Notices
Results 1 to 92 of 92
Like Tree34Likes
  • 3 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Futilitist
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 3 Post By icewendigo
  • 3 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By sigurdV
  • 1 Post By sigurdV
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By sigurdV
  • 1 Post By seagypsy
  • 3 Post By seagypsy
  • 3 Post By sculptor

Thread: What The Hell Is Wrong With That Futilitist Guy?

  1. #1 What The Hell Is Wrong With That Futilitist Guy? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.

    ---Futilitist


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    You seem invisible to me for I've never read anything you have posted. So I will call you the invisible one.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You seem invisible to me for I've never read anything you have posted. So I will call you the invisible one.
    I would love to be invisible, but that is impossible. Maybe you just failed to notice me when you posted this comment in renewable oil?:

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Fracking is one way they are getting more oil from the earth but that isn't using existing oil wells but finding underground deposits of new places that they can use the fracking process. There's a problem with fracking though, it does contaminate the underground water supply which we need to drink so therefore should be prevented from continuing because there's not allot of CLEAN fresh water any longer here on earth.
    You posted it right after a post that I made. Two ships passing in the night.

    Here are two threads I started for some good examples of my lightning rod like presence.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...-religion.html

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/envir...ypse-soon.html

    The mods don't seem to think I'm so invisible, though that is now how they choose to treat me.

    Call me the shunned one.

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    I pm'd Futilist and he asked me to post what I pm'd him, "Hey come on, cheer up just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean they think there's something wrong with you, you've made some good, interesting and useful contributions, it's just that when people come up with new ideas they are expected to prove them. So don't worry about it. No ones got a down on you, just keep posting and 'try', though we all must admit it's hard sometimes, to not get drawn into arguments."
    Admin, westwind and Futilitist like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I pm'd Futilist and he asked me to post what I pm'd him, "Hey come on, cheer up just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean they think there's something wrong with you, you've made some good, interesting and useful contributions, it's just that when people come up with new ideas they are expected to prove them. So don't worry about it. No ones got a down on you, just keep posting and 'try', though we all must admit it's hard sometimes, to not get drawn into arguments."
    Thank you Chris.




    Here is the whole PM conversation that Chrisgorltz and I had:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz
    Hey come on, cheer up just because some people don't agree with you doesn't they think there's something wrong with you, you've made some good, interesting and useful contributions, it's just that when people come with new ideas they are expected to prove them. So don't worry about it. No ones got a down you, just keep posting and 'try' though we all must admit it's hard sometimes to not get drawn into arguments.

    Best wishes
    Chris.
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist
    Hey thanks Chris, I really appreciate that. This is just a fun experiment. I'm not really hurt by any treatment I get at thescienceforum. Would you mind posting your PM to me in my complaints department? Thanks.

    ---Futilitist
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz
    Hey feel free to post my PM, no probs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist
    Thanks again Chris. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, it would be cooler if you could post it. I think it would mean a lot more if you were the poster.

    ---Futilitist


    Thank you for taking the time to post the PM here. Not to be nitpicky, but just out of social theory curiosity, why did you feel compelled to add this (bolded) part?:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I pm'd Futilist and he asked me to post what I pm'd him, "Hey come on, cheer up just because some people don't agree with you doesn't mean they think there's something wrong with you, you've made some good, interesting and useful contributions, it's just that when people come up with new ideas they are expected to prove them. So don't worry about it. No ones got a down on you, just keep posting and 'try', though we all must admit it's hard sometimes, to not get drawn into arguments."

    ---Futilitist
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Perhaps the problem with Futilitist is he's not getting as much attention as he craves, and so starts a thread on himself.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Perhaps the problem with Futilitist is he's not getting as much attention as he craves, and so starts a thread on himself.
    Thanks for the attention, AlexG. This friggin' craving is like a monkey on my back. I'm always jonesing for a post fix.

    ---Futilitist
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Perhaps the problem with Futilitist is he's not getting as much attention as he craves, and so starts a thread on himself.
    It's not always about getting attention. It can be about learning, self examination and trying to improve.
    westwind and Futilitist like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    You seem invisible to me for I've never read anything you have posted. So I will call you the invisible one.
    I would love to be invisible, but that is impossible. Maybe you just failed to notice me when you posted this comment in renewable oil?:

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Fracking is one way they are getting more oil from the earth but that isn't using existing oil wells but finding underground deposits of new places that they can use the fracking process. There's a problem with fracking though, it does contaminate the underground water supply which we need to drink so therefore should be prevented from continuing because there's not allot of CLEAN fresh water any longer here on earth.
    You posted it right after a post that I made. Two ships passing in the night.

    Here are two threads I started for some good examples of my lightning rod like presence.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...-religion.html

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/envir...ypse-soon.html

    The mods don't seem to think I'm so invisible, though that is now how they choose to treat me.

    Call me the shunned one.

    ---Futilitist
    My error, OK then "the shunned one " it will be then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist
    Hey thanks Chris, I really appreciate that. This is just a fun experiment. I'm not really hurt by any treatment I get at thescienceforum. Would you mind posting your PM to me in my complaints department? Thanks.

    ---Futilitist
    Are you trying to take us for a ride again? I asked you not to do that, remember, as condition for you posting here at all?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist
    Hey thanks Chris, I really appreciate that. This is just a fun experiment. I'm not really hurt by any treatment I get at thescienceforum. Would you mind posting your PM to me in my complaints department? Thanks.

    ---Futilitist
    Are you trying to take us for a ride again? I asked you not to do that, remember, as condition for you posting here at all?
    No sir. Not at all. Feel free to close this thread if you want to.

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So you were talking about this thread only? Ok.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free,

    I think we can learn some things about a person just by their username. Futilitist, from futility, utterly pointless. A self denigrating term you applied to yourself. However I do not think you actually believe it. Why would someone advertise their futility? Low self esteem? No evidence from your posts for that. What other reason could you have to convince us of your futility? Maybe your moniker is strictly a diversionary tactic. Perhaps you feel by playing the futile angle it will encourage members to exhibit some pity and cut you some slack. In that respect the username is futile. It shows that you may crave some love and acknowledgement however. As well as being a diversion, feigning futility can be an excuse also. An excuse for making bold statements that upset the forum hierarchy in the hopes that they may show some compassion and leniency when having to deal with you. I feel you may have misjudged your audience. The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it. Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake. Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.

    Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously
    westwind and seagypsy like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free,

    I think we can learn some things about a person just by their username. Futilitist, from futility, utterly pointless. A self denigrating term you applied to yourself. However I do not think you actually believe it. Why would someone advertise their futility? Low self esteem? No evidence from your posts for that. What other reason could you have to convince us of your futility? Maybe your moniker is strictly a diversionary tactic. Perhaps you feel by playing the futile angle it will encourage members to exhibit some pity and cut you some slack. In that respect the username is futile. It shows that you may crave some love and acknowledgement however. As well as being a diversion, feigning futility can be an excuse also. An excuse for making bold statements that upset the forum hierarchy in the hopes that they may show some compassion and leniency when having to deal with you. I feel you may have misjudged your audience. The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it. Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake. Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.

    Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously
    that was awesome... (raises hand and waives it frantically) Analyze my id next!! Curious what you come up with
    westwind likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    ......it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority
    Someone has to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free,

    I think we can learn some things about a person just by their username. Futilitist, from futility, utterly pointless. A self denigrating term you applied to yourself. However I do not think you actually believe it. Why would someone advertise their futility? Low self esteem? No evidence from your posts for that. What other reason could you have to convince us of your futility? Maybe your moniker is strictly a diversionary tactic. Perhaps you feel by playing the futile angle it will encourage members to exhibit some pity and cut you some slack. In that respect the username is futile. It shows that you may crave some love and acknowledgement however. As well as being a diversion, feigning futility can be an excuse also. An excuse for making bold statements that upset the forum hierarchy in the hopes that they may show some compassion and leniency when having to deal with you. I feel you may have misjudged your audience. The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it. Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake. Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.

    Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously
    Good one. You should have posted this on my Psychology of Apocalypse thread, but I was just suspended, and the thread has been locked.

    Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.
    How do you like the show so far?

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free,

    I think we can learn some things about a person just by their username. Futilitist, from futility, utterly pointless. A self denigrating term you applied to yourself. However I do not think you actually believe it. Why would someone advertise their futility? Low self esteem? No evidence from your posts for that. What other reason could you have to convince us of your futility? Maybe your moniker is strictly a diversionary tactic. Perhaps you feel by playing the futile angle it will encourage members to exhibit some pity and cut you some slack. In that respect the username is futile. It shows that you may crave some love and acknowledgement however. As well as being a diversion, feigning futility can be an excuse also. An excuse for making bold statements that upset the forum hierarchy in the hopes that they may show some compassion and leniency when having to deal with you. I feel you may have misjudged your audience. The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it. Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake. Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.

    Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously
    that was awesome... (raises hand and waives it frantically) Analyze my id next!! Curious what you come up with
    seagypsy,

    I am very sorry to have learned about your banning from sciforums.com. They are total psychos. I was just there during my recent 1 day ban from here. I have just received my first warning, and I may already be banned there since I left a few more comments after.

    They display a list of banned members with their names crossed out, right on the main page. They also have a "Ban List" button on the top of the page right next to the "community" button. Amazing. They make this place look really good. Why do you post online? What do you get out of it?

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    ......it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority
    Someone has to.
    You are very clever, John. So much wit in packed into only three words. How do you do it?

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    think we can learn some things about a person just by their username.
    That depends on the userame

    ex:
    Seagypsy, Sea evokes the great expanses on the life giving water that covers most of out world, wind in your hair freedom and distance from urban areas yet a means to travel between, while gypsy also evokes freedom from conventions with a touch of mystery.

    on the other hand, zinjanthropos, means, huh, what the heck does that mean anyway? My translator doesnt recognize it. It evokes strange untranslatable misunderstanding and unintelligible confusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I feel you may have misjudged your audience.
    That is a fact, exchanging pretty documented/coherent information is apparently not at all the goal here. I also have been fooled by the URL.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it.
    By acknowledging, as a basic premise, that science is futile, and that we are monkeys. It is not lack self esteem, it is self derision, and lack of arrogance, it is knowing were you come from.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake.
    Damn right.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.
    For me it is obvious the utility of futility. It is no more that recognizing any attempt to show of mental superiority, will inevitability create bad feeling on people that think of themselves as alpha dog.

    If you don't understand those premises, on a science forum, you simply don't have the basic skills to process relativity applied to cognitive point of view. Some will never understand anything, unless it brings one love and fame, and thus they will project those feeling onto others 'agenda'
    Doing it for fun (with futility), is a good remedy (it is usefull)

    I myself, have found the whole experiment quite interesting and, at times, very funny

    So what is wrong with Futilitist, is that is is more right than the average moderator.

    I have to add that some other people working under much more peaceful approaches, have themselves been cut of some on-going conversations. But they have their own freedom of speech, so we all will receive what we deserve in the end.

    Long live to futilitism !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I feel you may have misjudged your audience.
    That is a fact, exchanging pretty documented/coherent information is apparently not at all the goal here. I also have been fooled by the URL.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it.
    By acknowledging, as a basic premise, that science is futile, and that we are monkeys. It is not lack self esteem, it is self derision, and lack of arrogance, it is knowing were you come from.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake.
    Damn right.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.
    For me it is obvious the utility of futility. It is no more that recognizing any attempt to show of mental superiority, will inevitability create bad feeling on people that think of themselves as alpha dog.

    If you don't understand those premises, on a science forum, you simply don't have the basic skills to process relativity applied to cognitive point of view. Some will never understand anything, unless it brings one love and fame, and thus they will project those feeling onto others 'agenda'
    Doing it for fun (with futility), is a good remedy (it is usefull)

    I myself, have found the whole experiment quite interesting and, at times, very funny

    So what is wrong with Futilitist, is that is is more right than the average moderator.

    I have to add that some other people working under much more peaceful approaches, have themselves been cut of some on-going conversations. But they have their own freedom of speech, so we all will receive what we deserve in the end.

    Long live to futilitism !
    Thanks Boing3000, I had fun too. And it means a lot to me that you understood what I was trying to say. And what I was trying to do. And especially that you understand what Futilitism actually is. It is not an easy concept for most.

    They always kill the messenger. They know not what they do.

    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    They know not what they do.
    Allow me to differs.

    I think it is a perfectly coherent reaction to be afraid of things beyond once's understanding. I know evolution is quite strong on that fact. That is one of the few facts that is not refutable.
    It is a proven path to success: that increasing the time span of that (miss)understanding, and allows him to breed a little more.

    It was short, intense, and futile. Like it should be

    And BTW this "they" is way to complacent, and plural charged, especially for a futilitist. Get a grip man !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    How do you like the show so far?
    I'm a fan.
    westwind likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    They know not what they do.
    Allow me to differs.

    I think it is a perfectly coherent reaction to be afraid of things beyond once's understanding. I know evolution is quite strong on that fact. That is one of the few facts that is not refutable.
    It is a proven path to success: that increasing the time span of that (miss)understanding, and allows him to breed a little more.

    It was short, intense, and futile. Like it should be

    And BTW this "they" is way to complacent, and plural charged, especially for a futilitist. Get a grip man !
    "They know not what they do" is just cryptic and quasi religious. A throwaway line. Don't read too much in. I was banned for no reason while they locked the best thread I made for no reason. I just got back. I'm tired and I just don't have very much to say anymore. Trying really hard to do the right thing at this level of intensity and getting repeatedly banned for it takes it out of me. I don't remember what I came here for in the first place. That is what they want. This is their little sandbox. And their precious little egos. It is far too late for any of this to matter. Surprise, the bad guys won again.

    The people who really know me well, who have looked closely at this experiment, do not think I am insane, they think that I am insanely patient. Perhaps they are wrong.

    ---Futilitist
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 7th, 2012 at 10:51 AM. Reason: I fucking felt like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Surprise, the bad guys won again.
    Resitance is futile. Every movie I know of, movies worth crying for, clearly demonstrate that we are formatted to let the bad guys go on with their lives, while the hero dies for the cause. It is still time to flip-flop, or to embrace your mighty destiny.
    (I have tune down the complexity of my sources, has to be more intelligible )

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    The people who really know me well, who have looked closely at this experiment, do not think I am insane, they think that I am insanely patient. Perhaps they are wrong.
    Your are insane is you think being right is better that being wrong. Your are also insane if you think you can know someone through a series of tube.
    This is a right statements, unless your develop a little your views about the advantage of being right, in dimensions and units, so we can evaluate them. I have just been serious there. I personally is still looking for that grail.
    Go on, hit me ! (is there a link missing under experiment ?)
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,478
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free......Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously

    that was awesome... (raises hand and waives it frantically) Analyze my id next!! Curious what you come up with
    I haven't forgotten your request, it's just that this is Futilitist's thread and didn't think I should proceed here. Never know when or where it might appear though.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; December 9th, 2012 at 08:43 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Your are also insane if you think you can know someone through a series of tube.

    (is there a link missing under experiment ?)
    This video is in reply to the link above posted by Boing3000.



    I am rather curious about the experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Originally Posted by Boing3000

    It was short, intense, and futile. Like it should be
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Originally Posted by Boing3000

    It was short, intense, and futile. Like it should be
    lol, if at least I could build a time machine and do it again !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    One entertaining post deserves another, in my opinion.



    Has it occurred to others that this may be an on-going and self-perpetuating experiment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Has it occurred to others that this may be an on-going and self-perpetuating experiment?
    I have got this impression with life. Humor helps breaking the boredom, where is my groundhog again ? fafa ! come here !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Has it occurred to others that this may be an on-going and self-perpetuating experiment?
    I have got this impression with life. Humor helps breaking the boredom, where is my groundhog again ? fafa ! come here !
    I came across the following quote, which makes a great deal of sense to me, and while the premise is very simple, the practice is demonstrably very difficult for our species for we identify very strongly with that which we believe, and are threatened by any premise which runs contrary to current understanding.

    "The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
    Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I came across the following quote, which makes a great deal of sense to me, and while the premise is very simple, the practice is demonstrably very difficult for our species for we identify very strongly with that which we believe, and are threatened by any premise which runs contrary to current understanding.
    "The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
    Albert Einstein
    A great quote. I suppose it was not referring to his banker
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Well we gave him a chance, now he's gone, not meaning to be harsh he wasted it, but no need for any more discussion is the way I see it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Well we gave him a chance, now he's gone, not meaning to be harsh he wasted it, but no need for any more discussion is the way I see it.
    Are you one of the moderators, Chris? I'm somewhat unclear by whom you are referring to as 'we'.

    I notice that his status is 'Suspended'. Is that the same as permanently banned? I'm also unclear on that detail, lol, undecided creature that I am.

    In the event that 'suspended' is not the same as permanent, I see no harm in continuing a dialogue on this thread. The psychology behind the experiment that Futilitist made reference to as well as his provocative style leave a number of questions unanswered.

