AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Crush Bandicoot wrote:You.

Win.

...The Game

Batbro wrote: If all the cheddar in the world dissapeared and could never come back, would there be chaos or order?
Not much would change. Cheddar's only good for mac and cheese anyway. There are better cheeses for every other use.

He meant m.oney. It just wordfilters to cheddar.

Batbro wrote: If you are the last person alive and you go crazy, are you sane?
No, because your perception of reality is still wrong. It doesn't matter if no one's there to point it out to you.

But what is reality? All reality really is is what we all perceive and agree to be true. To argue that many people believing in a single idea must be correct is using the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Batbro wrote:If you are the last person alive and you have schizophrenia, are you alone?
Yes. You're just crazy. Also, what you're thinking of is multiple personality disorder, not schizophrenia.

Again, it depends on how you view 'being alone'. You're viewing it in the most literal sense of the word.

Batbro wrote:The big bang was an explosion. What exploded?
Matter.

But what matter could have exploded? Before the big bang, there was supposedly nothing, and even if there was matter, what are the odds of it just exploding like that?

Batbro wrote:Do aliens exist?
Near 100% probability.

Hardly. Do you have any idea how statistically improbably the formation of Earth was? Some atheists like Hawking admit that because the very chances of our planet forming the way it did are so infinitesimal that it would seem as if it would not be possible without some sort of deity. The odds of a hospitable planet forming are close to none.

Batbro wrote:Is there a color that we have not yet found?
We have seen every color on the visible light spectrum already. What we cannot see is every other form light takes, including X-Rays, UV rays, and electromagnetic waves.

We've seen every color as far as we know. Remember, nothing in science is certain. I mean, 400 years ago people knew that the world was flat. And before that, people knew that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth.

Batbro wrote:If man was not the dominant race on earth, how would life be different?
If it wasn't going to be man, it would've been dinosaurs. Mammals would be limited to small rodents, and life would be like it was 65 million years ago.

Not really. Aren't we forgetting about a giant meteorite? Their extinction was not made humans the dominant race, but it did lead to the rise of mammals. Humans were not dominant until they learned to build tools.

I think I read/heard some where that some people with cataracts (or, something) percieve a different color. That doesn't exist on the light spectrum, that is.

Bacon wrote:I think I read/heard some where that some people with cataracts (or, something) percieve a different color. That doesn't exist on the light spectrum, that is.

I can see microwaves.

So can I. There's ONE IN MY KITCHEN RIGHT NOW :000000

Rockin' the double entendre.

If all the cheddar in the world dissapeared and could never come back, would there be chaos or order?
Not much would change. Cheddar's only good for mac and cheese anyway. There are better cheeses for every other use.

Why do I still laugh at these.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:He meant m.oney. It just wordfilters to cheddar.

But what is reality? All reality really is is what we all perceive and agree to be true. To argue that many people believing in a single idea must be correct is using the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Again, it depends on how you view 'being alone'. You're viewing it in the most literal sense of the word.

But what matter could have exploded? Before the big bang, there was supposedly nothing, and even if there was matter, what are the odds of it just exploding like that?

Hardly. Do you have any idea how statistically improbably the formation of Earth was? Some atheists like Hawking admit that because the very chances of our planet forming the way it did are so infinitesimal that it would seem as if it would not be possible without some sort of deity. The odds of a hospitable planet forming are close to none.

We've seen every color as far as we know. Remember, nothing in science is certain. I mean, 400 years ago people knew that the world was flat. And before that, people knew that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth.

Not really. Aren't we forgetting about a giant meteorite? Their extinction was not made humans the dominant race, but it did lead to the rise of mammals. Humans were not dominant until they learned to build tools.

Once again, in order:

I addressed the cash/dough/moolah problem already in a later post.

No, because reality exists. I don't give a crap what you see, because what you see is already skewed by your perception. Your mind is interpreting reality, which is a constant outside of our perception. Suppose you start hallucinating. You perceive that there is matter there, but in reality, there isn't. You might even perceive the physically impossible. Just because you're the only one around to be wrong doesn't mean you're not wrong.

Even if you're hearing voices, you're still alone. You might not FEEL alone, but you are. In fact, the crushing loneliness might drive you to create fictional people to talk with. Those voices are formed by your mind. They're all your creations, so they are a part of you. You're bodaciously talking to yourself.

Well there is the theory that the universe exploded, and expanded, until trillions of years later, it collapsed back in on itself, crushing all matter into an infinitesimally small point, until the strain of forcing it back together was too much, and it exploded outward again, creating a new universe. This cycle has been going on for as long as there has been existence, going back an eternity.

You ever hear of the Drake equation? Take the near-infinite number of galaxies in this universe. Now, take the rate of formation of new stars, multiply it by the number of those stars that are orbited by planets, multiplied by the number of Earth-like worlds per solar system, multiplied by the number of those planets which have the same conditions for creating life (given billions upon billions of years, it's actually statistically IMPROBABLE for the events that created life to not happen at some point), multiplied by the number of these planets which are within communicable distance, and finally multiplied by the lifetime of these civilizations, and we end up with about 10,000 planets with life on them, and that's just those within a distance of the Milky Way that communication might be possible. If even a BILLIONTH of the stars with planets orbiting them have life in the universe, then we're looking at numbers closer to 6 billion.

