flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i really don't know what is life

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
vid wrote:
Decision which seems best for individual in isolated environment is no longer best chance, if you consider also what are others likely to do.
But I was talking about altruistic activity, not about "maximizing own gain". Wink In the Game Theory we assume that the gambler is rational (doesn't matter it's a human, animal or even not-animate force) and works (plays) in order to maximize own profits. Situations from the human world, I was talking about earlier, sometimes give "the gambler" nothing or he even suffer a loss (and "the gambler" knows about it before but nevertheless decides to act, i.e. is irrational).

Altruism is unnatural from the Game Theory point of view unless... we assume that every human "play in the same team", but then it won't be "one-to-one" or "one-to-many" but "human vs nature" game. Wink
Post 28 May 2008, 07:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Yes, I agree it cannot be modeled just by "own gain". I'd say we have hardcoded something that tries to maximize "my team's gain" - surely this would be an evolutionary advantage. Of course not everyone, some people are more after personal gain.

There are many people who sacriface their own life if they will save 10 others, but won't sacriface their life if they only save someone else from wounds. This really hints for some "best outcome for group" mentality, not just some disinterest in self, and devotion to others.

Quote:
As a sidenote, to accept Jesus as your savior means, not to 'bow' to his supreme power, but to request help from him, because admitting your weakness is the first step in being a better and more mature person (i.e not proud of your uber-self-powers).

This is pretty new interpretation of christianity. Based on Bible, and some earlier christian works, I'd say it originally was to accept Jesus' teachings, including all good parts and all crap.

Btw, what we know about Jesus is at least in bigger part (if not whole), made up by human uber-super-powered zeal and imagination. Check out modern biblical scholarship (yes, one done by christians), and read about synoptic problem, markan priority, documentary hypothesis, redactions of various bible books, etc. If Jesus whom you "accept" is one from bible, then sorry, but most stuff about him there was made up by those "uber-humans".
Post 28 May 2008, 08:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Yes, I agree it cannot be modeled just by "own gain". I'd say we have hardcoded something that tries to maximize "my team's gain" - surely this would be an evolutionary advantage. Of course not everyone, some people are more after personal gain.
What if the team provides not benefit for you? You would still need to be 'good' if you want to live by that definition.

vid wrote:
There are many people who sacriface their own life if they will save 10 others, but won't sacriface their life if they only save someone else from wounds.
Many good people actually DO sacrifice their own life for someone else, only one, not a group. Razz

but like I said, only 10% or even less people on this world truly live by the 'good' definition.

As for rationality (about any other creature other than human), here's a nice quote:

Quote:
"They must be rational, and therefore understandable."
"Why?"
"Well - because they’re sentient."
"And that means."
"Well - that they’re rational."
"A good circular definition, absolutely meaningless. Try and give me any definition of ‘rational’ or ‘sentient’ that boils down to anything other than ‘acts like a human’."


That's why I'm tired of people or articles telling me rationality is objective and well-defined. It has no precise definition (yes, if you want precise definition, you'll have to hook something as in math definitions that don't contradict themselves).

vid wrote:
Btw, what we know about Jesus is at least in bigger part (if not whole), made up by human uber-super-powered zeal and imagination.
You don't seem to have the same opinion on other historical 'facts' though Wink
Post 28 May 2008, 09:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
As for rationality (about any other creature other than human), here's a nice quote:

Quote:
"They must be rational, and therefore understandable."
"Why?"
"Well - because they’re sentient."
"And that means."
"Well - that they’re rational."
"A good circular definition, absolutely meaningless. Try and give me any definition of ‘rational’ or ‘sentient’ that boils down to anything other than ‘acts like a human’."


That's why I'm tired of people or articles telling me rationality is objective and well-defined. It has no precise definition (yes, if you want precise definition, you'll have to hook something as in math definitions that don't contradict themselves).
What did you write exactly? Seems that we are going to the swampy ground accordingly to the rule:
Quote:
Give me any philosophical idea or word from a natural language and I'll tell you that it isn't well defined.
Don't forget that you have also proposed very intuitive definition of a word 'good'.

