Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: hbarcellos on July 16, 2013, 06:05:29 PM
-
Question is:
-> Why do we(1) keep trying to cultivate the Amiga, knowing that, most probably it's some kind of nostalgic feeling about the surrounding of our life experiences(2) when we first had the original Amigas?
(1) I include myself on it.
(2) Youth, already deceased family members, places, childhood, teenage, ex girlfriends, ...
-
I think a more important question is "Why not?" :)
-
I never had an Amiga growing up; I was a Mac kid. Didn't get my first A500 until 2000, when I was 16. So no nostalgia for a lost childhood here, except in that I remember how, when I was a kid, personal computers were going to be a tool to enrich the lives of the masses and bring a whole new level of creative power to basically everybody, instead of the glorified TVs they're becoming these days.
The Amiga, like 68k Macs, reminds me of those days, and that lost dream; indeed, you could make an argument that the Amiga, in its day, was at the forefront of that. I don't think that's "mere" nostalgia.
(Additionally, the Amiga is a lovely, elegant system design, that deserves a lot more respect than it gets.)
-
Nothing to do with nostalgia for me.... AmigaOS is the only OS I know that I enjoy coding for, using and generally playing around with. Simple as that.
-
Nothing to do with nostalgia for me.... AmigaOS is the only OS I know that I enjoy coding for, using and generally playing around with. Simple as that.
...and you never ask yourself why? Why AmigaOS is the only OS you enjoyed coding/using/playing around with?
C'mon, there are several other flavor of OSes out there, that you can do everything you did with an Amiga and much more....
Wouldn't you call that... nostalgia?
*PS* I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, ok?
-
When I sit down at my PC it's to work, or to check Facebook. When I sit down at my Amiga I want to create music, or paint pictures, or tinker with the configuration to eek out a little more performance... or occasionally to play some old game out of nostalgia. It's a totally different feeling between the two. :)
-
Why? If you'd ever tried coding for Windows or Linux you'd understand :)
AmigaOS is fast, responsive, configurable and does what I tell it to in a nice understandable way that no other OS does for me.
Nostalgia doesn't enter into it.
(now my ZX81 on the other hand :) )
-
Why? If you'd ever tried coding for Windows or Linux you'd understand :)
AmigaOS is fast, responsive, configurable and does what I tell it to in a nice understandable way that no other OS does for me.
As a matter of fact, I did. Even working in a management position nowadays, I have a significant coding experience ranging from Z80/8086 ASM (MSX/PC)/ to ObjectiveC with even some Mainframe Natural Adabas in the middle.
About being fast, responsive and configurable, have you ever tried Windows XP on a really fast machine? How about even Windows 8 on one of those extreme SSDs machines? I can tell you by own experience, boots faster than my 040 A1200.
And then, you can go as roots as you want, ranging from TASM, TCC, GCC, Visual C 6.0 or even the newer Visual Studio...
What get's my attention is the word you used "Understandable". And/or the word "me" at the end.
...again... Nostalgia? Because, I agree with your feelings, but, I suspect the cause is nostalgia.
-
Yes, I've tried XP and Windows 8 - my machine at work runs 8 x64 on an SSD and it's very quick, actually. For the most part, it's the only machine I've used that rivals AmigaOS for responsiveness. And yes, I'd expect a 2013 PC running a 400MB/s SSD to outperform a 1992 Amiga 1200. :) I compare with my own Sam440ep and A1XE (I can't afford an X1000) particularly, although my CSPPC A4000 is still very impressive.
But none of that can change the coding. I've always hated Windows coding ever since the word "WM_PAINT" was first ingrained into my memory. The whole way Windows works is hideous, and whereas AmigaOS now contains Reaction (with which a capable GUI can be built very quickly), Microsoft prefer travesties like MFC and now the Metro interface (which to be fair I've not tried yet).
As usual, it's horses for courses, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on the old "my OS is better than your OS". But one thing is certain, and I can answer your original question (and I'll make this as clearly as possible):
My choice of OS is nothing to do with nostalgia. It is just a preference.
Now the less succinct version :) :
I think there is a tendency sometimes for people to label things that are "old" as "nostalgic", when it's not correct. For instance:
I have a large record collection, and few CDs. Is it nostalgia? No, I just prefer the warm analogue sound to the clinical, digital sound of a CD.
I listen to old music, mostly 60s and 70s. Nostalgia? No, I wasn't even born then. I just think it's more rewarding (give me some nice Rock, Prog, Jazz or something over modern music any day)
My favourite film is "The Producers" from 1967. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome film.
My wife spent most of the evening playing Sonic on the Megadrive. Nostalgia? No, it's just a very good game.
My favourite platform of choice is the Amiga. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome platform to use and develop on.
-
I think there is a tendency sometimes for people to label things that are "old" as "nostalgic", when it's not correct. For instance:
I have a large record collection, and few CDs. Is it nostalgia? No, I just prefer the warm analogue sound to the clinical, digital sound of a CD.
I listen to old music, mostly 60s and 70s. Nostalgia? No, I wasn't even born then. I just think it's more rewarding (give me some nice Rock, Prog, Jazz or something over modern music any day)
My favourite film is "The Producers" from 1967. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome film.
My wife spent most of the evening playing Sonic on the Megadrive. Nostalgia? No, it's just a very good game.
My favourite platform of choice is the Amiga. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome platform to use and develop on.
Exactly. There's this notion that anybody who prefers older things can only be doing so out of irrational nostalgia, because...blind faith that new is always inherently better than old, I guess. Question society's blind devotion to Progress (and they always confuse mere motion with real progress,) and you're just some stupid romantic who must be afraid of change! Certainly it can't possibly be that you actually, honestly believe that a newer development is a step backwards or anything.
-
My reasons are a combination. I enjoy it more than my PC, there is also some nostalgia. I got back into because of nostalgia and now the other half calls it an addiction.
She can't understand why I keep hacking away at it when the Amiga keeps falling over, and I keep fixing it and modding it further. LOL.
I must admit I prefer records, I still have a turntable and a record collection but no stereo to connect it to anymore.
-
^^^ Russian proverb: New is first enemy of old. ;)
-
I wonder what the incidence rate of individuals who fall within the Autistic Spectrum are within the Amiga community (or even retro computing communities in general) is compared with society as a whole?
I'd be willing to wager it is pretty high.
-
That's a great question hbarcellos, for me it is the original architecture of the Amiga system, be that the hardware (which is now totally redundant when compared to even the most basic machine- ie raspberry pi). But far more interesting is the Operating system, and I'm keen to know how the Amiga OS architecture works on modern hardware, for that reason I'm involved with the AROS project (and have been for nearly 15 years), which unlike the other "next gen" amiga OS projects, is AmigaOS 3.1 running on modern hardware, and I find that exciting.
-
I wonder what the incidence rate of individuals who fall within the Autistic Spectrum are within the Amiga community (or even retro computing communities in general) is compared with society as a whole?
I'd be willing to wager it is pretty high.
Based on what? The idiotic Hollywood stereotype that "autistic" = "Rain Man?" The tendencies of self-diagnosed 'spergies?
-
But none of that can change the coding.
C# with Visual Studio 2010 and .NET framework 2.0 can change that. But it can't change that when you start developing new piece of software for mainstream system someone else has done it already. ;)
-
I wonder what the incidence rate of individuals who fall within the Autistic Spectrum are within the Amiga community (or even retro computing communities in general) is compared with society as a whole?
I'd be willing to wager it is pretty high.
Don't know much about autism, but I tend to think of it as an OCD. I have been known to spend hours tweaking each individual pixel of my icons and window spacing to make them exactly how I want them, it sets my nerves on edge to see anyone post screenshots using standard Workbench 3.1 icons. ;)
Like Clu from Tron: Legacy - building the perfect system!
-
I wonder what the incidence rate of individuals who fall within the Autistic Spectrum are within the Amiga community (or even retro computing communities in general) is compared with society as a whole?
I'd be willing to wager it is pretty high.
I reckon it's exactly the same proportion as in the world community as a whole.... I don't see why a difference in taste should denote autism?
-
C# with Visual Studio 2010 and .NET framework 2.0 can change that. But it can't change that when you start developing new piece of software for mainstream system someone else has done it already. ;)
Exactly that! So I'm not alone after all. :) Do something for Windows or Linux and you're more than likely re-re-re-re-inventing the wheel. Yet there are so many ways with AmigaOS we can still contribute - so many programs not yet written or ported. In other words, AmigaOS has so much more potential when it comes to coding - you can do something and it's useful, and people appreciate it. That is a Good Thing(tm).
-
Based on what? The idiotic Hollywood stereotype that "autistic" = "Rain Man?" The tendencies of self-diagnosed 'spergies?
Based on being the father of a child with Autism.
Oh and having taught Computer Science at college to young adults who fall within the spectrum too.
Next.
-
Don't know much about autism, but I tend to think of it as an OCD. I have been known to spend hours tweaking each individual pixel of my icons and window spacing to make them exactly how I want them, it sets my nerves on edge to see anyone post screenshots using standard Workbench 3.1 icons. ;)
Like Clu from Tron: Legacy - building the perfect system!
:)
I think having the feeling (whether perceived or actual) of total control over the system is a major part of the attraction/addiction.
-
I reckon it's exactly the same proportion as in the world community as a whole.... I don't see why a difference in taste should denote autism?
It's the aspect of perceived/actual total control over the system that appears to feed the need for order that using limited computers can provide that makes me think the ratio might be higher.
-
Based on being the father of a child with Autism.
Oh and having taught Computer Science at college to young adults who fall within the spectrum too.
Next.
Okay, then you do have experience with the subject. (Big brother of an autistic-spectrum kid here.) I would, however, expect that that should make you less likely to throw the term around in relation to any old fringe culture...
It's the aspect of perceived/actual total control over the system that appears to feed the need for order that using limited computers can provide that makes me think the ratio might be higher.
So liking control and involvement means you're likely autistic? What about hotrodding enthusiasts? They like classic cars for basically the same reasons...
-
There's this notion that anybody who prefers older things can only be doing so out of irrational nostalgia
But who the hell ever said humans are rational?
-
I think there's a massive difference between the autistic/OCD elements, and those of people who enjoy tinkering.
I can't claim to know much about autism or OCD, not suffering from either (despite, it seems, being an Amiga user), but my understanding is that someone with OCD has to get things the way they feel it should be. I think people who don't have OCD can still enjoy tinkering with things, and can still want things to be "just right" - I don't think that counts as a disorder, though; I think it counts as "being human". We all have it to some extent or another.
Most hobbies that I know of involve being very particular about things - stamp collectors have to have a nice neat postmark or full gum. Coin collectors have to have the correct patina. Record collectors have to have the right pressing. Car collectors have to get rid of every bit of rust or dirt. That sort of thing. And most people have a hobby of some kind.
Given that most people I know have something somewhere they're particular about, I think it's just part of being a homo sapiens.
-
But who the hell ever said humans are rational?
Haven't you heard, Thorham? On the Internet, you are always rational, logical, and objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is a blithering, irrational, sentimental loony!
-
...and you never ask yourself why? Why AmigaOS is the only OS you enjoyed coding/using/playing around with?
C'mon, there are several other flavor of OSes out there, that you can do everything you did with an Amiga and much more....
Wouldn't you call that... nostalgia?
I'm also a late starter (got my first Amiga about 6 years ago). I'd still call my interest nostalgia even though I never had one back-in-the-day. I guess what interests me is that fact that it was so good in it's day (I really wanted one), it's also because it should have been so much more than it was and finally it's the fact that there is still so much interest in it. If it wasn't for the fact that I stumbled across active Amiga forums 6 years ago I never would have thought about buying one for the first time :)
-
Answer is:
Nostalgia. Pure, unadulterated, and self-indulgent.
Now, others will state all sorts of "reasons" like "it's a hobby" or "the other systems don't allow me to tinker", but behind it all is just nostalgia.
If you look at the 'distribution of innovation' model, the last phase/group is referred to as Laggards, and in the late '90s and early 2000s Amiga users would have fallen in this category, but we are way past this point. Whilst our ranks have a few detractors we are mostly in it for the nostalgia. On a daily basis we will use Windows/Linux/Mac OS X computers, and tablets and smartphones and games consoles and other useful gadgets, we have an Amiga to remind us of another time when things were simpler and we were part of the few that 'got it'. Like a weirdly functional photograph or a mosquito in amber that can still fly around.
I too am one of these, I have a fully functional OS3.9 A1200 w/040. Alas, it has more in common with a typewriter than a contemporary computing device. But that's a whole other philosophical topic.
-
Yeah you be pretty hard pressed to find forums users 10 years on, on most forums these days. Yet most of us have endured! why? who knows.
I see My Amiga500 as a platform. That has limitations, The limitations imposed are what give
it personality!.. those 4096 colors I'm sure we have all seen hundreds of times. in fact alot of us can probably give out the hex code to a color we see on the screen lol!
The Amiga has something other computers don't. And its not because I was using one when I was 14. Now that I'm 33 i don't think its a nostalgia thing. But then again who knows how ones mind works...
The Amiga will never rise again as a new platform, simply because it doesn't need one.
The platform it filled is still there.
(ps i think this is my longest post in 10 years lol)
-
Haven't you heard, Thorham? On the Internet, you are always rational, logical, and objectively correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is a blithering, irrational, sentimental loony!
Ha ha, indeed :D
Answer is:
Nostalgia. Pure, unadulterated, and self-indulgent.
Sure it is... for you, and you can't speak for everyone.
we have an Amiga to remind us of another time when things were simpler and we were part of the few that 'got it'.
Can you please stop speaking for everyone? I have an Amiga because I like Amiga computers, and most certainly not to remind of 'simpler' times.
Alas, it has more in common with a typewriter than a contemporary computing device.
What an absolute nonsense :rolleyes:
-
For me, the appeal is nostalgia. Plus you can't simply replicate playing games
on a real Amiga, No emulator gets them all quite right.
At the same time, I'm sure there are people putting Amigas to practical and
productive uses today where other platforms or their software might fall short.
It's also a very good platform to recieve the hardware modifications about.
A lot of people would derive satisfaction that way.
-
I had a C64 in my teen years and dreamed of owning the Amiga 1000 as there was a Commodore/Amiga dealer a bike ride away from my house and every Saturday morning I would ride my bike there and stare in awe at the A1000 for hours upon hours. Man in 1985 it WAS THE computer hands down and to this very day I'd throw away every piece of electronics in my house if I had to but never my A1000.
I've used almost all the OS's but always AmigaOS feels like coming home. In my 20's I decided to sell my Amiga 1200 with Blizzard 030 as I needed to use AutoCad for school and alas I had to get my first PC to do so. The regret I had once I sold it was indescribable!
of course I got it back years after...along with other Amiga goodies :-)
-
I had a C64 in my teen years and dreamed of owning the Amiga 1000 as there was a Commodore/Amiga dealer a bike ride away from my house and every Saturday morning I would ride my bike there and stare in awe at the A1000 for hours upon hours. Man in 1985 it WAS THE computer hands down and to this very day I'd throw away every piece of electronics in my house if I had to but never my A1000.
I've used almost all the OS's but always AmigaOS feels like coming home. In my 20's I decided to sell my Amiga 1200 with Blizzard 030 as I needed to use AutoCad for school and alas I had to get my first PC to do so. The regret I had once I sold it was indescribable!
of course I got it back years after...along with other Amiga goodies :-)
If it's about nostalgia, I don't think it is any less valid.
Bernd Schmidt said in his interview that his vision for UAE was narrowly
defined to the specs of the A500, because that's the computer he had,
and that's not a programmer talking.
There has to be merit to the fact that the Amiga is that thing that connects
your present to your past. My first microwave oven does not do that for me.
-
Question is:
-> Why do we(1) keep trying to cultivate the Amiga, knowing that, most probably it's some kind of nostalgic feeling about the surrounding of our life experiences(2) when we first had the original Amigas?
(1) I include myself on it.
(2) Youth, already deceased family members, places, childhood, teenage, ex girlfriends, ...
Do you understand that "nostalgia" refers to the distant past?
Today is 2013, not the distant past.
Things that happen in 2013 cannot be nostalgia.
In 2013, AmigaDOS is vastly superior to MSDOS on Windoze XP and Windows7.
In 2013, AmigaDOS is vastly superior to Linux DOS, BSD DOS, Unix DOS, etc.
This is today, not the distant past.
Do you do actual work with your computer? Or do u just play games?
Have you ever tried to do a List, Rename, Delete, or Copy with those other OSes?
Why don't you write out how to do them in the other OSes and how you do them with the Amiga? Look it up. Use a book or use Google.
In 2013 all Amiga MUI software is vastly superior to all WinozeXP, Windows 7, and Linux software. Amiga MUI software allows the user to actually change the damn fonts (or just change the size) to a readable size/style without having the text flow outside the window like always happens on my WindozeXP box. Software on Windoze and Linux is downright user hostile in its Nazi-Stalinist-Dictatorial GUIs of "Do it the way I hardcoded it OR DIE!"
Amiga MUI software allows every aspect of the GUI to be user controlled and customized and is lightyears ahead of Linux, Unix, BSD, WindowsXP, Windows7, etc. in 2013.
Or how about filesearching. I had a 2TB harddrive that I had to repeatedly search for the existence of files. I had to do hundreds of searches. It was ridiculously slow. Every search took 24 to 30 minutes on my 1500 Mhz PC.
So I used a search program (with fancy pattern matching) that I wrote in asm on the Amiga back around 1990 for BBSes. It completed each search in around 7 seconds on my 50Mhz 060.
My 50 Mhz Amiga is 257x faster than my 1500 Mhz pc.
On a Mhz for Mhz basis my Amiga is 7,714x faster than my worthless WindozeXP PC.
That is today in 2013.
-
...Alas, it has more in common with a typewriter than a contemporary computing device.
Quick, power up the electric chair!
:smack:
-
I had a A4000 with 030 and Picasso graphic card and sold (with huge losses) when I got my first PC (including lots of software) and today regret it too...
Of course it has to do with "nostalgia" but that is not the whole story. I am self-employed and have the "fun" to do support/network for some customers on the different versions of Windows and I like "Amiga" more every day because of that :-). It is not that the times were "simple" back then but the system and concepts were. And in many areas AmigaOS was far ahead of competition (f.e. installing drivers by copying files). I think there is at least a chance for the platform but of course it must be "Amiga 2.0" so to say. It will certainly not a revival of 68k as a mainstream platform but 68k will play a important part in it, not just because of nostalgia (f.e. playing old games) but because of the huge distribution chances with UAE running almost on every system today including mobile devices. That is my "dream", not nostalgia but a revive of the platform as commercial market (of course much smaller than Windows or Linux or Mac but big enough for commercial indy developers). I do not think that this is "nostalgia".
-
Yeah nostalgia is a big part of it. The Amiga was where I first learned about programming, it's what launched me into IT all those years ago. It harkens back to a simpler past, one processor, one user, etc.
