Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

You'd need some sort of tree like threading with a "controller" that can split up (and merge) conversation branches like source code 

This way, those that want to discuss Omni- can do so in their own branch of the discussion.  You'd also need some sort of map.  It would be an interesting project if I weren't so lazy.

[Sergius]

Oh, it's semantics. Surely there are more important things to argue about? Or, if not important, marginally more interesting?

You mean like, god stuff? Arguable.

Also, not semantics. Logic. Semantically it is correct (nobody is arguing the meaning of the words). But "if you are somewhere, don't be there" is a fallacy.

[Andir]

Slashdot recently broke out into a religious debate and someone posted a link to a book by Scott Adams (Dilbert) : http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

I'm currently reading through it... not sure what the end result is besides what he says in the introduction:  To spur conversation.

[Shade-o]

“Shouldn’t we be seeing in today’s living creatures the preview of the next million years of evolution? Where are the two-headed humans who will become overlords of the oneheaded people, the fish with unidentified organs that will evolve to something useful over the next million years, the evolution cats who are developing gills? We see some evidence of mutations today, but mostly trivial ones, not the sort of radical ones there must have been in the past, the sort that became precursors of brains, eyes, wings, and internal organs.

“And why does evolution seem to move in one direction, from simpler to more complex? Why aren’t there any higher life forms evolving into simpler, hardier creatures? If mutations happen randomly, you would expect evolution to work in both directions. But it only works in one, from simple to complex.”

He continued. “And why has the number of species on earth declined for the past million years? The rate of the formation of new species was once faster than the rate of extinction, but that has reversed. Why? Can it all be explained by meteors and human intervention?

“And how does the first member of a new species find someone to breed with? Being a new species means you can no longer breed with the members of your parents’ species. If mutations are the trigger for evolution, the mutations must happen regularly and in such similar ways that the mutants can find each other to breed. You would think we would notice more mutations if it happens that easily.”

Here is how I was expecting it to follow immediately afterward:

I leapt to my feet, my mind reeling as I rejecting his claims. "Foolish old man, while your grasp of philosophy is unmatched, your knowledge of biology is antiquated at best! Whilst I was polite enough to let you ramble on about intermediate frying pan-mug species, now you are clearly deluded!" I ejaculated, gesticulating wildly as I realised the ridiculousness of the situation. "Witnessing micro-evolution within the human lifespan does not disprove macro-evolution, nor can heads and limbs and organs be randomly created by a mutation, which would require the preconception that genetics are made of children's building blocks!"

I kept ranting, growing angrier still as I came to realise how much of what he had said was complete nonsense. "Your understanding of speciation, reproduction and extinction events are similarly flawed, and I suspect that you will soon be positing the existence of the Crocoduck and miraculously tasty bananas. While it has been fun listening to you discourse on how everything that I believe in is wrong, I have suddenly remembered that I have a well-paying job that I love, though it has just been put in peril by you, and I hope for my sake and yours that I will not be sleeping on the street tonight. Here is your damn package, I already signed it for you. Good day, sir."

I turned to storm out, planning to slam the door, the period at the end of a long run-on sentence. Before I had taken a step, I felt chilled as if I had been dunked in cold water. A voice spoke behind me, scraping at my mind like a rusty trowel on a brick wall. It was not human, but something greater and more terrible than anything I had ever imagined. Rooted to the spot and facing the hallway out, my vision twisted and warped. My mind was reeling but I was frozen to inaction, black tendrils swimming across my vision.

"You know not what you are toying with, worm," the Voice spoke, tearing at my already loosened fabric of sanity, "Your existence is but an illusion of my will, and now I shall tear away the veil."

I was focusing with all my will on running, fleeing this place, but instead I turned stiffly and faced what had previously been my host. I could not see him, my vision blurring and fading to blackness. Was it a subconscious defence to preserve my mind, or was it simply too terrible for reality to portray? My legs carried me forwards regardless, my flesh but a puppet on strings of malice.

"Know that your fate is not singular. It shall be shared by every maggot that crawls on this world, no matter how they run or struggle. You could have sat and listened, and let the end come softly and painlessly. But you chose to fight, and you will experience an age of torment."