BTW, in the Game Theory we have object named "payoff function" or "gain function". Accordingly to that we could define rational action as a maximizing values of the player's payoff function (looking for the extremum of this function).

Who said that "rational = acts like a human"? I didn't.
Post 28 May 2008, 10:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
MHajduk wrote:
What did you write exactly? Seems that we are going to the swampy ground accordingly to the rule:
Quote:
Give me any philosophical idea or word from a natural language and I'll tell you that it isn't well defined.
I wasn't talking about the word or philosophical ideas. I say most of them are not well defined (of course in math everything is Wink). I was referring to the concept (i.e what the word implies) not really what it means in english Wink

MHajduk wrote:
Don't forget that you have also proposed very intuitive definition of a word 'good'.
Of course 'good' is only a word, but the concept and idea is what I have explained, not the english word itself Wink

MHajduk wrote:
BTW, in the Game Theory we have object named "payoff function" or "gain function". Accordingly to that we could define rational action as a maximizing values of the player's payoff function (looking for the extremum of this function).
Yes but the 'gain' is subjective, of course. If this is the definition of rational, then hell I think I'm more irrational than it seems (and there's IMO nothing wrong with that) Smile

Mhajduk wrote:
Who said that "rational = acts like a human"? I didn't.
Most articles about aliens imply rationality that they act like us (i.e that they are selfish and wish to maximize their profits), when in fact they don't know what they're talking about Wink

I never said that you DID say that, I said most articles I read have Wink
Post 28 May 2008, 11:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
If this is the definition of rational, then hell I think I'm more irrational than it seems (and there's IMO nothing wrong with that) Smile
Thanks to all Gods Wink that here, on this planet, exist "irrational" (altruistic) people. Very Happy Without them our life would be more dangerous and everybody would feel more alone than nowadays.
Post 28 May 2008, 11:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The point where we don't understand each other is about the gain. I think it can be summarized by answering only following point:

Quote:
Yes but the 'gain' is subjective, of course. If this is the definition of rational, then hell I think I'm more irrational than it seems (and there's IMO nothing wrong with that)

"Gain" is getting a good feeling. Good feeling is when your brain produces certain chemicals. Brain produces them in certain situations, usually evolutionary selected to those which hint at successful reproduction: Eating when having lack of building material for body, drinking when having lack of water, resting when short-term energy supplies are depleted, sexual stuff for reproduction, etc. etc.

My hypothesis is that man also gets good feeling even if there is no other gain for him, but if there is gain for others. This phenomena may have come to existence because groups containing such people were more likely to survive (like if someone sacrifaced himself to save couple of others, gain for entire group is bigger).

Indeed, people sacrifacting themself and helping other when there is no other gain *DO* feel good when doing so. Soldier throwing himself under tank, even though he has shitted his pants by fear, has some relief knowing that his sacriface will save couple of his comrades. This relief is gain which I meant.

You could object that "feeling good" is more than what I said, but then you have to explain why supplying certain chemicals to brain, makes people feel good. Or why dissecting parts of brain that produces inhibitors for production of good-feeling chemicals, makes people feel constantly good, apathic to anything which will normally sadden them.

Quote:
vid wrote:
Btw, what we know about Jesus is at least in bigger part (if not whole), made up by human uber-super-powered zeal and imagination.
You don't seem to have the same opinion on other historical 'facts' though Wink

AFAIK, I consider made-up anything, that is explained by majority of experts in field as made-up. Double when many of these experts are biased towards conclusion to which they arrived.

Please give some examples of cases you meant.
Post 28 May 2008, 14:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
DJ Mauretto



Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 464
Location: Rome,Italy
DJ Mauretto

_________________
Nil Volentibus Arduum Razz
Post 28 May 2008, 18:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
I prefer another Talk Talk's evergreen It's My Life Smile
Post 29 May 2008, 09:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
"Gain" is getting a good feeling. Good feeling is when your brain produces certain chemicals. Brain produces them in certain situations, usually evolutionary selected to those which hint at successful reproduction: Eating when having lack of building material for body, drinking when having lack of water, resting when short-term energy supplies are depleted, sexual stuff for reproduction, etc. etc.

