Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[Thorham]

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?

[Thorham]

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

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:

[Thorham]

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:

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

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?

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

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

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

[Thorham]

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?

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

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.

[Thorham]

If that ain't special, I don't know what is.

Calling yourself special is ridiculously arrogant.

[Thorham]

@ Thorham:



I do not think that word means what you think it means.

You got me there, thought you meant superior However, we're obviously only special to ourselves...

[Thorham]

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.