# If there is Life On Other Planets what is the music like?



## memyselfandus (Feb 27, 2008)

"IF" there were life on other planets, what do you think the music would sound like?

I mean, do they have a "beatles"

is it all subharmonic

is it like the band in star wars?


What do you think?..



~o) (o) /\~O o/~


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 27, 2008)

*The Planet Frickator*

There is a small planet in the Crab Nebula called Frickitor. The Frickitortians have no ears. They sense sounds based on six small sensors that detect the frequency, phase, amplitude and modulations of methane gas pulses.

Hence, all of the sound collections on Frickitor are variations of fart libraries... 

(o) (o) (o)


----------



## synthetic (Feb 27, 2008)

I was actually thinking the same thing last night. I was listening to a Dvorak Cello Concerto and wondering what the virtuoso performances on other planets/instruments might sound like. I'm relieved to hear I'm not the only weirdo who thinks this way.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2008)

*Re: The Planet Frickator*



JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> There is a small planet in the Crab Nebula called Frickitor. The Frickitortians have no ears. They sense sounds based on six small sensors that detect the frequency, phase, amplitude and modulations of methane gas pulses.
> 
> Hence, all of the sound collections on Frickitor are variations of fart libraries...
> 
> (o) (o) (o)



MUAHAHAHAHAHA .... you made my day!!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 27, 2008)

*Re: The Planet Frickator*



Waywyn @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> MUAHAHAHAHAHA .... you made my day!!



All credit goes to the Frickitortians. ~o)


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

memyselfandus @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> "IF" there were life on other planets, what do you think the music would sound like?


If the Earth was flat, what would a satellite's orbit look like?

If there wasn't an Universe, what else would have been?

If there were angels, what would they eat?


----------



## Thonex (Feb 27, 2008)




----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2008)

memyselfandus @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> "IF" there were life on other planets, what do you think the music would sound like?
> 
> I mean, do they have a "beatles"
> 
> ...



No, but seriously, this is a very interesting question.
Since we know that all lifeforms are formed and changed by it's environment we should not maybe ask for music first, but if there are ears ...

Maybe there is a planet up there and pressure is too high to let eardrums develop, so these lifeforms could have developed a communication by vibration.

Maybe there is a planet somewhere where it is so loud that evolution degenerated the ears over time, since lifeforms couldn't exist because of the noise.

We always have these imagination of extraterrestrial lifeforms and it is always measured to a human body and of course I think there could be similar planets which cover the same envoriment as earth up there, which maybe develop kind of the same lifeforms such as humans and delphins etc.

Another point to think about is thte size. We always think Mars or any other planet like Venus, which basically consists of sulphur and stuff, doesn't cover life, because we think lifeforms could not exist in these environements ... but maybe even our most modern microspcope wouldn't find the biggest lifeform on another planet ...


To get a bit back to the topic. Assuming there is a similar planet to earth which would cover intelligent life, I think they could have different tunings and scales. It also depends on the level of evolution. Are these guys still live in the woods and beat on drums or are they 10.000 years ahead of us?

Maybe they already have Cubrain XXX and Logic thoughts or mind performer. They just think of the lines and the theory and the sequencer just transforms the ideas to their 60Thz computer .. or even better ... maybe they simply already broadcast their minds


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> memyselfandus @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > "IF" there were life on other planets, what do you think the music would sound like?
> ...



The difference is, the earth isn't flat, there IS an unverse .. about angels I don't know .. besides the small one sleeping in our bed 

But when you look on all these NASA universe maps, you see suns, stars etc. and they look the same as our sun system ...
I know this could open a can of worms, but personally I don't believe that we are the only planet out there which covers lifeforms such as humans etc.


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 27, 2008)

Waywyn @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> Maybe there is a planet up there and pressure is too high to let eardrums develop, so these lifeforms could have developed a communication by vibration.


We have a similar problem on Earth. Eustachian tubes resolve human eardrum pressure differentials. It's a little air tube that leads from the middle ear (behind the eardrum) to the back of the nasal cavity. It's why your ears 'pop' during major pressure changes like airplane ascents/descents, and why before the 'pop' you have decreased hearing as the constant air-pressure differential restricts eardrum motion.



Waywyn @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> Maybe there is a planet somewhere where it is so loud that evolution degenerated the ears over time, since lifeforms couldn't exist because of the noise.


That might be the Planet NAMM.


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> If the Earth was flat, what would a satellite's orbit look like?


It would follow the path of the paper moon.


----------



## midphase (Feb 27, 2008)

If you want to make music like they make on other planets, then you need to run out and buy Quantum Leap's Forbidden Planet!


----------



## midphase (Feb 27, 2008)

And to answer a previous questions....everybody knows that angels eat aborted fetuses!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> But when you look on all these NASA universe maps, you see suns, stars etc. and they look the same as our sun system ...


You don't need to go that far: look at the Moon - it is sphere-like, same as the Earth... Also, Mars, and Venus, and all those planets in our solar system - they are not cubes and pyramids, they are sphere-like, same as the Earth... Hmmm...



> I know this could open a can of worms, but personally I don't believe that we are the only planet out there which covers lifeforms such as humans etc.


That is a belief similar to the belief in angels. You do NOT have reasons to believe that the Earth is the only planet with life on it? Here is one reason to believe that it IS the only one: there is no other. When a second one will be discovered, then there will be two of them. Till then, there is only one, called Earth. Of course, we believe in what we believe, so let's not fight over beliefs. 

More similar questions: If there were mosquitos on other planets, would there be blood? :lol:

Keep them comin' ...


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > But when you look on all these NASA universe maps, you see suns, stars etc. and they look the same as our sun system ...
> ...



Speaking of the NASA maps, I just wanted to state that you see our solar system and you see thousands of others. I simply wanted to say that there is just too much going on out there and the chance of having another planet out there with an atmosphere, oxygen filled water and breathable air isn't too high.

I am not talking about beliefs or a religious issue by the way, because this has nothing to do with god or name em all.
I just see our solar system and see millions of other stars and solar systems.

To see it from a different point of view it would be like watching a sea with fishes swimming around and then saying, ... "this is the only sea on earth with life in it."

You would instantly go: "No wait, this is A sea on earth with fishes in it. If there is one sea with fishes there must be also life in other seas on this planet."


----------



## tgfoo (Feb 27, 2008)

I would be surprised if people could actually communicate with and understand another life form from a distant planet. I mean, we can't even understand and communicate with most other life forms on our own planet... I wonder if jelly fish "sing" to each other....



aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > But when you look on all these NASA universe maps, you see suns, stars etc. and they look the same as our sun system ...
> ...



So since there is no evidence of life similar to us on nearby planets life couldn't possibly exist on any of the other millions of planets in the rest of the Universe?


----------



## José Herring (Feb 27, 2008)

.........Or, they could be here among us. Making music







>8o 

=o


----------



## Niah (Feb 27, 2008)

SUN RA


----------



## John DeBorde (Feb 27, 2008)

josejherring @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> .........Or, they could be here among us. Making music
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Once a Funk upon a time, in the days of the Funkapus, the concept of specially-designed Afronauts capable of funkatizing entire galaxies was first laid on man-child--but was later repossessed and placed among the secrets of the pyramids until a more positive attitude towards this most sacred phenomenon, Clone Funk, could be acquired. There in these terrestrial projects it would wait, along with its coinhabitants of kings and pharoahs like sleeping beauties with a kiss that would release them to multiply in the image of the chosen one..."

...And funk IS it's own reward.

I think the mothership is about to land. ~o)


----------



## JB78 (Feb 27, 2008)

Waywyn @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> But when you look on all these NASA universe maps, you see suns, stars etc. and they look the same as our sun system ...
> I know this could open a can of worms, but personally I don't believe that we are the only planet out there which covers lifeforms such as humans etc.



Since the universe is infinite as far as we know today there's in theory an infinite amount of planets like earth and every permutation/variation possible. That's a bit out there to think about though, but I truly believe that there's other life forms out there and plenty of them. I totally agree with you about the fact that we (as in science) seem to only look for the conditions that we know can bring life here on earth. I get the rationale behind it but it's almost a bit arrogant to think that I has to happen like (we think at least) it happened here or else it's impossible.

As for the music I'm sure it's exactly like the Cantina band, JW knows his shit =o 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> Speaking of the NASA maps, I just wanted to state that you see our solar system and you see thousands of others. I simply wanted to say that there is just too much going on out there and the chance of having another planet out there with an atmosphere, oxygen filled water and breathable air isn't too high.


Chances? Yeah - chances are that there might be chances... High chances, medium chances, low chances - all sort of chances...



> I am not talking about beliefs or a religious issue by the way, because this has nothing to do with god or name em all.


There are plenty of beliefs that have nothing to do with any god or religion. You will probably be amazed how many beliefs people take for facts.



> I just see our solar system and see millions of other stars and solar systems.


And I see one 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it' and no other 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it'.



> To see it from a different point of view it would be like watching a sea with fishes swimming around and then saying, ... "this is the only sea on earth with life in it."
> 
> You would instantly go: "No wait, this is A sea on earth with fishes in it. If there is one sea with fishes there must be also life in other seas on this planet."


What you have here is a fallacy - 

You see one 'observable-sea-with-fishes-in-it', and, all of a sudden, you jump to the fallacious conclusion: "If there is one 'observable-sea-with-fishes-in-it', there MUST be a second 'observable-sea-with-fishes-in-it'." The problem is: except the ONE 'observable-sea-with-fishes-in-it', all the other 'seas-with-fishes-in-them' are 'imaginary-seas-with-fishes-in-them'.

You see one 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it', and, all of a sudden, you jump to the fallacious conclusion: "If there is one 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it', there MUST be a second 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it'." The problem is: except the ONE 'observable-planet-with-life-on-it', all the other 'planets-with-life-on-them' are 'imaginary-planets-with-life-on-them'.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

tgfoo @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> ...


Do you want to talk about 'what-could-possibly-exist'? That would be a very long discussion, yet it might be entertaining, or maybe boring... either way - 'what-could-possibly-exist' is imagination. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein o/~

But I digress. Back on topic: 
If there were chickens on other planets, would they lay eggs?


----------



## David A (Feb 27, 2008)

What a pointless thread. Such an irrelevant topic will not help anyone in their quest to better themselves. Save the idle chit chat for boring old real life.

Dave.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

David A @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> What a pointless thread.


If there were internet forums on other planets, would there be pointless threads?


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> David A @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > What a pointless thread.
> ...



Aeneas, without sounding too rude and I really appreciate your opinion, ... but uhm where is YOUR opinion? You always spread high intellectual, metaphysical, psychological and physiological theories around, ask questions which asks themselves, ... but I never did read one single small opinion of YOURSELF 


Speaking about fallacy. It is really fallacy to see one sea on earth with fishes in it - then you discover more seas on this planet ... and it would be possible that these seas also contain fishes, no?

One sea with fishes, several seas on the same planet = could be more fish.
One planet in space with life, several bingbongblastilliards of planets in space = could be more lifeforms, no?