We've seen every color our eyes are capable of interpreting. Even if we invented devices to visually view microwaves or gamma rays, the output would have to present them on the visible light spectrum. The only way we're going to see a new color anytime soon is if scientists discover a way to alter our eyes to take in more wavelengths of light. There's not really a practical purpose to that, though, so I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

I'm saying that there's not really a species outside of primates that was ever in a position to take dominance over this planet in the past 65 million years. The only thing that came close was the dinosaurs, but due to a freak accident, they died out. Had it not been for that meteorite, humans would never have even existed. Mammals would've just stayed as small rodents. Dinosaurs would still be dominant, and over time, they'd probably evolve into smaller, smarter reptilian creatures. Planet of the dinosaurs.

tl;dr

Batbro wrote: No, because reality exists. I don't give a crap what you see, because what you see is already skewed by your perception. Your mind is interpreting reality, which is a constant outside of our perception. Suppose you start hallucinating. You perceive that there is matter there, but in reality, there isn't. You might even perceive the physically impossible. Just because you're the only one around to be wrong doesn't mean you're not wrong.

Reality exists? Prove it. Prove reality exists with empirical evidence.

But you can't. You can't because reality is a abstract idea, and thus is only a state of mind. Just like time and morality. They exist only within our minds in order to help us simplify the world around us.

Batbro wrote:Even if you're hearing voices, you're still alone. You might not FEEL alone, but you are. In fact, the crushing loneliness might drive you to create fictional people to talk with. Those voices are formed by your mind. They're all your creations, so they are a part of you. You're bodaciously talking to yourself.

If you create fictional people, then you're not really alone. You're over-simplifying things because you are looking at it in the most literal interpretation, which is another human being with you. You are limiting your mindset. To be alone is to be without the presence of any other personality. If you assign, say, a coconut tree a personality, then it is still not an exact duplicate of you, and therefore it is not you. What's to say that a twin who shares all of your interests except one isn't just a duplicate of yourself? When one talks to a cat, are you talking to yourself? Social interaction exists on many levels, and is not just limited to other human beings.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:Reality exists? Prove it. Prove reality exists with empirical evidence.

But you can't. You can't because reality is a abstract idea, and thus is only a state of mind. Just like time and morality. They exist only within our minds in order to help us simplify the world around us.

Reality is not an abstract idea, it is a concrete constant, but to prove it without relying on perception is impossible, because there is not means of measuring anything without human perception. The best I can think of is that events occur even with no one around to witness them. A tree falls in a forest and crushes the plants under it. Doesn't matter if no one was around to see it, it still fell, and if you go to where that tree was, you'll find it on top of a whole bunch of crushed plants.

Also, while morality is ENTIRELY subjective, time is only subjective insofar as that the speed through which one is traveling through it slows down as one approaches the speed of light.


EDIT: I thought of another method, one that would work scientifically. Cameras. Cameras are not sentient creatures, they do not have perception, they are merely taking in light and recording it. Assuming there is no third-party purposefully sabotaging the experiment, you could show that someone with a flawed view of reality is wrong by noting the discrepancy between his actions and the reality shown on the cameras.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:If you create fictional people, then you're not really alone. You're over-simplifying things because you are looking at it in the most literal interpretation, which is another human being with you. You are limiting your mindset. To be alone is to be without the presence of any other personality. If you assign, say, a coconut tree a personality, then it is still not an exact duplicate of you, and therefore it is not you. What's to say that a twin who shares all of your interests except one isn't just a duplicate of yourself? When one talks to a cat, are you talking to yourself? Social interaction exists on many levels, and is not just limited to other human beings.

Well then we're taking two entirely different approaches to this concept. I define solitude as being without another sentient being. Since a construct of your mind is not sentient, but completely controlled by you, I say that yes, you would be alone. However, you are taking a different interpretation, and given that this is a question based on interpretation, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. I'm merely taking the most literal, concrete, scientific interpretation, because I prefer logical thinking such as that, but your answer is also valid in a different school of thought.

Batbro wrote:

Deiphobus wrote:batbro i disagree with your opinion on cheddar cheese. thou shalt worship all forms of true cheese.

Let's review the uses for cheese, and why cheddar is only good for mac and cheese:

Crackers: brie, gouda, or colby
Italian food: mozzarella or parmesan
Sandwiches: swiss, american, or provolone
Grilled Cheese: swiss, american, or muenster
Salad: bleu or feta

Face it, the only thing cheddar excels at is Macaroni.

Koeqepp wrote:If man could fly would we still want a jetpack?

I would. Jetpacks mean more of a "accomplishing something you normally wouldn't be able to do" type of thing to me more than just flying. though if we could fly It'd probably be more of a "talking to fish" type of device than flying.

also they just have that aura of awesomeness to them you cant get with wings.

iconsting wrote:

Superior.