On the periphery of my vision, the darkness was rapidly overtaking my sight. Yet the fireplace which I had innocently fed burned bright and clear. The presence relaxed its grip, allowing for my forward momentum and disorientation to carry me into its dark heart.

I mustered all my rage, all my revulsion, all my love of life. With a primal scream I dove sideways to the fireplace, hitting the flagstones with my shoulder and nearly dislocating it. Driven by the sound of the blood pounding through my veins, I reached into the heart of the searing blaze and drew out a long piece of wood that licked with blue flames. My nerves screamed as I gripped it tightly, but the pain only served to burn away the malign influence that scrabbled at my mind. For a brief moment, I felt pure fear radiating from the evil mass as it realised its doom. The strings tightened, but my will was fortified by my resolution and the desire to see this unnatural thing annihilated.

I leapt at the thing, driving the fire deep into the shadowy mass with all my power. I struck it again and again, until the shrieking stopped and the shadows dispersed. I dropped the torch from my mangled hand, but there was no longer any pain. I was numb all over. All around me was a malicious murmuring, for despite its wounds the beast was not finished. Its influence had crept into the very bones of the structure and given time it would reform, greater and more terrible than ever. I knew what had to be done.

...

As I prepared to end it, I glanced at the delivery package which had brought me here. I held it up with my undamaged hand, wondering at what could be inside, what relation it had to this place. What ancient secrets and mysteries did I hold in my power, that might be forever lost? I gave a snort and threw it into the pile of combustibles, then doused it in petroleum. Fire did the rest.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't see what you mean. Under that code of behavior you are compelled to show either respect when in another's home or to just not go there. Like "if you can't think of anything nice to say, then don't say anthing at all." Rule 4 then says to treat those who have come into your home poorly if they don't show respect (the standard of behavior those in another's home should adhere to under Rule 3) and annoy you. It seems solid to me.

I agree that hospitality is important, but I wouldn't treat someone "poorly" for ill-behaving as a guest. I'd simply tell him/her to get the f*** out of my house. And if I was the guest and the host was ill-treating me, I'd leave. I don't think there's a real dillema in those....

I think it becomes more complicated if you are a guest and another guest disrespects you. On one hand, causing a fuss in someone else's house is bad manners (which is what the other guy is doing, in fact). On the other, the onus of keeping the peace actually falls on the host precisedly because of this...

[Starver]

Necroing this bit, but I've been off-net for a few days.  Nice to see (so far, as I am still reading onwards, shift-on/shift-off with writing this, and am still eight pages behind) more on-topic debate, and I don't want this to derail things if there's something useful still being talked about.

Like, i can`t handle commas in english at all.

There are rules to follow (and to ignore), but in speech-like writing they're used where a natural breaks occur.

You can use commas before an "and".  A bit like I used one before the "but", in the sentence above.  "I am travelling alone, and without a mobile phone" with a the subsiduary phrase regarding the mobile phone being tacked on as an incidental fact.  This has a different meaning from "I am travelling alone and without a mobile phone", where there's obviously an equally high importance betweeb the two states of travelling.  Another version might be "I am travelling, alone, and without a mobile phone" where the 'aloneness' is the tack-on (or tack-in) to the travelling sans mobile.  Although there's an additional level of fact-subduing in doing so, I would be tempted to put it into parentheses.  Though that might also invite reemphesis by adding in something you couldn't do in a commaed-out sub-clause, like "I am travelling (alone!), and without a mobile phone".  Aloneness still can be considered  an aside, but has actually been made a more important fact than the lack of phoneliness.

Where you don't use commas before an "and" (well, not in my own personal stylesheet, others are ambivalent about it, or suggest it but allow it to be optional) is prior the final "and" (or "or")  of a list.  "The letters 'A', 'B' and 'C' begin the alphabet.  Neither 'Q', 'R' nor 'S' are anywhere in the first ten letters."  (Bearing in mind that there's opinions about whether "nor" works in a list sense.  Although "neither 'X' nor 'Y'" is pretty much indisputable in my particular brand of English English.)

Another comma convention I learnt, but have largely ignored since leaving school, is for quoting speech.  Punctuation should occur  immediately prior to a quote-mark.  Both the starting and ending one, thus:

  As I approached him, the soldier asked, "Friend or foe?"  To which I replied, "Friend!" and caused his guarded manner to fall away in relief.  "Pass friend," he murmured, unbeknownst that I had lied, "It's nice to see a new face on the front line."  "Not at all," I replied, "for I've heard that this is the place that I might enjoin myself in glorious battle.  And something tells me that battle is not far off."