    What was he hoping to demonstrate or accomplish?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Are you one of the moderators, Chris? I'm somewhat unclear by whom you are referring to as 'we'.
    Er nope definately not, and apologies if I was being a bit mean, I'm not usually, but he particuarly wound me up, on 3 different forums.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Since I keep unintentionally managing to cause so much controversy here at thescienceforum.com, I decided to start this thread as a general repository for personal complaints about me and/or my posting style. Maybe I can learn something useful. Please feel free to take out all of your frustrations here. Don't hold back. Nothing is off limits. Go for it. Thanks.
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free,

    I think we can learn some things about a person just by their username. Futilitist, from futility, utterly pointless. A self denigrating term you applied to yourself. However I do not think you actually believe it. Why would someone advertise their futility? Low self esteem? No evidence from your posts for that. What other reason could you have to convince us of your futility? Maybe your moniker is strictly a diversionary tactic. Perhaps you feel by playing the futile angle it will encourage members to exhibit some pity and cut you some slack. In that respect the username is futile. It shows that you may crave some love and acknowledgement however. As well as being a diversion, feigning futility can be an excuse also. An excuse for making bold statements that upset the forum hierarchy in the hopes that they may show some compassion and leniency when having to deal with you. I feel you may have misjudged your audience. The last thing a person who claims to be futile wants is more futility and for that reason it suggests you are driven to succeed, just not sure on how to go about it. Success may be popularity or fame for you, hardly an exercise a futile person might undertake. Since you tend to take the opposite approach to futility then it might suggest that you believe in your mental superiority and taking on the science forum is a show of strength.

    Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously
    Hi Zin...

    I think you overlooked the possibilities of sarcasm and bitter stubborness.
    That mentioned I think your reasoning (as it usually is) is entertaining and rather sound. Keep on writing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Are you one of the moderators, Chris? I'm somewhat unclear by whom you are referring to as 'we'.
    Er nope definately not, and apologies if I was being a bit mean, I'm not usually, but he particuarly wound me up, on 3 different forums.
    No need for apologies, and I, likewise, have been observing his conduct on several forums and thinking that giving offense may well have been purposeful to demonstrate that many people will fall back on hostile response and aggression when pressed past the point of frustration. Certainly a great many posters tried quite a broad range of communication styles on the other threads.

    I'm really left to ponder if we were experiencing an individual in need of professional help or if we are a society beyond same.
    asspain likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Who said I was frustrated? Here's a quick cold read..... free......Just having a little fun, don't take it seriously

    that was awesome... (raises hand and waives it frantically) Analyze my id next!! Curious what you come up with
    I haven't forgotten your request, it's just that this is Futilitist's thread and didn't think I should proceed here. Never know when or where it might appear though.
    Hmm... Im under the IMPression that mods wont bother much of what happens in here as long as its not the Pugilist doing it.
    But thats me: Im supposed always to be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Are you one of the moderators, Chris? I'm somewhat unclear by whom you are referring to as 'we'.
    Er nope definately not, and apologies if I was being a bit mean, I'm not usually, but he particuarly wound me up, on 3 different forums.
    No need for apologies, and I, likewise, have been observing his conduct on several forums and thinking that giving offense may well have been purposeful to demonstrate that many people will fall back on hostile response and aggression when pressed past the point of frustration. Certainly a great many posters tried quite a broad range of communication styles on the other threads.

    I'm really left to ponder if we were experiencing an individual in need of professional help or if we are a society beyond same.
    Hey I feel kind of guilty now but also fustrated, you know I just want to be posting and having a laugh not feeling that I've been to mean to someone.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Are you one of the moderators, Chris? I'm somewhat unclear by whom you are referring to as 'we'.
    Er nope definately not, and apologies if I was being a bit mean, I'm not usually, but he particuarly wound me up, on 3 different forums.
    No need for apologies, and I, likewise, have been observing his conduct on several forums and thinking that giving offense may well have been purposeful to demonstrate that many people will fall back on hostile response and aggression when pressed past the point of frustration. Certainly a great many posters tried quite a broad range of communication styles on the other threads.

    I'm really left to ponder if we were experiencing an individual in need of professional help or if we are a society beyond same.
    Excuse me if im intruding but
    what society are you referring to?
    Poor old USSR is beyond hope,
    but USA might, against all odds,
    respond to treatment.
    (Were there any.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Er nope definately not, and apologies if I was being a bit mean, I'm not usually, but he particuarly wound me up, on 3 different forums.
    I think he may wound anyone he cares to, as I think you have the same 'power'. That is stunning for me, to see grown-up people discover that thing, over and over again, déjà vu.
    What I can assure you, is that you are not the only one that enjoy to feast on his futile remnance. I also assume the you apologies to yourself, you deserve it

    Can I ask you something personal ? I tend to be drawn to peoples signatures. Yours, like many other, is beautiful and full of wisdom. Yet you failed to see the beauty into Futilitist posting. Because, if anything, it got style. Did you find any beauty in this experiment ?

    I definitely don't mean anything rude here. I am not saying either the Scheherazade is never gona change anymore.

    What I see is masks, a lot of them, and I don't like that (in general, in parties too). Is this the n'th places of charade where we will pretend to be or not to be ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    No criticism coming from me, Chris, and definitely not my intention to make anyone feel contrite. Futilitist certainly has a talent for being a 'lightning rod' and I'm just curious as to what his purpose was or if there was one.

    I'm both confused and curious about the whole thing and I've also watched a number of people 'melt down' in my time as a poster to various forums. Just trying to learn from these experiences, although sometimes I'm not sure what the lesson may be.

    I find you to be a very interesting and balanced poster on the threads where we've interacted.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by Boing3000:
    I am not saying either the Scheherazade is never gona change anymore.
    Nor am I likely to change any less...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post

    Excuse me if im intruding but
    what society are you referring to?
    Poor old USSR is beyond hope,
    but USA might, against all odds,
    respond to treatment.
    (Were there any.)
    A good question.

    In the context of 'society', I was broadly referencing the human condition as we have posters from many nations on these forums.

    Somewhere I heard the expression that:

    'Abuse begins where knowledge ends.'

    When we no longer understand something, we have a tendency to engage our 'fight or flight' instinct, whether we be human or horse.
    Boing3000 and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post

    Hey I feel kind of guilty now but also fustrated,
    you know I just want to be posting and having a laugh
    not feeling that I've been to mean to someone.
    Hi there Good Old Friend!

    I can tell by your writing style youre fuztrated .
    Remember Ill always be there for you, no matter where.
    Ill probably be too late since Im somewhat crazy.
    And as usual my worms (oupps: I mean my words)
    Will be somehat hazy, selected by necessity.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post

    Excuse me if im intruding but
    what society are you referring to?
    Poor old USSR is beyond hope,
    but USA might, against all odds,
    respond to treatment.
    (Were there any.)
    A good question.

    In the context of 'society', I was broadly referencing the human condition
    as we have posters from many nations on these forums.

    Somewhere I heard the expression that:

    'Abuse begins where knowledge ends.'

    When we no longer understand something, we have a tendency
    to engage our 'fight or flight' instinct, whether we be human or horse.
    Thank you!

    Well then: The human condition,as always,
    is in need of improvements.

    The subconscious seems to understand the ways
    of its pet experiment: The selfconsciousness.

    We might soon be considered superfluous.
    But: Its only my impression... and:

    The authorities will as usual assure us
    theres no need to worry... and:

    The Greenhouse effect will not make Earth
    another Venus... at least not immediately.

    So... Fair Scheherazade:
    Whats new?
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    What's new?
    That's a simple and complex question, sigurdV, depending on the context and scope. Everything old becomes new again as we continually examine and re-exam that which was there all the time.
    I have it on good authority (my horse) that humans are a fairly tractable species and that some of them are easy to teach. Here she is teaching me to give her food rewards for doing tricks as I am instructing another human in the method used. The person close to the horse is a bit nervous of them but this friendly interaction is making them more comfortable with being in the proximity of a 1000 lb. animal.


    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    "Existence" is an interesting predicate...heres an example:

    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is a god. (conclusion)

    Somewhy this elementary exercise in logic annoys some.
    What is, in your opinion, wrong with the proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    "Existence" is an interesting predicate...heres an example:

    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is a god. (conclusion)

    Somewhy this elementary exercise in logic annoys some.
    What is, in your opinion, wrong with the proof?
    Existence is self-evident.

    From Wikipedia:
    Epistemology studies criteria of truth, defining "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge. The first is existence. It is inherent in every analysis. Its self-evident, a priori nature cannot be consistently doubted, since a person objecting to existence according to some standard of proof must implicitly accept the standard's existence as a premise.
    Jean Chretien, former Canadian Prime Minister defines 'proof'...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3TY-GdELH4
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    Well, for certain values of 'god' maybe.

    There are plenty of pagan, animist, ancestor worship and other religious systems that don't require 'god' to cause existence. God/s often inhabit or control certain features of the natural world in some systems, or they created a particular geographical entity like a river or a volcano. Many of them live beyond a mountain range or across an ocean or in some other inaccessible region, but the world as it is/was is taken for granted in many belief systems. The god/s moulded the existing world to suit 'their' people or totem animals or other sacred water sources/ seasons/ trees/ whatever.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    "Existence" is an interesting predicate...heres an example:

    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is a god. (conclusion)

    Somewhy this elementary exercise in logic annoys some.
    What is, in your opinion, wrong with the proof?
    Existence is self-evident.

