Psychology of mass violence/sadism and mass irrationality.

[MidKnight]

I think that there will eventually be a day where there is no more human violence.
How?
Just look at ourselves!

"Man, Gota is so annoying! I just want to strangle him!"
"Ah screw it, I'm gonna go play some more 8v8 BA DSD."

[dizekat]

I think that there will eventually be a day where there is no more human violence.
How?
Just look at ourselves!

"Man, Gota is so annoying! I just want to strangle him!"
"Ah screw it, I'm gonna go play some more 8v8 BA DSD."

but what if by that day we'll have sentient AIs that will be suffering immensely as characters in the games?

[bobthedinosaur]

well there's also that counter-evolutionary violence, that's what is most interesting... the kind of violence that other animals don't usually have except for very stupid animals like insects.

you speak of evolution like it is an intelligent design...

[dizekat]

well there's also that counter-evolutionary violence, that's what is most interesting... the kind of violence that other animals don't usually have except for very stupid animals like insects.

you speak of evolution like it is an intelligent design...

well, i don't... the intelligent design would be perfect, the evolution however is not but in any place where it is much imperfect (retina being backwards) it is quite interesting question as of why retina is backwards.
In that case, did maybe humans de-evolve and lose some things since appearance of society, the way we lost hair on most of the body? Is it a good change, or is it a bad change which will eventually lead to failure of human ability to cooperate?

[Gota]

"Man, Gota is so annoying! I just want to strangle him!"
"Ah screw it, I'm gonna go play some more 8v8 BA DSD."

What what what?

[Regret]

the intelligent design would be perfect, the evolution however is not but in any place where it is much imperfect (retina being backwards) it is quite interesting question as of why retina is backwards.
In that case, did maybe humans de-evolve and lose some things since appearance of society, the way we lost hair on most of the body? Is it a good change, or is it a bad change which will eventually lead to failure of human ability to cooperate?

I think evolution is more about adapting than "improving".

For something to be perfect, it must fully fulfill certain criteria. Those criteria are made by humans. Perfection in itself is non-existent without a human observer.

Improvement assumes that status A is worse than status B. Perfection is achieved when there is no superior status for certain criteria available. Which is, as mentioned before, only existing when there is a human observer.

[Gota]

Perfection does not exist if there is a human observer...I don't see how a human observer effects something being perfect or inperfect aside from the natural effect of an observer on the object observed.
Endless different perfections exist whether we observe them or not.
Is there perfection without you existing?If you cannot evaluate something or observe it does it mean it does not exist?
Who says there is a requirement for something to formally evaluate something for there to be perfection?

You can say that all that exists is perfect since there is nothing more that exists to be better.

[Regret]

I don't see how a human observer effects something being perfect or inperfect aside from the natural effect of an observer on the object observed.

My point was that perfection is a human abstract that does not exist in reality.

Endless different perfections exist whether we observe them or not.
Is there perfection without you existing?

Give examples of perfections that are not defined by humans. If you do find such example, then define why you think it is perfect. Suddenly the example is human defined and invalid.

If you cannot evaluate something or observe it does it mean it does not exist?

No. It means you don't know whether it exists or not. You can only believe in it.

Who says there is a requirement for something to formally evaluate something for there to be perfection?

You can say that all that exists is perfect since there is nothing more that exists to be better.

If there is no requirement for assigning the descriptor that is perfection, then indeed everything can be labeled as such.

[Gota]

So you think that there is no reality outside of our perception?

[Regret]

So you think that there is no reality outside of our perception?

I think that reality is what remains after you stop perceiving it. Which of course is impossible to determine as far as I know.

[Gota]

Seems that you make some strange distinction between everything and everything when humans are supposedly there....
Perception is just molecules interacting.
Everything is constantly having all sorts of reactions, you when you go outside on a sunny day and pluto when the sun shines on it...

We percieve only a certain "spectrum" of reality so why does it mean things don't exist without our half assed attempt at perceiving it?

I think what you really mean is that things don't necessarily exist if YOU are not there to perceive and think about them.
If you are not aware of all the astronomical information we have gathered, and you are obviously not, does it mean it does not exist?
You have no idea what humanity has perceived already or is perceiving all the time so does it mean that all that does not exist?
You are also not aware of all the information reacting with all the endless objects in existence does it mean they do not exist?

I think it all steams from the fact that somewhere inside you are still unsure if the reality around you exist or if its just all your senses playing tricks on you..

EDITED

[Regret]

Seems that you make some strange distinction between everything and everything when humans are supposedly there....

