211 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

At least this topic weeds out the traitors to humanity.

[Computron2000]

From a strictly objective view, the OP has a point. The idea is that the
Reapers = current humans
Humans and other races = current "worthless" or close to extinction plants and animals. Removal of these "worthless" things will allow the expansion of animals (cows, etc)/plants (grain crops, etc) worth more to humans

There are 2 points here though
i) Currently humans are discovering that "worthless" plants and animals are worth a lot to genetic diversity
ii) Even when we try to destroy a "worthless" animal, it will fight back. This is the basis of life and a cause for evolution

Modifié par Computron2000, 03 mars 2010 - 03:29 .

[newcomplex]

Esker02 wrote...


Metaphysics hasn't lost any fight with science - bit by bit metaphysics becomes a PART of science. It's all a pursuit for higher knowledge, and metaphysics addresses current gaps in our scientific understandings. Things like Free Will, which we operate under day by day (even if you don't believe in it, your daily routine depends on it) and any yokel can tell you is a real force in their life. Determinism is a convenient illusion caused by a linear perception of time. But true determinism has long since been abandoned. The random element, still, doesn't capture the reality of consciousness and the reality of the condition of self-awareness. One day science will capture all of reality, free will included - it just doesn't yet. Much like it didn't incorporate various other aspects of reality at earlier times.

But just because it can't capture it yet, doesn't make it unreal. Not when its truth is so self-evident. Regardless, I'm not here to debate this. Even if you put EDI and the Reapers on a nice pedestal because of their "quantum blue box"es, you still leave the Geth out in the cold. Which (to turn back to the ME universe) for a Quarian sympathizer, is all I could ever want. So I've no further interest here.

How does my daily routine depend on free will?   This is how your brain operates.   It collects experiences, and constructs a reality from then gradually, occuring through early infancy.   Early infants are not conscious at all, or if they are, show NO signs of it.     Less then birds.    Then, a 8+ months in, they are fully concious and begin to recognize OTHER as conscious, finish at a year.     From that point on, memories and experience and mental stimuli shape the 'software" of your brain, as well as neuron flares that are caused by physical laws.    Before consciousness, instrinctual parts of your brain govern movement.    A adult interprets data, processes in his brain using algorithms generates mainly in childhood, and developed throughout his life, current chemical balances, and gives output.    This represents the formulation of subconsious though.    Conscious thought is effected by subconscious thought, as well as the former.    

newcomplex wrote...

No need for the petty insults, my good man. Just a little intelligent disagreement. I, of course, would never argue such a thing. Different races are, obviously, still organic and born - not constructed.

Thats not an insult :/.   I'm just saying, whats the difference?   How do we draw a distinction?  Black people have different color skin after all.    The format the brains in should have no bearing on its consciousness, unless you want to explain to me why neurons are better for consciousness then code ran on computers.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 03:32 .

[GnusmasTHX]

ReconTeam wrote...

At least this topic weeds out the traitors to humanity.

1. Heretics.
2. Mutants.
3. Xenos.

One down two to go?

[newcomplex]

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Science without "religion" is meaingless.   utterly meaningless.    (by religion, I mean some degree of irrational faith).    

I posited this in another thread, but science is incapable of answering the meaning of life because life has no meaning, meaning is a human construction.    Saying the universe has a meaning is like saying the earth is the center of it, IE:  retardedly anthrocentric.    Humans cannot accept the lack of meaning, and thus, need belief, irrationality.    Simply put, why do you live?   Family, love, sex, evolution, drugs, all of them lack a universal determinant for meaningfullness.    By living for them, you are believing in an irrational, the religion of human princepals.    

Incoherent ramblings. This post is meaningless, if I may be so blunt. I'm not even sure why you directed it at me.

lol.   why do you even post crap like this?   

Want to back that up?   

[Inquisitor Recon]

GnusmasTHX wrote...
1. Heretics.
2. Mutants.
3. Xenos.

One down two to go?

Correct good sir.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 03 mars 2010 - 03:31 .

[aeetos21]

Well if you believe in "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest" then yes the reapers should come out on top and humanity and all the other races should be killed off due to the reaper dominance.

[marshalleck]

newcomplex wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Science without "religion" is meaingless.   utterly meaningless.    (by religion, I mean some degree of irrational faith).    

I posited this in another thread, but science is incapable of answering the meaning of life because life has no meaning, meaning is a human construction.    Saying the universe has a meaning is like saying the earth is the center of it, IE:  retardedly anthrocentric.    Humans cannot accept the lack of meaning, and thus, need belief, irrationality.    Simply put, why do you live?   Family, love, sex, evolution, drugs, all of them lack a universal determinant for meaningfullness.    By living for them, you are believing in an irrational, the religion of human princepals.    

