Death_By_Pod

It does prove the philosophical action to the person that believes in the method, if it doesn't prove anything then people wouldn't use the method. Opposition to a method doesn't make it any less valid (it doesn't prove anything), it just shows that there is more then one way to resolve a philosophical conflict; both methods are equally valid if they are self-consistent. They don't prove anything in the physical sense but they do prove things in the philosophical sense (otherwise people wouldn't use any specific method). Not to detract from the topic but No, science does not back up intelligent design. Anyone that believes in the intelligent design debate (and furthermore that intelligent design is a real, provable alternative) is either ignorant or mentally [developmentally delayed]ed; IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m guessing your just ignorant.

This sounds exactly like the factories of the 3rd world, they might be respected and honoured by the company they work for (they get paid relatively well, good working conditions etc.) but that doesn't mean they aren't being taken advantage of.

Do you study Philosophy of science? Better not question me in these areas as well :roll: Stop acting so childish, you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the end all of knowledge. Pragmatism much like any other philosophical method (relativism, absolutismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ), canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t actually prove anything since philosophy is a belief system. There is nothing about any philosophical system that forces anything to know the truth of anything; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all a belief and nothing more. If you are going to try and use epistemology as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very pragmatic mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the certainty that exists when discussing what you can actually know. Basic point: epistemology doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas. The idea of pragmatism is that we can derive values from real phenomena (pragmatism is a very vague term, it could mean a lot of things), this is a perfectly fine way of thinking, it works within its realm (otherwise people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use it). It is just as ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as any other philosophical theory. (I originally lost this post in some copying and pasting, but then I realised I may as well use your post as a template) That logic is rather circular, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in something relativistic because it is relativistic?? Relativism explains relativistic phenomena, philosophy is relativistic therefore it is best explained by relativism. Referring to your example, Relativists either believe in option A or option B. They base that belief on the fact that it is as valid as the other belief and that there is no absolute truth, hence we can only be as right as the next person. Physics is a perfect example of a relativistic system. Physics appears differently from person to person, yet it manages to explain why it is different for each person. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enforce the laws of physics on someone, it just is (it is the very nature of this world). Relativism explains why some people believe in option A and some believe in option B, simple. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enforce relativism on someone because it occurs naturally. Do you study history/philosophy of science? You better not argue with me on this subject :roll: Really, do we need to act this childish? What is stopping us from using a philosophical method to explain philosophical phenomena? Why can't we use pragmatism, relativism, absolutismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ to support philosophical arguments? Just because we encounter opposition to our methodology doesn't invalidate it. Pragmatism doesn't prove anything, much in the same way any other philosophical method doesn't prove anything. Philosophy lives in the domain of belief; there is no right or wrong philosophy. Any notion of right or wrong philosophy is a result of what you perceive to be right and wrong and not anyone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s.

This isn't a first hand account of Jesus, he merely talks of Jesus. It could be just as likely that he heard people were writing about a miracle maker, assumed he existed and as a loyal atheist, went to deny it. From the article: "it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus" - it doesn't necessarily confirm Jesus existing, merely that the idea of Jesus existed. Not only that the article questions the translation/interpretation of the text. ("but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.") Even if you do take his account to be accurate, he also confirms the resurrection ("for he appeared to them alive again the third day") taking place. In essence confirming a miracle from happening, so why don't people tote this text for evidence of miracles; I personally can't wait for a miracle anti aging cream.

Plato had many personas (usually appearing in the form of dialogues; such as Plato asking Timaeus how the world was created and Timaeus explaining it rather then Timaeus asking Plato). The problem is we don't know if Socrates is just a persona of Plato or a real person (Since Socrates never authored any texts). If historians feel that some of Socrates later work is just Plato's persona, then what makes his earlier work not PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s persona? Is it really that hard to comprehend? The whole article does question his existence (ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMany of the dialogues seem to use Socrates as a device for Plato's thought, and inconsistenciesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Are you serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist? He never published anything and only published in PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works. Much like Jesus, Socrates has very little evidence (If any confirmed evidence) for existence outside of PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works (Jesus-Christian texts). 2 John 1:7 (New International Version) Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Scepticism even back then, makes you think. It would be interesting to find out how many people are sceptical of JesusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ historical existence. I don't quite understand what you mean Jesus existed; do you have his dead body or something? People just take it for granted that he historically existed because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t validate him as the son of God.

Put 100% of that money in investments and withdraw it when I retire, 1 million isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a lot of money and could see it really coming in handy when IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m retired for work.