There is no need to assume retrotheorasitcalilolologogical theories. It is just plain and easy logical thinking. Of course I could be wrong if the next sea I find is the Dead See .. but that doesn't mean anything ...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 27, 2008)

Waywyn @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> Aeneas, without sounding too rude and I really appreciate your opinion, ... but uhm where is YOUR opinion? You always spread high intellectual, metaphysical, psychological and physiological theories around, ask questions which asks themselves, ... but I never did read one single small opinion of YOURSELF


You think one is supposed to give opinions on such a topic? What makes you think that? I am unable to give an opinion on such a topic.



> Speaking about fallacy. It is really fallacy to see one sea on earth with fishes in it - then you discover more seas on this planet ... and it would be possible that these seas also contain fishes, no?


Possibly. What is not impossible, is possible, right? You say: it is possible that there is life on other planets. I say: it is just as possible that there isn't life on other planets. It's your belief vs mine. Here is the fact that supports my belief: to this date, no life has been observed on other planets. What is the fact that supports your belief?



> One sea with fishes, several seas on the same planet = could be more fish.


Could be. Could be not. 
Maybe the other seas are poisonous, or simply improper for life. Maybe yes, maybe not.
Until you see "more fish", you can only BELIEVE in "more fish". 



> One planet in space with life, several bingbongblastilliards of planets in space = could be more lifeforms, no?


Could be. Could be not. 
Maybe the other planets are poisonous, or simply improper for life. Maybe yes, maybe not.
Until you see "more lifeforms", you can only BELIEVE in "more lifeforms". 



> There is no need to assume retrotheorasitcalilolologogical theories.


What theories are you talking about? I'm not assuming anything, it's you who's assuming. 



> It is just plain and easy logical thinking.


Assuming possibilities is fantasy, not logic. Fantasy is easy, indeed. To believe in the reality of something that is only possible - that is not logical, but mythical thinking.



> Of course I could be wrong if the next sea I find is the Dead See .. but that doesn't mean anything ...


That's funny, I was thinking of the same example. Here's my story:

_______________________________

Sam and Ben sit on the shores of the Dead Sea, both lost in thoughtful contemplation, 
looking above the camera slightly right-screen. Medium long shot, low angle. 
A distant high pitched flute is barely heard on the canvas of a slowly pulsing 
low watery murmur... Bright sunlight is falling straight down on the oldmen's turbans,
casting their eyes into a deep-brown shadow and emphasizing their sunburned red-ish noses.
After a (long) while -

SAM [the guy on the right-screen, they look like twins]
"So much water, and no _lifeform_ in it. [pause] I wonder - are there any other seas? 
But... even if there are, chances are that they'd be as dead as this one here. Looks like, 
salted water is bad for life. Can you drink that shit? [spits aside, to his left, disgusted] 
Put your head in it - could you breath in there? Can't drink, can't breath, also there's nothing 
to eat down there. Deadly place... [pause] If other seas do exist, which I doubt, they oughtta be all dead."

BEN
[pause, clears throat, pause, then, hesitating] "Well... I think that is just as possible that other seas, 
if they exist, there might be some _lifeforms_ there. Maybe there are salt-less seas... Or maybe this sea here 
is just too salted... Or maybe life can adapt to salt, to water... Maybe life was even born in water..."

SAM
[interrupts, sarcasm] "Yeah yeah, maybe baby, possibly schmossibly [spits again, this time straight ahead] 
... salt-less schmalt-less. Look: here, and now, I am showing you one Dead [email protected]#king Salted Sea. 
[gesture with his left hand] Can you see it? Good. Now, until you show me one sea that has _lifeforms_ in it, 
until that day, 'my possibility' is more possible than 'your possibility'." 
[long pause - they are both even deeper into their, now somewhat less thoughtful, 
contemplation. Long crosscut to waveless sea landscape. No flute is heard anymore, 
only a seemingly everlasting slowly pulsing low watery murmur... Credits roll slowly over the sea landscape:

SAM - Sam
BEN - Ben
THE DEAD SEA - The Dead Sea

the end
(well, just a manner of speaking, for there's really no end - or, better said, the end seems to go on _endlessly_. Technically speaking, the film continues rolling in a seamless loop of the waveless sea landscape, along with the sound of low waves. The audience is long dead, of course. The deep-dark shadow of a fish passes across the screen, right-left. Camera suddenly pulls back from the screen and tilts down, so we see a few decomposed corpses lowly floating above the seats of the _subaquatic_ theater.)]

______________________________


IMO, Sam has a good point. Ben, I don't know... one day, he might have a good point too. Maybe yes, maybe not. But Sam has a good point here today, for he is backing his point with a fact, and not with speculations.


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 27, 2008)

I don't see why we can't be the only ones. Someone has to be first. I don't think it is arrogant to think so. Its very possible we're alone. Its also very possible we aren't.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 28, 2008)

midphase @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> And to answer a previous questions....everybody knows that angels eat aborted fetuses!



See, I heard it was "agents"...


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 28, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> David A @ 27/2/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > What a pointless thread. Such an irrelevant topic will not help anyone in their quest to better themselves. Save the idle chit chat for boring old real life.
> ...



What a waste of Ned's time to reply... I mean, Ned, you don't care for his post so why even bother spending the energy pointing it out?

Ok who doesn't like what "I" said? :x 


Ned, I'm joke'n with you. Couldn't resist. o-[][]-o


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 28, 2008)

Dude, I'm in Florida on vacation. All I's got is time! :lol:


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 28, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> I don't see why we can't be the only ones. Someone has to be first. I don't think it is arrogant to think so. Its very possible we're alone. Its also very possible we aren't.



Surely a good argument .... 

@aeneas:
Of course I don't want to debate about opinions, but you can either go for the intellectual philosphical way or just for the simple logical explanations. I don't want to say which is right or wrong.

By stating that we didn't discover any lifeforms or planets so far, you can also say, that if you see someone with your eyes, he/she is there/visible, but as soon as you turn away he/she gets invisible ... or if you look around in a room and it is empty, but as soon as you change the direction of your viewpoint there are e.g. ghosts, creatures around you. Noone knows and noone will ever discover it ....

... you can even assume that the whole world is a programmed intelligent software, like in Matrix ... noone knows because if it's well done, we will never discover the real thing 

... you can even assume that the universe is a little cave in a little pile of lime on the bottom of a toilet of the biggest shithouse you can ever imagine.

However the most simple explanation would be by watching the stars at the sky ... and since we know that all shiny spots out there are suns of a solar system or planets which reflects lights from suns, we can surely assume that chances are very high, that there are other forms out there ...

The explanation with the sea and the poison etc. goes a bit too far, because you are bringing in another factor. By simply watching earth and seeing a see with fishes in it, ... and then by discovering more seas, you can definitely count on that, that there are also fishes or other lifeforms in there.

Another big factor is time. We all know that there are traces of ice on Mars ... and where is water there is/was life. Maybe 500.000 or 1000.000 years ago, Mars was a very active and highly colonized planet. Who knows if we find buildings and other things just 5m below the surface and all is just covered with dust. Anyway ... just an assumption of course, but I just wanted to bring in factor time as we know it (please no explanations about physical and theoretical facts about what would be time and if there is time. I am just talking about time as we know it).

Besides all that, if we might discover a planet and we would have very strong and powerful cameras who would capture a planet which could be similar to earth. We could also make sure that this is just the reflection of the planet as it was a few hundred or thousand years ago.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

Waywyn @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> @aeneas:
> Of course I don't want to debate about opinions,


I offered no opinion whatsoever.

_but you can either go for the intellectual philosphical way_
Nothing intellectual or philosophical in what I said. I just want to keep a clear distinction between facts and fiction. You wanna mix 'em up? :wink: 

_or just for the simple logical explanations._
You think that's what you're offering: "logical explanations"? Explanations of what? What is the fact that you want to explain? I see one single fact: Earth is the only observable planet with life on it, period. The rest is just assumption. Fiction.

_I don't want to say which is right or wrong._
You mean, which is right or wrong between "intellectual philosophical" and "logical"? "Intellectual philosophical" and "logical" are only your own assumptions. AFAIAC, there is nothing "intellectual philosophical" and/or "logical" here. There only is, on one hand: a fact, and, OTOH: a bunch of fiction. When comparing facts with fiction you can't really talk about "right" and "wrong", can you?

_By stating that we didn't discover any lifeforms or planets so far,_
That was more than a correct statement, that is precisely THE FACT - the one and only. The one that no amount of fiction will ever change. 

_you can also say, that if you see someone with your eyes, he/she is there/visible, but as soon as you turn away he/she gets invisible ..._ 
Which doesn't prove anything about the existence of life on other planets. The imperfections of our telescopes don't say anything about the "possible things" that better telescopes "might reveal". It would be like saying: "I'm kinda shortsighted, so there might be life on the moon." That's the Emperor's new clothes fallacy. The facts are: the moon is lifeless and the Emperor is barenaked.  

_or if you look around in a room and it is empty, but as soon as you change the direction of your viewpoint there are e.g. ghosts, creatures around you._ 
What "ghosts and creatures" are you talking about? :? 

_Noone knows and noone will ever discover it ...._
Discover what? What is your IT?

_... you can even assume that the whole world is a programmed intelligent software, like in Matrix ... noone knows because if it's well done, we will never discover the real thing _
Yeah, the fucking "real thing" - this Matrix shit is damn well designed , isn't it? :lol:  

_... you can even assume that the universe is a little cave in a little pile of lime on the bottom of a toilet of the biggest shithouse you can ever imagine._
Fiction.

_However the most simple explanation would be by watching the stars at the sky ..._
That's not an explanation at all, that's only observing. And, when observing them, there is no life there that we can observe. BEN can assume that there is, SAM can assume that there isn't. SAM is holding one fact, BEN is holding fiction.

_and since we know that all shiny spots out there are suns of a solar system or planets which reflects lights from suns,_
You may call those shiny spots whatever you want: suns, planets, systems, etc. Calling them planets doesn't mean that they support life. But, of course, you can assume whatever you want to assume.

_we can surely assume that chances are very high,_
Or 'we' can surely assume that chances are extremely high, or medium, or very low, or inexistent... Sure thing: chances are that there might be chances... Or not. :lol:  

_that there are other forms out there ..._
... or - that there aren't. SAM would assume something, BEN would assume something else. But then again: SAM is holding one fact, BEN is holding only fiction.

_The explanation with the sea and the poison etc. goes a bit too far, _
I didn't explain anything. Also, no: that analogy was only appropriate - not too far, not too close.

_because you are bringing in another factor. _
What factor? 'Poisonous'? The term 'poisonous' is not "another factor", but only a way of calling a place - lifeless. Alright, I take back 'poisonous' and replace it with 'lifeless' - would that term be OK with you?

_By simply watching earth and seeing a see with fishes in it, ... and then by discovering more seas, you can definitely count on that, that there are also fishes or other lifeforms in there._
You can "definitely count on" whatever you may want to count on. But that is precisely BEN's fallacy. If you can't see the fallaciousness of it, well then... that's it and there's nothing I can do about it.

_Another big factor is time._
I fail to see the dimension of this new 'factor'. As well, I fail to see 'time' as a relevant factor to this discussion.

_We all know that there are traces of ice on Mars ..._
Correct.