See how a comma appears before the opening quote and a quotes closing is preceded by the relevant punctuation, but substituting a comma for a full-stop if it doesn't close the sentence housing the speech.

However, I find an awkwardness to that (never mind the sentence structure in general, and I ignored the general rule that in a dialogue you shouldn't clump both sides into the same paragraph).  I'd probably write it, these days, as follows:

  As I approached him, the soldier asked "Friend or foe?"  To which I replied "Friend!", and caused his guarded manner to fall away in relief.  "Pass friend" he murmured, unbeknownst that I had lied, "It's nice to see a new face on the front line."  "Not at all," I replied, "for I've heard that this is the place that I might enjoin myself in glorious battle.  And something tells me that battle is not far off."

Note that I've kept preceding commas where they make sense to the sentence (e.g. breath-pause/clause separating ones) or the quote.  And of course kept the preceding exclamations and question-marks.
Of course, if abandoning the one convention, there are arguments for making that 'asked "Friend or for?".', etc, but I personally find that tacky.  The "Pass friend" bit is tricky for me to justify, as that's a sentence.  I might as easily but a full-stop in (but keep the lower-cased "h" in "he said", to show a follow-up), re-envisage it as "Pass friend!" (and stating, or barking, the reply... no longer murmuring) or even go for an ellipsis and a pausing comma post-quote.  e.g. "Pass friend...", he murmured.

You might also wonder at the comma in the "Not at all," quote, but that's broken up from "Not at all, for I've heard...".

Don't take any of the above as gospel, BTW, and I may have erred against my own standards despite all that.

I also know that, as you can see, I overuse commas, in subclauses and the like, and they probably get confused with lists, other clauses and the like.
I also know that (as you can see) I overuse commas (in subclauses and the like) and they probably get confused with (a)lists, (b)other clauses and (c)the like.


Where you don't use commas is as an apostrophe.  Especially where you shouldn't even be using the apostrophe.  The other day I had an example of a list of riders in a cycling event.  The first table (solo bicycles and tricycles) had no header, but the second table was entitled "Tandem,s".  But apostrophes are a whole other discussion.  (I don't even like to say "1000's", except in a possessive sense, in which case I'd refrain from digits and say "the first thousand's experience was happier than that of the many more thousands who followed.")

[RAM]

Everything is so perfect, there's a reason for everything and there are so many "coincidences", how's that?

quoting

[Andir]

But apostrophes are a whole other discussion.  (I don't even like to say "1000's", except in a possessive sense, in which case I'd refrain from digits and say "the first thousand's experience was happier than that of the many more thousands who followed.")

While I understand the possessive "first thousand's experience" I think I would have said "first thousand participant's experience..." even though it is wordier.  The way it's written is confusing.

[Starver]

Oh boy, reincarnation, kind of central to my beliefs. Yes, I believe in a chronological order, I'm not even sure how that would work if it wasn't.

Probably nijaed, maybe necroing this conversation, but I know someone whose stated belief has a kind of asynchronous solipsist reincarnation.  Even regular reincarnation does not always have the spirit travel from the body of the dying move straight into a just-conceived (or just born) individual, and of course there's problems about how a world of 6 billion extant individuals and its current birth-rate might be reincarnated into (without "first time round" individuals[1] having been co-opted into being, of course) without some kind of way of sourcing from what at one point was ultimately a lesser population with a far smaller number of deaths.

So if you're already willing to accept that mid-reincarnation spirits can wait around, accumulate and so on at times (or even over a time) of more-death to cater for a later time of more-birth, you could extend that to the idea that time is totally unimportant and you can reincarnate back in time.  It is an idea used to explain geniuses-before-their-time (having echoes of memory of future events and developments) as well as soul-mates (actually one soul that lives through one partner's life and then goes back to be the other), although you can start to explain absolutely anything that way.  Be bad to others, and karma comes back to hit you by reincarnating you in those that you have been bad to, thus receiving your own punishment...  Ditto for the philanthropic flip-side, perhaps.