Iran isn't a member of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

Yep, no different then a rat going through a maze to get to the cheese; they both want food. See below for a couple of websites that show tell you a bit about it. Don't really have a website for it, but I found a bunch of experiments by typing in "plant maze" in google. Here are couple of sites from I picked out. http://library.thinkquest.org/15215/Activities/Projects/bean_maze.html http://www.fastplants.org/pdf/activities/know_the_way.pdf And here are a bunch of other processes that plants undertake: * Chemotropism: Movement or growth in response to chemicals * Gravitropism: Movement or growth in response to gravity * Hydrotropism: Movement or growth in response to moisture or water * Heliotropism: Movement or growth in response to sunlight * Phototropism: Movement or growth in response to light (Light and Sunlight are two different things; some plants do things like bend their leaves to follow the sunÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s movement during the day, rather then just moving towards light in general) * Thermotropism: Movement or growth in response to temperature * Thigmotropism: Movement or growth in response to touch or contact

Plants can solve puzzles in much the same way animals do. In most cases animals require some kind of reward to motivate them into doing a puzzle (usually food), if you put a plant at the bottom of a maze and shine a light through it, the plant will successfully navigate the puzzle. Is the plant truly thinking, depends on what you call thinking.

If she's willing to leave for something better, then there will come a time when she leaves you for something better. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not to say donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t date her, just keep this in mind when making up your mind and evaluating her character.

No, no they havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t; any evidence of such claims? Simulating animal testing is also a multi-million dollar industry. All good testing centres use the 3 RÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (reduce, refine, replace), there are times when you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t simulate animal testing, if we could simulate conditions perfectly why do we continue with it. Companies can make money in simulation software as well as live testing. If you lived on a farm and had pet chickens, you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be so quick to put them on a plate. It all comes down to how much emotional attachment you have to certain animals. Vitamin B12 is only naturally found in meat. If a vegan diet was a perfectly fine diet and could be adopted globally, then why have parents been arrested over child abuse due to providing children poor nutrition? So what species donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t fight for advancement (what species just sit back and couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be happier about their impending extinction)? Also what about killing plants, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s nature too. You need to kill some form of nature off to survive; we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t directly live off the sun. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fair that we have a shrunken appendix which hampers our ability to digest plant matter. DogÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bodies are built for meat as much from ours; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the way we evolved, we just donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t magically transcend that. So what do you propose? We kill off 5 billion people or so, so that we can work with nature? If apes lived in similarly cramped environments then would it still be called working with nature? Our buildings are apart of nature so how do they become not-nature? The built environment is just as natural as the non-built, the difference being the physical complexity of the environment. Antarctica is less complex then a jungle which is less complex then a city.

Yep, it recharges overtime. The best way to save up some major ink is to use a little of the original 15% and then wait till it fills up to 100%, and then go crazy.

:shock: ~$6000? ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s my income for half a year, all for a few years of fines; talk about a waste.

This thread was a good idea. No way on Earth anything as coordinated as this will work. The only reason why it works on SA is because it has thousands of concurrent users, it is an interesting little graffiti board but nothing more. You know s/he reads the forums, who cares about the stupid stairs, lol?

Where on earth did you get that I idea that I think I'm the smartest person here? I questioned your post because you said that they might have a disorder based on very little information they presented in the post. I wanted to know why you were so sure that they might have a disorder and not be something most teenagers go through (maybe youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a doctor that deals with these cases everyday, I don't know). God forbid that people have differing opinions on an internet forum; if someone develops anxiety it usually correlates to a recent event (assignment due, embarrassing eventÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ), I don't automatically assume it's a disorder (Like I posted above, SAD requires reoccurring symptoms over 6 months). Meditation is good in general as it is a decent method for regulating the body. Breathing and meditation is good for milder cases of anxiety, but it wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help too much when you have a panic attack; your brain just stops functioning logically to consider things such as deep breathing. Now that you mention depressionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ I guess you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need too much advice when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve got your own, personal psychologist. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good to see that your willing to take help and ask for advice, it really gives you motivation for helping yourself out (when you know there are resources to fall back on). Yeah, I agree with that; doctors today overmedicate for things that can be resolved through other methods. However if your Anxiety is uncontrollable and becomes a problem for day to day living, then you should seek help and to consider medication.

http://www.adaa.org/GettingHelp/FocusOn/Children&Adolescents.asp "Although children experience the symptoms of anxiety in much the same way as adults do, children display and react to those symptoms differently. This can lead to difficulties in diagnosis. It can also be difficult to determine whether a child's behaviour is "just a phase," or whether it constitutes a disorder." Definitely best to tell the Original poster that they may/may not have anxiety disorder, when their symptoms might be a once off thing (in the case of S.A.D, symptoms have to persist for 6 months). Are you a Doctor, what makes you think you know more then this about me? Also if you bothered to read my posts you would realise that I have some form of S.A.D.