_and where is water there is/was life._
Incorrect. We don't know that. That is another fallacy. Actually, what we know is the exact opposite: the existence of water in a lifeless place (Mars) proves that the existence of water doesn't necessarily implies the existence of life. Water and life go together only in one place: Earth. That's a fact. The rest is fiction.

_Maybe 500.000 or 1000.000 years ago, Mars was a very active and highly colonized planet._ 
Fiction.

_Who knows if we find buildings and other things just 5m below the surface and all is just covered with dust._ 
So, if we don't know, we can imagine everything we want, right? That's fiction, in my books.

_Anyway ... just an assumption of course, but I just wanted to bring in factor time as we know it_ 
I know that you are aware that you are continuously talking fiction. :wink: OTOH, I don't see how this new element - 'time' - would change your fiction into reality.

_(please no explanations about physical and theoretical facts about what would be time and if there is time. I am just talking about time as we know it)._
We? You mean SAM and BEN? 'We' know what? What do 'you' think time is? - The "thing" that your clock is "measuring"?

_Besides all that, if we might discover a planet and we would have very strong and powerful cameras who would capture a planet which could be similar to earth._
We might, we could, we would - we might not, we couldn't, we wouldn't. Assumptions. Fiction.

_We could also make sure that this is just the reflection of the planet as it was a few hundred or thousand years ago._
A hundred, a thousand, a million years ago - that won't change anything about this: to this date, there is one observable planet with life on it: Earth. When another one will be discovered (IF it will ever be discovered), then you will have a point. Not until then. Until then you are talking fiction. And you know it. :D


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 28, 2008)

Man, sorry to step on your feet and please excuse me, but it feels a bit exertive to discuss with you.

Especially to chop up each word and create a new discussion out of it.

The search for life on other planets and therefore the style of music was really interesting and getting a bit "into it" is always interesting how other peoples think - even if there is no real sense and help in doing that - ... but in germany there is saying ... to make an "elephant out of a fly" ... 8)


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

Waywyn @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> Man, sorry to step on your feet and please excuse me, but it feels a bit exertive to discuss with you.


No feet, no step, no excuse. :D "Exertive", that must hurt bad, right? - Then, sorry.

_Especially to chop up each word and create a new discussion out of it. _
Not chopping each word. No discussion creating. Just action-reaction. Sorta ping-pong. 8) 

_The search for life on other planets and therefore the style of music was really interesting and getting a bit "into it" is always interesting how other peoples think - even if there is no real sense and help in doing that -_ 
My belief is that there is sense in everything, even in nonsense. :wink: 

_in germany there is saying ... to make an "elephant out of a fly" ... 8) _
In Tibet there is a slightly different saying: "This fly might have been an elephant in another life. Elephant, fly, earthworm - life." 8) 
Here's to Germany! o-[][]-o


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2008)

Im sorry, but I thrive on information and the great knowledge passed around such forums. It can be frustrating to see issues arise which are quite trivial.....

Kindest Regards,
Dave


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 28, 2008)

So then don't post in or read the topic.


----------



## rJames (Feb 28, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> If there were internet forums on other planets, would there be pointless threads?



Before I answer that...have you been participating in internet forums on other planets?


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 28, 2008)

I sometimes wonder if some of these forums are already from other planets...


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2008)

Actually......yes. I was born on a small outpost just off the coast of West Venus-how did you know?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 28, 2008)

David,

There is a lot of useful virtual-orchestra-composition-related information at VI-Control, but this section is named Off-Topic for a reason: pretty much anything goes. So if you don't like to read posts about things that are not directly related to making music using computers, then just skip all posts in the OT area. :wink:


----------



## tgfoo (Feb 28, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> tgfoo @ Wed 27 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:
> ...



But then, isn't that kinda the point of this thread? 'What-could-possibly-exist' as music to other life forms that 'could-possibly-exist'? But you are right, it is all imagination and I like your Einstein quote. Imagine that life without imagination would be quite boring. :wink:


----------



## David A (Feb 28, 2008)

I see I was not aware of the 'off topic' thing!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

rJames @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Wed Feb 27 said:
> 
> 
> > If there were internet forums on other planets, would there be pointless threads?
> ...


Question A: "If there was lifeforms on other planets, would they eat there?"
Question B: "Before I answer that...have you been eating on other planets?"

Before?? I'd say - Question B needs to be answered after Question A is answered, not before. (that is, assuming that there is any relation at all between situation A and situation B :wink: )


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't recall 100%, but I'm pretty sure a few years ago I read about a meteorite that had dead bacteria in it, or something to that nature. Pretty sure that counts as "life," so basically it can be said we aren't alone. At least, on a microscopic level.


----------



## rJames (Feb 28, 2008)

I wonder if bacteria have music?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> I don't recall 100%, but I'm pretty sure a few years ago I read about a meteorite that had dead bacteria in it, or something to that nature. Pretty sure that counts as "life," so basically it can be said we aren't alone. At least, on a microscopic level.


Oh please do recall! That, if true, would the most exciting news in history!! (that is, unless that meteorite was launched by NASA :mrgreen: )

edit: I hope you are not referring to this one: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/ital ... 10511.html :lol:
"It's extremely likely that [incoming meteorite] material will pick up contaminants from the Earth," he said. "These are terrestrial bacteria. So the burden of proof lies with the investigator to prove that what he has is truly indigenous from the sample he is studying."


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 28, 2008)

Ears, eyes, earthquakes... all the same - just a matter of frequency or frequency range and receptors repsonding to these ranges.

So the question should rather be versed like: "Possible perception" or could we all communicate within the same frequencies... or even understand each other?


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 28, 2008)

aeneas @ February 28th 2008 said:


> Moonchilde @ Thu 28 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall 100%, but I'm pretty sure a few years ago I read about a meteorite that had dead bacteria in it, or something to that nature. Pretty sure that counts as "life," so basically it can be said we aren't alone. At least, on a microscopic level.
> ...



That does look very familiar. It was quite a few years ago and I just don't remember the details. That is probably it, again I don't remember exactly what the outcome was. So I guess the search continues!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

Moonchilde @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> So I guess the search continues!


My problem with space-related research is that we are so ignorant and self-sufficient about things in our own yard. The ocean, for instance - IMO, the wales alone are a more interesting scientific subject than the Moon, Mars, and Venus combined. And there are thousands of other ocean-related topics that we are blind to... Life-related topics are infinitely more important than watching stars, sending out useless rockets, and making assumptions. NASA is a huge money waster, IMHO. What's the benefit of walking on the Moon, when we haven't walked all the surface of the Earth yet - especially the HUGE area of the soil that is covered by water. So what if is covered by water? Water is only a fluid - just like air, only denser. Walking on our own planet, isn't that a higher priority than sending out rockets? First let us learn to live better with each other, among humans, then among animals. Let's study life more attentively. Let's study the big deep Ocean. Let's learn more about the Earth, let's study the underground. Stars can wait.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 28, 2008)

Being bold once again doesn't make your character more interesting aeneas... just because the changes happen much slower or less obvious doesn't mean any planet is or will stay lifeless! And it's not that wales don't interest me less or more. Btw. while making bold statements about waste of money or earth energies - thank god men didn't walk down every centimeter on earth or else we wouldn't have any untouched bit of beauty on earth. Sciences ruined quite some things already... like they claimed to know that 300 of this and that would be enough for a lifeform and whatnot. Let's study how to study first. Let us learn to live better with everything, each at the same time and with the same care, we didn't do well at any so far. Stars will wait, but we might have erased ourselves before we could reach them, so let's get for them also.

PolarBear


----------



## aeneas (Feb 28, 2008)

Polar Bear, the _interestingness_ of "my character" and whatnot has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to this discussion. Also, expressing your own perception about me being "bold" is IMO inappropriate and it is just this: a (sarcastic or not) expression of your own distorted perception of "me". Let's skip personal remarks, would that be alright with you? I presented an opinion, you presented your reaction to my opinion plus your opinion. Wouldn't that be enough for a healthy discussion? What's the point in making personal remarks that will surely be extremely inaccurate remarks, plus potentially inflammatory?

OTOH, I like your points on the other issues. 8)


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 28, 2008)

It's just that I spoke of a character which per se can't have an own opinion. But I think that really crosses the line of being less helpful to the discussion now so I'll leave it at that. Sometimes I'm just too much a mirror.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 29, 2008)

Hehe, I could start off with the aeneas hypertheory.
I've never seen a whale live and there is much nonsense ob TV. Could it be that there are no whales at all ... and we just see fake videos etc.? 

To be serious:

I know that some things on earth are a "bit" unbalanced, but as they reach for the starts, they already discover the ocean. Who says that NASA doesn't spend money on exploring boats and other seacrafts. Do you know it? I mean not as a stupid theory, but in fact? Do you know that NASA doesn't build, construct or supports things for earth safety? What about those programs to shot comets etc.? In my opinion if such a thing (hopefully small and far away enough to react) comes nearby earth, who has the power or the supplies to destroy this thing in order to save earth? Okay, maybe a bit too off, but in a way by discovering space, they also do a lot for good ole mother earth.

Also there are so many organisations who cares about e.g. whales.

Also you can't make NASA responsible that humanity in general doesn't take care about life on earth or earth itself.

A same question could be: Composers stop to work on music. There is enough, no new music for two years, you are going to save the planet 
This would be ridiculous as to literally forbid to discover space


----------



## JB78 (Feb 29, 2008)

Waywyn @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Also you can't make NASA responsible that humanity in general doesn't take care about life on earth or earth itself.
> 
> A same question could be: Composers stop to work on music. There is enough, no new music for two years, you are going to save the planet
> This would be ridiculous as to literally forbid to discover space



:shock: 
Think about the Whales Waywyn, THE WHALES NEED YOU!!!

:lol:


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Waywyn @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> Who says that NASA doesn't spend money on exploring boats and other seacrafts. ... Also you can't make NASA responsible that humanity in general doesn't take care about life on earth or earth itself.


NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The title says it all. The Ocean is none of their concern. They don't make boats. To set things straight, I never blamed NASA for anything, I just said that, IMO, NASA is a huge money waster. I put the blame on those who make this waste HUGE, when the waste could be kept small, and the bigger bulk of the money could go into LIFE-oriented projects. Just my view, I'm not bashing NASA or anyone...


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 29, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Waywyn @ Fri 29 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > Who says that NASA doesn't spend money on exploring boats and other seacrafts. ... Also you can't make NASA responsible that humanity in general doesn't take care about life on earth or earth itself.
> ...



So, the NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group is fake?
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Waywyn @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> So, the NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group is fake?
> http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/


Careful with this "So, ..." of yours. You are very quick in jumping to conclusions that look kinda forced, at least lately. What did you take your "fake" from? Read the article. NASA doesn't go into the Ocean, but into the outer Space - as I said, the Ocean is none of their concern. NASA is looking at the Ocean's *color*, as from the outer Space. NASA doesn't do research about the Ocean. That _Ocean's color_ issue is incidental to what NASA is doing. It's tangential, collateral, so to speak...


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 29, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Waywyn @ Fri 29 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > So, the NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group is fake?
> ...