    From Wikipedia:
    Epistemology studies criteria of truth, defining "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge. The first is existence. It is inherent in every analysis. Its self-evident, a priori nature cannot be consistently doubted, since a person objecting to existence according to some standard of proof must implicitly accept the standard's existence as a premise.
    Jean Chretien, former Canadian Prime Minister defines 'proof'...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3TY-GdELH4
    Lol... He was like a fish on dry land!
    Is it a coincidence his name is similar to "cretin" supposedly meaning "fool" in french?
    Im not sure if your comment was supposed to indicate a weak spot in the proof if so youre mistaken.
    But it doesnt really matter much, i wasnt testing for logical ability.
    I was just checking for moral errors. But I think youre ok
    Truth is one of my basic guiding principles Im ...eh... slightly obsessed with it.
    Not to the exclusion of other principles of course, but I need a VERY good reason for cheating.
    So what intellectual problems interests you? Whats your opinion on free will?
    Is Free will contradictive of causality and/or determinism? (Just tell me if you dont like "nosy" questions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    "Existence" is an interesting predicate...heres an example:

    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is a god. (conclusion)

    Somewhy this elementary exercise in logic annoys some.
    What is, in your opinion, wrong with the proof?
    There is nothing wrong with the proof. The problem lies in the premise. There is no minimum requirement that god is the only prime causality.
    Prime causality (x) may well be Potential.

    Use the argument and substitute the word "god" with "potential" and then it is scientifically acceptable

    Note: Definition of the noun Potential, "That which may become reality",

    thus,
    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be Potential is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is Potential (conclusion)

    and that is by definition correct and demonstrable in all areas of existence, including physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    So what intellectual problems interests you?
    That depends on how you define 'intellectual problems.'

    Whats your opinion on free will?
    Once again, that really depends on how one defines 'free will'. We may contemplate that we 'choose' how we will act, react and respond to various situations, yet the conditions that predicate our responses are often beyond our control and/or rely on experience and learned behavior in large part, so while we may perceive that we are acting of our own volition, is this really the case? We but select from the best available options at any given time and sometimes those options are very limited, IMO.

    Is Free will contradictive of causality and/or determinism?
    I don't think in those terms, at least not consciously.

    (Just tell me if you dont like "nosy" questions
    Questions are fine. Answers are optional and variable.
    Last edited by scheherazade; December 11th, 2012 at 01:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    Well, for certain values of 'god' maybe.

    There are plenty of pagan, animist, ancestor worship and other religious systems that don't require 'god' to cause existence. God/s often inhabit or control certain features of the natural world in some systems, or they created a particular geographical entity like a river or a volcano. Many of them live beyond a mountain range or across an ocean or in some other inaccessible region, but the world as it is/was is taken for granted in many belief systems. The god/s moulded the existing world to suit 'their' people or totem animals or other sacred water sources/ seasons/ trees/ whatever.
    I certainly did not do any empirical testing in constructing the definition.

    Actually the "minimum" requirement wasnt in my original version where the definition
    was only the most "interesting" out of many possible definitons of the god concept.
    But my intention was to get as close as possible to what is thought to be
    a necessary requirement for something to be a god.

    So my defensive argument is that if your "god" cant create existence then your god is impotent and a fake

    I guess that were I an anthropologist I would first try to put the blame on faulty translations...
    (Didnt the pagans really mean only "guardian"?? And this "controling of certain features"?
    Doesnt it imply being a cause of said features?)

    Secondly I would claim that before the primitives realized everything needs a cause
    (Well... eh... WHY is there, whats the cause of, "uncaused objects"?)
    and that existence in particular cant be assumed to be without a cause,
    then there WAS no concept of god!
    Anyway... Im happy with getting a serious response: Thank you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.........
    We already have been.
    We are 'embedded' in the very fabric of existence.
    "Existence" is an interesting predicate...heres an example:

    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be god is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is a god. (conclusion)

    Somewhy this elementary exercise in logic annoys some.
    What is, in your opinion, wrong with the proof?
    There is nothing wrong with the proof. The problem lies in the premise. There is no minimum requirement that god is the only prime causality.
    Prime causality (x) may well be Potential.

    Use the argument and substitute the word "god" with "potential" and then it is scientifically acceptable

    Note: Definition of the noun Potential, "That which may become reality",

    thus,
    (0) Definition: The minimum requirement for x to be Potential is that x is a cause of existence.
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x. (principle)
    (2) There is existence. (elementary observation)
    (3) There is Potential (conclusion)

    and that is by definition correct and demonstrable in all areas of existence, including physics.
    But I didnt define "god" to be the "only prime causality"! If there is one god there must be more gods! As I defined them. The set of gods must be transfinite etc etc ... Im not sure of what youre doing here? Its late and my judgement will only be (preliminary).
    If you keep the logical form of the (whole) argument then the object referred to in the conclusion "Potential" surely ought not to be the cause of "Potential"!? (I think) the substitution of any "the only" into the definition introduces a variation of Burali Fortes Paradox! A clash between the definition and premise one.
    Interesting development though...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Sorry, you completely lost me there.

    All I am saying is that if there is reality, there must have been Potential for that reality.

    I am not excluding the argument of a 'god", but when we analyze god as something which preceeds existence, the better word is Potential. It has clearly defined functions in a host of disciplines, where the concept of a god must claim its function strictly from "motivated intelligence".

    Thus the answer to the equation does not lead us to say "there is existence", therefore, "motivated intelligence".

    IOW, the word "god" does not have sufficient demonstrable qualities to rate the title Prime Causality. That's just wishful thinking.

    OTOH, I can prove that Potential is a common denominator of everything in the universe, past, present, and future.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I guess that were I an anthropologist I would first try to put the blame on faulty translations...
    On the contrary, I admire them. Europeans being able to set aside their own rigid concept of a one and only, single god being omnipotent and omniscient and especially, not part of the material world, reflects very well on them. Many religions see gods as being present in this world though not visible to ordinary mortals. Within the volcano or the wind or the water, or beyond the horizon or the mountains, exerting power and control unseen.

    Though I suppose if they'd had the standard classical education with buckets of Greek and Latin they'd be familiar with different gods having different areas of influence (though both of them have 'boss' gods with a bit more power than some others) might have made it easier to understand how different tribes or regions might have a particular liking for a snake or fish totem or a tree or river god as boss for their area. Probably helped to have a vision of your own society as being better and more advanced than the ancient Greeks and Romans, and certainly better than the primitive peoples they were investigating.

    As far as I can see, the universal requirement for a god is invisibility. Even then, some 'blessed' individuals or shamans or oracles get to see visions or hear voices denied to the rest of us.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    So what intellectual problems interests you?
    That depends on how you define 'intellectual problems.'

    Whats your opinion on free will?
    Once again, that really depends on how one defines 'free will'. We may contemplate that we 'choose' how we will act, react and respond to various situations, yet the conditions that predicate our responses are often beyond our control and/or rely on experience and learned behavior in large part, so while we may perceive that we are acting of our own volition, is this really the case? We but select from the best available options at any given time and sometimes those options are very limited, IMO.

    Is Free will contradictive of causality and/or determinism?
    I don't think in those terms, at least not consciously.

    (Just tell me if you dont like "nosy" questions
    Questions are fine. Answers are optional and variable.
    Indeed its true that any concept depends on its definition BUT there are two kinds of definitions. Rational definitions and Ostentative definitions. I consider ostentative definitions to be foundational...Primary...since ALL definitions on pain of circularity cant be rational!
    Science begins with some ostentative definitions (ideally as few as possible) enabling us to measure and quantify objects...to this we add principles (based on the principle of there being invariances...or more familiarly: causality) and Scientific Activity can begin!

    Free will is a necessary cause of free thought: Unless the thought is not freely willed from its beginning to its end then its not free
    (it is somehow forced on us)! And the same with actions since actions are caused by thoughts. So whenever a thought is formed it is either formed by a free will or an unfree will. In the latter case the thought is an experience (or perhaps the expressions "experienced fact" or "observation" is more exact in English) Please first observe the difference between observations and other thoughts... then lets finish this:

    Any rational definition of "free will"and "unfree will" must not contradict the ostentative definition...if this occurs then the rational definition is inconsistent and not valid! And...eh...If I didnt leave anything out then this is all there is to it! .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Is it a coincidence his name is similar to "cretin" supposedly meaning "fool" in french?
    It depends if his family comes from the mountains. "crétin des alpes" is refereering to 'crétinisme' to form of mental retardation due to deficiency in iodine (rare on mountain top).
    It is more like linked to chretien (christian) and/or a blend with german word:kreiden (chalk)

    Folly is much more pervasive, as it is a common feature in human behaviors. As a youngster 'chretiens crétins' was one of my favorite fool(and foul) play.