Why do people tinker with old cars? old radios? old anything? Because their simplicity is charming.
-
In 2013, AmigaDOS is vastly superior to MSDOS on Windoze XP and Windows7.
In 2013, AmigaDOS is vastly superior to Linux DOS, BSD DOS, Unix DOS, etc.
I'm not sure what exactly you're comparing, if it's shells you're talking about then PowerShell on Windows is superior to the Amiga shell.
The Amiga lost it's superiority in the mid 1990's. There were too many compromises made to make it fast on a 68000, which ultimately held it back. I switched from Amiga to PC when Windows XP came out.
A Raspberry PI is faster than an Amiga. Anyone programming an Amiga today is doing it purely for nostalgia or fear of moving on.
-
Anyone programming an Amiga today is doing it purely for nostalgia or fear of moving on.
Or perhaps because they enjoy it? It's a HOBBY after all :rolleyes:
-
A Raspberry PI is faster than an Amiga. Anyone programming an Amiga today is doing it purely for nostalgia or fear of moving on.
I think it comes to something when even on an "Amiga" forum, you have difficulty making people realise that the Amiga is just as much fun to program for now as it always was. This kind of attitude used to be limited to PC/Linux/Mac forums.
If other people do it for nostalgia or fear or whatever then great, and if people want to believe that the rest of us only do it for nostalgia, then that's their choice, but they're completely ignoring the real reasons (e.g. enjoyment, coding for a developing (still) environment, coding for a small(ish) community, coding to support development of AmigaOS - there are so many reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with nostalgia).
Why does it have to be nostalgia? Why can't it just be the simple explanation - that some of us just prefer the Amiga to the other OSes?
-
I'm not sure what exactly you're comparing, if it's shells you're talking about then PowerShell on Windows is superior to the Amiga shell.
The Amiga lost it's superiority in the mid 1990's. There were too many compromises made to make it fast on a 68000, which ultimately held it back. I switched from Amiga to PC when Windows XP came out.
A Raspberry PI is faster than an Amiga. Anyone programming an Amiga today is doing it purely for nostalgia or fear of moving on.
why always the negativity? Nobody expects that "Amiga" (in whatever form) will become mainstream and beat Windows. Many developers who are left are programming on Windows or for embedded platforms and have "no fear of moving on". It is a nice little platform and in many areas more elegant than huge platforms like Windows or Linux. Let people enjoy it and not search for negativity. We have a nice warm summer day here with blue sky and therefore no need for negative comments.
-
It gives me a strange sense of smug satisfaction to know that I'm using a computer that is older than some of my friends.
-
lol
-
Anyone programming an Amiga today is doing it purely for nostalgia or fear of moving on.
People only voluntarily do things for one of 2 reasons:
A: They are paid to do the thing.
B: They do the thing for fun.
Which one of those do you think applies to Amiga programming?
-
A? :-)
-
People only voluntarily do things for one of 2 reasons:
A: They are paid to do the thing.
B: They do the thing for fun.
Which one of those do you think applies to Amiga programming?
A & B for me :P
Best thing is, unlike with most coding for other platforms, I get to do both A and B at the same time with the same project!
-
why always the negativity?
It's not a negative view point, it's a neutral view point. It just doesn't tie up with the overly positive view point that people seem to have.
Many developers who are left are programming on Windows or for embedded platforms and have "no fear of moving on".
I don't believe anyone who suggests that AmigaDOS is superior to every other operating system is seriously programming on any other platform. But I don't believe there is anybody making a living from programming the Amiga.
I can understand people programming for fun & limiting yourself to an ancient architecture makes the challenge even harder. I just don't get people trying to justify it in logical terms.
-
it does not make the "challenge harder" because the system might be more complex but you have much better development environments than on any amiga-platform. That is one of the weaknesses today. I agree that "Amiga" is not superior today even though the system is much more elegant and adaptable than the "more bloated" modern OSs. "Bloated" here means much more overhead and they were programmed for resource-rich environments whereas AmigaOS runs on even limited systems. You can see on AROS 68k how hard it is to get even near the efficiency of AmigaOS 68k.
Modern development environments are what we would need most.
-
I don't believe anyone who suggests that AmigaDOS is superior to every other operating system is seriously programming on any other platform. But I don't believe there is anybody making a living from programming the Amiga.
I don't think many people are saying it's superior just that it's more enjoyable.. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages.
I agree there are precious few people making a living from programming the Amiga, but it's still perfectly possible to supplement an income with Amiga work if you look in the right places.
-
And I think all of us have our feet in the OSX/iOS/Linux/Android/Windows world that is out there. We're not Rip van Winkles living in the past. It's a hobby, how do you judge or justify a hobby? You don't, you just enjoy it.
-
Now the less succinct version :) :
I think there is a tendency sometimes for people to label things that are "old" as "nostalgic", when it's not correct. For instance:
I have a large record collection, and few CDs. Is it nostalgia? No, I just prefer the warm analogue sound to the clinical, digital sound of a CD.
I listen to old music, mostly 60s and 70s. Nostalgia? No, I wasn't even born then. I just think it's more rewarding (give me some nice Rock, Prog, Jazz or something over modern music any day)
My favourite film is "The Producers" from 1967. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome film.
My wife spent most of the evening playing Sonic on the Megadrive. Nostalgia? No, it's just a very good game.
My favourite platform of choice is the Amiga. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome platform to use and develop on.
+1
I couldn't have put it better myself. Plus, as a side note, there's more detail in those grooves than any digital audio format.
-
Have you ever tried to do a List, Rename, Delete, or Copy with those other OSes?
Yep, I just press F2.
In 2013 all Amiga MUI software is vastly superior to all WinozeXP, Windows 7, and Linux software. Amiga MUI software allows the user to actually change the damn fonts (or just change the size) to a readable size/style without having the text flow outside the window like always happens on my WindozeXP box. Software on Windoze and Linux is downright user hostile in its Nazi-Stalinist-Dictatorial GUIs of "Do it the way I hardcoded it OR DIE!"
Amiga MUI software allows every aspect of the GUI to be user controlled and customized and is lightyears ahead of Linux, Unix, BSD, WindowsXP, Windows7, etc. in 2013.
Well, I'm not a hardcore modder of the OS look & feel. But, common sense tells me that assuming that: 1) You can code in ASM and + 2) Linux/kde/gnome/xfce, for example, are all Open Source and Amiga is not = You can probably customize every little tiny aspect of a linux box way more than you could dream on an Amiga.
Or how about filesearching. I had a 2TB harddrive that I had to repeatedly search for the existence of files. I had to do hundreds of searches. It was ridiculously slow. Every search took 24 to 30 minutes on my 1500 Mhz PC.
So I used a search program (with fancy pattern matching) that I wrote in asm on the Amiga back around 1990 for BBSes. It completed each search in around 7 seconds on my 50Mhz 060.
So, I bet you tried to adapt your ASM code to 8086, right? It was still 257x slower than your WindozeXP?? Or you just refuse to code for 8086?
And finally, I couldn't agree more with Art:
If it's about nostalgia, I don't think it is any less valid.
We all have our reasons. What's important is not finding a common cause for it.
-
There are a lot of examples everywhere:
(http://www.serenityimage.co.uk/v/tp/111/234/996737215_4_blue-riley-vintage-sports-car.jpg)
Can you find someone saying that this car is faster than a Bugatti Veyron? (a.k. Mr. ChaosLord)
But I bet there are several saying that the experience of driving one of those is better.
-
There are a lot of examples everywhere:
(http://www.serenityimage.co.uk/v/tp/111/234/996737215_4_blue-riley-vintage-sports-car.jpg)
Can you find someone saying that this car is faster than a Bugatti Veyron? (a.k. Mr. ChaosLord)
But I bet there are several saying that the experience of driving one of those is better.
No but if you would put in the same engine as the bugati then you would blast the bugati from the road :-)
the difference is efficency. Of course you have today much better hardware (or using your analogy a much better engine) so efficency is not needed anymore. And you have direct access to the "engine" without layers between so you can add some PS :-)
-
+1
I couldn't have put it better myself. Plus, as a side note, there's more detail in those grooves than any digital audio format.
Yes, including resonance and noise. But detail none the less. Most of us cloth eared gits (over 25) cant hear above 15Khz anyway. Which has benefits 'cos we cant hear the high pitched squeal of our 1084s.
But analogue certainly provides a different sound timbre.
On topic: perhaps we just don't like to see something that gave us so much interest and pleasure go the way of the Dodo. So perhaps its more psychological than philosophical....
-
Off topic:
A good record player and a good record will have very little noise or resonance, and the detail is astounding - especially when compared to a CD. Admittedly you need a really good set-up, but it's quite possible (my Linn set-up being an example!)
On-topic:
Honestly, it's not psychological. It's not philosophical. It's not pathological, and it's not pataphysical.
It's just that some of us enjoy using Amigas more than we enjoy other computers. That's it. Really! There's no hidden meaning, no secret desires of surreptitious ambitions, we just simply prefer using an Amiga!
-
No but if you would put in the same engine as the bugati then you would blast the bugati from the road :-)
You would blast yourself from the road, I suspect.
-
No but if you would put in the same engine as the bugati then you would blast the bugati from the road :-)
the difference is efficency. Of course you have today much better hardware (or using your analogy a much better engine) so efficency is not needed anymore. And you have direct access to the "engine" without layers between so you can add some PS :-)
Hmmm, there are other improvements as well, not only the engine.
About "Direct Access", I agree. But the reason why they don't do that anymore (IMHO) (Windows, at least) is because they have to support a very large selection of hardware. It's impossible to do unless you have some abstraction layers. But, I think we might be moving away from that. Apple seems to be heading to that direction constructing iOS. At a certain level, they know exactly what to expect and they would be able to use more the true power of the hardware...
-
Or perhaps because they enjoy it? It's a HOBBY after all :rolleyes:
No, it couldn't possibly be that. If people were using it because they knowingly admire or enjoy it, then we couldn't sneer at them for being irrational, scaredy-cat recidivists!
-
You would blast yourself from the road, I suspect.
Propably... but it would the fastest drive of all times :-)
-
Hmmm, there are other improvements as well, not only the engine.
About "Direct Access", I agree. But the reason why they don't do that anymore (IMHO) (Windows, at least) is because they have to support a very large selection of hardware. It's impossible to do unless you have some abstraction layers. But, I think we might be moving away from that. Apple seems to be heading to that direction constructing iOS. At a certain level, they know exactly what to expect and they would be able to use more the true power of the hardware...
I hope that AROS will come to a point somewhen in future with full multicore support. AROS running natively on newest hardware with full support that would certainly become the fastest platform on earth. Of course if you call it "Amiga" or not then is a matter of definition.
-
I hope that AROS will come to a point somewhen in future with full multicore support. AROS running natively on newest hardware with full support that would certainly become the fastest platform on earth. Of course if you call it "Amiga" or not then is a matter of definition.
That would be very cool indeed, but I reckon MenuetOS might be a tad faster. :)
http://www.menuetos.net
-
it does not make the "challenge harder" because the system might be more complex but you have much better development environments than on any amiga-platform.
I don't think you read what I wrote. I was saying that it's more challenging to write Amiga software. Anything you can do on an Amiga in assembler you can do in C# on a modern PC and it's much easier to write the code and debug it.
"Bloated" here means much more overhead and they were programmed for resource-rich environments whereas AmigaOS runs on even limited systems.
Instead of bloated, you should use "feature rich". A lot of the overhead comes from features that everyone wants in AmigaOS/AROS that would completely break every piece of Amiga software ever and make it run much slower.
You can see on AROS 68k how hard it is to get even near the efficiency of AmigaOS 68k.
AROS 68k is slow because nobody has spent the time to make it fast. It would have helped if they'd had x86 & 68k versions on day one. Microsoft went through the same pain with Windows on ARM, which means that Windows 8 on x86 is faster than previous versions.
-
Sure it is... for you, and you can't speak for everyone.
Can you please stop speaking for everyone?
What an absolute nonsense :rolleyes:
Sure I can, I am eminently qualified to do so and am often asked to do just that.
My qualifications aside, the defensive responses you and others have made in response to the original philosophical question are revealing enough, but here is some science to go with what I'm stating:
If you, myself, or any other Amiga user who originally used an Amiga in the late '80s and early '90s were placed in an FMRI and then you, me, or any of them engaged in their favourite use of the Amiga i.e. playing a game, modifying the GUI/MUI, coding; the areas of the brain that would light up would be the same as those relating to nostalgia.
There have been numerous neurological and psychological experiments done on the subject of nostalgia, by all means do your own research to better inform yourself.
-
Sure I can, I am eminently qualified to do so and am often asked to do just that.
Of course you are :lol:
the defensive responses you and others have made in response to the original philosophical question are revealing enough
Just responding to what I see as pure nonsense.
but here is some science to go with what I'm stating:
If you, myself, or any other Amiga user who originally used an Amiga in the late '80s and early '90s were placed in an FMRI and then you, me, or any of them engaged in their favourite use of the Amiga i.e. playing a game, modifying the GUI/MUI, coding; the areas of the brain that would light up would be the same as those relating to nostalgia.
There have been numerous neurological and psychological experiments done on the subject of nostalgia, by all means do your own research to better inform yourself.
I don't need science to tell me how I feel. The very notion is absurd.
-
Sure I can, I am eminently qualified to do so and am often asked to do just that.
Really? Do tell! Where does one go to get a degree in Speaking for Absolutely Goddam Everyone?
My qualifications aside, the defensive responses you and others have made in response to the original philosophical question are revealing enough
Ooh, fun. It's been far too long since we had an amateur armchair-psychology smackdown.
If you, myself, or any other Amiga user who originally used an Amiga in the late '80s and early '90s were placed in an FMRI and then you, me, or any of them engaged in their favourite use of the Amiga i.e. playing a game, modifying the GUI/MUI, coding; the areas of the brain that would light up would be the same as those relating to nostalgia.
There have been numerous neurological and psychological experiments done on the subject of nostalgia, by all means do your own research to better inform yourself.
But tell me, what about those of us who didn't use an Amiga way back when? Obviously we can't have the level of nostalgia you're implying here, since we don't have a history with it.
And I'd like to know by what line of reasoning nostalgia and knowingly-considered positive assessments are mutually exclusive, anyway.
-
Really? Do tell! Where does one go to get a degree in Speaking for Absolutely Goddam Everyone?
Political Sciences at pretty much any university.
But tell me, what about those of us who didn't use an Amiga way back when? Obviously we can't have the level of nostalgia you're implying here, since we don't have a history with it.
Nostalgia only applies to something experienced in the past, so obviously a person who gets on an Amiga today for the first time cannot be nostalgic. That wasn't what the original question was about.
And I'd like to know by what line of reasoning nostalgia and knowingly-considered positive assessments are mutually exclusive, anyway.
One is related to sense memory and the other isn't.
-
Political Sciences at pretty much any university.
Cute.
Nostalgia only applies to something experienced in the past, so obviously a person who gets on an Amiga today for the first time cannot be nostalgic. That wasn't what the original question was about.
The original question made no such distinctions, using an unqualified "we" and implying that any such reactions were unlikely to be due to anything but nostalgia.
One is related to sense memory and the other isn't.
I didn't ask what the difference was, I asked where this idea that you can't have nostalgic fondness for something and at the same time have a conscious, reasoned appreciation for it comes from.
-
I didn't ask what the difference was, I asked where this idea that you can't have nostalgic fondness for something and at the same time have a conscious, reasoned appreciation for it comes from.
It has been conclusively proven that in the presence of sense memory surrounding a subject matter, be it positive or negative, a person can never form an objective assessment related to the same subject matter. It has to do with how the amygdala consolidates emotion originating in the limbic brain with other related aspects from higher level brain functions into the hippocampus.
The limbic brain is very simple, there aren't multiple areas for the different kinds of love one may feel i.e. love of a partner, love of a child, love of a friend or family member, love of a pet, or love of inanimate objects. All those hit the same area. Of course with differing intensity and also filtered through some of the higher brains to provide context. Same goes for dislike or hate. And with animals and inanimate objects like a car or a computer we assist this emotional bond through anthropomorphism.
We can certainly discuss things objectively and we can produce written materials that read objectively, when we think about them in absence of any emotional context. But the instant we start adding adjectives describing emotions like 'I enjoy' or 'it's fun', we are automatically applying a subjective view.
-
If you, myself, or any other Amiga user who originally used an Amiga in the late '80s and early '90s were placed in an FMRI and then you, me, or any of them engaged in their favourite use of the Amiga i.e. playing a game, modifying the GUI/MUI, coding; the areas of the brain that would light up would be the same as those relating to nostalgia.
Sure, when I'm playing a game of Cannon Fodder, the nostalgic response would trigger.
BUT (and it's a big but)....
So would the part of the brain governing enjoyment. The fact that there are nostalgic impulses in the brain does not over-ride or replace the same impulse that were triggered in the first place. It's not just nostalgic, it's an enjoyment. If you take away the nostalgic influence, and put us in the FMRI right now, it would still trigger the enjoyment parts of the brain.
For instance: if I play Cannon Fodder now, I get a nostalgic "glow", and also enjoyment from playing it. But if I fire up a game I've never played before, such as "Defender of the Crown", I just get the enjoyment. There is no nostalgia as I've not done it before.
"Ah!", you're probably thinking, "but the association is still there as you're using the same computer".
But what if I play it on a different computer? Is it still nostalgia? I'm not using the same computer, nor the same game. It's a new experience to me. Does that stop me enjoying it? Of course not. Maybe you'd say that I associate the different computer with my old one, but we're getting a bit tenuous here.
Maybe you'd say that the technology reminds me of the time, and it's the time I'm nostalgic for.... but in that case what about youngsters? My wife was playing Sonic recently, and she never had Sonic and was born in 1990. Was it nostalgia? Of course not, she grew up for the most part in the 2000's. When she enjoys an Amiga game, is she nostalgic? No, she just enjoys it. Heck, she loves playing Wizard War on my Dragon 32 and she's about 8 years younger that game!
And now we come to another point. When I was growing up, I wasn't coding PCI drivers for Amigas in ANSI C. I was using Sinclair BASIC to write little games and stuff. The two are completely different, I never did these things back then, so how can I get nostalgic? My AmigaOS 4 machine is completely different to what I was using back then, the only similarity is the OS, but even that is far advanced from what I had in the 90's.
Sure, nostalgia plays a part in many uses of the Amiga, but NOT ALL of them.
Call me defensive, delusional, whatever, but sweeping generalisations about everybody in any one group is not good psychology! Just because one person in a set associates using an Amiga with his childhood does not mean that the same holds true for the rest of us. We are all different. As a psychologist you will know how complicated the brain can be. There are any number of sensory experiences associated with our actions, nostalgia is but one of a million.
Saying that everybody has the same reason for using a particular computer is completely indefensible. You might as well blame it on our parents.
-
My favourite film is "The Producers" from 1967. Nostalgia? No, it's just an awesome film.