Hmm, so is so... just as well or Okay, ... maybe it's a language issue and you feel insulted by "so". If so, sorry about that.

I am just asking fake ironical, because you are saying NASA has nothing to with the ocean or what's happening on earth in general.

I just picked that link out of Google within 3 seconds and I am sure you will find a lot of other things were NASA funds or research goes into "caring about earth in general".


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Hey, back on topic - here's one possible answer to the initial question: http://www.freeringtonesfyi.com/ringtones/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-ringtones.mp3 (http://www.freeringtonesfyi.com/rington ... gtones.mp3) 
0oD


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 29, 2008)

Waywyn @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Hehe, I could start off with the aeneas hypertheory.
> I've never seen a whale live and there is much nonsense ob TV. Could it be that there are no whales at all ... and we just see fake videos etc.?


Could it be you're from Bielefeld?


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 29, 2008)

PolarBear @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Waywyn @ Fri Feb 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Hehe, I could start off with the aeneas hypertheory.
> ...



... because in Bielefeld there are no whales?


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 29, 2008)

No.... there is no Bielefeld... therefore there's no whales! :D


----------



## Moonchilde (Feb 29, 2008)

The whales are a lie!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

tgfoo @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> All of this talk of whales, space and other life forms just makes me want to read The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy again... :lol:


Maybe in the movie they should have made that Vogon chief sing his poem - picture those sounds... (o) >8o :mrgreen:


----------



## Thonex (Feb 29, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> Oh please do recall! That, if true, would the most exciting news in history!! (that is, unless that meteorite was launched by NASA :mrgreen: )
> 
> edit: I hope you are not referring to this one: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/ital ... 10511.html :lol:
> "It's extremely likely that [incoming meteorite] material will pick up contaminants from the Earth," he said. "These are terrestrial bacteria. So the burden of proof lies with the investigator to prove that what he has is truly indigenous from the sample he is studying."



Try this one:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/search.html (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... earch.html)

Scroll down to the heading "*ALH84001*".


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Yeah, chemical traces that could be related to life... I agree that, combining those elements, some people can imagine them as "evidence" of life. Only that those elements do exist in many other lifeless places and they are not necessarily related to life. I would prefer to see an actual organism, something capable of dying. Actually, something capable of being born, of giving birth, and of dying... Or one could imagine immortal life... And let the speculations begin: What would an immortal living creature look like, what would it do? How would humans recognize it as a living creature? We float in suppositions and speculations here. Ignorance is an imagination-enhancer. I think that is the very basis of this thread. :wink:


----------



## Thonex (Feb 29, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Yeah, chemical traces that could be related to life... I agree that, combining those elements, some people can imagine them as "evidence" of life. Only that those elements do exist in many other lifeless places and they are not necessarily related to life. I would prefer to see an actual organism, something capable of dying. Actually, something capable of being born, of giving birth, and of dying... Or one could imagine immortal life... And let the speculations begin: What would an immortal living creature look like, what would it do? How would humans recognize it as a living creature? We float in suppositions and speculations here. Ignorance is an imagination-enhancer. I think that is the very basis of this thread. :wink:



What's your definition of "life"?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

_«What's your definition of "life"?»_
A state of being of something that is alive. What's yours?


----------



## Thonex (Feb 29, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> _«What's your definition of "life"?»_
> A state of being of something that is alive.



mmmmkay.... what is your definition of "alive" then?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Thonex @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:
> 
> 
> > _«What's your definition of "life"?»_
> ...


Look again to my previous post. Isn't there something you're missing there?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 29, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Thonex @ Fri 29 Feb said:
> ...


Incorrect. You have been missing the part that you have cut out from my post:



> _«What's your definition of "life"?»_
> A state of being of something that is alive. What's yours?


Now you see what you were missing? Let me point it out to you: *What's yours?*

So - you asked me a question, I answered it. Then, when I asked you the same question, you have chosen to play the fool. Know what? You don't want to answer? - fine. You want to go on with your silly game? - that's fine too. So, go ahead: quote this post and pretend you still don't see what I was talking about. Then, I will quote your post, pointing it again to you, and then you will throw it back, and forth, and so on. And on and on. At this particular moment, I only wanted to get things straight.

Your move.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Thonex @ Sat 01 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:
> ...



Why so defensive aeneas?

In the quote below, you carry on about life, "evidence" of life, lifeless places, something capable of dying, immortal life.... etc. I was just wondering if you knew what *life* (or living) means... because you carried on so much about it.



aeneas @ Fri Feb 29 said:


> Yeah, chemical traces that could be related to life... I agree that, combining those elements, some people can imagine them as "evidence" of life. Only that those elements do exist in many other lifeless places and they are not necessarily related to life. I would prefer to see an actual organism, something capable of dying. Actually, something capable of being born, of giving birth, and of dying... Or one could imagine immortal life... And let the speculations begin: What would an immortal living creature look like, what would it do? How would humans recognize it as a living creature? We float in suppositions and speculations here. Ignorance is an imagination-enhancer. I think that is the very basis of this thread. :wink:



Truth be told (and I always do :wink: ) I (myself) don't have a definition for life (or living) that satisfies me. I'm open (and open minded) though, and am willing to learn one that does. So far, yours doesn't... not by a long shot. It really does nothing to describe or define life or "alive".

So I was hoping you could explain to me how you'd define "alive"... because I'm at a loss.

I mean, for starters, explain to me why that meteor itself (and I'm not even talking about the microbial evidence) isn't "alive".

Thanks for your help.

T


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Yeah, chemical traces that could be related to life... I agree that, combining those elements, some people can imagine them as "evidence" of life. Only that those elements do exist in many other lifeless places and they are not necessarily related to life. I would prefer to see an actual organism, something capable of dying. Actually, something capable of being born, of giving birth, and of dying... Or one could imagine immortal life... And let the speculations begin: What would an immortal living creature look like, what would it do? How would humans recognize it as a living creature? We float in suppositions and speculations here. Ignorance is an imagination-enhancer. I think that is the very basis of this thread. :wink:



We should not forget one thing!
Life as we know it, doesn't necessarily have to be as the same as on earth when we look at extraterrestrial organism, chemicals etc.

We have a period system, but ... ? What does that mean? That our definition of chemicals is as it works in the whole galaxy?

Maybe those "creatures" on Mars doesn't need more to be alive. Maybe they are still alive but our scientologists or machines fail to analyze it, being alive.

I know we are all humans and we measure everything on ourselves, but we should forget about this when we talk about stuff from outer space. Our definition of chemicals, being alive, dead, or anything else.

Another point is, I can imagine there are a loooot of people who always bash against possible evidence of life from outside because it would smash down lots of religious institutions within a blink of an eye. Please, read again, I am not talking about beliefs, just the institutions ...


----------



## JB78 (Mar 1, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Another point is, I can imagine there are a loooot of people who always bash against possible evidence of life from outside because it would smash down lots of religious institutions within a blink of an eye. Please, read again, I am not talking about beliefs, just the institutions ...



I agree with that point, but I also think that it would challenge alot of peoples beliefs as well. 
How could anyone believe that the earth is around 6000 years old and was made in 6 days if we would find proof of other life forms in the universe?
I still don't understand how people can believe that as it is now, but that's another discussion :mrgreen: 

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2008)

JB78 @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Waywyn @ Sat Mar 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Another point is, I can imagine there are a loooot of people who always bash against possible evidence of life from outside because it would smash down lots of religious institutions within a blink of an eye. Please, read again, I am not talking about beliefs, just the institutions ...
> ...



You even don't need to go that far.

The radiocarbon method which is used to identify the age of bones of dinosaurs etc. is kind of at least a bit bullet proof. Even if it goes wrong for a few hundred years. (as far as I know, I could be prooven wrong of course).

So if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, just ignores a few facts ... but that's why it sometimes is called belief 

.. but of course we should separate believers from fanatics or ignorants.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 1, 2008)

The funniest argument explaining the dinosaur bones is: "God planted them to test the faith of the believers". 
I mean how could you have a rational discussion with someone using that as an explanation? 
That's why I think it's scary when guys like Mike Huckabee wants to be in a position of power, when he's IMO totally indifferent to actual evidence and rational argument.

It's also sickening to think about how many lives have been lost while people all over the world has been fighting over whose imaginary friend is the real deal. Before I get some hate-mail I would like to say that I respect what people believe as long as they're not hurting anyone. It's just a simple and sad fact of our history that countless lives has been lost in the name of religion. Which is crazy when you consider what the bible and quaran among others actually says is the right way to live.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## aeneas (Mar 1, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> explain to me why that meteor itself [...] isn't "alive".
> 
> Thanks for your help.


From your post I understand that you want "satisfactory" definitions. Then, I am sorry I can't help you with a "satisfactory" explanation of why the screen you are looking at isn't "alive". (BTW, what's your satisfactory definition for "satisfactory"? Also, what's your satisfactory definition for "definition"? ... never mind, just kidding  )

Alright, so you didn't answer back because you didn't have a satisfactory personal definition of "life" that you could share. I can accept that. Now, because you asked, here is my subjective definition for "alive": the quality of something that could be observed by me (or by someone I can trust) when it is born, also when it dies. (to observe its death, that is not mandatory, I can safely infer it from observing the death of similar entities.) Between that entity's birth and death, I would call that entity: "alive". End of my subjective definition. Just to prevent further asks for subjective definitions, it is I who decides what 'birth' and 'death' mean, also what is the precise moment those two occur. I am sorry that my personal definitions don't work for you, for they are meant to work only for me. More generally: you can safely infer that, to me, something _is_ what I decide that it _is_. To me, everything is a matter of 'personal decision', and not of 'objective existence'. Even "IS" - it _is_ what decide that it _is_. Do you feel you need more of my personal definitions? :mrgreen: 

Bottom line: Asking for someone else's definitions only to prove that they don't work for you (because they are just subjective definitions) is like asking someone to talk to you only to prove to him that you are deaf and blind. Welcome to the silly game of semantics. It's an endless stupid lose/lose game.

o/~


----------



## Thonex (Mar 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Welcome to the silly game of semantics. It's an endless stupid lose/lose game.



Hello Mr. Pot... meet Mr. Kettle :wink: 

So... the dinosaurs and Hitler never lived or were alive... because you never observed their birth or death or what happened in between... personally?

Interesting.

Cheers,

T


----------



## aeneas (Mar 1, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> So... the dinosaurs and Hitler never lived or were alive... because you never observed their birth or death or what happened in between... personally?
> 
> Interesting.


I thought I was joking when saying that you are deaf and blind - here is what you are missing, again: _"that could be observed by me (or by someone I can *trust*)"_, also: _"I can safely *infer* it from observing the death of similar entities"_.

Applied to your Hitler and dinosaurs cases: I do *trust* the accounts on Hitler's death, and I do *trust* the accounts of the guys who do *infer* the death of those dinosaurs from studying their bones.

...

That is what happens when logic is not taught in schools. Truly sad.

<sigh>

Your move.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2008)

JB78 @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> The funniest argument explaining the dinosaur bones is: "God planted them to test the faith of the believers".
> I mean how could you have a rational discussion with someone using that as an explanation?
> That's why I think it's scary when guys like Mike Huckabee wants to be in a position of power, when he's IMO totally indifferent to actual evidence and rational argument.
> 
> ...