    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Is Free will contradictive of causality and/or determinism? (Just tell me if you dont like "nosy" questions
    TANSTAAFL.

    From a french speaking perspective, there is a big difference between 'liberty' and 'freedom'. I still don't get that you use the same word for 'free will' and 'free lunch'.

    A "free thought" (pensée libre) could never be associated with "gratis thought" (pensée gratuite).

    I like to tease people that think their are free. We barely have the possibility to choose between a set of pre-acquired knowledge. So the more you know, the more degree of liberty you have, that is the cause.
    If there is a 'cost' associated to 'will/thought', I relate it to 'inertia'. Generally emotion or feeling like good or bad. You may know a lot of things but will never ever take the liberty to use it.
    Like God. Everybody knows that there is no such things, like everybody knows that Santa Claus is a nice peace of fairy tales. Anyway many many people will still pretend they believe in God.
    Like communism. Everybody as lived by that paradigm in their family, but seems to have forget it.
    So some ideas also have the ability to imprison you, that is the determinism.

    It gives me the opportunity to link all that lenient mishmash, to the futility of it. Is it wrong ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Can I ask you something personal ? I tend to be drawn to peoples signatures. Yours, like many other, is beautiful and full of wisdom. Yet you failed to see the beauty into Futilitist posting. Because, if anything, it got style. Did you find any beauty in this experiment ?
    Alas even though sometimes I may know what is right it's hard to stop myself blundering headlong in the opposite direction and yes sure there is always beauty but again alas I find like so many others myself unable to see it sometimes, I guess in the future I will just have to look harder.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    But perhaps free will is the directive part of the automatic process of thought. We are able to analyze, to project, to reflect, but we cannot stop the process of thought and the result of course is deterministic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Sorry, you completely lost me there.

    All I am saying is that if there is reality, there must have been Potential for that reality..
    Now! I understand you!
    No prob then
    You are only changing the semantic content of " cause" to "Potential" ...
    That is permissible! Disregard my former objection!
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    I am not excluding the argument of a 'god", but when we analyze god as something which preceeds existence, the better word is Potential. It has clearly defined functions in a host of disciplines, where the concept of a god must claim its function strictly from "motivated intelligence".
    Its permissible to add any not self contradictory quality to the Minimum concept of god:
    Anything from Hooves to Intelligence so to say!
    Personally I will only accept qualities that god either Empirically or Logically can be proven to have.
    So yes! I dont believe without proof that god even makes sense

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Thus the answer to the equation does not lead us to say "there is existence", therefore, "motivated intelligence".

    IOW, the word "god" does not have sufficient demonstrable qualities to rate the title Prime Causality. That's just wishful thinking.
    That depends whether "Prime" quantifies "god" or not:
    "There is existence", therefore (with only a minimum of restriction), god MAY have "motivated intelligence".

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    OTOH, I can prove that Potential is a common denominator of everything in the universe, past, present, and future
    So do it! Its always fun looking at a proof! Im happy that YOU did
    The least I can do in return is trying to smash yours into pieces.
    But I warn you Its not a habit of mine. The probability of success is low.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by sigurdV
    Anything from Hooves to Intelligence so to say!
    Personally I will only accept qualities that god either Empirically or Logically can be proven to have.
    Our affiliation with the horse allowed mankind to spread and proliferate at an accelerated pace, effectively making 'demi-gods' of those who utilized the species and exponentially influencing the paternity of Genghis Khan.

    Are You Descended From Genghis Khan?

    Epona was the Celtic Horse Goddess. A description of her worshiped attributes in the brief video that follows:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I guess that were I an anthropologist I would first try to put the blame on faulty translations...
    On the contrary, I admire them.
    WHAT!? You admire faulty translations!?!

    Just kidding I have a ...eh ... precise style of thinking and it sometimes accidentally enter my statements:
    I have nothing but honest admiration for competent anthropologists! (Lets forget about the rest.)
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Europeans being able to set aside their own rigid concept of a one and only, single god being omnipotent and omniscient and especially, not part of the material world, reflects very well on them. Many religions see gods as being present in this world though not visible to ordinary mortals. Within the volcano or the wind or the water, or beyond the horizon or the mountains, exerting power and control unseen.
    As I recently explained to somebody else: Its permitted (but not wize)
    to add any not self contradictive quality to the Minimum god!
    (You then run the risk of being wrong.)
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Though I suppose if they'd had the standard classical education with buckets of Greek and Latin they'd be familiar with different gods having different areas of influence (though both of them have 'boss' gods with a bit more power than some others) might have made it easier to understand how different tribes or regions might have a particular liking for a snake or fish totem or a tree or river god as boss for their area. Probably helped to have a vision of your own society as being better and more advanced than the ancient Greeks and Romans, and certainly better than the primitive peoples they were investigating.

    As far as I can see, the universal requirement for a god is invisibility. Even then, some 'blessed' individuals or shamans or oracles get to see visions or hear voices denied to the rest of us.
    I like the charming progression of your thinking Mylady... But you need not venture so far: IF something, call it god, have existens as the ONLY quality then through what OTHER quality can god be detected? It follows (among other perhaps also not too obvious things)
    that no one can see or hear god doesnt it? If there are no more questions then I would like to end this friendly chat with my sincerest regards and a complete thought:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    sigurdV
    That depends whether "Prime" quantifies "god" or not:
    "There is existence", therefore (with only a minimum of restriction), god MAY have "motivated intelligence".
    That may be true philosophically, but metaphysically the obstacles to intentional action are fatal, IMO.
    a) without physical aspects of a brain and a sentient mind, the concept of god is reduced to an unprovable assumption.

    Originally Posted by Write4U
    OTOH, I can prove that Potential is a common denominator of everything in the universe, past, present, and future
    So do it! Its always fun looking at a proof! Im happy that YOU did
    The least I can do in return is trying to smash yours into pieces.
    But I warn you Its not a habit of mine. The probability of success is low.
    I am not a scientist so please bear with me. I can only describe my thoughts in narrative form.

    The recognized and functional qualities of the word potential are abundant.
    from Wiki,
    Potential

    The mathematical study of potentials is known as potential theory; it is the study of harmonic functions on manifolds. This mathematical formulation arises from the fact that, in physics, the scalar potential is irrotational, and thus has a vanishing Laplacian — the very definition of a harmonic function.
    In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.
    Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential.
    In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, standard electrode potential.
    In Thermodynamics potential refers to thermodynamic potential.
    Note that all these identified functions are testable in theory and usable in practice.

    Philosophically, at a metaphysical level ,

    From Wiki
    Leibniz's study of the "entelechy" now known as energy was a part of what he called his new science of "dynamics", based on the Greek word dunamis and his understanding that he was making a modern version of Aristotle's old dichotomy. He also referred to it as the "new science of power and action", (Latin "potentia et effectu" and "potentia et actione"). And it is from him that the modern distinction between statics and dynamics in physics stems. The emphasis on dunamis in the name of this new science comes from the importance of his discovery of potential energy which is not active, but which conserves energy nevertheless. "As 'a science of power and action', dynamics arises when Leibniz proposes an adequate architectonic of laws for constrained, as well as unconstrained, motions."[37]

    For Leibniz, like Aristotle, this law of nature concerning entelechies was also understood as a metaphysical law, important not only for physics, but also for understanding life and the soul. A soul, or spirit, according to Leibniz, can be understood as a type of entelechy (or living monad) which has distinct perceptions and memory.
    But no sentient motivation. I have previously linked to David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
    [B]One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.

    'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
    String Theory.
    When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.
    The Zero Point Order which Bohm identified as the realm of insight-intelligence bears an unmistakable resemblance to the supreme spiritual realization of Indian metaphysics known as the Brahman, a perfectly inactive, pure noetic plenum realized as Absolute Being. The Brahman is characterized by a complete fusion of Time and Consciousness which is experienced as Timelessness, or undifferentiated Time. In this state Time-energy vibrates at such an intense rate that it appears static and thereby lacking any element of periodicity or denseness. Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space.[/B]
    But it still conforms to the premise and definition of the word Potential.
    Last edited by Write4U; December 11th, 2012 at 07:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Originally posted by sigurdV
    Anything from Hooves to Intelligence so to say!
    Personally I will only accept qualities that god either Empirically or Logically can be proven to have.
    Our affiliation with the horse allowed mankind to spread and proliferate at an accelerated pace, effectively making 'demi-gods' of those who utilized the species and exponentially influencing the paternity of Genghis Khan.

    Are You Descended From Genghis Khan?

    Epona was the Celtic Horse Goddess. A description of her worshiped attributes in the brief video that follows:

    My full name is Sigurd Leonidovich Vojnov.
    My father was a russian prisoner of war
    my last name means warrior...
    Or something such.

