The Post-Game Thread (now with moar games!)

[WiiAssasin]

I like that guy. He's fun.

The dictionary definition is not the only definition or even the most correct one when talking about philosophical ideas. (...)I try to give you an understanding but you ignore it because it does not fit with your thought. (...)You look to the most convenient of sources, though you aren't prepared to look deeper.

-Dictionary definitions are made to be among the most basic and to easy to understand way of understanding terms. If somehow this ends up causing disagreements and confusion, it's not the definition's fault.
-I don't make up my definitions, I just look up the right one.
-I use the easiest yet comfortable wording I can. We've already had enough trouble getting our words across as is without me trying to get into any details.

Nope, but the Bible gives us an explanation of where our sense of justice comes from. If you can find another source I want to hear it (really I want to see what others think on the matter).

Pretty much anywhere else. Other texts, among them other religious books. Governments and courts. Powerful people. If they can enforce it, they'll have the say on how we'll view it. Divine or no.

If you aren't prepared to understand logic then you wont be able to understand logic therefore you shouldn't be talking about it but instead be studying it.

It must not be worth a look if you didn't bother pursuing the theory despite bringing it up in the first place.

You should read it and not discount it on the basis of what you think is wrong but instead think on the truths you can glean form it.

As has been said, if his claims are factual, they wouldn't change anything. If it can doubt its existence, then it must exist.

How can you speak about something you know nothing of? Whereof One Cannot Speak, Thereof One Must Be Silent.
Until you learn the basics, you wont be able to understand and should not speak until you do.

I don't think I know nothing of it. I must know something about it, or I wouldn't speak of it at all. It is true that there are different canons among Christians, and the external religious influence on Christianity is well-known among virtually all theologians. Surely I must know know at least something about religion if I could at least recognize this much. What was the reason for you to conclude I know nothing?

Religious intolerance is a big accusation. Religion should be respected and using it without the original meaning is disrespectful.

Not only did you call out a game which impressively portrayed a certain religion as shallow, but you disrespected any adherents to said faith by calling their religion shallow. And the reason for you doing this seems to be because it's a "mixed religion". Is this not religious intolerance?

"If you think this use of mixed religion is fine for media, then it is a shallow view on what religion is."
That statement seems to be a case of bigotry.

Just about every current religion would fall into mixed religion, and Christianity is probably the biggest offender. I'd also say hypocrite, but that always ends up getting me back somehow.

You need more philosophical study before you can address the topics in this discussion.

There is no magic number or rank which indicates when one can comment upon philosophical matters or when they should go back to study. But you're welcome to think of one, if you think it'll help.

 

[Mr. MR]

Pretty much anywhere else. Other texts, among them other religious books. Governments and courts. Powerful people. If they can enforce it, they'll have the say on how we'll view it. Divine or no.

Please, specifics.

It must not be worth a look if you didn't bother pursuing the theory despite bringing it up in the first place.

If you don't understand the basis of logic how am I supposed to communicate the complexities of logic?
If you want to shed yourself from ignorance then you can pursue the basics of logic.

Cantor to Russell to Godel to Wittgenstein.
All of the above are logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers and you could consider some of the founders of modern logic. Logic is the skeleton of mathematics. If one does not understand mathematics then how can one even understand logic? Logic is also built in the same way as mathematics is built. You must first learn basics to learn complexities.

As has been said, if his claims are factual, they wouldn't change anything. If it can doubt its existence, then it must exist.

You must be perfect then.

Arrogance leads to ignorance.
How does the blind know they are blind? Because they accept that others can see.

I don't think I know nothing of it. I must know something about it, or I wouldn't speak of it at all. It is true that there are different canons among Christians, and the external religious influence on Christianity is well-known among virtually all theologians. Surely I must know know at least something about religion if I could at least recognize this much. What was the reason for you to conclude I know nothing?

Not only did you call out a game which impressively portrayed a certain religion as shallow, but you disrespected any adherents to said faith by calling their religion shallow. And the reason for you doing this seems to be because it's a "mixed religion". Is this not religious intolerance?

"If you think this use of mixed religion is fine for media, then it is a shallow view on what religion is."
That statement seems to be a case of bigotry.

Just about every current religion would fall into mixed religion, and Christianity is probably the biggest offender. I'd also say hypocrite, but that always ends up getting me back somehow.

You continue to push the issue when I am warning you not to.

You will find in logic that disagreements is not a contradiction.
Because the various forms of Christianity share similar canon we can discuss across those lines with similarities and prove within our shared canon where one falls short or we came to conclusions. Most of the time each party has respect for the other's beliefs and present our point within the common canon. We can disagree with each other but that doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

What media likes to do is use religious themes without knowing what they truly mean, this is appalling and disrespectful. What's worse is when they combine them with others.