My hypothesis is that man also gets good feeling even if there is no other gain for him, but if there is gain for others. This phenomena may have come to existence because groups containing such people were more likely to survive (like if someone sacrifaced himself to save couple of others, gain for entire group is bigger).

Indeed, people sacrifacting themself and helping other when there is no other gain *DO* feel good when doing so. Soldier throwing himself under tank, even though he has shitted his pants by fear, has some relief knowing that his sacriface will save couple of his comrades. This relief is gain which I meant.

You could object that "feeling good" is more than what I said, but then you have to explain why supplying certain chemicals to brain, makes people feel good. Or why dissecting parts of brain that produces inhibitors for production of good-feeling chemicals, makes people feel constantly good, apathic to anything which will normally sadden them.
Many psychologists believe that 'chemicals' are not the only thing that makes us 'feel' (I don't know exactly what you mean by 'chemicals' though). What's strange, for me, is the first-person perspective: that is, not when you see effects on others, but on yourself. You could see the so-called chemicals in action, but you can also 'feel' them. The thing with the 'good feelings' or whatever is that they are not one of the five senses, because they are not based from the outside world, it's from within Smile

vid wrote:
Please give some examples of cases you meant.
I've personally known a guy interested in history (he was an expert of some kind, I think), and he confessed that all historical 'resolutions' (sorry for bad translation) are based on a few simple facts (discoveries, that can as well be fake) and a lot of human interpolation. I.e you assume a lot about how the 'evidence' got there, etc.. when you hear about a miracle, history people DO NOT take it as a possible interpolated data (even though it does not contradict the evidence), simply because it is outside their scope of belief. They try to explain more 'normal' ways, if you know what I mean. Even though the weird interpolation in the first place (the miracle thing) DOES NOT contradict the 'facts', again which could be also falsified (the facts I mean).

Please tell me when was the last time you discovered an ancient "weird" object (on TV these days they talk about aliens, seriously) and you believed "maybe it was brought by aliens?" (after all it explains the weird object). You don't even think about that because it's outside your beliefs. Point is, you'll NEVER acknowledge this. You'll stick to "other explanations" that fit with your internal reasoning. I hope you get what I mean, and please excuse my bad translation.

(and when I said 'weird' object, I meant something like a weird alloy of metals, or even impossible, etc..)
Post 29 May 2008, 09:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Many psychologists believe that 'chemicals' are not the only thing that makes us 'feel' (I don't know exactly what you mean by 'chemicals' though)

Of course saying just "chemicals" was a bit simplification from me. More verbosely, I meant complicated processes in brain, which also involve chemicals. But that wasn't sake of my argument, my argument was that good feeling also counts as "personal gain". People do lot of purposeless stuff from which there is no other gain than good feeling.

Quote:
The thing with the 'good feelings' or whatever is that they are not one of the five senses, because they are not based from the outside world, it's from within

They are not *directly* based on external input, but saying that they are not indirectly based on them aswell is very strong supposition, pretty much agains everything we know about working of our psychics. Also, consider example with supplying chemicals (like drugs) to brain can artificially produce good feelings, is this "from within" too?

Quote:
I've personally known a guy interested in history (he was an expert of some kind, I think), and he confessed that all historical 'resolutions' (sorry for bad translation) are based on a few simple facts (discoveries, that can as well be fake) and a lot of human interpolation.

Absolutely, for most of historical "facts", what we have is just few tiny scraps of evidence, and we must choose such interpretation of those, that best fits all available evidence and is most probable. History is not about facts, it's about picking the most probable option, from the pool of all possible options.

Bringing this back to Jesus, after doing lot of studies on subject, i think that most probable explanation is that if there indeed did live some jesus, all we have left from him is bunch of quotation and maybe few heavily distorted narratives. Most of material in Bible NT is much better explained as "made up" (same way as christians consider 99% of nonchristian religious material made up) around that little "real" jesus material, than explained as historical. But this topic is much too lengthy to explain here, unfortunatelly Sad

Quote:
Please tell me when was the last time you discovered an ancient "weird" object (on TV these days they talk about aliens, seriously) and you believed "maybe it was brought by aliens?" (after all it explains the weird object).

