuss the opinion that every religion that evangelises has sort of racist roots. (Believers <-> non-believers)
That said: Christianity has an awful lot of good ideas and ways. But there are as many, or maybe more that are bad, in my opinion. If anything, I believe that a guy like Jesus existed. I just think he was a normal me and you, but had some pretty amazingly good ideas.

17

Off-Topic Discussions / Re: An Essay Regarding Scepticism

« on: January 05, 2010, 06:37:28 pm »

Pretty good read. Thanks for sharing.
I do believe you deserved that A. It is short, it has the needed information - it makes you wish for more.

18

Religion / Re: A Philosophical Perspective on the Supernatural

« on: January 05, 2010, 06:18:13 pm »

I posted the essay in the main off-topic section.

Thanks for the essay!

Now to see if I can answer your questions...
1. I took that from a debate I saw between two theists and two atheists. It was one of the few things they agreed on, so I wanted to start there with whatever I could come up with. Basically, it's due to our current knowledge regarding cause and effect, specifically things such as the law of conservation of mass/energy. I am completely aware that "something can not come from nothing" is not provable with what we currently know, but everything we know does point in that direction (or I'm pretty sure it does anyway). Actually I don't think "something can not come from nothing" is compatible with scepticism, since the something(s) the statement applies to are things that you doubt exist.

Ok, let's stick to that one then.

2. I can't prove to you that I exist. If I could then I wouldn't be taking a sceptical stance. I can prove to myself that I exist (I think, therefore I am).

To elaborate this: I was pretty sure you knew you can't prove your existence to anybody else. But this fact alone is the base for another sceptical theory: solipsism. Which is why I suggested to read up on it. What Descartes wrote aims in this direction.
But for me (especially to accept this as the next logical step) this isn't enough. If you can only find truth in the existence of your own mind - you wouldn't even need to argue with me. You even wouldn't need to utter a theory - because just you were there. But solipsism ultimately leads to madness, at least that's my opinion. But as I am no fan of any designer/god/entity, I could accept and follow you on the abstract level - but I won't. I believe strongly that any kind of thought in this direction is dangerous. It leads to the assumption that someone else is ultimately responsible.

I don't understand what you are getting at when you say the brain acts 250 milliseconds before you are aware you want to do something. Is there a question there?

Well, yes there is a question. It goes: If your brain does this even before you become aware of it - do you have a free will? ("this" translates to: neurons fire to move the arm, but 250 ms before you even become aware of the fact that you want to move it.)

To answer your last question, I guess I'll explain my sceptical hypothesis. Descartes wrote that the only thing he can know for certain is that his mind exists. If this is accepted as true (but applied to oneself), one possibility is that the world is created by the mind (sort of like idealism). Since one can't make something happen just by thinking it, there must be two minds one possesses. One mind creates the world you see and we have no control over it, while the other (the conscious mind) perceives the illusions created by the first mind. If you need me to go into more detail I guess I could, but I think I explained it clearly enough. And I realize this hypothesis could be wrong, and that there are many other sceptical hypotheses out there, but I'd say each are equally probable, and there isn't really anyway to disprove or prove one.

True - to prove any of them is more than just difficult. But that is why I offered another theory. To me it is the most important revelation about ourselves. It was developed by different people, but stems from psychology. It is called Radical Constructivism (attention here: there are different constructivist theories out there, this is the one I am referring to) and aims to explain how we human beings perceive reality and what exactly our interaction is all about. I`ve read stuff from Ferdinand de Saussure (linguistics) and even his widely acknowledged system-theory of speech fits in perfectly. Same goes for the work about Intersubjectivity by Jessica Benjamin. I do believe that Radical Constructivism doesn't need to be proven - it is actually pretty logical. There is criticism to it, but as far as I am concerned there is still work to be done on that theory. 

3. When I originally wrote the stuff we are talking about, I wrote "something." I decided to change it though since my first proposition said "something can not come from nothing." If I said something could have caused my existence, I would have to explain where that something came from (and I applied that to my thoughts when I was looking for where I could be wrong, just in regards to myself and "someone"), thereby creating an entirely new problem and getting nowhere.

Check, this explains it, thank you. So "something2" would be right.

I think the other things you referred to are covered above.

And just so we're clear, I don't think my proposition is true; it was meant as a starting place for the topic, and I made it up as I went along.

Okay, I get that. In return: I don't just want to criticise, but I want to exchange. I strongly believe that this is the only way to expand knowledge besides of loooong observations and extrapolations. But the latter is something we all (should) do by default from the time of consciousness on.

You may have noticed that I use the word believe often. This is no coincidence. I have studied psychology and now am studying German and English. (Myself being German)
I was raised sort of Christian. (church seldom, but being baptised) I don't believe in god or a creator. As explained above I deem religions to be highly dangerous. (And no, thanks, I am old enough to not discuss this with people who want to save me - just in case)
But I am keenly aware of the fact that human beings do need to believe in something. Theories can only ever be theories (explanation: I consider myself to be radical constructivist) - you need to decide for yourself what to believe. Human being can only be subjective, there is no way for us to truly be objective.
Therefore, I say I believe in something - it is just no belief.

