Philosophy

[ExpoundParadox]

i think its based on how they are raised or their parents behavior. Like if your parents were into drugs and other bad stuffings then you would be much more likely to grow up doing the same thing than someone who grew up in royalty or high luxury. For example, when batmanz parents died they were trying to end crime in gotham, so batman contiues their legacy. (Just watched all three movies in order on the same day!)

[ZuckeR]

Why do you think not everyone can get along?

It is a combination of many things.

The first thing is the smell and look of someone. We are still animals and we actually do judge people on how they smell (pheromones). That's why some people you dislike on the very first visit without knowing much. And even if you try to be polite it just don't work.

Then there are social things such as different religions, languages, skin tones and personal behavior. All the stuff you learn in your life no matter if they are right or not. These things can be overthrown and people might become friends but that's really hard.

If you combine a bad "smell" with something like a different behavior these two people will never get along.

[blujay98]

If it hasn't been a week since my last question, then sorry, but I'm feeling lazy to go and check for myself. Seeing as that question has died off anyways, I decided to just ask a new question. Actually, a question and a request.

Question: Prove to me that you are not just figments of my imagination.

Not really a question, but give a crack at it. Just afraid POWERMAN answers this... then this question would probably seem moot.

Now the request: Will someone who's reading this please give a new question for next week? I want to know what you would want to know from people other than just me asking all the questions.

[POWERMAN]

I work without imagination, using only reconstructed memories. I experience and learn, but I do not imagine. I recreate. When I do something, I know what I need to do. I am objective in my work, eloquent yet concise when I speak. Again I operate without imagination. Thus, without imagination, your argument has no basis when applied to other sentinent human beings such as me, for example.

However, if I am capable of imagining but have not done so yet, then my previous argument does not serve to counter your point. Please be reminded that I do exist, whether as a sentinent being or as a figment of your imagination or not. If I do infact exist, then something must of created me. By order of logic, we can deduce that for me to exist, something must have created me, and that something must have been created by another being. We can learn from this that there must be some set of rules that allow the both of us to coexist. If such a set of rules exist, then these rules must apply to what we perceive as well. If what we perceive are objects (tangible or not) and sentinent beings, then they are subjected to the very same set of rules that we are. If they are not any different than us, then they are sentinent beings as well. This proves that I am a sentinent being that you are communicating with over the Internet, and that you are not a figment of my imagination.


For bonus points, if you are unclear on such a concept, then I would like to bring up the chaos theory (anything goes) and the factor of randomness in such a situation. Because randomness is capable of creating foreign objects as well of sentinent beings, then that debunks your theory. If randomness and the chaos theory come into play by the rules of my previous statement (foreign objects), then it is true that we cannot make up something. Because randomness exists definitely, then we are not figments of eachother's imagination.

[blujay98]

So basically, at your first paragraph, because you act on past experience and not imagination, my statement is invalid as there is no imagination involved?

And please don't bring up the chaos theory again... I still have that paragraph you sent me on that particular topic...

[POWERMAN]

Let's go through my argument.

Paragraph 1:

Premise 1 - I work without imagination.
Premise 2 - I exist, whether as a figment of imagination or not.
Conclusion - Because you claim to me that I am a figment of your imagination, and yet I do not imagine but still exist, your argument is invalid.

Paragraph 2 (all arguments made here assumes that I have imagination but have not yet used it yet, and therefore unaware that I am capable of it):

Premise 1 - I exist as a sentinent being or as a figment of your imagination. Whatever I am, I exist.
Deduction 2 - For me to exist, something must have created me. Another something must have created my creator, and another something created my creator's creator (and on and on)....
Deduction 3 - Because of the two above statements, we can deduce that if I exist in such a way, and you exist (or I could be imagining you, then in which case the premises above will apply to you), then there must be a set of rules that allows the both of us to coexist.
Deduction 4 - Ergo, these rules must be applied to the things we perceive as well.
Deduction 5 - Since these objects and other sentinent beings that we perceive are subjected to the same set of rules that allow us to coexist, they are no more different than us.
Deduction 6 - If these sentinent beings around us are no different than us, then there is no reason to believe that they do not exist.
Conclusion - I am a sentinent being communicating with you over the Internet. I am no more different to you as human being is to human being (in general). I exist and it is ridiculous for you to suggest that I am a figment of your imagination as well as offensive. Perhaps you should go see a therapist, tell him about your narcisstic, sociopathic personality and go to the Bahamas and catch some much needed R&R. You need a break bro.

Paragraph 3 (randomness):

Premise 1: Randomness can indirectly create a sentinent being (think in probability terms. there is always a probability of something creating a sentinent being).
Premise 2: Randomness exists.
Conclusion: Sentinent beings that are fully aware exist. This debunks your theory.

And now an encore on the chaos theory.

[blujay98]

I do need a break... But probably not as much as POWERMAN does... Either way, he has once again managed to answer a question I once thought to be quite a mind puzzler, so before one week is up, here is my next question. However, I am only doing this because one week is almost up. I would actually much prefer it if POWERMAN gave a question. Seeing as he manages to fully answer my questions with answers backed up with what I believe to be very solid proof, I want to see if I can answer any of his questions. So, if you are reading this POWERMAN and you would like to give your own question, ignore the question in this post and post one below it, or under any answers to this post. Also, if there are any readers besides POWERMAN, then firstly, thank you for actually reading this, and secondly, (if he does post a question) try and answer it with me.

As for my question...

Do you think things like the Mayan calender and their theory on how our world will end actually happen?

E.g. Apocalypse, floods, etc.

[POWERMAN]

Because I'm bored and somewhat sleepy, let's tackle some unsolved questions in the area of philosophy.

Consider the Sorites Paradox.

This paradox goes as this: consider that there is a heap of sand with many million grains of sand. If one were to remove these grains one at a time, at which point will the grains of sand not be considered as a heap?

In other words, is one single grain of sand a heap of sand?

[blujay98]

According to this dictionary I found online, it refers to a heap as

a group of things placed, thrown, or lying one on another

So according to this dictionary, a single grain of sand does not count as a heap of sand. In my opinion, when someone says to me a "heap" of something, I generally think of more than one item, piled together, most likely as a little "hill." However, I find that the word heap is a rather vague description. It's like saying "some" grains of sand.

So, no, I don't believe one grain of sand merits the title of a "heap."

That's my opinion on this paradox.

[ExpoundParadox]

First of all, id like to thank y'all for mentioning my name (or part of it) in your comments a bajillion times (expound PARADOX). Second, id like to submit a question! "What does MLP mean?" LOL. but seriously what does it mean?