    I never rode a horse.
    But I play the Balalajka!
    Just kidding... its a guitar.
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/103782929/IMG_1084.MOV

    Did you like it!?
    ...aww its nothing special
    ... just my best guitar piece.
    If you use Music Time you can listen
    to the boogie I wrote but I dont know
    how to play the piano... them darned
    big and complicated things elude me
    Them horses sure were pretty... cya
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 11th, 2012 at 10:39 PM.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    sigurdV
    That depends whether "Prime" quantifies "god" or not:
    "There is existence", therefore (with only a minimum of restriction), god MAY have "motivated intelligence".
    That may be true philosophically, but metaphysically the obstacles to intentional action are fatal, IMO.
    a) without physical aspects of a brain and a sentient mind, the concept of god is reduced to an unprovable assumption.

    Originally Posted by Write4U
    OTOH, I can prove that Potential is a common denominator of everything in the universe, past, present, and future
    So do it! Its always fun looking at a proof! Im happy that YOU did
    The least I can do in return is trying to smash yours into pieces.
    But I warn you Its not a habit of mine. The probability of success is low.
    I am not a scientist so please bear with me. I can only describe my thoughts in narrative form.

    The recognized and functional qualities of the word potential are abundant.
    from Wiki,
    Potential

    The mathematical study of potentials is known as potential theory; it is the study of harmonic functions on manifolds. This mathematical formulation arises from the fact that, in physics, the scalar potential is irrotational, and thus has a vanishing Laplacian — the very definition of a harmonic function.
    In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.
    Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential.
    In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, standard electrode potential.
    In Thermodynamics potential refers to thermodynamic potential.
    Note that all these identified functions are testable in theory and usable in practice.

    Philosophically, at a metaphysical level ,

    From Wiki
    Leibniz's study of the "entelechy" now known as energy was a part of what he called his new science of "dynamics", based on the Greek word dunamis and his understanding that he was making a modern version of Aristotle's old dichotomy. He also referred to it as the "new science of power and action", (Latin "potentia et effectu" and "potentia et actione"). And it is from him that the modern distinction between statics and dynamics in physics stems. The emphasis on dunamis in the name of this new science comes from the importance of his discovery of potential energy which is not active, but which conserves energy nevertheless. "As 'a science of power and action', dynamics arises when Leibniz proposes an adequate architectonic of laws for constrained, as well as unconstrained, motions."[37]

    For Leibniz, like Aristotle, this law of nature concerning entelechies was also understood as a metaphysical law, important not only for physics, but also for understanding life and the soul. A soul, or spirit, according to Leibniz, can be understood as a type of entelechy (or living monad) which has distinct perceptions and memory.
    But no sentient motivation. I have previously linked to David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
    [B]One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.

    'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
    String Theory.
    When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.
    The Zero Point Order which Bohm identified as the realm of insight-intelligence bears an unmistakable resemblance to the supreme spiritual realization of Indian metaphysics known as the Brahman, a perfectly inactive, pure noetic plenum realized as Absolute Being. The Brahman is characterized by a complete fusion of Time and Consciousness which is experienced as Timelessness, or undifferentiated Time. In this state Time-energy vibrates at such an intense rate that it appears static and thereby lacking any element of periodicity or denseness. Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space.[/B]


    But it still conforms to the premise and definition of the word Potential.
    Sorry My Friend!
    Im just a minor Logician
    And Im not into Mysticism
    Perhaps in next life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    lol, it is your logic problem that brought us to this point.
    I am not the one claiming god as the progenitor to existence.
    I'll stick with Potential, it is immune from attack on both scientific and theistic counts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    lol, it is your logic problem that brought us to this point.
    I am not the one claiming god as the progenitor to existence.
    I'll stick with Potential, it is immune from attack on both scientific and theistic counts.
    Actually I dont mind whatever we call "the cause of existense" it exists if existense exists.
    as long as it is not the ONLY cause. What gave your potentiality its potentiality would you say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    lol, it is your logic problem that brought us to this point.
    I am not the one claiming god as the progenitor to existence.
    I'll stick with Potential, it is immune from attack on both scientific and theistic counts.
    Actually I dont mind whatever we call "the cause of existense" it exists if existense exists.
    as long as it is not the ONLY cause. What gave your potentiality its potentiality would you say?
    I don't know its metaphysical properties. Perhaps it is just an abstraction of a universal constant. But whatever it is, by definition it must be present for reality to become instantiated.
    Fundamentally it describes a condition (the implicate) from which reality (the explicate) may emerge, a latent excellence which may become reality, which it obviously did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    What's new?
    That's a simple and complex question, sigurdV, depending on the context and scope. Everything old becomes new again as we continually examine and re-exam that which was there all the time.
    I have it on good authority (my horse) that humans are a fairly tractable species and that some of them are easy to teach. Here she is teaching me to give her food rewards for doing tricks as I am instructing another human in the method used. The person close to the horse is a bit nervous of them but this friendly interaction is making them more comfortable with being in the proximity of a 1000 lb. animal.


    That reminds me of when I was a kid and my dad got me acquainted with a huge overweight quarter horse. He was 16.5 hands tall and I was 4'9" and weighed about 90lbs. He wanted me to run the horse in barrel competitions but I had very little riding experience. The horse was so big and I was so tiny he didn't even know I was on his back. My dad had to bet me spurs. I hated using them. After a while he got accustomed to the idea that if I was handling him at some point I was going to be on his back so he listened for verbal cues. I swear that horse could understand english. I showed him the spurs one day and told him if he would listen to me and do what I told him, that I wouldn't wear the spurs and he would get an apple at the end of the ride. If I reminded him of that before getting on his back each time, he was the easiest animal in the world to work with. He just wanted a little respect. After all as big as he was, he was putting up with me by choice, not from being trained. He could have thrown me to the ground and killed me at any moment that he felt the urge. and with very little effort. And my dad told me I had to show him who was boss. Wasn't true at all. I had to show him I respected him. As long as I did that, he considered me a fun pet that deserved a fun ride once in a while.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by seagypsy:
    That reminds me of when I was a kid and my dad got me acquainted with a huge overweight quarter horse. He was 16.5 hands tall and I was 4'9" and weighed about 90lbs. He wanted me to run the horse in barrel competitions but I had very little riding experience. The horse was so big and I was so tiny he didn't even know I was on his back. My dad had to bet me spurs. I hated using them. After a while he got accustomed to the idea that if I was handling him at some point I was going to be on his back so he listened for verbal cues. I swear that horse could understand english. I showed him the spurs one day and told him if he would listen to me and do what I told him, that I wouldn't wear the spurs and he would get an apple at the end of the ride. If I reminded him of that before getting on his back each time, he was the easiest animal in the world to work with. He just wanted a little respect. After all as big as he was, he was putting up with me by choice, not from being trained. He could have thrown me to the ground and killed me at any moment that he felt the urge. and with very little effort. And my dad told me I had to show him who was boss. Wasn't true at all. I had to show him I respected him. As long as I did that, he considered me a fun pet that deserved a fun ride once in a while.
    Thank you for sharing your experience, Seagypsy, and it is an excellent example and reminder that horses are intelligent creatures and capable of making choices. I rather expect that spurs were merely a tool for the horse to comprehend your leg aids as your short stature compared to the horse would place your calves and heels in a less than optimum location for signaling the horse. Once the horse was accustomed to your style and trained to the barrel pattern, there would be little more need of them, for most healthy horses love to run.

    My aged pinto schooling mare, a flashy black and white pinto, used to amaze the young riding students as she stepped out of the trailer, lively and prancing, bugling a challenge to the others as if to remark, "Okay you bad babes, which one of you is hoping to finish second?"

    At home, she was the most calm and tolerant horse imaginable. At the show grounds, she was an inspiration, taking high point honors many times. She lived to be 29 years of age and taught countless children and adults to love and respect horses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    What's new?
    That's a simple and complex question, sigurdV, depending on the context and scope.
    Everything old becomes new again as we continually examine and re-exam that which was there all the time.
    I have it on good authority (my horse) that humans are a fairly tractable species and that some of them are easy to teach. Here she is teaching me to give her food rewards for doing tricks as I am instructing another human in the method used. The person close to the horse is a bit nervous of them but this friendly interaction is making them more comfortable with being in the proximity of a 1000 lb. animal.


    That reminds me of when I was a kid and my dad got me acquainted with a huge overweight quarter horse. He was 16.5 hands tall and I was 4'9" and weighed about 90lbs. He wanted me to run the horse in barrel competitions but I had very little riding experience. The horse was so big and I was so tiny he didn't even know I was on his back. My dad had to bet me spurs. I hated using them. After a while he got accustomed to the idea that if I was handling him at some point I was going to be on his back so he listened for verbal cues. I swear that horse could understand english. I showed him the spurs one day and told him if he would listen to me and do what I told him, that I wouldn't wear the spurs and he would get an apple at the end of the ride. If I reminded him of that before getting on his back each time, he was the easiest animal in the world to work with. He just wanted a little respect. After all as big as he was, he was putting up with me by choice, not from being trained. He could have thrown me to the ground and killed me at any moment that he felt the urge. and with very little effort. And my dad told me I had to show him who was boss. Wasn't true at all. I had to show him I respected him. As long as I did that, he considered me a fun pet that deserved a fun ride once in a while.
    Theres (new) knowledge basically of two kinds:
    We experience: "What a nice day!"
    and we rationalise: "There will be a day tomorrow."