This sort of explanation requires very big presupposing (there are technologically developed aliens nearby, they visited earth very recently, they did leave very few traces of their visit, ...). As long as there is explanation that doesn't require so much presupposing, it is better. You can show me some examples of historical evidence that is best explained by aliens, and this explanation fits will with rest of evidence we have?

Invoking aliens to explain something you can't explain right now is bit like Goddidit(TM) universal solution to every problem. But of course, if evidence for this will prevail, I would have no problem accepting it.

PS: Only source I know for this kind of claim are works of Däniken (and his copycats), and those are pretty much discredited.
Post 29 May 2008, 10:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
They are not *directly* based on external input, but saying that they are not indirectly based on them aswell is very strong supposition, pretty much agains everything we know about working of our psychics. Also, consider example with supplying chemicals (like drugs) to brain can artificially produce good feelings, is this "from within" too?
?? Drugs make you 'feel' good but that wasn't the same feel good I was talking about!

Drugs and other 'good feelings' are actually "pleasures", not the 'altruistic' feeling good I was talking about. The latter is more mentally/psychologically determined, and it includes a lot of thinking, not just plain pleasures Smile

vid wrote:
Absolutely, for most of historical "facts", what we have is just few tiny scraps of evidence, and we must choose such interpretation of those, that best fits all available evidence and is most probable. History is not about facts, it's about picking the most probable option, from the pool of all possible options.
That's pretty subjective and IMO I don't have any other 'better' solution (if you want that way) to make it more objective. I only meant people would stop saying that the probabilities are objective and everyone agrees with them, and thus makes their claims true. How most historians talk is like it is objective and 100% true, not just a 'more probable' interpolation (well at least more probable in their minds).

vid wrote:
Invoking aliens to explain something you can't explain right now is bit like Goddidit(TM) universal solution to every problem. But of course, if evidence for this will prevail, I would have no problem accepting it.
It cannot prevail because we will always seek a different solution or option. It goes like this:
Quote:
A miricle happens (and passes a few tests) those tests are flawed and must be redone. How many tests? When does it end?"
To add my 2 cents, well never, because people want a different explanation, they WANT that to not be true Wink
Post 29 May 2008, 11:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Drugs and other 'good feelings' are actually "pleasures", not the 'altruistic' feeling good I was talking about. The latter is more mentally/psychologically determined, and it includes a lot of thinking, not just plain pleasures

What is the difference? To me it appears as if people just wished not to "degrade" what they hold in high esteem to same level to things they hold in low esteem, even though all evidence suggests they are same, with only difference being cultural. Same problem as with saying some alternate states of consciousness are "extended" while others are "degraded", even though both objective and subjective symptoms are same.

But of course, if you know about some evidence of difference between "mentally determined" good feelings and "artificially" induced good feelings, be sure to mention them Wink

Quote:
How most historians talk is like it is objective and 100% true, not just a 'more probable' interpolation (well at least more probable in their minds).

I'd say every historian takes this "choosing most probable" methodology as granted, and doesn't need to rerepeat it always he talks about something. People interesting in history should know anyway. But I agree, that historians should always at least mention few best competing hypotheses, not just the one they prefer - and this DOES happen.

But there is no more objective method than this one I can think of. So even though there is some subjectivity, of course, it's as objective as we can get. And it's not entirely subjective, as you could try to suggest. Let me give you example from bible studies, of synoptic gospels: If you see three histories using exactly same words for same event, then saying they are literaly indepent and written dozen of years after events they describe, is objectively very unprobable (try to let three witnesses write their testimony, and check out probability they will use exactly same words). Hypothesis that they are literaly dependent is much more probable (and that is to what even christians fall back lately, in face of evidence). BTW, if we are to continue discussion on this particular subject, I suggest you to start separate topic. This was meant just as example of how can be probability objective.

Quote:
To add my 2 cents, well never, because people want a different explanation, they WANT that to not be true

Give me some example when this happened - I know of no one.

AFAIK, if there is some unexpected result, scientists inquire into it, and try to explain it. That is how many things were discovered. Current example of this researching rare unexpected results is Cold Fusion.