So true!


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> To me, everything is a matter of 'personal decision', and not of 'objective existence'. Even "IS" - it _is_ what decide that it _is_. Do you feel you need more of my personal definitions? :mrgreen:



I would like to ask of one. Assuming your (future) wife is going on your nerves and pisses you off. You just decide she doesn't live anymore (by not harming her), just saying: She IS dead now! (Also assuming noone is there who you can TRUST)

... and then I come in and ask: "Is that your wife?" you go "No, my wife is dead" ... even if I proved an objective existence? Hello? .... Brain?

Sorry, but could it be that you generally make it yourself so difficult and circumstantial that you kinda get in trouble in the end, with what you are saying?

Not to bash on you, really, but do you sometimes encouter yourself sitting at the breakfeast table and think about which hand you use to eat your bread?

.. or you meet someone at the street (of course someone you decided he is alive) and he greets you with "Good morning" at around 11 am ... and you start a discussion about the term morning and the definition of morning to the actual related time in other countries?

I mean seriously, but these words ...

""To me, everything is a matter of 'personal decision', and not of 'objective existence'. Even "IS" - it _is_ what decide that it _is_.""

... are some of the biggest nonsense I've ever heard.

Even it is your own personal opinion it almost seems you are far off from reality.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 1, 2008)

_«Assuming your (future) wife is going on your nerves and pisses you off. You just decide she doesn't live anymore (by not harming her), just saying: She IS dead now! (Also assuming noone is there who you can TRUST)»_
Fortunately, it is me, and not you, the one who takes my decisions. Assume what you want for yourself and for your straw men, not for me and for others.

_«... and then I come in and ask: "Is that your wife?" you go "No, my wife is dead" ... even if I proved an objective existence?»_ 
You cannot prove anything to anyone, unless that 'anyone' does accept your proof. Proof is always subjective, and it might sometimes be convincing (for those willing to let themselves be convinced). Proof is NEVER objective. Objectivity is a widespread delusion. "Existence"? Guys far wiser than you or me have admitted serious troubles when dealing with that, so don't assume that you can grasp 'objective existence', that would be just ludicrous.

_«Hello? .... Brain?»_
I wish I could say hello to your brain.

_«Sorry, but could it be that you generally make it yourself so difficult and circumstantial »_
I don't make it in any way for you. What I am making, I'm making it for me. You may call "difficult and circumstantial" whatever you want, that's your own decision. 

_«that you kinda get in trouble in the end, with what you are saying?»_
I don't get into any "trouble", that's ridiculous. Perhaps your straw man is getting into trouble. You find what I'm saying troublesome? That's your own problem, can't be mine. I am not seeking your approval and I don't mind not having it.

_«Not to bash on you, really, but do you sometimes encouter yourself sitting at the breakfeast table and think about which hand you use to eat your bread?»_
No, of course I don't. Most probably it is, again, your straw man who does that.

_«.. or you meet someone at the street (of course someone you decided he is alive) and he greets you with "Good morning" at around 11 am ... and you start a discussion about the term morning and the definition of morning to the actual related time in other countries?»_
Again, check your straw man. He seems to be kinda busy there, somewhere...

_«I mean seriously, but these words ...
""To me, everything is a matter of 'personal decision', and not of 'objective existence'. Even "IS" - it _is_ what decide that it _is_.""
... are some of the biggest nonsense I've ever heard.»_
To me, that only means that you are unable to make sense out of them. The nonsense you are talking about is not in my words but in your own mind. "Chaos is but unperceived order."

_«Even it is your own personal opinion it almost seems you are far off from reality.»_
You seem to talk about "reality" as you talked before about "objective existence". Again: drop it, stop presuming that you have access to "objective reality", that's simply ludicrous. You only hold the reality in your own head, the one you were conditioned to. So, I prefer to take that as your way of saying that your own reality is far from my personal opinion. So what? Just disregard my personal opinion, if it clashes with your own reality. FYI, I don't care about your own reality more than you care about my opinion. To make it as clear as possible: my opinion is far more important (for me, for 'existence', for 'reality', for the Universe) than your own reality.

You might benefit from making less personal assumptions, also from being more tolerant with realities other than your own.

Take care.


----------



## JB78 (Mar 1, 2008)

Aenenas, I have never ever in my roughly 12 years of visiting message boards come across someone as argumentative of IMO non-issues, or breaking down not only every single statement but also every single freaking word as you do. It's amazing how you use so many words to communicate so little. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not angry or dislike you in any way. It's just fascinating and funny at the same time, keep it up!

:wink: 

Best regards 
Jon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 1, 2008)

I think the music is just like ours, except their Rick James didn't do drugs.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 1, 2008)

JB78 @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> It's amazing how you use so many words to communicate so little.


Let me rephrase that: 

The ratio between (a) the number of words in my posts and (b) the number of meaningful ideas that you comprehend - the (a/b) ratio gives a result that looks amazingly big to you.

I assume that, to you, the (a/b) ratio in the sentence above gives a result that tends to infinity.

Communicating "so little", or better said: evaluating and measuring the communication ("so little", "so much", and everything in between) would be an interesting topic. It is generally assumed that the 'emitter' is responsible for most communications problems. IME, that is rarely the case. In most cases, it is the laziness/opacity of the 'receptor' that creates communication problems. Internet forums are, to me, a good proof of that - a huge and oddly entertaining cross-dialog among deaf/blind individuals. I'm glad that you see the fun in it too. :D


----------



## JB78 (Mar 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> JB78 @ Sat 01 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing how you use so many words to communicate so little.
> ...



Yes, your laziness caused you to perceive my opinion (see point 36a on form 6 for a review of my opinion) in a highly distorted manner. Don't assume that I, the emitter is of any wrong doing in this highly developed form of communication of our species.

o-[][]-o 


Best regards
Jon


----------



## aeneas (Mar 1, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Applied to your Hitler and dinosaurs cases: I do *trust* the accounts on Hitler's death, and I do *trust* the accounts of the guys who do *infer* the death of those dinosaurs from studying their bones.
> ...


Thanks. IMHO, we humans really don't know anything, we only trust we know. Without trust, nothing holds, and everything would float in a stunned/paralyzed agnosticism. Science is not based on truth but on trust, on beliefs, on ever-changing assumptions. Theories and paradigms come one after another, and opposing theories and paradigms co-exist. It's all a matter of belief, of degrees of trust. Skepticism and trust are the opposite poles that make science roll.

_«So why not trust the scientists who* infer *the existence of microbiological lifeforms not of this world?
What's your criteria on this?»_ 
Why I do not trust those particular inferences? Because they don't look convincing to me, I have decided not to trust them. Living dinosaurs inferred from bones - that's a trustworthy inference, to me. Living lifeforms inferred from chemicals that do exist independent from life - that's not a trustworthy inference, to me. My criteria are, as I said: observation, inference, and degrees of trust. To me, everything is a judgment call. What's your criteria, when you are asked to believe something? 

_«PS. I took logic in school... not so sure you did. So your snide remark in your previous post was 100% not applicable to me. Wrong judgment on your part if it was directed at me.»_
I'm sorry, but your systematic fallacies based on selectively quoting my posts - that doesn't look to me like logic. Not trustworthy.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:


> Without trust, nothing holds, and everything would float in a stunned/paralyzed agnosticism. Science is not based on truth but on trust, on beliefs, on ever-changing assumptions. Theories and paradigms come one after another, and opposing theories and paradigms co-exist. It's all a matter of belief, of degrees of trust. Skepticism and trust are the opposite poles that make science roll.



I disagree.... and especially with this statement: "IMHO, we humans really don't know anything, we only trust we know. Without trust, nothing holds, and everything would float in a stunned/paralyzed agnosticism. "

Math (for example) needs no trust. It is absolute. 1+1=2 (absolutely). 10-5=5 (absolutely)... not 5.1... not 4.9999 recurring. Now... one may not *understand* math... but that is not Math's fault. That is a human limitation... a lack of knowledge perhaps. Or an error in calculation. But most certainly not a matter of trust. Maybe this is something you should consider.

But...if you really subscribe to what *you* said, then you should be open to the possibility that there could be alien life form fossils on that meteorite. Because "you really don't know anything".

I know (however) you love getting into these existential debates... but I think all you do is* trust *your own opinions... which aò5   qò•5   qò–5   qò—5   qò˜5   qò™5   qòš5   qò›5   qòœ5   qò5   qòž5   qòŸ5   qò 5   qò¡5   qò¢5   qò£5   qò¤5   qò¥5   qò¦5   qò§5   qò¨5   qò©5   qòª5   qò«5   qò¬5   qò­5   qò®5   qò¯5   qò°5   qò±5   qò²5   qò³5   qò´5   qòµ5   qò¶5   qò·5   qò¸5   qò¹5   qòº5   qò»5   qò¼5   qò½5   qò¾5   qò¿5   qòÀ5   qòÁ5   qòÂ5   qòÃ5   qòÄ5   qòÅ5   qòÆ5   qòÇ5   qòÈ5   qòÉ5   qòÊ5   qòË5   qòÌ5   qòÍ5   qòÎ5   qòÏ5   qòÐ5   qòÑ5   qòÒ5   qòÓ5   qòÔ5   qòÕ5   qòÖ5   qò×5   qòØ5   qòÙ5   qòÚ5   qòÛ5   qòÜ5   qòÝ5   qòÞ5   qòß5   qòà5   qòá5   qòâ5   qòã5   qòä5   qòå5   qòæ5   qòç5   qòè5   qòé5   qòê5   qòë5   qòì5   qòí5   qòî5   qòï5   qòð5   qòñ5   qòò5   qòó5   qòô5   qòõ5   qòö5   qò÷5   qòø5   qòù5   qòú5   qòû5   qòü5   qòý5   qòþ5   qòÿ5   qó 5   qó5   qó5   qó5   qó              ò5   qó5   qó5   qó5   qó	5   qó
5   qó5   qó


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

I really have to agree with Thonex, especially what he said about you.

Probably your definition of a discussion forum is a bit different from what it's actually should be .. especially this one.

Of course it is good and healthy to have a different opinion and that taste is so countless in its variations, but it seems that you just discuss because you like to discuss for the sake of discussion.

If the discussion would be about green painted monks on the north pole or why humans invented the H-Bomb, it seems that it doesn't matter to you.

Of course it is good to discuss, to communicate and to exchange opinions and point of views. That is very healthy and informative. But you really don't communicate with people. It seems you try to prove everyone is being unintelligent and you are the wise man in the game. You know, your personal opinions are unbreakable and as soon as someone dishes out, you abruptly change topic and don't even pay attention anymore to the actual issue.

But, where you can collect points by being the having-flesh-become-wikipedia-HeMan who rips apart every single word and philosophing about every little thing, no matter if you drift apart from the actual thread topic, ... you do it ... and seriously, I am not speaking for myself.


Now, before you go on and quote me to death I want to ask you two questions:
Who are you? There is no introducing post of yours in the forum. There is no info in your profile, nothing.

I mean, seriously, I don't want to hear something like
"Who is me, who is who, me is me and thats enough to know"

Seriously, who are you?