How can you claim what Christianity is or isn't when you don't even believe, I assume, in similar canon?
If you wish to argue about religion do it within the canon.

There is no magic number or rank which indicates when one can comment upon philosophical matters or when they should go back to study. But you're welcome to think of one, if you think it'll help.

You lack an understanding of logic, so how do you expect to talk about logic if you don't even know what it is?
I cannot continue this conversation logically if you don't know the basics of logic. That is why I recommend you to read Wittgenstein's The Philosophical Investigations. It will give you a base to talk about logic in language and philosophy.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Please, specifics.

The U.S. Constitution, for one. The very first sentence of the preamble states that one of the purposes of it is to "establish justice". Along with that, it contains several amendments that protect rights and is flexible enough to be changed according to what is necessary. The Constitution is most certainly powerful enough to have an effect on what is viewed as justice.

If you don't understand the basis of logic how am I supposed to communicate the complexities of logic?

Unless logic didn't exist until Godel, it's not the basis of logic.

Logic is the skeleton of mathematics. If one does not understand mathematics then how can one even understand logic?

Your first sentence says logic is the basis of math, the second says you must understand math to understand logic. Disregarding that oddity, everyone knows some logic and math.

Arrogance leads to ignorance.
How does the blind know they are blind? Because they accept that others can see.

There was literally nothing there that contradicts with what was said regarding the mind and existence. I even gave the benefit of a doubt. You are spouting words for a case that isn't there.

We can disagree with each other but that doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

They don't go around calling each other's religion shallow.

What media likes to do is use religious themes without knowing what they truly mean, this is appalling and disrespectful. What's worse is when they combine them with others.

Not inherently true. Some media does, some do not. What is terrible about combining multiple religions? It happens aplenty irl, and the ones that aren't combined technically have mixed prior to that.

How can you claim what Christianity is or isn't when you don't even believe, I assume, in similar canon?
If you wish to argue about religion do it within the canon.

Which canon?

You lack an understanding of logic, so how do you expect to talk about logic if you don't even know what it is?

Logic:"a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something". And it only took me a couple of seconds to search the meaning. Surely this will suddenly qualify me to discuss things now.

And now I'll be at my classes. Running a bit late this time.

 

[Mr. MR]

The U.S. Constitution, for one. The very first sentence of the preamble states that one of the purposes of it is to "establish justice". Along with that, it contains several amendments that protect rights and is flexible enough to be changed according to what is necessary. The Constitution is most certainly powerful enough to have an effect on what is viewed as justice.

They must have had a sense of justice if they were talking about justice. Where did that sense of justice come from?

Your first sentence says logic is the basis of math, the second says you must understand math to understand logic. Disregarding that oddity, everyone knows some logic and math.

What my sentence says is if you don't understand math how can you understand logic. View it within the infinite and you will get your answer.
The base of logic must also be built in the same way.

Which canon?

Which ever one you want to talk about

Logic:"a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something". And it only took me a couple of seconds to search the meaning. Surely this will suddenly qualify me to discuss things now.

"Calculus is the mathematical study of change, in the same way that geometry is the study of shape and algebra is the study of operations and their application to solving equations."

Now that you what Calculus is
Solve this:

 

[WiiAssasin]

They must have had a sense of justice if they were talking about justice. Where did that sense of justice come from?

The makers of it probably had their own individual opinions on justice, but they eschewed that in favor of letting the people decide for themselves.

What my sentence says is if you don't understand math how can you understand logic.

Math and logic are not the same thing. Related, yes, but ultimately different. It is possible to understand one thing without understanding another.

Which ever one you want to talk about

Since the U.S. is mainly Protestant Christian last I checked, we'll go with their Biblical canon. I assume you adhere to this one as well.

Now that you what Calculus is
Solve this:

I'm afraid I have no idea how to solve that problem, nor I do believe I know how to discuss it.



On a completely unrelated note, I do not know the meaning of any of the components that make up that problem.

 

[Mr. MR]

The makers of it probably had their own individual opinions on justice, but they eschewed that in favor of letting the people decide for themselves.

Like I said, there are many interpretations of Justice but we all share a sense for it. Where does that sense of justice come from?
Every culture on Earth had to deal with justice because all humans share a sense of it.

Math and logic are not the same thing. Related, yes, but ultimately different. It is possible to understand one thing without understanding another.

They happen to be thought of and understood in the same way

I'm afraid I have no idea how to solve that problem, nor I do believe I know how to discuss it.
On a completely unrelated note, I do not know the meaning of any of the components that make up that problem.