    Words are not enough: Like horses they need riders. (Minds ... We see them "ghostriders" vaguely
    and like our horses we care for our riders.) But ghostriders are as yet difficult to experience conceptualize and explain...

    Its REALLY difficult for me to explain, and besides my difficulty in properly using your English words
    I also experience your companions ridicule... I sincerely thank you for not considering me a troll!

    Rationalising depends on simplification... the experience of the object

    ( Get it? Its not r e a l l y the object that gets replaced!)

    gets replaced by a word, more easily handled by the brain. Thats the first and basic part in the rationalization process... I call it "ostentatation" its an ugly word not a free choice of mine and I will desert it the moment I experience a good alternative. Next is to replace the word with a description... and (LOL!) NOW WE:

    E X P E R I E N C E (and thereby understands)THE DESCRIPTION

    And CONCEPTUALISATION is done.

    Im not trying to convince you! To be convinced of x IS to "conceptualise x PROPERLY" and what is in this context meant by "properly"? ? ? ? ? Here I must stop. Go back to the beginning. And humbly ask if youre experiencing my reasoning?

    Im NOT proposing a theory...Im NOT rationalising (well... well... well: Being no telepath I surely MUST use rationalisation as a means of communication)... Im trying to take the first step together with any listener (perhaps you?).

    My first step (as I these days experience it) is to CLEARLY understand the difference between Experiencing x and Explaining x.

    If the explanation does not fit the experience the explanation is not valid.

    Let that be the only text on my gravestone!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by sigurdV:

    My first step (as I these days experience it) is to CLEARLY understand the difference between Experiencing x and Explaining x.

    If the explanation does not fit the experience the explanation is not valid.
    I think you have captured something very important in the first sentence above, sigurdV. The experiencing must be explained in order for the information to be conveyed to another but even then there are several challenges to address. If we do not fully comprehend that which we have experienced, it will be difficult for us to describe and we may be inaccurate in doing so. Likewise, if the listener or reader has not had any experience similar to that which we are describing, they will find it very difficult to grasp our meaning. no matter how well we craft it.

    As a simple example, I have been out of doors in extreme cold temperatures while competing with sled dogs and also just in residing in this climate. -55C is just a number to those who have no experience of it first hand. Their logical mind may comprehend that this is a very dangerous thing, this extreme cold, but they will not be able to appreciate just how fragile everything becomes at those temperatures, even metal.

    Consider then, if it is difficult to accurately convey the details of any external experience, a thing which may be duplicated and experienced by another in many cases, how much harder is it to convey a concept, a thing which exists only in our own mind?

    How can we ever be certain that the picture or concept that someone else holds in their mind, is the exact same picture as we hold in our own and that by use of our communications technologies and abilities we have been sharing? I'm not convinced that we can ever be certain but we do seem capable of getting most of our message across much of the time.

    The world is filled with talented people and all of us have unique experiences but not all of us are equally capable of conveying those experiences to others. That is why excellent teachers are greatly admired in most cultures, for they become our interpreters and guides on the journey.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    That reminds me of when I was a kid and my dad got me acquainted with a huge overweight quarter horse. He was 16.5 hands tall and I was 4'9" and weighed about 90lbs. He wanted me to run the horse in barrel competitions but I had very little riding experience. The horse was so big and I was so tiny he didn't even know I was on his back.
    That reminds me of my last horse riding experience. It was years ago when the kids were young, and we went to a dude ranch for vacation. I was rather overweight, so the wrangler sized me up and said, I think we'll put you on Jumbo. My family found that rather amusing. But Jumbo definitely knew I was there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    All this talk of horses puts me in mind of the Budweiser Horse commercials. Harold's post above made me think of this one.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    And while Im at it: I now prepare a second step. Mind you (he he) I reserve the right to retrace the step...any step of mine... because only the action can tell if it really was in the right direction. What I refuse to do is to deny the journey! Any step: YES! but NOT the guided tour! Ok?

    So lets pretend having gone back to the big bang. On the route we met trolls saying "one cant go back in time" this exercise is futile...its ridiculous... I aint riding in that direction ... and you wont arrive there!

    Here we are! Do you experience that photon?

    Its a little pretty thing just born. It will travel in 15 billion years
    (correct any measuring I do, im no engineer and no matematician,
    anything I do usualy contains errors
    all I can do is ceeping them within reazonable limits.)

    According to theory ((really "just" one of them explanations))
    this cute little thing wont experience the journey!

    Its local time wont pass move or however you describe local time for the photon x.
    So 15 billion years later it again catches your eye and I then will ask you: How old is it?

    Is it a newborn kitten or is it a 15 billion year old pensioneer?

    This second step now done consists in comparing an experience with its explanation
    and the third step is in experiencing if they fit! Ive heard they call it "COMPARING"!?

    This poor Ciceron of yours... may I describe myself as as a temporary ghostrider?
    Leaves you to it. Theres no use in me explaining the view... Im not fond of formalism!
    I use only the necessary Minimum. And besides...I HAVE NO DIPLOMA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    All this talk of horses ...
    I don't fell like letting this thread being the one with the greatest standard defination from OP.

    So, apart the futile desire to tame a mighty beast and make him bow like a valet, what would one caged an animal, if not siting on his back while he is doing all the work ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Is it a coincidence his name is similar to "cretin" supposedly meaning "fool" in french?
    It depends if his family comes from the mountains. "crétin des alpes" is refereering to 'crétinisme' to form of mental retardation due to deficiency in iodine (rare on mountain top).
    It is more like linked to chretien (christian) and/or a blend with german word:kreiden (chalk)

    Folly is much more pervasive, as it is a common feature in human behaviors. As a youngster 'chretiens crétins' was one of my favorite fool(and foul) play.

    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Is Free will contradictive of causality and/or determinism? (Just tell me if you dont like "nosy" questions
    TANSTAAFL.

    From a french speaking perspective, there is a big difference between 'liberty' and 'freedom'. I still don't get that you use the same word for 'free will' and 'free lunch'.

    A "free thought" (pensée libre) could never be associated with "gratis thought" (pensée gratuite).

    I like to tease people that think their are free. We barely have the possibility to choose between a set of pre-acquired knowledge. So the more you know, the more degree of liberty you have, that is the cause.
    If there is a 'cost' associated to 'will/thought', I relate it to 'inertia'. Generally emotion or feeling like good or bad. You may know a lot of things but will never ever take the liberty to use it.
    Like God. Everybody knows that there is no such things, like everybody knows that Santa Claus is a nice peace of fairy tales. Anyway many many people will still pretend they believe in God.
    Like communism. Everybody as lived by that paradigm in their family, but seems to have forget it.
    So some ideas also have the ability to imprison you, that is the determinism.

    It gives me the opportunity to link all that lenient mishmash, to the futility of it. Is it wrong ?
    I have sort of forgotten to answer you...sorry... and now I have forgotten what I then was going to say
    Still i think you say some interesting things. How about us starting a conversation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    [QUOTE=Boing3000;376013]
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    All this talk of horses ...
    I don't fell like letting this thread being the one with the greatest standard defination from OP.
    I am completely at a loss as to what you are trying to say in the sentence above. Can you clarify?

    So, apart the futile desire to tame a mighty beast and make him bow like a valet, what would one caged an animal, if not siting on his back while he is doing all the work ?
    Horses have long been a domesticated species, and as humans have usurped most of their habitat, they are now dependent upon us to share living space. I work harder than my horses to provide for them and if they have any complaint, it seems that they would enjoy spending more time in activities with me. Kneeling is something that they do on their own, I but teach them a cue to do it upon request. Though they live inside fences, they have plenty of room to roam.

    In the right climate, horses are easily able to return to their natural ways, however, this is not a potential future for them as humankind lays claim to all habitat for it's own purposes. The future of the horse therefore lies in it's adaptable nature and ability to please us whereas many other species are being threatened to the point of extinction by loss of habitat.

    My only futile desire perhaps lies in thinking that humans are intelligent creatures that contemplate the 'bigger picture'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I don't fell like letting this thread being the one with the greatest standard (defination)
    deviation from OP.
    I am completely at a loss as to what you are trying to say in the sentence above. Can you clarify?
    Well, my spell checker also, sorry I mean, lets stay 'on subject' or "what's wrong with the utility of futility" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Horses have long been a domesticated species, and as humans have usurped most of their habitat,
    A sad state of affairs. But I don't consider horses like domestic beast. Tamed maybe, but they are still perfectly adapted to 'real' life. Some cows, or dog maybe not...