The other question would be the following:
Look around at most of the threads you were posting. Don't you feel there are so many people against your opinions. There is also nothing wrong to be sometime the only one "fighting" for an opinion and having a definite point of view, but you basically work against EVERYONE.

Do you really think the guys asking you to get laid in that other thread are the VI-gang making fun of everyone? I doubt it, some of them are moderators and they do a good job. So let me ask you again more clear. Why there are so many people feeling kind of pissed because of your heavy quotation rotation bish bashing fest?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Math (for example) needs no trust. It is absolute. 1+1=2 (absolutely). 10-5=5 (absolutely)... not 5.1... not 4.9999 recurring.


Math needs A LOT of trust. There is really no "10" and no "4.9999". The math symbols are only conventions. Here's what happened: long ago, someone imagined numbers. Over time, the popularity of those little ghosts grew as more and more people have acquired trust: "It seems useful to believe in their existence, so we do believe". The numbers' "reality" is a completely dependent on people's belief in them - remove that belief and numbers will suddenly vanish. They are only conventions - like gods, angels, demons - things that cannot be observed but are useful beliefs, useful for proving other beliefs.

_«But...if you really subscribe to what *you* said, then you should be open to the possibility that there could be alien life form fossils on that meteorite. Because "you really don't know anything".»_
Precisely. I am completely open to any possibility, yet I trust some possibilities more than I trust others - and that's what everybody is doing. For example: It is possible that those chemicals in that meteorite are only that: chemicals. It is possible that they are footsteps of angels (and that would 'prove' that angels do walk). It is possible that they are what Martians shit (and that would 'prove' that Martians do eat). Etc.

_«I know (however) you love getting into these existential debates... »
_You 'know'? No, you really do not 'know'. You only trust that you are not mistaken. I trust that you are. 

_«but I think all you do is* trust *your own opinions... »_
And that is also what you do: you do trust your own opinions, don't you? That's what everybody does.

_«which at times are uninformed and narrow minded ones. »_
So are your opinions too, at times. They are not more / not less "uninformed and narrow minded" than mine.

_«They are the type I would not trust... »_
You have the freedom to trust whatever you want.

_«and neither should you.... »_
This is where you look to me VERY narrow minded.

_«but I believe your ego gets in the way of that.»_
It's your belief, and you trust it, of course. But it is also possible that it's your straw man's ego that gets in your straw man's way.

_«But what I find most telling in all this is that you will debate people on anything and everything. »_
"Most telling"? Hmmm... You seem to trust A LOT your own view on "ALL this". Also, "anything and everything"?!? That's A LOT, ain't it?

_«And then the moment someone debates or challenges you on a simple definition of a word (that you throw around challenging the veracity of others' statements) »_
That's what you think that I was doing - challenging the 'veracity' of other's statements?? No, I never did that - maybe that's only your own perception about your straw man. Maybe your straw man believes in 'veracities'. I don't. I believe in trust.

_«you get very defensive and call it a "silly game". You like to dish it out yet become irritated when the roles are reversed.»_
One thing is correct: I did call the semantics game - "silly game". As for the rest, I did nothing of what you say: no "dishing it out", no "defensive", no "irritation". Maybe you're talking about your straw man again. You seem to make that confusion quite often, which makes me think that you are very fond on your straw man.

_«BTW, did you buy any of those Rhythm books I linked you to? Who knows... maybe alien music is less "notey" and more rhythmic/dynamic. :wink: »_
Maybe yes, maybe not - who knows? Everything is possible. It may be even more "notey"... 



Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sat Mar 01 said:
> 
> 
> > What's your criteria, when you are asked to believe something?
> ...


So, you sometimes trust the source, and sometimes you don't. Also, sometimes you trust your own knowledge, and sometimes you don't. I trust that you don't trust your own knowledge all the time...

_«But if it's something *you* are asking me to believe... well... then... all I need to do is consider the source (and go contrarian) /\~O »_
Ask you to believe?? You mean, like you did when you said what I should or shouldn't trust? I'm no evangelist, rest assured. When I will ask you to believe in something (which is highly unlikely that I'll ever do), I hope that you will feel free to go in whatever direction you will want to go, not only "contrarian", that would be kinda narrow-minded, no?


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Math (for example) needs no trust. It is absolute. 1+1=2 (absolutely). 10-5=5 (absolutely)... not 5.1... not 4.9999 recurring.
> ...


Yes, and then again - no! Here's what happened: A long time ago they had apples... lots of apples. Only one sort was forbidden for humanity... oh sorry, that's another story. Ok, it's all based on the essential abstraction of the existence of 1. "1" of course is only a symbol for a single unit. I doubt you are going to debate that, because then you'd have to debate every symbol, every word, every phoneme. So they had apples. They took 4 from 10 apples and observed 6 are left. They laid down 5 times 10 apples and observed it got 50 apples. Maybe 49.97610 if a worm got hungry. But that's a matter of how you do the abstraction part. They could repeat that with their nuts. Getting nuts is also an easy task. The only thing were it's getting a bit ugly is, when you are into definitions like what happens on division by zero and such. But, there are conventions for handling the cases. They may differ from belief to belief. But you can't argue with the arguments of one belief in the other belief - the conventions are not matching then and arguments become trapped in fallacies or simply invalid.

PolarBear


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Where did you take this things from: 1, 4, 10, 6, 5, 10, 50, 49.97610, 0 ? Where do they exist?


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

That's from the n in ananas.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

Aeneas, please take notice of my previous post and answer these two questions I asked you. Thank you!


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

? I thought we were talking numbers. Again, where were you taking those things from: 1, 4, ... 0 ? It's a rather simple question, I think.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Apples, nuts, ananas, what's the difference for abstraction? Thought you were reading my post.

Waywyn, he implied you should ask for "his" number 

Edit: (In case you didn't get it - n is a placeholder for any number in mathematics usually, mainly used for integers).


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Apples, nuts, ananas, what's the difference for abstraction? Thought you were reading my post.


I know what apples, nuts, and ananas are. I know where I can take them from. I know where they do exist.

Now, again, for the third time: What those things (1, 4, ... 0) are? Where did you take them from? Where do they exist?


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Read again what I said about concepts and conventions above. It's all there, you just have to see through it.

Btw. Ignorance is bliss...


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Read again what I said about concepts and conventions above. It's all there, you just have to see through it.


I take it as a refusal to ask three simple questions.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Ok, hey ho, let's go: Are you into mathematics? Are you into reading? Are you into fallacies?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Read again what I said about concepts and conventions above. It's all there, you just have to see through it.
> 
> Btw. Ignorance is bliss...


If you have decreased the level your own ignorance by "seeing through it", then there is a high possibility that you didn't decrease the level of your own ignorance to much. In my books, you do that not by "seeing through", but by trying to give answers to simple questions.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Ok, hey ho, let's go: Are you into mathematics? Are you into reading? Are you into fallacies?


I have asked first.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

Aeneas, could you please answer my two questions of my previous post?

You know what a troll is in terms of a forum? You "slowly" start to act like one.
What you do is not healthy discussion anymore, but plain ignorant.

It seems like you simply don't want to understand or talk to people, but all you do taking other peoples words and digging deeper in theories, assumption and your personal opinions and definitions.


Who are you? Whats your name? Noone knows anything about you, but people have the right now who they talk to. Understood? This is not your brain, but an official forum with lots of people getting kinda sick about your trollings.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Defensive... my questions do not have so much to do with yours that you couldn't answer them at the same time. It's the question how simple the answer to your oversimple question can be sized.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Aeneas, could you please answer my two questions of my previous post?


Not the personal ones. Ask something else, more general.

_«You know what a troll is in terms of a forum? »_
Yes.

_«You "slowly" start to act like one.»_
To my eyes, it is you who is acting trollish by repeatedly insisting to turn a theoretical discussion into a personal one. 

_«What you do is not healthy discussion anymore, but plain ignorant.»_
Call it what you want.

_«It seems like you simply don't want to understand or talk to people, but all you do taking other peoples words and digging deeper in theories, assumption and your personal opinions and definitions.»_
Thanks for sharing your view on it.

_«Who are you? Whats your name? »_
That's as personal as can get.

_«Noone knows anything about you, but people have the right now who they talk to. Understood? »_
Speak for yourself, you are no one's ambassador. Understood?

_«This is not your brain, but an official forum with lots of people getting kinda sick about your trollings.»_
I take it as a personal attack. Now, I can't speak for the others (as you think that you can), but I have had enough of your personal attacks. So drop it, OK? The options, for a healthy discussion on a forum, are: either present your opinions on the thread's topic, or address it obliquely (OT), or address other people's OTs, or start a new thread that you think might be of general interest. That's precisely what I was doing, always. Personal attacks and asking personal info is not an option, except for trolls.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Math (for example) needs no trust. It is absolute. 1+1=2 (absolutely). 10-5=5 (absolutely)... not 5.1... not 4.9999 recurring.
> ...



You are talking about mathematics as applied to general relativity (and even then, math can cover that). I'm talking about pure mathematics. The study of Math itself. Even applied math... as in applied to science and physics. Again.... maybe you should go talk to a math professor you trust and educate yourself... and broaden your horizons.
_

"The numbers' "reality" is a completely dependent on people's belief in them - remove that belief and numbers will suddenly vanish. They are only conventions - like gods, angels, demons - things that cannot be observed but are useful beliefs, useful for proving other beliefs. "_

Wrong.... the numbers (in and of themselves) are not dependent on anything. They are purely quantifiable. A 1 always = 1. 2 always =2. Prove to me that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 (this should be interesting). 

_"One thing is correct: I did call the semantics game - "silly game". As for the rest, I did nothing of what you say: no "dishing it out", no "defensive", no "irritation". Maybe you're talking about your straw man again. You seem to make that confusion quite often, which makes me think that you are very fond on your straw man. "_

Well... I wouldn't go so far to say I'm "very fond of my straw man".... I'm really not *that* fond of you. But you are my favorite wind-up toy. :wink: 








With regards to the rest of your post, wow... you need a reality check. Maybe you should go study some math.

Cheers,

T


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Don't take the cheap shot at the decade system, aeneas. It won't do any good to the discussion.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> _"One thing is correct: I did call the semantics game - "silly game". As for the rest, I did nothing of what you say: no "dishing it out", no "defensive", no "irritation". Maybe you're talking about your straw man again. You seem to make that confusion quite often, which makes me think that you are very fond on your straw man. "_
> 
> Well... I wouldn't go so far to say I'm "very fond of my straw man".... I'm really not *that* fond of you. But you are may favorite wind-up toy.



And you are my favorite troll. Your straw man looks not so bad, though - now I begin to understand why you are so fond on him.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Oh k, you chose another way for a cheap shot. Getting personal, eh?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Oh k, you chose another way for a cheap shot. Getting personal, eh?


You believe that I shouldn't respond to personal attacks?


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

You are not consequent in that.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh k, you chose another way for a cheap shot. Getting personal, eh?
> ...



Shouldn't you have said:

"You believe that I shouldn't respond to *what I trust are* personal attacks? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ~o)


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

Aeneas,

first off I am not the troll, I am a real person and member on this forum since many years. No fallacy, no illusion, but a pure fact. Believe it or not, it is true. You are just six anonymous letters who bash against almost anything. You didn't even write an introducting post on the forum here.

The only thing you do is state your weird personal opinions or using quotes and counter questions and basically completely ignore the members you are talking to. You just use their words and chop it up over and over again until finally you discuss about that being 1+1=2 can not be proven really. Man you need some help!

You can take it also as a personal attack if you want and surely you can't speak for others, but let's say by reading lots of threads "some" people are really fed up about your presence!! .. and this is no assumtion, you can even read it in that "Kind appeal to healthier discussions" thread.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> ...


First, this comment above has a very trollish look, to me. Second, the suggestion about what words I 'should' use, is also trollish, to me. Third, the suggestion that you were not personal attacking me, seems to be contradicted by the post I was referring to: 



Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> you are my favorite wind-up toy. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A uneducated troll capable of such a post, doesn't deserve the right to post on internet, IMO. Unfortunately, in a board moderated by individuals who sometimes act like bullies, trolls feel free to personal attack whenever they like.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

So we can put the math part of the topic to rest, aeneas, as you found some other stuff to bitch on?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> you can even read it in that "Kind appeal to healthier discussions" thread.


Talking about trolls, let me remind you what you have posted on that thread yesterday: 

_«Aeneas,
You really need to get laid...»_

I have responded to that, then you have deleted your nasty post, and I decided that it would be just fair that I delete my reaction to that personal attack. Fair enough, forget it - I thought. But today I see that you really have something against me personally. You incessantly attack me and bait me. This is why I am calling you a troll. One thing it is clear in every forum: when you are personally attacking a forum member, and doing that consistently, repeatedly - you become a troll. Period. Keep in mind that every time you will address me personally in a trollish manner, baiting and attacking, I reserve the right to respond accordingly. Fair enough to you?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> So we can put the math part of the topic to rest, aeneas, as you found some other stuff to bitch on?


You are the one who chose to not answer a few simple questions. You call what I do: bitching? I call it: responding to personal attacks.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

With the same attitude. I will [edit: try to] answer your question when I know where I should start. You chose not to say that you're not illiterate, and I don't want to invest the time to start with Adam and Eva. I don't really need that to prove myself a human being. I've also got other things than maths and music in my mind.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> With the same attitude. I will [edit: try to] answer your question when I know where I should start. You chose not to say that you're not illiterate, and I don't want to invest the time to start with Adam and Eva. I don't really need that to prove myself a human being. I've also got other things than maths and music in my mind.


Those were simple and direct questions:
"Where did you take this things from: 1, 4, 10, 6, 5, 10, 50, 49.97610, 0 ? Where do they exist?"


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

So where should I start... what's your knowledge about math? What's your knowledge more general? What's your knowledge about methods of proof?

To rephrase the math, literate, fallacies thing from above. I need to know first, otherwise you already are bound to twist what I will say.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

"Where" is a very simple question, I think.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

You're not getting any"where" with this. You do have other intentions and I don't let you get "there".

Maths? Literate? Fallacies?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> But today I see that you really have something against me personally.



Do I? It is on you if you see it as a personal attack. I didn't do anything to attack you. I simply said that your kind of discussion differs not only from mine, but from a lot of other members too. You didn't recognize that? Probably your straw man is telling you that I personally attacked you. How can I do that if I just use words on a forum and doesn't even know your most personal thing .. your real name?

Also it is not a personal attack if I think it might be better to get laid. There is however no personal attack in this. By saying something like, "get laid", it does mean that certain sexual activities can relax the brain a bit .. and best is, that is proven.

On the other side, why don't you show your real name?
All we know is Aeneas ... hm Aeneas ... a trojan prince who seemed to be the most brave after Hector. I think for someone who names himself Aeneas you are not really brave if you don't even want to say your real name, reveal your website or any other information which could tell a bit about you.

Aeneas, ... I have no proof that you are a real person nor I know someone I could trust that you "are". So you might be non-existent?


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas,

You are a barrel of laughs... at least to me you are. :lol: :lol: 

Your perception of reality is so skewed it really is laughable. *You* are calling others trolls here? ~o) ~o) I would think that everyone here would consider *you* the troll. But denial is a river that runs deep. I wouldn't expect you to understand that since the depth of a river could be represented by numbers and to you... numbers are "little ghosts". :lol: :lol: ~o) 

Maybe if you studied math a little more, you could also have a better understanding of rhythm and dynamics. But I'll let you wallow in your land-of-make-believe where nothing is quantifiable.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "little ghosts" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ~o)


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> You're not getting any"where" with this. You do have other intentions and I don't let you get "there".
> 
> Maths? Literate? Fallacies?


You prefer to assume. I prefer to take things at face value. Feel free to assume, to presume, to refuse to answer, that's OK with me. Only personal attacks are not OK with me. 

To give you an example of my exact intentions: if I was asked where did I take those numbers from, I would have answered: from PolarBear's post. Now I am asking you, PolarBear, again: Where did you take those numbers from? Where did they exist before your post? What is their existence conditioned by? What is their realm? There is really no trap. My point was that numbers are nothing more than conventions, and conventions do not exist outside of people's imagination. So, methinks that numbers have no existence outside imagination. Some things can be perceived with our senses. Some other things are only imagined. Numbers are imagined. So, by asking where did you take them from, I am hoping for a surprising answer, that would shake my belief that numbers are only imagined. I have no dirty intentions, just curious to see another point of view. So, again: Where?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Numbers are imagined.



Where do you got that from?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Numbers are imagined.
> ...


From the daily experience that no one can perceive numbers, with their senses.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Ok, so let's see what I can do for you.

You could reproduce the apple thing on your desk. With apples you can touch and see and believe that they are there. You can reproduce a scene with using a convention about the use of certain symbols to describe that scenario. It's not that it is called "1" or "@" or whatelse. @ + @ = 2*@. Less ingenious people agreed that I = 1 = i in some cases - a single unit, a single apple, or a single pile of apples, whatever - a single one out of uncountable! They also agreed that 4.5 is the half of 9 as is 45 the half of 90.

Now the literate part: With general discussions we have certain conventions what we are talking about. Certain world concepts we assume the other know. Therefore we are usually talking about the decade system when talking about maths, simply because that's the most common in our culture. Actually we also do communicate on that way. Phonem after phonem we trust we are talking in the same convention the other one does understand. It's unspoken trust.

Finally, the fallacies part: Whenever you want something to make it look like it's the only true point... you do use or abuse the presumptions. You get the people into defining things and explaining their system. Then you could argumentate from your system's view without even having defined it. When asked, just do the analogies where your system is applying or based on, and you're right. But that's what I already said above - two different systems don't have the same base for a discussion and therefore arguments from one to the other may become invalid.

Where did I take these mighty special numbers from? I did imagine such a scene with apples. I could have imagined such a scene with a number of girls, which made it perhaps more appealing to some (not you apparantly, getting laid is confusing your mind probably, and you don't have any dirty intentions, I'm assuming that only though). It's that I don't know where or whom to bring those 50 apples or angels to, to show it in real life. We agreed to accept the convention when entering the discussion, as everything that's common sense, because we didn't explicitly exclude it in the first place.

Quite an ingenious answer to a very very simple question I guess, no I'm assuming that only.
PolarBear


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> ...



No ... one ... can ... perceive ... numbers ... with ... their ... senses.

So if I look at my daughter and see one (1) child she isn't actual one child?

If I listen to my daugher and I hear her voice? Does that mean I might hear several or no voice?

If I touch my daugher and can feel her whole body, does that mean that there might more daughter around but I can't perceive them?

If my daughter poos and I open the diaper. Does it mean I didn't smell one daughters results of having a good meal?

See, hear, feel, smell ...
I just took four senses ... wait four? ... hm okay, whatever that perceived there is ONE daughter, my daughter.

So you want to actually say that you never perceived numbers with your senses?

Funny, because I can and I do it everday!


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> ...


I don't find particularly funny that you don't make the distinction between your daughter and numbers.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

A little ACK package that the pile of letters above did reach your brain through your senses and the media would have been nice, now that you insisted so enduring on an answer. Oh, it's probably that you don't want to look like a nice person who's also able to use common sense amongst abusing it.

PolarBear


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> A little ACK package that the pile of letters above did reach your brain through your senses and the media would have been nice, now that you insisted so enduring on an answer. Oh, it's probably that you don't want to look like a nice person who's also able to use common sense amongst abusing it.
> 
> PolarBear


As I said, I'm perfectly OK with your refusal to answer my simple questions. However, I find it slightly disappointing that you now seem to have chosen the same path as Thonex and Waywyn, i.e. addressing the person rather than the topic.

To finish with this OT on science/belief/numbers: As I see it, numbers don't exist outside humans' minds, for they (numbers) are only the product of human imagination. Something that cannot be perceived through senses, needs belief in order to 'exist' (albeit an imaginary existence). To find out that the object called 'apple' does exists - I don't need belief for that, I only need senses. Material things and energy - I don't need belief in order to observe their existence, I only need senses (or extensions of senses, like telescopes). That was my point about sciences, including Maths, needing belief.

_«Oh, it's probably that you don't want to look like a nice person who's also able to use common sense amongst abusing it.»_
If that is your take on being nice and using common sense, then I'm happy that your take does not apply to me. Addressing individuals instead of topics, on an internet discussion - that is, to me, 'abusing common sense'.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

If you're not addressing someone in an internet topic, why do you write in it? Why are topics started then? You want to be read. And you're not adressing the topic but me. Actually you started that, to talk your language.

Why do you believe in the letters I write as they are just an imagination that can't be sensed... it's pure belief that they are there. Luckily you're already finished with this at the level of your own ignorance. Let's be it that way.

PolarBear


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> As I said, I'm perfectly OK with your refusal to answer my simple questions. However, I find it *slightly *disappointing that you now seem to have chosen the same path as Thonex and Waywyn, i.e. addressing the person rather than the topic.



"slightly disappointing"? Is that quantifiable?... and if so... how many "ghosts" would that be in your little land-of-make-believe? :lol: 

You still have not answered how 1+1 doesn't = 2 ~o)


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> If you're not adressing someone in an internet topic, why do you write in it? Why are topics started then? You want to be read. And you're not adressing the topic but me. Actually you started that, to talk your language.


Thanks for sharing your view, but talk for yourself, not for me.

_«Why do you believe in the letters I write as they are just an imagination that can't be sensed... it's pure belief that they are there.»_
First, I don't read letters, but sentences. Also, no - it's not my imagination: to notice the existence of those sentences on the screen I don't need belief, I only need senses (eyes). But I agree that the discussion has been lost, due to lack of trust, IMO. You (the plural you) are focused on the person while ignoring the points, and I am focused on the points, while (trying hard to) ignoring the person. Consider this: in a discussion, individuals are there by default, so there is no need to focus on the person. IMO, in order to effectively communicate on internet forums, the attention should shift from the person to the points. Here, it is only me who tries in bona fide to focus on points (when I don't have to respond to trolls). So - communication is lost. I was trying to be constructive, I wish I could find a similar, impersonal neutral, open, attitude. Talking 'science' while ignoring topics and attacking individuals? Talking 'common sense'? Talking 'nice'? Strange...