I watched it for the first time a few months back on a friend's recommendation. Hilarious!
Off topic:
A good record player and a good record will have very little noise or resonance, and the detail is astounding - especially when compared to a CD. Admittedly you need a really good set-up, but it's quite possible (my Linn set-up being an example!)
Absolutely. Dark Side of the Moon tends to be one of my 'refefence' albums to see the level of detail in the overdubbed voices. I have a nice Rogers A100 Amp, but my turntable is in need of a new stylus (currently unusable).
It's no Linn, but a custom 'Connoisseur' kit from the 70s which is belt-driven by a 16-pole 240 AC motor with a simple gearing to 33 1/3 and 45 at 50Hz - beautfully smoothed by the high rotational inertia of the (quite heavy cast gunmetal) platter and gives no discernable wow/flutter.
Simple & elegant technology based on understandable physical quantities & geometry, a syunthesis of electrical and mechanical engineering.
(Lots of shiny brass grub-screw fittings & gimble for the tonearm too. :-) )
-
Thus proving that Amiga people - no matter what flavour of AmigaOS they use, 3.x, 4.x, MorphOS or AROS - all have two things in common:
taste and discernment. :)
-
Lets put it this way. Using sex as a metaphor
Amiga = A easy partner who is ready in an instant
Windoze = Requires loads of foreplay to be of any use
Atari TOS = For those who lack taste or sight
Mac OS = Frigid and useless
Linux = By the time you figure it out you are over it
Amigas are cherished for their user friendliness, simplicity and ease of use.
End of story!
-
Do your vinyl justice and play them on a Technics SL-1200/1210 with Ortorfon carts.
No point having a great amp and speakers if you're not feeding them the best input. :)
-
Lets put it this way. Using sex as a metaphor
Um no, let's not put it that way.
-
Um no, let's not put it that way.
Well amiga is girlfriend in Spanish...
-
Do your vinyl justice and play them on a Technics SL-1200/1210 with Ortorfon carts.
No point having a great amp and speakers if you're not feeding them the best input. :)
Exactly why my Linn Axis has a Goldring 1042 and an Akito Mk 1 (with new bearings) on it. :) Amp is an Onkyo TX-SR705, speakers are KEF Q35s, pre-amp a NAD PP-3.
Are we off-topic yet? :P
Put it this way, it ain't nostalgia that makes it sound so good. :) (there we are, back on topic again!)
-
It has been conclusively proven that in the presence of sense memory surrounding a subject matter, be it positive or negative, a person can never form an objective assessment related to the same subject matter. It has to do with how the amygdala consolidates emotion originating in the limbic brain with other related aspects from higher level brain functions into the hippocampus.
The limbic brain is very simple, there aren't multiple areas for the different kinds of love one may feel i.e. love of a partner, love of a child, love of a friend or family member, love of a pet, or love of inanimate objects. All those hit the same area. Of course with differing intensity and also filtered through some of the higher brains to provide context. Same goes for dislike or hate. And with animals and inanimate objects like a car or a computer we assist this emotional bond through anthropomorphism.
We can certainly discuss things objectively and we can produce written materials that read objectively, when we think about them in absence of any emotional context. But the instant we start adding adjectives describing emotions like 'I enjoy' or 'it's fun', we are automatically applying a subjective view.
I'm still reading, but I already liked! +1
Who are you, a psychologist/Psychiatrist? Good pragmatic objective view of emotions.
Where you took that from? I want to read more...
-
I don't need science to tell me how I feel. The very notion is absurd.
Although I understand your point, I think I disagree with your direction.
Reminds me of that old question: "Do we have free will?"
Something else that comes to my mind, making a parallel with computing, and specially with some of the subjects discussed here is:
- Some people are able to go deeper into the software layers. Even trying to make some "direct access", just like Amiga back in the days (Like coding in ASM), while some others, are still living their lives in a JVM.
-
Although I understand your point, I think I disagree with your direction.
Reminds me of that old question: "Do we have free will?"
That question is impossible to answer without knowing whether or not there is more than just the physical universe.
-
That question is impossible to answer without knowing whether or not there is more than just the physical universe.
I don't even know how that would help.
Either everything is deterministic, in which case no. Or some things are non-deterministic, in which case... still no. Being ruled by the "roll of a dice" is no more free than being ruled by cold, hard logic.
Actually I think it's logic that sets us free, not any ability to act arbitrarily. If you do something at random, it's not really a "choice", is it? It's not a decision unless you *made* it, by thinking. But the difference between thinking and simply calculating, like a machine...
A machine is a fixed process. A mind is a self-modifying process. We create ourselves as we go along, with a little help from randomness to shake us out of local minima.
But someone just had to ask, didn't they?
-
I don't even know how that would help.
Either everything is deterministic, in which case no. Or some things are non-deterministic, in which case... still no. Being ruled by the "roll of a dice" is no more free than being ruled by cold, hard logic.
Actually I think it's logic that sets us free, not any ability to act arbitrarily. If you do something at random, it's not really a "choice", is it? It's not a decision unless you *made* it, by thinking. But the difference between thinking and simply calculating, like a machine...
A machine is a fixed process. A mind is a self-modifying process. We create ourselves as we go along, with a little help from randomness to shake us out of local minima.
But someone just had to ask, didn't they?
I'm confused, for sure, but I think that there are no such thing as random. Anywhere.
Some things might be "sufficient random", like the "roll of a dice" you used, but, yet, you might came up with googol variables that might be used to calculate the expected result.
If that can be accepted as a fact, we should restrict the discussion to a non-deterministic universe.
-
To Mrs Beanbag:
You're talking about the physical universe, where randomness already seems to exist. Some examples of that are radioactive decay, and the location of an electron in an atom's electron shell. Both are described by probabilities, and may well be truly random.
I'm talking about things like the soul: Are we souls, or just automatons? Do we act through the brain, or are we what's in our brains? And also: What's the nature of the origin of everything? And of course: What is everything in the first place? Pretty hard to answer, don't you agree?
-
Jumping in for a moment...
I, personally, believe that the Universe is entirely deterministic but in order to predict it, one must know all the variables. I also believe that knowing all the variables is virtually impossible, making the Universe, for all intents and purposes, random. :) Such is the conumdrum of our existance. Another conundrum is the dertministic vs. free will paradox, to which I usually say "who cares? Enjoy the ride!" ;)
-
To Mrs Beanbag:
You're talking about the physical universe, where randomness already seems to exist. Some examples of that are radioactive decay, and the location of an electron in an atom's electron shell. Both are described by probabilities, and may well be truly random.
My point is that randomness doesn't give us any free will, any more than determinism does.
I'm talking about things like the soul: Are we souls, or just automatons? Do we act through the brain, or are we what's in our brains? And also: What's the nature of the origin of everything? And of course: What is everything in the first place? Pretty hard to answer, don't you agree?
My other point is that even if there were something beyond the physical Universe, then whatever that was, it would either be deterministic itself, or not. But either way it doesn't help us.
Suppose we do have "souls". Then we have to answer, how does that work then? Are souls automatons? Or does your soul have a soul as well? See also Homunculus argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
Regarding "true randomness" and knowing all the variables in the Universe, everyone should read up on Bell's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
-
To Mrs Beanbag:
I'm talking about things like the soul: Are we souls, or just automatons? Do we act through the brain, or are we what's in our brains? And also: What's the nature of the origin of everything? And of course: What is everything in the first place? Pretty hard to answer, don't you agree?
It's much less effort to simply dismiss other people's conclusions :)
-
My point is that randomness doesn't give us any free will, any more than determinism does.
Right, I didn't read that quite right.
My other point is that even if there were something beyond the physical Universe, then whatever that was, it would either be deterministic itself, or not. But either way it doesn't help us.
It might if it's not deterministic or random.
Suppose we do have "souls". Then we have to answer, how does that work then? Are souls automatons? Or does your soul have a soul as well? See also Homunculus argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
I mean that we are souls, not have them, and that being one is the end of the line. As to how that would work, who knows. That's the problem with those existential questions, they're very hard, if not impossible, to answer.
-
We are not a body with a soul but a soul with a body.
-
We are not a body with a soul but a soul with a body.
Or maybe we are just a very special body :)
-
It might if it's not deterministic or random.
It's one or the other, surely?
I mean that we are souls, not have them, and that being one is the end of the line. As to how that would work, who knows. That's the problem with those existential questions, they're very hard, if not impossible, to answer.
Right. I just don't see how "being a soul" is any more likely to answer the question than "being a physical object". What exactly is it about "souls" that make them different from ordinary matter, such that they can have free will, but physical objects can't?
You say, well that's the problem isn't it, it's impossible to know. But surely that's because we've just made a word up to cover up the gap in the knowledge, stuck a label on "the thing that answers the problem" even though we don't know what that thing is. We need to define our terms. If we can't define "free will" in terms of comprehensible processes, it doesn't mean anything at all.
"Free will" is actually two terms, "will" and "free". "Will" is the difficult one for me. I understand "free" by analogy to turing completeness. The opposite of freedom is constraint. A specialised system is constrained in what it can and can't do. A general purpose computer, however, is not. It can calculate anything calculable. Such a computer need not be made out of anything physically special - it could as well be made out of ball bearings running down tracks than out of silicon-based electronics. Or you could make a computer out of "souls" (in something like a reversal of the Chinese Room experiment, a live person could process inputs according to strict instructions and be indistinguishable from a computer). It's the process that matters, not the matter that processes.
-
Jumping in for a moment...
I, personally, believe that the Universe is entirely deterministic but in order to predict it, one must know all the variables. I also believe that knowing all the variables is virtually impossible, making the Universe, for all intents and purposes, random. :) Such is the conumdrum of our existance. Another conundrum is the dertministic vs. free will paradox, to which I usually say "who cares? Enjoy the ride!" ;)
Well, I refuse to comment anything about religion, god, or soul... I prefer Einstein's true vision about it, but, about the "Who Cares", I would call it curiosity. I am actually enjoying the ride. And, maybe, the ride is even better when you go deeper and try to understand some key fundamentals of our existence.
Maybe the true ride can only be enjoyed by "Freigeist"
-
It's one or the other, surely?
Who's to say? I certainly can't.
Right. I just don't see how "being a soul" is any more likely to answer the question than "being a physical object". What exactly is it about "souls" that make them different from ordinary matter, such that they can have free will, but physical objects can't?
That they have properties that matter and energy don't have? Weak, I know, but this is quite hard to answer when you don't really understand it yourself :o
But surely that's because we've just made a word up to cover up the gap in the knowledge, stuck a label on "the thing that answers the problem" even though we don't know what that thing is.
It's similar to dark matter. We don't know what it is, but it seems that it's necessary for it to exist based on what we see. The difference with free will and souls is that with free will we can't see if it exists or not at all, while with dark matter we can see that there are things going on which are hard to explain without it. Hope that makes some sense.
We need to define our terms. If we can't define "free will" in terms of comprehensible processes, it doesn't mean anything at all.
The only thing I can say about it is that it's something that's neither random nor deterministic. Vague, I know :o
-
Maybe it just comes down to words but to me random just means non-deterministic.
I think the sticking point is the difficulty of imagining how high-level freedom can be an emergent property of low-level determinism. The laws of physics only determine how atoms (or quarks or whatever) move about and interact with each other. They're not writing the script of a huge drama, like the Greeks maybe imagined the Gods sitting down and doing.
Maybe you could call it free will by obfuscation, but there's also another thing to consider - must we "externalise" the determinism, as something that influences or constrains us from outside, rather than being a defining part of who we are? I am the one who is writing this, no matter what the intricate chain of cause and effect that lead up to it.
-
Or maybe we are just a very special body :)
Special compared to what though? The human body is not more special than the body of any other animal, it's just flesh and bones. :)
-
Special compared to what though? The human body is not more special than the body of any other animal, it's just flesh and bones. :)
Speak for yourself.
-
Speak for yourself.
What's so special about your body compared to any other living creature's body?
-
The ability to converse in abstract concepts, such as the above? :)
-
I wonder what the incidence rate of individuals who fall within the Autistic Spectrum are within the Amiga community (or even retro computing communities in general) is compared with society as a whole?
I'd be willing to wager it is pretty high.
This is about the fourth time in only a few months that someone I know has asked this question.
And the answer is a clear yes.
Autistic, mentally unbalanced, etc.
-
It has been conclusively proven that in the presence of sense memory surrounding a subject matter, be it positive or negative, a person can never form an objective assessment related to the same subject matter. It has to do with how the amygdala consolidates emotion originating in the limbic brain with other related aspects from higher level brain functions into the hippocampus.
The limbic brain is very simple, there aren't multiple areas for the different kinds of love one may feel i.e. love of a partner, love of a child, love of a friend or family member, love of a pet, or love of inanimate objects. All those hit the same area. Of course with differing intensity and also filtered through some of the higher brains to provide context. Same goes for dislike or hate. And with animals and inanimate objects like a car or a computer we assist this emotional bond through anthropomorphism.
We can certainly discuss things objectively and we can produce written materials that read objectively, when we think about them in absence of any emotional context. But the instant we start adding adjectives describing emotions like 'I enjoy' or 'it's fun', we are automatically applying a subjective view.
Hoo boy. First off, if you're going to throw around terms like "conclusively proven," I'd like to see some links. But I'm not inclined to believe that. For starters, the very fact that we can conceive of separating the rational mind from the emotional self, and can consciously attempt to detach ourselves emotionally from something (however imperfectly) makes for a pretty fair argument that the two are not inextricable from each other. You yourself suggest that this is possible in your last paragraph, yet in your first you say that it isn't...
Second, if it is true that we can only give objective consideration to something to which we have no emotional attachment (which, as I said, I don't buy,) then we essentially have no objective basis for liking anything, because if we care about it at all, whether through like or dislike, then we can't be objective about it. This means that (as suggested in the OP) there's no reason other than the emotive for liking the Amiga, but it also means that there's no reason other than the emotive for liking any other operating system, so it says nothing at all about the comparative objective merits of any of them, and our like or dislike of any OS is no more valid or invalid than anybody else's like or dislike of it. Which makes the OP's whole notion that it's "only nostalgia" essentially a meaningless distinction.
Right. I just don't see how "being a soul" is any more likely to answer the question than "being a physical object". What exactly is it about "souls" that make them different from ordinary matter, such that they can have free will, but physical objects can't?
The thing is that basically anyone's definition of a "soul" involves freedom from the constraints of what we believe to be a deterministic physical universe. Asking why they're not subject to determinism like physical matter is like asking why physical matter is subject to conservation of energy; it's part of the inherent parameters of the universe. Souls, if they exist, are non-deterministic free wills because if they weren't, they wouldn't be souls. If you accept the possibility of their existence in the first place, you render the question essentially meaningless (because the question is asking for a scientific explanation of something outside the scope of empirical science in a deterministic physical universe.) If you don't accept it, then the argument is purely academic and just as meaningless (because the question is asking for a scientific explanation of something that cannot actually exist, at which point any explanation is as good as any other.)
We are not a body with a soul but a soul with a body.
Depends who you ask. I look at it as both being key components in what makes a human being. We have an animal nature because of our flesh-and-blood bodies and brains; we are more than merely animals because of our souls. Take away either one, and you're left with something that isn't fully human.
-
Well, I refuse to comment anything about religion, god, or soul... I prefer Einstein's true vision about it, but, about the "Who Cares", I would call it curiosity. I am actually enjoying the ride. And, maybe, the ride is even better when you go deeper and try to understand some key fundamentals of our existence.
Maybe the true ride can only be enjoyed by "Freigeist"
Well, just to be clear, I wasn't trying to be derisive when I said "who cares." :) I enjoy a good intellectual discussion as the next guy, but given the nature of this particular type of conversation, I have to conclude, what useful knowledge can be obtained from this? If the Universe is random, I still have to react to whatever it throws my way. If the Universe is determined, I still have to react to whatever it throws my way. Hence my conclusion: "might as well enjoy the ride." :)
-
Suppose we do have "souls". Then we have to answer, how does that work then? Are souls automatons? Or does your soul have a soul as well? See also Homunculus argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
souls and homunculus are different arguments.
homunculus argument is that there is a tiny person inside looking at a screen. You only need to change the tiny person to a part of your brain taking nerve impulses and you're back on track.
A soul isn't a tiny person, however my belief is that what is generally considered your soul is just another part of your brain & when you're dead it ceases to exist.
I don't believe in multi-verses either.
All these ideas were introduced because they thought it made it easier to explain, however the one thing they do all have in common is they actually make it harder. God creating he universe is also a much more unlikely situation than the big bang happening on it's own, you have to brush aside logic completely to believe in God (likely/unlikely of course has no bearing on what actually happened).
-
This is about the fourth time in only a few months that someone I know has asked this question.
And the answer is a clear yes.
Autistic, mentally unbalanced, etc.
Well one only has to take a glimpse at moobunny for proof of that! lol
-
This is about the fourth time in only a few months that someone I know has asked this question.
And the answer is a clear yes.
Autistic, mentally unbalanced, etc.
Yep there are certainly some very 'interesting' people involved in the scene, of course I'm almost 100% sane and a perfectly normal member of society.
:)
-
Yep there are certainly some very 'interesting' people involved in the scene, of course I'm almost 100% sane and a perfectly normal member of society.
:)
I'm as mad as a march hare myself. lol
-
God creating he universe is also a much more unlikely situation than the big bang happening on it's own, you have to brush aside logic completely to believe in God (likely/unlikely of course has no bearing on what actually happened).
Okay, we're getting way off on a tangent here, but I have to question this assertion. There may very well be evidence for the Big Bang as a physical process, but as to the idea that it by itself is a satisfactory explanation for the origin of the universe? Just one question: where did the matter involved come from? If, as some believe, it was funneled in from the "Big Crunch" of another universe, where did the matter in that universe come from? Is it turtles all the way down?
Sheez. At least someone who believes in a divinely-created universe is appealing directly to the supernatural, instead of implying non-specific magic and expecting nobody to notice.
-
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ Read Sermon 1
Now that's all i'm going to say on religion as this is not the coffee house forum.
In answer to the OP's question:
Evryone has a different reason for using or developing Amiga stuff and each reason is just as valid as all the opposing reasons.
I think the number one reason is probably because it is fun, with nostalgia probably coming in a close second.
-
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ Read Sermon 1
I like the bit about "treated contemptuously the creation of clay".
And a real world example of begging the question (unlike when people usually mean raises the question).
"Therefore, after observing all that exists in the world and the regulated system of the entire creation no one can help concluding that there is a Creator for this world of diversities because existence cannot come out of non-existence, nor can existence sprout forth from nothingness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
-
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ Read Sermon 1
Omnipotence is such a cool word.
-
I'd really like to get back to the original question:
Why do we(1) keep trying to cultivate the Amiga (?)...
We
hbarcellos throws his lot in with the Amiga people. He is not asking 'Why do I?' or 'Why do you?', his asking why this tribe of ours, why we as a group?