Incoherent ramblings. This post is meaningless, if I may be so blunt. I'm not even sure why you directed it at me.

lol.   why do you even post crap like this?   

Want to back that up?   

We could have a discussion about it if you can first explain its relevance.

Modifié par marshalleck, 03 mars 2010 - 03:32 .

[jasonontko]

Op is right. I wish to start a group called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Reapers PETR.

[newcomplex]

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Science without "religion" is meaingless.   utterly meaningless.    (by religion, I mean some degree of irrational faith).    

I posited this in another thread, but science is incapable of answering the meaning of life because life has no meaning, meaning is a human construction.    Saying the universe has a meaning is like saying the earth is the center of it, IE:  retardedly anthrocentric.    Humans cannot accept the lack of meaning, and thus, need belief, irrationality.    Simply put, why do you live?   Family, love, sex, evolution, drugs, all of them lack a universal determinant for meaningfullness.    By living for them, you are believing in an irrational, the religion of human princepals.    

Incoherent ramblings. This post is meaningless, if I may be so blunt. I'm not even sure why you directed it at me.

lol.   why do you even post crap like this?   

Want to back that up?   

We could have a discussion about it if you can explain its relevance.

You said science killed religion and will kill metaphysics (philosphy?).    Which is an absurd notion, for reasons above.    They cover different things.   Perhaps science is slowly killing established organized religion?   That would make more sense (though I'd argue thats still wrong)   

[Flamewielder]

kanodin wrote...

There is one flaw in your argument that the Reapers harvest all organic life in a cold pragmatic manner, and that's our conversations with them. Sovereign and Harbinger make it clear that they hold all organic life in contempt and enjoy wiping it out "I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS" for example. While we still do not and may never know their motives, the fact that they take pleasure in genocide makes them evil, to keep up with the ant analogy they are kids with magnifying glasses sitting on the anthill.

Doubtful: how is Harbinger telling you "I Know You Feel This" any different than my crying out "gotcha!" when I squish a mosquito biting my forearm? It's not like I expect the mosquito to hear or understand me...

The only time Harbinger says this is when Captain Shepard shoots at him... I don't see him saying that to the colonists... He usually says: "Prepare these humans for ascension".

Not "Prepare these humans for the blender" or "Put the feet in first, I wanna see the look on their faces..."

Holding us in contempt? Perhaps, yes. Enjoying wiping them out? Not so sure...

[marshalleck]

newcomplex wrote...

You said science killed religion and
will kill metaphysics (philosphy?).    Which is an absurd notion, for
reasons above.    They cover different things.   Perhaps science is
slowly killing established organized religion?   That would make more
sense (though I'd argue thats still wrong)   

I never said science "killed" anything, clearly it has not.

Modifié par marshalleck, 03 mars 2010 - 03:39 .

[newcomplex]

Flamewielder wrote...

kanodin wrote...

There is one flaw in your argument that the Reapers harvest all organic life in a cold pragmatic manner, and that's our conversations with them. Sovereign and Harbinger make it clear that they hold all organic life in contempt and enjoy wiping it out "I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS" for example. While we still do not and may never know their motives, the fact that they take pleasure in genocide makes them evil, to keep up with the ant analogy they are kids with magnifying glasses sitting on the anthill.

Doubtful: how is Harbinger telling you "I Know You Feel This" any different than my crying out "gotcha!" when I squish a mosquito biting my forearm? It's not like I expect the mosquito to hear or understand me...

The only time Harbinger says this is when Captain Shepard shoots at him... I don't see him saying that to the colonists... He usually says: "Prepare these humans for ascension".

Not "Prepare these humans for the blender" or "Put the feet in first, I wanna see the look on their faces..."

Holding us in contempt? Perhaps, yes. Enjoying wiping them out? Not so sure...

The reason why you say gotcha after killing a fly is because of primordial plessure you recieve from extinguishing life and from conquering a foe.    tru story.   

[Flamewielder]

jasonontko wrote...

Op is right. I wish to start a group called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Reapers PETR.

I'm sure the Commander will find some kind of humane way to vaporize their ancient asses...

[GnusmasTHX]

Flamewielder wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

Op is right. I wish to start a group called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Reapers PETR.

I'm sure the Commander will find some kind of humane way to vaporize their ancient asses...

Euthanasia!

[newcomplex]

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

You said science killed religion and
will kill metaphysics (philosphy?).    Which is an absurd notion, for
reasons above.    They cover different things.   Perhaps science is
slowly killing established organized religion?   That would make more
sense (though I'd argue thats still wrong)   

I never said science "killed" anything, clearly it has not.

oh you said beat.