However, I know of many contrary examples. Miracle claims were many times tested, and no miracle was ever found. But poeple WANT to have miracles, and demand more and more testing. When does it end? For example of some test, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Scientific_studies_of_OBEs

Also, it's not that science doesn't want to test these claims. All people who claim any kind of paranormal power are given opportunity to demonstrate it under proper testing conditions, and win million dollars if they can pass test on which both sides agree. So far, no one was able to pass even preliminary testing on which he agreed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation
Post 29 May 2008, 13:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
But of course, if you know about some evidence of difference between "mentally determined" good feelings and "artificially" induced good feelings, be sure to mention them Wink
The best evidence is yourself -- I don't truly know how others feel, but I'm pretty sure drugs or other meds don't have the same effect on my 'feelings' as altruistic activities, for example. I don't know if this is 'testable' by 'chemical evidence', but I do know they feel different, not as in 'better' or 'more pleasant', but completely different. Maybe we didn't see anything about it from analyzing someone else, but from ourselves, they are two different things.

vid wrote:
Give me some example when this happened - I know of no one.
Far too many alien tests that have been 'rejected' as 'natural cosmologic events' or 'events which we do not understand yet'. I mean, if we are prepared to reject ALL signs like that all the time, why do we even expect signs when we reject them, because hey we prefer to explain them mathematically (you know, living beings have a tendency to be unpredictable Wink).

but anyway this is not the subject of this thread so I'll not be talking about it anymore Very Happy
Post 31 May 2008, 11:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
veach1



Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 165
veach1
I didn`t read all written priviously, but...
thou it is a joke, for me it describes some meaning of life (and death)

two-person-talk:
111: as for me - suicide is eternal solution to the temporary problem
222: I`m buddist, as for me - suicide is temporary solution to the eternal problem
Post 12 Jun 2008, 07:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
it doesnt even make sense if you guys check out
http://www.liveleak.com

they cheers and etc when in fact there are people dead in the bombing... are they crazy or what?
Post 14 Jun 2008, 01:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
victor



Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia
victor
veach1 wrote:
... it is a joke, for me it describes some meaning of life (and death)

two-person-talk:
111: as for me - suicide is eternal solution to the temporary problem
222: I`m buddist, as for me - suicide is temporary solution to the eternal problem
What problem are we talking about? Rolling Eyes

We have better things to do:
- Listen to a beautiful song.
- Do some ASM programming.
- Write some comments for the fasm source code.
- Watch a pornographic movie.
- Daydream dancing with revolution. (Well, that makes me sick! Twisted Evil )
- Read a book entitled "Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes", with ISBN 978-3-540-38501-1.
- Kiss your neglected half.
- Read what other forumers write, as suggested by MHajduk in his "draft of the life plan"! Very Happy

There is no problem at all. Enjoy your life! Razz
Post 14 Jun 2008, 06:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
victor



Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia
victor
It is a remarkable incident in human history. All the best computer scientists in the world meet in Utopia to develop the most advanced computer in the world, which will be called "SkyNet". By incorporating into its super storage all identifiable fields of knowledge in the state of the art, it is believed that SkyNet will be able to solve any problem existing in the Universe.

On the day SkyNet is put into operation, philosophers all over the world arrive at Utopia. They stand in front of SkyNet, longing for the chance to raise the most difficult question in their minds: How did the Universe come about?

After they have entered the question, despite its expeditious processing speed, SkyNet takes almost one minute to find the answer. And the answer goes, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1-1."

"If you would like to have an overall view on an n-dimensional object, you must first place yourself in an (n+1)-dimensional space." – victor
Post 16 Jun 2008, 03:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
veach1



Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 165
veach1
victor wrote:

What problem are we talking about? Rolling Eyes
...
There is no problem at all. Enjoy your life! Razz


Smile meaning of that joke was as: no point of searching the meaning of life, whether you find it or not, you can`t avoid be alive anyway
Post 18 Jun 2008, 13:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
victor wrote:
- Watch a pornographic movie.
Rolling Eyes

BTW: I'm sure SkyNet would make some Terminators Wink
Post 18 Jun 2008, 16:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.