Keep Trying
Something done over and over. It's not a single attempt, it's not why try now, but rather the enduring tries and retries.
The definition of stupidity is to repeat the same action and expecting a different result. Over the decades we have made differing attempts but expected the same result i.e. the return of the Amiga as a viable platform. What do we call that?
Cultivate
The essence of the question. It singles out those who are toiling in the proverbial fields. It does not include people who have been exposed to the Amiga recently, it's not about how my sisters played SuperFrog and liked it. They're not going around trying to get their friends to play the game. Memetically these individuals are infertile grounds. Just like none of us are cultivating the use of an abacus. We may find it interesting, and we may even discover some of its advantages for certain types of calculations, but in the end we go back to a digital calculator or a software facsimile thereof.
So the phrasing of the question implies a time period beyond the recent, an ongoing journey, a group behaviour, and the effort of cultivating specific ideas and ideals. Everywhere this kind of group behaviour is encountered the main driving emotion is always nostalgia. Physical books vs. digital books. Handwritten letters vs. email.
This is not a bad thing, only those of us lucky enough to be alive in the time of the Amiga can be nostalgic about it. And one day in the future when we've all 'kicked the bucket', people will be able to see an Amiga in a computer or technology museum, and perhaps read books about the passion some groups of people had towards some of the early computing platforms and no doubt see it as completely irrational.
-
@Agami
Your psychological assessment is fundamentally flawed, though, because you've started with an invalid supposition.
We
hbarcellos throws his lot in with the Amiga people. He is not asking 'Why do I?' or 'Why do you?', his asking why this tribe of ours, why we as a group?
This is completely invalid.
Amiga users are not a single user, group or "tribe" as you put it. We are not all as one. We each have our own reasons and purposes.
As an example, to use your analogy of a tribe:
Imagine a tribe in the Amazon rain forest.
Imagine there are two particular people in the tribe that we shall focus on. Let's - for the sake of argument - call them Fred and Barney.
Fred is the hunter gatherer of the tribe. His job is to go out and kill animals for food for the tribe. He does this well. He is a great hunter.
Barney is the tribe's elder. He does not need to do anything. Yet they both go out hunting.
Obviously we can see that both Fred and Barney both have different motives for doing the same thing. Fred has to - Barney does it too, but why does Barney do it?
What you're saying is that Amiga people are all in a group, all have the same objective, and therefore all have the same psychological reasoning behind them, but this is a fallacy, and it's one around which you have built your whole hypothesis.
In our fictional Amazonian tribe, does Barney do it out of necessity? No. Does he do it out of love of hunting? Or nostalgia because he used to be the hunter-gatherer of the tribe? Or does he like hanging out with his mate Barney?
We don't know - we don't have enough information upon which to base our hypothesis. And in the same way, we do not know why each and every Amiga user uses an Amiga. To lump them all together is as absurd as saying every man dislikes shopping or every woman is partial to pink magnolias, or saying that Barney and Fred go hunting out of a common need, which is provably incorrect (as it's Fred's job, not Barney's).
You can't do that.
Keep Trying
Something done over and over. It's not a single attempt, it's not why try now, but rather the enduring tries and retries.
The definition of stupidity is to repeat the same action and expecting a different result. Over the decades we have made differing attempts but expected the same result i.e. the return of the Amiga as a viable platform. What do we call that?
Again, a major fallacy in your presupposition.
You suppose that all Amiga users are doing the same thing to achieve the same result. This is not the case.
We are not - as Amiga users - all doing the same action. We're not repeating our action. We're doing different things, all the time. Was porting Qt to AmigaOS4 the same as writing Hello World in 1989? Of course not!
We are not repeating the same action expecting a different result, because the result is as a consequence of the initiating action. If I write an application for AmigaOS4, I don't expect the Second Coming of the Almighty Jay Miner. I expect a working application. If I write a Hello Word program, I expect my computer to say "Hello World" at me.
Secondly, the result.
Again: supposition.
You have stated that the end result of ALL AMIGA people is the return of the Amiga. This is provably and demonstrably false.
We do not all carry out our actions to make the Amiga mainstream again. Many of us are happy to have it as a niche platform. What we are striving for is continuity. We are trying to make the Amiga survive, not overtake the competition as you incorrectly suggest.
If we want to port Qt to the Amiga, our aim is to facilitate porting of future programs of Qt, NOT to destroy Microsoft and Apple.
That is our action. That is our result. We have succeeded. We do not, as you invalidly suggest, continue repeating the same action over and over expecting the same result.
Cultivate
The essence of the question. It singles out those who are toiling in the proverbial fields. It does not include people who have been exposed to the Amiga recently, it's not about how my sisters played SuperFrog and liked it. They're not going around trying to get their friends to play the game. Memetically these individuals are infertile grounds. Just like none of us are cultivating the use of an abacus. We may find it interesting, and we may even discover some of its advantages for certain types of calculations, but in the end we go back to a digital calculator or a software facsimile thereof.
So the phrasing of the question implies a time period beyond the recent, an ongoing journey, a group behaviour, and the effort of cultivating specific ideas and ideals. Everywhere this kind of group behaviour is encountered the main driving emotion is always nostalgia. Physical books vs. digital books. Handwritten letters vs. email.
This is not a bad thing, only those of us lucky enough to be alive in the time of the Amiga can be nostalgic about it. And one day in the future when we've all 'kicked the bucket', people will be able to see an Amiga in a computer or technology museum, and perhaps read books about the passion some groups of people had towards some of the early computing platforms and no doubt see it as completely irrational.
So people who hand-write letters are being nostalgic? And it's not because they just might not own a computer?
People who read a book on paper instead of a computer are being nostalgic? Are you sure it's not just because many people don't like looking at screens for a long time? Or because taking your laptop into the bath isn't a good thing?
By the same argument you could say that in hindsight anybody enthusing about an obsolete technology is being irrational and "nostalgic", yet if you put yourself in that situation and look at the FACTS, you will that it can be anything but. There are provable demonstrable reasons as to why we as humans do what we do, nostalgia is but one possibility. Lumping all people in to fit one example which you have chosen, and thereby extrapolating for the whole group, is the worst psychology imaginable. It's manipulating the evidence to fit the theory, rather than fitting the theory to the evidence in front of you. By the same token you could find a field of sheep with one black sheep in it, take a sample of one sheep as to which sheep are black, pick the black sheep and extrapolate it to say that the whole field of sheep are black.
We - as Amiga users - are not one person.
We do not share a common goal.
Nobody can tell me what my goal is. My goal is determined by me and me alone.
My reasons for my continuing towards my goal are my own, and mine alone.
It may not fit in with psychological mass grouping as you're advocating, but like it or not:
I am an individual. Remember that when you fit me into your mass group of 1000 people because it allows you to put a label on me.
(Incidentally: in case you're thinking I'm being defensive, you're right. I hate it when people generalise me with other people, more so when they've never met me. It's a pet hate of mine :) )
-
I think one mass generalisation that probably does apply to all of us is that we do what we do with Amigas and related and derived technologies for the simple pleasure of doing it.
I've been coding Amiga stuff again for the first time in decades recently and I'm doing it merely for the pleasure of coding for the sake of coding. No particular general goal, no pressure, no deadlines, no PHB demanding random features, just enjoying it for what it is.
I suppose the only "defined goal" I have if I were pressured into thinking of one is that my code compiles and runs on Amiga OS, MorphOS, AROS and OS4.
-
Well let us just say that human beings aren't quite the purely rational, utility-maximising beings certain Enlightenment philosophers and modern economists would like.
Also anyone who doesn't like the Amiga has no soul.
-
Well let us just say that human beings aren't quite the purely rational, utility-maximising beings certain Enlightenment philosophers and modern economists would like.
Also anyone who doesn't like the Amiga has no soul.
That's not fair, I don't think I have a soul... But I still love the Amiga :)
-
That's not fair, I don't think I have a soul... But I still love the Amiga :)
Well, that still fits with Mrs Beanbag's axiom, doesn't it? ;P
*very many words*
Lumping all people in to fit one example which you have chosen, and thereby extrapolating for the whole group, is the worst psychology imaginable. It's manipulating the evidence to fit the theory, rather than fitting the theory to the evidence in front of you.
Thank you.
-
Well let us just say that human beings aren't quite the purely rational, utility-maximising beings certain Enlightenment philosophers and modern economists would like.
Also anyone who doesn't like the Amiga has no soul.
The Amiga has a soul, it's greater than the sum of its parts. :knuddel:
I used my Amiga on my own for years, my friends at school played the odd game but I was the one doing all the more interesting stuff like DPaint, ImageFX, Amos, Workbench tinkering etc and upgrading my Amiga. This was and still is a great source of pleasure for me. I didn't interact with other users until I joined this very forum 4 years ago. So I don't buy this "group" viewpoint entirely. That'll be true for some, but it doesn't apply to everyone, and not to me.
I'll enjoy my Amiga on my own, like I always did if need be! I'll continue to use them and tinker with them on a daily basis for my own pleasure entirely, and if the internet crumbles one day then it won't mean I'll stop using my Amiga. It'll likely mean I'll use it even more...
-
Well let us just say that human beings aren't quite the purely rational, utility-maximising beings certain Enlightenment philosophers and modern economists would like.
Also anyone who doesn't like the Amiga has no soul.
The "enlightened",philosophers and to a lesser extent modern economists are the archetypal example as to why human beings aren't rational. Evidential historians / archaeologists the exception. Those that deal in absolutes are always wrong. :)
Amiga's are fun.
-
God creating he universe is also a much more unlikely situation than the big bang happening on it's own, you have to brush aside logic completely to believe in God (likely/unlikely of course has no bearing on what actually happened).
Actually, I have no problem with the Big Bang being the mode of creation.
"Let there be light", boom.
Yep, that works for me.
And I also don't have a problem with evolution being yet another mode of creation.
One that, instead of lasting only seven days, continues indefinitely.
Also, when you study biology, you see some weird jumps from one species to it descendants.
For instance, there is no intermediate structure between hair and feathers.
You have one or the other.
-
For instance, there is no intermediate structure between hair and feathers.
You have one or the other.
I actually think this will turn out to not be true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422430
Having one or the other is like people generally only having one hair colour.
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
Science cannot disprove the possibility of a god, it can only blow huge holes in religious texts written by man. As the writers god is supposed to have been heavily involved in the creation of those texts then they were either deluded, liars or their god is a practical joker. You could argue that there has been misinterpretation, but I cannot believe that a god that influenced the writing of religion texts would have allowed that to happen.
But there could be a god that hasn't influenced any religions that created the visible universe. However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe. So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one (unless you are into blind faith or you're the one manipulating the masses).
-
However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe.
You already have to do that anyway.
So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one
Perhaps not. There has always existed something. Was that something just 'stuff' or a person (omnipotent being)? Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?
-
I find the most people who question what they are doing (computer type or whatever)as much as the OP is doing, are in the middle of a midlife crisis.
-
To get back to the nostalgia question: I personally got my A1200 18 years ago and simply never stopped using it, don't see how that has anything to do with nostalgia.
-
I actually think this will turn out to not be true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422430
Having one or the other is like people generally only having one hair colour.
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
Science cannot disprove the possibility of a god, it can only blow huge holes in religious texts written by man. As the writers god is supposed to have been heavily involved in the creation of those texts then they were either deluded, liars or their god is a practical joker. You could argue that there has been misinterpretation, but I cannot believe that a god that influenced the writing of religion texts would have allowed that to happen.
But there could be a god that hasn't influenced any religions that created the visible universe. However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe. So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one (unless you are into blind faith or you're the one manipulating the masses).
I'm not sure what the reference has to do with the hair vs feathers question, but I wholly agree with you about ancient texts written by man.
Blind faith to the literal translation of said texts does more to discredit religion than any other practice.
-
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
Oh are we doing a religion argument afterall, now?
Well let me just point this out, while we're on the subject. Since Aristotle and up until the 20th century the rationalist scientific consensus was that the Universe had existed forever (hence Einstein's famous "mistake" of adding the cosmological constant into his theories to allow for that), whereas the Bible stated it had a beginning. But then Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe and the big bang theory was born. So faith might be irrational but it can still turn out to be right about some things.
Nevertheless focusing on God "setting off the big bang" at the beginning in an argument from first cause is a bit of a distraction. Time is a property of the Universe which God is supposed to be beyond, see Philo of Alexandria pre-empt modern arguments by about 2000 years in his commentary on the book of Genesis.
-
I actually think this will turn out to not be true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422430
Having one or the other is like people generally only having one hair colour.
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence. Instead they have spent a long time trying to disprove science to show that their god exists (which is a logical fallacy but hey).
Science cannot disprove the possibility of a god, it can only blow huge holes in religious texts written by man. As the writers god is supposed to have been heavily involved in the creation of those texts then they were either deluded, liars or their god is a practical joker. You could argue that there has been misinterpretation, but I cannot believe that a god that influenced the writing of religion texts would have allowed that to happen.
But there could be a god that hasn't influenced any religions that created the visible universe. However this opens up even more questions than it answers as you then have to consider what else is there outside the visible universe. So while god might be the actual answer, it's a rather farfetched and inconvenient one (unless you are into blind faith or you're the one manipulating the masses).
So much false assumption and BS in one post it could win an award.
It's blatantly obvious you have never spoken at length about this subject with an actual scholar of Islam (An Ayatollah for instance) otherwise you wouldn't have made your incorrect sweeping generalisations.
I've discussed this subject in great detail in the past right here on this very forum and so have some of the other Muslim members, so I'm not about to repeat myself again but refer you to the search function if you actually are interested in having your ignorance of our beliefs corrected.
Plus it is extremely off topic for this thread.
-
The evolution of feathers is well theorised and has evidence both in fossils and real life. But don't let that get in the way of fiction. Scientific or theological. But sparking debate from a false premise is a common undertaking of scientists and theologians alike. Just like AORG threads. No need for insults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary
This is back on topic because I have an ACAR mag with a student project on the Cassowary done on the Amiga, or was it a web site review?.. :) See what I did there.
Magazines and their generated commercial and social desire are another reason the Amiga is imprinted on the psyche of those around at the time. No "real" internet back then.
-
Actually, I have no problem with the Big Bang being the mode of creation.
"Let there be light", boom.
Yep, that works for me.
And I also don't have a problem with evolution being yet another mode of creation.
One that, instead of lasting only seven days, continues indefinitely.
Also, when you study biology, you see some weird jumps from one species to it descendants.
For instance, there is no intermediate structure between hair and feathers.
You have one or the other.
Evolution of the species and natural selection observed and documented by Shi'a Muslim scholar Nasir al-Din al-Tusi 800 years before Darwin "discovered" it.
Scroll down to the Biology section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi#Achievements
-
Question is:
-> Why do we(1) keep trying to cultivate the Amiga, knowing that, most probably it's some kind of nostalgic feeling about the surrounding of our life experiences(2) when we first had the original Amigas?
(1) I include myself on it.
(2) Youth, already deceased family members, places, childhood, teenage, ex girlfriends, ...
That's a V E R Y good question! And so far it's seems there's lots of opinion on exactly how to define it. And given the lack of agreement on one particular reason...well doesn't that say it means different things to different people.
For me I still don't know exactly what it is - perhaps because it's more than just one easily definable thing :D Although I think for the most part it's a reliving of moments of awesomeness from the past, coupled with discovery of all the "new" things about the Amiga (whether those new things are just new to me because I have never experienced them, or new as in just released).
I also realise that the things the Amiga could day "back in the day" it can still do! OMG - shock revelation! Yep, it can STILL do them! I realise this may be hard to understand by people who are blinded by the whole technology means "better" viewpoint. "Better" is subjective. I can still play games on the Amiga, I can still watch all those excellent scene demos, I can still do a bit of hardware modding, I can still while away hours trying to configure a piece of software, I can still listen to randomly searched music modules amongst 600odd mb of data on a CD, and so on. The Amiga is still as good now as it used to be! BUT...technology has advanced to allow other MACHINES to do things in a different way, sometimes "better" or "quicker" or whatever. And whilst "modern" machines have their place to do these "modern" things, so too does the Amiga to still do the things it could do all along! To re-enforce my point...just think of the good old book. Yep, the good old paper based book. Been around for how long? And STILL being used as a method of conveying words....S T I L L...
I could go on for hours about this...but I think that's enough :D
-
Yeah you be pretty hard pressed to find forums users 10 years on, on most forums these days. Yet most of us have endured! why? who knows.
I see My Amiga500 as a platform. That has limitations, The limitations imposed are what give
it personality!.. those 4096 colors I'm sure we have all seen hundreds of times. in fact alot of us can probably give out the hex code to a color we see on the screen lol!
The Amiga has something other computers don't. And its not because I was using one when I was 14. Now that I'm 33 i don't think its a nostalgia thing. But then again who knows how ones mind works...
The Amiga will never rise again as a new platform, simply because it doesn't need one.
The platform it filled is still there.
(ps i think this is my longest post in 10 years lol)
I actually think that when I see a picture in 4096 colours I can appreciate the limitations and awesomeness on the Amiga, which really pushed the limits at the time, and the same goes for sound. I still get impressed when I see great demos and music on the Amiga now. With the abundance of HD graphics and sound, is hard to appreciate this as much on modern hardware, which IMO has amalgamated to variations of the 'same thing'. Therefore I agree with the idea that the Amiga has a great personality - apart from when 'software failure' pops up in a flashing red box. 'Guru meditation' is more understandable though.
-
I actually think that when I see a picture in 4096 colours I can appreciate the limitations and awesomeness on the Amiga, which really pushed the limits at the time, and the same goes for sound. I still get impressed when I see great demos and music on the Amiga now. With the abundance of HD graphics and sound, is hard to appreciate this as much on modern hardware, which IMO has amalgamated to variations of the 'same thing'. Therefore I agree with the idea that the Amiga has a great personality - apart from when 'software failure' pops up in a flashing red box. 'Guru meditation' is more understandable though.
Precisely. It's the same reason I'm moving away from software instruments to hardware synths, or doing my drawing on paper again - the limitations and quirks of the medium impose a distinct character on what you do with it. The Amiga strikes a very pleasant balance between having character and not being too limited.
-
The ability to converse in abstract concepts, such as the above? :)
A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.
-
A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.
+1
Amen to that! :)
-
A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.
and computers and operating systems, ho ho, well there's that question answered then.
-
I've discussed this subject in great detail in the past right here on this very forum and so have some of the other Muslim members, so I'm not about to repeat myself again but refer you to the search function if you actually are interested in having your ignorance of our beliefs corrected.
There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
Some people have reinterpreted the Quran based on scientific discoveries, but why were Gods revelations to Muhammad based on the incorrect scientific beliefs of the time it was written?
-
There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
You said:
Originally Posted by psxphill
While god might have triggered the big bang, none of the large organised religions have dared throw away all their theories about how the universe was created in light of scientific evidence.
Islam is one of the "large organised religions" so your sweeping statement includes Islam and what you said is wrong, so yes you are ignorant of what we believe.