...?

Anyway, yeah I kinda rambled, my point is that its like comparing apples and oranges, and both are nessicary.    

Science only "beats" religion if you can live your life without its foundation being centered around irrational belief.   You can't, we're human.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 03:42 .

[Esker02]

newcomplex wrote...

How does my daily routine depend on free will?   This is how your brain operates.   It collects experiences, and constructs a reality from then gradually, occuring through early infancy.   Early infants are not conscious at all, or if they are, show NO signs of it.     Less then birds.    Then, a 8+ months in, they are fully concious and begin to recognize OTHER as conscious, finish at a year.     From that point on, memories and experience and mental stimuli shape the 'software" of your brain, as well as neuron flares that are caused by physical laws.    Before consciousness, instrinctual parts of your brain govern movement.    A adult interprets data, processes in his brain using algorithms generates mainly in childhood, and developed throughout his life, current chemical balances, and gives output.    This represents the formulation of subconsious though.    Conscious thought is effected by subconscious thought, as well as the former.    

Yes, I'm fully aware of the "scientific" explanation of how the mind works, how consciousness is formed. But the simple fact is it fails to capture the reality of how the human being thinks and operates. Nobody wakes up and supposes their action to get out of bed was a determined factor based upon all of the inputs that you described - no, they would say (and I would argue, the reality of the event) is that THEY (their will) forced their mind and body to cohere and act upon a decision to get out of bed - a decision which could have very well been reached by the forces you describe. But ultimately the action was a product of their will, their decision to leave the bed, not a product of all of the reasons why they should leave the bed.

Moreover, that's how we think of everything. Or more specifically, it's how we think of everything when we're not thinking about questions of free will. We feel that, no, actually, my actions aren't merely a product of the processes you describe but rather a voluntarily excersise of will power to act on those processes. Most determinists deem this to be the illusion, but I disagree. Its reality is self evident in how we live our lives - how we understand responsibility, how every individual would describe the true nature of their consciousness were they unaware of the difficulty in describing it in contemporary scientific terms. That's not to be ignored - for me, to the extent that I'll believe in it regardless of the current implications that science has on the matter.

Again, not the most compelling argument. But I would argue it is the one that captures reality the best.

newcomplex wrote...

Thats not an insult :/.   I'm just saying, whats the difference?   How do we draw a distinction?  Black people have different color skin after all.    The format the brains in should have no bearing on its consciousness, unless you want to explain to me why neurons are better for consciousness then code ran on computers.   

The insult was in saying "i.e. none at all" or something to that effect. But no harm done. To the question you're posing here, obviously I could not do that. Not only is my knowledge of the human brain insufficient to describe how the two compare, I'm almost positive at our current level of understanding of how it works as a species it would still be difficult. But it's not important - because my argument doesn't hinge on this, it hinges on the reality of consciousness and self-awareness, something I maintain is not more than the sum of its parts, necessarily, but more than the sum of the parts we know to be involved at present.

Modifié par Esker02, 03 mars 2010 - 03:48 .

[kanodin]

Flamewielder wrote...

kanodin wrote...

There is one flaw in your argument that the Reapers harvest all organic life in a cold pragmatic manner, and that's our conversations with them. Sovereign and Harbinger make it clear that they hold all organic life in contempt and enjoy wiping it out "I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS" for example. While we still do not and may never know their motives, the fact that they take pleasure in genocide makes them evil, to keep up with the ant analogy they are kids with magnifying glasses sitting on the anthill.

Doubtful: how is Harbinger telling you "I Know You Feel This" any different than my crying out "gotcha!" when I squish a mosquito biting my forearm? It's not like I expect the mosquito to hear or understand me...

The only time Harbinger says this is when Captain Shepard shoots at him... I don't see him saying that to the colonists... He usually says: "Prepare these humans for ascension".

Not "Prepare these humans for the blender" or "Put the feet in first, I wanna see the look on their faces..."

Holding us in contempt? Perhaps, yes. Enjoying wiping them out? Not so sure...

Except Harbinger knows that you do understand it, they may view organics as intellectually inferior but they still have conversations with us. That's hardly the only example of their sadism, what about how he yells at your squadmates about why their species were rejected, what  purpose does that serve but spite?

Or when his possessed collector dies and he makes a point of saying you've accomplished nothing, it's not hatred but a defensive pettiness,  still showing that reapers can feel emotions and can't tolerate losing in any way to organics, you don't think he would revenge himself if possible? I think it's clear that Harbinger at least is a thoroughly nasty entity, petulant mean-spirited and arrogant, and we can only judge the reapers by the two examples of them that are given so far.