I only used humans in the perfection/improvement argument as observers. I didn't claim that things suddenly change when there is no observer.

Perception is just molecules interacting.
Everything is constantly having all sorts of reactions, you when you go outside on a sunny day and pluto when the sun shines on it...

Ok.

I think what you really mean is that things don't necessarily exist if YOU are not there to perceive and think about them.

Yes. You interpreted what I said correctly.

I think it all steams from the fact that somewhere inside you are still unsure if the reality around you exist or if its just all your senses playing tricks on you..

No. From your post I feel like you are beginning to target your words against me as a person rather than my arguments. Try to refrain from doing that? Degrades quality of discussion.

We percieve only a certain "spectrum" of reality so why does it mean things don't exist without our half assed attempt at perceiving it?

If you are not aware of all the astronomical information we have gathered, and you are obviously not, does it mean it does not exist?
You have no idea what humanity has perceived already or is perceiving all the time so does it mean that all that does not exist?
You are also not aware of all the information reacting with all the endless objects in existence does it mean they do not exist?

No. It means you don't know whether it exists or not. You can only believe in it.

[Gota]

So tell me before we had telescopes the further away planets of our solar system didnt exist?I mean we didnt see them or "perecieve them"...

[Gota]

No. It means you don't know whether it exists or not. You can only believe in it.

Its like saying i only believe in evolution cause i cant see all the evolutonary processees happening al lthe time...
The assumption other humans percieve things has never been refuted but always supported.

It seems to me it all boils down to a disbeliefe in reality on your part..
Ocum's razor is on my side of the argument imo...
If all points to us having a real live universe around us than thats probably true and not that only you exist and its all a big joke someone is playing on you.

The definition of perfection is indeed ours but we are not seperated from the universe, we base all our understanding on what we recieve through our senses, we are in fact using language to describe what is around us...
Perfection exist if we are here or not, we were just lucky to be here to understand what it means...

[Regret]

So tell me before we had telescopes the further away planets of our solar system didnt exist?I mean we didnt see them or "perecieve them"...

No I have not claimed that. What I claimed and repeated to you already is that unless you can observe something you cannot know whether it exists or not. You can only believe it exists or not. People believed earth was the center of universe.

Its like saying i only believe in evolution cause i cant see all the evolutonary processees happening al lthe time...

From a strictly philosophical point of view, yes.

The assumption other humans percieve things has never been refuted but always supported.

I have not claimed otherwise.

It seems to me it all boils down to a disbeliefe in reality on your part..
Ocum's razor is on my side of the argument imo...
If all points to us having a real live universe around us than thats probably true and not that only you exist and its all a big joke someone is playing on you.

Are you unable to argue without attacking the person talking to you? I have never said anything about "universe playing me". Stop assuming I think so.

The definition of perfection is indeed ours but we are not seperated from the universe, we base all our understanding on what we recieve through our senses, we are in fact using language to describe what is around us...
Perfection exist if we are here or not, we were just lucky to be here to understand what it means...

Then give me an example of perfection and why it is perfect. The reasons you will list that make it perfect will be criteria you or someone else made. These criteria are defined by observers. We define perfection. Not our surroundings.

[Gota]

So tell me before we had telescopes the further away planets of our solar system didnt exist?I mean we didnt see them or "perecieve them"...

No I have not claimed that. What I claimed and repeated to you already is that unless you can observe something you cannot know whether it exists or not. You can only believe it exists or not. People believed earth was the center of universe.

Its like saying i only believe in evolution cause i cant see all the evolutonary processees happening al lthe time...

From a strictly philosophical point of view, yes.

So this basicly means you doubt the nature of scientific research...
If you doubt it what could than be an alternative to it?
A complete underminning of reality as we percive it?
i.e we are being fooled by our senses and what we see and recive from the outside world is ocmpletely bogus?
Right?

[Regret]

So this basicly means you doubt the nature of scientific research...

No I don't doubt it and it's not what it means. Since rest of your questions assume positive answer to first question(?), there is no need to answer.

What it does mean is that I can at most believe in/trust it.

[MidKnight]

"Man, Gota is so annoying! I just want to strangle him!"
"Ah screw it, I'm gonna go play some more 8v8 BA DSD."

What what what?

Just the first person I thought of.

[Panda]

So tell me before we had telescopes the further away planets of our solar system didnt exist?I mean we didnt see them or "perecieve them"...

If the stars are ornaments in the sky are black holes trolls?

[bobthedinosaur]

If you buy this you wont have so many incomplete pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YctWRS ... &q&f=false

Libraries work too