As I stated in my previous post I have discussed this at length as have some of the other Muslim members here (One of them being an actual bona-fide scientist educated at Oxford to Masters level) so I am not going to repeat myself for you. Use the forum search function if you are genuinely interested in correcting your ignorance, but I find it hard to believe you are.
I will not discuss it further here for the reason stated above and the fact that it is completely off topic.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
-
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدْتُمْ
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
"In the name of God the Merciful
Say O disbelievers
I do not worship what you worship
Nor do you worship what I worship
I Abed not served
Nor do you worship what I worship
Your religion and I have mine"
Courtesy of Google Translate. :)
-
"In the name of God the Merciful
Say O disbelievers
I do not worship what you worship
Nor do you worship what I worship
I Abed not served
Nor do you worship what I worship
Your religion and I have mine"
Courtesy of Google Translate. :)
Almost. :)
In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful
Say (Oh Muhammad): "O unbelievers!
I do not serve that which you serve,
Nor do you serve Him whom I serve:
Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
Nor are you going to serve Him whom I serve:
So to you your way and to me mine"
Emphasis mine. ;)
-
There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
Some people have reinterpreted the Quran based on scientific discoveries, but why were Gods revelations to Muhammad based on the incorrect scientific beliefs of the time it was written?
God could simply have been revealing the revelations in terms comprehensible to the prophet. Given that I don't believe any god exists outside the mind of the prophet (nor that anything else anyone perceives exists outside their minds), but is rather the product of some divination through drug/starvation/sensory depravation induced hallucination, I find it hard to believe that any assertions about the age of the world or the circumstances of its creation would check out with scientific findings a couple of thousand years later. Hell, I don't even think that the current scientific notion of that will make sense in another couple of thousand years.
Both science and divination is based on the exploration of observations. The scientific method might be more refined, but they are both equally useless when it comes to finding absolute truth. While I respect anyone who builds their beliefs on the basis of arguable conclusions and observations, I wouldn't blame anyone for believing X or Y about the creation of the earth. As far as I'm concerned, the scientific explanations are only plausible within the scientific models built on what little we are able to observe, and the religious explanations are just based on hallucinations and philosophical musings. In the end it doesn't really matter to most people by any other means than to satisfy their curiosity. "Knowing" something is simply the result of arrogance, but we are able to afford that.
-
...and you never ask yourself why?
Why you like something is undefinable. You like something because you like something. That's just how it works.
-
Nostalgia, pure and simple...
My first experience with computers was an Apple II at high school. Soon after I received a VZ-200 (Laser 200) computer for xmas. After that one broke down I exchanged it for a VIC-20, then onto a C64, then an A500, then A1200.
Obviously the Amiga was a huge step up from the C64 and my first real computer.
Any advantage the Amiga (as a system) once had, has long since been negated by the huge technological advances in computing. Many of the old 'amiga advantages' that made it such a revolution in its day just aren't relevant today. So it boots slightly quicker than a PC. As for 'responsiveness', I don't see my A1200 being any more responsive than my windows PC. On the flip side of the coin, there are all the disadvantages: slow, not many serious modern apps, limited and expensive hardware, etc, etc...
Hanging onto the Amiga as some sort of saviour of the computer world is just as silly as holding the C64 up as the next messiah (see what I did there?).
The amiga, to me, is what I remember from back in the late 1980s/early 1990s, nothing more...
My $0.02...
Mike.
-
Why you like something is undefinable. You like something because you like something. That's just how it works.
Why you like something can often be expressed in terms of other things you like, qualities and properties you admire. If not, it can be explained in terms of your experiences and values. So that's not just how it works.
-
A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept,
Some animals can absolutely positively converse in abstract concepts.
Other animals may definitely be more intelligent than humans. There is no proof that humans are more intelligent than Bottlenose Dolphins or Porpoises.
-
To get back to the nostalgia question: I personally got my A1200 18 years ago and simply never stopped using it, don't see how that has anything to do with nostalgia.
Hey, that's a good point!
Nostalgia usually involves someone liking something or doing something for some years then they stop doing it for many years then one day they decide to go back and do it again "out of nostalgia".
For example I mostly stopped using my C64 in 1985 and totally completely abandoned it by 1987.
The C64 is totally inadequate to my needs in 2013 just as it was totally inadequate to my needs in 1987.
But I have feelings of nostalgia for my C64 and would not mind firing up some of my fave old games again.
But now that you made me think about it I have now realized that the C64 is not totally inadequate to my needs. It plays Jumpman perfectly well. It plays M.U.L.E. perfectly well. Sure the gfx and sfx could use an update but the gameplay is absolutely 100% perfect. Gameplay is the most important aspect in a game for me. So for certain uses, a C64 is ok for me and its not just nostalgia.
-
God could simply have been revealing the revelations in terms comprehensible to the prophet.
But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.
People who have out of body experiences and swear that they float to the top of the room and were looking down on what is in the room can never tell you what is on the top of cupboards. They can only describe what is visible from their body. There are chemical imbalances that can make you feel like you're disassociated from your body though.
"As an example of the value of anecdotes in suggesting directions for research, Dr. Penny Sartori placed playing cards in obvious places on top of operating room cabinets at a hospital in Wales in 2001, while she was working as a nurse, as part of a supervised experiment. Although she's a believer in the afterlife, and documented fifteen cases of reported out-of-body experiences by patients during her research, not one person ever reported seeing the playing cards or even knowing they were there."
The spiritual feeling you get by praying or singing in a church can also replicated at a football match.
-
But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.
I don't know what facts you think revelation is about. (Or what form a revelation takes, because I don't imagine it was verbal.) Religion isn't about science, it's about right and wrong and human behaviour. It doesn't really matter if it says the Earth is flat, if the point is that you shouldn't push people off the edge of it.
-
A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.
Who said anything about superiority? Wasn't I. The person I was responding too made no such mention, nor did the person he was responding too. Special != Superior.
As to "remarkable abilities..." I find myself highly amused by your remarks on the subject... ;)
-
But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.
Maybe it won't if you take the rest of my post into account.
-
Who said anything about superiority? Wasn't I. The person I was responding too made no such mention, nor did the person he was responding too. Special != Superior.
The post before those you mention said "The human body is not more special than the body of any other animal, it's just flesh and bones.", which is what was being questioned, i.e. being _more_ special in any sense. I don't think you'll ever find someone argue that humans just aren't special.
As to "remarkable abilities..." I find myself highly amused by your remarks on the subject... ;)
Writing in english is hard enough for me without taking into account that some people on the internet will think that I sound pompous for using a perfectly valid and widely known word. I am more or less ignorant when it comes to the history of the language and its cultural nuances, but I don't think of it as a handicap.
By the way, you consistently spelled "to" wrong in your post. ;)
-
I don't think you'll ever find someone argue that humans just aren't special.
Yes you will :p I think humans find themselves special, fantastic, and what not.
-
Some animals can absolutely positively converse in abstract concepts.
Interesting assertion. Tell me more - which ones? How have we discovered this?
-
Yes you will :p I think humans find themselves special, fantastic, and what not.
Oh, sorry. I actually meant the exact opposite of what I wrote :P
-
Interesting assertion. Tell me more - which ones? How have we discovered this?
Here's a famous one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29)
Also Elephants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition
-
Interesting assertion. Tell me more - which ones? How have we discovered this?
Chimpanzees which have been taught to understand English and/or sign language are a perfect example.
There's a lot of nice documentaries about it that you could watch like I did. Or I am sure that there are lots of articles or books written about it.
I am also certain that dolphins, porpoises, killer whales can converse in both abstract and concrete concepts based upon watching their behavior.
I am also certain that lots of animals can think in abstract concepts but they lack the ability to communicate very well so most of their thoughts are trapped inside their brain.
Many animals can look at a problem and decide what tool they need and then they can go make that tool or find the tool and bring it to the problem and solve the problem with the tool. Thus proving that humans are not the only "intelligent" species.
Humans are not the only species that communicates with sound waves.
Humans are not the only species that uses tools.
Humans are not the only species that farms.
Humans are not the only species that engages in organized warfare.
Humans are not the only species that can navigate from point A to point B using measurements of distance and angles of travel.
Humans are not the only species with Emotions.
I have performed many experiments which show that various animals and plants are more intelligent than 50% of humans.
The main thing that gives humans their advantages is their hands. If Dolphins had hands then they would rule the world.
Various other animals do have nice hands but humans have larger brains than those other animals.
We also have an interesting mutation in our voicebox that gives us superior communication skills than any of the other animals with hands. Our hands give us superior writing skills too, which helps us to pass knowledge from one point to another which allows a civilization to develop.
-
Speaking as the person who introduced the point of abstract thought as an ability special only to humans with this statement:
The ability to converse in abstract concepts, such as the above?
I, personally, would welcome Koko, any other gorillas, elephants, dolphins and what have you to join in the conversation to the degree it is being discussed here. :)
-
I have performed many experiments which show that various animals and plants are more intelligent than 50% of humans.
Did you get them to leave Youtube comments?
Someone was telling me the other day that one of the most important developments in human physiology is the shoulder. It means that we can throw things.
Crows are very intelligent, too. I'd love to know how a crow's mind works. Obviously their brains are physically quite small but amazingly effective nonetheless. They have been observed bending wires into shapes to solve puzzles, and various other things.
-
Speaking as the person who introduced the point of abstract thought as an ability special only to humans with this statement:
I, personally, would welcome Koko, any other gorillas, elephants, dolphins and what have you to join in the conversation to the degree it is being discussed here. :)
Their superior intellect prevents them from doing silly nonsensical things like joining Amiga.org to talk to a bunch of us crazy humans :D
-
There's a lot of nice documentaries about it that you could watch like I did. Or I am sure that there are lots of articles or books written about it.
If you've watched them, you could just tell me the answer and save me the time...
I am also certain that dolphins, porpoises, killer whales can converse in both abstract and concrete concepts based upon watching their behavior.
I am also certain that lots of animals can think in abstract concepts but they lack the ability to communicate very well so most of their thoughts are trapped inside their brain.
I'm curious as to how you're so certain about this. Certainly you can conjecture about the possibility, and I can't say with any degree of certainty that you're wrong, but I'd like to hear your reasons.
Many animals can look at a problem and decide what tool they need and then they can go make that tool or find the tool and bring it to the problem and solve the problem with the tool. Thus proving that humans are not the only "intelligent" species.
Humans are not the only species that communicates with sound waves.
Humans are not the only species that uses tools.
Humans are not the only species that farms.
Humans are not the only species that engages in organized warfare.
Humans are not the only species that can navigate from point A to point B using measurements of distance and angles of travel.
Humans are not the only species with Emotions.
I'm not disputing that. However, all of those are very concrete concepts, and not evidence of abstract thought.
The main thing that gives humans their advantages is their hands. If Dolphins had hands then they would rule the world.
The thing is that you don't need hands and you don't need to accomplish world domination to demonstrate a human level of intelligence. Human amputees can do that. Do dolphins demonstrate abstract thought?
We also have an interesting mutation in our voicebox that gives us superior communication skills than any of the other animals with hands. Our hands give us superior writing skills too, which helps us to pass knowledge from one point to another which allows a civilization to develop.
So you're claiming that certain animals can converse in abstract concepts, yet their communications are too limited to allow them to demonstrate human levels of intelligence? And you don't need writing to pass on a culture; civilization predates the invention of writing by at least 2,000 years, and various pre-literate civilizations have survived pretty much to the present day, or at least to within the last couple centuries. If dolphins were really that advanced, why could they not have developed a civilization using oral tradition? Humans can.
-
Here's a famous one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29
Also Elephants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition
"The elephant has one of the most closely knit societies of any living species. Elephant families can only be separated by death or capture. Cynthia Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Moss), an ethologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology) specialising in elephants, recalls an event involving a family of African elephants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephants). Two members of the family were shot by poachers, who were subsequently chased off by the remaining elephants. Although one of the elephants died, the other, named Tina, remained standing, but with knees beginning to give way. Two family members, Trista and Teresia (Tina's mother), walked to both sides of Tina and leaned in to hold her up. Eventually, Tina grew so weak, she fell to the ground and died. However, Trista and Teresia did not give up but continually tried to lift her. They managed to get Tina into a sitting position, but her body was lifeless and fell to the ground again. As the other elephant family members became more intensely involved in the aid, they tried to put grass into Tina's mouth. Teresia then put her tusks beneath Tina's head and front quarters and proceeded to lift her. As she did so, her right tusk broke completely off, right up to the lip and nerve cavity. The elephants gave up trying to lift Tina but did not leave her; instead, they began to bury her in a shallow grave and throw leaves over her body. They stood over Tina for the night and then began to leave in the morning. The last to leave was Teresia."
Thanks for sharing that Mrs Beanbag. One hell of a sad story.
Makes me wonder why there can't be a bit more love and respect amongst us Amiga.org members. All this falling out and bickering over (lets face it) irrelavent crap like how intelligent we think we are compared with other animals and why we still use our Amiga's, and which OS is the most customisable or whatever other crappy questions get asked. Why do elephants suck water into their trunks and blow it up in the air like a fountain? They do it for fun! Why do killer whales toss baby seals into the air before they eat them? That maybe for fun as well (we're not intelligent enough to answer that....ooh the irony).
And then here in this thread we're talking about creation and the universe, almost as if one day we'll some how understand the answer to it. Well that's bull, there's just no way we'll ever understand how our universe came about. It's like trying to teach a sparrow long division.... no matter how much tuition the sparrow receives I can assure you it just ISN'T going to happen.
They'll be beings out there though somewhere (in the infinite vastness of space) with intelligence of many orders of magnitude above our own, maybe even millions of times more intelligent. They will get much closer to the answer than we ever will. Lets say for arguments sake, this superior being (or computer even) actually figured it out and told us the answer.... well, the truth is we wouldn't and could never ever understand the answer... we just don't have the mental capactity.
-
After seeing a lot of posts about "pure nostalgia", I think I'm gonna throw a bit of a twist or spin in this thread.
I'm completely new to the Amiga. I don't even own one. I've simply only recently started emulating it for not even a full year now and I find it incredibly charming. There really is something magical about this machine that's drawing me in.
No nostalgia here. Although I am a C64 guy, so I'm thinking that might contribute a bit to it. Though, the games I've played have something to them that I love. That rough "home made" quality in a time when people were still experimenting and just making things they wanted to make because it was cool to them, or they were young and they just wanted to share those dreams and ideas in some form or another with others from the comfort of their bedrooms. It's very heartwarming indeed.
It's definitely got something special about it, and I could see myself using an Amiga a lot if I got one in this day and age. It was from a time when imagination and wonder was still strong, and seeing the Amiga embrace that and fully encourage it, that is hugely intriguing to me.
-
we just don't have the mental capactity.
We don't... now. I don't think we're going to be stuck in these human bodies for all eternity, so that problem is going to get solved, and it's not going to take a million years either. The problem is with knowing everything there is to know: You can never know if there isn't still more to know.
-
I find it hard to believe that any sentient being could somehow have non-abstract thoughts. Down to the very basics of language and cognition, everything we know is abstract concepts. Nobody has an immediate and intuitive understanding of the underlying processes.
That aside, you have to draw the line somewhere. I have seen a video if a crow picking up a piece of metal and bend it into a hook in order to obtain food. The bird was able to recognize the piece of metal as not only that, but a potential tool. The bird figuring that out on its own is evidence of abstract thought, if anything.
I've seen another video of a pigeon, that in order to grab a fruit out of its reach within an enclosed area too small to gain flight in, pushed a box underneath the fruit and stepped onto it. That way, it was able to eat the fruit. Seeing the fruit and the box, it was able to conceive a solution.
There's another story of an experiment with chimpanzees which I'm not sure is true or not (the description of it usually comes in the form of a badly compressed jpg forwarded by an old person). In the experiment, they put a few chimps in a cage with a banana. If any of them tried to take it, they would all be punished. After having figured that out, they stopped trying. Then a new chimp was let into the cage, not knowing the consequences of trying to take the banana. When it tried, the other chimpanzees beat it up.
This was repeated while the original chimps were replaced one by one. At some point, none of the chimps had experienced the initial punishment, but they would all beat up whatever new chimp would try to take the banana.
I'm not sure what exactly it would prove, but it's interesting.
-
The chimp experiment (which I've heard before, though like you I don't know exactly how true it is) would only prove that they have the capacity to impart learned behavior to each other - which I don't think anybody was disputing. Plenty of critters can do that.
As for toolmaking...as you say, it depends on where you draw the line, but to my way of thinking that's still a practical, concrete notion. It certainly is impressive that the crow can recognize something's potential as a tool, but I don't think it proves anything about whether they are capable of considering more abstract issues. "Can I use this to get food?" is a lot more of a concrete question than "is what I'm doing right?" or "where do we go when we die?" or what-have-you.
-
As for toolmaking...as you say, it depends on where you draw the line, but to my way of thinking that's still a practical, concrete notion. It certainly is impressive that the crow can recognize something's potential as a tool, but I don't think it proves anything about whether they are capable of considering more abstract issues. "Can I use this to get food?" is a lot more of a concrete question than "is what I'm doing right?" or "where do we go when we die?" or what-have-you.
It's a practical idea, but abstract in its conception nonetheless in that the bird not only took its exact circumstances into consideration, but was also able to form the idea of itself using the metal piece as a hook in the future, before deliberately realizing it. As far as I know, that's quite a few levels of abstracttion beyond a dog going after a ball, for example, or a cat opening a door after having observed a human doing it. We probably both agree with all of this so far, but as I said, my position is that any thought is abstract, and unless we are talking about a very specific level of abstraction there is nothing to argue about.
-
As I've pointed out, it's a question of degree. As John has pointed out, where do you draw the line? The practical use of a tool as described might be a level of abstraction, but it's only one level removed from the practical.
Now, how many birds can understand the abstract concepts of logic gates and computer buses as a method of communication between devices designed to perform functions not found in the natural world? How many birds can understand the concept of a modem, or envision an array capable of arranging pixels that use photons against a photosensitive surface to display symbols that represent the phonemes emitted by a species to convey the very concepts we are discussing now?
Only one known species has this ability and it comes from their ability to abstract to a level that no other creature can.
For the first time in the history of life, a species now has the ability to not only understand itself, but the ability to control it's destiny unlike any before it.
If that ain't special, I don't know what is.
-
The chimp experiment (which I've heard before, though like you I don't know exactly how true it is) would only prove that they have the capacity to impart learned behavior to each other - which I don't think anybody was disputing. Plenty of critters can do that.
As for toolmaking...as you say, it depends on where you draw the line, but to my way of thinking that's still a practical, concrete notion. It certainly is impressive that the crow can recognize something's potential as a tool, but I don't think it proves anything about whether they are capable of considering more abstract issues. "Can I use this to get food?" is a lot more of a concrete question than "is what I'm doing right?" or "where do we go when we die?" or what-have-you.