Also about that one truth you were talking about. You didn't seem to understand the phrase 'I think therefore I am not.'
If thinking is solely a reactionary process then thinking only proves that we have no will power and therefore makes us no different from a computer that is programmed to acknowledge its self awareness.

'I think therefore I am not. Only when the mind is silent, I am.'
The goal of Eastern meditation is to think about nothing. Ignoring the effect the world has on you and so discover who you are outside of the world, or the soul. Well that's just one view of it.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Where does that sense of justice come from?

You imply the divine. I do not think you think your god was responsible for the implementation of human sacrifice and other questionable interpretations of justice.

They happen to be thought of and understood in the same way

Russell's Paradox is a thing. Something about math not being reducible to purely logical terms.

math problem

Do I not understand that one plus one is two or could it be that not knowing the meaning of any of the concepts prevented me from solving the problem?

'I think therefore I am not.'

I cannot be not. "I" is self-acknowledging. If I am, then I can also think that I am or I could think that I am not. I am still acknowledging that I exist, but simply stating that I am not. "I" is enough to conclude that "I am", or knowing that the self exists. A more accurate wording of your statement would be "I think, therefore I can say I am not".

Congratulations?

Ah, and of course, there is the comparison to Exodus 3:14 now that we have established a canon.

'I think therefore I am not. Only when the mind is silent, I am.'

I am looking for the source of this quote, and I am finding tumblr posts.

The goal of Eastern meditation is to think about nothing. Ignoring the effect the world has on you and so discover who you are outside of the world, or the soul. Well that's just one view of it.

I've always understood Hinduism/Buddhism's goal to be freedom from the cycles of birth and death, which seems to imply that the goal is nonexistence. Thinking of nothing is one of the steps to achieving Nirvana.

 

[Mr. MR]

You imply the divine. I do not think you think your god was responsible for the implementation of human sacrifice and other questionable interpretations of justice.

If justice is divine then by implementing are we not playing god? Not saying this is what I believe in yet, because I need to put some more thought into it but it has truth.

Russell's Paradox is a thing. Something about math not being reducible to purely logical terms.

If you wish to talk about logic, then you must have metalogic.

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This contradiction is Russell's paradox. Symbolically:

Cantor to Russell
Set-Theory paradox
Russell to Godel
Principia Mathematica and all other similar attempts to have a system of perfect logic was proven unattainable by the incompleteness theorem

Do I not understand that one plus one is two or could it be that not knowing the meaning of any of the concepts prevented me from solving the problem?

Do you understand what Russell was trying to do? He wanted to prove that 1+1=2 and that isn't even all of it. His proof was about 100 pages long. That is the price of certainty. If you wish to talk about logic, then you must use metalogic or accept things the way they are.

I cannot be not. "I" is self-acknowledging. If I am, then I can also think that I am or I could think that I am not. I am still acknowledging that I exist, but simply stating that I am not. "I" is enough to conclude that "I am", or knowing that the self exists. A more accurate wording of your statement would be "I think, therefore I can say I am not".

I explained what I said and that's not what it means.
We don't know that self exists. That is the point of what I said. If thinking is reactions of energy and matter then what is the self and what is thought? It becomes reaction upon reaction and so how can we claim ourselves to be ourselves if we are simply reacting to the environment. Define the origin of thought and you should find either the soul is source of existence or we don't really exist, and in that case what is existence?

Ah, and of course, there is the comparison to Exodus 3:14 now that we have established a canon.

Self-existence is greater than self-awareness. This shows your lack of understanding. Use what you know and don't presume in what you know if you do not even study such things. In a subject where you are understudied, the role is to ask questions not to give answers.

I am looking for the source of this quote, and I am finding tumblr posts.

You didn't look very well

 

[Neosquid]

I explained what I said and that's not what it means.
We don't know that self exists. That is the point of what I said. If thinking is reactions of energy and matter then what is the self and what is thought? It becomes reaction upon reaction and so how can we claim ourselves to be ourselves if we are simply reacting to the environment. Define the origin of thought and you should find either the soul is source of existence or we don't really exist, and in that case what is existence?

But I definitely exist. Regardless of what I even am, I am sitting here thinking about whether or not I exist, and by thinking about it I am confirming my own existance to myself. It is not a question about what I am, but if I am.

I would not call myself a philosopher, but as I see it, there is no 100% certainty for anyfin, aside from the fact that I exist in some way, shape, or form. I am damn sure of that.

 

[Mr. MR]

How can one prove if they exist? And how can we trust ourselves?

 

[Neosquid]

How can one prove if they exist? And how can we trust ourselves?