[Flamewielder]

newcomplex wrote...

The reason why you say gotcha after killing a fly is because of primordial plessure you recieve from extinguishing life and from conquering a foe.    tru story.   

Then by this definition, if I enjoy extingushing a life, why am I not walking in the woods right now only to invite mosquitoes to try and come bite me so I can slap them? That doesn't strike me as fun, however much primordial enjoyment might be derived from it...

Humour aside, if Harbinger does indeed feel joy from trying to squish mosquito Shepard, then he's a sentient being...

[marshalleck]

newcomplex wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

You said science killed religion and
will kill metaphysics (philosphy?).    Which is an absurd notion, for
reasons above.    They cover different things.   Perhaps science is
slowly killing established organized religion?   That would make more
sense (though I'd argue thats still wrong)   

I never said science "killed" anything, clearly it has not.

oh you said beat.

...?

Anyway, yeah I kinda rambled, my point is that its like comparing apples and oranges, and both are nessicary.    

Science only "beats" religion if you can live your life without its foundation being centered around irrational belief.   You can't, we're human.   

I never said "science beats religion" either, although when it comes to providing answers about the physical world it is certainly blazing a trail where religion faltered centuries ago.

"Science only "beats" religion if you can live your life without its
foundation being centered around irrational belief.   You can't, we're
human."

As a bit of an existential nihilist, atheist, and (according to observable physical evidence) a human, I ask you to explain this. If this were true, I couldn't exist.

[newcomplex]

[quote]Esker02 wrote...

How does my daily routine depend on free will?   This is how your brain operates.   It collects experiences, and constructs a reality from then gradually, occuring through early infancy.   Early infants are not conscious at all, or if they are, show NO signs of it.     Less then birds.    Then, a 8+ months in, they are fully concious and begin to recognize OTHER as conscious, finish at a year.     From that point on, memories and experience and mental stimuli shape the 'software" of your brain, as well as neuron flares that are caused by physical laws.    Before consciousness, instrinctual parts of your brain govern movement.    A adult interprets data, processes in his brain using algorithms generates mainly in childhood, and developed throughout his life, current chemical balances, and gives output.    This represents the formulation of subconsious though.    Conscious thought is effected by subconscious thought, as well as the former.  

Yes, I'm fully aware of the "scientific" explanation of how the mind works, how consciousness is formed. But the simple fact is it fails to capture the reality of how the human being thinks and operates. Nobody wakes up and supposes their action to get out of bed was a determined factor based upon all of the inputs that you described - no, they would say (and I would argue, the reality of the event) is that THEY (their will) forced their mind and body to cohere and act upon a decision to get out of bed - a decision which could have very well been reached by the forces you describe. But ultimately the action was a product of their will, their decision to leave the bed, not a product of all of the reasons why they should leave the bed.

Moreover, that's how we think of everything. Or more specifically, it's how we think of everything when we're not thinking about questions of free will. We feel that, no, actually, my actions aren't merely a product of the processes you describe but rather a voluntarily excersise of will power to act on those processes. Most determinists deem this to be the illusion, but I disagree. It's reality is self evident in how we live our lives - how we understand responsibility, how every individual would describe the true nature of their consciousness were they unaware of the difficulty in describing it in contemporary scientific terms. That's not to be ignored - for me, to the extent that I'll believe in it regardless of the current implications that science has on the matter.

Again, not the most compelling argument. But I would argue it is the one that captures reality the best.[/quote]

I would argue attempting to capture reality is vanity.     Their are particles which stop existing the moment they start and stop existing the moment they start.     Stuff won't make sense of you think of it from  a Human perspective, because stuff just doesn't make sense from a human perspective.    Your going to end up shaping realit y to a human perspective, the point of religion and philsophy, contrary to the point of logic and science of shaping humans to a realistic perpsective.

Define "will".    Define "voluntary".    You clearly have reasons in which you act upon them.    Technically, its phsyically possible for you to commit suicide in half an hour (though it may require some creativity ).   If you believe in will, are you saying that if you played back this half hour enough times, in one of them, you would kill yourself?   Why?   For no reason?   Just, you randomly strangled yourself with an elaborate noose made from your keyboard and your pajamas?   No reason at all?   Doesn't the reason have to exist?    Now, wouldn't that same reason cause the same result if it were applied at a particular place in time?     Are you saying that whether you kill yourself or not in those situations, is entirely up to luck?   To quantum fluctuation?    

[quote]newcomplex wrote...