One such chimp experiment ultimately showed that the chimp was a very good mimic of human behavior. As he got older they were not able to teach him not to display aggressive behavior.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138467156/project-nim-a-chimps-very-human-very-sad-life
-
Exactly. There's this notion that anybody who prefers older things can only be doing so out of irrational nostalgia, because...blind faith that new is always inherently better than old, I guess. Question society's blind devotion to Progress (and they always confuse mere motion with real progress,) and you're just some stupid romantic who must be afraid of change! Certainly it can't possibly be that you actually, honestly believe that a newer development is a step backwards or anything.
Same reason I don't call my A500-A4000 Amigas Retro machines; I call them older Amiga models.
-
As I've pointed out, it's a question of degree. As John has pointed out, where do you draw the line? The practical use of a tool as described might be a level of abstraction, but it's only one level removed from the practical.
How exactly do you measure the number of levels of abstraction?
Now, how many birds can understand the abstract concepts of logic gates and computer buses as a method of communication between devices designed to perform functions not found in the natural world? How many birds can understand the concept of a modem, or envision an array capable of arranging pixels that use photons against a photosensitive surface to display symbols that represent the phonemes emitted by a species to convey the very concepts we are discussing now?
If you are trying to prove a point here, rest assured that no one here has said that birds are able to deal with concepts on the same level of abstraction as humans. If this is meant to be an argument, you've built a serious straw man.
For the first time in the history of life, a species now has the ability to not only understand itself, but the ability to control it's destiny unlike any before it.
I'm sure there have been many points in the history of life where a creature has had the ability to control its destiny unlike any before it. Humans didn't just pop out of the blue, as far as we can tell.
If that ain't special, I don't know what is.
That's special, but not inherently more special than any other unique capability of any other creature.
-
If that ain't special, I don't know what is.
Calling yourself special is ridiculously arrogant.
-
There's another reason I remember reading somewhere, that dolphins don't have advanced civilisation: it's impossible to do chemistry underwater.
Also here is a video of a crow having fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dWw9GLcOeA
-
I'm not sure Humans do have the ability to control their own destiny... We perhaps have the potential to do so, but really we are mostly just slaves to the common animal functions of eating and trying to reproduce... And then patting ourselves on the back and marvelling at how easy we have made it to do these things.
-
I'm not sure Humans do have the ability to control their own destiny... We perhaps have the potential to do so, but really we are mostly just slaves to the common animal functions of eating and trying to reproduce... And then patting ourselves on the back and marvelling at how easy we have made it to do these things.
Alex has this on a T-shirt:
http://imgur.com/TuuyH
-
Maybe it won't if you take the rest of my post into account.
Not really. The Quran says the universe was created in six days.
That information came from God & he was trying to give us information we didn't have. Whether he said it was a week, a year, a billion years would be irrelevant. He just needed to give the actual number.
Science has shown that it took a lot longer than six days, so people have redefined what God meant as a day.
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_33.html
Assuming God speaks to us in our language (how else could we understand him?) one would also expect him to use the same time measurements. A day/hour etc is a time measurement that we invented, suggesting that there is a universe day/hour etc that God didn't bother to mention would seem like an oversight.
However, for arguments sake he did use universe days instead of earth days. What other things could have been misunderstood? Wouldn't God have realised any mistakes that were made?
The conclusion on that page "Science has once again confirmed a fact revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago." is incorrect. The "fact" revealed in the Quran was the universe was created in six days. Science hasn't confirmed that. There are scientific theories on the age of the universe that haven't been proved that when adjusted with another theory is sort of close. Similar to how Nostrodamus predictions can only be understood when misinterpreting them after an event has happened. http://listverse.com/2007/09/14/top-10-prophecies-of-nostradamus-debunked/
-
Not really. The Quran says the universe was created in six days.
That information came from God & he was trying to give us information we didn't have. Whether he said it was a week, a year, a billion years would be irrelevant. He just needed to give the actual number.
Science has shown that it took a lot longer than six days, so people have redefined what God meant as a day.
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_33.html
Assuming God speaks to us in our language (how else could we understand him?) one would also expect him to use the same time measurements. A day/hour etc is a time measurement that we invented, suggesting that there is a universe day/hour etc that God didn't bother to mention would seem like an oversight.
However, for arguments sake he did use universe days instead of earth days. What other things could have been misunderstood? Wouldn't God have realised any mistakes that were made?
The conclusion on that page "Science has once again confirmed a fact revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago." is incorrect. The "fact" revealed in the Quran was the universe was created in six days. Science hasn't confirmed that. There are scientific theories on the age of the universe that haven't been proved that when adjusted with another theory is sort of close. Similar to how Nostrodamus predictions can only be understood when misinterpreting them after an event has happened. http://listverse.com/2007/09/14/top-10-prophecies-of-nostradamus-debunked/
Hey, still didn't read my post? Nothing that I am saying is in conflict with any of this.
-
Why should a day of the gods be a day from the human perspective? The Hindus count such time scales very differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology
-
The Arabic word 'ayyam' does not mean 'days', not even close, look it up in any respected Arabic lexicon.
As I said, you have no desire to learn anything about authentic Islam.
I could point you in the direction of an actual scholar who you could put your questions to but you aren't seriously interested so why should I bother.
To you your way and to me mine.
-
Why should a day of the gods be a day from the human perspective? The Hindus count such time scales very differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology
+1
To keep it off topic, a subject that interests me is the theory that Brahma and his consort Saraswati are in fact Abraham (pbuh) and his wife Sarah.
-
I'm not sure Humans do have the ability to control their own destiny... We perhaps have the potential to do so, but really we are mostly just slaves to the common animal functions of eating and trying to reproduce... And then patting ourselves on the back and marvelling at how easy we have made it to do these things.
Very well put Matt, I think the main difference between homo-sapien sapien and the other animals is mans arrogance.
I mean just look at the name we gave ourselves, so arrogant we called our species wise and then once more just to stress the point.
Regarding controlling our own destiny, a man once asked Imam Ali (pbuh) how much free will we possess. He told the man "Stand on one leg", he did as he was told and then the Imam said "Now lift the other leg".
-
Not really. The Quran says the universe was created in six days.
That information came from God & he was trying to give us information we didn't have. Whether he said it was a week, a year, a billion years would be irrelevant. He just needed to give the actual number.
He didn't need to give us anything. The exact length of time it took to create the Universe isn't really important to how one lives one's life.
Ima quote Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):
By "six days" Moses does not indicate a space of time in which the world was made, but the principles of order and productivity which governed its making
But you don't actually care what it means, it is convenient to take it literally so that you can ridicule it. Taking things literally wasn't invented until about the 18th century I think.
-
He didn't need to give us anything. The exact length of time it took to create the Universe isn't really important to how one lives one's life.
Ima quote Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):
By "six days" Moses does not indicate a space of time in which the world was made, but the principles of order and productivity which governed its making
But you don't actually care what it means, it is convenient to take it literally so that you can ridicule it. Taking things literally wasn't invented until about the 18th century I think.
My son will be five next month and he takes everything literally. He has a medical excuse though.
Speaking of the 18th century disease of literalism, one only has to look at the Wahabbis in Occupied Hijaz and the American Rapturists who both believe that every Muslim/Christian that came before them for the previous millennia are heretics.
-
He didn't need to give us anything. The exact length of time it took to create the Universe isn't really important to how one lives one's life.
Ima quote Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):
By "six days" Moses does not indicate a space of time in which the world was made, but the principles of order and productivity which governed its making
But you don't actually care what it means, it is convenient to take it literally so that you can ridicule it. Taking things literally wasn't invented until about the 18th century I think.
Just to be clear:
Philo of Alexandria was quoting a completely different book. He wasn't talking about the Koran or Haddiths but the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible (the Jewish religion) says literally "6 time periods" and ppl (usually atheists) "just assume" that it means "6 days" because "you know, its like obvious".
In fact "time period" can mean anything, a billion years, a million years. Or if you are a Star Wars fan it can even mean a unit of distance like 7 parsecs.
-
There's another reason I remember reading somewhere, that dolphins don't have advanced civilisation: it's impossible to do chemistry underwater.
I'm not asking to be shown dolphin monorails or something, here. There are plenty of ways that human intelligence can demonstrate itself in a visible, external fashion that don't require chemistry, hands, or anything else that dolphins don't have.
-
I'm not asking to be shown dolphin monorails or something, here. There are plenty of ways that human intelligence can demonstrate itself in a visible, external fashion that don't require chemistry, hands, or anything else that dolphins don't have.
Coincidentally, this is in the news today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23410137
But, supposing some other animal had a human level of intelligence - how would it manifest? Would it necessarily be something we would easily recognise? How would we know? We assume that anything intelligent would "be like us" but this is anthropocentric.
-
Just to be clear:
Philo of Alexandria was quoting a completely different book. He wasn't talking about the Koran or Haddiths but the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible (the Jewish religion) says literally "6 time periods" and ppl (usually atheists) "just assume" that it means "6 days" because "you know, its like obvious".
In fact "time period" can mean anything, a billion years, a million years. Or if you are a Star Wars fan it can even mean a unit of distance like 7 parsecs.
As does The Qur'an (Not Koran!) hence the following:
"[SIZE=-1]He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel." - Al-Qur'an 3:3
"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me." - Al-Qur'an 3:50
"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)." - Al-Qur'an 5:46
There are many more verses in a similar vein, so I think you get the picture.
[/SIZE]
-
@ Linde:
If you are trying to prove a point here, rest assured that no one here has said that birds are able to deal with concepts on the same level of abstraction as humans. If this is meant to be an argument, you've built a serious straw man.
With this comment it becomes quite clear to me that you are unwilling to see anyone else's point of view but your own.
I point out it's all a question of degree to which you respond with a question. You then go on to ignore the actual example of the degree between people and other animals by pretending it's a straw man. You then return to your argument that, because some animals might abstract, man is no better than them. This is like saying that because baby can lift five pounds, Superman's no more special despite his ability to lift five million.
Clearly, you are one who doesn't like his world view challenged and I'm wasting my time. I can think of better ways to spend it. Ciao!
@ Thorham:Calling yourself special is ridiculously arrogant.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
So, a parent who thinks his child is special is somehow arrogant? How about retro-computer users? Is their believe in the specialness of their favorite computer automatically make them arrogant? How about Labrador Retrievers? I have 1.5 Labradors and I think they're special dogs. Does that automatically make me arrogant? I can think of plenty other things that might, but simply thinking something is special because it has value? Inconceivable! :)
@ At all who are arguing that Special somehow equals Superior.
There seems to be a meme here held by some that Special equates to Superior. This is an erroneous thought. I can certainly see how some might think so, as there are those who do think their superiority grants them license to do as they please. Certainly, the Nazis, KKK, even Kings & Politicians have thought such things, so such a believe is not wrong.
But it is erroneous to assume that such thinking always leads to freedom to do as one pleases. I tend think differently. I believe that the very thing that sets us apart from all other creatures on this planet obligates us to become caretakers of this world. The human brain is the most powerful computer on the planet, and with great power comes great responsibility.
For the first time on this planet, there exists a species that can fight back against the very same things that brought extinction to others. We already resist drought and famine much better than other species. We've conquered disease in a way that no other has. We may even be able to avert, or at least mitigate, the next big disaster, like an asteroid. The dinosaurs, quite literally, never had a chance.
Once again, if that ain't special, I don't know what is. If the rest of you only want to dwell on the negative aspects of man, that's your right. Just don't expect all of us to fall into that trap as I prefer to look at "both sides of the coin." I know man is capable of very great evil, but I also recognize that man is capable of very great good and the changes we've brought/will bring to this planet fall into both categories.
-
@ Thorham:
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You got me there, thought you meant superior :o However, we're obviously only special to ourselves...
-
@EDanaII
I believe that the very thing that sets us apart from all other creatures on this planet obligates us to become caretakers of this world.
That's the Islamic doctrine in a nutshell.
Asalaamu alaykum dear brother! ;)
-
@ Linde:
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
That would be your best Fezzik voice... >.<
-
No, no, no, no! My best Fezzik quote would be:
I just want you to feel you’re doing well. I hate for people to die embarrassed.
:D
@ Nicholas:
Somehow, I don't think that's just a Islamic doctrine. I suspect it's embraced by many. At least, I sure hope it is. :)
@ Thorham:
You know... I just wouldn't be the least bit surprised if all living things fancied themselves special. Somehow, I think it's an integral part of being. :)
-
@ Nicholas:
Somehow, I don't think that's just a Islamic doctrine. I suspect it's embraced by many. At least, I sure hope it is. :)
Oh of course, I just wanted to stress the point that's all.
It is written many times in the Qur'an and also narrated in the traditions of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh&hf) and his legitimate successors (The 12 Imams) that man was placed on Earth purely as it's vice-regent with the sole task of taking care of it.
-
This world doesn't need a caretaker. For billions of years everything was fine. Then comes along the human, and all of a sudden a caretaker is needed. Seems a little strange to me. What this world needs is us not screwing everything up.
-
Oh of course, I just wanted to stress the point that's all.
It is written many times in the Qur'an and also narrated in the traditions of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh&hf) and his legitimate successors (The 12 Imams) that man was placed on Earth purely as it's vice-regent with the sole task of taking care of it.
As strange as it may seem, at first glance I agree with the above statement... Then, when I actually think about this statement I realise that I don't agree with it.
I don't think we are here to be caretakers of the Earth, the earth runs just fine as a system in its own right... Far better we minimise the inevitable impact we will have upon it, but even then if we screw up our world... Something will survive, something will continue and eventually flourish. We aren't really that special, and I suppose we just don't realise that... Which leads us to squabbles over lines in the dirt and the need to satisfy our every whim.
We, as a species, behave like spoilt children... All thinking out little group is better than all the others.
Sorry for the philosophical rant, just typing out aloud really.
-
The expanding sun will wipe out all life on Earth in a billion years or so unless we invent planet-tugs or something.
-
This planet already has enough tugs.
We squabble over collections of components wrapped up in circuits sending staccato pulses of electricity around.
What chance is there in amicability around land and political power.
And religion, please let's not even go there.
-
Yep. Here we go again... assuming that man can only be a negative force... nothing ever changes. :)
-
Yep. Here we go again... assuming that man can only be a negative force... nothing ever changes. :)
Indeed, nothing ever changes, which is exactly why people think that. When have humans ever been a positive influence on this world? Or at least not a negative one?
Humans have great potential, but you wouldn't think that when you look at the world as a whole today.
-
I point out it's all a question of degree to which you respond with a question. You then go on to ignore the actual example of the degree between people and other animals by pretending it's a straw man.
I didn't say that you made a straw man. I'm saying that if the part I quoted was meant to be used as an argument, you made a straw man, because you certainly aren't arguing with anyone here.
Clearly, you are one who doesn't like his world view challenged and I'm wasting my time. I can think of better ways to spend it. Ciao!
"You clearly don't like like to have your world view challenged" *runs off from discussion*
You then return to your argument that, because some animals might abstract, man is no better than them. This is like saying that because baby can lift five pounds, Superman's no more special despite his ability to lift five million.
I am not saying that man is no better than animals on the grounds of their ability to abstract. I'm saying that man is no better than animals because being able to converse in abstract concepts isn't inherently more valuable than being able to live off insects. It's _you_ who try to decide which is better on the basis of obviously subjective values. If you are going to talk about which is "better" you're going to have to apply some sort of value system, and unless that value system is somehow objective, you are just explaining your opinion, not arguing with any sort of factual basis.
@ At all who are arguing that Special somehow equals Superior.
See above, you aren't exactly consistent with this yourself.
So, a parent who thinks his child is special is somehow arrogant?
Parents are arrogant when it comes to their children. Also, bears do **** in the woods. Not that the message you were replying to had anything to do with what parents think of their children, but it'd make another nice textbook example of a straw man.
-
It is written many times in the Qur'an and also narrated in the traditions of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh&hf) and his legitimate successors (The 12 Imams) that man was placed on Earth purely as it's vice-regent with the sole task of taking care of it.
I think we have a moral obligation to take care of it, it is in our interest to keep the environment comfortable for ourselves. Religion is a good vehicle for applying moral values to people.
But I don't believe that man was placed on earth as our evolution was based on sexual partner selection of other species and god doesn't control what we do.
We've not been around for very long in comparison to the rest of the earth, other species have come and gone and others have survived. We're not even the most complex http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/paris-japonica-complex-dna/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html
For anyone that doesn't believe in evolution, research into fruit flies (which share a lot of DNA with man) shows how quickly mutations can occur http://www.orkin.com/flies/fruit-fly/fruit-fly-genetics/ http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/lessons/Genetics/Drosophila.html
If you are going to talk about which is "better" you're going to have to apply some sort of value system, and unless that value system is somehow objective, you are just explaining your opinion, not arguing with any sort of factual basis.
The value system exists, we live in it. Eating bugs isn't going to get you laid, so you're not going to have children. Keeping your DNA going is the only mark of success.
-
I think we have a moral obligation to take care of it & religion is a good vehicle for applying moral values to people.
But I don't believe that man was placed on earth as our evolution was based on sexual partner selection of other species and god doesn't control what we do.
What makes you think Islam is at odds with natural selection?
-
What makes you think Islam is at odds with natural selection?
Are you saying your god just kept tinkering until he got something that he liked the look of and then stopped?
i.e. killed off people that looked funny with a landslide or something until the correct couples mated?
The Hebrew Bible (the Jewish religion) says literally "6 time periods"
No it doesn't say that literally as it wasn't written in English. Someone may have translated the original text as "6 time periods". We weren't around at the time, so god must have told us. You'd have thought if he was going to tell us how long it took, he might actually tell us in a way that we could actually know what it meant. Otherwise, why bother?
The millennium falcon making the kessel run in 12 parsecs has at least been resolved, because the ship can fly a shorter route than anyone else (George Lucas never claimed that a parsec was a unit of time, people assumed he did). It's a pity God hasn't paid a visit lately to clear up a few things. He appeared a lot more when the only entertainment people had was sitting around a fire re-telling stories they had heard.
-
Are you saying your god just kept tinkering until he got something that he liked the look of and then stopped?
i.e. killed off people that looked funny with a landslide or something until the correct couples mated?
I've already posted a link previously in this thread to the wiki entry on the Shi'a Scholar Nasir al-Din al-Tusi who "discovered" the theory of Natural Selection 800yrs before Darwin claimed it as his own.
You are blinded by your own ignorance and I really don't know why I'm bothering to carry on talking to you.
-
I've already posted a link previously in this thread to the wiki entry on the Shi'a Scholar Nadir al-Din al-Tusi who "discovered" the theory of Natural Selection 800yrs before Darwin claimed it as his own.
You are blinded by your own ignorance and I really don't know why I'm bothering to carry on talking to you.