We prove it by thinking. Because if we're thinking, we sort of have to exist, no?

I heavily doubt Superman ponders his own existence, because, well, you know... though in a sense he does exist, but why would I bother going into that now

 

[WiiAssasin]

If justice is divine then by implementing are we not playing god? Not saying this is what I believe in yet, because I need to put some more thought into it but it has truth.

Probably. Plenty of people have claimed to be god, and many believed that to be the case. Some religions, like Shintoism, have it so that literally anything can be a god. Friggin' Touhou...

If you wish to talk about logic, then you must have metalogic.

Technically, they are different things. Plenty of experts have gone by without it. Similarly, metaphysics deals with essentially everything ever, but no one will demand that it's necessary in order to discuss something. Unless it's metaphysics itself.

Principia Mathematica and all other similar attempts to have a system of perfect logic was proven unattainable by the incompleteness theorem

According to this source, Principia Mathematica was written as a defense of the thesis that mathematics is reducible to logic. Godel disproved Principia Mathematica, so therefore math cannot be reduced to logic. I believe the Stanford source understands Godel better than I or you.

Do you understand what Russell was trying to do?

I don't know the meaning of any of the symbols used, so I couldn't possibly understand it.

If you wish to talk about logic, then you must use metalogic or accept things the way they are.

Many experts on logic aren't versed in metalogic, but I doubt that prevents them from talking about the subject. Metalogic didn't become its own thing until the... 19th century from what I gather. I doubt the work of countless people on logic becomes invalidated due to you claiming metalogic to be necessary.

But I definitely exist.

Pshaw. It's obvious that you don't exist.

But srsly, Neosqawd, run. Run far, far away. Maybe use a telescope to observe while being incredibly confused as you read the discussion.



I do not want to pursue the subject of I or self any further since it'll probably get uglier, but Mr, what of God? God says "I am", so he obviously knows he exists and believes the existence of his self and thoughts. The biblical authors most likely did as well.

 

[Mr. MR]

Haha so you started to look things up. Took long enough.

"Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume but cannot prove."
The soul of the incompleteness theory. It doesn't just apply to mathematics but everything including logic. You need metalogic to prove logic and one above that. The answer is the infinite, and since you don't know mathematics, you might not understand what infinity is.

"I think therefore, I am."
Thinking proves nothing. However the concept of I is definitely interesting.

I denotes they which you cannot prove. You cannot have I (self) without they (others). You know what you are and what you aren't; to know what you are you must know what you are not. The basis of I is based on something outside of I and so cannot be proven. That 'one' truth which you came to is based on truth which cannot be proven within self. To come to truth you must accept there is truth elsewhere.

There has to be an infinte truth.


On a slightly related note:
You should read the Count of Monte Cristo Chapter 48 Ideology
Buss translation

 

[WiiAssasin]

Haha so you started to look things up. Took long enough.

I've used credible sources throughout my posts rather than claiming that individual interpretation is more valid, but sure.

The soul of the incompleteness theory.

Where does it say this is the core of the theory?

The answer is the infinite, and since you don't know mathematics, you might not understand what infinity is.

I must know something of mathematics, since I can count to one. I do not understand all of math, nor do you, probably. I understand what infinity is, as I use it within my college studies. However, I cannot imagine it. Or, put plainly, I can understand that a chiliagon has a thousand sides, but I cannot imagine the figure.

You cannot have I (self) without they (others). You know what you are and what you aren't;

I don't think anyone completely knows what one is. After all, we still don't know many things about the way humans work.

That 'one' truth which you came to is based on truth which cannot be proven. To come to truth you must accept there is truth elsewhere.

It's not the one truth, but rather a reference point. From my being, I now have an established premise from which to build on.

However, if you are denying your own existence, you are denying your sole link to the outside world and therefore the credibility of anything else, whether it be math, logic or Godel. You're subjecting yourself to the proverbial vanishing in a puff of logic.

There has to be an infinte truth.

But you do not exist, so how would you know there is an infinite truth? Or anything for that matter?

I know I exist because I am different from nothing and I am at least able to perceive something.

You should read the Count of Monte Cristo Chapter 48 Ideology

Does the movie count?

 

[WiiAssasin]

I have finished my conversion from NMM to Mod Organizer, and it seems to be an improvement in every way. Love it. So many features and options. Every mod is kept separate you don't end up overwriting one and screwing up your game. I don't know why people kept saying it was more difficult to use than other mod managers. Had to do a fresh install, but it was worth the hassle. The only thing that's off ingame is that the mouse sensitivity seems much lower than normal, even when sliding the value higher.