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> As I see it, numbers don't exist outside humans' minds, for they (numbers) are only the product of human imagination.



How can you state that numbers don't exist out of human minds???
Have you been able to be outside your mind? Did you have the chance to leave your body and brain and actually had someone you can trust around you at the same time, who also left body and brain to proove this?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> ...



Hehe, the funny thing is, he used the word "no one", which contains a number. So by stating that it is not possible for him to perceive numbers with senses on a daily basis, he actually did pretty well, didn't he?


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > As I see it, numbers don't exist outside humans' minds, for they (numbers) are only the product of human imagination.
> ...


I can state what I observe. What "I" have been able, or not, also what "I" have the chance to leave, or not - these are nobody's business.

It is everyone's right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long they don't attack and scorn other individuals, as three trolls here are incessantly doing.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> he used the word "no one", which contains a number.


One is a pronoun, in that case. Talking about numbers while 1) unable to make the difference between a little girl and numbers, and 2) unable to make the difference between numbers and nouns.



> So by stating that it is not possible for him to perceive numbers with senses on a daily basis, he actually did pretty well, didn't he?


Trollish.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> First, I don't read letters, but sentences.


You do see symbols. You also think in symbols. Symbols that follow a convention.




aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> You (the plural you) are focused on the person while ignoring the points, and I am focused on the points, while (trying hard to) ignoring the person. Consider this: in a discussion, individuals are there by default, so there is no need to focus on the person.


I tried to focus on the individual in the discussion which needed further explanation of my thoughts. If you deny that you focus on a selection of individuals, you deny any purpose of your writing. Stay focused!

PolarBear


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> ...



I see, now it is already three trolls.
If you are at least a tiny little bit intelligent you should quickly recognize why the trolls increase?

Oh by the way. You said three?

Let me rephrase yourself:



aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> From the daily experience that no one can perceive numbers, with their senses.



Do I see an antagonism?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > he used the word "no one", which contains a number.
> ...



Sorry but why trollish? You made a statement:
""From the daily experience that no one can perceive numbers, with their senses.""

Now you say trollish to me, because you clashed with your own theory???


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > First, I don't read letters, but sentences.
> ...


You know nothing about the purpose of my writing, so assume on whatever you want, but not on me and my purposes - that's not your call. Better focus on points. Or, focus on whatever you want, if you still prove able to address the points. But now you miss, by large, both the individual and the points. IME, it is not a good habit to focus on individuals - one can gather more useful info by focusing on the points.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> First, I don't read letters, but sentences. Also, no - it's not my imagination: to notice the existence of those sentences on the screen I don't need belief, I only need senses (eyes).



Really??? Your land-of-make-believe is more "make believe" than I thought. Here... read this quote below... it should be no problem... you have eyes... and you don't read letters..... I'll leave the sentence but I'll take away the letters:


So... what did I say?? :lol: You're certifiable. What you need in addition to the letters and your eyes, is a brain and the knowledge to understand what's written.





aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> But I agree that the discussion has been lost, due to lack of trust, IMO.



Umm... how about it being due to your lack of the basic principals of logic???

1=1
2=2
1+1=2

What you see instead is a form of symbolism that are little ghosts. 

It's pretty hard to have a discussion with you that is *anything* more than an exercise in the absurd. 

But I do love how seriously you take yourself. It's very amusing to me. (just so you know... "very" is greater than slightly but less than "very, very" -- but I couldn't tell you many ghosts that is.. I don't live in your land-of-make-believe.) :lol:


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> I see, now it is already three trolls.
> If you are at least a tiny little bit intelligent you should quickly recognize why the trolls increase?
> 
> Oh by the way. You said three?
> ...


The numbers of trolls doesn't increase, nor does it decrease. What changes is individuals' behavior, which sometimes becomes trollish, when it attacks personally. As for "three", the 'antagonism' is only in your mind, precisely where the numbers are. If you can't see my point, that doesn't surprise me, for you proved unable to see the 'antagonism' between your daughter and numbers, also the 'antagonism' between a pronoun and a number.

_«Sorry but why trollish? You made a statement:
""From the daily experience that no one can perceive numbers, with their senses.""
Now you say trollish to me, because you clashed with your own theory???»_
I stand by that statement: numbers are concepts, mind-entities, abstractions, which cannot be observed with the senses. You just prove unable to see yet another difference: between numbers and their visual representation. Maybe you focus on the person because you van hardly handle the topic of numbers? But you are doing also an execrable job in attacking the person, so I'd suggest you drop both. No, I didn't clash with 'my theory', there was no 'theory' but an 'observation' - another confusion from your part. Seriously, drop it, for you're continuously screwing-up.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> You know nothing about the purpose of my writing, so assume on whatever you want, but not on me and my purposes - that's not your call. Better focus on points. Or, focus on whatever you want, if you still prove able to address the points. But now you miss, by large, both the individual and the points. IME, it is not a good habit to focus on individuals - one can gather more useful info by focusing on the points.


Actually the point wasn't clear enough to ... come through.

There is a relation between symbols and representation of symbols. 1 is the representation of a single unit. A word is a representation of a "thing" (don't let me define that, I'm not good at that). If I am speaking of a chair, you will know what I mean, but yet I haven't said the chair doesn't have backrest. I've talked in a symbol you understood because of the convention. Sentences work the same way at large, certain combinations do have symbolic values. Wotjkmxgrem hjwrt mwertmh does not represent anything in this context, but in another it may be a password or something else.

To deny myself not knowing about the purpose of communication and discussion is not hitting the point here either. But you focus on telling others what you like to have the focus on. This doesn't work, the world isn't built around you or only for you. You have to accept that the individuals communicating with you about the points do also have their experiences and expressing them. It's not your call to teach them your lessons or to assume you're the only that is called as moderator in the show.

If your purpose is another one that I assumed, I'd love to be enlightened, soon and quickly. I don't hate anything more than wasting my time on discussing pointless threads (i.e. which look pointless to me). And you were the first one to call this one here pointless btw., yet you put the so much energy in it - is it passion for discussion or for credit points?

PolarBear


----------



## Thonex (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> I stand by that statement: numbers are concepts, mind-entities, abstractions, which cannot be observed with the senses.



Really? How about (as a test) I punch you in the nose once (1). And then punch you in the nose twice (2). You wouldn't be able to sense how many times I punched you in the nose? >8o :lol: 

*3 *  hah!!!... made you read a "3"... a number... which you observed with your senses... in this case your eyes.

aeneas.... give up your day job and become a comedian. You are too much... really... very amusing :lol: :lol:


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> You're certifiable.


No, here is the real deluded:



Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> I'll leave the sentence but I'll take away the letters:


So you are maliciously assuming that I ignore the usefulness of letters for *write* sentences. Try to follow what I'm saying: a) I am not reading letters, but sentences; b) reading sentences, and not letters, that doesn't mean that I ignore the necessity of letters for *writing* them, or that I don't *see* them - it only means that I do not *read* them. You may 'read letters', I don't.



Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > But I agree that the discussion has been lost, due to lack of trust, IMO.
> ...


1. No, I don't lack basic principles of logic. By assuming that, you only prove that you do.
2. I never denied the *usefulness* of math, I even emphasized it in a previous post. You are misrepresenting my statements. When I said that numbers are 'ghosts', I was clearly implying their (numbers') non-material nature, the fact that their existence is only an abstract one, like the existence of thoughts, or of aesthetic concepts.
3. You can't speak for "what I see" - you can speak only for what you see.
4. It is you who makes this discussion harder by misrepresenting my points, by twisting, in 'bad faith', what I say, by incessantly baiting and trolling.



> But I do love how seriously you take yourself. It's very amusing to me. (just so you know... "very" is greater than slightly but less than "very, very" -- but I couldn't tell you many ghosts that is.. I don't live in your land-of-make-believe.) :lol:


I think I can safely call this above 'the vomit of a troll'.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Thonex @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I stand by that statement: numbers are concepts, mind-entities, abstractions, which cannot be observed with the senses.
> ...


Like waywyn before, you fail to make the distinction between complete different things, like 'punches' and 'numbers', in this case.



> *3 *  hah!!!... made you read a "3"... a number... which you observed with your senses... in this case your eyes.


Again, you confuse the number with its graphic representation. And yet you speak about logic...



> aeneas.... give up your day job and become a comedian. You are too much... really... very amusing :lol: :lol:


And you are becoming, with each new post, more and and more of a pathetic troll.


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

Please stop the troll comments... an extra evocation of one isn't really needed... in my book the mods will decide on who is one and who's not when the time has come. You're not one of them yet.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

Okay aeneas,

after discussing a few pages long with you I really have proof that you don't even stay consistent for even a few minutes in your opinions, meanings and theories.

Besides all that you place everything as you need it to. Someone, no matter if its Thonex, PolarBear, me or doscinca in that other thread is always wrong. Noone seems to understand you, noone is actually agreeing with you, noone can proove you wrong, noone is able to make you at least accept their opinions, none makes you to understand his point of view ...

you just set your course as you need it and no matter how much was yes, is no later on, o matter what was black a few minutes ago is now white.

Discussing with you is kind of meaningless because you get lost in your own theories people throwing back on you.

Nothing left to add!


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Discussing with you is kind of meaningless because you get lost in your own theories people throwing back on you.


I think that might be caused by your insistence to "discuss with me", instead of 'addressing points'.



> Nothing left to add!


Letting apart your calling my 'observations' theories, even after I insisted on the difference - maybe you can add your acknowledgments of these:
- not making the difference between your daughter and numbers; 
- confusing the 'one' (in 'no one'), saying that it is a number, when it clearly is a pronoun;
- not making the difference between numbers and their visual representation.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> yet.


Was that an innuendo that I would like to be a moderator? If it is, then you are are wrong. Instead of assuming, better ask.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 2, 2008)

One last thing:

The most saddest thing of all is, that you are just an anonymous guy who hides behind a nickname which doesn't even fit to him. You are a coward! What do you have to hide? Don't answer it, just think about it! The only reason someone wants to be anonymous is, that he/she has something to hide.

Concerning the comparison with my daughter, my last explanation, but you will prove me wrong of course, again, although I am proving your statement wrong.
You are saying:
"From the daily experience that no one can perceive numbers, with their senses."

I just gave a few examples that I can perceive numbers with my senses. In this case one (1) daughter with my eyes, ears and hands. But yes, I know, my straw man seems to be active again.

Man, in the end I really feel for you. You are such a clown, hiding behind a couch, throwing little things towards people ... and if someone discovers you, you point at the straw man. Seriously, get laid!


----------



## PolarBear (Mar 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> PolarBear @ Sun 02 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > yet.
> ...


Was that you assuming something? Seriously, I've yet to see a post where you try to bring the topic back to its point or to where we drifted off to clear our innuendos.


----------



## aeneas (Mar 2, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> Seriously, get laid!


Thanks for your kind words and advice. Here my advice: go see Idiocracy, it's really good. Then, chances are you will see this "get laid" thing from some interesting angles. :wink: Truly entertaining movie! 

Anyone did see it?


----------