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    they are now dependent upon us to share living space.
    So they are screwed :-(

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I work harder than my horses to provide for them and if they have any complaint, it seems that they would enjoy spending more time in activities with me.
    That I believe. If I was an imprisoned beast, I'll chose your incarcerating facility anytime !

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    In the right climate, horses are easily able to return to their natural ways, however, this is not a potential future for them as humankind lays claim to all habitat for it's own purposes.
    I agree. I think some fundamentalist think that sapiens have the same right to claim things that horses. I doubt that any animal would understand what claims means.
    The problem is that nobody care to define what 'laying claims' means, and even less what the 'purpose' is.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    The future of the horse therefore lies in it's adaptable nature and ability to please us whereas many other species are being threatened to the point of extinction by loss of habitat.
    I am sorry, I disagree. The future of horse lies in the ability to human to step back in a reasonable track. I don't like zoo, even when their are big and nice, with sweet keepers of the gate. Even though, I have great respect for people that take care of animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    My only futile desire perhaps lies in thinking that humans are intelligent creatures that contemplate the 'bigger picture'.
    That one I share. The problem is that nobody can agree even vaguely about what this big picture is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    One might argue that it is in our self interest to have as little impact on our shared biosphere as possible.

    There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past
    The Sixth Extinction (ActionBioscience)
    Last edited by Write4U; December 13th, 2012 at 06:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I don't fell like letting this thread being the one with the greatest standard (defination)
    deviation from OP.
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I am completely at a loss as to what you are trying to say in the sentence above. Can you clarify?
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Well, my spell checker also, sorry I mean, lets stay 'on subject' or "what's wrong with the utility of futility" ?


    Thread: What The Hell Is Wrong With That Futilitist Guy?

    To speak to the thread title, it is not for me to judge 'right' or 'wrong' of another. My observation is that this poster has a posting style that can be both assertive and aggressive and that this style has provoked similar response on several other forums. If you asked me to summarize the style in one phrase, I might say "A catalyst for conflict."


    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    The future of the horse therefore lies in it's adaptable nature and ability to please us whereas many other species are being threatened to the point of extinction by loss of habitat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am sorry, I disagree. The future of horse lies in the ability to human to step back in a reasonable track. I don't like zoo, even when their are big and nice, with sweet keepers of the gate. Even though, I have great respect for people that take care of animals.
    That which I have highlighted in bold seems to me to be your futile desire, not unlike my own comment of: "My only futile desire perhaps lies in thinking that humans are intelligent creatures that contemplate the 'bigger picture'."

    Humans are not going to step back unless forced to by circumstances beyond their own control would be my suggestion. Unless we are starved out, burned out, flooded out or decimated by disease, we shall not cease to encroach. The horse has a better chance by catering to our ego and need for affirmation than by being at liberty for the present and foreseeable future. In the areas where horses have reverted to feral, they either multiply beyond the carrying capacity of their limits or become an undesirable species when land use conflicts arise.

    Due to the popularity of horses, control is an issue. Of the 69,000 wild horses in the United States, 32,000 are kept in government-run corrals and pastures. Due to dwindling demand, very few wild horses are adopted or sold. Removing them from undesirable ranges is a public image nightmare. They are herded into holding pens, often through the use of helicopters that force them to run for long distances. In Australia, passive trapping and removal of excessive horse populations receives priority, however they frequently face slaughter as a result of helicopter massacres. With very little funding, Australia plans on slaughtering 10,000 wild horses—about 10% of the population.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    If you asked me to summarize the style in one phrase, I might say "A catalyst for conflict."
    Yes, that much I also observe, it is a very good summary :-). But I cannot understand why. Every thread that I have read contains very assertive things, even ones with much more name calling/hateful comment and so on. Well, thanks anyway for sharing your view.you

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    The future of the horse therefore lies in it's adaptable nature and ability to please us whereas many other species are being threatened to the point of extinction by loss of habitat.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    That which I have highlighted in bold seems to me to be your futile desire, not unlike my own comment of: "My only futile desire perhaps lies in thinking that humans are intelligent creatures that contemplate the 'bigger picture'."
    Yes, we all have our sweet spot. I try to make usefull use of it. It doesn't work, so far so good

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Humans are not going to step back unless forced to by circumstances beyond their own control would be my suggestion. Unless we are starved out, burned out, flooded out or decimated by disease, we shall not cease to encroach.
    I really hope we will. Clearly nobody thinks it is possible here. With any luck, we will under all those ordeals at once.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    The horse has a better chance by catering to our ego and need for affirmation than by being at liberty for the present and foreseeable future. In the areas where horses have reverted to feral, they either multiply beyond the carrying capacity of their limits or become an undesirable species when land use conflicts arise.
    That's what you obtain when you want to replace every predator, you had to behave like one. In Belgium, we eat them.
    Last edited by Boing3000; December 13th, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Originally posted by Boing 3000:

    That's what you obtain when you want to replace every predator, you had to behave like one. I Belgium, we eat them.
    Humans have been eating horses since prehistoric times. They should be a clean meat because they are quite selective about what they ingest. I actually had some Europeans ask if I would sell them one of my 'babies' for meat. The horses I raise have been selectively bred for their temperament and ability, not the table, and so I suggested they seek elsewhere.

    If one broke a leg and the prognosis was poor, I would have no qualms about the meat being put to such use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    I don't think I could ever knowingly eat a pet. I've been tricked into eating a pet rabbit once but I was a kid and very traumatized by it when I found out. And now I have more affection for animals than I did as a child. Back then I still thought people were good. I don't think that anymore. I have more respect for animals now than I do people. I value the lives of animals more because there is a shortage of many of them. Humans are in surplus and expendable in my view and I would have no qualms about using them as fodder to feed pet lions or something. but I couldn't knowingly eat a horse for any reason. I'd be one of those stupid people who tries to build something like a wheel chair or something to help the horse get around. Futile I know.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I don't think I could ever knowingly eat a pet. I've been tricked into eating a pet rabbit once but I was a kid and very traumatized by it when I found out. And now I have more affection for animals than I did as a child. Back then I still thought people were good. I don't think that anymore. I have more respect for animals now than I do people. I value the lives of animals more because there is a shortage of many of them. Humans are in surplus and expendable in my view and I would have no qualms about using them as fodder to feed pet lions or something. but I couldn't knowingly eat a horse for any reason. I'd be one of those stupid people who tries to build something like a wheel chair or something to help the horse get around. Futile I know.
    You come across as compassionate and I would never call that 'stupid', seagypsy, for any of us may require some good will and compassion at various times in our lives. The problem arises, however, when showing compassion and investing our time, energy and resources into circumstances becomes a drain on our own continued fitness or robs others of potential because there may be limited access to practitioners, as one example.

    Interventions are expensive. I have one friend at present who is dealing with a hind leg tendon injury of a large breed dog that is already six years old and the breed not known for longevity. The surgery alone is going to cost $3,000.00 and her partner is taking holiday time to travel to Alaska where the surgery will be performed so travel and accommodations expenses as well. The kicker is that the recovery period is lengthy and requires that this 100 lb dog be restrained from running around, climbing stairs etc. or the surgery may prove worthless.

    The pet food and care industry in North America is HUGE and at a glance, one's options as a homeless pet do indeed seem better than those of a homeless human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103


    awesome
    KALSTER, sculptor and scheherazade like this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    My uncle Nick came back from ww2 early after being shot several times during the battle of the bulge.
    Shortly thereafter, he began to haul (old?)(coal) mine ponies up from indiana to the slaughthouses in chicago (at night, after hours).
    Many a Chicagoan dined on horse(pony) flesh in the waning days of the ration cards.

    And, nick managed to make enough money to buy his own small coal mine which he worked with his 2 sons Gene and Jerry(and a mule, which they let me ride on down in the mine---that mule used to shift his muscles to keep me in the center of his back---darned nice of him) then he sold the mine to consolidated coal, and they all became union miners. And the mule was "put out to pasture". Years later, I went down to visit with Nick, and he asked me if I remembered the mule, and I told him that that mule was some of the happiest memories of my early childhood. So, nick went into the tack shed and pulled out the old harness and held it up above his head and shook it, and the old mule who was grazing on the other side of the field picked up his ears and came prancing across the field, like he was 20 years younger, hoping to go back to work one more time. I darned near cried when that mule died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. New Guy
    By XiphosAngel in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 18th, 2012, 08:54 AM
  2. New guy here.
    By BP in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 5th, 2010, 09:55 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 15th, 2009, 07:23 PM
  4. Worshipping the Wrong Guy
    By zinjanthropos in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 26th, 2006, 09:12 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •