Would you like to become a genius?

2»

Comments

  • Zephyrx - Lost City
    Zephyrx - Lost City Posts: 1,563 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    This is actually interesting now o.o... though totally off-topic.

    But still it kinda intrigues me! I'm entertained! Woot! b:laugh

    But most of all, thanks guys, you make me happy knowing.... there is some intelligence out there.b:sad *sniff*
    Position: Professional Forum Troll
    Position Details: Be able to incite people to flames and perform miracles such as telling people what's right and what's wrong. Be able to dish out flames to other people so fire extinguishers are needed to put out the flames. Most of all, giving others a piece of reality.

    ZephyrX is better than crack... he's your Anti-Drug
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    firefang11 wrote: »
    its the action where something is about to happen; like someone crossing a street where cars are passing along the street and he is about to get hit by one; is it possible to stop what is already in motion?
    If so the current event is a theory which is able to be changed and shifted.
    but if it wasn't possible to change it, it would be considered a statement.
    theory: takes place of a question which the question is able to change.
    statement: explains itself and isn't able to shifted or changed.

    Okay, maybe there is a misunderstanding: I thought of a totally (?) different, well: definition of theory, statement and event.
    I thought of theory and statement of something like mental constructions which do not happen in the "material" world, so you can' see them; they are only something like information (although this also is a rather abstract concept).
    Action on the other hand, although without direct material manifestation, is something nearly physical happening, which has direct impact on the physical world, while theories and statements move minds.

    I agree on the last part: Theory as a thought that still can be changed, and statement as something defined, without "movement".

    But statements can be changed sometimes, in the course of time - if you, for example, believe in something like a god, it is not very likely that the picture of "god" you have as a three year old child remains the same in your youth and adulthood; although this thought, captured at a point of time, is statement, not theory.

    Also, a statement can be based on something, just as theories; thus my question still isn't answered ... b:pleased
    @ Zephyrx: And there are people searching for intelligence! Yay! :D
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • firefang11
    firefang11 Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    dachs wrote: »
    Okay, maybe there is a misunderstanding: I thought of a totally (?) different, well: definition of theory, statement and event.
    I thought of theory and statement of something like mental constructions which do not happen in the "material" world, so you can' see them; they are only something like information (although this also is a rather abstract concept).
    Action on the other hand, although without direct material manifestation, is something nearly physical happening, which has direct impact on the physical world, while theories and statements move minds.

    I agree on the last part: Theory as a thought that still can be changed, and statement as something defined, without "movement".

    But statements can be changed sometimes, in the course of time - if you, for example, believe in something like a god, it is not very likely that the picture of "god" you have as a three year old child remains the same in your youth and adulthood; although this thought, captured at a point of time, is statement, not theory.

    Also, a statement can be based on something, just as theories; thus my question still isn't answered ... b:pleased
    @ Zephyrx: And there are people searching for intelligence! Yay! :D

    but i am using statement as a constant not a variable. theory is a variable in what i am trying to define. plus...there is no event there is only an action. and with the 3 year old child. it is constant that it will age. if it was a theory it would be: "it is possible for the child's image of god to stay the same yet it is possible for the child's image of god to change when he reaches adult hood".
    thusly the child's image of god is a theory because people can't always look at something the same way. a child will see god as one thing because thats what he/she thinks their parents want them to see so they stay out of trouble. thus a theory is a variable.
    a statement is like ageing "the child is going to age." there is nothing you can do about it. because it is going to happen no matter what. thus that is why a statement is a constant
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    firefang11 wrote: »
    but i am using statement as a constant not a variable. theory is a variable in what i am trying to define. plus...there is no event there is only an action. and with the 3 year old child. it is constant that it will age. if it was a theory it would be: "it is possible for the child's image of god to stay the same yet it is possible for the child's image of god to change when he reaches adult hood".
    thusly the child's image of god is a theory because people can't always look at something the same way. a child will see god as one thing because thats what he/she thinks their parents want them to see so they stay out of trouble. thus a theory is a variable.
    a statement is like ageing "the child is going to age." there is nothing you can do about it. because it is going to happen no matter what. thus that is why a statement is a constant


    Okay, Mr Maths, I think I finally got it.
    Let's see ... stament is a constant. A statment can never change; theory can. Or, more exact: A statement describes a process that is not only likely to happen, but will happen. Thus, a theory describes a process that can happen, that can be, but is not necessary ...

    Is this what you mean?

    So, I'd say the main problem was that my definition of theory in statement was, well ... in Alaska, and yours in the South Sea.

    Then I dare to ask the question: Is it useful to use rather mathematical definitions to describe non-mathematical matters?
    So I thought of theory and statement as the common written manifestations of thought, while you see them as a variable or a constant describing an action.
    I wouln't call one or the other wrong; but this is like: 2+2= you cannot climb it as fast because it is bigger.
    Now, this is either Zen, or one mixes up two things that hardly belong together and confuse people the way it just happend ... b:surrender

    And another thing ... what do you mean by saying that there's no event, but only action?

    And if there is a constant and a variable - where is the equation?
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • FedxL - Lost City
    FedxL - Lost City Posts: 38 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Nope.

    Ignorance is bliss...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Perpetual w00tage b:sin
  • Zephyrx - Lost City
    Zephyrx - Lost City Posts: 1,563 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    FedxL - Lost City wrote: »
    Nope.

    Ignorance is bliss...

    http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=270572

    I wonder if Ignorance really is bliss lol
    Position: Professional Forum Troll
    Position Details: Be able to incite people to flames and perform miracles such as telling people what's right and what's wrong. Be able to dish out flames to other people so fire extinguishers are needed to put out the flames. Most of all, giving others a piece of reality.

    ZephyrX is better than crack... he's your Anti-Drug
  • Oldbear - Sanctuary
    Oldbear - Sanctuary Posts: 486 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    dachs wrote: »
    Now that seems to change personality, does it?
    (I fear I don't get if you're serious or not ...b:surrender)
    Like a mental lobotomy, or something like that. It actually has to isolate you from everything else ... or how can your peace not be destroyed if you notice your inability to love and be loved?
    Although I think that there doesn't have to be a logic, as it is some kind of thought experiment ...

    The whole idea of suddenly become a genius would also be personality change. Something like mental lobotomy, yes.

    Love is a feeling. I'm not sure love itself even produce peace. Actually I don't think so. It just makes you love something or somebody I guess. So source of peace must me somewhere else. Whether it's your certainty of your future, knowledge that you've dome your best today. Satisfaction of recent accomplishments or a million dollar view to the sea from your porch. Whatever floats your boat.

    And no- there HAS to be logic. If source of peace is not in loving then it is possible to be at peace even if you don't love anybody. because the source of peace would remain.
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Oldbear - Sanctuary wrote: »
    The whole idea of suddenly become a genius would also be personality change. Something like mental lobotomy, yes.

    Love is a feeling. I'm not sure love itself even produce peace. Actually I don't think so. It just makes you love something or somebody I guess. So source of peace must me somewhere else. Whether it's your certainty of your future, knowledge that you've dome your best today. Satisfaction of recent accomplishments or a million dollar view to the sea from your porch. Whatever floats your boat.

    And no- there HAS to be logic. If source of peace is not in loving then it is possible to be at peace even if you don't love anybody. because the source of peace would remain.

    Hmmm ... Okay, I woulnd't say love is "just" an ability, but that's my point of view. b:cute
    I also think that you're absolutely right: there actually has to be another source of peace - I haven't thought of it before. How can you be at peace if you love and see the object of your love destroyed, dying or vanish in another way? Even if love is more abstract ... e.g. mankind, if possible - one cannot be at peace, one must get mad when realizing all that suffering.

    So ... I was wrong, or at least it is dependent on what the source of peace for the specific person is.
    b:surrender, but also .... b:laugh
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • Oldbear - Sanctuary
    Oldbear - Sanctuary Posts: 486 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    World didn't run out of love during 1939-1945. Song like Lily Marleen was sung famous during wartime. And what was it about? Love.
    Nevertheless despite all that love in people's hearts fighting went on for years to come.

    So I have to conclude that love and peace have if any, a very weak connection.
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Oldbear - Sanctuary wrote: »
    World didn't run out of love during 1939-1945. Song like Lily Marleen was sung famous during wartime. And what was it about? Love.
    Nevertheless despite all that love in people's hearts fighting went on for years to come.

    So I have to conclude that love and peace have if any, a very weak connection.

    Hmmm ... then, what kind of love do you mean?

    It's because I'm not sure if you mean the love I'm talking about - if it was true and not only Iwantto****-love, or such superficial all-the-world's-wonderful-if-you-have-somebody-love songs, which you can sing and ignore the killing that has had to be obvious; I mean some kind of love that is hard to really, well: realize, because it cannot let you continue to act as before in times like 1933-1945 ...
    Oh, sorry. b:pleased

    And, uhm - what peace are do you mean here? Peace as opposite of war, or the individual peace you talked of before?
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • Oldbear - Sanctuary
    Oldbear - Sanctuary Posts: 486 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    dachs wrote: »
    Hmmm ... then, what kind of love do you mean?

    It's because I'm not sure if you mean the love I'm talking about - if it was true and not only Iwantto****-love, or such superficial all-the-world's-wonderful-if-you-have-somebody-love songs, which you can sing and ignore the killing that has had to be obvious; I mean some kind of love that is hard to really, well: realize, because it cannot let you continue to act as before in times like 1933-1945 ...
    Oh, sorry. b:pleased

    And, uhm - what peace are do you mean here? Peace as opposite of war, or the individual peace you talked of before?

    does it really matter what kind...especially in this context? let's see

    Love between man and wife definitely went on as man wrote letters to home and woman read them during lunchbreak in munition factory. No contribution to the world peace and no contribution to the inner peace (husband is in mortal danger, wife may get bombed)

    Love between siblings definitely went on...and even contributed to more fierce fighting as living brother of a killed one started to hate enemy even more. Same with close friends. No contribution to the world peace- you just hate your enemy together. No contribution to the inner peace- you know your siblings could get killed and worry more not less.

    Love to the mankind.
    Hey if there really is such love why the heck is world all divided into small patches guarded with armed guards on borders and backed up by armies inside to stop those who still don't get the point at the border? But ok
    let's presume it exists and prevents you to shoot a fellow man. In wartime army their places were in rear loading fuel and ammo to the trucks going frontline and taking care of wounded in order to recycle them back to the front. Quite many found nothing wrong in it though obviously enemy generals found that peaceful activities so dangerous that munition and fuel depots got bombarded regularly and all the pacifists with them.
    There were very few who refused any kind of war contribution but they brought forth religious beliefs rather than pacifism. and needless to say they were very few in numbers.

    Well this conversation gets out of hand cause it has nothing to do with being a genius. we may continue it in new thread though.
  • SatanicRose - Sanctuary
    SatanicRose - Sanctuary Posts: 41 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    no,I'm already happy as I am.
    satanas gawin kanila cower di katakutan!

    Witchcraft ... is a spiritual path. You walk it for nourishment of the soul, to commune with the life force of the universe, and to thereby better know your own life.

    CHRISTOPHER PENCZAK, The Inner Temple of Witchcraft
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Oldbear - Sanctuary wrote: »
    does it really matter what kind...especially in this context? let's see

    [...]

    Love to the mankind.
    [...] But ok
    let's presume it exists and prevents you to shoot a fellow man. In wartime army their places were in rear loading fuel and ammo to the trucks going frontline and taking care of wounded in order to recycle them back to the front. Quite many found nothing wrong in it though obviously enemy generals found that peaceful activities so dangerous that munition and fuel depots got bombarded regularly and all the pacifists with them.
    There were very few who refused any kind of war contribution but they brought forth religious beliefs rather than pacifism. and needless to say they were very few in numbers.

    Why did you use this example to disprove the love I meant? It doesn't free you from asking: okay, whom is this ammo for?
    And I did not say everybody necessarily has to be a pacifist. I referred to personal peace more than to the opposite of war, as I said: it can't let you continue living as before (in 1933-1945) - and then, how can you, if you say you love life (of course not the way you love another human you're directly confronted with), if you say you even respect other human life than yours, how can you say you're personally at peace if you see that they are dying, are being tortured - I did not want to contradict you. I said you was right: love cannot let you be at peace with yourself or the world, if you realize what's happening - sometimes it even cannot let you accept death, which has lead to many funny constructions.