Throwing insults means you lose. Why be hateful? You know that I don't believe in any religion invented by man and never will, no matter how long it's been going on or what their religious texts say. I understand that I can't change your mind & I don't particularly want to. I think it's important to have things you believe in and I wouldn't want to take that from you even if I could. However I do enjoy finding out about other peoples viewpoints.
Saying who came up with the theory of evolution doesn't answer my question. How did God influence our natural selection, did he aim for us or were we a mistake & how does it tie up with the Quran? If you can't have a civil conversation then there is no point.
I found this http://thedistortedreligion.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-quranic-concept-of-evolution-part-i-natural-selection-or-divine-will/ which kinda actually says that while the Quran says that evolution happened, it wasn't natural selection as it was god that controlled the process. I don't know how accurate the site is (it appears to be written by an atheist anyway), but if it's true then I would like to know how god did that.
-
But I don't believe that man was placed on earth as our evolution was based on sexual partner selection of other species and god doesn't control what we do.
God creating man does not go inextricably hand-in-hand with God controlling our actions. Just sayin'.
(Unless you're a Calvinist.)
-
What makes you think Islam is at odds with natural selection?
Thanks Nik,
I don't have any problem reconciling religion with natural selection either.
Apparently I now have to accept the weight of a lot of other believers with rigid interpretations.
-
Throwing insults means you lose. Why be hateful?
I wasn't aware that correcting your wrong assumptions about Islam is considered "throwing insults".
You know that I don't believe in any religion invented by man and never will
Neither do I.
, no matter how long it's been going on or what their religious texts say. I understand that I can't change your mind & I don't particularly want to.
I don't want to convert you to Islam either. Even if I did it's not up to me but The One.
However, you have made several incorrect assumptions about authentic Islam and when people do this I will always correct them. I'm not trying to convince you what I believe is true, but correct your assumptions about what I believe.
I think it's important to have things you believe in and I wouldn't want to take that from you even if I could. However I do enjoy finding out about other peoples viewpoints.
Glad to hear it and ditto.
Saying who came up with the theory of evolution doesn't answer my question. How did God influence our natural selection
Why does it matter how He did or did not do it? The facts are it does happen and is still happening today. Evolution has not stopped.
I'm a Shi'a so this is a particularly important part of my theology, in that my Imam(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh) will not return until the Shi'a have evolved to a much different state than we are currently in. Be that spiritual, physical or both.
, did he aim for us or were we a mistake & how does it tie up with the Quran?
Adam(pbuh) (The famous one) was not the first hominid on this earth, not even close to being the first. There are narrations that state something along the lines of 50,000 species of Adams came before he did.
If you can't have a civil conversation then there is no point.
I found this http://thedistortedreligion.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-quranic-concept-of-evolution-part-i-natural-selection-or-divine-will/ which kinda actually says that while the Quran says that evolution happened, it wasn't natural selection as it was god that controlled the process. I don't know how accurate the site is (it appears to be written by an atheist anyway), but if it's true then I would like to know how god did that.
I've given that site a quick look over and it appears to be written by someone who follows a relatively modern cult known by various names but usually Quran Aloner's or 19ers. They believe in a new "prophet" called Rashad Khalifa and that all Muslims before them are infidels. Not unlike the Wahabbi cult currently occupying Hijaz (It's not Saudi Arabia and never will be)
I feel like I shouldn't have to state this but the Qur'an is a book of theology and ethics not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a book of inctructions on how to live ones life and also contains historical records.
Also, the Qur'an is nothing without explanation of it's verses. Those qualified to explain it's verses are the immediate blood family of Prophet Muhammad and no one else. Particularly not random cultists and wahabbis on the interwebs. ;)
http://al-islam.org
http://en.rafed.net/islamic-books-magazine
-
Thanks Nik,
I don't have any problem reconciling religion with natural selection either.
Apparently I now have to accept the weight of a lot of other believers with rigid interpretations.
Rigid thinking does nobody any good.
I truly am worried sick about my son when he's an adult and I'm no longer around as I think his inability to see things from anyone else's POV will severely hamper him and make him very vulnerable. :(
-
There seems to be a lot of worry about why God didn't tell us exactly how long it took. Well firstly because it doesn't even matter. It's just a narrative device. Obsessing over the literal meaning of it completely misses the point. Actually if anything it's an etiological myth that explains why we have a seven-day week with one day off, as such it gives us far more useful information about how to live our lives than "13.8 billion years" does.
This latter we were able to find out by ourselves anyway, which is part of the fun of existing. You'll be complaining next that God didn't do your crossword puzzle for you.
Whether God "controlled" evolution or not, I don't know, or why it matters. God created the laws of nature, so He created evolution. But if He does control it at all, well mutations are essentially the result of quantum probabilities, which due to Bell's theorem aren't predictable using any information in the Universe, so if they're not truly random (which to my mind is absurd) this information must be coming from outside the Universe.
-
There seems to be a lot of worry about why God didn't tell us exactly how long it took. Well firstly because it doesn't even matter. It's just a narrative device. Obsessing over the literal meaning of it completely misses the point. Actually if anything it's an etiological myth that explains why we have a seven-day week with one day off, as such it gives us far more useful information about how to live our lives than "13.8 billion years" does.
This latter we were able to find out by ourselves anyway, which is part of the fun of existing. You'll be complaining next that God didn't do your crossword puzzle for you.
Whether God "controlled" evolution or not, I don't know, or why it matters. God created the laws of nature, so He created evolution. But if He does control it at all, well mutations are essentially the result of quantum probabilities, which due to Bell's theorem aren't predictable using any information in the Universe, so if they're not truly random (which to my mind is absurd) this information must be coming from outside the Universe.
I like this. :)
-
Time to move this to CH!
-
There seems to be a lot of worry about why God didn't tell us exactly how long it took. Well firstly because it doesn't even matter. It's just a narrative device. Obsessing over the literal meaning of it completely misses the point. Actually if anything it's an etiological myth that explains why we have a seven-day week with one day off, as such it gives us far more useful information about how to live our lives than "13.8 billion years" does.
This latter we were able to find out by ourselves anyway, which is part of the fun of existing. You'll be complaining next that God didn't do your crossword puzzle for you.
Whether God "controlled" evolution or not, I don't know, or why it matters. God created the laws of nature, so He created evolution. But if He does control it at all, well mutations are essentially the result of quantum probabilities, which due to Bell's theorem aren't predictable using any information in the Universe, so if they're not truly random (which to my mind is absurd) this information must be coming from outside the Universe.
Yes, that was good.
Something binds this (and the other) universes at (and below) a quantum level.
And it seems to be based on order.
And if you study evolution closely, you'll notice that not all the mutations appear random.
And, no, I don't believe God actively plays with our DNA.
-
What a pointless thread this is,
It is nostalgia.
No its not.
Yes it is.
I gave up and jumped to the last page and now it is an argument about bloody religion.
-
Neither do I.
I'm pretty sure psxphill was trying to express his belief that all religions are an invention of man. Just thought I'd point that out incase you missed it. ;)
-
No it doesn't say that literally as it wasn't written in English. Someone may have translated the original text as "6 time periods". We weren't around at the time, so god must have told us. You'd have thought if he was going to tell us how long it took, he might actually tell us in a way that we could actually know what it meant. Otherwise, why bother?
God didn't write the bible.
People wrote the bible.
My bible is written in English as are most.
-
God didn't write the bible.
People wrote the bible.
My bible is written in English as are most.
True, except maybe the last line.
It has to be the most translated book of all time.
-
I believe that the very thing that sets us apart from all other creatures on this planet obligates us to become caretakers of this world.
It's obvious to me that it's this world that looks after us. We're quite powerless, and can't control or contend with the extraordinary power of nature, at least not for a LONG time. As of yet, she provides everything we require.
If Mother Nature wants to get rid of us, she will in a heart beat. We won't have a say in it.
-
It's obvious to me that it's this world that looks after us. We're quite powerless, and can't control or contend with the extraordinary power of nature, at least not for a LONG time. As of yet, she provides everything we require.
If Mother Nature wants to get rid of us, she will in a heart beat. We won't have a say in it.
I too, believe that will inevitably happen.
And, sorry Star Trek fans, but our bodies aren't well suited to other environments.
But, hopefully, I won't live to witness it.
Finally, I think the term caretakers is more in how we treat the planet.
Since we can't really control our eventual fate, but we can do a lot of damage.
-
I too, believe that will inevitably happen.
And, sorry Star Trek fans, but our bodies aren't well suited to other environments.
But, hopefully, I won't live to witness it.
Finally, I think the term caretakers is more in how we treat the planet.
Since we can't really control our eventual fate, but we can do a lot of damage.
Caretaker is what is meant in the narration I mentioned earlier when I translated it as viceregent.
-
God didn't write the bible.
People wrote the bible.
My bible is written in English as are most.
I doubt that very much, if I had to gamble on it I'd guess at Spanish.
-
Caretaker is what is meant in the narration I mentioned earlier when I translated it as viceregent.
I rather figured so, Nik.
And if we trash it, we hasten our demise.
-
The value system exists, we live in it.
Is it objective in any sense? If so, how? I can think of many value systems, but they all differ and are - if not completely arbitrary - inherently biased.
Eating bugs isn't going to get you laid, so you're not going to have children. Keeping your DNA going is the only mark of success.
Eating bugs is going to get you laid if it is what you do to survive. Also, even if you disregard the fact that this is a completely evolutionary perspective, even from that standpoint it's total bull****. You have no idea of what you're talking about if you think that having children is the only way to further genes and keep "your" DNA going. The advancement of genes have little to do with the individual animals, and most of all nothing to do with "success" in a general sense. Success in procreation is success in procreation, nothing else.
-
I'm pretty sure psxphill was trying to express his belief that all religions are an invention of man.
And it's blatantly obvious he's correct. The fact that people still believe in those books is utterly astounding. A bunch of people a few thousand years ago wrote some books saying that they were inspired by some god. Oh really?
-
And it's blatantly obvious he's correct.
That's quite an assertion, to be saying that every single religion is not just altogether wrong, but obviously altogether wrong. It's certainly not easy (or probably even possible) to prove them right, so skepticism is understandable, but that's a far cry from any of them being as self-evidently groundless as you're saying...
-
That's quite an assertion, to be saying that every single religion is not just altogether wrong, but obviously altogether wrong. It's certainly not easy (or probably even possible) to prove them right, so skepticism is understandable, but that's a far cry from any of them being as self-evidently groundless as you're saying...
Yes, that is a good point.
And I think most people don't really get religions.
Most have lesson embedded in them on how to be a better person (humility, giving, consideration, etc).
Good reference, believe it or not, Black Sabbath - After Forever
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/black+sabbath/after+forever_20019384.html
Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he's the one
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate
Or will you still jeer at all you hear?
Yes! I think it's too late.
Yeah, the self proclaimed 'Prince of Darkness' is a Christian.
Went to a boys school in Birmingham.
Practiced at Saint Joseph's RC originally (as did Judas Priest).
And Ronnie James Dio was Catholic.
-
And it's blatantly obvious he's correct. The fact that people still believe in those books is utterly astounding. A bunch of people a few thousand years ago wrote some books saying that they were inspired by some god. Oh really?
'Blatantly obvious' to you perhaps.
You'll find out for sure one day.....
-
'Blatantly obvious' to you perhaps.
You'll find out for sure one day.....
Actually, if he's right, he won't find out.
He'll just die.
But I think the answer is all around us screaming for attention and people like him are just deaf to the sound.
-
Actually, if he's right, he won't find out.
He'll just die.
But I think the answer is all around us screaming for attention and people like him are just deaf to the sound.
What I find most comical is that many atheists seem intent on converting believers to their way but I personally couldn't give a damn about trying to convert someone to my way. I don't see the point in even trying.
"Those who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) are deaf and dumb in darkness. Allah sends astray whom He wills and He guides on the Straight Path whom He wills." Al-Qur'an 6:39
I'll always answer questions people ask me about what I believe and I'll always correct incorrect assumptions people have but thats about the length and breadth of it for me.
edit:
If I'm wrong then I'll just die and my life will not have been worse off for believing either.
-
Why you put as examples the quran?, and what it has to do with the Amiga, or computing in general?. At least one thing in common is sure, the zealots that preach that his choice is teh only and one.
-
Why you put as examples the quran?, and what it has to do with the Amiga, or computing in general?. At least one thing in common is sure, the zealots that preach that his choice is teh only and one.
Because if you'd bothered to read the entire thread certain people made false claims about Islam and I replied.
To you your way and to me mine.
Next!
-
What I find most comical is that many atheists seem intent on converting believers to their way but I personally couldn't give a damn about trying to convert someone to my way. I don't see the point in even trying.
Many? That's a bit harsh ;)
"Those who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) are deaf and dumb in darkness. Allah sends astray whom He wills and He guides on the Straight Path whom He wills." Al-Qur'an 6:39
I'll always answer questions people ask me about what I believe and I'll always correct incorrect assumptions people have but thats about the length and breadth of it for me.
edit:
If I'm wrong then I'll just die and my life will not have been worse off for believing either.
As long as one's beliefs don't conflict with causing someone else any harm, I have to agree with you :)
-
Many? That's a bit harsh ;)
<=49.9% then? ;)
As long as one's beliefs don't conflict with causing someone else any harm, I have to agree with you :)
Oooh I'm so tempted to quote another verse. lol
-
<=49.9% then? ;)
That's... better? Hahaha ;)
Oooh I'm so tempted to quote another verse. lol
careful, you'll just be throwing a flammable substance on an already ignited object :)
-
Perversely enough, when I study complex physics is when I'm most convinced that there is a unifying force behind all this.
-
You'll find out for sure one day.....
When I do find out I'm sure it won't be like human religion says it will be.
"Those who reject Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) are deaf and dumb in darkness. Allah sends astray whom He wills and He guides on the Straight Path whom He wills." Al-Qur'an 6:39
Most religions (if not all) say that. They are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Actually, if he's right, he won't find out.
He'll just die.
I never said there isn't more, just that human religion is wrong.
But I think the answer is all around us screaming for attention and people like him are just deaf to the sound.
The only answer is that there has always been something, and what or who that is, is unknown. From purely mechanical, physical 'stuff' all the way to one or more omnipotent beings, and even both. It's possible, but I seriously doubt the answers are in thousands of years old books.
-
I wrote a long reply and then scrapped it because I really couldn't give a toss whether you do or do not believe in anything. It's irrelevant to me.
-
I wrote a long reply and then scrapped it because I really couldn't give a toss whether you do or do not believe in anything. It's irrelevant to me.
Ultimately everyone has to accept the nature of the reality they perceive around them, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing that the views may be different.
Though sometimes I feel a little sorry for the old Saxon/Nordic/Greek/Roman/etc deities that almost no one believes in them any more! :-(
-
Ultimately everyone has to accept the nature of the reality they perceive around them
The problem is just knowing what the nature of reality is.
-
Ultimately everyone has to accept the nature of the reality they perceive around them, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing that the views may be different.
Though sometimes I feel a little sorry for the old Saxon/Nordic/Greek/Roman/etc deities that almost no one believes in them any more! :-(
They just renamed them as Jesus. ;)
-
I never said there isn't more, just that human religion is wrong.
The only answer is that there has always been something, and what or who that is, is unknown. From purely mechanical, physical 'stuff' all the way to one or more omnipotent beings, and even both. It's possible, but I seriously doubt the answers are in thousands of years old books.
You are now closer to what I feel.
Humans are chronic screw-ups.
So how could we divine to nature of the universe within our limitations?
But that doesn't mean we should use whatever is positive to improve ourselves.
-
Most religions (if not all) say that. They are right, and everyone else is wrong.
The fact that they can't all be right on account of mutual exclusiveness doesn't at all mean that each one cannot be right...
You are now closer to what I feel.
Humans are chronic screw-ups.
So how could we divine to nature of the universe within our limitations?
This is a pretty good point - but not really applicable to the religions that claim direct divine revelation.
Though sometimes I feel a little sorry for the old Saxon/Nordic/Greek/Roman/etc deities that almost no one believes in them any more! :-(
Oh, I guarantee you there's revivalist movements out there.
-
The fact that they can't all be right on account of mutual exclusiveness doesn't at all mean that each one cannot be right...
True, I just find it highly unlikely any one of them is right.
-
There is divine revelation in everything from ancient texts to beehives. How could there not be, if God pervades all things? Nikola Tesla credits a vision in the sky for his invention of the electric motor. I'd wager there are even bits of divine revelation in the Linux kernel.
I can identify with it myself. There are times when I really don't feel like I can take all the credit for my own work, times when I really can't account for where an idea came from, or when I seemed to know something that I had no earthly right to know.
-
There is divine revelation in everything from ancient texts to beehives. How could there not be, if God pervades all things? Nikola Tesla credits a vision in the sky for his invention of the electric motor. I'd wager there are even bits of divine revelation in the Linux kernel.
I can identify with it myself. There are times when I really don't feel like I can take all the credit for my own work, times when I really can't account for where an idea came from, or when I seemed to know something that I had no earthly right to know.
Indeed.
Surely there are signs for those that reflect. :)
-
True, I just find it highly unlikely any one of them is right.
I like the use of that word.
That is why its sometimes useful to roll your own.
-
There are times when I really don't feel like I can take all the credit for my own work, times when I really can't account for where an idea came from, or when I seemed to know something that I had no earthly right to know.
It comes from your imagination & no divine intervention is required for that. If my thoughts are guided by god then he seems to be doing something different with me than he is with his believers.
The brain is complex and regularly does things without us being aware of it and can't necessarily comprehend how it does it.
The Hensel conjoined twins are pretty good at volleyball, despite each of their brains only being able to control one half of their body.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2012/08/abby-and-brittany-hensel-5-things-you-should-know-about-the-conjoined-twins-from-tlcs-new-show.html
Now I find that pretty amazing.
-
It comes from your imagination & no divine intervention is required for that.
Oh does it I'm glad you know everything.
So do tell me, where does my imagination get it from?
-
It comes from your imagination & no divine intervention is required for that. If my thoughts are guided by god then he seems to be doing something different with me than he is with his believers.
The brain is complex and regularly does things without us being aware of it and can't necessarily comprehend how it does it.
The Hensel conjoined twins are pretty good at volleyball, despite each of their brains only being able to control one half of their body.
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2012/08/abby-and-brittany-hensel-5-things-you-should-know-about-the-conjoined-twins-from-tlcs-new-show.html
Now I find that pretty amazing.
Now that we are truly way off topic I thought I'd mention something truly amazing.
Both my parents have a twin each. Both of them literally feel the pain their twin is experiencing even when hundreds of miles away, both emotional and physical pain.
My Mum went through 11hrs of labour pains whilst she was still a virgin when her twin gave birth 1 month prematurely and they were in different countries at the time.
I find that amazing. :)
-
Recently I read one of Richard Feinmann's books.
In it he devotes a chapter on a topic that I could relate to and he says, was not uncommon during his teaching years: the situation when a student with religious up bringing ends up studying science. That student, he says, goes through a period of unease, a struggle, as his studies conflict with many of the basic tenets of his religion.