However, said friend tends (or pretends) towards the view that there is just one soul that jumps back and forth in history.  Doing it all.  Its validity is about equal to all the rest of the ideas in my opinion, of course, but I can't prove it doesn't happen, either.


[1] Talking about human-to-human here, but you could extend it to the entire biomass population.  Although perhaps the extinction of countless small insects buffers the birth of countless new humans/sheep/whatever, on a proper 1:1 basis of souls.  Not that it needs to be restricted to souls sourced from this planet, even, and who knows what's happening elsewhere, if this is the mechanism behind the universe.  Age-old civilisations may be dying in distant stars systems and sparking the arrival of soul-possessing life on a newly formed planet elsewhere.  If you want to talk about theories that are literally "out there".

[Siquo]

Slashdot recently broke out into a religious debate and someone posted a link to a book by Scott Adams (Dilbert) : http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

Read it, it's ok, few scientific flaws (light, evolution, a few others) but that's not the point. Most of the ideas are not new, they also appear in Chaos magic, and the books Illusions by Richard Bach and Conversation with God by Neale Donald Walsh. Many of the viewpoints I exhibited here were also touched upon, such as science is just as much a delusion as God, or the chair you sit on.

All in all, it's nice, but I'm not too impressed. The novelty of the Debris idea is nice, and seamlessly works with both the Singularity and Asimovs Last Question, and could be interpreted to match that of Conversation with God (where God disassembled himself into us, to be able to experience non-omnipotence). The scientific errors made are distracting, though, and anyone trying to "explain" scientific stuff like that should either know his shit or evade the topic.

However, said friend tends (or pretends) towards the view that there is just one soul that jumps back and forth in history.  Doing it all.  Its validity is about equal to all the rest of the ideas in my opinion, of course, but I can't prove it doesn't happen, either.

Yeah, I've come to that conclusion as well. It really changes your view on humans if you realise they're just different versions of "you".

To get crazy: But why stop at people, or animals, or even organic matter, for that matter? Every atom I breathe is an incarnation of me... Or something like that. Where's the limit?

[Starver]

While I understand the possessive "first thousand's experience" I think I would have said "first thousand participant's experience..." even though it is wordier.  The way it's written is confusing.

That was an ad-hoc example.  Not deliberately confusing, but forced to be of that form to represent the exception I was demonstrating.  And if someone had verbalised that precise statement, their context and meaning obvious, their words would have had to have been written down like that.

I was just sating that writing "1000's of people came to see my striptease act" would be (IMO, according to my own personally adopted rules) an invalid use of apostrophes.  Never mind a sign of something disturbing having happened, and mental scars abounding.  Although I would want to know the context of the writing before I denigrated the use of "1000s" instead of the more proper longhand of "thousands".  "Save £££s on 1000s of items!" (or $$$s/etc, if you're so inclined) is Ok by me, as long as no apostrophes creep in.

Anyway, I didn't want to get onto apostrophes.  Let the religion/areligion discussion resume.  Please.  Religions are far less bitterly fought over than styleguides!

[Starver]

To get crazy: But why stop at people, or animals, or even organic matter, for that matter? Every atom I breathe is an incarnation of me... Or something like that. Where's the limit?

No no.
No no no no.
No no no no.
No no, there's no limit...

[Siquo]

To get crazy: But why stop at people, or animals, or even organic matter, for that matter? Every atom I breathe is an incarnation of me... Or something like that. Where's the limit?

No no.
No no no no.
No no no no.
No no, there's no limit...

That is just too unlimited.

[Shades]

Religions are far less bitterly fought over than styleguides!

That is only because style guidelines actually matter

[Andir]

To get crazy: But why stop at people, or animals, or even organic matter, for that matter? Every atom I breathe is an incarnation of me... Or something like that. Where's the limit?

No no.
No no no no.
No no no no.
No no, there's no limit...

That is just too unlimited.

Why? Electrons could have souls and be re-incarnations of something.  That period there... that was my grandmother!

Again, I think religion tends to focus on human/animal superiority rather than conceptual... if you believe God is omnipotent, then the letters in my post mean just as much to God as you do.  When I delete a letter, I am manipulating electrons and changing the world I live in.  This is why I can't believe that there is a godly being that cares about us as a whole.