    And this is only an opinion.
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • Oldbear - Sanctuary
    Oldbear - Sanctuary Posts: 486 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    dachs wrote: »
    Why did you use this example to disprove the love I meant? It doesn't free you from asking: okay, whom is this ammo for?
    And I did not say everybody necessarily has to be a pacifist. I referred to personal peace more than to the opposite of war, as I said: it can't let you continue living as before (in 1933-1945) - and then, how can you, if you say you love life (of course not the way you love another human you're directly confronted with), if you say you even respect other human life than yours, how can you say you're personally at peace if you see that they are dying, are being tortured - I did not want to contradict you. I said you was right: love cannot let you be at peace with yourself or the world, if you realize what's happening - sometimes it even cannot let you accept death, which has lead to many funny constructions.

    And this is only an opinion.

    I presume you wanted to ask who were at the receiving end of the bullets fired? Same people. Nice young jolly boys and not so cheerful veterans with more age. Some of them has such a nice smile when they get their R&R leave and they dance with girls at the party. Your and their government are having a game of chess and you and them are the pawns.

    Indeed. start using generalizing words like "everybody" "necessarily" , "all of them" and you'll lose the argument. Wise not to.

    Respecting human life has actually little to do with words and lot to do with action. You can say all peace and love you want but go driving when drunk and you're hypocritical ****. or join the army. or buy a gun.

    However if you don't say such things. Or say half of it like "i respect life of my countrymen" or even "i respect life of my countrymen when sober" and you'll be off the hook. No hypocrisy in there. You'll be honest man.

    I'd like to be PROVEN wrong. That love indeed rules the world and perhaps by cultivating it into ever child that will be born from now on...I dunno it can perhaps one day take over and rid the world of this stupid mess. or whatever vision you got. Yes, use reason and logic and best skills of argument and I'd LOVE to give up my pessimistic statements. Correction: not give up... loosing a dispute, getting cornered by better arguments.
  • dachs
    dachs Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Oldbear - Sanctuary wrote: »
    I presume you wanted to ask who were at the receiving end of the bullets fired? Same people. Nice young jolly boys and not so cheerful veterans with more age. Some of them has such a nice smile when they get their R&R leave and they dance with girls at the party. Your and their government are having a game of chess and you and them are the pawns.

    Indeed. start using generalizing words like "everybody" "necessarily" , "all of them" and you'll lose the argument. Wise not to.

    Respecting human life has actually little to do with words and lot to do with action. You can say all peace and love you want but go driving when drunk and you're hypocritical ****. or join the army. or buy a gun.

    However if you don't say such things. Or say half of it like "i respect life of my countrymen" or even "i respect life of my countrymen when sober" and you'll be off the hook. No hypocrisy in there. You'll be honest man.

    I'd like to be PROVEN wrong. That love indeed rules the world and perhaps by cultivating it into ever child that will be born from now on...I dunno it can perhaps one day take over and rid the world of this stupid mess. or whatever vision you got. Yes, use reason and logic and best skills of argument and I'd LOVE to give up my pessimistic statements. Correction: not give up... loosing a dispute, getting cornered by better arguments.

    Somehow it was quite clear to me that the victims were not some demons or evil itself.

    Then, I never had the intention to generalize, you never can generalize without knowing everything. It might seem funny, but I'm quite sure.

    If you're talking of real respect for human life, there indeed is no possibility of restriction, and this makes it so hard to achieve.

    And I cannot prove you wrong. It never was my intention to prove you wrong, it is most obvious that this world is not ruled by love if you really want to express it that way. I only said this love is possible to exist.
    "Er ist ganz nah. Nun leuchte frisch,
    Er ist neugierig wie ein Fisch;" - random quote from Goethe's Faust II.
  • Kraanium - Sanctuary
    Kraanium - Sanctuary Posts: 39 Arc User
    edited May 2009
    Very generic question, i would say no, but i dunno.

    Depends on the important thing.
    I would not give my feet for immeadiate brilliance.

    But i would give up my house, because then i could buy a new one with my well earned money on who wants to be a millionaire.

    Then again, i could invent bionic feet...

Categories