19

Religion / Re: A Philosophical Perspective on the Supernatural

« on: January 04, 2010, 09:30:40 pm »

It does! Own words normally mark that you understood something so good that you can reproduce the idea without the need of someone else. So - Yeah.

About that paper: I'd love to read it. The more you know the better you understand, they say. 

20

Religion / Re: The Compendium of Beliefs

« on: January 04, 2010, 07:57:21 pm »

About The Religion
Deity Name: Human beings, if you really want to call it a deity.
Describe who this deity is: Us, you, me.
Other deities involved: Animals, plants, everything alive.
Describe them: Different than us, but not to be handled w/o respect.
Holy land: Earth, the place we should be looking after more...
Place of Worship: Earth, as well.
What does your deity require of you: You tell me.
Most important concepts/teachings: We are all interconnected. ALL.
What are some sins/misdeeds/evil things in your religion: To call anything inhuman. Everything done by humans must (per definition) be human. You just judge differently.
What is prayer/meditation for in your religion:
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"
I see it feelingly.
-Shakespeare, King Lear

Our Life
Who or What gives us life: Our need for it.
When does life begin: We do not know for absolutely sure.
When does life end: At a different time for each of us.
What is the Soul in your religion: The soul may be the feeling you get, when you perceive something of absolute beauty and it vibrates within you for hours, or even days. But we are not absolutely sure whether it exists, or not.
Purpose of this life: Finding out our purpose.
What are we required to do in this life: I ask you.
Why are we required to do those things: You ask yourself.
Afterlife: Could be, could not.

The World/Universe
Who made the world/universe: We do not know enough yet to be sure.
What was the world/universe created for: irrelevant
When was the world/universe created: Tsk, too far in the past to tell for sure.
How was the world/universe created: irrelevant
How (if relevant) does the world/universe end: irrelevant
Why (if relevant) does the world/universe end: irrelevant
When (if relevant) does the world/universe end: Nah, too far in the future to tell for sure.

21

Religion / Re: A Philosophical Perspective on the Supernatural

« on: January 04, 2010, 07:23:56 pm »

Three points to ponder about: (bold for emphasis, no yelling intended)

First: Prove me, that you do exist.
Second: Your brain acts 250 milliseconds before you are aware that you want to carry out any action.
Third: What exactly do you perceive when you see something, or hear something?

You may want to read up on solipsism, radical constructivism and for starters on the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. (You might want to get started with the Metaphor of the Sun and the Analogy of the divided Line on which base the Allegory of the Cave needs to be interpreted.)

For your reasoning:

1. Something can not come from nothing.
- Exactly why?

2. I exist.
- See my first point.

3. Therefore, someone must have caused my existence.
- Perhaps it wasn't someone, but something that caused your existence, no?

4. Either I caused my existence or someone else caused my existence.
- Void, if you can't prove that you definitely were created by someone.

5. If I caused my existence, there is a designer; if someone else caused my existence, there is a designer.
- See above.

6. Therefore, there is a designer.
- Fallacy. (Yeah, I'm horribly blunt here, but I simply don't agree on the aforementioned points. )

There are two sentences in your post where I believe you are dead right. (At least the basic idea, there is much more to follow up these assumptions, which I will clarify when I elaborate my three points. I'll wait with this, it is way more rewarding to figure it out for yourself - I know it busted a couple of misconceptions for myself. Note: I don't want to be parenting, just getting excited about everyone who starts to tackle the really important questions^TM.)

"This means I doubt that what I perceive exists outside of myself. That doesn't mean I think or know other things don't exist, it means that I can't know that they do exist."
Really good start. If this genuinely came from your own pondering - kudos, I needed guidance for this.

22

Rainbow Decks / Re: Scaredgirl's (almost) NON-UPGRADED False God Rainbow

« on: January 03, 2010, 08:09:50 pm »

Hi - I am new here, just playing for some days. I have done excessive reading and played your "old" ultimate deck, following your strategy guide to make tons of money. Obviously the sundial nerf made it a pain in the a$$ to farm FG with it. I managed to get a few wins in, but it takes a huge amount of time.
Now I stumbled across this thread (not enough reading yet) and immediately tried it out.
Wow - that's a pretty good setup. I just added a quintessence and it works wonders protecting that druid or the oty. Actually I am thinking to add a second one. A working and untouchable druid plus oty is needed in order to succeed. Just one good draw for a god with creature-killer cards and your time has been wasted. I am unsure about the 4 hourglasses and am tempted to cut one until I can upgrade them. There is just not enough time quantum early enough, and against most gods you need to start the sundials after the fifth or sixth turn latest.

Well, anyways - thank you Scaredgirl for your relentless effort to help newbies! It is appreciated.