| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 04 2015 18:19 tshi wrote: I gave spare change to two guys discussing philosophy at school. It was an insult because I am a marketing major. Why is it an insult because you do marketing? | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
On May 04 2015 17:26 xM(Z wrote: the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't. in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth. tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves. history is the proof and witness of it all. While I don't share these views I wonder how you came to that conclusion because I, if anything, would come to the opposite conclusion? Aren't a lot of epics about heroes fulfilling a prophecies? Great forebears like Achilles, who knew of their destines, often just playthings of the gods and yet bringing great change in their roles. Same goes for revolutionaries, often these people feel their actions are a natural consequence of their surroundings, which gives them justification for their action as well as some kind of fanatical strength needed for revolutions. | ||
|
helpman170
34 Posts
For the love of God, either you stick to positivism or you stay the hell out of it! Don't use physics to justify your anti-positivist agendas! | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
why is it not an insult because he did marketing? hahahaha | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On May 04 2015 21:10 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: While I don't share these views I wonder how you came to that conclusion because I, if anything, would come to the opposite conclusion? Aren't a lot of epics about heroes fulfilling a prophecies? Great forebears like Achilles, who knew of their destines, often just playthings of the gods and yet bringing great change in their roles. Same goes for revolutionaries, often these people feel their actions are a natural consequence of their surroundings, which gives them justification for their action as well as some kind of fanatical strength needed for revolutions. i don't know man, are those epics real in any shape or form?. i don't really get where you're coming from here. even if i were to take those epics at face value, you'd still have to provide a timeline for prophecy <> deed <> story creation. as far as revolutionaries go, you'd have to define these people and clarify why, for them, the natural consequence of their surroundings, is different than for other people. (but mostly, i have no idea what you're trying to say  ) | ||
|
Prog455
Denmark970 Posts
On May 04 2015 17:26 xM(Z wrote: the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't. in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth. tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves. history is the proof and witness of it all. Without any significant knowledge on this field what so ever, i would assume that the theories of respectively free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.Those who you consider "free willies" might aswell just represent a tipping point in an already pre-determined chain of actions. In regards to everything being one, i would actually assume this to be correct. Now i would really like for someone to prove me wrong, but if we assume that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, then wouldn't the logical assumption be that we are all part of the same ecosystem? At some party a while ago i talked to a friend of mine who worked at CERN, mind you we were both wasted, but if i am not mistaken, he told me something along the lines of: i could measure you in energy. So if i am energy, and i can consume and give away energy, and the amount of energy is total, then aren't we all one? At least potentially. Also for the record i study law, so this is by no means within my field of expertice. EDIT: So i thought of another argument in favor of determinism. Most people would agree that when you roll a dice, the outcome is based on luck. The reality is however, that is it in fact not based on luck, but on a set of physical factors. What we call "luck" is in fact just circumstances that are out of our control. Could it be that what we consider "free will" is essentially just the roll of a dice, in a whole other magnitude. Impossible to control by humans, but nevertheless just a combination of physical factors. | ||
|
helpman170
34 Posts
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science. Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron". In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B. Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still. The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time. There is no decision making involved. Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right. The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better. That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B. That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire. That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On May 05 2015 06:23 helpman170 wrote: Absolutely. It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science. Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron". In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B. Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still. The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time. There is no decision making involved. Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right. The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better. That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B. That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire. That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions. This is possibly the worst description of physicalist determinism I've ever read. You should think a bit more about what exactly goes on linguistically when you say that "It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science." An arbitrary and incomplete discussion of neuronal decision-making does not support your conclusions in the way you think it does. Furthermore, you clearly haven't wrestled at all with the consequences of attempting to objectify "science" as though it exists outside of human consciousness and expression. Sure, there are "scientific" phenomena and the observed mechanics of physical existence and interaction, but they don't care what you call them, and the moment you use the word "science" to describe anything, you are implicating the involvement of a human observer and all that entails. You've more reading to do. | ||