The resolution of this conflict doesn't necessarily mean abandoning science or his religion, and many scientists maintain their religious beliefs. How scientists reconcile this is often up to the person himself.
It seemed to me that my religion-along with most popular religions- seem to have two main aims. One is to explain the world we find ourselves in.
I was brought up as a Christian, but later went on to do a MSc. During that time I was exposed to pretty much every branch of science there was: from calculus to relativistic mechanics and quantum theory to the life sciences to anthropology to electrical engineering and materials science.
I came to the conclusion that science does a better job of explaining the world around us then any religion that I've come across.
The other thing religions seem to do is to provide a set of rules on how one should live their life, a moral code or set of values, complete with rewards for those that do, and punishment for those that don't, including the biggies of eternal life or eternal damnation. I can see how this in ancient times would have been important in terms of protecting the community and maintaining social order: after all what bigger reward is their than eternal life, and what worse punishment is their than eternal damnation- Eternity is a long time!
The important things in life-love, family, health, mutual respect however in my mind haven't changed all that much over the eons. I'm yet to be convinced that modern takes on what is a "good and moral life" are any better than the majority of what's in the Bible. I don't believe I'll get to heaven or hell one way or the other, but the Bible's life-rules make pretty good sense to me.
So that was my resolution of my "conflict". I still regard myself as a "small c" Christian.
-
Oh does it I'm glad you know everything.
So do tell me, where does my imagination get it from?
There are scientific possibilities for how the brain "imagines".
In a sense everything we perceive is a form of "imagination".
What we see as "reality" is only a mental construct of the real world: "color" for example only exists in our mind, perspective is an illusion-things aren't really smaller as they get further away.
One of our abilities is to predict mental scenarios based on prior experiences. We can recreate "what ifs" in our minds. The prediction may never have actually been observed by the person before, or indeed may actually be physically impossible but using previous observations and experiences a new scene or vision can be created within the brain.
How does all this happen at the biochemical level-God knows.
No actually there's no need to invoke God, yet.
.
-
Since this is an off topic thread, I will continue :)
I'm not going to discuss the possibility of a god/gods/etc and the validity or otherwise of the various religions... My feelings are well known and I have little interest in changing others views ;)
But what does trouble me is the idea of a soul or thy humans are in some way special... I feel that puts other organisms in a very unfair position. But worse, much worse than that, it implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue :)
-
...But worse, much worse than that, it implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue :)
Pure science fiction, the idea of sentient machines.
Machines that mimic sentient behavior so well that it seems realistic?
Sure.
Now your point on animals?
I wholly agree, they deserve consideration.
-
But what does trouble me is the idea of a soul or thy humans are in some way special... I feel that puts other organisms in a very unfair position. But worse, much worse than that, it implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue :)
I just use the word "soul" to mean a person, as in the essence of what makes them "them" as distinct from their body, but not necessarily a thing that can exist separately or float away after they die. It means the sum of their personality, memories &c., or in other words, the mind (as opposed to the brain). This is closer to the original meaning in fact. In the New Testament the word translated as soul is "psyche" which expresses the same idea today in such words as "psychology".
The Greek philosophers did develop the idea of immortal souls as something separable from the body, which fits in with their way of thinking in terms of essences &c., but isn't necessarily what the Bible means at all. We owe a lot to Descartes for this way of thinking, too. It's not for no reason it's called Cartesian Dualism!
The other word "spirit" simply means "breath" (Gk. pneuma), that which physically sustains us alive, as in "respiration", "aspiration" &c. and of course spirits that you drink, presumably because of the vapours.
-
Pure science fiction, the idea of sentient machines.
Machines that mimic sentient behavior so well that it seems realistic?
Sure.
Now your point on animals?
I wholly agree, they deserve consideration.
Your assertion is prejudiced, you like organisms that operate along the lines by which you operate... That's a bit unfair ;)
-
Since this is an off topic thread, I will continue :)
I'm not going to discuss the possibility of a god/gods/etc and the validity or otherwise of the various religions... My feelings are well known and I have little interest in changing others views ;)
But what does trouble me is the idea of a soul or thy humans are in some way special... I feel that puts other organisms in a very unfair position. But worse, much worse than that, it implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue :)
I can't speak for other religions but according to Islamic belief all the animals have souls.
The difference is that humans can sin, other animals can't so they all go to paradise.
-
I can't speak for other religions but according to Islamic belief all the animals have souls.
The difference is that humans can sin, other animals can't so they all go to paradise.
Again, I feel that is a bit arrogant (trying to think of a less pejorative word here), it suggests animals can't be responsible for their own actions. We can see clearly in the higher primates and other social animals, that individuals can commit acts that are considered "wrong" by their peers and are punished within their society, they are clearly responsible for their actions... To use religious language, they have sinned!
-
...suggests animals can't be responsible for their own actions. ...social animals ... can commit acts that are considered "wrong" by their peers and are punished within their society, they are clearly responsible for their actions... To use religious language, they have sinned!
Sinning is to rebel against God, not society. God never told animals to do or not to do anything, so nothing is "wrong" for them.
I just hope there are mosquito nets in heaven.
-
Sinning is to rebel against God, not society. God never told animals to do or not to do anything, so nothing is "wrong" for them.
I just hope there are mosquito nets in heaven.
That assumes you are an authority on what god decided to disclose to you and the animals... It seems like an arrogant position to me, I prefer not to assume I know everything :)
-
That assumes you are an authority on what god decided to disclose to you and the animals... It seems like an arrogant position to me, I prefer not to assume I know everything :)
It's a good point, I never caught my dog reading the Bible but maybe there is divine inspiration in some of the things he sniffs.
-
It's a good point, I never caught my dog reading the Bible but maybe there is divine inspiration in some of the things he sniffs.
Maybe that which is revealed to dogs is far more important than that which is found in the bible ;)
-
Again, I feel that is a bit arrogant (trying to think of a less pejorative word here), it suggests animals can't be responsible for their own actions. We can see clearly in the higher primates and other social animals, that individuals can commit acts that are considered "wrong" by their peers and are punished within their society, they are clearly responsible for their actions... To use religious language, they have sinned!
A sin is a breach of a contract between man and God. No such contract exists between the other animals and God.
-
A sin is a breach of a contract between man and God. No such contract exists between the other animals and God.
My use of language was remiss then, I still have a problem with the human centric concepts that put animals and machine subservient to them :)
-
My use of language was remiss then, I still have a problem with the human centric concepts that put animals and machine subservient to them :)
Machines are subservient perhaps but not animals.
-
We created machines so their contract is with us.
I don't have a problem with the idea of sentient machines though, but the ethical questions that would raise, I don't even know where to start.
Need another Bible.
-
We created machines so their contract is with us.
I don't have a problem with the idea of sentient machines though, but the ethical questions that would raise, I don't even know where to start.
Need another Bible.
Here's one. ;)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0201353776/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1375036389&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY190
-
Machines are subservient perhaps but not animals.
Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient? ;)
-
Here's one. ;)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0201353776/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1375036389&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY190
Lol :) but mrs beanbag raises a good point... If we created the sentient machines do they answer to us (as gods) or do we give them the same rights as us?
-
Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient? ;)
Perhaps, but only in the same way psychopaths are sentient too. ;)
-
Lol :) but mrs beanbag raises a good point... If we created the sentient machines do they answer to us (as gods) or do we give them the same rights as us?
Do we have the right to give them the same rights we have?
-
Perhaps, but only in the same way psychopaths are sentient too. ;)
That is a very good point!
We are going to create sentient machines at some point.
All the machines we have create so far are psychopathic.
So before we create a sentient machine we dam well better program it with a conscience and sense of morality.
Not that any of this matters.
By 1000 years after the first sentient machine is created, humanity will be wiped out. Sure there may be a few Eskimos that survive here and there but our civilzation will be gone. The sentient machines will take everything.
But hey, it was nice knowing you guys! :) We had a good run.
-
Anyone here read Dune?
Butlerian Jihad!
-
I don't believe I'll get to heaven or hell one way or the other, but the Bible's life-rules make pretty good sense to me.
So that was my resolution of my "conflict". I still regard myself as a "small c" Christian.
Right on, Jesus was totally the Tony Robbins of the first century :/ Just a shame he had to go to all that bother with the whole "substitutionary atonement" thing - if only he'd thought to become a self-help guru!
But what does trouble me is the idea of a soul or thy humans are in some way special... I feel that puts other organisms in a very unfair position. But worse, much worse than that, it implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue :)
Well, just for kicks, let's take the position that humans have souls and that's what makes us more than simply complex animals. Even if that's true, the human body is still just a very complex biological machine - so who's to say that a non-biological machine couldn't possess one?
I certainly wouldn't take the position that God : humans :: humans : robots, though - I don't know a single human being who isn't wildly unqualified for godhood.
-
I certainly wouldn't take the position that God : humans :: humans : robots, though - I don't know a single human being who isn't wildly unqualified for godhood.
This is what worries me about the whole transhumanism movement. We should concentrate on improving ourselves morally before we start enabling the very worst of us to acquire extraordinary abilities and power. Because it would be the very worst of us, wouldn't it, the psychopaths who got rich through fraud and embezzlement will be able to afford it; the likes of Mother Theresa wouldn't.
-
Oh, don't get me started on transhumanism/Singularitarians; we'll be here all week.
-
Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient? ;)
And, further, how will we tell?
What if its just a really good simulation of sentient thought?
-
And, further, how will we tell?
What if its just a really good simulation of sentient thought?
Ahhh, the Chinese Room argument ;)
-
Thought is a process, not an object. There's no reason I can think of that brain cells should be able to implement a process that silicon can't.
-
Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient? ;)
Aren't we just sophisticated machines?
If so then the answer is yes :)
-
The real problem is determining whether a person is just a part of the information in the brain, or something external (there's our soul again :)).
Aren't we just sophisticated machines?
Our physical bodies certainly are, but is that all there's to it?
-
The real problem is determining whether a person is just a part of the information in the brain, or something external (there's our soul again :)).
Our physical bodies certainly are, but is that all there's to it?
I would suggest looking at what happens when the body, or more specifically the information stored in the brain is damaged... If the person is more than just the information stored in the brain, the I would suggest that the damage or loss of information would have no effect upon the person.
I know from experience that if there is degradation in the information stored in the brain, then we have a stark and often upsetting change in the "person" I once knew. This has a profound effect upon how I view what makes a person, a person! :)
-
Oh does it I'm glad you know everything.
So do tell me, where does my imagination get it from?
At a fundamental level it's chemical releases caused by pattern matching.
Ideas that feel right match patterns that trigger chemicals that hit the pleasure sensors.
If you want to know how the brain works then there is plenty of information from the scientific community, not so much from the religious community.
Our physical bodies certainly are, but is that all there's to it?
There is no proof either way, most religions do require you to believe there is more to it.
Science isn't as bold as religion in an answer to that question. A scientific answer would be, does there need to be anything more for the system to work? Is what we consider a soul just the configuration of neurons in the brain?
Science can't prove there isn't a soul, isn't a god or that god doesn't communicate directly with a soul. A scientist will only ever offer proof for an alternative explanation. Religion requires you to believe in things with no proof.
There is very little different in a theist and an atheist. An atheist disbelieves in all religions, a theist disbelieves in all but one religion. I don't know what makes someone believe in one religion over others, when none of them offer proof. It seems to me that people fall in love with religion the same way they fall in love with people.
-
I would suggest looking at what happens when the body, or more specifically the information stored in the brain is damaged... If the person is more than just the information stored in the brain, the I would suggest that the damage or loss of information would have no effect upon the person.
I know from experience that if there is degradation in the information stored in the brain, then we have a stark and often upsetting change in the "person" I once knew. This has a profound effect upon how I view what makes a person, a person! :)
To those around them yes, upsettingly so, but It's a bit of a catch 22 or vicious circle. A brain injured or degrading individual may have perfect reason, consciously to themselves, but the outward manifestations of their disease may result in gobbledegook speech or noises that result in feedback frustration to the individual. Wouldn't that cause you to shutdown, go crazy or hit out!
We guess or hope that people in those situations are vegetables. Unfeeling incognisant. The alternate is unthinkable but unfortunately probably closer to the truth, when you examine the enlightenment of discoveries of bad CP sufferers or stroke victims. Everything is okay intellectually on the inside but the interfaces are scrambled. Input and output. Determining intelligence and sentience is impossible as our measures are based on inputs and outputs.
As long as we think, we are. We are not just the inputs and outputs of a moment in time. We are what we are on the inside and what we have done, achieved, become. We need to be mindful of what those individuals are to themselves and not just to those around them in the current state.
This thread has become very depressing now. Mia culpa!
Amigas don't think. They are what the
-
At a fundamental level it's chemical releases caused by pattern matching.
Ideas that feel right match patterns that trigger chemicals that hit the pleasure sensors.
If you want to know how the brain works then there is plenty of information from the scientific community, not so much from the religious community.
Hmm. Sounds like at a fundamental level you're quoting religion to me or at best hypothesis. Certainly not science fact.
-
At a fundamental level it's chemical releases caused by pattern matching.
Ideas that feel right match patterns that trigger chemicals that hit the pleasure sensors.
Where do these "ideas" originate from, right-feeling or otherwise? And where do the patterns come from, for them to match?
-
Hmm. Sounds like at a fundamental level you're quoting religion to me or at best hypothesis. Certainly not science fact.
His explanation isn't quite right because sometimes when the patterns match you get a sudden feeling of terror, fear, dread, anger, or sadness.
-
I would suggest looking at what happens when the body, or more specifically the information stored in the brain is damaged... If the person is more than just the information stored in the brain, the I would suggest that the damage or loss of information would have no effect upon the person.
I know from experience that if there is degradation in the information stored in the brain, then we have a stark and often upsetting change in the "person" I once knew. This has a profound effect upon how I view what makes a person, a person! :)
If a person is external, then the brain is an interface into the physical world, and when this interface malfunctions, then the person may not be able to manifest itself through the body in the normal way anymore. The problem is figuring out what really happens.
There is no proof either way, most religions do require you to believe there is more to it.
Proof isn't required for things to exist. Many of the things we know today were completely ridiculous a thousand years ago. 'Simple' things we take for granted such as radio waves. In the case of the most fundamental existential questions you can't necessarily turn to sciences such as physics, because they're concerned with physical phenomena such as the speed of light and gravity, while there may very well be more than just that. In fact, physics can often not even explain why things are the way they are, because the ultimate fundament is unknown.
A scientific answer would be, does there need to be anything more for the system to work?
What if it does? How do we find out? And can we even find out by just examining the brain?
-
Let's lighten this thread up a bit with a joke a Christian friend sent me.
"An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."*
**
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"*
**
"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.*
**
"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"*
**
The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." *
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know sh!t?"*
**
And then she went back to reading her book.”
Please feel free to throw back some theist jokes. :)
-
I would suggest looking at what happens when the body, or more specifically the information stored in the brain is damaged... If the person is more than just the information stored in the brain, the I would suggest that the damage or loss of information would have no effect upon the person.
I know from experience that if there is degradation in the information stored in the brain, then we have a stark and often upsetting change in the "person" I once knew. This has a profound effect upon how I view what makes a person, a person! :)
That doesn't follow. Damage to the brain would only have no effect on personality if the brain played absolutely no part in things beyond mechanical coordination, which I don't think most people who believe in a soul are claiming.
Science isn't as bold as religion in an answer to that question. A scientific answer would be, does there need to be anything more for the system to work? Is what we consider a soul just the configuration of neurons in the brain?
Again, though, the problem with that idea is that a "soul" that exists within a biologically-deterministic flesh-and-blood creature doesn't fit the general definition of a soul at all, because it's still (theoretically) bound by biochemical determinism.
-
That doesn't follow. Damage to the brain would only have no effect on personality if the brain played absolutely no part in things beyond mechanical coordination, which I don't think most people who believe in a soul are claiming.
I was under the impression that souls were autonomous as they can carry on existing after we are dead. No religion has provided any explanation of that though, so it is possible that your brain and soul could work together and when your brain died your soul goes off in some form of emergency mode.
Again, though, the problem with that idea is that a "soul" that exists within a biologically-deterministic flesh-and-blood creature doesn't fit the general definition of a soul at all, because it's still (theoretically) bound by biochemical determinism.
There is no general definition of soul. I googled definition of soul and it came back with:
1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
The visible effects of a person's "soul" are what everyone can agree to, where that comes from is what is up for debate. Religion's don't own the word soul.
I believe the human "soul" is deterministic, it's just currently too impossibly complex to model it. The idea of the soul being separate came because they couldn't comprehend that anything in the human body could do something that complex, they didn't have digital watches then either though.
-
Did anybody read my earlier post about the meaning of the word soul? The idea of an immortal soul we owe as much to philosophy as to religion.
I'm actually with Psxphill at this moment, the soul is an emergent process. The physical laws the atoms obey might be well understood, but understanding how something works at an atomic level, and understanding what it does at the macroscopic level, are two completely different things. The "determinism" of the soul is not physical/biological determinism though, it is abstracted from that. Just like you can have machine-independent programming languages, you can have biology-independent souls, but they still need a body to run on.
-
The soul is simply the vehicle for immortality invented by humans to explain how people could live forever when it became obvious that dead bodies decay and can never be revived-: the body dies, but the "soul" can live forever, therefore immortality is possible.
Why is "immortality" so important to humans? At its heart, its because humans don't want to let go of loved ones that pass away ie we'll all meet up again because we have "souls" that live forever.
Me- I try to make the most of the time with the people that matter to me in this existence.
-
I found this paper a while ago, quite interesting:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/FileUploadPage/Filetoupload,90230,en.pdf
The concept of the state of the dead in children is actually not a million miles away from ancient Sumerian beliefs on the subject. Perhaps we have gradually rationalised these "natural" beliefs over the centuries. But belief in the afterlife wasn't as universal in the ancient world as is commonly thought.
-
The soul is simply the vehicle for immortality invented by humans to explain how people could live forever when it became obvious that dead bodies decay and can never be revived-: the body dies, but the "soul" can live forever, therefore immortality is possible.
Or perhaps because of the realization that there may be more than just the physical universe.
-
Or perhaps because of the realization that there may be more than just the physical universe.
I can't disprove that there may be more than just the physical universe.
Or even if there is another or perhaps many more physical universes, no matter what Brian Greene thinks about it!
And believing that there is an afterlife probably helps people copes with the finality of death-by not dealing with the finality of death.
The downside is that we may end up not full appreciating *this* existence, the here and now, in the belief that there is an afterlife...which might not be there.
-
The downside is that we may end up not full appreciating *this* existence, the here and now, in the belief that there is an afterlife...which might not be there.
Not that there aren't people who do this, but they don't go hand-in-hand.
(And it's bad theology in a number of different religions, anyway, since what you do in this life usually counts big-time even if the end of this life isn't the end of you.)
-
Interesting/relevant article in the news today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8593748.stm