Thats not an insult :/.   I'm just saying, whats the difference?   How do we draw a distinction?  Black people have different color skin after all.    The format the brains in should have no bearing on its consciousness, unless you want to explain to me why neurons are better for consciousness then code ran on computers.   

[/quote]The insult was in saying "i.e. none at all" or something to that effect. But no harm done. To the question you're posing here, obviously I could not do that. Not only is my knowledge of the human brain insufficient to describe how the two compare, I'm almost positive at our current level of understanding of how it works as a species it would still be difficult. But it's not important - because my argument doesn't hinge on this, it hinges on the reality of consciousness and self-awareness, something I maintain is not more than the sum of its parts, necessarily, but more than the sum of the parts we know to be involved at present.[/quote]

Even if that was true, how could you tie that sum of its parts to its biological shell?    

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 03:55 .

[Flamewielder]

Wow... 8 pages... Whoever said gamers did not enjoy a good philosophical debate?



I'm off for the night, ladies and gents. It was a most enjoyable evening, thank you all for a great debate!

[newcomplex]

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

You said science killed religion and
will kill metaphysics (philosphy?).    Which is an absurd notion, for
reasons above.    They cover different things.   Perhaps science is
slowly killing established organized religion?   That would make more
sense (though I'd argue thats still wrong)   

I never said science "killed" anything, clearly it has not.

oh you said beat.

...?

Anyway, yeah I kinda rambled, my point is that its like comparing apples and oranges, and both are nessicary.    

Science only "beats" religion if you can live your life without its foundation being centered around irrational belief.   You can't, we're human.   

I never said "science beats religion" either, although when it comes to providing answers about the physical world it is certainly blazing a trail where religion faltered centuries ago.

"Science only "beats" religion if you can live your life without its
foundation being centered around irrational belief.   You can't, we're
human."

As a bit of an existential nihilist, atheist, and (according to observable physical evidence) a human, I ask you to explain this. If this were true, I couldn't exist.

I'm an Atheist, and an Absurdist, and possibly nihilistic, depending on your definition.    A true nihilist cannot exist.

Simply put, ask yourself, why do you get up in the reason.   Not looking for a big, exisentialistic angsty answer (though your free to give one if thats your answer), looking for basic stuff.    I get up for fullfillment, love, happiness, family, sorrow, pleasure, sex, experience, thrills, knowledge, wisdom (they are different )...bunch of reasons.     These are your drives in life.     In other words, you live for this, and other stuff.   

If we define religion as an Irrational Belief with no scientific basis, that poses a universal, omnipotent and supernatural element to life, then to their is in fact, a religion of being human.    One which everyone who isn't bat****s crazy or suicidal subscribes to.    

If we live our lives for the above, we have to internally, subconsciously, think they are important, not to the cosmic order (nessicarily), but to ourselves.    Notice how their is no justification for why they are important.   Unless you want to explain to me how being happy, reproducing, even maintain biological life etc etc have universal memes and meaning.    They don't.    They simply are.   Meaning is more or less a human construction.   

You live your life for the unjustified, the irrational.    You don't intentionally end this belief, because to stop believing that those aspects of life are important (to yourself) requires you to end it, unless your blessed with being crazy.    Not saying that not believing that life has a purpose requires suicide, thats untrue, but disbelieving the INTERNAL meaning, which is the source of all pleasure you can entertain in this world, does.  

But simply put, you don't because you enjoy it, despite acknowledging how it has no universal meaning.     Internally, you live for yourself.    Not selfishly, because helping people grants pleasure (hopefully?  ), but for your own internal emotional state.    You construct a religion that denounces all meaning, but retains the "meaing", the importance, of yourself.     The religion of being Human.    

Now that of course, is what hardcore nihilists and the like do.    Other people can go with easier stuff like meaning through God, meaning through pleasure, meaning through life, meaning through existence of life.    All of this, "nihilism included", requires religion.     Religion:   Justifying human existence where no justification exists since 118.000 bc.   




Whats the point of being Atheistic if your still religious?   Well...your less religious.   Religion encourages dogmatic, rigid, linear thinking.    Though it has the pros of a more solidly ground moral system and better organization for social order and cohesion.     The less religion, the more of the former, the more religion, the more of the latter.

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 04:23 .

[cronshaw8]

ReconTeam wrote...

At least this topic weeds out the traitors to humanity.

Haha! Indeed. Lets round them up!

[newcomplex]

cronshaw8 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

At least this topic weeds out the traitors to humanity.

Haha! Indeed. Lets round them up!

We should go back to rounding communists.   Just because the people who vote communist on political party polls just to be a non-comformist (99.9% of them) makes me want to kill kittens.  

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 04:24 .