|
helpman170
34 Posts
On May 05 2015 21:18 farvacola wrote: This is possibly the worst description of physicalist determinism I've ever read. You should think a bit more about what exactly goes on linguistically when you say that "It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science." An arbitrary and incomplete discussion of neuronal decision-making does not support your conclusions in the way you think it does. Furthermore, you clearly haven't wrestled at all with the consequences of attempting to objectify "science" as though it exists outside of human consciousness and expression. Sure, there are "scientific" phenomena and the observed mechanics of physical existence and interaction, but they don't care what you call them, and the moment you use the word "science" to describe anything, you are implicating the involvement of a human observer and all that entails. You've more reading to do. Yes, I agree I would have more reading to do if I would have the inclination for "philosophical introspection and discussion" just in order to keep up with the abstract mumbo-jumbo. This is unfortunately not something that I very much desire. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 05 2015 21:40 helpman170 wrote: [blahblah...] abstract mumbo-jumbo. This is unfortunately not something that I very much desire. Posting in this thread was your main mistake here I'd say. There were soooo many signs in the OP, or the few sentences I read at least, (and the replies) that should have made you go "nope" and turn around if you have no desire for abstract mumbo jumbo. | ||
|
Vortok
United States830 Posts
Super short version: Humanity needs a higher concentration of badasses before it can push past some of the current limitations. Joke version: The 1% holding most of the power is holding humanity back. Down with the man or something. When I read social structures in the title, my mind went in the direction of how the predominant social structure styles that humanity has used have changed over the course of history. Including how we might move forward and what the next major social structure might look like. Isn't all that directly connected to determinism, but that seems to more be an aspect of/approach to the topic to discuss rather than the actual topic itself. Or I'm just misinterpreting things... but screw it, pushing ahead anyway! Back in the proverbial stone ages, one of the big concerns of humans was food, shelter, and clothing. Hunting played a major role, not just for food but also for the clothes/tents made from skins, tools from bones, etc. Scavenging would likely be in there as well. The leaders of a group were often those good at hunting, aka combat. Super generalization, but I'm just going for broad strokes atm. Move forward and humans more or less got the basics down when it came to obtaining food/clothing/shelter. Some stability in obtaining basic necessities allowed for other styles with less immediate results to emerge, such as farming or using traps. Repeat the progression several times and people determine with greater and greater clarity that more can be accomplished as a group that relies on each other rather than everybody acting as individuals. Humans seem to move towards actions that are perceived to be more efficient/of greater benefit, and thus the dominant social structure has changed as time passed. I'm sure a determinism focused discussion about that tendency could be easily generated, too. An individual can certainly do just fine on their own without being connected to society, but the chances of someone 'living off the land' on their own accomplishing something like travel to the moon is all but an impossibility. The perspective that can be provided/obtained via disconnecting from society can be quite valuable, though. I certainly wouldn't call such a lifestyle 'bad' or a 'wrong choice.' There are limits to what an individual can achieve, which is why some products/events are often touted as having taken dozens or hundreds of 'man years' of effort to represent the combined effort required to bring the project to fruition. Back to groups of people. Having determined that larger groups allowed for development and progress beyond the basic necessities, many groups of people sought to increase their numbers. One of the most common methods was via conquest and military might. Just like how hunting (combat skill) was a significant initial source when it came to obtaining basic needs, humans again went towards martial prowess to determine who was 'right' or at least who would lead. We continued doing that for quite awhile (and still do in some portions of the world), but eventually realized that killing off people that disagreed with us and marginalizing those that didn't have an affinity for conquest was only taking humanity so far. That method had limitations, so another, more productive/efficient style was eventually adopted so that human progress could continue. Enter diplomacy, politics, lawyers, and all that fun stuff. More or less where much of the world seems to currently be at, even if the shift was fairly gradual. Ultimately, we just traded emphasizing prowess at physical combat for prowess at verbal combat. In broad terms, this social style has been more efficient than previous models. We stopped ignoring the nerds as well as decided to not chop off the head of anyone that disagreed with the majority consensus and now we have computers, launched people into space, and produced all sorts of other rapid advancements. People whose talents lie in an area other than verbal jousting and linguistics can still often get pushed aside, be taken advantage of, or have their views and what is important to them downplayed, so the current structure isn't perfect either. Just the most efficient one that humanity has come up with so far. In contrast to the early days of human history, where practically everyone was well versed in caring for their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), current society is almost purely composed of specialists. I'd wager that the vast majority of us are all but clueless when it comes to obtaining food, building shelter, or making clothes (and most people that can make clothes are probably doing so from something like pre-constructed fabric/yarn/thread that they don't know how to make). It's not an inherently bad thing, just a result of advancements in efficiency to the point that a small portion of the population can produce enough to meet the needs of everyone. Thus the other portion can branch out into other pursuits. Via automation we're getting even better at it too, especially as we find more and more ways to lower the cost of using such automation methods. I'm a bit curious what society will look like/what the focus of activities might be once everyone's basic needs are more or less automatically provided for at virtually no cost. The required struggle to maintain basic living conditions is a major motivating factor for human actions and also a huge theme in lots of art/literature. The absence (or rather, automatic fulfillment) of those requirements could have an interesting impact. That seems to still be a fairly long way off, though. In any case, with more and more specialization and the accompanying interdependence, society has trended towards taking care of the needs/wants/desires of the majority. And then minority groups start to appear. The easiest example might be racial minorities, but it can also apply to a number of other aspects. For example, the phrase "They don't make things like they used to." Modern civilization (western, at least) has put a lot more emphasis on speed/instant gratification. Many modern products have trended towards being cheap/quick to obtain, leaving those with other preferences having a tougher time finding products that fit their personal tastes. Due to the specializing and interdependence, the 'majority' could be seen to represent the communal 'oneness' or unity while the minorities represent that society is still composed of many individuals. Minorities generally aren't completely ignored in current society, and a lot of efforts are made in many areas to provide for their needs/wants/desires as well. The situation isn't completely optimal though, even without considering the current overemphasis on a person's ability at verbal jousting. Thus, it stands to reason that humanity should eventually find a new social model to move towards that yields even better results than the current one that is primarily used. Speculating what it might be (and thus how to get there) seems like it would first require determining the limitations of the current method. Based on my super broad, almost certainly overgeneralized analysis, it seems that society started off quite focused on the individual and gradually moved away from that to the point that it is very 'group' and majority based, almost to the point of occasionally ignoring the individual. I'm not nearly informed enough to estimate if the next major model will continue towards favoring the group or not. I do, however, believe that there will eventually be a resurgence of focus on the individual to counter-balance the extended focus on the society as a single, collective entity. Even if society is viewed as a single entity, it is made up of individuals. Strengthening the individuals will in turn strengthen the whole. We're not the Borg (yet, huehue). As for how that individual improvement may come about (especially on a large enough scale to have a lasting impact on society) and in what form, I believe that the OP is on the right track in discussing perspectivse (holy shit, only took me what... 10 paragraphs to even remotely connect to his points? Told you I ramble) and understanding short term/long term perspectives as well as understanding the perspective of others. It is one thing to know that someone else has a different viewpoint on any given subject. It is another thing entirely to understand -why- that viewpoint is different and the thought process that led to that differing view. More people understanding how and why different individuals can reach different conclusions when presented with the same information could go a long way in pushing society forward. To this end, I think that typology (study of personality types) has a lot of potential that is more or less being sat on right now. Laws of how the universe function are great, but we interact with the universe as people - and as previously discussed, often have to do so while working together with other people. Thus a greater understanding of the fundamental aspects of how/why our fellow humans (and ourselves) functions the way they do could lead to greatly increased capacity for mutual understanding and thus cooperation. For those with a passing familiarity, or none at all, two of the most common/well known typology theories are Socionics (primarily popular in Europe, and has a fair amount of academic/professional backing and use) and MBTI (more commonly known in the West, though with significantly less academic acceptance). Both of those theories generally suggest the existence of 16 personality types. One type isn't considered superior to another, merely different with its own set of strengths (and weaknesses). Already it's on the track to providing additional perspective and promoting acceptance of people with differing views, even if those vastly differ from a person's own views. An individual might at least be able to better understand why those conflicting views may have come about, even if they don't completely agree with them. As for the sixteen types, it's mostly a result of the personality 'building blocks' that have been identified and the rules about how they can fit together. The variations in which the fundamental components can be put together led to there being 16 types in those theories. Boiling down my understanding as much as possible, typology seems to generally be based on pairs. Generally one part of the pair is the 'dominant' or leading portion and the other serves as the 'auxiliary' or support portion of the pair. No particular component is always the 'leader' (as a pair could have either of it's two components in the dominant position - they're simply related to different personality types). And then those pairs form another pair, and it works its way up from there up until we have an individual's personality type. I'd suggest that this pairing can even go beyond that to a societal level, such as the 'group' being one part and the 'individual' being the other part of the pair. I already covered my view on the limitations of an individual, much the same way various social structures have run into limitations. We have examples all over the place of some people taking a leading role while other people serve as support, and yet both need each other. As the foundation of society is comprised of individuals, it makes sense to me to examine the fundamentals of the human psyche, as it should be useful information in the process of determining what may serve as the next course of action that is most beneficial to undertake. I said that I think typology is sitting on a lot of potential. That's because right now, from my (amateur) understanding, current theories are more or less a picture of 'what is.' Roughly speaking, typology functions as a map (of human personality types) on which you can find the part that says "You are here" along with numerous instructions on how to get comfortable with where you are instead of trying to act like people that are at other locations. Socionics even has a 16x16 chart depicting how two people will likely interact based on their personality types, though there's danger of not having enough context when just casually looking at it with the eyes of an amateur. As I mentioned at the top, I'm a bit more action-oriented. When I initially read typology information (happened across a relatively high quality website), my brain almost immediately identified it as useful information that I should pay attention to (I seem to have a mental alarm for stuff like that, though it doesn't go off too often). After extensive reading I ended up with the above landscape portrait. Which is nice to look at and all, but there wasn't a lot to actually do with it. Like the difference between a cosmetic in a video game and something that actually impacts gameplay. There were also some outliers (both personal experience and reports of others) that the current theories I read didn't really explain and instead mostly try to ignore. Specifically, quite a few people have stated that although they identified with one personality type in an earlier stage of their life, there is another one that better represents them now (or that they feel they go between two types/possess more than one). Most typology professionals have concluded that you are born with one type and that you can't change it (hey, something slightly linked to determinism... I'm a helper!), thus a bit of emphasis on each type being unique and one not being superior to any of the others - you're here, might as well get cozy. I didn't think they were wrong, but I also didn't think it represented the full picture. Eventually I ended up writing a roughly ten thousand word hypothesis on how I believed it's possible to develop additional personality types (which essentially serve to strengthen and enhance the abilities of the initial, core type). Basically I took the static picture of typology, turned it on its side a few times, stared at it for awhile, and then eventually said "This isn't a landscape picture to hang on a wall, it's a map and instructions to be used for an epic road trip. And on top of that, the parts for an appropriate vehicle are lying around at our feet!" The significance of that (assuming I'm not horribly wrong) being that each personality type represents, fairly broadly, the perspective through which a significant portion of humans view the world and interact with it. Not only would developing additional personality types automatically teach a person (through personal experience, rather than third party account) that there are multiple, yet valid, perspectives; but also, if done on a large scale, there is a larger chance of people overlapping - of two people sharing at least one type, thus sharing a relatively similar thought process/communication method. Which in turns leads to better understanding, cooperation, and all that fun stuff that has thus far proven instrumental in aiding human progress. The hypothesis I came up with is obviously that of an amateur, and although it seems to stand up to whatever angle I can inspect it from, it's still not much more than my personal musings. Finding someone that knows enough about typology to understand it would be hard enough, never mind one that feels like reading through 10k+ words, haha. Heck, it might be something they already explored and ultimately rejected, I just didn't find much about the subject during my relatively brief searches. The underlying concept of it though, is balancing the various pairs that make up a personality type. As they're all interconnected, one aspect can only get so far before the aspect (or pair) that it's connected to needs to be strengthened as well to keep up and continue performing its intended function, otherwise the leading part will push too far ahead and be unable to operate properly since it does actually need to work together with the support portion of the pair. Think of it as the difference between building a tower and building a mountain when aiming for height. A tower can generally only go so high before it starts to get structurally unsound and would be in danger of toppling over. A mountain has a massive, broad foundation built in from the start that allows it to reach extreme heights without the same danger as a tower - who's ever heard of a mountain falling on its side? Even with height as a goal, eventually you have to build out before you can go back to building up. At least until we manage to make a space elevator outside of science fiction. The easiest example of this balancing would be Thinking vs Feeling (MBTI terminology - Socionics calls them Logic and Ethics, which at least sounds better as it doesn't imply that Feeling types don't think, lul). An average person will likely believe that rational logic and emotions are mutually exclusive forces and that one must generally be selected and the other mostly discarded when making decisions or taking action. Their preference generally being part of their personality type, and in many cases it leads to the non-selected one being considered as the inferior way of doing things (aka "omg, xbox sucks, the playstation that I use is totally better"). That line of thinking can only go so far before inherent limitations get in the way. In the process of analyzing the various building blocks of typology and how they fit together, I instead concluded that they all work together and thus both must be strengthened (there's even a suggested order of doing so!) in order to achieve the best results. Based on their personality type, a person will generally prefer one over the other (dominant/leading aspect) but the secondary aspect can't be ignored either as its support/following role is just as important as the dominant aspect of their personality. From there, I basically followed the perceived need for having balanced development (not necessarily equal) all the way up the chain, past the individual level. Thus my assessment that while society is putting more and more emphasis on taking care of the majority, eventually there will need to be focus on improving individuals on a fairly large scale, rather than having just a few sporadic 'educated' people here and there. Even should my hypothesis be completely offbase, I still think there will eventually need to be a significant improvement to the average quality of the individuals that make up society. Thus my pointing towards typology as having a fair amount of sleeping potential. Just needs to go from being merely a nice picture to being able to present an action plan. Hopefully that related enough to the overall topic and wasn't too much of an unrelated tangent. Like I said at the top, as an action-oriented person merely figuring out 'if we humans could get to this point, it would be an improvement over the current state of things' isn't enough for me. My brain will try to figure out steps to actually get there. Might be completely wrong, but it's still gonna try to come up with something! Being that the solution my mind came up with was essentially "We need more badasses doing badass shit" I think I'm currently okay with this process. | ||
|
Vortok
United States830 Posts
Assuming the existence of multiple, alternate realities why should all of them have to function off of the same option? Shouldn't it be possible for some to be based on being pre-determined while others are based off of free will? That does raise the question of what happens should the two manage to interact, of course. And if that's possible, it should further be possible for both sides of the coin to be functioning within the same reality as well, as it would just be a continuation of the possibility of two differing realities eventually interacting. Although free will and determinism seem to be practically opposed to each other, there are plenty of other areas where things/ideas/people that initially seemed to be at odds with each other were actually found to be able to work in tandem with the other fairly well. The example of some neuroscientists believing that the only control we have is what we focus our attention could serve as a way of illustrating the concept, albeit rather clumsily. Mainly just a further application of my conclusions from examining typology. The answer could just as easily be a simple A or B (nevermind the 'none of the above' answer which isn't all that productive unless there's supporting information to rule out the current options and/or provide an alternate solution), but rather than one extreme or the other it seems just as possible that it could be a mixture of the two that lies somewhere in middle. Sure there's the option that some aspects of reality/people are one, some the other, and some a mixture but that's mostly a chaotic, random answer. The universe (at least the version we exist in) seems to generally function off of specific laws. Randomness/chaos is often just due to current understanding of the process being observed being incomplete/insufficient. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On May 06 2015 18:47 Vortok wrote: Humanity needs a higher concentration of badasses before it can push past some of the current limitations. Consider reading some Nietzche or perhaps Thomas Carlyle's "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History". I think you're on the right track, that history is mostly driven by cool people doing big things, but you make a big flaw. You suggest humanity should focus on producing more of these ambitious people, while it's not at all apparent that everyone has it in themselves to become what Nietzche called Ubermensch. Look how readily the vast majority of people stop striving once they're content. These people can't be improved, because they have no real incentive to put in effort themselves. It doesn't really matter how well-educated or skilled they are if they don't have the desire to apply those traits. Only a select few have the ambition to never be content. I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically. | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On May 07 2015 03:32 Millitron wrote: I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically. That is a terrifying prospect and I have a very hard time supporting this idea. The world does not need more dictators and madmen in a position of power, no matter how much humanity would allegedly "improve" in the process. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On May 07 2015 04:40 scFoX wrote: That is a terrifying prospect and I have a very hard time supporting this idea. The world does not need more dictators and madmen in a position of power, no matter how much humanity would allegedly "improve" in the process. Ubermensch aren't necessarily dictators. Ambition doesn't have to be ambition for power. Just because its a German word doesn't mean it's evil, lol. Henry Ford, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghandi, and Teddy Roosevelt would all fit the definition of ubermensch. | ||
|
Rainling
United States456 Posts
On May 04 2015 12:38 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + As a physics student I don't buy the idea that everything is fundamentally random. They said that Bell's inequality effectively proved the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that a particle has no clear position or momentum until its measured, after which it 'collapses' into a particular state), but the whole inequality relies on the principle of 'locality' or that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If one simply postulates the existence of extra dimensions, then information could easily travel 'faster' by effectively jumping through wormholes like in science fiction (remember, the sheet of paper representing spacetime, that you fold in two and jam a pencil through, representing the wormhole?). Then in that case the inequality is plausibly violated; photons of opposite spin travelling in opposite directions can influence each other when one is measured. It would be totally bizarre if it weren't the case; there is still no coherent explanation for how entanglement operates instantaneously across any distance in spacetime. So as far as I'm concerned the orthodox model has a pretty big hole in it and its hard to take seriously as it stands anyway. Maybe another physicist can help me understand. I'm only finished third year  I'm in my third year and I think you misunderstand the prevailing quantum mechanics model. I feel like this is a major misconception about QM propagated by people outside of physics, that it means that "everything is fundamentally random." Quantum mechanics is fundamentally deterministic as is. The wave functions underlying everything are fully deterministic, the only thing that appears probabilistic is measurements based on these wave functions. However this apparent randomness is an illusion based on lack of perspective. This explanation might help. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2015 05:28 Millitron wrote: Ubermensch aren't necessarily dictators. Ambition doesn't have to be ambition for power. Just because its a German word doesn't mean it's evil, lol. Henry Ford, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghandi, and Teddy Roosevelt would all fit the definition of ubermensch. A lot of people "would fit the definition of ubermensch" if they were picked out for rose-tinted historical recognition. Human progress depends on a chaos of competing forces in many arenas, as much or more than the contributions of "that one genius". It's easy to look back over how we've evolved and say "that development was important"; it's much harder to picture what we might look like had that not occurred and satisfy oneself that comparing the two situations says anything about our virtues. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On May 07 2015 07:14 EatThePath wrote: A lot of people "would fit the definition of ubermensch" if they were picked out for rose-tinted historical recognition. . No man is a hero to his valet! | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I wish I could be a valet of one of them for a while | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby10448 summit1g7335 FrodaN4161 Dendi2060 elazer416 Pyrionflax351 shahzam285 Liquid`Hasu221 JuggernautJason26 |
|
SOOP StarCraft League
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Bunny vs Cure
MaxPax vs Clem
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Code For Giants Cup
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