You know itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s almost impossible to tell the difference between Adolescent anxiety disorder and just ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågoing through that phase.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Like me and the other guy said, they can refund your money; you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t assertive enough. Don't take no for an answer and keep assuring them that it's not your fault/their fault. They arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t different from any other company; if you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t assertive enough you are going to get fobbed off. Good luck.

I assume your a mid-teen, you will naturally get a bit like that from being more self conscious but in your case it's a bit above average. However it might only be occurring because something in the short term (i.e., tests, new relationship, new school, sporting event etc.), so give it some time and think over it before taking any drastic measures. I'm permanently anxious; I even get nervous around some of my best friends. The best way I deal with it is plenty of self reassurance by comparing what might happen to things that already happened. If I'm going to meet my friends I think about how every other time I've met them has been really enjoyable or if I'm doing a speech I'll read the speech over and over again, beforehand to be really familiar with it (and to make sure you know what your talking about). The only way to really fix it is to go over it with someone trained to help and guide your problems (i.e. a psychiatrist, psychologist).

Microsoft billed me a few days before my live subscription was up. I decided I wanted to cancel the service, so I rang up and got the charge refunded. Maybe you should ring them up and explain whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s going on; they are more then helpful with these kinds of things.

Well they ain't called CHRISTians for nothing. Pretty much what I was going to say... Everyone deserves to die, in order to make room for the next generation. You wouldn't hog the Nintendo all day when you can see your kids wiggling to have a go.

A brain to one life form might be different to another life form but the organ/ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that deal with consciousness is what we know of as a brain. Note I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t say biological brain; we could possibly one day in the future develop a functioning inorganic brain. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not what the brain made of but what it does. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s put it another way, is there anything out that that is self conscious and doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a functioning brain? Why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t I compare computing power, I have an idea about how to go about both (in folding, we calculate the electron interactions between atoms; in the brain we calculate reactions between neurons, small groups of neurons and large groups of neurons), we can compare the size of both things (proteins in their 10 thousand, and neurons in the 10-100 billion) and so forth. You can quickly begin to see there is considerable difference between a large protein and a brain, if anything my guess for computing power needed is rather conservative. I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t linearly go from millions of computers to hundreds of billions; I could probably get a better estimate if I compare computing time per atom of protein and multiply it by the number of atoms in the brain, but it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really necessary. The IF-THEN statements are similar in essence however there are some differences. A computer linearly goes through a set of statements; a brain goes through multiple statements in parallel (many neurons here, fire here, there and everywhere). IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we will not get a robot that learns, it is just we wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see it in the near (or far future) since programming such a thing is beyond our knowledge. If it ever reaches that point then why treat robots like robots anymore. Maybe we could develop a programming language that is adaptive; however it would be nothing like what we have now. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think zoo animals are a good test group for something like the mirror test. Human interaction and removal from the natural environment are too much of an influence to give the results any meaning.

You are 100% correct, the only requirement is a brain thus if a robot has a fully functioning brain then it would be no different to any other animal (ever see any sci-fi movies). You could theoretically simulate all of humanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s neurons but it requires much more computational power then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s available in the world. To simulate something simpler (like protein folding) you require tens of thousands of computers doing the maths and takes many months of combined computational time to show how a protein folds over the time span of a few seconds. So to get from tens of thousands of computers and the span of months to get to move to real time modelling of protein folding (which is far, far simpler then a brain) would require something in the magnitude of millions of computers. So to even attempt to model a protein fold we need millions of computers, so I can only imagine the sort of scale we need to replicate a brain (my guess would be in the hundreds of billions); now try packing all those CPUÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s into a body. Hell you could theoretically simulate the brain with enough windmills and wind generators. You can program a windmill, clockwise is 0 and anti clockwise is 1 to program it you need a moveable wind generator. Well if you want to put it another way the robot is pre programmed to learn and adapt to specific tasks. The robot is still doing an If-Then statement except it is less obvious, how else do you program a robot without some sort of structured code? It can only do what you tell it to do, if you tell it to go out and read facial expressions then it will only do that if you program it to; it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åhey IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m out to collect facial expressions todayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